It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Proof that the ancients used concrete

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2018 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: anti72

Limestone forms in layers over time, some layers being much harder than others, which will crumble away relatively easily. The proposed theory is that the softest layers are the one from which the materials used for the processed concrete (although it's not really a concrete when one considers the chemical bonding that occurs, apparently) were "quarried," as they apparently crumbled away relatively easily.

It's not as if the theory proposes that they did the back-breaking labor associated with quarrying high-quality stones and then went through the extra process(es?) and time and labor to build and used crushing machines.

You cited the quantities of water--again, like I've asked Harte to do more than once now, please watch the videos that I posted, as it discusses this. You must, though, consider that the Nile river was MUCH different then than it is now, and the banks were much closer to the edge of the Giza Plateau than they currently are. But then again, if the drag-the-massive-stones-on-sledges theory is correct, they also would have needed to use water the entire way in front of the sledges to reduce friction to make travel easier, so massive amounts of water (to include for cooking and drinking by the massive amounts of workers) would already be needed...that's not a deal killer concerning this hypothesized method.

Without watching the videos, though, it's impossible to understand the concept that no one proposing this theory claims that ALL of the pyramid blocks are created this way...microscopy shows that pretty clearly, as does the rough formation of the core blocks of the pyramid.




posted on Jan, 12 2018 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Harte

Wow...I don't think that you're using "straw man" properly, but you do whatever you want to.

Obviously, you're either unwilling to watch the videos and/or discuss the material contained within. If you did watch them, you would realize that the first video acknowledges that some of the blocks are natural stone, while others show both visual and microscopic evidence of being a poured stone. The second video elaborates greatly on the microscopic aspect of examining some of the stones, but it also acknowledges that some, if not most, of the stones in the pyramids are natural stone.


Do you want me to pretend unfamiliarity with the hypothesis?
I don't need to watch your video.

Regarding crushing soft stone, here you are inventing an unknown quarry. Are you not aware of the quarries on Giza?
Why invent an imaginary "soft stone" quarry that's never been found?

Do you think only the soft stone was taken out of the existing quarries? What about the hard limestone that constitutes the side walls of these quarries? Does limestone differentiate horizontally as well as vertically?

What, exactly would be the advantage of casting blocks and then dragging them up the pyramid when you can eliminate the crushing and casting (and building a million or two distinct concrete forms) and just drag them up the pyramid?

Gaps between stones prove they certainly weren't cast in place.
I linked a pic, did I not?

Harte



posted on Jan, 12 2018 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

Do you want me to pretend unfamiliarity with the hypothesis?
I don't need to watch your video.

Well, you're not pretending--you ARE unfamiliar with very pertinent details and aspects of the hypothesis. I'd prefer that you prove a certain level of understanding of the theory, considering that I have spoon-fed you things that are still readily available for you to look at and address, but instead, you ignore all of it and say that referencing the common-held theory by 'people in the know' is a straw-man argument.

Your following questions reaffirm the reality that you don't understand the proposed theory. If you would actually look at what I provided, you would realize that I provided sources that come to slightly differing conclusions, better equipping you to dive into a more- and less-extreme version of the "concrete" theory.


Regarding crushing soft stone, here you are inventing an unknown quarry. Are you not aware of the quarries on Giza?
Why invent an imaginary "soft stone" quarry that's never been found?

Again, it's in the videos. I'm not inventing anything, it is you who is refusing to look at what I provided. Instead of looking at it and then directly contradicting the specific information, you want to pretend that I'm the one making up information when it's in the videos that I provided.

Your unwillingness to look at the specific information that I provided (and am referencing) is not a shortcoming on my behalf.


Do you think only the soft stone was taken out of the existing quarries?

Nope, and I've referenced as much in this thread, if you have your critical-thinking cap on...again, the videos address it as well, where they note that much of the stone used in the Giza complex is, in fact (and proven microscopically) to be the hard, quarried, natural stone.

