Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Pyramid Stones Were Poured, Not Quarried
timesonline.co.uk — "Times Online is reporting that French and American researchers have discovered that the stones on the higher levels of the great pyramids of Egypt were built with concrete. From the article: 'Until recently it was hard for geologists to distinguish between natural limestone and the kind that would have been made by reconstituting liquefied lime.'
kevinmtu- 970 diggs
- digg it
- Azur2, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13This doesn't make sense.
Limestone doesn't "dissolve to a slurry" in water, and even if it did, when dried again you would not get concrete. You get concrete by burning limestone (which destroys any fossils in the rock) with clay, then adding water and sand.
The limestone of at least one of the Giza pyramids is fossiliferous.- jpwhitmore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19Read on. The higher stones were pored thus the lower ones are natural limestone and cane be fossiliferous.
- elraghy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Check this out and judge yourself. This is a presentation by the scientists
http://www.mse.drexel.edu/max/PyramidPresentation.htm - ThinkBox, on 10/12/2007, -5/+34Then why didnt they just make a Giant pyramid form and pour it into that?
:) - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5@ azur2
"The limestone of at least one of the Giza pyramids is fossiliferous"
Certainly, sand or gravel that included fossils could have been used in the mix. Get some Portland cement, and throw a bunch of seashells and other fossils in it, along with sand...and see if it still sets up.
Do this in a large container, and be sure you are standing in it at the time, just to prove your certainty that it will not set up.
;-0 - txrat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18fossiliferous!
- o0o0steve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Similar interesting block structures at Sacsayhuaman, in Peru: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacsayhuam%C3%A1n
- mousy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Ca(OH)2 + CO2 → CaCO3 + H2O?
- andydumi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Even so, pouring stones that size, that high is still a marvel of engineering.
- hawkeye17, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I don't buy it. It must have been the ancient aliens that built them all! It's not like humans have any capacity for creating and thinking right??!! I'm obviously joking, but is anyone else tired of cable shows speculating that ancient humans couldn't have built these great monuments without the help of some aliens or other such nonsense? Even in ancient times, humans everywhere had a vast capacity for brilliant ideas made real.
- Azur2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@elraghy: Thanks. That presentation was *god-awful*.
He doesn't do any detailed analysis of the stone, doesn't know which parts may be modern restaurations or whether it's using mortar, doesn't look at fossils in the stone, doesn't compare to the local stone the pyramids is supposedly built from.
He simply look at how well the blocks fit together: if they fit together well, he assumes they were cast in place, not hewn.
This is particularly silly as primitive stonework without any binding material *requires* that stones fit together perfectly, cf incan stonework.
It is possible parts of the stonework were cast, but I don't think these "researchers" prove anything at all. - ssanders, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Hail Xenu!
- beasty_dave_Mk2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I stopped reading when they said that the wheel wasn't invented by that time.
- Photoblog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2makes sense to me, you can dissolve lime and keep the fossiliferous, you just have to grind it up in larger chunks
- Koskun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14The theory that the stones of some of the pyramids being a form of concrete (I think the first commenter may be taking the definition of concrete to literally) has been around for a while now. I'm glad to see it is getting more press.
How ever the pyramids were built, it is still a marvel of accomplishment, whether it was stone, concrete, whatever. - ghostwave, on 10/12/2007, -27/+1Yeah, and they used diesel fueled cranes to lift the stones in place. Sure. Concrete (cement) without steel re-bars wouldn't last 50 years dummies.
- joeshlub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's not cement. Did you even look at the article?
- dstywho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4how does rebar support a pyramid? Rebar is used to support concrete cantilevers and ledges where there is a shearing force. Rebar makes the concrete stronger because concrete holds better under compression rather than tension.
- sabbac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Maybe you've not heard about an ancient civilization called the Romans? Most of the Colosseum is concrete, and that's a little bit older than 50 years, I think. I'm just guessing here, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
- vuzman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The concrete we use today is actually not as good as the concrete the romans used. The method the Romans (and it seems others too) used to make concrete has been lost through time, and concrete was re-invented centuries later. We are still not as good as they were then.
