How to Build a Pyramid

[Catastrophe]

I am not prepared to spend much more time on what I consider a non theory but I will just ask you to consider the following:

You're right - my math was sloppy.  1 tonne = 1000 pounds

Try again. 1 tonne = 1000 kilos.

A UK ton was 2240 lb. A US ton IIRC was 2200 lb.

All your other 'facts' seem equally sloppy to me.

You have not commented on quarry marks.

Anything to do with chemistry needs the source of the sample confirming by a qualified Egyptologist - there was ancient mortar in the GP - between cut blocks. There is also modern repair mortar. How did this mortar get between your poured blocks. It is different chemically.

Do you seriously expect anyone to believe the 'poured concrete' was split just where there was a hair? These hairs, bones etc. if any were in modern repair work.

Unless you are suggesting that the granite was 'poured' then very large structures had to be raised to those heights. These needed ramps - at least to less than half pyramid height. So why not use the ramps for the blocks.

Look at the remains of quarries - you can see the size of the blocks quarried.

There are the remains of quarried structures abandoned because they were damaged.

All your pulverized powder had to be pulverized. Not something to be dismised in a sentence.

I don't believe you understand the concrete process. You need a slurry of cement to which you can add aggregate. The slurry must be separate to flow and form flat surfaces.
To prepare the slurry you must have a very small particle size. LATER you add larger aggregate.

You need ramps for the granite items. Occam's Razor says you use these ramps for the blocks instead of carrying double the weight of cement.

What about Herodotus. He distinguished between stone blocks (which the AEs told him were quarried and raised) and bricks which were everyday common everywhere. As you say yourself, those are not 2 ton stones they are carrying.

Just because we do not understand how they cut the blocks (or how they pulverized your rock) does not mean that we grasp at the first ridiculous theory someone writes a book about. By this I mean the blocks were cut in both instances (look at the quarries) and, according to you, later pulverized for the slurry and the larger particles added later as aggregate.

Just try thinking about facts and logic rather than imbibing the first rubbish you read. As they say An open mind is easily filled with garbage

Perhaps you can see why I resent wasting more of my life on such rubbish.

An open mind filled with garbage prevents an unprejudiced glimpse of history let alone an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

[Qoais]

Hi Cat
I may not be able to tell you the chemical makeup in chemistry-ese - but I notice you didn't get into conversation with Pfhoryan in regards to the peer reviewed papers he directed you to.  Not up for the challenge I guess. 

It wasn't the first theory I came across either - rediculous or otherwise - the first "rediculous" theory I came across was that copper and bronze tools cut all those rocks.    The second theory I came across was that the ancients cut them with lasers and transported them telephathically.  The most logical theory I came across was a type of poured concrete.

Put your money where your mouth is, and demonstrate your theory.  You'll be famous.

[Catastrophe]

I notice you didn't get into conversation with Pfhoryan.

I covered this above re samples.

I understand that the papers are not readily available. If you know where to find them, please tell me.

How about answering my other points, perhaps starting with Herodotus and progressing to large granite structures?

[johnee]

The earliest evidence for worked iron is similarly from pre-dynastic Egypt, where two lots of small tubular beads were found at Gerzeh. Although completely oxidized, Professor Gowland who analysed them, was of the opinion that they had originally been metallic iron made by bending a small sheet of iron into a tubular shape. Further analysis has shown that this material was meteoritic in origin. 21

However a 4th Dynasty remnant of iron oxide, that was originally part of a magic set found in the Menkaure Valley temple by George Reisner; when examined was proven to have no nickel content. As all meteoritic iron contains nickel, it was accepted that this object must have had a terrestrial origin. 22 Several iron 5th Dynasty objects were found by Maspero, including chisels from Saqqara, pieces of a pickaxe from Abusir of the 6th Dynasty, and further broken tools at Dahshur, said to be of similar date. Modern archaeology questions these finds, but they are far from being unique.

Petrie found a mass of iron rust together with 6th Dynasty copper adzes, in the foundations of a temple at Abydos, and was absolutely certain they were of the same date. When tested chemically there was no nickel content, and hence this rust was similarly terrestrial. 23 In the opinion of the early archaeologists Coghlan and Wainwright, iron was undoubtedly known in the Near -East as early as the third millennium BC but its use was very limited, and the making of useful iron on a large scale was probably first achieved by the Hittites in the fifteenth century BC. 24

Certainly by the time of Amenhotep III, iron was sufficiently well known that Tushratta wrote to the Pharaoh offering him a present of a sacred knife of iron, and iron rings covered with gold.25
from here
Plutarch quotes Manetho as differentiating loadstones from non-magnetic iron, calling the former `Bone of Osiris', and the latter `Bone of Typhon'

[Qoais]

I understand that the papers are not readily available. If you know where to find them, please tell me.

I have already told you.  Contact Pfhoryan via private e-mail in the other forum and he will e-mail them to you.  I contacted Prof. Davidovits, who altho is too busy to be involved in a forum, kindly directed me to Pfhoryan to answer complicated questions.  I invited him to join the conversation so he could supply you with answers to the scientific aspects.  I'm sure he would be happy to e-mail you the papers referred to.

