Concrete pyramids?

[Piney]

4 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:

Dogma is detrimental to the increased understanding of our surroundings, ie. 'science'; it cannot be understated. This is the only point I was attempting - and I stress attempting - to make.

 

I don't think you see why it's stupid. They would be using 3 times as many resources and twice as much time and manpower when it's just easier to carve the blocks. 

[Phaeton80]

Look, brother, I have no horse in this race, Im indifferent to any side of the fence.

What I am not indifferent about, is people projecting themselves as intelligent / expert calling certain individuals who pose certain questions or hypothesis 'stupid' instead of just offering facts that would indicate differently and leave it at that.

I am especially less indifferent about thesame people immediately trying to assign the conspiracy label to those who do not conform to the 'accepted and approved position'. It seems a lot of these types extract a certain joy from belittling others with a different viewpoint, I dispise that.. with extreme prejudice.

Respond with facts and figures, dont have to be a douche about it (not referring to you here btw). Also, one doesnt need to see 'logic or value' in a presented hypothesis to be open to it and not immediately disavow it as 'dumb', 'stupid', 'ridiculous' etc etc. If by some crazy happenstance our 'magnificent zenith of historic global civilization' (aghum..) were to be completely obliterated, and future contemporate scientists would disregard every theory that would be seen as 'dumb behaviour' of our present selves.. Well.. they'd miss the lionpart of the picture, especially in this day and age..

Im quite sure the proponents of this theory have a theory why these Egyptians would be acting so 'unbelievably stupid' in devising a polymer method, cast stone. It would be a good thing to state their logic (and, if at all possible, not immediately dismiss it as stupid).

Quote

Were the casing stones of Senefru's Bent Pyramid in Dahshour cast or carved?: Multinuclear NMR evidence

Author links open overlay panelKenneth J.D.MacKenzie^a

Mark E.Smith^bAlanWong^bJohn V.Hanna^bBernardBarry^cMichel W.Barsoum^d

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2010.10.035Get rights and content

Abstract

A comparison was made of the solid-state ²⁹Si, ²⁷Al and ⁴³Ca MAS NMR spectra of the outer casing stone from Snefru's Bent Pyramid in Dahshour, Egypt, with two quarry limestones from the area. The NMR results suggest that the casing stones consist of limestone grains from the Tura quarry, cemented with an amorphous calcium-silicate gel formed by human intervention, by the addition of extra silica, possibly diatomaceous earth, from the Fayium area.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167577X10008979

Ah, those stupid ignorant fools (Mark E. Smith, Alan Wong, John V. Hanna, Bernard Barry, Michel W. Barsoum), wasting time / money / paper / resources as well as damaging source material on such a ridiculous notion.

Ugh.

[Harte]

Materials scientists with no Geology background compare limestone from the area of Senefru's pyramid to limestone in a completely different bed more than 15 kilometers away.

I think members of this field should gather samples of various stones from all over the world and run tests on those before they start trying to make specific claims like you're trying to support here.

ATM, they really have no idea concerning variations of stone from even the same bed.

Harte

[Phaeton80]

So.. theyre stupid.

Got it (oh Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence)!

On a more serious note; I am not 'supporting' anything. Unless you would interpret not supporting your position, or not disavowing this theory, as supporting the opposing position, 'if youre not with us youre against us' kinda 'logic', but I sincerely hope that not to be the case.

P80

 

Edited April 13, 2019 by Phaeton80

[Piney]

42 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

What I am not indifferent about, is people projecting themselves as intelligent / expert calling certain individuals who pose certain questions or hypothesis 'stupid' instead of just offering facts that would indicate differently and leave it at that.

I did offer the facts to the OP. He never gave a response. Just post more misinformation by someone without a geology background. Like @Harte  said. No matter what the lithic resource is, or how it was created, there are big variations in the same bed. In prehistoric quarries you will find whole areas rejected after testing for "ring" and the way it reduces.  

They don't have a geology background, nor even studied it from the papers I read so far. 

 

[Megaro]

Question for those who support the casting theory.  Were the granite blocks in the king's chamber also cast?

[Oniomancer]

1 hour ago, Harte said:

Materials scientists with no Geology background compare limestone from the area of Senefru's pyramid to limestone in a completely different bed more than 15 kilometers away.

I think members of this field should gather samples of various stones from all over the world and run tests on those before they start trying to make specific claims like you're trying to support here.

ATM, they really have no idea concerning variations of stone from even the same bed.

