Atlantis Online
August 10, 2022, 03:33:54 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: FARMING FROM 6,000 YEARS AGO
http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=156622&command=displayContent&sourceNode=156618&contentPK=18789712&folderPk=87030
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

the Giza Building Project

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: the Giza Building Project  (Read 7743 times)
Catastrophe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 147


« Reply #150 on: May 12, 2007, 02:06:15 pm »

You are coming round.

It is not a very big step for you to gain enormous credibility.

Just say you THINK Davidovits MIGHT have a point, but you understand that ALL logic is to the contrary.

Still waiting on the CRUCIAL weight question. Remember the 280 ton colossi?

Come on. Do the right thing!

Wink
Report Spam   Logged
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #151 on: May 12, 2007, 04:28:28 pm »

Cat
Why don't you take the time to read what people actually say in their posts? 

I am not a scientist - for about the thousandth time.  I don't NEED credibility.  I have an opinion, just like you or anyone else, and right from the beginning, I stated that in my opinion, the poured concrete theory was logical.  I didn't say I knew the ancient formula, I didn't say I knew Egyptologist Lauer, all I have ever said, is that it makes sense to me, for so large a project as the pyramid, that the blocks would be poured. 

We weren't talking about individual colossi.  We were talking about an architectural feat that's never been matched.  Making a one off is a whole different proposition than building a pyramid.  Even if they somehow managed to quarry the blocks Cat, with copper tools, or stone tools or whatever. and even if they had a gazillion men pulling the blocks, HOW did they line them up so perfectly, even when some of the blocks had protuberences?  Barsoum's pictures are very clear, and I've seen other pictures, where some of the blocks had what looks like a piece hanging down on the edge, and yet the next block molds right into it.  Where are the tomb paintings that show them building the King's Chamber, or putting the roof on it?

This is one picture, but there's another one, which I can't find right now, that was even more complex.

 

You can't keep moving those megalithic blocks in and out, in and out, cutting a bit here, chipping a bit there, until you get it perfect.   
Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Catastrophe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 147


« Reply #152 on: May 12, 2007, 05:54:01 pm »

Quote
We weren't talking about individual colossi. 

I was.

Quote
We were talking about an architectural feat that's never been matched.

There are two very similar sitting right next to it. Any many more feats worldwide.

Are you saying all similar feats worldwide were poured?

If one HAD TO BE poured then why not all?
Report Spam   Logged
Catastrophe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 147


« Reply #153 on: May 12, 2007, 06:38:52 pm »

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/giza.htm

Quote
Though the three Great Pyramids are the most famous and prominent monuments at Giza, ...

Quote
The dimensions of the pyramid called 'Great is the pyramid of Khafre' ... approach those of the pyramid of Khufu

The Encyclopaedia of Ancient Egyptian Architecture Page 121.

Do I understand correctly that Davidovits is suggesting the blocks were poured because they were too heavy to manoeuvre?

How about the granite structures - were they poured also?

Some answers would be appreciated.


Report Spam   Logged
Catastrophe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 147


« Reply #154 on: May 12, 2007, 08:09:42 pm »

Quote
You can't keep moving those megalithic blocks in and out, in and out, cutting a bit here, chipping a bit there, until you get it perfect.

Doesn't look to me as if you cannot insert a razor blade between them.

OK How about this debate?

BTW I am still waiting for a reference where D says you cannot manoeuvre blocks as heavy as 2 tons. Wikipedia states that he asserts this.
Report Spam   Logged
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #155 on: May 13, 2007, 12:27:16 am »

Quote
Do I understand correctly that Davidovits is suggesting the blocks were poured because they were too heavy to manoeuvre?

No
Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Catastrophe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 147


« Reply #156 on: May 13, 2007, 01:54:07 am »

Quote
Quote
Do I understand correctly that Davidovits is suggesting the blocks were poured because they were too heavy to manoeuvre?

No

Please explain why he thinks they had to be poured.

Report Spam   Logged
Catastrophe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 147


« Reply #157 on: May 13, 2007, 01:58:04 am »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Davidovits

Quote
Davidovits was not convinced that the ancient Egyptians possessed the tools or technology to carve and haul the huge (2.5 to 15 ton) limestone blocks that made up the Great Pyramid.