[Qoais]

Hi Johnee
That is an excellent web site:

http://www.gizagrid.com/body_egyptian_iron.html

Personally, I kind of like the first paragraph where it says the plate was so embedded in the "masonry" they had to blast it out of the "cement".  If the "masonry" was applied like a plaster, after the blocks were put in place, they would not have had to blast the rocks out to get the plate out.  On the other hand, if the blocks were poured cement and someone stuck the plate in there when the cement was not quite set yet, that would explain them having to blast it out.

It's an excellent article on the development of iron, and I've read where altho the Egyptians didn't actually develop and use iron as early as other peoples, a knife or sword was given as a gift to one of the Pharoahs.  Once they did start using it tho, they developed it very quickly.

[Catastrophe]

I have told you that I do not give my email address to cult addicts.

[Catastrophe]

I contacted Prof. Davidovits, who altho is too busy to be involved in a forum,

Yeah ... I can understand that!

Lets not get confused with FACTS

;:

[Qoais]

Dec. 2006


Times Online is reporting that French and American researchers have discovered that the stones on the higher levels of the great pyramids of Egypt were built with concrete. From the article: 'Until recently it was hard for geologists to distinguish between natural limestone and the kind that would have been made by reconstituting liquefied lime.' They found 'traces of a rapid chemical reaction which did not allow natural crystallization. The reaction would be inexplicable if the stones were quarried, but perfectly comprehensible if one accepts that they were cast like concrete.

[Qoais]

Casting Stones at the Pyramids
Elizabeth M. Mitchell, M.D.

January 29, 2007

New evidence regarding the advanced technology evident in the ancient Egyptian pyramids is consistent with the Bible’s account of history. The evolutionary model of the history of early man presents man as an ignorant primitive gradually acquiring intellectual skills and technology. However, the biblical description of mankind’s dispersal from the Tower of Babel is consistent with the findings of advanced technology among ancient people all over the world.1 Indeed, God’s own assessment of the people at Babel was that “nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do” (Genesis 11:6).2 Since God created Adam with perfect intellect, those generations closer to Adam in time were intellectually superior. Therefore, they were able to develop the technology needed to build impressive things like a massive ark and the pyramids.

Modern scientists studying the pyramids marvel at the precise leveling of the bases, the equally precise angles of the four sides necessary for the pyramids to peak at the summit, and the perfect fit of the stones. Today’s technology would be hard-pressed to duplicate the quality, precision, and endurance of these ancient constructions. Modern efforts to quarry stones with this level of precision would break four out of five stones.

Recent analysis of pyramid fragments4 strongly suggests that some of the stones were cast, not quarried. Comparison of the chemical makeup of these fragments to that of stone from nearby quarries shows them to be different. Dr. Michel Barsoum, reporting his findings in the Journal of the American Ceramic Society, has demonstrated that the relative amounts of the elements silicon, calcium, and magnesium in the pyramids fragments differ markedly from the ratios in limestone from the quarries. In addition, these elements are chemically combined in a way not found in nature.5

Furthermore, the ground-up limestone components of the pyramid concrete have chemical characteristics seen only in man-made stone. Specifically, the tiny particles of limestone are hydrated; that is, they are chemically bound to elements of water.6 When limestone crystallizes naturally, these elements of water disappear, but rapid crystallization in man-made limestone traps these elements in the crystals. Such hydrated limestone is the type of limestone which Dr. Barsoum, using electron microscopy, found in the pyramid fragments, demonstrating that the fragments consist of man-made material.7

Dr. Joseph Davidovits proposed the idea that the Egyptians used cast stones8 and even suggested that more advanced technological analysis such as electron microscopy would be required for confirmation.9 Dr. Davidovits has since demonstrated a technique for casting blocks which could dry without tell-tale wood grain marks from the molds.10 Adding support to this theory, analysis of stone from a pyramid passageway has revealed air bubbles like those that form in plaster.11

Dr. Barsoum suggests these cast stones would have been most useful for building the perfectly-fit casings of the pyramids and for the portions at great elevation, as casting stones in those places would be more practical than hauling them up steep ramps.

If the Egyptians cast, rather than quarried and cut, at least some of the massive stones in the pyramids, rediscovery of their secrets could provide economical, nonpolluting building material alternatives for third-world countries.12 Although the idea of cast stone flies in the face of traditional Egyptology, Dr .Barsoum’s evidence adds great weight to this hypothesis and should spur further research to confirm his findings and hopefully develop modern equivalents.

[Catastrophe]

And the source of this:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0129casting-stones.asp

See http://www.answersingenesis.org/

And from the same site:

Q: A fossil clock—what does it mean?
A: Because of the intense evolutionary indoctrination we’ve all received, most people assume that it takes millions of years for sediment—like sand or mud—to harden into rock. But given the right ingredients, this can actually happen quickly. Mixing cement is an obvious example, by the way.

Very illuminating!

[Tom Hebert]

So what's the bottom line on all of this?

[Qoais]

Obviously, the right mix of sand and other substances hardened around this clock, making it look like a clock in hard rock!

Cement is so easy to make that nature does it all by herself!

[Catastrophe]

So what's the bottom line on all of this?

Some weird cult.

I have produced all the evidence and what do I get?

Weird cult response.

[Catastrophe]

Cult

1. a system of religious worship esp. as expressed in a ritual

2. devotion or homage to a person or thing

3. denoting a person or thing popularized in this way

The Concise Oxford Dictionary