Atlantis Online
October 04, 2022, 04:16:18 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: THE SEARCH FOR ATLANTIS IN CUBA
A Report by Andrew Collins
http://www.andrewcollins.com/page/articles/atlantiscuba.htm
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

How to Build a Pyramid

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: How to Build a Pyramid  (Read 7190 times)
Catastrophe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 147


« Reply #30 on: April 27, 2007, 10:19:39 am »

BTW Brig on another BB knows who I am and that I am a specialist in surface chemistry and have edited a book (of which I wrote about half myself) for Marcel Dekker Surfactant Science Series as well as innumerable articles published from USA to Japan.

Please get some informed and not biased 'facts'.

Cat

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



« Reply #31 on: April 27, 2007, 10:26:23 am »

Hi Cat
I thought I did.  That's why I posted a bit of the article by the Drexel University.
http://www.drexel.edu/univrel/media/pyramid.pdf

What kind of energy are we talking about here?
« Last Edit: April 27, 2007, 10:37:11 am by Qoais » 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 #32 on: April 27, 2007, 11:04:53 am »

Quote
I don't understand this:

http://www.geopolymer.org/archaeology/pyramids/pyramids-2-the-evidences/5/


Quote
In the early twentieth century, he noticed that the famous statue of Pharaoh Khafra (or Khefren) revealed no sign of tool marks. Yet it had been made of diorite, the hardest type of stone, at a time when artisans possessed only simple stone or copper chisels. He concluded that with tools like these it would have been impossible to produce such a masterpiece.

and


Quote
A chunk of limestone taken in the quarry was very easily disaggregated within 24 hours, leaving the nummulites and the clay gently separated from each other, whereas a chunk of the hard Mokkatam limestone did not disintegrate at all.

http://www.gameroom.com/gizapump/pg4.htm


Quote
The only thing found in this chamber ia a large lidless coffin or coffer, of highly polished granite This beautiful granite box was made from a solid block of chocolate-colored granite and is even harder than the granite walls of the King's Chamber. It is 89.8 inches long, 38.7 inches wide and 41.2 inches high, really too large to have been brought in through the passages; it is assumed it was put there by the original builders.

So my question is:
If hard limestone will not 'disaggregate' will granite 'disaggregate'?

If not, then those heavy granite structures must have been transported by 'conventional' means.

If you had to build ramps for the granite structures (hard work building ramps) why not use them for the blocks?

Hard work taking them down again as well.

Basically, this is the crux of whole matter.  To me, if we can figure out exactly how the pyramids were built, we could probably figure out who the Atlanteans were.  That's basically what the search is all about.  If it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt as to how the pyramids were built, we'd have a reference point towards the technology of the time it was built.  We come back full circle to whether or not there was a technologically advanced society. 
Don't forget also, that there were vases made of "rock" found in the pyramids as well.  How does one carve a rock vase?
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 #33 on: April 27, 2007, 11:17:48 am »

http://www.gameroom.com/gizapump/pg5.htm

This is a fabulous site.  I had read an article about the pyramid possibly being a pump before, but couldn't remember where I read it.  When I opened the book and saw the cut-away of the pyramid the first thought that hit me immediately was "wow - look at the power in that thing".  I don't know why that thought should have entered my mind at all.  I hadn't read anything up until then about a pump or a power plant, the thought just popped into my head. 

This is very logical and would explain why it's not decorated like other pyramids. 
If it was a gigantic pump, I wonder what it was used for.? Silly question - for pumping water of course - I meant what was the REST of the pyramid used for?  I don't think a building with a 13 acre base was necessary for a water pump.  Perhaps it was a water pump AND an electrical tower.
I had read that at one time, there was an underground canal somewhere that Pharoah could use in some instances when he didn't want anyone to know where he was going.  Perhaps the secrets - if there are any- on the lost chambers of knowledge are protected with underground water systems, and when these are pumped off, then one can access the chambers. 
« Last Edit: April 27, 2007, 02:58:02 pm by Qoais » 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 #34 on: April 27, 2007, 11:19:46 am »

Cross cut section of the Pyramid as a pump.  Most facinating.



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 #35 on: April 27, 2007, 03:20:54 pm »

Hi Cat
Doesn't weathering and salt weathering have something to do with all this?  What do you know about weathering and salt weathering?

I know you keep saying the particles had to be small, but I don't see that.  I was thinking more along the lines of particles dissolving when wet.  A rendering down action, by dissolving.  With the sun warming the water in the pools or dug-outs, this would have quickened the dissolve time. Along with the acid and Natron.  Nay?

Oh - another thought to give me a headache - if they knew about hydraulic power, they could have built smaller versions for crushing rock.  Something very simple but extremely effective.  Just something to lift a big rock and drop it on smaller pieces underneath.  Bang Bang - you're crushed!  Actually, such a device wouldn't even have had to be hydraulic.  All they'd need is like two tripods with a roller across the top with a handle.  Tie a big block at the ends and wrap the rope around the roller.  Turn the handle to lift the rock, let go of the handle to drop the block onto the pieces below.  Piece of cake!  Powder for the mix!
« Last Edit: April 27, 2007, 03:51:52 pm by Qoais » 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 #36 on: April 27, 2007, 06:36:43 pm »

Sigh. We are sadly not on the same wavelength.