Again, not my shortcoming that you're unwilling to review what I've provided and then ask silly questions that would already be answered.


What, exactly would be the advantage of casting blocks and then dragging them up the pyramid when you can eliminate the crushing and casting (and building a million or two distinct concrete forms) and just drag them up the pyramid?

Again--and I'll underline this so that it's internet-dramatic--that's not the theory.

At this point, either watch the videos, or please don't respond, because you're discussing incorrect aspects of the theory with me in a failed (and thinly veiled) attempt to make the theory sound convoluted and unnecessary; unfortunately, you are willfully ignorant to the theory, but are engaging with me as if you understand it.


Gaps between stones prove they certainly weren't cast in place.

Actually, that wouldn't necessarily prove any such thing, it just points to that being a possibility. But for the last time, this is also addressed (at least, the use of non-binding gypsum mortar, which in and of itself seems inefficient to produce in Egypt) in the videos.

Best regards.



posted on Jan, 12 2018 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Harte

Do you want me to pretend unfamiliarity with the hypothesis?
I don't need to watch your video.

Well, you're not pretending--you ARE unfamiliar with very pertinent details and aspects of the hypothesis. I'd prefer that you prove a certain level of understanding of the theory, considering that I have spoon-fed you things that are still readily available for you to look at and address, but instead, you ignore all of it and say that referencing the common-held theory by 'people in the know' is a straw-man argument.

There are NO "people in the know" that assert that ANYONE "hand carved every stone" in any pyramid.
That is you making stuff up to bolster an otherwise empty argument.
Here's how it goes - you assert that this "commonly held theory by people in the know" is absurd. And it is. But the problem is as I stated above - you made it up and nobody "in the know" thinks this.
You did so because you want to establish a false dichotomy - either they hand carved every stone, or they poured them from concrete.

Look, there have been dozens of threads on this. I've read them all and followed the links then.

Nothing has been provided that addresses the issues I (and others) raised about the stones being separate units and not one poured on top of the other.
Until you can come up with how this could have been accomplished, you're just spouting nonsense.



originally posted by: SlapMonkeyYour following questions reaffirm the reality that you don't understand the proposed theory. If you would actually look at what I provided, you would realize that I provided sources that come to slightly differing conclusions, better equipping you to dive into a more- and less-extreme version of the "concrete" theory.

No, it can be asserted that the stones are all separate and therefore could not possibly have been poured in place. The mortar alone attests to this verifiable fact.
Since that is the case, then the "concrete" stones must have been poured elsewhere and placed AFTER they cured.

It doesn't matter what you or some fringe proponent want to call "the theory."
That "theory" is demonstrably false, as I have now pointed out multiple times.
So, how about addressing how the stones got where they are, with mortar between them?

Thought not.

Harte



posted on Jan, 12 2018 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Granite is a strong stone because its mineral grains have grown tightly together during a very slow cooling period.


Granite is an igneous rock. Formed from molten magma.

In a SEM, it is easy to see that it cannot be formed like concrete. The crystals of quartz and feldspar are joined together as they have grown in contact with each other, over millions of years. The random arrangement of grains in granite—its lack of fabric—is evidence of its plutonic origin.



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Harte

AND WHAT kind of answer is that ?????



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Hay Harte, long time no see, good your back.......

edit on 14-1-2018 by Plotus because: because



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358




Steal everything that is not nailed down ... especially antiquities Check Make duplicates Check Have ISIS to smash the fakes Check. Now then, no one is looking for the stolen Antiquities because ISIS smashed them Lots and lots of money to be made on the black market.


Excellent reasoning.




posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Plotus
a reply to: Harte

AND WHAT kind of answer is that ?????

The kind that points out that there is no (professional) claim that every stone in the GP was "hand carved."

Harte



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

There are NO "people in the know" that assert that ANYONE "hand carved every stone" in any pyramid.

