the Giza Building Project

[Qoais]

Cat

I am asking you because you claim to understand it.

All I've ever CLAIMED to understand is how to pour cement.  I have said from the start, in both forums, that I felt the theory of poured blocks makes sense to me.  I have quoted the works of the two scientists that have done work in this area, for the sake of conversation and finding out what other people thought.  There is no doubt in my mind as to what YOU think.  You've made it abundantly clear with your name calling, your insults, and your overbearing attitude.

I have no desire to debate with you on anything.  You refuse to read the information, you twist everything a person says, you deliberately divert attention to tedious trivia, and I'm tired of it.  Whoever originally posted this regarding your personality, certainly had you pegged:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 RULES, by the Observation of which, a Man of Wit and Learning may nevertheless make himself a disagreeable Companion.

Your Business is to shine; therefore you must by all means prevent the shining of others, for their Brightness may make yours the less distinguish'd. To this End,

1. If possible engross the whole Discourse; and when other Matter fails, talk much of your-self, your Education, your Knowledge, your Circumstances, your Successes in Business, your Victories in Disputes, your own wise Sayings and Observations on particular Occasions, &c. &c. &c.;

2. If when you are out of Breath, one of the Company should seize the Opportunity of saying something; watch his Words, and, if possible, find somewhat either in his Sentiment or Expression, immediately to contradict and raise a Dispute upon. Rather than fail, criticise even his Grammar.

3. If another should be saying an indisputably good Thing; either give no Attention to it; or interrupt him; or draw away the Attention of others; or, if you can guess what he would be at, be quick and say it before him; or, if he gets it said, and you perceive the Company pleas'd with it, own it to be a good Thing, and withal remark that it had been said by Bacon, Locke, Bayle, or some other eminent Writer; thus you deprive him of the Reputation he might have gain'd by it, and gain some yourself, as you hereby show your great Reading and Memory.

4. When modest Men have been thus treated by you a few times, they will chuse ever after to be silent in your Company; then you may shine on without Fear of a Rival; rallying them at the same time for their Dullness, which will be to you a new Fund of Wit.

Thus you will be sure to please yourself. The polite Man aims at pleasing others, but you shall go beyond him even in that. A Man can be present only in one Company, but may at the same time be absent in twenty. He can please only where he is, you where-ever you are not.
The Pennsylvania Gazette, November 15, 1750

[Catastrophe]

I have no desire to debate with you on anything.

OK. I take that as your throwing in the towel.

I am available on AR if you believe you have any sort of case to make.

[Catastrophe]

http://forums.atlantisrising.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=000487&p=24

[Catastrophe]

http://forums.atlantisrising.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=000487&p=24

[Mark of Australia]

Hi Qoais ,Cat

I see things are getting a little heated around here.

I had posted in Reply #2 of 'New Pyramid construction hypothesis' about the poured blocks hypothesis being refuted: http://atlantisonline.smfforfree2.com/index.php/topic,678.0.html    ...But now I found an article about Barsoum's work that seems to support the concrete block theory.Here it is :

The Surprising Truth Behind the Construction of the Great Pyramids
By Sheila Berninger, and Dorilona Rose

posted: 18 May 2007

"This is not my day job." So begins Michel Barsoum as he recounts his foray into the mysteries of the Great Pyramids of Egypt. As a well respected researcher in the field of ceramics, Barsoum never expected his career to take him down a path of history, archaeology, and "political" science, with materials research mixed in.

As a distinguished professor in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at Drexel University, his daily routine consists mainly of teaching students about ceramics, or performing research on a new class of materials, the so-called MAX Phases, that he and his colleagues discovered in the 1990s. These modern ceramics are machinable, thermal-shock resistant, and are better conductors of heat and electricity than many metals-making them potential candidates for use in nuclear power plants, the automotive industry, jet engines, and a range of other high-demand systems.

Then Barsoum received an unexpected phone call from Michael Carrell, a friend of a retired colleague of Barsoum, who called to chat with the Egyptian-born Barsoum about how much he knew of the mysteries surrounding the building of the Great Pyramids of Giza, the only remaining of the seven wonders of the ancient world.

The widely accepted theory-that the pyramids were crafted of carved-out giant limestone blocks that workers carried up ramps-had not only not been embraced by everyone, but as important had quite a number of holes.

Burst out laughing

According to the caller, the mysteries had actually been solved by Joseph Davidovits, Director of the Geopolymer Institute in St. Quentin, France, more than two decades ago. Davidovits claimed that the stones of the pyramids were actually made of a very early form of concrete created using a mixture of limestone, clay, lime, and water.

"It was at this point in the conversation that I burst out laughing," says Barsoum. If the pyramids were indeed cast, he says, someone should have proven it beyond a doubt by now, in this day and age, with just a few hours of electron microscopy.

It turned out that nobody had completely proven the theory...yet.

"What started as a two-hour project turned into a five-year odyssey that I undertook with one of my graduate students, Adrish Ganguly, and a colleague in France, Gilles Hug," Barsoum says.

A year and a half later, after extensive scanning electron microscope (SEM) observations and other testing, Barsoum and his research group finally began to draw some conclusions about the pyramids. They found that the tiniest structures within the inner and outer casing stones were indeed consistent with a reconstituted limestone. The cement binding the limestone aggregate was either silicon dioxide (the building block of quartz) or a calcium and magnesium-rich silicate mineral.