- OmniMe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22guess it wasn't aliens after all...
- dlown77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27clearly they melted the limestone with their lazors.
- MontyZooma, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2@OmniMe
No, it was aliens, but the early concrete they used was obviously alien tech.
ô¿ô - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3"clearly they melted the limestone with their lazors."
Are those anything like lasers?
You know...the things sharks have on their heads. - betacmag4u, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13who needs aliens when you've got this guy? or maybe he is an alien?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRRDzFROMx0 - ThinkBox, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2dude, it was the reptile overlords
- ElectricKetchup, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Obviously the aliens built the pyramids to laugh at our confusion as we try to discover how they were built.
- Javaman74, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7As the article points out, limestone was only used as an outer casing, which was smoothed and polished. The inner core, which is most of what we see today, was granite. Regardless of whether the upper layer of limestone was poured or not, the multi-ton inner stones still would have been hauled into place. Well, that or the grays lifted them into place with their spaceships.
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I encountered similar research, nearly 20 years ago, when it was suggested that that the stones in the pyramids were cast, incorporating a specific clay from a nearby riverbed, that was high in certain aluminum compounds and would make stone-casting possible.
That theory, if true, was said to also explain how the pyramid builders had achieved such incredibly precise fitting of the stones, as thy were 'cast', each against the next one, instead of 'stones' having been cut and put in place.
I think it appeared in the weekly Science Times section of the NY Times, around 1989. So it definitely wasn't the online version. - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I'm not saying they had it, but....if a civilization was so advanced that they had anti-gravity technology, how might they leave a record of that fact for future civilizations to find?
And couldn't such an advanced civilization still be facing extinction, even as we are today, so they might want to create such a record, like a time-capsule?- fearofcorners, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How might they leave a record? Easily. They sure left records of everything else. Anyway, super advanced technology like that doesn't exist in a vacuum. If they had anti-gravity they had nuclear physics, medicine, etc, etc. And they didn't. Case closed.
- azurechaos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3what are you talking about?
- HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Much was lost when the Library of Alexandria was burned to the ground...
- pilgrim3970, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"the early concrete they used was obviously alien tech."
Exactly! Because, afterall, it is silly to think that ancient men with their primitive minds could have built the pyramids on their own.
/sarcasm- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3But...but...couldn't the pyramids somehow have been a naturally occurring phenomenon?
(Just like the 'crop circles')
/sarqhazzm
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3But...but...couldn't the pyramids somehow have been a naturally occurring phenomenon?
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1FTA
"Opponents of the theory dispute the scientific evidence. "
Typical.
How can you dispute 'evidence'?
But still, the irrational people persist, imagining nobody will notice. .- VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4True, probably because most of them are on digg.com
(couldn't help mysel) - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Digga pleeeease!
(I was waiting for a chance to use that.) - tdhurst, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6You can't dispute fact, but you can dispute evidence.
- jshusta, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"How can you dispute 'evidence'?"
you say, "i dispute this evidence." and what you mean when you say that is, "these things that are facts (maybe), they are irrelevant; they are not evidence of such-and-such, but of something else which i feel is unrelated."
- VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4True, probably because most of them are on digg.com
- mb3581, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Silly Humans....The Gou'ald built the Pyramids to have a place to land their Hatak
- keraneuology, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Old research... I first read the theory that at least some of the stones were poured over 20 years ago. Another theory that is interesting on a few levels is that the pyramids were built as giant water pumps that not only provided water for irrigation but with the help of cofferdams provided water that allowed larger blocks to be floated to higher layers of the pyramid for placement.
The guy claims that if you built a fire in one of the rooms (that happens to have a lot of soot stains) and put a checkvalve in some other spot of the corridor then you'd be able to get enough suction to pull water out of an underground aquifer.
http://www.thepump.org - laugh, study, mock, ignore, dismiss or embrace as you desire- gyneric, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1you're right; this is very old research - Prof. Michel Barsoum has been studying the pyramids and his theory for the last 26 years. Download his presentation at http://www.mse.drexel.edu/max/PyramidPresentation.htm
- malhombre, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0And now that pour empire is no more, leaving us to ponder on whether they digg out these stones or ...