So what you're saying, then, is that, since the videos that you refuse to watch address mainly the pyramid of Khufu, that they used naturally shaped stones that were not quarried or shaped by human hands?

Please, I'll need you to provide proof of that, because I have never heard anyone 'in the know' attest to such a thing.

Now, if you're equating what I'm saying as to me claiming that every stone in the pyramid is perfectly carved to ridiculous standards, then that is you making stuff up, as I never claimed that, yet you keep inferring it in your comments.


Nothing has been provided that addresses the issues I (and others) raised about the stones being separate units and not one poured on top of the other.
Until you can come up with how this could have been accomplished, you're just spouting nonsense.

Again, yes, the videos--especially the last one that I embedded--discusses everything that I just (last week) responded to you and said that they did. What you are choosing to do is cherry pick the things that I say so that you can twist my words into meaning something that they don't, like, say, every block in the pyramid is carved and fit perfectly, with no room for error, in the pyramids.


"Nonsense" is someone arguing out of ignorance when information is handed to them and they choose not to review it, but argue against it anyway (even though the answers exist in the information). Yes, I have said that I'm convinced that the AEs used poured stone ("concrete") in their construction, but I certain have never claimed that they used it for every purpose and for every part of the construction.


If someone were to read your responses to me, though, they sure would infer that I am claiming such a thing.


No, it can be asserted that the stones are all separate and therefore could not possibly have been poured in place. The mortar alone attests to this verifiable fact.
Since that is the case, then the "concrete" stones must have been poured elsewhere and placed AFTER they cured.

And again, you're misconstruing the information contained in the videos that you didn't watch, even if you claim that you watched them before (and if you did, you are confused as to what they claim). The funny thing is, even in the more extreme version of the theory, it attempts to explain the mortar...or as they would probably write it, "mortar."

But again, watching the video is key, and here we are, over a week later (I think), and I assume that you're still refusing to watch the videos or read the link that I posted (which is limited in information), but you'll still choose to argue with me.



It doesn't matter what you or some fringe proponent want to call "the theory."
That "theory" is demonstrably false, as I have now pointed out multiple times.
So, how about addressing how the stones got where they are, with mortar between them?

Thought not.

Calm down--again, as I have now pointed out multiple times, it's in the information provided. I'm not going to just hand it to you, though, because your blatant stubbornness and willful ignorant to "the theory" is becoming more amusing each time that you respond and pretend to have it all figured out...why would I want to put an end to that at this point?

Remember, though--the currently accepted description of how the pyramids were build is also a theory, not a hard fact, and it's one that has changed over the years, even concerning where the quarry was located, the method by which stones were transported, the type of people employed to build the pyramids, how they were fed and housed, etc.

By all means, laugh off the theory if you want to, but for the sake of no more logical fallacies concerning the "geopolymer theory," stop arguing and asking question while at the same time refusing to review the information. That is the worst type of debate--hell, it's not even a "debate" at that point, it's one person relaying information of a theory to another person stubbornly avoiding looking more deeply into the theory, yet still wants to argue.

Harte, I respect the information and threads that you bring to the table here at ATS concerning ancient civilizations and archaeology, but I'll tell you, you're shedding new light on your seeming unwillingness to intelligently discuss "fringe" theories, and on a conspiracy site, that's disappointing, especially when you are presented with true scientific analyses that help support the theory, yet you still ignore that information in lieu of parroting the status quo that still, in and of itself, is an ever-evolving theory.

It's disappointing--the willful ignorance to the theory. If you don't want to look further into it, then stop arguing and just walk away. But if you continue asking questions that can easily be answered by loosening the reins of stubbornness a little, you are telling me that you don't want to discuss it intelligently (which is already the assumption at this point...I hope that I'm wrong).

Best regards.

(sorry for the delayed response--I take my weekends off from ATS)



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

yes, there was probably some kind of concrete in the ancient days, but who knows...
if someone is interested in more alternative theories i suggest a youtube channel newearth which has many kinds of information and interesting tidbits about old civs.

very interesting info, thanks for thread.



