Finally someone did some analysis of the pyramids, and this time, a professional in ceramics. I think if anyone were to analyze the limestone of the pyramids it should be a professional in ceramics. Anyways, here's the article.
The Surprising Truth Behind the Construction of the Great Pyramids
This Behind the Scenes article was provided to LiveScience in partnership with the National Science Foundation.
"This is not my day job." So begins Michel Barsoum as he recounts his foray into the mysteries of the Great Pyramids of Egypt. As a well respected researcher in the field of ceramics, Barsoum never expected his career to take him down a path of history, archaeology, and "political" science, with materials research mixed in.
As a distinguished professor in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at Drexel University, his daily routine consists mainly of teaching students about ceramics, or performing research on a new class of materials, the so-called MAX Phases, that he and his colleagues discovered in the 1990s. These modern ceramics are machinable, thermal-shock resistant, and are better conductors of heat and electricity than many metals-making them potential candidates for use in nuclear power plants, the automotive industry, jet engines, and a range of other high-demand systems.
Then Barsoum received an unexpected phone call from Michael Carrell, a friend of a retired colleague of Barsoum, who called to chat with the Egyptian-born Barsoum about how much he knew of the mysteries surrounding the building of the Great Pyramids of Giza, the only remaining of the seven wonders of the ancient world.
The widely accepted theory-that the pyramids were crafted of carved-out giant limestone blocks that workers carried up ramps-had not only not been embraced by everyone, but as important had quite a number of holes.
Burst out laughing
According to the caller, the mysteries had actually been solved by Joseph Davidovits, Director of the Geopolymer Institute in St. Quentin, France, more than two decades ago. Davidovits claimed that the stones of the pyramids were actually made of a very early form of concrete created using a mixture of limestone, clay, lime, and water.
"It was at this point in the conversation that I burst out laughing," says Barsoum. If the pyramids were indeed cast, he says, someone should have proven it beyond a doubt by now, in this day and age, with just a few hours of electron microscopy.
It turned out that nobody had completely proven the theory...yet.
"What started as a two-hour project turned into a five-year odyssey that I undertook with one of my graduate students, Adrish Ganguly, and a colleague in France, Gilles Hug," Barsoum says.
A year and a half later, after extensive scanning electron microscope (SEM) observations and other testing, Barsoum and his research group finally began to draw some conclusions about the pyramids. They found that the tiniest structures within the inner and outer casing stones were indeed consistent with a reconstituted limestone. The cement binding the limestone aggregate was either silicon dioxide (the building block of quartz) or a calcium and magnesium-rich silicate mineral.
The stones also had a high water content-unusual for the normally dry, natural limestone found on the Giza plateau-and the cementing phases, in both the inner and outer casing stones, were amorphous, in other words, their atoms were not arranged in a regular and periodic array. Sedimentary rocks such as limestone are seldom, if ever, amorphous.
The sample chemistries the researchers found do not exist anywhere in nature. "Therefore," says Barsoum, "it's very improbable that the outer and inner casing stones that we examined were chiseled from a natural limestone block."
More startlingly, Barsoum and another of his graduate students, Aaron Sakulich, recently discovered the presence of silicon dioxide nanoscale spheres (with diameters only billionths of a meter across) in one of the samples. This discovery further confirms that these blocks are not natural limestone.
Generations misled
At the end of their most recent paper reporting these findings, the researchers reflect that it is "ironic, sublime and truly humbling" that this 4,500-year-old limestone is so true to the original that it has misled generations of Egyptologists and geologists and, "because the ancient Egyptians were the original-albeit unknowing-nanotechnologists."
As if the scientific evidence isn't enough, Barsoum has pointed out a number of common sense reasons why the pyramids were not likely constructed entirely of chiseled limestone blocks.
Egyptologists are consistently confronted by unanswered questions: How is it possible that some of the blocks are so perfectly matched that not even a human hair can be inserted between them? Why, despite the existence of millions of tons of stone, carved presumably with copper chisels, has not one copper chisel ever been found on the Giza Plateau?
Although Barsoum's research has not answered all of these questions, his work provides insight into some of the key questions. For example, it is now more likely than not that the tops of the pyramids are cast, as it would have been increasingly difficult to drag the stones to the summit.
Also, casting would explain why some of the stones fit so closely together. Still, as with all great mysteries, not every aspect of the pyramids can be explained. How the Egyptians hoisted 70-ton granite slabs halfway up the great pyramid remains as mysterious as ever.
Why do the results of Barsoum's research matter most today? Two words: earth cements.
"How energy intensive and/or complicated can a 4,500 year old technology really be? The answer to both questions is not very," Barsoum explains. "The basic raw materials used for this early form of concrete-limestone, lime, and diatomaceous earth-can be found virtually anywhere in the world," he adds. "Replicating this method of construction would be cost effective, long lasting, and much more environmentally friendly than the current building material of choice: Portland cement that alone pumps roughly 6 billion tons of CO2 annually into the atmosphere when it's manufactured."
"Ironically," says Barsoum, "this study of 4,500 year old rocks is not about the past, but about the future."
From: http://www.livescience.com/history/070518_...m_pyramids.html
I've heard of this theory before, but when I read this I'm convinced. Can we finally put this to rest? The pyramids are cement, lets just end it now. Yay!
Full Version: The Giza Pyramids are Cement
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Unexplained Mysteries > Ancient Mysteries & Alternative History
Just to let you know Sauraman started a thread, with this article about 3 days ago....I replied there...I do think this theory makes sense.
QUOTE(rezna @ May 22 2007, 09:38 PM) [snapback]1688687[/snapback]
Finally someone did some analysis of the pyramids, and this time, a professional in ceramics. I think if anyone were to analyze the limestone of the pyramids it should be a professional in ceramics. Anyways, here's the article.
The Surprising Truth Behind the Construction of the Great Pyramids
This Behind the Scenes article was provided to LiveScience in partnership with the National Science Foundation.
"This is not my day job." So begins Michel Barsoum as he recounts his foray into the mysteries of the Great Pyramids of Egypt. As a well respected researcher in the field of ceramics, Barsoum never expected his career to take him down a path of history, archaeology, and "political" science, with materials research mixed in.
As a distinguished professor in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at Drexel University, his daily routine consists mainly of teaching students about ceramics, or performing research on a new class of materials, the so-called MAX Phases, that he and his colleagues discovered in the 1990s. These modern ceramics are machinable, thermal-shock resistant, and are better conductors of heat and electricity than many metals-making them potential candidates for use in nuclear power plants, the automotive industry, jet engines, and a range of other high-demand systems.
Then Barsoum received an unexpected phone call from Michael Carrell, a friend of a retired colleague of Barsoum, who called to chat with the Egyptian-born Barsoum about how much he knew of the mysteries surrounding the building of the Great Pyramids of Giza, the only remaining of the seven wonders of the ancient world.
The widely accepted theory-that the pyramids were crafted of carved-out giant limestone blocks that workers carried up ramps-had not only not been embraced by everyone, but as important had quite a number of holes.
Burst out laughing
According to the caller, the mysteries had actually been solved by Joseph Davidovits, Director of the Geopolymer Institute in St. Quentin, France, more than two decades ago. Davidovits claimed that the stones of the pyramids were actually made of a very early form of concrete created using a mixture of limestone, clay, lime, and water.
"It was at this point in the conversation that I burst out laughing," says Barsoum. If the pyramids were indeed cast, he says, someone should have proven it beyond a doubt by now, in this day and age, with just a few hours of electron microscopy.
It turned out that nobody had completely proven the theory...yet.
