Atlantis Online
December 06, 2022, 08:58:34 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Scientists Confirm Historic Massive Flood in Climate Change
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20060228/
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

the Giza Building Project

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: the Giza Building Project  (Read 8108 times)
Catastrophe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 147


« Reply #180 on: May 29, 2007, 07:00:41 pm »

Quote
Did you read the article I posted at Reply #169 ?
Sorry I didn't. If it talked about analysis then I suggest the 'source' of any alleged sample is checked.

My exegesis is that you take one point at a time.

Disaggregation is disproven.

Ergo moldy concrete is debunked.

There are analysis posts pro and contra. If you are a chemist you will know that you can prove or disprove anything by arguing about method. Even if the sample is legitimate ...


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


« Reply #181 on: May 29, 2007, 07:05:50 pm »

The REAL issue is that I have proved that 'disaggregation' is thermodynamically and entropically unsustainable (that is my specialist subject) ERGO the whole moldy concrete hypothesis is on VERY shaky ground.

ERGO alleged shady samples take second consideration.

One thing at a time.

« Last Edit: May 29, 2007, 07:09:59 pm by Catastrophe » Report Spam   Logged
Mark of Australia
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 703



« Reply #182 on: May 29, 2007, 08:07:43 pm »

Hi Cat ,

Ahhh ,it's your specialty ,,interesting.

It seems that the scientists who are trying to prove they are concrete blocks, focus on the evidence in support ,,while those against focus on the evidence they were carved blocks.

What do you say about the discovery of silicon dioxide nanoscale spheres that are claimed to prove that the limestone is not natural??

I have learnt to be sceptical of when scientists say something is ' highly improbable' ,as Barsoum is quoted as saying about the pyramid blocks being natural limestone. When they make such claims, that's when they seem to be most wrong. It is very curious that just as he thinks its highly improbable one way ,,you think it's highly improbable the other way... I've gotten used to these sorts of situations in science... It basically means that you have to take what is asserted very lightly no matter how many certificates they have to their name.
Report Spam   Logged
Tom Hebert
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1370


« Reply #183 on: May 29, 2007, 08:15:56 pm »

I have to agree with you, Mark.  That's why we have the term "nutty professor."  Wink
Report Spam   Logged
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #184 on: May 30, 2007, 12:21:03 am »

Quote
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.

What?  There's something stopping anyone else from posting in here?
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 #185 on: May 30, 2007, 03:44:20 am »

Quote
It seems that the scientists who are trying to prove they are concrete blocks, focus on the evidence in support ,,while those against focus on the evidence they were carved blocks.

Not in my case. There is plenty of evidence for carved blocks but there are unresolved matters.

What I am concentrating on is the incorrectness of moldy concrete and the correctness of the anti-'disaggregation' argument.

Try mixing oil and water. Shake. Watch them separate. Then watch until they 'disaggregate'.

Better still, grind some limestone and add it to water. Watch it sediment (which was how it was formed) then watch until it 'disaggregates'.

You will have a long wait since chalk cliffs (soft limestone) are still there without 'disaggregating' after millions of years of rain. So is most of the Sphinx (after about 4500 years) which is right next to the Giza pyramids.

My argument is that limestone does not 'disaggregate' and without 'disaggregation' there is no moldy concrete hypothesis.

I would welcome your comment on this.

Smiley
Report Spam   Logged
Mark of Australia
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 703



« Reply #186 on: May 30, 2007, 04:32:59 am »

Hi Cat ,

 Disaggregation ?, well I confess my ignorance about it. That is why I take your word for it being a very important obstacle to the 'mouldy concrete' theory. I basically have to weigh up the arguments of both sides of the argument,I need the specialists to boil their argument down to basics.

For example ,I trust that disaggregation is a serious set back to the concrete theory, and on the flip side,that the presence of silicon dioxide nanoscale spheres could be proof of the limestone being concrete.

So something is wrong. I would look at the claims a little closer. It seems that the sample in which they found the silicon dioxide was only 'one sample' ,lets see some more before we get too excited.
   And perhaps the ways in which limestone can be made as a type of concrete could be explored ,maybe there is some special 'recipe'  as Barsoum seems to suggest.

Maybe there is a way around the fact of disaggregation ,because surely Barsoum took it into account and yet still concluded that it was concrete. He maybe thought there is a way around it..