Wikipedia seems to think so.
Report Spam   Logged
Catastrophe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 147


« Reply #158 on: May 13, 2007, 03:52:40 am »

http://www.geopolymer.org/archaeology/pyramids/are-pyramids-made-out-of-concrete-1/2/

Quote
How could the Ancient Egyptians have cut these stones, which are extremely hard, with only the most primitive of tools?.

http://www.geopolymer.org/archaeology/pyramids/are-pyramids-made-out-of-concrete-1/3/

Quote
Egyptian workmen went to outcrops of relatively soft limestone, disaggregated it with water,

How come it is extremely hard on page 2  but relatively soft on page 3?

« Last Edit: May 13, 2007, 04:07:06 am by Catastrophe » Report Spam   Logged
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #159 on: May 13, 2007, 03:53:39 am »

He didn't say they HAD to be poured.  He, like me I guess, finds it more logical to pour and because he has the training and the opportunity, he set out to find out if it was POSSIBLE they were poured.  From his results, he figured they were.  

Not HAD to, not definitely, not absolutely, but from his analysis, it appeared to him that the blocks were a construct.  Prof. Barsoum now suspects the same thing.  Prof. Barsoum figures that part were cut, (on the lower portion) and the upper, inner and outer casing stones were poured.  Hopefully, he will have another paper out soon.  Seems to be in the works.
Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #160 on: May 13, 2007, 04:01:42 am »

Quote
Please explain why he thinks they had to be poured.

Why do you want ME to explain it?  Why can't you read his work yourself?  Why can't you watch his little video?  Why can't you go to the Drexel Un. site and watch Prof. Barsoum's presentation? 
Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Catastrophe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 147


« Reply #161 on: May 13, 2007, 04:08:38 am »


I am asking you because you claim to understand it. How do you explain this?

http://www.geopolymer.org/archaeology/pyramids/are-pyramids-made-out-of-concrete-1/2/

Quote
How could the Ancient Egyptians have cut these stones, which are extremely hard, with only the most primitive of tools?.

http://www.geopolymer.org/archaeology/pyramids/are-pyramids-made-out-of-concrete-1/3/

Quote
Egyptian workmen went to outcrops of relatively soft limestone, disaggregated it with water,

How come it is extremely hard on page 2  but relatively soft on page 3?
Report Spam   Logged
Catastrophe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 147


« Reply #162 on: May 13, 2007, 04:13:47 am »




Quote
Egyptian workmen went to outcrops of relatively soft limestone, disaggregated it with water

They also quarried below or into walls.

It is all described in the references I posted.

The results are there to see.

I am still asking whether granite was poured as there is a lot of explaining to do if so alleged.
Report Spam   Logged
Catastrophe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 147


« Reply #163 on: May 13, 2007, 04:26:54 am »

You said
Quote
He didn't say they HAD to be poured.  He, like me I guess, finds it more logical to pour and because he has the training and the opportunity, he set out to find out if it was POSSIBLE they were poured.  From his results, he figured they were

Not HAD to, not definitely, not absolutely, but from his analysis, it appeared to him that the blocks were a construct.

That is not what his website says.

His web site opens:

Quote
The website reveals how Ancient Egyptians built the pyramids using man-made stones, which look exactly like natural rocks.
The limestone blocks were cast in situ, employing an advanced technology that was later lost, leaving a puzzle hidden for thousands of years inside the pyramid stones. This theory undoubtedly shed an amazing new light on what really happened in Egypt in that remote era.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2007, 04:30:43 am by Catastrophe » Report Spam   Logged
Catastrophe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 147


« Reply #164 on: May 13, 2007, 05:03:53 am »

Page 2

Quote
The Great Pyramid of Kheops is comprised of about 2.5 million blocks, most weigh two tons and could have been hauled by no less than sixty men

Experimental work with a loaded sledge has shown that about three men are required per tonne of load over level ground.

Pictorial evidence of the Djehutyhotep colossus, estimated to weigh about 58 tonnes, shows it mounted on a wooded sledge attached to four ropes each pulled by a team of 43 men.

The very Rekhmire source you quoted, as well as depicting bricks being carried on yokes, shows a building ramp, scaffolding, stone working and transportation.

A building ramp is shown carrying an obelisk. Moreover, in quarry areas, there are numerous examples of transportation roads and loading ramps.

Men on scaffolding are shown finishing and decorating statues.

http://history.memphis.edu/hypostyle/images/hypostyle_karnak_105.jpg

Same source (Rekhmire) shows men with hammers and chisels smoothing a limestone block.

http://hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/ahist/arnold/arnold07.jpg

Also in Rekhmire's tomb men are shown pushing and pulling a sledge loaded with a block of stone.

FACT, FACT, FACT, FACT, FACT.

« Last Edit: May 13, 2007, 05:19:29 am by Catastrophe » Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy