Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
WVK

Concrete pyramids?

295 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Gaden
12 hours ago, MWoo7 said:

oh yes my question was:

Recap: " so DEPOSITS OF LIME, natural deposits ...  will not work as a cement hardener eh?!?!?! or as mentioned the chemical reaction won't happen? "

 

 



Misc.:
See I was curious because in some northern parts WHITE LIMESTONE IS EVERYWHERE ! and maybe people haven't looked for beds of lime, but if that type of lime is not good for cement no wonder nobody touched it.

 I would simply suggest to you that you look up the word 'cement', and read how it is made, and how it is used.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Megaro
Posted (edited)

I think the casting theories may be a byproduct of the countless diagrams, drawings, and mock-ups seeking to explain pyramid superstructure construction with the use of evenly-sized, symmetrical, orderly blocks.  They look great when used to make an elementary school project pyramid built with sugar cubes, and even better, when creating the latest Houdin CGI video.  

Edited by Megaro
grammar
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
On 4/2/2019 at 11:06 PM, MWoo7 said:

oh yes my question was:

Recap: " so DEPOSITS OF LIME, natural deposits ...  will not work as a cement hardener eh?!?!?! or as mentioned the chemical reaction won't happen? "


Misc.:
See I was curious because in some northern parts WHITE LIMESTONE IS EVERYWHERE ! and maybe people haven't looked for beds of lime, but if that type of lime is not good for cement no wonder nobody touched it.

Wikipedia has a good article on Roman concrete - a known ancient concrete:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_concrete  Notice that, as it says, once they developed it, they used it in everything. 

Here's some ancient Roman concrete 

120717-79-Concrete-Roman-Rome-Architectu

And a REALLY good (but long) page on Roman concrete and cements and their use in architecture:

https://brewminate.com/understanding-roman-concrete/

Now, as to the actual process, they have to beat the stone into small pieces (or collect rubble) and THEN they have to fire it in a kiln for 4-5 hours (Wikihow on this process is here: https://www.wikihow.com/Make-Concrete)  Given that the largest ovens the Egyptians had were around the size of our modern ovens, that means that in order to have enough ovens to make the lime, the Giza plateau would have had to been turned into a lime-making factory full of these moderate sized ovens.  So it might take a hundred ovens and half a day to make enough lime to make one car-sized block of concrete (the largest blocks on the base of the pyramid are roughly the size of a small compact car)

Then you have to do the form for the block and then you have to pour the concrete and then set it.  And because the blocks touch each other, that means that block #1 would have had to be in place and cured before they started on block 2... and they would have had to have some thin material (of variable thickness, because the blocks vary in how close they touch) to put on the edge of block 1 and then make the wooden form around for the next block.  Then it has to set (setting time is about half a year.)

So there'd be evidence of concrete all over Giza, from pots with hardened concrete (that they threw away) to concrete used for many other things.

...and there isn't that evidence.

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
45 minutes ago, Megaro said:

I think the casting theories may be a byproduct of the countless diagrams, drawings, and mock-ups seeking to explain pyramid superstructure construction with the use of evenly-sized, symmetrical, orderly blocks.  They look great when used to make an elementary school project pyramid built with sugar cubes, and even better, when creating the latest Houdin CGI video.  

That's a reasonable observation, I think.  I hadn't stopped to consider it, but you're right that the even sized symmetrical blocks in drawings and reconstructions does lead to a very poor understanding of what it looked like.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jarocal
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Wikipedia has a good article on Roman concrete - a known ancient concrete:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_concrete  Notice that, as it says, once they developed it, they used it in everything. 

Here's some ancient Roman concrete 

120717-79-Concrete-Roman-Rome-Architectu

And a REALLY good (but long) page on Roman concrete and cements and their use in architecture:

https://brewminate.com/understanding-roman-concrete/

Now, as to the actual process, they have to beat the stone into small pieces (or collect rubble) and THEN they have to fire it in a kiln for 4-5 hours (Wikihow on this process is here: https://www.wikihow.com/Make-Concrete)  Given that the largest ovens the Egyptians had were around the size of our modern ovens, that means that in order to have enough ovens to make the lime, the Giza plateau would have had to been turned into a lime-making factory full of these moderate sized ovens.  So it might take a hundred ovens and half a day to make enough lime to make one car-sized block of concrete (the largest blocks on the base of the pyramid are roughly the size of a small compact car)

Then you have to do the form for the block and then you have to pour the concrete and then set it.  And because the blocks touch each other, that means that block #1 would have had to be in place and cured before they started on block 2... and they would have had to have some thin material (of variable thickness, because the blocks vary in how close they touch) to put on the edge of block 1 and then make the wooden form around for the next block.  Then it has to set (setting time is about half a year.)

So there'd be evidence of concrete all over Giza, from pots with hardened concrete (that they threw away) to concrete used for many other things.

...and there isn't that evidence.

 

Couple things,

-To be comparable to modern Portland concrete not only does the lime need to be fired but cement clay also.

-The first block molded does not need be cured before pouring the second, only the initial "set-up" where it hardens sufficiently to retain its shape. Maintaining a certain moisture level throughout the block as it does cure over time will provide a stronger end product. Manufactured Stone Veneer (typically 2.5-7 cm in thickness) is not fully cured when demolded. Most smaller companies pour the molds once a day but admixture can be added to the cement allowing for product meeting astm compression and strength ratings yet be poured/demolded/repoured within a 12hr span. Even Companies such as where I am employed who only pour once a day need to allow the demolded product to finish curing before transport for installation or you end up with twice as many fake stones half the size of the ones you poured...

- Blocks large as the ones for the pyramids at the Giza plateau would require a significant amount of vibration to remove air voids. Tapping the outside of molds for a very long extended period of time would suffice for about 10cm of depth but the interior of the blocks would look like swiss cheese from the air infiltration at the time of pouring.

Edit to add.

Coloration of modern Concretes is generally achieved by the use of Ferric Oxide pigment. The "Base" color is added directly to the cement mix but imitation of the various grain and hue manufacturers are attempting to replicate is a very thin amount applied to the mold surface before filling. Applications such as "StampKrete" also use pigmented stains on the surface of the poured cement that has minimal penetration beyond the surface.

Edited by Jarocal
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oniomancer
4 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Wikipedia has a good article on Roman concrete - a known ancient concrete:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_concrete  Notice that, as it says, once they developed it, they used it in everything. 

Here's some ancient Roman concrete 

 

And a REALLY good (but long) page on Roman concrete and cements and their use in architecture:

https://brewminate.com/understanding-roman-concrete/

Now, as to the actual process, they have to beat the stone into small pieces (or collect rubble) and THEN they have to fire it in a kiln for 4-5 hours (Wikihow on this process is here: https://www.wikihow.com/Make-Concrete)  Given that the largest ovens the Egyptians had were around the size of our modern ovens, that means that in order to have enough ovens to make the lime, the Giza plateau would have had to been turned into a lime-making factory full of these moderate sized ovens.  So it might take a hundred ovens and half a day to make enough lime to make one car-sized block of concrete (the largest blocks on the base of the pyramid are roughly the size of a small compact car)

Hmmm...how many "bread ovens" did they find in the workman's village? :whistle::devil:

4 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Then you have to do the form for the block and then you have to pour the concrete and then set it.  And because the blocks touch each other, that means that block #1 would have had to be in place and cured before they started on block 2... and they would have had to have some thin material (of variable thickness, because the blocks vary in how close they touch) to put on the edge of block 1 and then make the wooden form around for the next block.  Then it has to set (setting time is about half a year.)

I may have mentioned some time ago, it occurred to me You could get around the molding form problem by doing every other block then using the sides to self-form. After the first row was complete, you could then use that as a third side. :yes: 'Course the material would probably settle into the cracks...

4 hours ago, Kenemet said:

So there'd be evidence of concrete all over Giza, from pots with hardened concrete (that they threw away) to concrete used for many other things.

...and there isn't that evidence.

 

Obviously it was sacred ritual concrete.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gaden
4 hours ago, Jarocal said:

Couple things,

-To be comparable to modern Portland concrete not only does the lime need to be fired but cement clay also.

-The first block molded does not need be cured before pouring the second, only the initial "set-up" where it hardens sufficiently to retain its shape. Maintaining a certain moisture level throughout the block as it does cure over time will provide a stronger end product. Manufactured Stone Veneer (typically 2.5-7 cm in thickness) is not fully cured when demolded. Most smaller companies pour the molds once a day but admixture can be added to the cement allowing for product meeting astm compression and strength ratings yet be poured/demolded/repoured within a 12hr span. Even Companies such as where I am employed who only pour once a day need to allow the demolded product to finish curing before transport for installation or you end up with twice as many fake stones half the size of the ones you poured...

- Blocks large as the ones for the pyramids at the Giza plateau would require a significant amount of vibration to remove air voids. Tapping the outside of molds for a very long extended period of time would suffice for about 10cm of depth but the interior of the blocks would look like swiss cheese from the air infiltration at the time of pouring.

Edit to add.

Coloration of modern Concretes is generally achieved by the use of Ferric Oxide pigment. The "Base" color is added directly to the cement mix but imitation of the various grain and hue manufacturers are attempting to replicate is a very thin amount applied to the mold surface before filling. Applications such as "StampKrete" also use pigmented stains on the surface of the poured cement that has minimal penetration beyond the surface.

