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

WVK
7 minutes ago, stereologist said:

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. 

Why wood?  Why not a concrete mold or stone 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WVK
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:  :- !  .

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
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?

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
34 minutes ago, stereologist said:

And what keeps the concrete from sticking to the stone mold?

 

Hippopotamus fat

  • Like 3
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
1 hour ago, stereologist said:

There must be some evidence of molds. 

In the coffins used to cook "meat beer"? :o

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
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.

  • Haha 5

Share this post


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

And what keeps the concrete from sticking to the stone mold?

 

Multi part mold 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
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.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Multi part mold 

Hi WVK

Forms are usually oiled so that they can be easily removed and reused.

jmccr8

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gaden
Posted (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 by Gaden
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
Posted (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) asvicious” 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 by Swede
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
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

cVJ5Pj6.jpg

Upper tier of G2

yVsYoQ6.jpg

nah

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
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.

.

.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trelane
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?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
Posted (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 by Hanslune
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

snip.  never mind.  Misread it.

Edited by OverSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
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.

.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
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.

.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
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.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

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

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WVK
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede
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.

.

  • 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.