"What started as a two-hour project turned into a five-year odyssey that I undertook with one of my graduate students, Adrish Ganguly, and a colleague in France, Gilles Hug," Barsoum says.
A year and a half later, after extensive scanning electron microscope (SEM) observations and other testing, Barsoum and his research group finally began to draw some conclusions about the pyramids. They found that the tiniest structures within the inner and outer casing stones were indeed consistent with a reconstituted limestone. The cement binding the limestone aggregate was either silicon dioxide (the building block of quartz) or a calcium and magnesium-rich silicate mineral.
The stones also had a high water content-unusual for the normally dry, natural limestone found on the Giza plateau-and the cementing phases, in both the inner and outer casing stones, were amorphous, in other words, their atoms were not arranged in a regular and periodic array. Sedimentary rocks such as limestone are seldom, if ever, amorphous.
The sample chemistries the researchers found do not exist anywhere in nature. "Therefore," says Barsoum, "it's very improbable that the outer and inner casing stones that we examined were chiseled from a natural limestone block."
More startlingly, Barsoum and another of his graduate students, Aaron Sakulich, recently discovered the presence of silicon dioxide nanoscale spheres (with diameters only billionths of a meter across) in one of the samples. This discovery further confirms that these blocks are not natural limestone.
Generations misled
At the end of their most recent paper reporting these findings, the researchers reflect that it is "ironic, sublime and truly humbling" that this 4,500-year-old limestone is so true to the original that it has misled generations of Egyptologists and geologists and, "because the ancient Egyptians were the original-albeit unknowing-nanotechnologists."
As if the scientific evidence isn't enough, Barsoum has pointed out a number of common sense reasons why the pyramids were not likely constructed entirely of chiseled limestone blocks.
Egyptologists are consistently confronted by unanswered questions: How is it possible that some of the blocks are so perfectly matched that not even a human hair can be inserted between them? Why, despite the existence of millions of tons of stone, carved presumably with copper chisels, has not one copper chisel ever been found on the Giza Plateau?
Although Barsoum's research has not answered all of these questions, his work provides insight into some of the key questions. For example, it is now more likely than not that the tops of the pyramids are cast, as it would have been increasingly difficult to drag the stones to the summit.
Also, casting would explain why some of the stones fit so closely together. Still, as with all great mysteries, not every aspect of the pyramids can be explained. How the Egyptians hoisted 70-ton granite slabs halfway up the great pyramid remains as mysterious as ever.
Why do the results of Barsoum's research matter most today? Two words: earth cements.
"How energy intensive and/or complicated can a 4,500 year old technology really be? The answer to both questions is not very," Barsoum explains. "The basic raw materials used for this early form of concrete-limestone, lime, and diatomaceous earth-can be found virtually anywhere in the world," he adds. "Replicating this method of construction would be cost effective, long lasting, and much more environmentally friendly than the current building material of choice: Portland cement that alone pumps roughly 6 billion tons of CO2 annually into the atmosphere when it's manufactured."
"Ironically," says Barsoum, "this study of 4,500 year old rocks is not about the past, but about the future."
From: http://www.livescience.com/history/070518_...m_pyramids.html
I've heard of this theory before, but when I read this I'm convinced. Can we finally put this to rest? The pyramids are cement, lets just end it now. Yay!
The Surprising Truth Behind the Construction of the Great Pyramids
This Behind the Scenes article was provided to LiveScience in partnership with the National Science Foundation.
"This is not my day job." So begins Michel Barsoum as he recounts his foray into the mysteries of the Great Pyramids of Egypt. As a well respected researcher in the field of ceramics, Barsoum never expected his career to take him down a path of history, archaeology, and "political" science, with materials research mixed in.
As a distinguished professor in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at Drexel University, his daily routine consists mainly of teaching students about ceramics, or performing research on a new class of materials, the so-called MAX Phases, that he and his colleagues discovered in the 1990s. These modern ceramics are machinable, thermal-shock resistant, and are better conductors of heat and electricity than many metals-making them potential candidates for use in nuclear power plants, the automotive industry, jet engines, and a range of other high-demand systems.
Then Barsoum received an unexpected phone call from Michael Carrell, a friend of a retired colleague of Barsoum, who called to chat with the Egyptian-born Barsoum about how much he knew of the mysteries surrounding the building of the Great Pyramids of Giza, the only remaining of the seven wonders of the ancient world.
The widely accepted theory-that the pyramids were crafted of carved-out giant limestone blocks that workers carried up ramps-had not only not been embraced by everyone, but as important had quite a number of holes.
Burst out laughing
According to the caller, the mysteries had actually been solved by Joseph Davidovits, Director of the Geopolymer Institute in St. Quentin, France, more than two decades ago. Davidovits claimed that the stones of the pyramids were actually made of a very early form of concrete created using a mixture of limestone, clay, lime, and water.
"It was at this point in the conversation that I burst out laughing," says Barsoum. If the pyramids were indeed cast, he says, someone should have proven it beyond a doubt by now, in this day and age, with just a few hours of electron microscopy.
It turned out that nobody had completely proven the theory...yet.
"What started as a two-hour project turned into a five-year odyssey that I undertook with one of my graduate students, Adrish Ganguly, and a colleague in France, Gilles Hug," Barsoum says.
A year and a half later, after extensive scanning electron microscope (SEM) observations and other testing, Barsoum and his research group finally began to draw some conclusions about the pyramids. They found that the tiniest structures within the inner and outer casing stones were indeed consistent with a reconstituted limestone. The cement binding the limestone aggregate was either silicon dioxide (the building block of quartz) or a calcium and magnesium-rich silicate mineral.
The stones also had a high water content-unusual for the normally dry, natural limestone found on the Giza plateau-and the cementing phases, in both the inner and outer casing stones, were amorphous, in other words, their atoms were not arranged in a regular and periodic array. Sedimentary rocks such as limestone are seldom, if ever, amorphous.
The sample chemistries the researchers found do not exist anywhere in nature. "Therefore," says Barsoum, "it's very improbable that the outer and inner casing stones that we examined were chiseled from a natural limestone block."
More startlingly, Barsoum and another of his graduate students, Aaron Sakulich, recently discovered the presence of silicon dioxide nanoscale spheres (with diameters only billionths of a meter across) in one of the samples. This discovery further confirms that these blocks are not natural limestone.
Generations misled
At the end of their most recent paper reporting these findings, the researchers reflect that it is "ironic, sublime and truly humbling" that this 4,500-year-old limestone is so true to the original that it has misled generations of Egyptologists and geologists and, "because the ancient Egyptians were the original-albeit unknowing-nanotechnologists."
As if the scientific evidence isn't enough, Barsoum has pointed out a number of common sense reasons why the pyramids were not likely constructed entirely of chiseled limestone blocks.
Egyptologists are consistently confronted by unanswered questions: How is it possible that some of the blocks are so perfectly matched that not even a human hair can be inserted between them? Why, despite the existence of millions of tons of stone, carved presumably with copper chisels, has not one copper chisel ever been found on the Giza Plateau?
Although Barsoum's research has not answered all of these questions, his work provides insight into some of the key questions. For example, it is now more likely than not that the tops of the pyramids are cast, as it would have been increasingly difficult to drag the stones to the summit.
Also, casting would explain why some of the stones fit so closely together. Still, as with all great mysteries, not every aspect of the pyramids can be explained. How the Egyptians hoisted 70-ton granite slabs halfway up the great pyramid remains as mysterious as ever.
Why do the results of Barsoum's research matter most today? Two words: earth cements.