Harte

^this. I was immediately reminded earlier of similar claims made about Sacsahuayman. I doubt they even sampled the entire rock column, which varies considerably: https://www.kau.edu.sa/Files/320/Researches/63365_34379.pdf

[Hanslune]

1 hour ago, Megaro said:

Question for those who support the casting theory.  Were the granite blocks in the king's chamber also cast?

Perhaps you should ask if the heavy blocks of the relieving chambers were? If not why not. Of course its a trick question the shape of the relieving blocks are irregular.

If they were casting blocks why not these big heavy ones?

 

One can see they are a tad irregular....

 

[Swede]

6 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:

Look, brother, I have no horse in this race, Im indifferent to any side of the fence.

What I am not indifferent about, is people projecting themselves as intelligent / expert calling certain individuals who pose certain questions or hypothesis 'stupid' instead of just offering facts that would indicate differently and leave it at that.

I am especially less indifferent about thesame people immediately trying to assign the conspiracy label to those who do not conform to the 'accepted and approved position'. It seems a lot of these types extract a certain joy from belittling others with a different viewpoint, I dispise that.. with extreme prejudice.

Respond with facts and figures, dont have to be a douche about it (not referring to you here btw). Also, one doesnt need to see 'logic or value' in a presented hypothesis to be open to it and not immediately disavow it as 'dumb', 'stupid', 'ridiculous' etc etc. If by some crazy happenstance our 'magnificent zenith of historic global civilization' (aghum..) were to be completely obliterated, and future contemporate scientists would disregard every theory that would be seen as 'dumb behaviour' of our present selves.. Well.. they'd miss the lionpart of the picture, especially in this day and age..

Im quite sure the proponents of this theory have a theory why these Egyptians would be acting so 'unbelievably stupid' in devising a polymer method, cast stone. It would be a good thing to state their logic (and, if at all possible, not immediately dismiss it as stupid).

Ah, those stupid ignorant fools (Mark E. Smith, Alan Wong, John V. Hanna, Bernard Barry, Michel W. Barsoum), wasting time / money / paper / resources as well as damaging source material on such a ridiculous notion.

Ugh.

While you may find the utilization of the term “stupid” by Hawass to be personally offensive, there are, for starters, two factors that you would wish to consider.

The first is that Hawass has a record of being outspoken and is hardly noted for his subtlety.

The second is that the fringe “literature” is noted for a plethora of truly “stupid” and easily disprovable fascinations. Need one mention the flat earth, the hollow earth, pyramids on the moon, pyramids in Antarctica, races of giants, the 10,000 year old Sphinx, etc., etc.?

It should be borne in mind that the history of Egyptological studies dates back some 200 years (Napoleonic Wars) and that the formal discipline of Egyptology dates back to the 1880s. During all these many decades, the lithic materials associated with the Giza constructs and associated goods have been studied and evaluated by literally hundreds of qualified researchers, from quarry to finished product. At no point in the various studies was it observed that the lithic materials in question were of anything other than natural derivation.

In regards to your (misquoted) reference, the three page, non-peer reviewed article by Mackenzie et al 2011 was recently addressed under another heading. There are obvious problems with the article. You may also wish to re-read Jana 2007.

As to your underlying concern, you would appear to have little or no actual experience in the sciences. The sciences do not automatically discount “novel” hypotheses. Quite the opposite, and if you were familiar with real-world research, you would be aware of this. However, hypotheses that cannot withstand critical evaluation are naturally dismissed barring new evidence to the contrary. To date, the supporters of the geopolymer hypothesis have yet to withstand critical evaluation.

This latter aspect applies across the broader spectrum. Despite your wishes that fringe “revelations” be treated more “fairly”, they are, will, and should be, subjected to the same analytic rigors as any other submission.

Edit: Emphasis.

Edited April 13, 2019 by Swede

[Harte]

5 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:

So.. theyre stupid.

Got it (oh Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence)!

I appreciate your recognition of my formal title.

5 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:

On a more serious note; I am not 'supporting' anything. Unless you would interpret not supporting your position, or not disavowing this theory, as supporting the opposing position, 'if youre not with us youre against us' kinda 'logic', but I sincerely hope that not to be the case.

P80

Sorry. Haven't been keeping up I guess. I thought you were a proponent of casting.

If you're not support the casting hypothesis, then that's a good thing.