- The0cho, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0of course....digg out the stones...
- felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8You left out a very important part of the headline: "scientists claim."
If you read the article, it's clear that this is still a theory. A theory that is gaining ground, but "Despite mounting support from scientists, Egyptologists have rejected the concrete claim, first made in the late 1970s by Joseph Davidovits, a French chemist"
Marked as inaccurate, because I know some people only read headlines on Digg.- The0cho, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0The headline says that they are "reporting" this meaning there could be no truth there whatsoever. Remember that one south park episode that made fun of the government with hurricane katrina called "Two days before the day after tomorrow"
Mitch: We're not sure what exactly is going on inside the town of Beaverton, uh, Tom, but we're reporting that there's looting, raping, and yes, even acts of cannibalism.
Tom: My God, you've, you've actually seen people looting, raping and eating each other?
Mitch: No, no, we haven't actually seen it Tom, we're just reporting it.
Its accurate enough in my opinion just because it says that they are reporting this.
- The0cho, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0The headline says that they are "reporting" this meaning there could be no truth there whatsoever. Remember that one south park episode that made fun of the government with hurricane katrina called "Two days before the day after tomorrow"
- LiveFastDieOld, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5In the far future, scientists will have the same type of debates in an effort to understand how the people of the early 21st century ever managed to install Zune software on a PC.
- veektor, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0What can modern man do with all his free time when year after year, we get a bumper crop pulled up by the neighbor kid.... What do we do all day?
- kyeetza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"It speaks to some basic human needs, that there is a tomorrow - it's not all going to be over in a big flash and a bomb, that the human race is improving, that we have things to be proud of as humans. No, ancient astronauts did not build the pyramids - human beings built them because they're clever and they work hard. And 'Star Trek' is about those things." ~Gene Roddenberry
People often make the incorrect assumption that people in the past were somehow not as intelligent as present day people, so we concoct these crazy conclusions that aliens built the pyramids and stone henge. Seriously, if we ever are able to travel to other planets that are inhabited with intelligent life, would we build ***** and then leave without a trace?- kuzotz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Intergalactic privions 60,293
Terra is a no limits planet. MErchants, military, and civilians found i this area besides the natives of this planet, and solar system will be subjected to a tribunual in which found guilty will be executed through a strong corrosive acid(depending on the species) That will be inserted through eye sockets(or whole body dipped completely). In which your remains will be sent into a black hole to prevent resurrection.
The implications that Terra(earth), and the solar system that surrounds it is off limits. Is based from the fact that its still developing.. A place in which its truly divided. These savages have technology, but they choose to kill each other. They like trade, but can never get over their divisions.
The natives of Terra if they ever reached Mars would be devastating meaning they will ensure their immortality, and will bring the same problems they had on Terra into space.. So we shall make every effort as to prevent these natives from spreading prematurely accross teh universe. We must not engage in trade, commerce, show military force, or civilians of our great republic until those form Terra are ready. Though we are all Homo Sapien Sapiens in this universe. Those from Terra aren't ready to learn of the truth, and must be restricted until they are classified as a developed world.
Until that day. WE must refrain from contact.
One day our bretherens will join us from Terra, but until then we let them sort out their own problems. For even though this great republic has 40 solar systems. WE are all still Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
- kuzotz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Intergalactic privions 60,293
- jav1231, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Okay, how long have the pyramids been studied and this just now comes to light?
- gyneric, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Egyptologists are historians, not chemists. That said, this theory was first brought to light in 1970 by the French chemist Joseph Davidovits
- davecor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The base stones were quarried, there must have been TONS of limestone chips and dust to get rid of.
Some clever slave probably had the bright idea and popped a papyrus note into the suggestion box in the slave break-room.
I'm sure they rewarded him with reduced lashings and an extra handful of millet.- jhshukla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1slave dint know how to read or write. he might have made a suggestion but not using a written form.