The stones also had a high water content-unusual for the normally dry, natural limestone found on the Giza plateau-and the cementing phases, in both the inner and outer casing stones, were amorphous, in other words, their atoms were not arranged in a regular and periodic array. Sedimentary rocks such as limestone are seldom, if ever, amorphous.

The sample chemistries the researchers found do not exist anywhere in nature. "Therefore," says Barsoum, "it's very improbable that the outer and inner casing stones that we examined were chiseled from a natural limestone block."

More startlingly, Barsoum and another of his graduate students, Aaron Sakulich, recently discovered the presence of silicon dioxide nanoscale spheres (with diameters only billionths of a meter across) in one of the samples. This discovery further confirms that these blocks are not natural limestone.

Generations misled

At the end of their most recent paper reporting these findings, the researchers reflect that it is "ironic, sublime and truly humbling" that this 4,500-year-old limestone is so true to the original that it has misled generations of Egyptologists and geologists and, "because the ancient Egyptians were the original-albeit unknowing-nanotechnologists."

As if the scientific evidence isn't enough, Barsoum has pointed out a number of common sense reasons why the pyramids were not likely constructed entirely of chiseled limestone blocks.

Egyptologists are consistently confronted by unanswered questions: How is it possible that some of the blocks are so perfectly matched that not even a human hair can be inserted between them? Why, despite the existence of millions of tons of stone, carved presumably with copper chisels, has not one copper chisel ever been found on the Giza Plateau?

Although Barsoum's research has not answered all of these questions, his work provides insight into some of the key questions. For example, it is now more likely than not that the tops of the pyramids are cast, as it would have been increasingly difficult to drag the stones to the summit.

Also, casting would explain why some of the stones fit so closely together. Still, as with all great mysteries, not every aspect of the pyramids can be explained. How the Egyptians hoisted 70-ton granite slabs halfway up the great pyramid remains as mysterious as ever.

Why do the results of Barsoum's research matter most today? Two words: earth cements.

"How energy intensive and/or complicated can a 4,500 year old technology really be? The answer to both questions is not very," Barsoum explains. "The basic raw materials used for this early form of concrete-limestone, lime, and diatomaceous earth-can be found virtually anywhere in the world," he adds. "Replicating this method of construction would be cost effective, long lasting, and much more environmentally friendly than the current building material of choice: Portland cement that alone pumps roughly 6 billion tons of CO2 annually into the atmosphere when it's manufactured."

"Ironically," says Barsoum, "this study of 4,500 year old rocks is not about the past, but about the future."

http://www.livescience.com/history/070518_bts_barsoum_pyramids.html
 

[Mark of Australia]

So of course, the concrete block theory is not 'new'. Davidovits came up with it in the '80's.

[Qoais]

Yes Mark, that is one of the scientists I was quoting and who Catastrophe calls Davidiot.  No respect.  Especially from someone who is supposed to have a PhD himself.  He's rude, he's sarcastic, he's insulting and still expects people to talk with him.  Or maybe not.  Maybe it's a ruse to chase people out of the forum so he can show off his superior intelligence.  Then he can sit there and talk to himself.

[Mark of Australia]

Hi Qoais ,

Yes I notice that Cat is a little harsh ,maybe that's just his style.

[Wanderer]

When you go there and lay hands on them you will realize they are not concrete in any sense.  Those that wish to believe they are shall continue to do so and niggling about it for page after page pro and con ultimately produces nothing except arguements for the sake of arguement.

As the archeology professionals do in their various areas of discipline people on discussion sites such as this gather and build a body of "facts" to support their position stubornly adhering to a narrow point of view for no good reason.  What does one "win" when the people with opposing opinions simply quit responding?

Arguing about how the structures were built produces nothing.  Rationally discussing possiblities produces mutual respect of others' viewpoints and opens vistas of understanding.  Doggedly adhering to a singular, point, whether by archeology professionals or site users is totally prejudiced.

While I respect both concepts and those that hold them, this same topic has been thrashed to death on several other sites with no ultimate conclusion and continuing to rave on here is simply a waste of bandwidth.

[Qoais]

continuing to rave on here is simply a waste of bandwidth.

The same could be said of any subject in this forum.  Why pick on this one?

[Wanderer]

While the original poster delivered a well-written article with an excellent bibliography basically 2 individuals hijacked the topic and have personally and exclusively gone at one another for over 2 months. Really, it's a bit much.

[Catastrophe]

Yes I notice that Cat is a little harsh ,maybe that's just his style.

Yes. It is just my style.

As I pointed out - look at the website. There is no "It might have been made by pouring concrete" It is all assertion - arrogant claims - no proof whatsoever.

I could have accepted an unproven assertion as just that. But not blatant assertions without any proof whatsoever.

[Catastrophe]

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

The website reveals how Ancient Egyptians built the pyramids using man-made stones, which look exactly like natural rocks.

Not 'may have' built. Is this science or spin?

[Catastrophe]

Ibid

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.

Science or spin?

[Mark of Australia]

Hi Cat ,

Did you read the article I posted at Reply #169 ?  It seemed scientific to me .Science by a professional scientist in support of the concrete block theory .

What do you have to say about that.?  Beacause it seems kinda hard to explain that article away as mere spin.

...And I do want scientific answers aswell Cat, I won't settle for hearsay and speculation. So I don't just blindly subscribe to the concrete block theory but it seems that even some professional scientists consider it a valid probability worth checking out,so I'm prepared to follow it and see what comes up. I am curious as to why you seem to be so strongly against it...Again, that might just be your style, which is fair enough.