And yet, it would never look like this;

building-blocks-great-pyramid-500.jpg.5ad0e92b09ff2cab87e4de727f7faf97.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem

One observation I have to add is about the lack of reinforcement in the blocks.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WVK
14 hours ago, Oniomancer said:

I may have mentioned some time ago, it occurred to me You could get around the molding form problem by doing every other block then using the sides to self-form. After the first row was complete, you could then use that as a third side. :yes: 'Course the material would probably settle into the cracks...

"Course the material would probably settle into the cracks"

Like this?:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/522005d3e4b005122eb8eb5e/t/550c8ffce4b06e8da2e96844/1426886660723/?format=1500w

https://watershedmaterials.com/blog/2015/3/31/geopolymer-concrete-egyptian-pyramids-and-a-new-way-forward-for-sustainable-masonry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WVK

"In the meantime, I strongly believe - and I hope I convinced you - that there is enough of a case here for the Egyptological community to look at this plausible theory more carefully and seriously. It is a fascinating possibility with major implications"

http://www.materials.drexel.edu/media/146595/pyramidpresentation_lores.pdf

Zahi Hawass response:

 "It's highly stupid," he said via a spokesman. "The pyramids are made from solid blocks of quarried limestone. To suggest otherwise is idiotic and insulting."

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

The one block that shows a lip is a block that appears to have been trimmed down to allow the casing stone to fit properly.

The Drexel info is rather odd. It makes many claims that are based on looking without actually inspecting. There are also statements such as no copper tools were found yet I don't believe that is the case.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308889702_Old_Kingdom_Copper_Tools_and_Model_Tools

Most of what is stated in that article is simple an argument from incredulity rather than evidence of casting.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WVK
46 minutes ago, stereologist said:

The one block that shows a lip is a block that appears to have been trimmed down to allow the casing stone to fit properly.T

 

Looks finely done, a lot of skilled stonework hours to achieve?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
12 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

One observation I have to add is about the lack of reinforcement in the blocks.

 

Maybe if you use the secret method employed by the Egyptians, with each block carefully crafted so that it appears to the trained eye to be exactly the same as the bedrock that was initially pulverised to make the cement from which it was then cast, you don't need steel reinforcement?   Perhaps the carefully reconstructed fossils do the job instead? 

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
50 minutes ago, WVK said:

Looks finely done, a lot of skilled stonework hours to achieve?  

I saw a video not long ago in which a guy working with a copper chisel and a wooden hammer flattens out a stone in an hour. His chisel was modern copper if I recall correctly. That makes it softer than one with impurities. He did say he had to constantly sharpen his chisel.

These people are banging chisels all day long. I imagine they get pretty good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WVK
4 minutes ago, stereologist said:

I saw a video not long ago in which a guy working with a copper chisel and a wooden hammer flattens out a stone in an hour. His chisel was modern copper if I recall correctly. That makes it softer than one with impurities. He did say he had to constantly sharpen his chisel.

Did he create the 90 degree angle seen here? 

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/522005d3e4b005122eb8eb5e/t/550c8ffce4b06e8da2e96844/1426886660723/?format=1500w

Perhaps this block was poured in with the casting stone in place seeping into the crevices . That would have made the cladding  stable/well supported strong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

I was just examining the Drexel ppt and it has a really truly odd statement.

On page 48 is 

Quote

We know they are natural because of the veins shown here. How that was Accomplished, with nothing harder than copper, is simply stunning and astounding.

Those are not veins. They appear to be xenoliths. These are "foreign rocks" caught up in the melt.

How does he think the ancients are going to melt and slowly cool rock to form granite? These are igneous rocks with large crystals. They form out of molten rock and the crystal size shows a slow cooling.

And doesn't he realize that there are plenty of things harder than copper out there. The granite in front of him is harder than copper. The basalt in the area is harder. The sand under his feet is harder than copper.

Page 49 states

Quote

Nature is incredibly resourceful and the possibility - even though remote - that the stones we looked at are natural cannot be ruled out.

I don't get it. He didn't bother to investigate to find out if ANY rocks were artificial. 

Then he has two pages of formulas that are odd looking to me. I doubt those super molecules exist. They appear to be mixes of calcium and magnesium carbonates and fluorosilicates. Dolostone is magnesium and calcium carbonates.

This surprised me because I am aware of natural amorphous materials.

Quote

These results are absolutely crucial to the case, because sedimentary rocks are seldom, if ever, amorphous. As important, the chemistries determined, as far as we are aware do NOT exist in nature.

A common amorphous sedimentary material is iron hydroxide, which is called limonite. It can be found as pseudomorphs after pyrite.

Want another commonly known example: think opals.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
14 minutes ago, WVK said:

Did he create the 90 degree angle seen here? 

