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

Swede
9 hours ago, Phaeton80 said:


...refute based on facts and figures;;;

Also yet to be demonstrated by the proponents of the “cast-in-place concrete” hypothesis is a synthetic geopolymeric limestone sample that is similar to the casing stone not only in visual appearance and bulk chemistry but also in texture, microstructure, minor constituent mineralogy, and especially in calcareous, alkali-aluminosilicate-free binder microchemistry. Based on a detailed literature survey on this debate and evaluation of all published results in light of this present comprehensive study, it is the author’s opinion that we are far from accepting even as a remote possibility of a “man-made” origin of pyramid stones. It is indeed this absence of any geopolymeric signature in the pyramid stones, which should encourage re-evaluation of apparent “mysteries” in carving and hoisting large pyramid blocks, originally offered to support the “man-made” origin.
 
The author would also like to extend his thanks to Davidovits for his yet-to-be-proven, novel yet fictitious geopolymer hypothesis of pyramid stones...(emphases added).
 
 
Note: Reference not a newspaper article or school "curiosity" page.
.
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
6 hours 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 

Much of the "forming" was actually done in the quarrying process. The Tura limestone utilized came from a specific stratum that required excavation to reach. As a sedimentary material, the formation has natural bedding planes that were utilized to remove slabs. The material, which retained some degree of moisture due to its depth, was most easily worked in its "damp" state. The final finishing of the ~ 51angle likely occurred as the blocks were placed into position in order to achieve a flush finish. Waste materials would have been dispersed down the slope of the structure.

.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
4 hours ago, Oniomancer said:

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

Hi Oniomancer,

My Brother has a heritage house 2 3/4 stories that are built from the basement footings up out of cement blocks poured on site to look like stone. As is his usual form he excavated the back wall to do some work and left it open for about 8 months. I had been working out of town for a year and was unaware of what he did and was helping him on a clients job to get it done when his ex phoned and said that there was a loud sound so we left the job to see what happened. When we got there I saw that some of the blocks under the main beam of the house just blew out because there was not an equal pressure due to the excavation I went and picked up some beams and jackposts to reduce pressure on the wall while waiting for my engineer to get there.

I would think that if the pyramid blocks were cast and give climatic conditions including earthquakes that there would be much more cracking in the blocks themselves due to the weight of the structure. Back home in many of the older homes degradation of the concrete due to having too much lime in the mix is quite common and one can see the exterior of the concrete turning to powder from exposure especially on the exposed interior walls.

Not saying it can't be done but by this time I would expect to see some signs of stress fracturing.

jmccr8

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oniomancer
1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Oniomancer,

My Brother has a heritage house 2 3/4 stories that are built from the basement footings up out of cement blocks poured on site to look like stone. As is his usual form he excavated the back wall to do some work and left it open for about 8 months. I had been working out of town for a year and was unaware of what he did and was helping him on a clients job to get it done when his ex phoned and said that there was a loud sound so we left the job to see what happened. When we got there I saw that some of the blocks under the main beam of the house just blew out because there was not an equal pressure due to the excavation I went and picked up some beams and jackposts to reduce pressure on the wall while waiting for my engineer to get there.

I would think that if the pyramid blocks were cast and give climatic conditions including earthquakes that there would be much more cracking in the blocks themselves due to the weight of the structure. Back home in many of the older homes degradation of the concrete due to having too much lime in the mix is quite common and one can see the exterior of the concrete turning to powder from exposure especially on the exposed interior walls.

Not saying it can't be done but by this time I would expect to see some signs of stress fracturing.

jmccr8

A freestanding wall with minimal support is a slightly different situation. The GP by contrast is self-supporting through and through masonry and is sitting directly on the bedrock. You'll notice also a lot of the time when block walls crack, they crack along the mortar rather than through the block.

Main point I was going for though with the post you quoted is to my knowledge, blocks don't specifically require rebar.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
35 minutes ago, Oniomancer said:

A freestanding wall with minimal support is a slightly different situation. The GP by contrast is self-supporting through and through masonry and is sitting directly on the bedrock. You'll notice also a lot of the time when block walls crack, they crack along the mortar rather than through the block.

Main point I was going for though with the post you quoted is to my knowledge, blocks don't specifically require rebar.

Hi Oniomancer

Yes of course and that was understood, if one pours large blocks of concrete in those temperatures they would need to keep the exterior of the block wet so that the concrete drys evenly for greater strength before installing them and this would take a fair bit of time and with blocks that large  and with irregular shapes to me would be a reason for fracturing as the surfaces would not have the same pressure on them even if they were stacked. The gapes between the blocks and other voids would not give equal pressure and given that there are millions of them the lower levels would be under great pressure which is why I mentioned the earthquakes.

I am by no means the go-to guy on this subject but offering some of my observation from having worked in the construction renovation industry and yes I do use professional engineers.

I am going to leave a few links for the readers that are following along and as always respect your input.

