WVK Posted April 16, 2019 Author #251 Share Posted April 16, 2019 7 minutes ago, stereologist said: This is from a modern sheet of plywood. Where is there any sign of the wood used in the molding process? There must be some evidence of molds. Why wood? Why not a concrete mold or stone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVK Posted April 16, 2019 Author #252 Share Posted April 16, 2019 3 minutes ago, WVK said: Why wood? Why not a concrete mold or stone Ah-ha Now we know the real purpose of the sarcophagus: :- ! . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted April 16, 2019 #253 Share Posted April 16, 2019 8 minutes ago, WVK said: Why wood? Why not a concrete mold or stone And what keeps the concrete from sticking to the stone mold? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanslune Posted April 16, 2019 #254 Share Posted April 16, 2019 34 minutes ago, stereologist said: And what keeps the concrete from sticking to the stone mold? Hippopotamus fat 3 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piney Posted April 16, 2019 #255 Share Posted April 16, 2019 1 hour ago, stereologist said: There must be some evidence of molds. In the coffins used to cook "meat beer"? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted April 16, 2019 #256 Share Posted April 16, 2019 17 minutes ago, Hanslune said: Hippopotamus fat That GP must mean that a lot of hippos gave their life for that project. Wait a minute! What is they used hippos to haul the cement and if they died they were sent to the goop making factory. Before there was whaling there was hippoing? Too bad they opted to hide their secret construction methods by not revealing any tamed hippos in their prolific art. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVK Posted April 16, 2019 Author #257 Share Posted April 16, 2019 1 hour ago, stereologist said: And what keeps the concrete from sticking to the stone mold? Multi part mold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereologist Posted April 16, 2019 #258 Share Posted April 16, 2019 1 hour ago, WVK said: Multi part mold So where are the joint lines from your multipart mold. Not a single one has been shown. I posted a photo of modern concrete showing a joint line. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmccr8 Posted April 16, 2019 #259 Share Posted April 16, 2019 1 hour ago, WVK said: Multi part mold Hi WVK Forms are usually oiled so that they can be easily removed and reused. jmccr8 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaden Posted April 16, 2019 #260 Share Posted April 16, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, WVK said: Multi part mold Now you are going in circles. First, you say the blocks were poured in place, which eliminated the need to drag stones. Then you suggested the sarcophagus was used as a mold, and now you are suggesting something else again, both of which reintroduce moving and placing the stones while adding mixing, molding and drying time, none of which could be done in less time than would be needed to simply cut, dress, and place a stone, do you not see how ridiculous this idea is? And, I guess I should note that the sarcophagus does not match the shape of the cladding stones. Edited April 16, 2019 by Gaden 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted April 16, 2019 #261 Share Posted April 16, 2019 (edited) On 4/15/2019 at 12:34 PM, Phaeton80 said: So this particular paper, from a construction materials consultant, seems to (obviously) trump the material expert papers' referred to earlier somehow, you know, 'the stupid ones'. Got it. Was this peer reviewed per chance, as opposed to the papers you disqualified because they seemingly were not? We would seem to prefer, or rather immediately confirm the conclusions made by a construction materials consultant - as opposed to MIT professors, as well as the MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology, the Department of Physics University of Warwick, the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences of New Zealand, and the Department of Materials Science and Engineering of Philadelphia. Just some observations. As to your disqualification (theres that word again) of the provided referrals; the newspaper article (New York Times) was one that referred to related research engaged in by aformentioned MIT, also stupid by association, apparantly.. It would be interesting to note that thesame MIT professors explicitly confirmed a wave of emotionally laden, angry criticism was send their way for just entertaining this infamous hypothesis. The '(meaningless) school curiosity page' (nice one!) actually referred to yet another materials scientist, ironically calling himself Guy Demortier, who was an avid sceptic to the theory at hand, but became 'a belieber' after 'a decade of study' (dumb da dumb dumb..). Maybe if you werent so busy (dis)qualifying content and individuals based on mere labels, you'd be wise to that fact. A research paper of thesame, undoubtedly as flawed and ridiculous as all others proposing similar thoughts / conclusions: The sentence: "The author (Dipayan Jana, a 'construction materials consultant') would also like to extend his thanks to Davidovits for his yet-to-be-proven, novel yet fictitious geopolymer hypothesis of pyramid stones..." seems rather vicious, and unbecoming / unprofessional as content or reference to content of a formal research paper (by the author). So as it may grant a certain level of gratification on your part, it seems to only confirm the high emotion at play in this context, this particular subject matter.. I can do no other that conclude with every post forwarded to my person, the notion an emotionally laden presupposition - that is to say, high level of irrational as well as bias / lack of objectivity - is in effect in regards to this particular subject matter is only strengthened. Im