"How energy intensive and/or complicated can a 4,500 year old technology really be? The answer to both questions is not very," Barsoum explains. "The basic raw materials used for this early form of concrete-limestone, lime, and diatomaceous earth-can be found virtually anywhere in the world," he adds. "Replicating this method of construction would be cost effective, long lasting, and much more environmentally friendly than the current building material of choice: Portland cement that alone pumps roughly 6 billion tons of CO2 annually into the atmosphere when it's manufactured."
"Ironically," says Barsoum, "this study of 4,500 year old rocks is not about the past, but about the future."
From: http://www.livescience.com/history/070518_...m_pyramids.html
I've heard of this theory before, but when I read this I'm convinced. Can we finally put this to rest? The pyramids are cement, lets just end it now. Yay!
Well we do know that the ancient Egyptians did use a form of cement but they certainly didnt use it in the quantities needed to construct an entire Pyramid for the simple reason that the logistical difficulties involved would outweigh those of cutting and moving large blocks of Limestone. The manufacture of large amounts of cement would also involve a considerable manufacturing process involving ovens and large amounts of water and mined materials - for which there is no evidence of.
"Cement, or Portland cement, is defined as "a hydraulic cement, obtained by burning a mixture of lime and clay to form a clinker, then pulverizing the clinker into powder. The greenish gray powder is composed primarily of calcium silicates, calcium aluminates, and calcium ferrites. When mixed with water (Hydrated), it solidifies to an artificial rock, similar to Portland stone." A Portland Stone is a yellow limestone from the Isle of Portland, in Great Britain.
Historically, cement can be traced back to the early Roman Empire, and contributed to the building of the great structures of the Roman Empire. By varying the amounts and types of the same basic ingredients, cement with various properties may be obtained. By further varying the ingredients, even more differing cements are manufactured.
*Cement manufacturing is the basic processing of selected and prepared mineral raw materials to produce the synthetic mineral mixture (clinker) that can be ground to a powder having the specific chemical composition and physical properties of cement." Cement manufacture, like many other manufacturing processes, begins at the mine, where the raw materials like limestone, silica, aluminates, feric minerals and others are obtained. Some typical materials used for calcium carbonate in cement manufacturing are limestone, chalks, marbles, marls, and oyster shell. Some typical materials used for alumina in the cement manufacturing are shale, clay, slags, fly ash, bauxite, alumina process waste, and granite. Some typical materials used for silica in cement manufacturing are sand, clay, claystone, shale, slag, and fly ash. Some typical materials used for iron in cement manufacturing are iron ores, blast furnace flue dusts, pyrite clinker, mill scale, and fly ash. "
From : http://www.mine-engineer.com/mining/cement.htm
This cement feature can be seen in many ancient monuments, including those of the incas in macchu picchu etc, as well as other places in central and latin americas. It is clearly that some of the "stone blocks" once were soft and were manipulated in the soft state to fit eachother and to piece them together as well as carve into them various symbols, characters, hieroglypics etc, as you can see on the way they are carved it had to be a soft surface, makign same impression as when drawing a stick through soft cement.
QUOTE(rezna @ May 22 2007, 01:38 PM) [snapback]1688687[/snapback]
A year and a half later, after extensive scanning electron microscope (SEM) observations and other testing, Barsoum and his research group finally began to draw some conclusions about the pyramids. They found that the tiniest structures within the inner and outer casing stones were indeed consistent with a reconstituted limestone. The cement binding the limestone aggregate was either silicon dioxide (the building block of quartz) or a calcium and magnesium-rich silicate mineral.
The stones also had a high water content-unusual for the normally dry, natural limestone found on the Giza plateau-and the cementing phases, in both the inner and outer casing stones, were amorphous, in other words, their atoms were not arranged in a regular and periodic array. Sedimentary rocks such as limestone are seldom, if ever, amorphous.
The stones also had a high water content-unusual for the normally dry, natural limestone found on the Giza plateau-and the cementing phases, in both the inner and outer casing stones, were amorphous, in other words, their atoms were not arranged in a regular and periodic array. Sedimentary rocks such as limestone are seldom, if ever, amorphous.
Which stones are the casing stones? Are they only the stones near the surface of the pyramid or does it include all the stones the pyramid is built from?
QUOTE(DieChecker @ May 23 2007, 04:28 AM) [snapback]1689775[/snapback]
Which stones are the casing stones? Are they only the stones near the surface of the pyramid or does it include all the stones the pyramid is built from?
The casing stones were those which were originally on the outside.
There are very few remaining except those at the top of Khafre's pyramid.
QUOTE(fantazum @ May 23 2007, 02:47 AM) [snapback]1689281[/snapback]
[Well we do know that the ancient Egyptians did use a form of cement but they certainly didnt use it in the quantities needed to construct an entire Pyramid for the simple reason that the logistical difficulties involved would outweigh those of cutting and moving large blocks of Limestone. The manufacture of large amounts of cement would also involve a considerable manufacturing process involving ovens and large amounts of water and mined materials - for which there is no evidence of.
That's why, although I think something along the lines of cement makes a lot more sense than humping great blocks around,.....I think that stones? sand? rubble? might have been melted in situ...using a gas that comes from water. When hydrogen and oxygen are recombined to make water (implosion) the energy released COULD have melted stone.
Anyone interested in this energy/gas...here's two links..
http://www.brownsgas.com/brownsgashome.html
http://www.nottaughtinschools.com/Yull-Bro...-Interview.html
Link to the proof please......
Are you asking me for a link? The link was at the bottom of my post.
This link is where the article came from
Here's a great link
Michael's Pyramid Website
And BTW, they studied the "inner and outer casing stones" I would suspect that there were amounts of both techniques implented in the construction of the pyramids. I doubt the entire thing is concrete.
And sorry I didn't notice the other thread about this, I looked through the other giza threads open on the first page but didn't go further than that
This link is where the article came from
Here's a great link
Michael's Pyramid Website
And BTW, they studied the "inner and outer casing stones" I would suspect that there were amounts of both techniques implented in the construction of the pyramids. I doubt the entire thing is concrete.
And sorry I didn't notice the other thread about this, I looked through the other giza threads open on the first page but didn't go further than that
QUOTE(darkbreed @ May 23 2007, 06:49 AM) [snapback]1689622[/snapback]
This cement feature can be seen in many ancient monuments, including those of the incas in macchu picchu etc, as well as other places in central and latin americas. It is clearly that some of the "stone blocks" once were soft and were manipulated in the soft state to fit eachother and to piece them together as well as carve into them various symbols, characters, hieroglypics etc, as you can see on the way they are carved it had to be a soft surface, makign same impression as when drawing a stick through soft cement.
yes I have actually seen the ancient Peruvian stonework for myself and it is indeed very peculiar. The huge blocks really do appear to have been squished down on one another producing a perfect and often impossibly intricate join. I have spoken to several archeologists working in the region and they themselves admit that cutting such gigantic blocks then recutting them into jig-saw profiles to fit obtain a perfect fit is most puzzling as the process is completely illogical.
QUOTE(rezna @ May 23 2007, 06:59 PM) [snapback]1690466[/snapback]
Are you asking me for a link? The link was at the bottom of my post.
This link is where the article came from
Here's a great link
Michael's Pyramid Website
And BTW, they studied the "inner and outer casing stones" I would suspect that there were amounts of both techniques implented in the construction of the pyramids. I doubt the entire thing is concrete.
And sorry I didn't notice the other thread about this, I looked through the other giza threads open on the first page but didn't go further than that
This link is where the article came from
Here's a great link
Michael's Pyramid Website
And BTW, they studied the "inner and outer casing stones" I would suspect that there were amounts of both techniques implented in the construction of the pyramids. I doubt the entire thing is concrete.