And do not attribute that link to me on AR.

Frankly I am offended.

I tried to have some communication but sadly I failed.

I know you are not that other person but you have a twin out there.

Well, I did try.
Report Spam   Logged
Catastrophe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 147


« Reply #37 on: April 27, 2007, 07:13:57 pm »

Quote
Don't forget also, that there were vases made of "rock" found in the pyramids as well.  How does one carve a rock vase?

I think it very likely that such techniques were used in works of art but not in building pyramids. I answered your comment about descriptions in Rekhmire's tomb.
Report Spam   Logged
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #38 on: April 27, 2007, 08:04:49 pm »

Hi Cat
Finally, you realize I'm not somebody else.  Great.  Sorry, I thought it was you who posted the link to the site about the pyramid being a hydraulic pump.  Don't you find that an interesting theory?

I was hoping you'd get into a conversation with Pfhoryan so you two could hash over the possibilities of creating cement.  Then you'd have someone who IS on your wavelength and we could learn the results of your discussion.  I'm not personally, bound by scientific law such as someone like yourself is.  I don't have to prove what was done.  I've said it before and I'll say it again, Logic dictates.  It is not Logical to assume that bronze tools could quarry all that rock.  It's not logical to assume that the Egyptians had ropes strong enough to pull that tonnage, especially uphill.  It's not logical to assume that they could get enough people in close enough proximity to the blocks to maneruvre them.  Especially getting near the top.  It's not logical to assume they had any mechanism to lift that weight, nor to be able to fit "cut" blocks so close together with such precision. 

Logic is not assumption - logic is supposed to use facts to prove something.  No one has proven that the above is how it was done.  The logic tells me that this is NOT how it was done.  It should tell you the same thing.  With your PhD you should be applying yourself to figure out how it WAS done.  You said it wasn't the diotomacious product that had to be crushed, but that the rock had to be crushed.  I pointed out that the soft limestone could be easily crushed.  What's the problem now?

How did they work in granite?  The bronze tools wouldn't last with limestone, so how did they work the granite parts?  Are you seriously telling me that you believe they worked granite with bronze tools?  Cat, use your education to figure out an answer instead of just following along with a theory that's just not logical. 

Either they DID have some advanced technology we don't know anything about, or we're supposed to believe that not only did they build the pyramids with bronze tools, but that they cut granite with them also.  I don't theenk so Smiley

Thanks for the clarification of the paintings. 



« Last Edit: April 27, 2007, 08:08:52 pm by Qoais » 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 #39 on: April 27, 2007, 08:34:11 pm »

Quote
Catastrophe
Full Member

Posts: 70


     Re: How to Build a Pyramid
Reply #20 on: Today at 02:34:22 am Quote 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added to this I have posted definition of slurry and shown that this requires sub-millimetre size particles. That would require (according to that theory) pulverizing 5-6 million tons of rock.

One of the most cogent arguments is why would they carefully remove fossils just to put them back into moulded blocks?

Why would they do this?


Quote
The fossil shells would remain intact for the most part but would be jumbled in pyramids blocks. Why would the pyramid builders make more work for themselves by crushing them?

This of course is no explanation. You need to pulverize the rock to make a slurry. If you use chunks of rock there would bw no flat surfaces - they would be ragged.
 

Let me see if I can find your wavelength:

They didn't carefully remove the fossil shells and put them back.  The fossil shells, as I understand it, were in the silt from the water supply. I could be wrong here of course.  There was, supposedly, a large layer of this stuff, which ran out eventually.  If you were making a cake say, with water from a stream that had little bits of shale in it, the bits of shale would still be in the cake when the cake was baked.  Same as the bits of fossils are still in the blocks - all mixed and stirred up, rather than in a flat layer.  If the shells had been in the rocks, then there should have been a "layer" of fossils in tact if the block was quarried of a piece.  If the shells were in the rocks, then they'd get crushed along with the rock. 

Maybe you should explain sub-milimetre particles to me.  I thought a powder - which you'd get if you crushed the rock - IS sub-mm particles.  Limestone powder.  How much smaller do the particles have to be?   

Quote
A chunk of limestone taken in the quarry was very easily disaggregated within 24 hours, leaving the nummulites and the clay gently separated from each other, whereas a chunk of the hard Mokkatam limestone did not disintegrate at all.

Quote
This of course is no explanation. You need to pulverize the rock to make a slurry. If you use chunks of rock there would bw no flat surfaces - they would be ragged.