Harte

[Phaeton80]

19 hours ago, Piney said:

I did offer the facts to the OP. He never gave a response. Just post more misinformation by someone without a geology background. Like @Harte  said. No matter what the lithic resource is, or how it was created, there are big variations in the same bed. In prehistoric quarries you will find whole areas rejected after testing for "ring" and the way it reduces.  

They don't have a geology background, nor even studied it from the papers I read so far. 

 

That - does - not - matter.

For the last time (its proven to be pretty difficult to bring a very simple point accross here, wonder why that is); refute based on facts and figures, yours and theirs, without resorting to calling their content stupid, racist (!!), or labelling anyone not disavowing their position as conspiracy theorist. Its a pretty straightforward, rational statement if I do say so myself.

Thats it, thats all; a wonderful day to all you fine gentlemen.

Oh and btw, here are some more of those dim individuals falling for thesame ridiculous notion, as has been likened to things as we have 'the flat earth theory', 'hollow earth theory', and (wait for it) 'Pyramids on the moon' ((how about that for disqualification):

Quote

Did the Great Pyramids' builders use concrete?

CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology — It is a theory that gives indigestion to mainstream archaeologists. Namely, that some of the immense blocks of the Great Pyramids of Egypt might have been cast from synthetic material - the world's first concrete - not just carved whole from quarries and lugged into place by armies of toilers.

Such an innovation would have saved millions of man-hours of grunting and heaving in construction of the enigmatic edifices on the Giza Plateau.

"It could be they used less sweat and more smarts," said Linn Hobbs, professor of materials science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

"Maybe the ancient Egyptians didn't just leave us mysterious monuments and mummies. Maybe they invented concrete 2,000 years before the Romans started using it in their structures."

That is a notion that would dramatically change engineering history.

[..]

A handful of determined materials scientists are carrying out experiments with crushed limestone and natural binding chemicals - materials that would have been readily available to ancient Egyptians - designed to show that blocks on the upper reaches of the pyramids may have been cast in place from a slurry poured into wooden molds.

These researchers at labs in Cambridge, Philadelphia and St. Quentin, France, are trying to demonstrate that Egyptians of about 2,500 B.C. could have been the true inventors of the poured substance that is humanity's most common building material.

[..]

Hobbs described himself as "agnostic" on the issue but said he believed mainstream archaeologists had been too contemptuous of work by other scientists suggesting the possibility of concrete.

"The degree of hostility aimed at experimentation is disturbing," he said. "Too many big egos and too many published works may be riding on the idea that every pyramid block was carved, not cast."

Archaeologists, however, say there is simply no evidence that the pyramids are built of anything other than huge limestone blocks. Any synthetic material showing up in tests - as it has occasionally, even in work not trying to prove a concrete connection - is probably just slop from "modern" repairs done over the centuries, they say.

The idea that some pyramid blocks were cast of concrete-like material was aggressively advanced in the 1980s by the French chemical engineer Joseph Davidovits, who argued that the Giza builders had pulverized soft limestone and mixed it with water, hardening the material with natural binders that the Egyptians are known to have used for their famous blue-glaze ornamental statues.

Such blocks, Davidovits said, would have been poured in place by workers hustling sacks of wet cement up the pyramids - a decidedly less spectacular image than the ones popularized by Hollywood epics like "The Ten Commandments," with thousands of near-naked toilers straining with ropes and rollers to move mammoth carved stones.

"That's the problem, the big archaeologists - and Egypt's tourist industry - want to preserve romantic ideas," said Davidovits, who researches ancient building materials at the Geopolymer Institute in St. Quentin.

In 2006, research by Michel Barsoum at Drexel University in Philadelphia found that samples of stone from parts of the Khufu Pyramid were "microstructurally" different from limestone blocks.

Barsoum, a professor of materials engineering, said microscope, X-ray and chemical analysis of scraps of stone from the pyramids "suggest a small but significant percentage of blocks on the higher portions of the pyramids were cast" from concrete.

He stressed that he believes that most of the blocks in the Khufu Pyramid were carved in the manner long suggested by archaeologists. "But 10 or 20 percent were probably cast in areas where it would have been highly difficult to position blocks," he said.

Barsoum, a native of Egypt, said he was unprepared for the onslaught of angry criticism that greeted peer-reviewed research published two years ago by himself and his fellow scientists, Adrish Ganguly of Drexel and Gilles Hug of the National Center for Scientific Research in France.

"You would have thought I claimed the pyramids were carved by lasers," Barsoum said.