Oh ,and maybe it will be found that in fact it is possible to get silicon dioxide nanoscale spheres in natural limestone,and that particular sample is the first example. hehe .there are many ways to interpret observations.
   But those scientists observing the silicon dioxide in the limestone and who reached the conclusion that it isn't natural, Gee ,could it be that they interpreted it the way they wanted it because they went into the study looking to prove it is concrete? So there vision was blurred so to speak. A real possibility.

All in all I am very wary of this question.Time will tell. I'm patient on this one since the Pyramids aren't going anywhere anytime soon and it seems to be a technicality.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2007, 04:47:48 am by Mark Ponta » Report Spam   Logged
Catastrophe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 147


« Reply #187 on: May 30, 2007, 05:13:03 am »

Quote
Gee ,could it be that they interpreted it the way they wanted it because they went into the study looking to prove it is concrete?

Quite possible.

Let me try to boil it down. I am sure someone will correct me if I have misunderstood anything.

The mainstay of the moldy concrete as I understand it is that is is easier to carry buckets of concrete than 2.5 ton stones. Yet I have shown that obelisks and colossi up to 500 times this weight were handled. Even more importantly I have shown that the Grand Menhir in Brittany was not only transported but erected vertically about 2000 years before the GP.

To follow this, the work of pulverizing limestone, mixing it with roughly the same amount of water and transporting this mix would be many times the work of just cutting and transporting blocks.

I have also pointed out that much of the insides of pyramids was rough stone, some as small as could be carried by two men. Of course the moldy concrete proponents do not like this as the number of blocks which had to be cut and dressed becomes a tiny fraction of the pyramid, and one of their arguments is that it was too much work to cut and dress all that stone. But they didn't.

You only have to look at the blocks (inside where visible and outside) to see they are not poured. You can also see chisel marks and quarry marks. Why do you need quarry marks if all the blocks are from identical moulds?

Also why cast concrete into blocks? Why not pour a whole layer at a time, or a large area. Why restrict to 2.5 ton blocks. If poured, how do you remove the bottom of the mould (mold - I am English)? Why have a bottom to the mould? But the block does not run into the one below. They make a lot of the fact that the blocks fit closely. This whole poured concrete hypothesis makes no sense to me.

When it comes to sample analysis I am very suspicious. I am a graduate chemist and I know a bit about samples. Are these samples accreditied by egyptologists? Were they removed by whom from where? The AEs did repair the pyramids (see especially Bent Pyramid) with concrete and modern concrete repairs have been made. Who is to say what has been analysed?

That is my summation in a nutshell. I would welcome your coment.

Cat
« Last Edit: May 30, 2007, 05:21:54 am by Catastrophe » Report Spam   Logged
Catastrophe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 147


« Reply #188 on: May 30, 2007, 06:21:34 am »

Let me add a little about analysis.

Quote
The colour changes accordingly. Lauer gave the following analysis of (mortar) samples taken from phase M1-3 of the step pyramid: All figures %.

Whitish
Clay 54.0 Powdered limestone 11.0 Quartz sand 35.0

Yellowish
Clay 38.5 PL 53.0-55.0 QS 8.0

Reddish
Clay 35.0 PL 14.0 QS 83.0

Quite a variation!

Quote
But we still do not know if the Egyptians of Pharaonic times knew the use of lime or if lime found in mortar was of natural origin, as impurities derived from the raw material
Report Spam   Logged
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #189 on: May 31, 2007, 12:28:03 am »

Quote
The mainstay of the moldy concrete as I understand it is that is is easier to carry buckets of concrete than 2.5 ton stones. Yet I have shown that obelisks and colossi up to 500 times this weight were handled. Even more importantly I have shown that the Grand Menhir in Brittany was not only transported but erected vertically about 2000 years before the GP.


Probably the largest menhir in the world, at more than 20 metres in length and 350 tons weight, unfortunately now fallen and broken into four pieces. In fact, one theory suggests it would never have stood, but was broken while trying to erect it as it is just physically too big.

ONE slab of rock does not a pyramid make.

Quote
I understand it is that is is easier to carry buckets of concrete than 2.5 ton stones.

Duh!  That's a no-brainer.

Quote
To follow this, the work of pulverizing limestone, mixing it with roughly the same amount of water and transporting this mix would be many times the work of just cutting and transporting blocks.


