Talk:Unfinished obelisk

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ancient Egypt to-do list:

Needed articles.

We should have an article on every pyramid and every nome in Ancient Egypt. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have.

Cleanup.

To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates?

Standardize the Chronology.

A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563)

Stub sorting

Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Wikipedia, but if you believe it needs to be done . . .

Data sorting.

This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Wikipedia than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library.

Egypt Low‑importance

	Egypt portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sources[edit]

Guys we need some sources please. Also what's up with

These claims can never be refuted, because while the obelisk was obviously too much for humans, why couldn't it have been too much for some cocky aliens as well? Aliens aren't, after all, omnipotent.

Frankly the whole paragraph is absurd and needs to be cut. --JJay 17:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OOPART[edit]

The damn thing is referenced in the OOPART page, that's the whole reason I wrote it in the first place. The claim is completely ridiculous of course, but the obelisk does appear in a lot of alien encounter literature. Would have been nice if this could be discussed before it was deleted. 24.168.5.223 18:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I put the message up yesterday. When there was no response I cut the paragraph. Perhaps I should have waited. Also the OOPART link at the bottom of the page was not working, so I assumed it was a joke. In any case, I think its a great article. If you can re-add the info, perhaps with a more serious tone and some links or citations, I have no objections. My understanding is that human tools were found with the obelisk though. If you want to revert, i'll then edit the text. Let me know. Thanks. --JJay 18:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now... and way different from what was there yesterday. --JJay 18:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feeling sick when standing on Unfinished Obelisk[edit]

There have been many people over the times who have been feeling themselves sick when standing or walking over one certain place on the unfinished obelisk. I was told by local Egyptolog it was an earthquake which broke the obelisk and the work was stopped. When standing on it I did not notice anything like that, but had a strange feeling having been there before. Can any other confirm this kind of feeling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.116.245 (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1200 tons?[edit]

Let's do the math. The density of granite is roughly 2600 kg per cubic meter; this obelisk is measured: 42m x 4,2m x 4,2. That is 740,88 cubic meters of red granite. 740,88 x 2600 = 1 926 288 kg. After subtracting no more than 150-200 kg due to the obelisk not being an actual parallelepiped we get 1 800 tons, not 1 200 ton, - the heaviest known piece of artificially created monolith. 62.33.188.17 (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your calculations are based on broad assumptions about geometry, which explains why your result is about one-thrd higher than the quoted result. Pmolsen's analysis below is more rigorous (without depending on geometric assumptions), and better explains the 1200 ton number.

Also, note that these calculations are actually generating answers in "metric tons" (or "tonnes"; 1000 kg = 1 tonne), not the US ton (properly called the "short ton" or "ST"; 2000 lbs = 1 ST). A metric ton is about 10% heavier than a US ton. (1 tonne = 1.10231 ST = 2204.62 lbs).

Based on an analysis of laser scan data of the site from www.insightdigital.org the obelisk's dimensions would have been very close to the following: Tapering from 4.1m to 2.7m over 37m, then tapering from 2.7m - 0.4m over 5m. Total volume is 448 cubic metres (using volume formula for pyramid: volume = area of base * height / 3. Calculate separately for each section). Googling the density of granite gives between 2600 and 2700kg per cubic metre. Using 2650 gives a weight of 1187 tons. 2700 gives 1209 tons. The 1200 tons is thus very close. Pmolsen (talk) 05:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting but we can only use sources that meet our criteria at WP:RS. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pmolsen's math claims to use the formula for the volume of a pyramid, but s/he is actually using the formula for the volume of a truncated square pyramid: V = (h / 3) * (a^2 + a*b + b^2), where a and b are the sides of the lower and upper bases. (For the main section of the obelisk, a = 4.1m, b = 2.7m, and h = 37m; for the pointy top section, a = 2.7m, b = 0.4m, and h = 5m). This gives the 448 m^3 value that Pmolsen reports.

Picture is reversed[edit]

Resolved

One of the two photos currently on the article is reversed. Look at the asymmetric “crack” line that goes up the obelisk. Which one is reversed? The photo should be placed in the correct orientation or replaced with a better image. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Obelisk2.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Assuan_07.jpg Nate Silva (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good eye. I believe it is File:Obelisk2.jpg that is in error. I have contact the uploader of that image to see if they concur. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They agree it is probably backwards. It was scanned from a slide which was probably put in backwards. Jason Quinn (talk) 10:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is now correct so this marking this as resolved. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scoop marks[edit]

The predynastic lost technology was fire. The scoop marks are where hot coals were placed on the granite and left to cool. Then the granite was hit and turned the granite to powdered dust. The resulting scoop MARK is actually how deep the heat went. It changed the crystalline structure of the red granite.

Sincerely, Harold Martin Fritz

Fun puzzle solving: facebook.com/TheArmchairRocketScientist?mibextid=LQQJ4d 2600:1002:B150:8A16:6C4F:5581:F26C:3BFC (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]