not being difficult here, Im just stating what I observe. Double measures seem to be wielded, in spades. Re: Jana 2007: · First, one may wish to have the credentials of Jana correct and use them. Jana is currently the CEO of a firm known as Construction Materials Consultants, Inc. His academic qualifications: Dipayan has done his Bachelor of Science, two Master of Science, and Doctoral studies from University of Calcutta, India, Univeristy of Illinois at Chicago, and Columbia University with specializations in petrology, mineralogy, petrography, and experimental petrology of geological materials. Dipayan is an active member of American Concrete Institute (ACI), American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Geological Society of America (GSA), and International Concrete Repair Institute (ICRI). Dipayan has worked on more than a thousand projects on quality assurance, characterization, and forensic investigations of various kinds of geological, building, and construction materials e.g., terrestrial and extra-terrestrial rocks, minerals, gemstones, ceramics, building stones, lime, gypsum, hydraulic cements, natural and manufactured aggregates, concretes, and masonries from modern to historic structures. Dipayan has an extensive list of publications on applications of petrography and associated techniques in a wide variety of geological and construction materials that can be viewed here. http://columbia.academia.edu/DipayanJana In reading Jana (2007) you are, of course, aware that the paper in question was presented at the Twenty-ninth Conference on Cement Microscopy, Quebec City, Canada, May 20-24, 2007. That the paper has been subjected to peer-review is obvious. · In your reading of Jana (2007), precisely what aspects of his sampling, methodology, or results do you find to be in error? Please be specific. Re: Demortier 2004: · A significant portion of Demortier’s argument consists of personal incredulity and a lack of familiarity with lithic technology. · In noting the concentration percentage of Na, Demortier would appear to forget that limestone is a marine lithic material. The Na efflorescence of limestone is hardly unknown and actually presents preservation challenges. · Demortier’s envisionment of a mold does not account for the inevitable mold marks that would occur with his method and the available tooling, nor does his “system” present sufficient mass control. · Demortier then presents a highly speculative “interpretation” of Herodotus. · Demortier states that it is his belief that the pyramids were entirely built by “moulding procedures” (Demortier 2004). Keep this statement in mind. · There are other points that could be critiqued. The paper is inconclusive and ends with nothing more than suggestions for future research. RE: Hug and Barsoum ND · At some point after 2004, these authors now state that only the very upper levels of the pyramids were built using the geopolymer “method”. Note the inconsistency amongst even the advocates. · These authors also propose that limestone from the Mokattam formation was dissolved in “Nile fed pools” (in Bremmer ND). This reflects a distinct lack of familiarity with the material in question, particularly given effective timeline. http://www.ce.memphis.edu/1101/interesting_stuff/pyramids_in_concrete.html To attempt to characterize the comment by Jana (2007) as “vicious” is a gross exaggeration that appears to reflect the same “emotionality” that you are decrying. Your contentions of excessive bias and irrationality are also an exaggeration. True scientific debates can indeed become contentious. However, irrationality does not make for a sound argument. Lastly, you have openly stated that geology “does not matter”. This perspective is fundamentally flawed. The topic at hand is irrevocably tied to an informed understanding of geology. This understanding includes, but is hardly limited to, understanding lithic formation grading and the various permutations of a given lithic material that can occur within one or more formations. Additional papers that contain information related to the composition and characteristics of Egyptian limestone formations, selected for easy access: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hatem_Ahmed3/publication/301790338_Physical_and_Mechanical_Characteristics_of_Helwan_Limestone_For_Conservation_Treatment_of_Ancient_Egyptian_Limestone_Monuments/links/5728889308ae0acc4f4807f0.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hatem_Ahmed3/publication/286988355_Performance_of_some_commercial_consolidating_agents_on_porous_limestones_from_Egypt/links/5728875e08ae9f92e4af006b/Performance-of-some-commercial-consolidating-agents-on-porous-limestones-from-Egypt.pdf A current and directly related paper: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.5408/0022-1368-40.1.25 Edit: Format. Edited April 16, 2019 by Swede 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanslune Posted April 16, 2019 #262 Share Posted April 16, 2019 34 minutes ago, Swede said: RE: Hug and Barsoum ND · At some point after 2004, these authors now state that only the very upper levels of the pyramids were built using the geopolymer “method”. Note the inconsistency amongst even the advocates. Upper levels huh? Upper tier of G1 Upper tier of G2 nah 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted April 16, 2019 #263 Share Posted April 16, 2019 36 minutes ago, Hanslune said: Upper levels huh? Nah. To quote Folk and Campbell (2018): It is not easy to give a geological education to a brilliant and determined chemist. . . 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanslune Posted April 16, 2019 #264 Share Posted April 16, 2019 5 minutes ago, Swede said: To quote Folk and Campbell (2018): It is not easy to give a geological education to a brilliant and determined chemist. . . I mean it is a cool idea and would have been a nice 'feather in the cap' for the smartness of the ancient Egyptians but reality has not played along.I suspect it with hobble along for a couple of more generations until some sort of non-destructive testing can be done. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trelane Posted April 17, 2019 #265 Share Posted April 17, 2019 7 hours ago, WVK said: Multi part mold Again, so unnecessary. There would be no reason for the builders to add all these tasks and conditions to making the blocks themselves. Isn't constructing a pyramid work enough? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVK Posted April 17, 2019 Author #266 Share Posted April 17, 2019 13 hours ago, Swede said: To quote Folk and Campbell (2018): It is not easy to give a geological education to a brilliant and determined chemist. . Geopolymeric Pyramids A Rebuttal to R.L. Folk and D.H. Campbell https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.5408/0022-1368-40.1.35?src=recsys I'm curious but not $50.00 curious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanslune Posted April 17, 2019 #267 Share Posted April 17, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, WVK said: Geopolymeric Pyramids A Rebuttal to R.L. Folk and D.H. Campbell https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.5408/0022-1368-40.1.35?src=recsys I'm curious but not $50.00 curious Use inter-library loan....if you are near an academic library. That way you can obtain all those expensive books for reading. It works quite well. Now days some of the Public libraries are also connected into the same systems too. If you are in America. Its an old technology and is slow but it works quite well. Edited April 17, 2019 by Hanslune 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OverSword Posted April 17, 2019 #268 Share Posted April 17, 2019 (edited) snip. never mind. Misread it. Edited April 17, 2019 by OverSword Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted April 17, 2019 #269 Share Posted April 17, 2019 8 hours ago, WVK said: Geopolymeric Pyramids A Rebuttal to R.L. Folk and D.H. Campbell https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.5408/0022-1368-40.1.35?src=recsys I'm curious but not $50.00 curious In addition to Hans' accurate suggestions, current trends suggest that the article will eventually be available at such sources as Academia or perhaps Research Gate. It will almost undoubtedly be available on JSTOR, though there will be a significant time lag. . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted April 17, 2019 #270 Share Posted April 17, 2019 22 hours ago, Hanslune said: I mean it is a cool idea and would have been a nice 'feather in the cap' for the smartness of the ancient Egyptians but reality has not played along.I suspect it with hobble along for a couple of more generations until some sort of non-destructive testing can be done. My personal thoughts would be that the situation will not need to be extended to such an extent. It is amusing to observe that this relatively minor debate is now reaching a time-span virtually identical to the resolution of what would be finalized as Plate Tectonics theory, a theory of notably greater import. The geological aspect has already been well addressed. In my experience, even technologies such as portable high-level microscopy would resolve the issue, not to mention more sophisticated scanning technologies. That and learning basic geology. . 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanslune Posted April 17, 2019 #271 Share Posted April 17, 2019 59 minutes ago, Swede said: My personal thoughts would be that the situation will not need to be extended to such an extent. It is amusing to observe that this relatively minor debate is now reaching a time-span virtually identical to the resolution of what would be finalized as Plate Tectonics theory, a theory of notably greater import. The geological aspect has already been well addressed. In my experience, even technologies such as portable high-level microscopy would resolve the issue, not to mention more sophisticated scanning technologies. That and learning basic geology. . It often takes a long time for an idea to die even when the basis of it is falsified. Harte can tell you there are still people talking about - and believing - stuff Sitchin and Velikovsky taked about 50+ years ago. Heck people still believe in the flat earth. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted April 18, 2019 #272 Share Posted April 18, 2019 There's a pro-Theosophy thread running here right now. When predicting the life of a fringe idea, it's difficult to make an overstatement. Harte 3 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVK Posted April 18, 2019 Author #273 Share Posted April 18, 2019 15 hours ago, Swede said: The geological aspect has already been well addressed. In my experience, even technologies such as portable high-level microscopy would resolve the issue, not to mention more sophisticated scanning technologies. That and learning basic geology. To be clear, are you saying the the issue hasn't been fully resolved but could be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted April 18, 2019 #274 Share Posted April 18, 2019 To be clear, he's saying that anyone that considers this an issue could resolve it themselves, assuming they are qualified to do so. Harte 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted April 18, 2019 #275 Share Posted April 18, 2019 21 hours ago, Hanslune said: It often takes a long time for an idea to die even when the basis of it is falsified. Harte can tell you there are still people talking about - and believing - stuff Sitchin and Velikovsky taked about 50+ years ago. Heck people still believe in the flat earth. Good point. The lifespan of some fringe propositions can be disturbingly extensive. . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now