And sorry I didn't notice the other thread about this, I looked through the other giza threads open on the first page but didn't go further than that
Good point. If any process of construction of the Pyramid benefited from Cement it would have been the casing stones as they could have been cast in situ. However, the casing stones were removed by following cultures and used in the construction of local buildings etc. Samples of the stones found and examined have only revealed that they are solid Limestone. And again, the logistics involved in casting such huge plates of material from Cement would have been formidable.
Speaking of how mysterious the pyramid is.
Here is a few tasty tidbits i found, ive no idea what is fact and what is fiction.
Anyone care to sort out the truth from the myths.
the Great Pyramid itself contained no pharaoh's body, no treasure chamber, and no treasures.
Who, then, designed it and built it?
What was its purpose,Some theorists also maintain that the great pyramid is in fact aligned with the constelation of Orion.
A total of over 2,300,000 (or only 590,712 blocks) of limestone and granite were used in its construction with the average block weighing 2.5 tons and none weighing less than 2 tons.
The large blocks used in the ceiling of the King's Chamber weigh as much as 9 tons,
Construction date (Estimated): 2589 B.C.. Construction time (Estimated): 20 years.
Total weight (Estimated): 6.5 million tons. The estimated total weight of the structure is 6.5 million tons.
The base of the pyramid covers 13 acres, 568,500 square feet and the length of each side was originally 754 feet, but is now 745 feet.
The original height was 481 feet tall, but is now only 449 feet.
Like 20th century bridge designs, the Pyramid's cornerstones have balls and sockets built into them.
Several football fields long,
The foundation of the Great Pyramid is amazingly level., No corner of its base is more than one-half inch higher or lower than the others.
Considering that the pyramid's base covers more than thirteen acres, this near-perfect leveling far exceeds even the finest architectural standards of the present day.
the Pyramid is subject to expansion and contraction movements from heat and cold, as well as earthquakes, settling, and other such phenomena. After 4,600 years it's structure would have been significantly damaged without such construction.
Amazingly, the outside surface stones are cut within 0.01 (1/100th) inch of perfectly straight and at nearly perfect right angles for all six sides. And they were placed together with an intentional gap between them of 0.02 inch. Modern technology cannot place such 20-ton stones with greater accuracy than those in the Pyramid.
numbers are also repeated throughout. Each of the Pyramids four walls, when measured as a straight line, are 9,131 inches, for a total of 36,524 inches. At first glance, this number may not seem significant, but move the decimal point over and you get 365.24. Modern science has shown us that the exact length of the solar year is 365.24 days.
It is a matter of archaeological fact that none of the fourth Dynasty kings put their names on the pyramids supposedly constructed in their times, yet from the fifth Dynasty onwards, the other pyramids had hundreds of official inscriptions, leaving us no doubt about which kings built them.
The mathematical complexity, engineering requirements, and sheer size of the Giza plateau pyramids represent an enormous, seemingly impossible leap in abilities over the third dynasty buildings. Contemporary Egyptological explanation cannot account for this leap, nor can they account for the clear decline in mathematics, engineering and size of the constructions of the fifth dynasty.
Textbooks speak of "religious upheaval" and "civil wars," but there is no evidence whatsoever of these having occurred.
Measurements throughout the pyramid show that its constructors knew of the proportions of pi (3.14...), phi or the Golden Mean (1.618), and the "Pythagorean" triangles thousands of years before Pythagoras, the so-called father of geometry, lived.
Shafts leading upward from the two main chambers, previously thought to be air shafts for ventilation, have been shown to have another possible purpose. A miniature electronic robot mechanically crawled sixty-five meters up the shafts and its findings suggested that the south and north shafts in the Kings Chamber are pointed to Al Nitak (Zeta Orionis) and Alpha Draconis respectively, while the south and north shafts of the Queens Chamber point to Sirius and Orion.
Here is a few tasty tidbits i found, ive no idea what is fact and what is fiction.
Anyone care to sort out the truth from the myths.
the Great Pyramid itself contained no pharaoh's body, no treasure chamber, and no treasures.
Who, then, designed it and built it?
What was its purpose,Some theorists also maintain that the great pyramid is in fact aligned with the constelation of Orion.
A total of over 2,300,000 (or only 590,712 blocks) of limestone and granite were used in its construction with the average block weighing 2.5 tons and none weighing less than 2 tons.
The large blocks used in the ceiling of the King's Chamber weigh as much as 9 tons,
Construction date (Estimated): 2589 B.C.. Construction time (Estimated): 20 years.
Total weight (Estimated): 6.5 million tons. The estimated total weight of the structure is 6.5 million tons.
The base of the pyramid covers 13 acres, 568,500 square feet and the length of each side was originally 754 feet, but is now 745 feet.
The original height was 481 feet tall, but is now only 449 feet.
Like 20th century bridge designs, the Pyramid's cornerstones have balls and sockets built into them.
Several football fields long,
The foundation of the Great Pyramid is amazingly level., No corner of its base is more than one-half inch higher or lower than the others.
Considering that the pyramid's base covers more than thirteen acres, this near-perfect leveling far exceeds even the finest architectural standards of the present day.
the Pyramid is subject to expansion and contraction movements from heat and cold, as well as earthquakes, settling, and other such phenomena. After 4,600 years it's structure would have been significantly damaged without such construction.
Amazingly, the outside surface stones are cut within 0.01 (1/100th) inch of perfectly straight and at nearly perfect right angles for all six sides. And they were placed together with an intentional gap between them of 0.02 inch. Modern technology cannot place such 20-ton stones with greater accuracy than those in the Pyramid.
numbers are also repeated throughout. Each of the Pyramids four walls, when measured as a straight line, are 9,131 inches, for a total of 36,524 inches. At first glance, this number may not seem significant, but move the decimal point over and you get 365.24. Modern science has shown us that the exact length of the solar year is 365.24 days.
It is a matter of archaeological fact that none of the fourth Dynasty kings put their names on the pyramids supposedly constructed in their times, yet from the fifth Dynasty onwards, the other pyramids had hundreds of official inscriptions, leaving us no doubt about which kings built them.
The mathematical complexity, engineering requirements, and sheer size of the Giza plateau pyramids represent an enormous, seemingly impossible leap in abilities over the third dynasty buildings. Contemporary Egyptological explanation cannot account for this leap, nor can they account for the clear decline in mathematics, engineering and size of the constructions of the fifth dynasty.
Textbooks speak of "religious upheaval" and "civil wars," but there is no evidence whatsoever of these having occurred.
Measurements throughout the pyramid show that its constructors knew of the proportions of pi (3.14...), phi or the Golden Mean (1.618), and the "Pythagorean" triangles thousands of years before Pythagoras, the so-called father of geometry, lived.
Shafts leading upward from the two main chambers, previously thought to be air shafts for ventilation, have been shown to have another possible purpose. A miniature electronic robot mechanically crawled sixty-five meters up the shafts and its findings suggested that the south and north shafts in the Kings Chamber are pointed to Al Nitak (Zeta Orionis) and Alpha Draconis respectively, while the south and north shafts of the Queens Chamber point to Sirius and Orion.
QUOTE(louie @ May 26 2007, 09:56 AM) [snapback]1694707[/snapback]
Speaking of how mysterious the pyramid is.
Here is a few tasty tidbits i found, ive no idea what is fact and what is fiction.
Anyone care to sort out the truth from the myths.
The foundation of the Great Pyramid is amazingly level., No corner of its base is more than one-half inch higher or lower than the others.