- pegasus6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm very familiar with this subject. Before commenting, got to http://www.mse.drexel.edu/max/PyramidPresentation.htm for presentaion slides and to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQk_yBHre4 for a demonstration of the the process of making limestone concrete. The Giza plateau sits on a deep bed of limestone permeated with clay which will disperse when soaked in water. When strong alkali and other ingredients are added it slowly becomes a stone-like binder. Like epoxy, only a little is needed, so the concrete looks like native limestone. They Egyptians were master 'alchemists'. the supposed lost technology to build the pyramids was a materials technology for making stone. Barsoum's contribution is the use of modern materials science to show the existence of synthetic rock on the Giza plateau. This is a new and important window on Egytptian technology.
- gyneric, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Who is this? I'm Eric, from Barsoum's group.
- gromnie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4From the article: "Some dissenters say that levers or pulleys were used, even though the wheel had not been invented at that time."
What can one say, but: God, I hate idiots.
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/chariots.htm
I miss the days when these people used to insist The Pyramids were made by aliens in flying saucers. - DrexelPyramid1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Hi – I’m Alex, one of the researchers on this project at Drexel University. Many of your observations are great!
I HIGHLY recommend the following two links:
1) Davidovits (who first proposed it decades ago) actually MAKING the pyramid blocks by pouring them! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQk_yBHre4
2) Official presentation from Dr. Michel Barsoum’s group at Drexel University: http://www.mse.drexel.edu/max/PyramidPresentation.htm. (Sorry it’s HUGE right now, we’ll be compressing it soon. We'll also be putting out a detailed White Paper soon.)
Azur2, I agree, you wouldn’t expect limestone to dissolve in water, and you do describe the general process for Portland Cement. “Geopolymers” however, work on an entirely different chemical reaction. WaterDragon, you’re right that this was originally proposed decades ago, as Davidovits in France released a book in the late 1980s on the topic.
Some more food for thought now. Here are some difficulties with the “carve and hoist” theory:
- Multi-ton blocks, up to 60 tons each and an average of about 2.5 tons, fit together so precisely that a playing card can’t be wedged between them.
- The Great Pyramid is the largest of all the pyramids. To fit into the accepted timeline for its construction, one block, weighing on average more than two tons, would have to be placed every six minutes. The number of men working in the quarries to harvest the blocks, to transport them across the desert, and to drop them into place at the site is estimated to be substantially larger than the population of the nearby city at Giza.
- Their copper tools would have blunted almost immediately when carving solid limestone.
- Many of the outer pyramid blocks obviously and curiously take the non-uniform shape of surrounding blocks.
All that being said, there are also some difficulties with the “poured” theory:
- There are obvious natural grains in granite pyramid blocks. This means they’re almost certainly natural.
- Observation has shown that the lower 2/3 of the pyramid seem to be filled with rubble! (rocks which seem to have been cut and “tossed” in.
- Archeologists have discovered a quarry which shows evidence of carved blocks.
So, we propose a HYBRID theory. Portions of the pyramid were cast, while others were poured. This is work involving PhDs from around the world, electron microscopes, and a couple of grad students (like myself) that make this stuff daily! Our work shows that the outer and inner casing blocks (the outermost part, and the inside hallway lining) are not natural limestone. They are however, consistent with CASTING! Take the TEST in the presentation! You’ll be able to see with your own eyes which blocks are cast, and which are poured.
Check out the links above for more information! We don’t pretend to know it all. More research is needed. Whatever it has to do with the pyramids though, we’re SURE this geopolymer stuff will be useful as a sustainable, environmentally friendly building material. Think developing communities upgrading from grass huts and mud brick to roads and “geopolymer concrete” houses. For next to free. More details to come :)- Azur2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2* As you agree limestone doesn't dissolve in water. What is your proposed mechanism the egyptians used for pulverizing the limestone?
* Have you done any comparison between the "cast" stone and limestone from the proposed quarries? I assume you've talked to some geologists; what do they say?
* Perfect fit between stones is *required* for robust masonry when not using mortar; buildings with multi tonne blocks are found in primitive architecture throughout the world, e.g. in central & south america.