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/522005d3e4b005122eb8eb5e/t/550c8ffce4b06e8da2e96844/1426886660723/?format=1500w

Perhaps this block was poured in with the casting stone in place seeping into the crevices . That would have made the cladding  stable/well supported strong

You'll have to show that there was a pour.

Looks to me like someone cut down and across to allow a block to be placed next to it.

The photo does not tell us if there is a purpose to this feature. The scoops in front of the rock have a purpose I'm sure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

On page 56 of the ppt from Drexel I see a photo of silica nanospheres.

My guess is that this is due to bacterial action or the result of the breakdown of humic acid in the original deposition of the limestone. The chemical makeup is dolostone, but that is rarely deposited directly. Typically it is a limestone deposit that is altered to dolostone. Humic acid can dissolve silica. As bacteria breakdown the humic acid the silica comes out of solution.

It doesn't say anything about the photo but those types of structures do not suggest artificial.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

I should add that a fluorosilicate is an igneous form. One of the more common names people would associate with that type of mineral is topaz.

He could be looking at a small grain of a piece of what had been beach sand millions of years ago.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oniomancer
4 hours ago, WVK said:

Difficult to carve, relatively easy to cut with a saw. Seems consistent with a break-off, possibly from prying out a partially cut block. The fact it's on the starting course is significant. Obvious question is why out of the whole pyramid there's only one example, and only on the horizontal?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
1 hour ago, WVK said:

Did he create the 90 degree angle seen here? 

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/522005d3e4b005122eb8eb5e/t/550c8ffce4b06e8da2e96844/1426886660723/?format=1500w

Perhaps this block was poured in with the casting stone in place seeping into the crevices . That would have made the cladding  stable/well supported strong

What is the context of the photo and where was it taken?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WVK
9 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

What is the context of the photo and where was it taken?

A ground level block in front of the Great Pyramid of Khufu includes a irregular lip at the bottom that would have been very hard, and somewhat pointless, to carve. This lip indicates that the block was cast in place -  the material in the lip having slid out under the temporary wooden mold before hardening. Barsoum analyzed a piece of material from the bottom lip and says he did not find smoking gun evidence. “The only logical conclusion is that after 5000 years, the binding phase has basically been washed away. Solution? Get samples from the core of that block. Easier said than done.”

https://watershedmaterials.com/blog/2015/3/31/geopolymer-concrete-egyptian-pyramids-and-a-new-way-forward-for-sustainable-masonry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
6 minutes ago, WVK said:

A ground level block in front of the Great Pyramid of Khufu includes a irregular lip at the bottom that would have been very hard, and somewhat pointless, to carve. This lip indicates that the block was cast in place -  the material in the lip having slid out under the temporary wooden mold before hardening. Barsoum analyzed a piece of material from the bottom lip and says he did not find smoking gun evidence. “The only logical conclusion is that after 5000 years, the binding phase has basically been washed away. Solution? Get samples from the core of that block. Easier said than done.”

https://watershedmaterials.com/blog/2015/3/31/geopolymer-concrete-egyptian-pyramids-and-a-new-way-forward-for-sustainable-masonry

You suggest without evidence that "This lip indicates that the block was cast in place"

Isn't the basis for your statement that you suggest "that would have been very hard, and somewhat pointless, to carve"

What if there had been a use for that lip? Hard to tell from the photo since it does not give us the opportunity to look at the context.

What we do not see on any block is the evidence of a mold surface. The face are remarkably smooth for a mold surface. I see no evidence of wood grain. I see no evidence of any seams in the mold surface. I see no saw marks or marks where the wood was split. There are no marks where a board was warped or bulged outward from the pressure of the supposed concrete poured into the mold. Where are the pieces of charcoal or wood ash that would have gotten into the concrete? Where are the wood chips or anything else modern such as pieces of cloth? What about the boats? They were held together with ropes. How was the mold assembled? Tied with ropes? Did they have nails for molds, but not nails for boats? 

I see zero evidence for molds. Care to explain that?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WVK
7 minutes ago, stereologist said:

I see zero evidence for molds. Care to explain that?

No as I am not the one who wrote any of that.  That said what about erosion erasing the marks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
21 minutes ago, WVK said:

No as I am not the one who wrote any of that.  That said what about erosion erasing the marks?

I thought of that, but remember that the block faces are still there and in a desert environment.

Wouldn't a side view offer a view of the irregularity of the mold surface? Are we going to make the next giant assumption be that the AE produced plywood to make molds?

Did they go to old grove forests and saw down trees 8 and 10 feet across to make big molds that left behind no evidence of seams between boards?

They go on and on about if they didn't carve it then it must be molded argument, but not once do they show evidence of a mold surface.

The argument really reminds me of the argument that the ancients knew how to soften stone. That argument is very similar to this one. It's look, look, what else could it be?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.