|
Not Ranked
:
+0 / -0
0 score
Re: A Theory on Egypt...
actually i think its the weird way of explaining that i use that caused some of those units above, so let me explain myself here a little more:
3.
I should specify what i mean when i say "built around preexisting monuments", when i say built around preexisting monuments, i am referring to temples, and towns that have the exceedingly large statues made out of a single stone, polished to perfection, etc. Certainly the sarcophagi in the pyramids were put there after the construction of the pyramids, but they are different from the grey granite ones found in the underground tombs that i am referring to, different in structure, different in size, different in the stone used.
I use grey granite as an example, in all reality there are things cut out of many really hard stones, including pink granite, marble and others, i use grey granite as a softer example of the harder rocks used in construction (thats what most of the sarcophagi were made of anyways)
2.
Agreed, grey granite is not harder then sand, problem is, you still can't polish it to the level it was polished to using sand, it's too course for he job, we are talking about surfaces that would take 1500 grit diamond polishing pads, i dont believe you can find sand anywhere near the right coarseness, and am not sure if you can make it...?
1.
one of many examples, as i said, some sculptures are estimated to weigh well over 1000tons, infact the unfinished obelisk in aswan would weigh close to 1160tons, the largest stone used in the building of the Gret pyramid, by comparison, weigs 70, and most of them are much, much smaller, average weight of a stones used in building the Khafre's pyramid is around 2.5tons.
Interestingly enough, largest stones used in buildings at the time were used in temples, the temple just by the pyramid has a block that is estimated to be 400tons, which ads to my theory again...
Before i run, i have to say that i am my own critic, i would like to find out i am wrong but have so far not found enough convincing factors to do so...
----------------
Microsoft, the leader in using innovative tactics to promote irksome experience, coupled with antiquated technology that's held together by a pyramid of makeshift afterthoughts.
Apple, the leader in using irksome tactics to promote innovative experience, coupled with an antiquated core that's enhanced by state-of-the-art afterthoughts.
Linux, the leader in not using any tactics to promote user-defined experience, coupled with state-of-the-art core enhanced by innovative afterthoughts.
 |