Considering that the pyramid's base covers more than thirteen acres, this near-perfect leveling far exceeds even the finest architectural standards of the present day.
Here is a few tasty tidbits i found, ive no idea what is fact and what is fiction.
Anyone care to sort out the truth from the myths.
The foundation of the Great Pyramid is amazingly level., No corner of its base is more than one-half inch higher or lower than the others.
Considering that the pyramid's base covers more than thirteen acres, this near-perfect leveling far exceeds even the finest architectural standards of the present day.
The levelling is actually quite easy to achieve, here's one method:
You dig a shallow, square recess into the rock (just a few inches deep), using visual judgment to make the first pass at levelling. You then fill this shallow trench with water and watch as it evaporates. As the level of the water reduces then "High Points" will be exposed and you simply remove them. This would have to be performed several times to achieve the measure of levelling desired.
Just found another mention of ancient cement technology...
QUOTE
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf043/sf043p01.htm
The Mysterious Tumuli Of New Caledonia
The Isle of Pines, New Caledonia is spangled with about 400 large tumuli or mounds, ranging from 30 to 165 feet in diameter. Their heights are 2 to about 15 feet. All of the material making up the mounds seems to come from the immediate surroundings: coral debris, earth, and grains of iron oxide. The larger tumuli enclose a block of tuff, about 5 feet high and 6 feet in diameter, comprised of tumuli material held together by a calcareous cement or mortar. Some who have investigated these mounds believe that the presence of cement, presumably man-made, is proof-positive that the tumuli are the product of human activity. Other archeologists doubt this because the early settlers of New Caledonia did not use cement. Besides, there seem to be no other signs of human involvement. This has led to the hypothesis that the mounds were built by huge, now-extinct, flightless birds for the purpose of incubating their eggs. Some birds do indeed incubate their eggs in mounds today; and some 5,000 years ago New Caledonia did boast a giant bird (Sylviornia neocale doniae), which was 5-6 feet tall. The authors of the present paper feel that the giant bird hypothesis is just as reasonable as the theory that these mounds were built by ancient humans who knew how to make cement.
(Mourer-Chauvire, Cecile, and Poplin, Francois; "Le Mystere des Tumulus de Nouvelle-Caledonie," La Recherche, 16: 76, September 1985. Cr. C. Mauge.)
Comment. We find in our Handbook Ancient Man an article by A. Rothovius entitled: "The Mysterious Cement Cylinders of New Caledonia." The 1967 article covers much the same ground as that in La Recherche, but sans the giant bird theory. Rothovius states that the cylinders inside the tumuli:
"...are of a very hard, homogeneous lime-mortar, containing bits of shells which yield radiocarbon dates between 5,120 and 10,950 B.C. -- even the lowest date being some 3,000 years earlier than man is believed to have reached the southwest Pacific from the area of Indonesia."
The Mysterious Tumuli Of New Caledonia
The Isle of Pines, New Caledonia is spangled with about 400 large tumuli or mounds, ranging from 30 to 165 feet in diameter. Their heights are 2 to about 15 feet. All of the material making up the mounds seems to come from the immediate surroundings: coral debris, earth, and grains of iron oxide. The larger tumuli enclose a block of tuff, about 5 feet high and 6 feet in diameter, comprised of tumuli material held together by a calcareous cement or mortar. Some who have investigated these mounds believe that the presence of cement, presumably man-made, is proof-positive that the tumuli are the product of human activity. Other archeologists doubt this because the early settlers of New Caledonia did not use cement. Besides, there seem to be no other signs of human involvement. This has led to the hypothesis that the mounds were built by huge, now-extinct, flightless birds for the purpose of incubating their eggs. Some birds do indeed incubate their eggs in mounds today; and some 5,000 years ago New Caledonia did boast a giant bird (Sylviornia neocale doniae), which was 5-6 feet tall. The authors of the present paper feel that the giant bird hypothesis is just as reasonable as the theory that these mounds were built by ancient humans who knew how to make cement.
(Mourer-Chauvire, Cecile, and Poplin, Francois; "Le Mystere des Tumulus de Nouvelle-Caledonie," La Recherche, 16: 76, September 1985. Cr. C. Mauge.)
Comment. We find in our Handbook Ancient Man an article by A. Rothovius entitled: "The Mysterious Cement Cylinders of New Caledonia." The 1967 article covers much the same ground as that in La Recherche, but sans the giant bird theory. Rothovius states that the cylinders inside the tumuli:
"...are of a very hard, homogeneous lime-mortar, containing bits of shells which yield radiocarbon dates between 5,120 and 10,950 B.C. -- even the lowest date being some 3,000 years earlier than man is believed to have reached the southwest Pacific from the area of Indonesia."
QUOTE
http://ufo.whipnet.org/creation/ancient.ad...ons/index2.html
10. THE AROI SUN KINGDOM OF THE PACIFIC
Aroi Sun Kingdom of PacificThe last of my list of ancient civilizations is that of the virtually unknown ancient culture of the Aroi Sun Kingdom of the Pacific. While the so-called lost continent of Mu sank over 24,000 years ago in a pole shift, the Pacific was later repopulated by a racial mixture of all civilizations, coming from Rama, China, Africa and the Americas.
An advanced island nation, with larger areas of land than are currently in the Pacific, grew up around Polynesia, Melanesia and Micronesia. Ancient legends in Polynesia attribute this remarkable civilization to the Aroi Kingdom that existed many thousands of years before the European rediscovery of the Pacific. The Aroi allegedly built many of the megalithic pyramids, platforms, arches, roads and statues throughout the central Pacific.
When some of the more than 400 gravel hills on New Caledonia were excavated in the 1960s, cement columns of lime and shell matter were carbon dated by Yale and the New Caledonia Museum as having been made before 5120 B.C. and 10,950 B.C. These weird cement columns can be found in the southern part of New Caledonia and on the Isle of Pines.
According to the Easter Islanders, the statues of the islands walked or levitated in order to move in a clock-wise spiral around the island. On the island of Pohnpei, the Micronesians claim that the stones of the eleven-square-mile city were levitated into place.
The Polynesians of New Zealand, Easter Island, Hawaii and Tahiti all believe that their ancestors had the ability of flight and would travel through the air from island to island. Was this the Air Atlantis flight that stopped in Malta, Ba'albek, and Rama destined for the remote but popular convention center at Easter Island?
10. THE AROI SUN KINGDOM OF THE PACIFIC
Aroi Sun Kingdom of PacificThe last of my list of ancient civilizations is that of the virtually unknown ancient culture of the Aroi Sun Kingdom of the Pacific. While the so-called lost continent of Mu sank over 24,000 years ago in a pole shift, the Pacific was later repopulated by a racial mixture of all civilizations, coming from Rama, China, Africa and the Americas.
An advanced island nation, with larger areas of land than are currently in the Pacific, grew up around Polynesia, Melanesia and Micronesia. Ancient legends in Polynesia attribute this remarkable civilization to the Aroi Kingdom that existed many thousands of years before the European rediscovery of the Pacific. The Aroi allegedly built many of the megalithic pyramids, platforms, arches, roads and statues throughout the central Pacific.
When some of the more than 400 gravel hills on New Caledonia were excavated in the 1960s, cement columns of lime and shell matter were carbon dated by Yale and the New Caledonia Museum as having been made before 5120 B.C. and 10,950 B.C. These weird cement columns can be found in the southern part of New Caledonia and on the Isle of Pines.
According to the Easter Islanders, the statues of the islands walked or levitated in order to move in a clock-wise spiral around the island. On the island of Pohnpei, the Micronesians claim that the stones of the eleven-square-mile city were levitated into place.