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Plotus
a reply to: Harte

AND WHAT kind of answer is that ?????


It wasn't an answer, it was a deflection. Disappointingly, Harte seems unwilling to review the evidence, yet wants to argue and question things that are not part of the geopolymer/concrete theory.

I'm hoping to get through, but I don't think that it's going to happen on this topic, sadly...

And for the record, this theory doesn't claim that every stone in the pyramid was poured--that's something that Harte seems to have pulled out of thin air and is using to diminish the theory.



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Plotus

a reply to: SlapMonkey


ATS member harte has given you the correct respomse -

you are both aware that significant areas of the core of the GP are " back filled " with rubble

are you ????

ergo - the correct assertion - that " not every stone = hand carved "



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Harte

There are NO "people in the know" that assert that ANYONE "hand carved every stone" in any pyramid.

So what you're saying, then, is that, since the videos that you refuse to watch address mainly the pyramid of Khufu, that they used naturally shaped stones that were not quarried or shaped by human hands?

No. I'm saying I know more about stone cleavage than female cleavage.


originally posted by: SlapMonkeyNow, if you're equating what I'm saying as to me claiming that every stone in the pyramid is perfectly carved to ridiculous standards, then that is you making stuff up, as I never claimed that, yet you keep inferring it in your comments.

I infer no such thing.
I clearly state that your below (bolded) characterization of pyramid-building theory is a straw man, since there is no such theory at present nor has there ever been.


originally posted by: SlapMonkey
In any event, this makes much more sense to me from a workforce and efficiency standpoint than does carving massive blocks and forcing more than 2.5 million of them into place through relatively back-breaking work in the intense heat of the Egyptian desert. Of course, like any intelligent person, I will say that I could be wrong, and the theory could have too many holes that I don't understand to be considered probable.

But I would also argue that so does the claim that every stone in the pyramid was hand-shaped from giant quarried blocks of bedrock and transported a relative long distance (for the size and mass of the object) uphill and up ramps and positioned relatively perfectly into place.

Inasmuch as the rest of what I've said is in support of a natural stone pyramid, and I understand you believe it to be poured (at least in part,) let's just leave it with this above mischaracterization that caused me to respond in the first place.

Examination of the quarries clearly shows the limestone cleaves in perpendicular fashion (i.e. both vertically and horizontally.) It's also plain to see in some places how they made the stone cleave out of the quarry vertically.

There is no need at all for more than 5% of the stone in the GP to have been carefully shaped, or even shaped at all. And almost ALL of that is granite.

Harte



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

And from where did the rubble come? Was it just naturally strewn about the landscape, or was it, per se, leftovers from quarrying and cutting and shaping stone?

Thanks for your input, but I think that both you and Harte are not comprehending my point when I say that the stones were "hand-shaped from giant quarried blocks of bedrock," because that includes the rubble produced from the processes.

But in any event, yes, I'm aware of the theories that include rubble back-filling as part of the internal structure of the pyramid. But I would really hope that this isn't to what Harte was referencing, because if so, Harte could have easily said that, and I could explain that my point is that the stones included in the Khufu pyramid were produced by means of human processes.

Sure, some of the rubble could already have existed in situ prior to the processing of the stone, but since every approach to how the pyramids were built is a theory, then at this point, unless we deconstruct the damn thing or eventually find the blueprints for it, theories are theories, and nothing is...concrete?



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

I'm saying I know more about stone cleavage than female cleavage.

Well, that's unfortunate for you, because one is much more useful for a happy life than the other.


I clearly state that your below (bolded) characterization of pyramid-building theory is a straw man, since there is no such theory at present nor has there ever been.

Inasmuch as the rest of what I've said is in support of a natural stone pyramid, and I understand you believe it to be poured (at least in part,) let's just leave it with this above mischaracterization that caused me to respond in the first place.