How is it more work?  Especially when they had the equivilent of a butter knife to cut the rock with. 
Even if it WAS more work, what's your point?  You haven't proven anything.  You haven't proven how they could cut a block 27 feet long and 8 feet deep with a "copper saw"  I'd like to see that saw Tongue 

The geopolymer theory doesn't say that ALL the blocks are poured either.  I think if I had to make blocks from solid rock, I'd scribe a line in the rock, pour some acid in and let it fizz for a bit.  Then I'd do it again and again, until I COULD take my rock "tool", give it a smack, and crack a chunk off.

Quote
I have also pointed out that much of the insides of pyramids was rough stone, some as small as could be carried by two men. Of course the moldy concrete proponents do not like this as the number of blocks which had to be cut and dressed becomes a tiny fraction of the pyramid, and one of their arguments is that it was too much work to cut and dress all that stone.

YOU'VE pointed out?  You still haven't read Demortier's work have you? Anyone looking at a picture can see that.  And please don't try to boggle people's brains with BS like "tiny fraction".  There's about 2.3 million blocks in the GP.  What are you calling a "tiny portion"?


Picture by Demortier
Quoting Demortier:

"Some details of the blocks of the pyramid of Cheops: irregular blocks but very fine close fit of their adjacent surfaces.  We can also see that the blocks appear to be more porous in the top part than in the bottom part.  This porous feature on the top of the blocks cannot be explained by some climatic erosion of natural limestone but could be understood if we propose a construction similar to our modern concrete".

Quote
Why do you need quarry marks if all the blocks are from identical moulds?


Who said the molds were identical?  Who said ALL the blocks were molded?

Quote
Also why cast concrete into blocks? Why not pour a whole layer at a time, or a large area.
We don't even pour 13 acres of concrete today at one time.  This just shows you know nothing about making concrete, and I've explained this to you before.  You insisted that concrete could not have rocks in it.  You were stunned that concrete "cured" by water evaporation.  Hello - anyone home?

Quote
This whole poured concrete hypothesis makes no sense to me.

How can it when you don't understand even modern day concrete?

Quote
Are these samples accreditied by egyptologists?

I guess it depends if you accept Lauer as an egyptologist or not since that's where Davidovits got them, and he gave them to Barsoum.

Lauer, Jean-Philippe (1902 - 2001)

Lauer was a French architect and archaeologists who was already working in Egypt around the age of 18. He was almost exclusively involved with research at Saqqara, particularly at the complex of Djoser, where he first went to work for Firth and Quibell. He was considered to be the the foremost expert on pyramid construction techniques and methods. Some of his work at Saqqara focused on reconstructing, theoretically, many of the buildings in the Djoser complex. He lived to be about 99 years old, and spent 70 of those years in the pyramid field at Saqqara.

 
Quote
The AEs did repair the pyramids (see especially Bent Pyramid) with concrete and modern concrete repairs have been made. Who is to say what has been analysed?

You've got a lot of nerve Madam, implying that professionals like Barsoum can't recognize MODERN CONCRETE with all their high tech equipment.  And you, with an alleged PhD in some obscure science - what was it? - surface chemicals - whatever that is - who has never done a test of any sample from a pyramid, would of course, know more about it.



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 #190 on: May 31, 2007, 12:42:32 am »

And this "rock" got so hot out in the sun that it melted and "oozed" down into the crack in the bedrock.

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 #191 on: May 31, 2007, 01:58:02 am »

Look at your own photographs and try to convince anyone they are smooth poured moldy concrete.

You seem to be running scared now.

DISAGGREGATION

Try explaining DISAGGREGATION

PLEASE do not read the UB or you could become a real bore.
Report Spam   Logged
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #192 on: May 31, 2007, 08:22:45 pm »

Enough already Cat.
They're 5000 years old and I've clearly quoted Demortier saying they are irregular but the joints are fine.
It's also been stated that not ALL the blocks are poured, some are worked.
I'm running scared?   You are because I've proven you wrong. 
I have no idea what the reference to the Urantia Book is or why you'd bring it up in this thread.  There is a thread for the Urantia Book in this forum.
I have explained disaggregation enough times.  If you don't understand it, that's your problem.  You just keep repeating like a broken record. 
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."
HereForNow
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3279


HUH?


« Reply #193 on: July 27, 2007, 09:03:51 am »

Why were these great pyramids built?

 Grin To take the edge off...

Report Spam   Logged

Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #194 on: July 27, 2007, 10:34:30 am »

Ok, I'll bite.  Take the edge off what?
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."
Pages: 1 ... 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