List of earthquakes in Egypt - Wikipedia

Earthquakes In Egypt In The Pharaonic Period: The Evidence At Dahshur In The Late Middle Kingdom in: Offerings to the Discerning Eye

Earthquake ground motion simulation at Zoser pyramid using the stochastic method: A step toward the preservation of an ancient Egyptian heritage - ScienceDirect

STRUCTURE magazine | New Theory on Egypt’s Collapsing Pyramids

jmccr8

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oniomancer
1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Oniomancer

(snippidydoodah)

Sounds good. All I would say though is all we can see of the GP is the inner skin, the dermis if you will. All that's visible is what's near the surface, formerly under, what, 2 layers of casing stones? Considerably less pressure.

(And I'm not arguing in favor of concrete BTW, just prodding at potential weak spots in the counterargument, the better to shore them up.)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
18 minutes ago, Oniomancer said:

Sounds good. All I would say though is all we can see of the GP is the inner skin, the dermis if you will. All that's visible is what's near the surface, formerly under, what, 2 layers of casing stones? Considerably less pressure.

(And I'm not arguing in favor of concrete BTW, just prodding at potential weak spots in the counterargument, the better to shore them up.)

I believe a few of the outer cladding stones on the great pyramid are still in place - might be a few more - I don't recall exactly

 

main-qimg-2c03152d53a229d0a262343348b2f8

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WVK
On 4/6/2019 at 1:47 PM, Hanslune said:

Heck what would a geologist know about stone? They study geo's for God's sake! The fact so many of them study this land form is to me an indication of a great hoax!

Isn't mixing geologic materials and whatnot together to produce concrete chemistry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
1 hour ago, WVK said:

Isn't mixing geologic materials and whatnot together to produce concrete chemistry?

It's a thought, eh?  :huh:       What about mixing two essential elements like vodka and tonic?   :tu:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, Swede said:
Also yet to be demonstrated by the proponents of the “cast-in-place concrete” hypothesis is a synthetic geopolymeric limestone sample that is similar to the casing stone not only in visual appearance and bulk chemistry but also in texture, microstructure, minor constituent mineralogy, and especially in calcareous, alkali-aluminosilicate-free binder microchemistry. Based on a detailed literature survey on this debate and evaluation of all published results in light of this present comprehensive study, it is the author’s opinion that we are far from accepting even as a remote possibility of a “man-made” origin of pyramid stones. It is indeed this absence of any geopolymeric signature in the pyramid stones, which should encourage re-evaluation of apparent “mysteries” in carving and hoisting large pyramid blocks, originally offered to support the “man-made” origin.
 
The author would also like to extend his thanks to Davidovits for his yet-to-be-proven, novel yet fictitious geopolymer hypothesis of pyramid stones...(emphases added).
 
 
Note: Reference not a newspaper article or school "curiosity" page.
.


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:

Quote

Abstract
The mystery of the construction of the great pyramids of Egypt could be elucidated by physico-chemical mea-surements on small pieces of the material. In this paper, we give several arguments against the present point of view of most Egyptologists who do not admit another method than hewn blocks. We give several pieces of evidence that themasonry was entirely built by a moulding procedure involving the use of ingredients that were all available in the regionof Cairo.

The Cheops’ pyramid, with a volume of 2.7x106 m3, was completed over a period of 20–25 years. One can then estimate the average dailycadence at 300–400 blocks having all an averagevolume of 1 m3 (i.e. 750–1000 tons). This repre-sents one block put at the right place every 2 min. To achieve this goal, 1 m2 of hewn face would havebeen ready every 20 s! What a performance with tools made of stone or soft copper! Hoisting hugeblocks of more than two tons with rudimentary means (wheels and pulleys did not exist at that time) is evidently an impossible task. As several dozens of those monuments have been constructed on the left bank of the Nile by the Pharaohs of the first dynasties, we cannot imagine the average time of construction of each pyramid to be longer. When looking carefully at the surface of the blocks of the pyramid of Cheops (those visible today and therefore those underlying the casingblocks, which totally disappeared), one clearly sees irregularity in the shape (Fig. 1), but a remarkable close fit of adjacent faces (Fig. 2). It would be surprising that these blocks could have been so badly cut but so perfectly joined. This admirable close fit would have been easier to achieve if the blocks had been hewn with perfect rectangular shapes. Furthermore, this care in this optimal juxtaposition was useless because these blocks (visible today) were originally hidden under the casing [1,2].

https://www.scribd.com/document/251985298/1-PIXE-PIGE-NMR-Study-of-the-Masonry-of-the-Pyramid-of-Cheops-at-Giza-Demortier-2004


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.

 

 

Edited by Phaeton80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
5 hours ago, WVK said:

Isn't mixing geologic materials and whatnot together to produce concrete chemistry?

Yes, but a geologist still must know the processes that happen in nature. Hence organic chemistry, volcanic chemistry and Earth Science. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I don't see a practical reason for all the additional work as theorized. Seems a bit much, or extra as the kids say.