Me-thinks you have never personally mixed concrete.  To make concrete today, one mixes sand, GRAVEL and cement.  When the mix is poured - the heavy stuff goes to the bottom.  You can smooth out the top and can pat it with your hand, and you will bring water to the top.  If you pour into a mold, the sides of the mold are smooth and solid.  Take the solid mold away, and you have a smooth side.  However, according to that little quote above, a CHUNK of limestone taken in the quarry was easily disaggregated within 24 hours.  Therefore, there wouldn't be any "chunks" sticking out. 
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 #40 on: April 28, 2007, 11:15:29 pm »

Quote
The fossil shells, as I understand it, were in the silt from the water supply.
 

Quote
If the shells were in the rocks, then they'd get crushed along with the rock.

EXACTLY

Fossils normally occur in rocks, not in water.

http://encarta.msn.com/media_461547380_761565838_-1_1/Limestone_with_Fossils.html

Quote
The first kind, called fossiliferous limestone, can provide geologists with a record of the evolution of prehistoric animals.

Hence it is so damning to the concrete theory that fossils are found.

http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/t628/T628794A.jpg
« Last Edit: April 28, 2007, 11:18:56 pm by Catastrophe » Report Spam   Logged
Catastrophe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 147


« Reply #41 on: April 28, 2007, 11:24:39 pm »

http://www.geopolymer.org/archaeology/pyramids/pyramids-2-the-evidences/2/

Quote
In prehistoric times most of present-day Egypt was submerged under the sea. The decomposing remains of marine organisms, shells and skeletons, plants, seaweed and algae, fallen to the bottom of the sea, formed mud that condensed itself into a sedimentary rock we call limestone.
Quote
The pyramid blocks are made of this limestone, a sedimentary rock formed from skeletons and large fossil shells of marine organisms.

Please note the source.

Quote
If the shells were in the rocks, then they'd get crushed along with the rock.

Now you see why I have made so much or particle size. BTW it is my understanding that the cement was in the form of a slurry. I know concrete contains aggregates.

« Last Edit: April 28, 2007, 11:31:45 pm by Catastrophe » Report Spam   Logged
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #42 on: April 28, 2007, 11:51:40 pm »

Let's try this again:

Quote
Diatomaceous earth consists of fossilized remains of diatoms, a type of hard-shelled algae. It is used as a filtration aid, as a mild abrasive, as a mechanical insecticide, as an absorbent for liquids, as cat litter, as an activator in blood clotting studies, and as a component of dynamite. As it is also heat-resistant, it can be used as a thermal insulator

I said -IF the shells were in the rocks, they would have been crushed, altho not all, since some of the "chunks" would be used as aggregate.   Therefore, there could definitely be shells, and shell particles in the mix.  It says the blocks are made of limestone - a sedimentary rock formed from skeletons and large fossil shells of marine organisms - It doesn't say the compound had complete large shells in it.  It's telling the composition of limestone.  And as I said, ALL the particles didn't have to be reduced to powder.  So no - I can't see why you're making so much of particle size.  As far as I can make out, there were hard shell algae in the diatomaceous earth, as well as shells in the limestone.  If you know that concrete contains aggregates, then where's the difficulty?  I said earlier I couldn't remember exactly the location of the shells because I had it in mind of the hard-shelled algae -which is in the diatomaceous earth.  So now we have that straight.  The hard shelled algae was in the earth, and the fossil shells were in the rocks.  Parts of the rock that didn't get crushed, were used as aggregate.  Therefore it is perfectly logical to find these shells in the mix.

What is not logical - is finding hair and other foreign objects in a solid cut stone.  These foreign objects WERE found in Davidovit's analysis.
Perhaps you would be more comfortable with the word polymer instead of cement.  What difference what we label it?
« Last Edit: April 28, 2007, 11:57:18 pm by Qoais » 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 #43 on: April 29, 2007, 12:21:02 am »

Quote
If you know that concrete contains aggregates, then where's the difficulty?
 

Because the cement slurry had aggregates added later. As you have pointed out the slurry needed to be pourable (according to this hypothesis) to give smooth surfaces.

Quote
Parts of the rock that didn't get crushed, were used as aggregate.


Please reference this.

Quote
What is not logical - is finding hair and other foreign objects in a solid cut stone.  These foreign objects WERE found in Davidovit's analysis.

Please reference this.

Quote
Perhaps you would be more comfortable with the word polymer instead of cement.  What difference what we label it?

Absolutely not.

polymers

Long-chain molecules built up by multiple repetition of groups of atoms known as repeat units.


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



« Reply #44 on: April 29, 2007, 12:36:19 am »

Cat
What difference does it make if the "slurry" had lumps in it?  That doesn't make it less pourable. 

Parts of the rock that didn't get crushed, were used as aggregate - please reference this?  What the heck else would they use for aggregate?

Quote
What is not logical - is finding hair and other foreign objects in a solid cut stone.  These foreign objects WERE found in Davidovit's analysis.

Please reference this.
You didn't bother to read Davidovits' work did you? 

Fine - don't use the word polymer - don't use the word cement - don't use the word concrete - make something up if none of these satisfy you.
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 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8   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