Well, for one, I'm convinced that it's a possibility, if not a plausibility, that some of the stones were poured, and that's based on scientific examination of some of the blocks used in pyramid and other Giza construction at the electron-microscopic level, which shows findings that are inconsistent with surrounding natural stone, but very consistent with a poured geopolymer or concrete. I just, once again, want to get that out of the way. (and if there are no poured stones, I'd love to know the answer to the anomalies found during the examinations of the stones)

As for your harping on my "straw-man" argument--are you, as IgnorantApe suggests, focusing on the theory that there is back-filled rubble in the pyramid? If so, (a) I am aware of these theories (some going as far as to suggest that up to 90% of the pyramid is rubble) and (b) if you're referencing the rubble, I would hope that it's obvious that I was not citing those as "shaped stones."

But on that point, I will stand by my point that every single piece of that pyramid (barring any happy accidents of finding a natural piece of stone here or there that worked for a specific reason in the construction), including the foundation and the rubble, was produced by human processes using human hands. And that was the broader point that I was trying to make, I just didn't think that it needed to be broken down so minutely for the point to be understood.


Examination of the quarries clearly shows the limestone cleaves in perpendicular fashion (i.e. both vertically and horizontally.) It's also plain to see in some places how they made the stone cleave out of the quarry vertically.

Right...cleaving and quarrying done by the hands of human workers. Please tell me that you're understanding what I'm saying at this point...or don't, because I bet that we're both tiring of this discussion at this point.


There is no need at all for more than 5% of the stone in the GP to have been carefully shaped, or even shaped at all. And almost ALL of that is granite.

Carefully shaped, sure...but shaped, nonetheless. And I've already noted that I don't claim that the majority of the stones had to be shaped to near perfection.

Look, at this point, I'm quite certain that this discussion is pointless. You're not going to dive deeper into the theory that I'm discussing, and so I'm not going to sit here and defend a theory that I only see as a possibility to someone who chooses to remain willfully ignorant to the answers that they could readily find simply by pushing a play button and kicking their feet up for a relatively insignificant amount of time in their life.

To each their own.

The videos (or at least one of them) discuss the granite used in the interior, too...another point that you would have already understood by now that isn't included as a claim of being a geopolymer.



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: ignorant_ape

And from where did the rubble come? Was it just naturally strewn about the landscape, or was it, per se, leftovers from quarrying and cutting and shaping stone?

Thanks for your input, but I think that both you and Harte are not comprehending my point when I say that the stones were "hand-shaped from giant quarried blocks of bedrock," because that includes the rubble produced from the processes.



Okay... I've seen the quarries in person and photographed some of them. The stones were cut directly from the rock and not "hand shaped from giant quarried blocks of bedrock." Some of the partial blocks are still in space and you can see the trenches where people crouched to hammer out the underside of the blocks.

We see the same process in other quarries, including the one in Luxor where Hatshepsut's unfinished obelisk lies.

The rubble would have come from the clearing of the Giza plateau to make it flat enough for the temples, walls, and other features. There is no shortage of sand and rock chips on Giza.

Additionally, they don't actually move to construction with smaller blocks of stone until the time of Akhenaten (mostly because most of their construction was done with mud brick and they didn't often use stone for buildings.)





But in any event, yes, I'm aware of the theories that include rubble back-filling as part of the internal structure of the pyramid. But I would really hope that this isn't to what Harte was referencing, because if so, Harte could have easily said that, and I could explain that my point is that the stones included in the Khufu pyramid were produced by means of human processes.

Sure, some of the rubble could already have existed in situ prior to the processing of the stone, but since every approach to how the pyramids were built is a theory, then at this point, unless we deconstruct the damn thing or eventually find the blueprints for it, theories are theories, and nothing is...concrete?


They didn't use concrete... if they'd had it, they would have done as the Romans did and start building everything they could out of it, including stylish tombs and the plastering for the tombs themselves. They could have also poured statues.