The Polynesians of New Zealand, Easter Island, Hawaii and Tahiti all believe that their ancestors had the ability of flight and would travel through the air from island to island. Was this the Air Atlantis flight that stopped in Malta, Ba'albek, and Rama destined for the remote but popular convention center at Easter Island?
Kmt_Sesh! Comments Please?
QUOTE
...the hypothesis that the mounds were built by huge, now-extinct, flightless birds for the purpose of incubating their eggs
Hey, maybe that's it! The pyramids were built by a long lost race of giant flightless birds!
QUOTE (Essan @ Jan 14 2008, 04:01 PM) 
Hey, maybe that's it! The pyramids were built by a long lost race of giant flightless birds!
That would explain the indentation in the eggs, that way they fitted on the peak....
QUOTE (fantazum @ May 22 2007, 08:47 PM)
Well we do know that the ancient Egyptians did use a form of cement but they certainly didnt use it in the quantities needed to construct an entire Pyramid for the simple reason that the logistical difficulties involved would outweigh those of cutting and moving large blocks of Limestone. The manufacture of large amounts of cement would also involve a considerable manufacturing process involving ovens and large amounts of water and mined materials - for which there is no evidence of.
From : http://www.mine-engineer.com/mining/cement.htm
From : http://www.mine-engineer.com/mining/cement.htm
They were in the desert, therfore I think that there would be no need for an oven, plus the pyramids were constructed near The Nile River, and there were limestone deposits up the river.
QUOTE (The_Wiccan_Psychic @ Jan 15 2008, 03:26 PM)
They were in the desert, therfore I think that there would be no need for an oven, plus the pyramids were constructed near The Nile River, and there were limestone deposits up the river.
hmmm. and you know the temperatures needed to make cement?
QUOTE (The_Wiccan_Psychic @ Jan 15 2008, 07:26 AM)
They were in the desert, therfore I think that there would be no need for an oven, plus the pyramids were constructed near The Nile River, and there were limestone deposits up the river.
You have to cook limestone to make lime.
Anybody consider the logistics of quarrying and relocating large amounts of limestone to a facility to turn it into lime? How did the Egyptians quarry and transport such large amounts of stone over such distances?
How many stones per minutes would have to be turned into lime?
IOW, cement, even if it were used to form the pyramid stones, doesn't solve the problem anyway.
Also, looking at the pyramids, the cement would have to be formed into stone blocks, cured, and then dragged to the top layer of the under-construction pyramid!
How is this different from just dragging the stone itself up?
Harte
Davidovits and Barsoum's work has been discounted by geologists. The exact same stones Davidovits studied have been shown to be microscopically identical to blocks still in quarries that were begun to be carved but never finished. Barsoum took samples without permission, won't say where he got them and was apparently unaware that large portions of the pyramid's blocks have been made in modern times from a concrete that matches the limestone and were placed to restore sagging and eroding sections. That's the reason his and Barsoum's work has gotten no traction. That and the fact, already mentioned, that there is no other evidence of it yet there is ample evidence of quarrying and hand stone working marks all over the pyramid stones.
Thanks, capeo, I had never heard those facts before. 
Edit: Plus, if the limestone needs to be heated, where did all the fuel come from. Did there used to be miles and miles of trees there at some time? Or, maybe there was a huge industry importing the wood needed?
Edit: Plus, if the limestone needs to be heated, where did all the fuel come from. Did there used to be miles and miles of trees there at some time? Or, maybe there was a huge industry importing the wood needed?
QUOTE (DieChecker @ Jan 15 2008, 06:46 PM)
Thanks, capeo, I had never heard those facts before.
Edit: Plus, if the limestone needs to be heated, where did all the fuel come from. Did there used to be miles and miles of trees there at some time? Or, maybe there was a huge industry importing the wood needed?
Edit: Plus, if the limestone needs to be heated, where did all the fuel come from. Did there used to be miles and miles of trees there at some time? Or, maybe there was a huge industry importing the wood needed?
The only thing that springs to mind as far as my knowledge of the subject of lime production, is that Jared Diamond speaks about plastering of walls inside early stone homes. He says, if I remember correctly that the limestone has to be heated at over 1000`F for several days to produce the lime. If that is correct, they would indeed require a massive amount of fuel for fire, in order to produce enough concrete to pour the pyramid.
Here is some alternative history, maybe that is what happened to all the trees of Egypt maybe the construction of the Great Pyramid caused the desert to be born. Hah,
QUOTE (DieChecker @ Jan 16 2008, 01:46 AM)
Edit: Plus, if the limestone needs to be heated, where did all the fuel come from. Did there used to be miles and miles of trees there at some time? Or, maybe there was a huge industry importing the wood needed?
Nah, that's why there is a dessert around the pyramids nowadays....
QUOTE (questionmark @ Jan 15 2008, 11:58 AM)
hmmm. and you know the temperatures needed to make cement?
No, but I would hypothesis that the sun beating down on cement would harden it eventually. Plus it would prob. dry faster that way than by carving and chipping out limestone blocks.
QUOTE (The_Wiccan_Psychic @ Jan 16 2008, 07:17 PM)
No, but I would hypothesis that the sun beating down on cement would harden it eventually. Plus it would prob. dry faster that way than by carving and chipping out limestone blocks.
1450°C .... just to make cement. No civilization that had not mastered iron foundering could possibly get there.
But as I said before, that is probably why Egypt is a dessert (smirk)
Btw. Modern day cement takes 27 years to fully harden. a brickie told me that once.
I can't believe this topic was necro-ed
So if these blocks were cut from a quarry somewhere, where is it? And how did they transport these gigantic block to the build site? I also heard somewhere the Pyramid is built on top of an underground granite plateau type thing preventing it from sinking into the sand? (not too sure how trust worthy that info was or where I heard it from)
QUOTE (PryOpenUr3rdEye @ Jan 19 2008, 01:50 AM)
So if these blocks were cut from a quarry somewhere, where is it? And how did they transport these gigantic block to the build site? I also heard somewhere the Pyramid is built on top of an underground granite plateau type thing preventing it from sinking into the sand? (not too sure how trust worthy that info was or where I heard it from)
One of the quarries:
http://www.aeraweb.org/khufu_quarry.asp
And yes, the pyramids are build on bedrock, so they would not suffer the same fate as Lehner's model.
QUOTE (PryOpenUr3rdEye @ Jan 18 2008, 06:50 PM)
So if these blocks were cut from a quarry somewhere, where is it? And how did they transport these gigantic block to the build site? I also heard somewhere the Pyramid is built on top of an underground granite plateau type thing preventing it from sinking into the sand? (not too sure how trust worthy that info was or where I heard it from)
There are close by quarries where the rough inner stones were quarried. The better quality outer stones came from Tura. And the granite came from quarries in Aswan which is many hundreds of miles away and is truly the most awe inspiring portion of the whole construction process. The pyramid complex is built on limestone as far as I know. I don't believe their is any granite that close to the complex or else the would not have needed to go so far to get it.
QUOTE (questionmark @ Jan 18 2008, 05:55 PM)
One of the quarries:
http://www.aeraweb.org/khufu_quarry.asp
And yes, the pyramids are build on bedrock, so they would not suffer the same fate as Lehner's model.
http://www.aeraweb.org/khufu_quarry.asp
And yes, the pyramids are build on bedrock, so they would not suffer the same fate as Lehner's model.
Its so strange how they figured out how to do all that, the measurements and mathematics found within the design of the pyramids are amazing to say the least. Masters of mathematics they are.