Frankly your argument seems to be based on personal incredulity: You can't believe a primitive people with copper and stone tools would be able to fit multi-tonne blocks together. Yet we actually know they could, cf e.g. finely crafted granite sarcophagi (and granite is much, much harder than limestone!).
I'd also be very interested in hearing how these "geopolymers" are made, what the composition is, and what causes them to harden. It is not obvious to me that a watery mix of pulverized limestone and a little diatomaceous earth should harden into something resembling concrete. - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Azur -
"* Perfect fit between stones is *required* for robust masonry when not using mortar."
Yes, it is required but, that statement does not tell you how to achieve that perfect fit. - gyneric, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Azur2: I'm Eric, another researcher at Drexel University from Barsoum's group. Although I am not directly involved with the pyramid project, I can answer a few of your questions.
*1. Since I am not directly involved with this project, I cannot speak for theories on how limestone was pulverized. I will ask the other researchers in my group however.
*2. We have done comparisons between cast samples and natural limestone. Please see the presentation at http://www.mse.drexel.edu/max/PyramidPresentation.htm for a full explanation, including chemical analysis, photographs, and scanning and transmission electron microscope images. Here is the abstract, which details how the pyramid samples are different from natural samples:
"Microstructural Evidence of Reconstituted Limestone Blocks in the Great Pyramids of Egypt
M. W. Barsoum1, A. Ganguly1 and G. Hug2
How the Great Pyramids of Giza were built has remained an enduring mystery. In the mid-1980s, Davidovits proposed that the pyramids were cast in situ using granular limestone aggregate and an alkali alumino-silicate-based binder. Hard evidence for this idea, however, remained elusive. Using primarily scanning and transmission electron microscopy, we compared a number of pyramid limestone samples with six different limestone samples from their vicinity. The pyramid samples contained microconstituents (μc's) with appreciable amounts of Si in combination with elements, such as Ca and Mg, in ratios that do not exist in any of the potential limestone sources. The intimate proximity of the μc's suggests that at some time these elements had been together in a solution. Furthermore, between the natural limestone aggregates, the μc's with chemistries reminiscent of calcite and dolomite—not known to hydrate in nature—were hydrated. The ubiquity of Si and the presence of submicron silica-based spheres in some of the micrographs strongly suggest that the solution was basic. Transmission electron microscope confirmed that some of these Si-containing μc's were either amorphous or nanocrystalline, which is consistent with a relatively rapid precipitation reaction. The sophistication and endurance of this ancient concrete technology is simply astounding."
*3. Keep in mind that the pyramids were built in 26 years, and the Egyptian's tools were made of copper - a very soft and ductile metal. Take a look at the photographs in the presentation, noted above, which detail the distinction between cast stone and carved stone.
***We don't believe the Egyptians were primative; in fact we feel that the Ancients are constantly being underestimated. This is in part why the theory faces so much opposition.
What if the finely crafted granite sarcophagi were also cast of geopolymers? We actually have several granite samples we are studying. For now, let me ask this: how do you think the Ancient Egyptians made hollow, thin walled vases of granite?
If you are interested in the processes behind Geopolymers, refer to Barsoum's article in the Journal of the American Society of Ceramics, or go to geopolymers.org or more specifically http://www.geopolymer.org/category/archaeology/pyramids/
- Azur2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2* As you agree limestone doesn't dissolve in water. What is your proposed mechanism the egyptians used for pulverizing the limestone?
- pegasus6, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Pegasus6 is the screen name I have chosen for this forum. I'm Mike Carrell, who introduced Dr. Barsoum to the work of Davidovits and Margaret Morris on the construction of Kufu and other artifacts of ancient Egypt. I'm glad that other members of the Drexel staff have joined in here. A lot of very detailed study has gone into this work which deserves thorough study and not glib brush-offs. Dr. Barsoum and his team have made a very significant contribution to Egyptology by demonstrating unequivocally the existence of synthetic stone technology in the Giza context. The scenarios for construction of the Giza pyramids and those earlier and later are open new proposals based on the existence of advanced materials technology as proposed by Davidovits and confirmed by Barsoum. There are many remaining problems.
- jesselee54, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Quote from article: "...the wheel had not yet been invented at that time". Use this as a guide to the rest of the "facts" presented.
