Blackpool Tower would have been a more interesting example because it is very similar in height to the Great Pyramid so one easily can imagine a solid stone structure rising up to a height of 481 feet (280 cubits). I happened to see Blackpool Tower yesterday.

I assume your comment was tongue in cheek. A solid stone pyramid structure built on bedrock with no voids is obviously stable, plate tectonics aside, but building chambers and passages inside a stone pyramid inevitably carries the risk of structural failure with masonry falling into the spaces or voids.

Don't forget a stone construction is not like a cave in which the bedrock only has natural fissures, so if any one excavates under a large stone it could just drop down. Colonel Howard Vyse, or perhaps his men, were quite brave to use explosives to force their way up to the chambers above the King's Chamber.

The weight of stone on stone does not create a structural problem unless there is a void, so the idea of building with stones inclined inwards was abandoned after the Bent Pyramid when it became apparent that even a slight angle exerted a force on any inner void, as apparent from the remains of cedar braces. The large pyramids built thereafter, namely the Red Pyramid and the Great Pyramid, have courses of stones which are level.

It would have been silly to leave large spaces inside a pyramid because the pyramid builders would then have had to protect those spaces. The pyramid builders knew this as evident from the huge stones now visible over the tiny Entrance Passage of the Great Pyramid.

What we now see is an accident of dilapidation, mischievous destruction or deliberate re-construction. Perhaps many have tried to build tiny cave like structures close to the faces of the pyramid.

You finished your post with two questions:

''Why expect formal inscriptions within a construct devoid of formal inscriptions?''

''What reason do you have for expecting to find anything at all?''


The notion of a chamber with inscriptions fell within the category of something neither of us expected, as stated specifically, but I did presume that would be your view, now apparently borne out by your question.

A pyramid void of formal inscriptions does not necessarily have an undiscovered void with inscriptions, but it is a possibility.

Piazzi Smyth hoped to find a shaft or shafts in the Queen's Chamber, and he was not disappointed.

In c.1838 Colonel Howard Vyse expected to find a chamber above Davidson's Chamber and was not disappointed. He discovered a series of chambers.

In 1954 a dismantled ship (over 100 feet, so a ship not a boat) was found in a pit alongside the Great Pyramid.

In 2017 scientists announced they were certain there is a large void above the Grand Gallery. Any void without a purpose is nonsense, and filling a large void with sand would mean a small muon signature, so it is a significant structure, assuming the scientists are correct.

The trial passages outside the pyramid indicate a vertical shaft above a plug block which has never been discovered. Such a shaft could lead up to the upper Grand Gallery.

Egyptologists have no theory to account for the soaring height of the Grand Gallery. How can you or any Egyptologist then argue that they understand the design of the pyramid well enough to know there is no upper Grand Gallery with a similar structure?

Would any of the upper chambers have been predicted by Egyptologists if still undiscovered?

The stone basalt ball found in the shaft of the Queen's Chamber was not predicted, and by coincidence happens to be very close in diameter to the size of a cricket ball. This is a better example of what nobody expected to find.

Have you bowled me a full toss for me to hit for six, as they say in cricket, or are you burying your head in the sand?

The radius of the basalt ball is 6/pi, accurate to 1/25 digit. But it is viewed by many Egyptologists as merely a pounding ball. And it just happened to be dropped in the shaft with a piece of cedar and a piece of copper.

6 to pi is the ratio of the volume of a cube to the volume of a sphere for the special case of a sphere inside a cube.
ie with the diameter of the sphere equal to the side length of the cube.

Yet another coincidence?


Mark





Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 04/09/2018 01:20PM by Mark Heaton.