They did none of the above... to propose that they just had concrete technology for ONLY one pyramid is logically indefensible... since they were using the same people working on each project and they would have been building multiple things at the same time (building secondary pryamids, walls, causeways, temples, other tombs at the same time as construction on the big pyramids)



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Harte

Just watch the first eight minutes of the video if you're so inclined to receive a more detailed answer. If it interests you, watch more, like the portions that discuss examination via electron microscopes, and chemical analyses, and all of it.


Ugh.

He may be a geopolymer chemist but he's no Egyptologist and he's certainly not a geologist. One semester in a geology class would have beaten into his head that yes, limestone actually contains small pockets of air (you can see this anywhere in the world) and that yes, we do have big beds of fossils where the shells are not laid down in a nice precise layer but are jumbled up in miscellaneous heaps. I can walk him out to the Sulfur River here in Texas and point to a nice block still in the earth and say "like that."

Then they show an assortment of bowls and say they're found under the Saqqara pyramid (they weren't, in fact) and he fails to note (as we learned in Egyptology) that there are paintings and other material depicting the ancient Egyptians carving out these stone vessels with drills.

That's something even a first year Egyptology student wouldn't overlook because one of the first things we learn is how things are made and what the evidence for their making is.

Also, he proved he can't read hieroglyphs (though that was blindingly obvious when they tossed up three hieroglyphs on the video and pretended to read them). There's no recipe on the stele

He also has no idea how scarce wood is in Egypt. Palm trees are not very durable nor are they very plentiful. Wood was a precious substance, and things made of wood were often recarved if they broke. Animal dung was used for firewood... they did not burn wood for heat and for cooking.

He does a "hand-wavium" over where the material comes from (Natron is not just sitting around everywhere.) He does not discuss the amount of time it takes to form the initial material (which looks like it takes days) nor the amount of time needed to dry it to a "mud" nor the time to re-form the stones nor the time for them to dry. It's all just hand-waved.

So let's look at this.

It doesn't take two days to hack a block out of the limestone. (you can see summaries of the information on the quarries and stones here) However, it takes at least a week to pour all the stuff in a shallow settling pond and then to get the clay-stuff ready to transport. Then you have to walk it up to the pyramid. Then you have to put it into a block and then wait until the block cures just enough (two months or more) so that you can remove the frames and fit other blocks on top of it or around it. So we're looking at three months for just one block of the "synthetic limestone"... that doesn't count real curing time, though, which (in modern concretes) can take up to a year.

At best, you can only do two layers of the pyramid every year. There are 204 courses of stone, which means they will spend over one century building one pyramid.

The heat from the curing concrete mix is also going to be very significant.

And then there's the question of how they built all those frames for the concrete block shapes with no access to wood. And how they got the blocks so close together (because they're much closer than they would be if you just poured them in frames next to each other)

...etc.

You shouldn't rely on videos. Videos can show you anything and tell you anything and we are hard-wired to believe our eyes, even if what we're being shown isn't the truth.

And not everyone claiming to be an Egyptologist has actually gone through the courses and studied things. When you have someone claiming secret knowledge from a well-known and well-translated work (a work that's been translated by many others), you should start being very suspicious of their understanding.



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd
The stones were cut directly from the rock and not "hand shaped from giant quarried blocks of bedrock." Some of the partial blocks are still in space and you can see the trenches where people crouched to hammer out the underside of the blocks.

We see the same process in other quarries, including the one in Luxor where Hatshepsut's unfinished obelisk lies.

The rubble would have come from the clearing of the Giza plateau to make it flat enough for the temples, walls, and other features. There is no shortage of sand and rock chips on Giza.

This is what I'm saying--every single process that you just mentioned is cutting and shaping blocks from bedrock using human hands to do the work.

Nothing that you just said, nor that Harte has said, nor what IgnorantApe has said, negates that.



They didn't use concrete... if they'd had it, they would have done as the Romans did and start building everything they could out of it, including stylish tombs and the plastering for the tombs themselves. They could have also poured statues.

