Best Conspiracy!!! Ancient Diorite sic cut

a reply to: Kandinsky

It drives me absolutely crazy when people post their thoughts as facts, and don't even know there is a difference.

From the authoritative text on the subject McNeil, Ian (2002). Encyclopaedia of the History of Technology. London ; New York: Routledge. pp. 13, 48–66. ISBN 0-203-19211-7. copper tools were not introduced into Egypt until 3,000BC. This is hundreds of years after these diorite objects were created.

So, either they were imported from a precision diorite-producing area of the world (even tho we know of none anywhere on earth at that time, so good luck with that), or methods other than copper tools were used... oh wait there has never been a copper tool anywhere at anytime that can precision cut anything, including but not limited to diorite.

Just because you took a dump today, doesn't mean you should base what you type to look like your bowel movements.

originally posted by: Byrd


Generally they cut six slabs of granite, pounded and polished them level (you can see the technique on all their granite statues and columns) and then fitted the box together. At least, that's the technique used on Hatshepsut's sarcophagus (which I've seen with my own eyes) and on the ones displayed in the Tut exhibit.

Asinine puerile garbage. You need a harder-than-the-object-being-worked-on tool to work on the object. It's simply amazing that people post their thoughts as facts, when fact checking your "thought" takes all of half a second. The stone and material construction was done by the same methods we'd use today. Otherwise, we'd use the methods you think they used then, and save millions a year on electricity costs.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
From the thread linked by 'the Cyphre'...

Punkinworks offers a better description of the process of cutting and shaping diorite...

there are several ways to make the straight grooves, one is to saw it with a copper saw. Just like the do in quarries today and have for thousads of years. ATS Thread:Alien helped build Puma Punku

Please stop posting your thoughts as facts. There are no copper tools in use in any quarry anywhere on earth, at any time ever, since the dawn of the universe. From the authorities on the subject re: In ancient Egyptian art no representations have been found of the sawing of stone by means of a copper blade and an abrasive (Lucas & Harris 1962, Stocks 1999), nor has any lapidary slabing saws been found in the archaeological record (Arnold 1991). However, the ancient Egyptians had copper saw blades, which they employed in carpentry

Let me guess, you know more about the subject than the sin qua non experts in the field, right? It's ok you can say it, they are dunces and you, you are the shining star...

edit on 29-11-2015 by EBGold because: typo

edit on 29-11-2015 by EBGold because: typo

originally posted by: EBGold

originally posted by: Byrd


Generally they cut six slabs of granite, pounded and polished them level (you can see the technique on all their granite statues and columns) and then fitted the box together. At least, that's the technique used on Hatshepsut's sarcophagus (which I've seen with my own eyes) and on the ones displayed in the Tut exhibit.

Asinine puerile garbage. You need a harder-than-the-object-being-worked-on tool to work on the object. It's simply amazing that people post their thoughts as facts, when fact checking your "thought" takes all of half a second. The stone and material construction was done by the same methods we'd use today. Otherwise, we'd use the methods you think they used then, and save millions a year on electricity costs.

Sand is harder than granite.

Granite is made up of several minerals. The quartz crystals in granite are held together in a matrix of material MUCH softer than the quartz crystals themselves.

That's the point I was making earlier concerning hardness, toughness and cleavage.

Harte

Similar mystery here in NZ with the maori carving intricate pendants and weapons from our greenstone.........when first asked where they got the knowledge to carve them they said from the people here before us....now after several revisions in our NZ history...they said they have always carved greenstone........which I dont believe for a second.How can a stone aged culture carve something so hard,so detailed,with NO metal tools at all........its a very hard stone to carve ...even with a dremel....i know as I have tried to do it myself

originally posted by: EBGold

originally posted by: Byrd


Generally they cut six slabs of granite, pounded and polished them level (you can see the technique on all their granite statues and columns) and then fitted the box together. At least, that's the technique used on Hatshepsut's sarcophagus (which I've seen with my own eyes) and on the ones displayed in the Tut exhibit.

Asinine puerile garbage. You need a harder-than-the-object-being-worked-on tool to work on the object. It's simply amazing that people post their thoughts as facts, when fact checking your "thought" takes all of half a second. The stone and material construction was done by the same methods we'd use today. Otherwise, we'd use the methods you think they used then, and save millions a year on electricity costs.

The same principles are in use today.

The standard hardness scale for rock (as every rockhound around can tell you) is the MOHS scale. [en.wikipedia.org...]These are minerals in PURE form - most minerals such as granite are NOT in pure form[/url]

You can use a material of the same hardness as another to cut it - that's why we cut and polish diamonds using diamond saws and diamond grit.

Granite has a hardness between 6 and 7 on the MOHS scale because of other minerals mixed in it

You can use sand to cut (or scratch) granite but you can't use granite to cut and polish glass.

Try it for yourself -- you can use a copper penny to cut/scrub/polish another copper penny...but it doesn't work if you try it on a dime. Sand is slightly harder than granite. Sand will polish granite (even granite with a hardness of 7) but granite cannot be used to polish glass.

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
No one is claiming that diorite was ever "melted". The theory with the geopolymer site is that limestone, a much softer rock, was turned into a slurry with water, then allowed to "re-agglomerate". It would be easier to carry the constituent materials up ladders or ramps opposed to 2.5 ton blocks, at least for the upper reaches of the pyramid. It's a theory, but it has some basis in science, and wouldn't hurt the pyramids to conduct further testing.

BIG huge problem with this -- the elements that make up limestone are nowhere near the elements that make up diorite. Diorite is very poor in calcium, the main element that makes up limestone: en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: EBGold
So, either they were imported from a precision diorite-producing area of the world (even tho we know of none anywhere on earth at that time, so good luck with that),s.

Even though, you know of none anywhere...
But that's hardly surprising, you don't seem to know anything at all

Sumerian diorite Statue of Entemena

Carved using abrasive sand in a process which is fully understood
www.khanacademy.org...

Harder stones include quartzite, diorite, granite, and basalt. Carving on softer stones was done using copper chisels and stone tools; hard stone required tools of yet harder stone, copper alloys, and the use of abrasive sand to shape them. Polishing was achieved with a smooth rubbing stone and abrasive sands with a fine grit.