- gyneric, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0jesselee54: The following quote was made by the author of the NY Times article: "Some dissenters say that levers or pulleys were used, even though the wheel had not been invented at that time."
Neither Joseph Davidovits, Gilles Hug, nor Michel Barsoum made this statement; you must understand that there will be innacuracies when technical information is presented by non technical journalists.
- gyneric, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0jesselee54: The following quote was made by the author of the NY Times article: "Some dissenters say that levers or pulleys were used, even though the wheel had not been invented at that time."
- jesselee54, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Reply to gyneric: My apologies for my comment. You are right, it was a line of the journalist.
- pegasus6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0In the background of Barsoum's work is that of the historian Margaret Morris who was co-author with Davidovits of an earlier book on the pyramid construction. Hers is a meticulous analysis of ancient Egyptian history and the serious weaknesses of the 'carve and hoist' scenarios. She clarifies exactly what technology was available, according to accepted Egytptian history, at the time of the Giza pyramid projects. It includes only levers, ramps, copper tools, and corundum as an abrasive. Bronze, wheels, pulleys, all came later but are confused by popular commentators. The first of two volumes is outlined at www.margaretmorrisbooks.com.
- Azur2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1OK, I've read through the given links, and these are my thoughts:
1) "Geopolymer" seems to be a very roundabout way of making a cement-based stone with fossils as filler. The whole dissolve the limestone thing (which I still don't understand), adding natron etc seem to be designed solely to produce a rock with similar characteristics of the natural stone in Giza, because then there is slaked lime added which will react with the silicates and act as binder. While it is a feat to make rocks similar to natural rocks, that will not have been a priority for the egyptians.
If they knew that burning locally occurring clay-rich limestone, pulverizing it, and then adding water and sand, produced concrete blocks of superior strength, why go through all the extra steps to create a stone similar to the naturally occurring local stone?
2) Bronze and even impure copper tools are hard enough to cut limestone. Stone and wood tools will have been used too.
3) A pyramid is the most thermodynamically stable shape there is, basically a 'heap'. This is why so many civilizations have built pyramids, and why the egyptian pyramids are still standing: they can't fall down. This has some importance wrt the irregular filler "rubble" rock you're seeing inside the finely shaped structural stones and stones used in corridors: there was no need to have perfect fit there.
4) Surely you guys are not serious about the remarks about the egyptians making cast granite?
5) The comparison of alleged natural to allleged cast stone in the presentation is simply a comparison of the over all look of irregular rocks (assumed to be natural) and finely shaped rocks (assumed to be cast).
I still say you guys need to get a couple of geologists and material scientists, to compare your recreated cast rock to alleged ancient cast rock and alleged hewn rock. - pegasus6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0reply to Azur 2
1) Geopolymer is used in a generic sense but is also a trade name for silica-based cements sold commercially by Davidovits. The clay-bearing Giza limestone does not dissolve; in a few hours of soaking, the kaolinitic clay disperses, releasing limestone particles which are re-cemented by chemical treatment including addition of other material. The resulting binder chemically binds to the limestone particles and very little is needed, as contrasted to Portland Cement which encloses the aggregate but does not bind to it. To build Khufu in 23 years with a reasonable work schedule means fabricating and placing multi-ton stones about twice a minute. This can be done using bucket brigades to convey small batches of cement slurry to the construction site and tamping into molds. It can be done with a few thousand men. You don't need the assumed massive ramps and legions of slaves.
2) Bronze was not available at the time of the Giza project. Copper chisels will cut limestone but are quickly blunted. A massive effort would have been necessary to supply and maintain the chisels and not one has been found in digs.
3) Pyramids were built for centuries before and after the Giza project. Methods and quality varied. Khufu is the largest and by far the most complex of them and so has been the focus of studies. Nobody has seen the *core* of Khufu. Only casing and backing stones are easily seen. At a few places irregular stones are seen, but these do no expose the core. Using limestone concrete, a highly ordered, stable core can be created with irregular stones used as a fill up to the precisely placed backing stones which define the pyramid shape.