Then explain the evidence that they did--at least the rather abundant microscopic evidence proposed by a geologist who actually laughed at the theory when he was first approached to examine the stones from the site. And if you watch the original video, it proposes that many statues had a rough core of stone with a "concrete" coating on the outside into which they did the final shaping and detail work.

Without any scientific evidence to show that, though, the latter claims are much harder to swallow, although as shown, possible with ancient materials and technology available in Egypt at the time. Understand that a component of the geopolymer theory necessitates the use of ash, and the Egyptians would have had to use the burning of local palms to produce the ash (according to the theory), which may or may not be something to consider when you discuss the limited use of the technology.

Like I continue to say, this is a theory that has supporting evidence, but I'm absolutely not claiming that it's a perfect theory or that it applies to everything ever created in Ancient Egypt. Of course, your using a logical fallacy to claim that just because one culture used a material ad nauseam, it means that all cultures with the technology would.


...to propose that they just had concrete technology for ONLY one pyramid is logically indefensible... since they were using the same people working on each project and they would have been building multiple things at the same time (building secondary pryamids, walls, causeways, temples, other tombs at the same time as construction on the big pyramids)

It's not logically indefensible, but I do agree that it's irrational to think that. But rationale and logic are two separate things.

As for your response to the first video, as I've suggested to Harte, you should look at the other video, which actually discusses the examination of the stones. He differs in opinion to some of Davidovits' claims, and for good reason. Again, please note that I do not espouse every aspect of this video, but I am convinced that the use of geopolymers/concrete could have been a possibility.

And comparing Texas limestone to limestone from the Giza quarries is unscientific, because what was analyzed were samples from the actual quarries and AE pyramids, not random samples from around the world.


He does not discuss the amount of time it takes to form the initial material (which looks like it takes days) nor the amount of time needed to dry it to a "mud" nor the time to re-form the stones nor the time for them to dry. It's all just hand-waved.

Actually, and to be fair, he does note the timeframes (starts at 44:00 in the video that you discuss).

Whether or not they actually produced what is claimed is a different story, although there is a follow-up somewhere in the video that shows them smashing down one of the blocks with a sledgehammer to show that two blocks did not bond when a wet one was formed on top of another. What isn't shown, and is a concern, for sure, is performing strength tests on the manufactured stone versus naturally-quarried and cut stone.

Listen, I don't "rely on videos" solely for anything, hence why I've also linked in this thread to a white paper on the findings of the microscopic analysis and to a story (I could have done more if people wanted) written on the topic from a claimed scientific site. What has me convinced that this is a possible theory for SOME of the blocks used at Giza is the microscopic analysis done by Michael Barsoum.

Look, this theory doesn't have to be accepted by those of you who are firmly planted in the idea that the current theory of how they were built satisfies your intellectual curiosity and course of study. Hell, I wouldn't be opposed to immediately saying that the theory is crap if someone overwhelmingly negates the microscopic analysis of the stone samples. But from what I've seen, there isn't anything that truly calls out the findings to be unscientific or false, as it pertains to the specific samples tested from Giza.

Yes, the concept that all of the stones were made this way is silly, and yes, microscopic analysis confirms that most of the stones are natural. But what if--what if there was this technology and it WAS used in some ways in some parts of the pyramid? Is that such a terrible possibility? It's certainly not impossible, just like it's not impossible that all of the stones were carved by hand from natural bedrock (although I'd like to have the analysis of the stones explained, then).

I'm not mad if people dislike the theory, I just get frustrated with people who ask me questions over and over that would be answered if they just watched the videos--and if they didn't want to watch the videos, they shouldn't directly argue about the theory.



posted on Jan, 20 2018 @ 10:45 AM
link   
I've often thought that would be an easier way to have built the Pyramids, and ancient Romans had great marine concrete, so it's more than plausible. I hope that more research will be done on this.




top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join