Best Conspiracy!!! Ancient Diorite sic cut, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times


reply posted on 30-4-2009 @ 02:13 PM by Harte
reply to post by Byrd



No way can you melt diorite and simply pour and cool it and expect to have diorite when it cools.

Different rocks are different in many cases because of the various different circumstances under which they underwent solidification.

I'm no geologist but I'm willing to bet that diorite has to be solidified under greater than atmospheric pressure or it won't form diorite when it cools.

Harte



reply posted on 1-5-2009 @ 12:46 AM by Kandinsky
Agglomerating rock would be to expend resources for no reason. Quarries aren't formed of limestone rubble/ agglomeration, they are mostly layered limestone. There is clear evidence that AE quarried large blocks. What purpose would be achieved by quarrying large blocks and then breaking them down to recreate large blocks? In the past I've spent several years on building sites and can't imagine how forming blocks in situ would be easier than placing blocks. The weight of a 3x3m limestone solid block is the same as it's agglomerated mass with the water and binder (washing liquid is often used today) adding more weight. As the whole mass dried and set it would require 'shuttering.' The shuttering would be supporting all that weight.



The diagram above gives a fairly one dimensional idea of the concept, but still applies. The ground stakes wouldn't be possible. The shuttering would need to be applied to the four sides and base. Not very likely. Pyramid blocks have gaps you can put your hand in. This illustrates that they didn't use adjacent blocks as supporting walls while they shuttered 3 sides. It would need to remain for several days until the block had dried enough to retain it's integrity.

Moving a solid 3X3m block 300m and placing it seems quicker than the alternative.



The picture above is Khafre's quarry. It shows the remains of 3X3m blocks and the channels that separate them where the men would have worked. The quarry is 300m from the GP and is 30m deep.

What they achieved is testament to blood, sweat and motivation.

[edit on 1-5-2009 by Kandinsky]


reply posted on 1-5-2009 @ 04:07 PM by frankensence
According to the geopolymer site, the agglomerated stones are stronger than natural limestone or sandstone, and would weather just like natural stone. If I had to guess, I would think the Egyptians might use natural quarried stone for the base and all the lower courses of their pyramds and temples, since these you can reasonbly drag a block into place. But when it came to dragging a 250 ton block up a long ramp? They (the experts) can't figure out IF a ramp was used, let alone how such a ramp would be configured, if they had two lanes of traffic, or used counterweights, and so on - so there's room in the egyptology world for one more theory I'm guessing.

If you cast against a dried block, it would be a separate block, they wont fuse together. In fact, the joint between the cast blocks would provide the needed stress relief for expansion/contraction.

The commentator in the video on the site shows where two side by side blocks had what appeared to be a casting form or marks that spanned the two blocks. Another showed where the underside of two possibly cast blocks had what appeared to be a small rock that got caught during the casting, then was removed after they had dried, leaving an indentation under both blocks.

What would be interesting is to see what the traditionalists say about the stele, if the geoploymer interpretation is out in left field or valid, and that the egyptian writer was explaining the ratios of mixtures for the agglomeration process?


reply posted on 5-5-2009 @ 02:25 AM by Blackmarketeer


The caption to this image reads:
"Blocks that appear to have been cast (top); blocks most likely not cast (bottom)"

The average block weighed around 2.5 tons. The traditional theory, although it lacks evidence, is a that a ramp was used to drag blocks to the top of the pyramid. But in order to reach the top of the pyramid, at a slope of 7% (about the max you can expect to drag such a weight), the ramp becomes about a mile long. And no trace of such a ramp exists. Not to mention you end up building a ramp structure that would nearly equal the pyramid in mass.

There is a sign at the GP of a short ramp, but it's too short for any "dragging" methods to have completed the pyramid. The "internal ramp" theory goes into that in more depth.

SOURCE


reply posted on 16-7-2009 @ 01:19 AM by Kandinsky
reply to post by Sargoth



The sarcophagus in the kings chamber is all one piece. I'm no expert but I doubt copper tools could have made it.


The sacrcophagus has drill holes and clumsy saw marks that the builders had tried to conceal by sanding down...