QUOTE (questionmark @ Jan 18 2008, 05:55 PM)
One of the quarries:
http://www.aeraweb.org/khufu_quarry.asp
And yes, the pyramids are build on bedrock, so they would not suffer the same fate as Lehner's model.
http://www.aeraweb.org/khufu_quarry.asp
And yes, the pyramids are build on bedrock, so they would not suffer the same fate as Lehner's model.
Yes, it is limestone bedrock and was once beach front property.
It should be mentioned that this bedrock has a hill near the middle and that
there is a natural fissure at the top of this hill where a small room exists. The
fissure is 7 cubits across and has a well shaft in it that is three cubits across.
The Coffin Texts refer to the the traversal of the sky over the Eye of Horus
which is seven cubits with a pupil of three cubits.
It should also be noted that the bedrock on which the pyramid sits is riddled
with caves and caverns. Some of these natural caverns are actually incorpor-
ated within the structure of the pyramid.
The pyramid, to a very large degree, is an extension of the Earth. In the Pyra-
amid Texts these structures are apparently referred to as the wings of Geb (The
Earth God).
QUOTE (cladking @ Jan 19 2008, 01:06 AM)
Yes, it is limestone bedrock and was once beach front property.
It should be mentioned that this bedrock has a hill near the middle and that
there is a natural fissure at the top of this hill where a small room exists. The
fissure is 7 cubits across and has a well shaft in it that is three cubits across.
The Coffin Texts refer to the the traversal of the sky over the Eye of Horus
which is seven cubits with a pupil of three cubits.
It should also be noted that the bedrock on which the pyramid sits is riddled
with caves and caverns. Some of these natural caverns are actually incorpor-
ated within the structure of the pyramid.
The pyramid, to a very large degree, is an extension of the Earth. In the Pyra-
amid Texts these structures are apparently referred to as the wings of Geb (The
Earth God).
It should be mentioned that this bedrock has a hill near the middle and that
there is a natural fissure at the top of this hill where a small room exists. The
fissure is 7 cubits across and has a well shaft in it that is three cubits across.
The Coffin Texts refer to the the traversal of the sky over the Eye of Horus
which is seven cubits with a pupil of three cubits.
It should also be noted that the bedrock on which the pyramid sits is riddled
with caves and caverns. Some of these natural caverns are actually incorpor-
ated within the structure of the pyramid.
The pyramid, to a very large degree, is an extension of the Earth. In the Pyra-
amid Texts these structures are apparently referred to as the wings of Geb (The
Earth God).
Yes, the Giza pyramid complex is built upon an ancient reef which is riddled with fissures caused by the ingress of water - water dissolves Limestone. Cement WAS used in the construction of the Pyramids.This has been proven beyond any doubt but there is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that the millions of blocks that went into the construction of the Pyramids are cast cement.
The quarries from which the Limestone blocks were cut have been found as have the quarries from which the Granite and other more exotic materials came.
Copper chisels can cut Limestone very easily. This has been proven beyond question. But how those ancient people could apparently just as easily cut the hardest Granites remains something of a mystery. We still have not discovered the method the builders used to transport by water those huge Granite blocks hundreds of miles to the construction site.
The only things we dont know is why the Pyramids were built or how.
I agree, the method used to transport these blocks is not conclusive. I believe rolling/sliding them on logs is highly improbable. To my current knowledge one of the only trees around during the time of construction are date trees, and these were a large source of food for the Egyptians. It seems unlikely that the Egyptians would cut down a large food source just for transporting the blocks. The amount of logs necessary is also another factor, it would have taken millions of them to transport such a vast amount of blocks from any quarry. Not to mention the weight of the blocks would have turned the logs into pulp after only a few uses. Another aspect that remains unclear is how they erected the pyramids, there is a theory of a ramp used (to my understanding), but that ramp would have been more labor intensive to build than the structure itself. How did they do it???
QUOTE (fantazum @ Jan 18 2008, 07:37 PM)
Yes, the Giza pyramid complex is built upon an ancient reef which is riddled with fissures caused by the ingress of water - water dissolves Limestone. Cement WAS used in the construction of the Pyramids.This has been proven beyond any doubt but there is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that the millions of blocks that went into the construction of the Pyramids are cast cement.
The quarries from which the Limestone blocks were cut have been found as have the quarries from which the Granite and other more exotic materials came.
Copper chisels can cut Limestone very easily. This has been proven beyond question. But how those ancient people could apparently just as easily cut the hardest Granites remains something of a mystery. We still have not discovered the method the builders used to transport by water those huge Granite blocks hundreds of miles to the construction site.
The only things we dont know is why the Pyramids were built or how.
The quarries from which the Limestone blocks were cut have been found as have the quarries from which the Granite and other more exotic materials came.
Copper chisels can cut Limestone very easily. This has been proven beyond question. But how those ancient people could apparently just as easily cut the hardest Granites remains something of a mystery. We still have not discovered the method the builders used to transport by water those huge Granite blocks hundreds of miles to the construction site.
The only things we dont know is why the Pyramids were built or how.
I don't have a strong opinion on the subject of cement except that
if it was used then it was poured on the pyramid top, not at the base
and then lifted.
I keep wondering if this stone wasn't actually the seat of the gods
and was deposited by geysers. CO2 forms carbonic acid in water
and it could dissolve large amounts of stone which would quickly
precipitate out as the CO2 was driven off in the desert sun. The
Pyramid Texts often refer to the seats of the gods. If the Gods were
geysers then perhaps the pyramids were built from these seats.
In Greek Isis means "stone seat".
If they were built out of cement i would have loved to have landed the contract for supply & deliver.
QUOTE (PryOpenUr3rdEye @ Jan 18 2008, 09:02 PM)
I agree, the method used to transport these blocks is not conclusive. I believe rolling/sliding them on logs is highly improbable. To my current knowledge one of the only trees around during the time of construction are date trees, and these were a large source of food for the Egyptians. It seems unlikely that the Egyptians would cut down a large food source just for transporting the blocks. The amount of logs necessary is also another factor, it would have taken millions of them to transport such a vast amount of blocks from any quarry. Not to mention the weight of the blocks would have turned the logs into pulp after only a few uses. Another aspect that remains unclear is how they erected the pyramids, there is a theory of a ramp used (to my understanding), but that ramp would have been more labor intensive to build than the structure itself. How did they do it???
Like you say, the method of transportation is certainly not conclusive and there's a good chance we may never know for sure. Studing other megalithic cultures and modern experiments do show that there were a host of methods available though. Grueling but doable even with extremely simple methods. Egypt is tough though because it's constant habitation and it's scavaging of existing structures for new structures went a long way in destroying a lot of the evidence that would have survived.
I believe the prevalent theories don't support an abundance of wood in the area at the time and what wood remained that can be dated to the construction was mostly imported. Don't make the mistake of believing that the wood would have been crushed due to weight though. Mass applied to a surface quickly dissipates given enough surfaces and requires very little leverage to move.
Here's a little example of what one man can do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCvx5gSnfW4
Wally Walington is a funny guy. It's amazing how simple things can be.
QUOTE (capeo @ Jan 18 2008, 08:38 PM)
Like you say, the method of transportation is certainly not conclusive and there's a good chance we may never know for sure. Studing other megalithic cultures and modern experiments do show that there were a host of methods available though. Grueling but doable even with extremely simple methods. Egypt is tough though because it's constant habitation and it's scavaging of existing structures for new structures went a long way in destroying a lot of the evidence that would have survived.
I believe the prevalent theories don't support an abundance of wood in the area at the time and what wood remained that can be dated to the construction was mostly imported. Don't make the mistake of believing that the wood would have been crushed due to weight though. Mass applied to a surface quickly dissipates given enough surfaces and requires very little leverage to move.