Hobbs and his students are undismayed by the controversy.

"It's fascinating to think that ancient Egyptians may have been great materials scientists, not just great civil engineers," Hobbs said.

"None of this lessens the accomplishments of the ancient Egyptians, although I suppose pouring concrete is less mysterious than moving giant blocks. But it really just suggests these people accomplished more than anyone ever imagined."

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/africa/23iht-pyramid.1.12259608.html

Silly, silly MIT.. shame on you Linn Hobbs, for entertaining such a ridiculous hypothesis, and shame on all the retarded 'professors' who give credence to this idiotic theory!
And lastly, from a source posted by the OP in an exchange with the demigod calling himself Swede, the one I originally responded to;

Quote

New support for their case came from Guy Demortier, a materials scientist at Namur University in Belgium. Originally a sceptic, he told the French magazine that a decade of study had made him a convert: “The three majestic Pyramids of Cheops, Khephren and Mykerinos are well and truly made from concrete stones.”

The concrete theorists also point out differences in density of the pyramid stones, which have a higher mass near the bottom and bubbles near the top, like old-style cement blocks.

Opponents of the theory dispute the scientific evidence. They also say that the diverse shapes of the stones show that moulds were not used. They add that a huge amount of limestone chalk and burnt wood would have been needed to make the concrete, while the Egyptians had the manpower to hoist all the natural stone they wanted.

The concrete theorists say that they will be unable to prove their theory conclusively until the Egyptian authorities give them access to substantial samples.

http://www.ce.memphis.edu/1101/interesting_stuff/pyramids_in_concrete.html

A closing note to thesame mr. Swede; I never stated or even implied there is an automatic discount of novel hypothesis; I stated such is known to arise when such a novel hypothesis threatens the generally accepted - dogmatic - scientific reality, threatening careers and what not.

As it stands, gentlemen, I have seen at least a modicum of (relatively objective) input regarding the subject at hand from several professors and material experts, a considerably rich plethora of professionals (who have been set aside as 'incompetent, dumb, racist  etc etc). Fitted against a motley crew of 'message board experts' behaving like 14 year- olds doing anything in their 'power' (again; some old folk sitting behind their keyboards with 'titles' like 'Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence') to ridicule and character assassinate the proponents of this theory. Now I apologise if I hurt someone's feelings by stating these things, but thats what it looks like from where Im standing.

..Think it time for me to go ahead and wash my hands clean of this. My point was made excessively clear, I surely do hope, by now. A fine day to all.

Edited April 14, 2019 by Phaeton80

[Piney]

25 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

Silly, silly MIT.. shame on you ms. Hobbs, for entertaining such a ridiculous hypothesis, and shame on all the retarded 'professors' who give credence to this idiotic theory!

I met a engineering professor from there who was a young Earth creationist. 

Nobody has any common sense any more. 

Like I said, 3 times the resources, twice the manpower and effort. People were more practical then. We would of just carved the bloody stones. 

And emotionally, I'm 12. Not 14. 

[Harte]

1 hour ago, Phaeton80 said:

That - does - not - matter.

For the last time (its proven to be pretty difficult to bring a very simple point accross here, wonder why that is); refute based on facts and figures, yours and theirs, without resorting to calling their content stupid, racist (!!), or labelling anyone not disavowing their position as conspiracy theorist. Its a pretty straightforward, rational statement if I do say so myself.

Thats it, thats all; a wonderful day to all you fine gentlemen.

Oh and btw, here are some more of those dim individuals falling for thesame ridiculous notion, as has been likened to things as we have 'the flat earth theory', 'hollow earth theory', and (wait for it) 'Pyramids on the moon' ((how about that for disqualification):

Silly, silly MIT.. shame on you Linn Hobbs, for entertaining such a ridiculous hypothesis, and shame on all the retarded 'professors' who give credence to this idiotic theory!
And lastly, from a source posted by the OP in an exchange with the demigod calling himself Swede, the one I originally responded to;

A closing note to thesame mr. Swede; I never stated or even implied there is an automatic discount of novel hypothesis; I stated such is known to arise when such a novel hypothesis threatens the generally accepted - dogmatic - scientific reality, threatening careers and what not.