There are clear saw marks in paving stones and basalt blocks across Egypt. There is also artwork showing carpenters using saws. There isn't any evidence that Egypt or her neighbors at that point had developed metals harder than bronze. Copper grave goods have been found from the 4th Dynasty (Khufu, Sneferu, Khafre etc).

Egyptian scholars don't simply come up with 'common sense' ideas that are then blindly accepted by everyone else. They need evidence to support their claims. Copper saws have been tested on granite blocks to see how well they worked....



They worked as well as could be expected and left V-shaped saw paths consistent with contemporary blocks.


reply posted on 16-7-2009 @ 08:46 AM by Blackmarketeer
The Famine Stele: hieroglyphs on pyramids construction

Kandinsky, the copper saw was without doubt their most useful tool, but was it their only tool? At Giza you see indications of stone (in the upper levels) that were not cut so there must have been another method used.


reply posted on 16-7-2009 @ 11:55 AM by Kandinsky
reply to post by Blackmarketeer

I've read about the interpretation of the Famine Stele several times in relation to 'polymerization.' The page you linked is from a 1988 presentation available on pdf here. There's a more accessible explanation of the process here.

They make for interesting reading and the processes are plausible and practical based on the materials available at the time. To my mind, they are working on two premises that are flawed.

The first premise is the one that has led to any number of bizarre explanations for the construction techniques of the Giza Pyramids...anti-grav, aliens, vanished advanced civilizations etc. It's the premise that the numbers are too big, the scale too massive to be achievable by conventional methods. Any exponents of polymerization and obscure theories tend to support their ideas by a sort of appeal to ridicule...."How could they possibly have created the pyramids?" They cite math that demonstrates a block being laid every three seconds etc. Certainly there are elements of ridicule to their claims.

The second premise willfully ignores the evidence that there is a substantial record of quarrying blocks, masonry marks and other stone structures that clearly aren't made using techniques of polymerization.

I posted an image of one of several quarries that clearly show the square remains of blocks. Copper tools are still found under rubble. Unused blocks remain in place and can be found en route to the pyramid sites. The Unfinished Obelisk represents the scope of their ambitions...1200 tons of solid granite was considered possible. Shifting limestone blocks that averaged 2-3 tons is not quite the impossible task that alternative theorists like to imagine.

I've mentioned before that I've some experience in construction. Shuttering is the process needed to 'shore up' up the wet agglomeration. The wooden planks suggested in the second link illustrates two props...impossible. The downward force of over 2 tons of mix demands robust timber supports at 45 degree angles. This would mean that the adjacent blocks couldn't be laid until that block had 'gone off.' In the UK, with fast drying cement, a two ton cube of cement would take around a week before the shuttering is removed. Allowing for the dry climate of Giza (and ignoring the adverse night time temperatures-expansion forces v contraction), let's imagine 2-3 days? The theory begins to fall over...agreed...the transport of the mass could less labor-intensive but construction would be very slow.

I'm not Lehner or any form of Egyptologist...it seems that until other theories gather the weight of evidence...conventional, evidenced, tested explanations will remain.


reply posted on 16-7-2009 @ 12:10 PM by Kandinsky
reply to post by Sargoth

They hollowed out the interior of sarcophagi using boring techniques still used by stone masons today. By drilling holes in a grid formation they could then employ a wooden wedge to break out the interior piece by piece. The holes have been found in the bases of many sarcophagi.

Egyptian tube drilling

Google Books: Experiments in Egyptian archaeology
By Denys Allen Stocks (p172)

Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^



Origin of Ancient Jade Tool Baffles Scientists
  Posted 8 days ago with 96 member flags
12,000 Years Old Unexplained Structure
  Posted 5 days ago with 81 member flags
The Uluburun shipwreck sunk 3,400 years ago
  Posted 16 days ago with 70 member flags
Sigiriya : The 8th Wonder of the World
  Posted 5 days ago with 45 member flags
Tomb of Queen Heterpheres
  Posted 17 days ago with 29 member flags
R.O.V. Photos of Sunken Megaliths off Western Cuba
  Posted 12 days ago with 21 member flags