Here's a little example of what one man can do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCvx5gSnfW4
Wally Walington is a funny guy. It's amazing how simple things can be.
I believe the prevalent theories don't support an abundance of wood in the area at the time and what wood remained that can be dated to the construction was mostly imported. Don't make the mistake of believing that the wood would have been crushed due to weight though. Mass applied to a surface quickly dissipates given enough surfaces and requires very little leverage to move.
Here's a little example of what one man can do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCvx5gSnfW4
Wally Walington is a funny guy. It's amazing how simple things can be.
I have to beg to differ.
I don't believe any of the commonly presented ideas for the means to
accomplish this task is feasible. The ancients had the manpower to lift
large numbers of stones to great heights but it's far more difficult when
it's a single pile of stone. There isn't room for large numbers of men to
get in and do the work.
Moving stone isn't especially difficult. Lifting stone is difficult.
QUOTE (cladking @ Jan 18 2008, 10:54 PM)
I have to beg to differ.
I don't believe any of the commonly presented ideas for the means to
accomplish this task is feasible. The ancients had the manpower to lift
large numbers of stones to great heights but it's far more difficult when
it's a single pile of stone. There isn't room for large numbers of men to
get in and do the work.
Moving stone isn't especially difficult. Lifting stone is difficult.
I don't believe any of the commonly presented ideas for the means to
accomplish this task is feasible. The ancients had the manpower to lift
large numbers of stones to great heights but it's far more difficult when
it's a single pile of stone. There isn't room for large numbers of men to
get in and do the work.
Moving stone isn't especially difficult. Lifting stone is difficult.
Moving and lifting go hand in hand. A simple way to do it (though not the most efficient) is a fulcrum like wally used in that video. You can add more than half the height of whatever fulcrum point you're extending to the terminus point of the lever (instead of letting one side go into a hole like he did) every time you get it to swing. This would keep moving the block upwards and can be done by one person no matter the weight of the block (given sufficient counterweight). You can setup surprisingly simple rigs that take small crews (three people or so) to lift a huge weight extremely high if that's all you did for a day's work. If you add ramps to the equation it gets even more simple. Not that I'm saying that's the inherent answer, but it's not as difficult as many people seem to want it to be.
QUOTE (capeo @ Jan 18 2008, 10:09 PM)
Moving and lifting go hand in hand. A simple way to do it (though not the most efficient) is a fulcrum like wally used in that video. You can add more than half the height of whatever fulcrum point you're extending to the terminus point of the lever (instead of letting one side go into a hole like he did) every time you get it to swing. This would keep moving the block upwards and can be done by one person no matter the weight of the block (given sufficient counterweight). You can setup surprisingly simple rigs that take small crews (three people or so) to lift a huge weight extremely high if that's all you did for a day's work. If you add ramps to the equation it gets even more simple. Not that I'm saying that's the inherent answer, but it's not as difficult as many people seem to want it to be.
Would you be willing to work on a crew at the bottom of
the pyramid with dozens, even hundreds, of crews above
you rocking stones back and forth?
QUOTE
I believe the prevalent theories don't support an abundance of wood in the area at the time and what wood remained that can be dated to the construction was mostly imported.
This is correct. Though Egypt itself lacked an abundance of wood, that was of little concern. From the dawn of state formation around 3,100 BCE the Egyptians were importing wood from Byblos, in ancient Lebanon. Byblos supplied lumber to many kingdoms throughout the Near East and had a healthy trade set up with Egypt for thousands of years. The Egyptians used countless tons of wood and much of it is still there, within the monuments themselves. It's an important source today for C14 dating.
QUOTE (cladking @ Jan 19 2008, 03:37 PM)
Would you be willing to work on a crew at the bottom of
the pyramid with dozens, even hundreds, of crews above
you rocking stones back and forth?
the pyramid with dozens, even hundreds, of crews above
you rocking stones back and forth?
lol! Good point.
Work safety relations would have been a real headache. I'll bet paranoia was rife. lol!
QUOTE
Davidovits and Barsoum's work has been discounted by geologists. The exact same stones Davidovits studied have been shown to be microscopically identical to blocks still in quarries that were begun to be carved but never finished. Barsoum took samples without permission, won't say where he got them and was apparently unaware that large portions of the pyramid's blocks have been made in modern times from a concrete that matches the limestone and were placed to restore sagging and eroding sections.
Can you link us to this information? From what I understand, they are not microscopically identical. Davidovits shows the difference in his video.
http://s162.photobucket.com/albums/t267/Qo...ari-kat-eng.flv
QUOTE (capeo @ Jan 19 2008, 02:02 AM)
I don't believe their is any granite that close to the complex or else the would not have needed to go so far to get it.
You are quite right, the nearest sources of quality granite are Aswan, Forsan, El-Nasr and Ghandolla, the first two still renown today for its fine red granite.
There are some smaller sources nearer but the quality is too bad to make anything lasting out of it.
QUOTE (PryOpenUr3rdEye @ Jan 19 2008, 02:03 AM)
Its so strange how they figured out how to do all that, the measurements and mathematics found within the design of the pyramids are amazing to say the least. Masters of mathematics they are.
Not really, compared to our knowledge it was third grade. As we have seen they worked by trial and error. The three big pyramids are the culmination of centuries of experience.
QUOTE (questionmark @ Jan 19 2008, 10:46 AM)
Not really, compared to our knowledge it was third grade. As we have seen they worked by trial and error. The three big pyramids are the culmination of centuries of experience.
Everyone works by trial and error. They had 400 centuries of trial
and error and we've had close to 450.
It's much more difficult than many imagine to have complicated shapes
come out as planned. It doesn't necessarily take more knowledge to
make huge shapes come out right but it sure takes a lot more planning
and effort.
I seriously doubt these would be standing there if the builders were in
any way less intelligent or resourceful than we.
QUOTE (cladking @ Jan 20 2008, 12:53 AM)
I seriously doubt these would be standing there if the builders were in
any way less intelligent or resourceful than we.
any way less intelligent or resourceful than we.
oh, I agree, they were even more resourceful because they managed to build those things with less formal knowledge.
QUOTE (questionmark @ Jan 19 2008, 06:01 PM)
oh, I agree, they were even more resourceful because they managed to build those things with less formal knowledge.
100% agreement with that line.
QUOTE (questionmark @ Jan 19 2008, 05:01 PM)
oh, I agree, they were even more resourceful because they managed to build those things with less formal knowledge.
This could be important but at the risk of picking a nit;
I'm not sure that less technology necessarily translates to less formal knowledge. To
do many basic tasks would require more knowledge in many cases rather than less. For
us to get from place to place requires little more knowledge than how to turn a key in
the ignition. Some might argue that you need to know how to pump gas and air up the
tires. It might even be argued that one needs to know to stop on red and go on green.
I would maintain that most of the knowledge is assimilated long before anyone ever gets
in a car with a learner's permit. Cockroaches have been glued to the controls of little
cars which they have no trouble operating. One doesn't need to know how a wheel works
to drive a car and you can go a long way before you run out of gas.
But many of the ancients would have had to make their own shoes and know what mat-
erials wear best. They'd have to know where to obtain such materials. They'd probably
have to plan their needs far in advance since the materials wouldn't be available year
round.
Really, if you don't have a GPS on your belt and all the many conveniences and technol-
ogy we take for granted it's entirely possible the average person had to have a great deal
more knowledge in ancient times. No doubt the total amount of knowledge was lesser in
those days but perhaps it would be even more true to say the knowledge in ancient times
was different than it is now.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.