Edited by Trelane
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
26 minutes ago, Trelane said:

I don't see a practical reason for all the additional work as theorized. Seems a bit much, or extra as the kids say.

That's what I've been trying to say. No common sense or pragmatism. Just 3 times the work with 2 times the resources and manpower. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

Concrete could greatly reduce the amount of ramp needed

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

You are again repeating the same claims. As noted earlier the core stones aren't poured - the article is just another persons view and review of the Davidout idea.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
25 minutes ago, WVK said:

Concrete could greatly reduce the amount of ramp needed

 

Ramp need was the least of the problems. Large amounts of material for the forms would be the biggest.

and where are the forms? and mixing tools? and containers it was mixed in? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Piney said:

Ramp need was the least of the problems. Large amounts of material for the forms would be the biggest.

and where are the forms? and mixing tools? and containers it was mixed in? 

As noted numerous times before - where are the tens of thousand/nay hundreds of thousands of identical poured stones? That tiny little detailed cannot be over looked no matter how many times the same claim is made.

Its kinda funny the image shows the concrete being poured in a large mass - which would make sense except it wasn't pour in large masses.....

pyramid_concrete.jpg

Edited by Hanslune
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
2 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

As noted numerous times before - where are the tens of thousand/nay hundreds of thousands of identical poured stones? That tiny little detailed cannot be over looked no matter how many times the same claim is made.

It's apparently completely overlooked. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
Just now, Piney said:

It's apparently completely overlooked. 

Yeah it's kinda telling that the one thing missing from the 'they used concrete' is any sign of the poured stones - that would have been noted very early on. One has to be creative

However, we are wasting time going over this yet again........

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pettytalk
12 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Yeah it's kinda telling that the one thing missing from the 'they used concrete' is any sign of the poured stones - that would have been noted very early on. One has to be creative

However, we are wasting time going over this yet again........

 

Signs, signs, everywhere signs.

Five Man Electrical Band - Signs

What are the signs of "creativity"? Certainly it's not repeatability in one sense of that "word". A good creation of the mind should be something fresh, new, and safe from outside ridicule.

Wasting time going over this yet again, you say? Therefore it seems that the subject of Atlantis is not the only one where we keep chewing the cud around here. Regurgitating is necessary when something is not digestible at first ingestion. The mere swallowing process will not always assure the proper absorption of the required nutrients, either for the body, nor for the mind, unless it has been properly digested. And proper digestion takes "time". 

Hanslune, yours is a very logical approach to putting the suggestion to rest. A much needed logical argument that asks the key question, is there any "concrete" evidence? You are not alone on this concrete argument.

Any structure, to stand properly, has to have a solid foundation on which it is to be edified on. Truth, the structure, cannot be edified on a foundation of speculative misconceptions, as it will never stand the test of time.

Time, as it stands, does not stand still in our physical world. Time and time again, these arguments stand not on solid ground, and topple, as it's not holy ground. Truth is holy, and it stands on holy ground, where time has no effect. Truth is the eternal concrete evidence. Truth is always true, forever and ever.

Time cannot change truth! And the truth is that at this time there is no concrete evidence of pored stones. Although there are plenty of poured tears. Tears of laughter. First find the concrete evidence and then build around that, even if we are building mere speculations, or pyramids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WVK
5 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

First find the concrete evidence and then build around that, even if we are building mere speculations, or pyramids.

But wiil the authorities allow additional samples to be gathered for analysis?.  "MIT professors explicitly confirmed a wave of emotionally laden, angry criticism was send their way for just entertaining this infamous hypothesis."  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, WVK said:

But wiil the authorities allow additional samples to be gathered for analysis?.  "MIT professors explicitly confirmed a wave of emotionally laden, angry criticism was send their way for just entertaining this infamous hypothesis."  

So you are saying that the ancient Egyptian invented and used 'concrete' on the great pyramid only then never used it again - anywhere and there is no scrap - I can assure you that the quarries were found in the 19th century to be full of rubble - why not search that for the 'concrete' they need? Do they need Tura limes stone for the cladding stones? The buildings of Cairo are built of it - where do you think the cladding stone went to....

Not being given a part of the GP is a good excuse but it doesn't hold up if there was 'concrete' there they could find it - but oddly they cannot. Now haven't we gone over this before?

 

Edited by Hanslune
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

But wiil the authorities allow additional samples to be gathered for analysis?.  "MIT professors explicitly confirmed a wave of emotionally laden, angry criticism was send their way for just entertaining this infamous hypothesis."  

Heck, they could just buy a plane ticket to Cairo and walk up to the pyramid and LOOK at the rocks with a geologist.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

In all of this I still do not see a single piece of evidence of the mold itself. It should show up someplace. I see it on modern concrete structures but nothing at all on the GP or other structures.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

canvas-prints-concrete-background-with-v

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. 

  • Like 5

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.