As it stands, gentlemen, I have seen at least a modicum of (relatively objective) input regarding the subject at hand from several professors and material experts, a considerably rich plethora of professionals (who have been set aside as 'incompetent, dumb, racist  etc etc). Fitted against a motley crew of 'message board experts' behaving like 14 year- olds doing anything in their 'power' (again; some old folk sitting behind their keyboards with 'titles' like 'Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence') to ridicule and character assassinate the proponents of this theory. Now I apologise if I hurt someone's feelings by stating these things, but thats what it looks like from where Im standing.

..Think it time for me to go ahead and wash my hands clean of this. My point was made excessively clear, I surely do hope, by now. A fine day to all.

You were given the reference for the refutation of this hypothesis. We've all read it. Why haven't you?

Harte

[Oniomancer]

Just had a thought, if they had this technology, would it have still taken them 20 years to build it? Hoover dam only took 3.

[Piney]

12 minutes ago, Oniomancer said:

Just had a thought, if they had this technology, would it have still taken them 20 years to build it? Hoover dam only took 3.

And it won't last even close to the amount of time the pyramids did. 

[WVK]

23 hours ago, Piney said:

I don't think you see why it's stupid. They would be using 3 times as many resources and twice as much time and manpower when it's just easier to carve the blocks. 

Chopping out the blocks, forming and sanding them to a 51.5 is going to provide a lot of stone dust and  debris which could be used to produce proposed concrete. This would mesh with Barsoum's speculation the some ere carved and more difficult to place cast.   The opposite of stupid 

[Piney]

1 minute ago, WVK said:

Chopping out the blocks, forming and sanding them to a 51.5 is going to provide a lot of stone dust and  debris which could be used to produce proposed concrete. This would mesh with Barsoum's speculation the some ere carved and more difficult to place cast.   The opposite of stupid 

You would have to contain the dust and then mix it. Where are the containers and mixing troughs? 

[XenoFish]

I wonder how many tons of rebar it would take? 

[jmccr8]

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

I wonder how many tons of rebar it would take? 

Hi Xeno

Maybe that's how they got rid of the bodies used them instead of rebar.

jmccr8

[Piney]

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

I wonder how many tons of rebar it would take? 

 I forgot about that! That makes the whole concrete theory even stupider! 

[XenoFish]

As a kid, I thought they carved the pyramids out of a mountain. 

[Oniomancer]

35 minutes ago, Piney said:

 I forgot about that! That makes the whole concrete theory even stupider! 

That's only for single-unit construction. Cement block construction doesn't need it. (think cinderblocks)

[Piney]

1 minute ago, Oniomancer said:

That's only for single-unit construction. Cement block construction doesn't need it. (think cinderblocks)

Can't they only be a certain size before they crack under stress? 

[Oniomancer]

13 minutes ago, Piney said:

Can't they only be a certain size before they crack under stress? 

Our resident concrete worker would know way more about that than I would but you're basically dealing with a cube here. Load stress should be pretty evenly distributed. Big rocks don't exactly collapse under their own weight do they?

Edited April 14, 2019 by Oniomancer

[MWoo7]

3 hours ago, Oniomancer said:

Hoover dam only took 3.

 Hmmm Hoover in 3 years, hmm interesting and WOW! COOL!  Quite sure it took a bit more for the Grand Coulee.  I knew an ancient old guy(First Nations) said the help / construction people from ? Portugal/Spain and possibly around by? France area he thought were not people or normal as the wall layer levels in some parts were 20 feet plus [HIGH] and one up top would toss his tool box down to somebody below.  Now get this, just one of the stories about them, he said sometimes just tennis shoes or sandles and they would drop down to the next level.  That's like jumping down to ROCK!, no broken ankles, legs just fine and they did it all the time.

Years later now, I heard the Last traces of ? were from Portugal/Spain/France area.  Also don't quote me, I thought I read high population with percentage of that gene in them were found to be located on that part of the earth also.

 Oh correct spelling, neanderthal, and now I even see others have come up with this idea, interesting TO MY SURPRISE I just ran across this here just now: 

How the Neanderthals became the Basques - AOI

Sorry for a bit of side track , thought it important.
Yes the old guy said they were Basques, they were not human or normal, its what he said,

don't know why he'd lie.

Now, swinging this back around to cement, .... rebar  ? now that's a lot of bodies!!!!

Also ponderings:::: if it took 9 years, lets round it to 10 years for Grand Coulee Dam, .....SO!!!!!
how long
for us now [TODAY] to build correction>[ A pyramid ] if that Hassas/Hasawee guy would let anyone move the equipment in eh?!?!!

Edited April 14, 2019 by MWoo7