4) Egypt has many hard stone artifacts, including statues, coffers, and elements of the King's Chamber. The means of their fabrication with the tools known to be available is an unsolved problem. The class of 'geipolymer' binders will bind aluminosilicates such as granite and may provide a way to understand how at least some of these artifacts were produced. Much more study is needed. Scenarios for the construction of Khufu using limestone concrete also allow massive granite beams for the King's Chamber to be very slowly lifted into place without interfering with the main construction.
5) You need to think more deeply about the whole construction problem. Geologists have been consulted and Dr. Michel Barsoum is Distinguished Professor of Material Science at Drexel University in Philadelphia who has devoted several years to an intensive study of rocks from the Giza plateau.- FlorianN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hi,
At first, It's great to be able to talk to someone from the research team at Drexel. I was very interested by your theory and read a lot of stuff about it those last days (including Davidovits webpages). Then I went to the archaeology usenet forum sci.archaeology do discuss the theory with amateur archeologist and some egyptologist. The least I can say was they did not like your theory, but I defend it the best I could and I think some are changing their mind. That would be great if you join the discussion over there. You can certainly use google groups or any newsreader to access the sci.archaeology forum.
Anyway, I had a very specific question that arises from the discussion in sci.archaeology. Davidovits says that the original limestone material for the casted stone comes from the valley downward the Giza plateau. This limestone is part of geologic formation that is the same as the one of the sphinx body, i e, the mokkatan formation member II. But this limestone does not contain much kaolin clay (less than 1%) and can't apparently easily disaggregate in water like Davidovits claims. So I have some doubts about the origin of the limestome.
However, an easy calculation shows that for about each cubic meter of carved stones, half a cubic meter of crushed limestone is produced. Indeed, the quarry works is extremely wasteful. And these wastse are nowhere to be found. So would it not be more reasonable to think that the limestome came from the waste in the quarries rather than the Wadi downward the Giza plateau?
Thanx for any comment, and I truly hope to see you on the usenet forum sci.archaeology
Regards.
- FlorianN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hi,
- HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Let's not forget how the famous Damascus steel swords have been found to contain carbon nanotubes.
Many inventions are found by accident. Viagra was a discovered by accident and the original research was on a different line.
What about the mechanical computer that charts the heavens that was only recently figured out?
Technological advances are forgotten all over the place and every day. - siszam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Amazing. scientists can't prove simple things but still people put faith in them and believe in them instead of God. Sad and pathetic.
- betacmag4u, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There is no God. The Bible is a fairy tale. Grow up.
- chuongster, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0siszam: Faith isn't required when findings/results can be demonstrated, reliably and repeatedly. Thus, we don't put 'faith' in scientists, but rather rely on their expertise. And what do you mean, "scientists can't prove simple things"? The technology that's all around us is the hard work and dedication of people, who use science to further our understanding of the natural world.
Or excuse me, are you typing your posts on a computer that you prayed into existence?
- needau, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Even if one believes that the stones were quarried, you don't just cut a stone out, place it and expect it to be a perfect fit. There is a tremendous amount of fine tuning involved that would have contributed to a longer construction time and the moving of the same stone many times to get it right.
- blacknblue, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0by dstywho on 12/02/06
how does rebar support a pyramid? Rebar is used to support concrete cantilevers and ledges where there is a shearing force. Rebar makes the concrete stronger because concrete holds better under compression rather than tension.
My answer:
The streses supports the pyramid is mostly compression stress, a concrete block even without rebars on it, is very effective in supporting vertical compression. so no need to put rebars on the construction of blocks for pyramid. A rebar is only used if there's a moment or flex involved such as the one you mentioned which is cantilever. or a beam . but a concrete pole standing vertically needs rebar to support from flexing due to winds and wieght of the wires hanging into it. but a big blocks as the one they used in building pyramid can resist flexing by winds due to its enourmous witdh. - blacknblue, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0by ThinkBox on 12/02/06
Then why didnt they just make a Giant pyramid form and pour it into that?
This is a very good question. anyone?
well one thing i know is plywood to make forms doesn't exist that time.
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by