New research strongly suggests the Giza pyramids were constructed using artificial stone

page: 10
122
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alan Saltsman
I'll briefly give you my qualifications. I have an undergraduate degree in Geological Sciences at Penn State University (1977) with a 3.90 GPA in my geological science classes.

I attended The University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana for graduate school in paleeocology. I took Dr. Albert Carozzi's sedimentary petrology class. In that class we studied thin-sections of every sedimentary rock imaginable including carbonates, phosphates, and galauconitic rocks. He had very sedimentary rock imaginable! He even had several thin-sections of cement/concrete. Anybody with even limited intelligence can easily tell the difference between a real carbonate rock and cement/concrete in thin section in about two seconds. It isn't hard. It's very easy. I have to believe that sedimentary petrologists have already thin-sectioned the pyramids and studied them. It is hard for me to believe that they mistakenly identified the rock as a carbonate rock instead of cement/concrete.

And it really isn't THAT complicated. I could walk up to the pyramids, and very likely immediately tell you whether it was cement or a carbonate rock. If visual inspection of the pyramids didn't suffice, I would only need an hour or so at some of the local outcrops where the rocks supposedly came from to determine whether that is where they actually came from. Each limestone has its individual suite of fossils, its individual colors and textures. Plus, put very simply, limestone doesn't look anything like cement/concrete. But thin-sectioning the rocks or making acetate peels of the rocks would be a more thorough way to proceed.

Link to my published paper which I did completely by myself:
bulletin.geoscienceworld.org...


Having such a paper published is worthy of kudos and I'm more than certain that it received a very favourable response from your peers.

However, I have to ask what your experience and qualifications in the field of Geopolymeric Chemistry happen to be.

If you have none, and all you have to go on is the brief study of sedimentary specimens you made many years ago during your student days, then I'm afraid that I don't see why you think you have the expertise to comment on Davidovits work.
Have you used actual samples of the pyramid material and conducted it to rigourous and thorough laboratory analysis and examination ?

I'm sure that in your own speciality that you're quite knowledgeable but does your experience compare in any way with the multitude of peer reviewed papers, the many patents and the almost 4 decades of research specializing in Geoploymeric Chemistry that Davidovits has accumulated during his career ?

In fact, here's a summary of his research, patents and publications. When someone has invested this amount of time into a specialized field of research, in my book that makes them an expert and eminently qualified to speak on the subject of artificial limestone as it pertains to the pyramid structures.

Would you mind showing us a similar summary of your work and published materials so that we can determine whether you in fact do have the necessary credentials to make the post that you did.







posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 



All of this guy's research indicating that the pyramids might be composed of cement/concrete means nothing if the pyramids are made of limestone, not cement/concrete.

I pointed out in my initial response that it is very easy to distinguish limestone from cement/concrete. It's fairly easy in hand specimen. Polished slabs or thin sections would remove all doubt. Any undergraduate in geology could do it as a class project.

So the scientific procedure in analyzing the pyramids should have been

1. Are the pyramids composed of limestone or cement/concrete?

The scientific procedure should NOT have been:

2. I have an interesting theory about how the pyramids were constructed with cement/concrete: here is my theory.

If step 1 proves that the pyramids are composed of limestone, step 2 is automatically invalidated and a complete waste of time.

The only thing that invalidates what I say here is if every carbonate petrologist who has studied the pyramids was a complete, utter idiot who couldn't tell the difference between limestone and cement/concrete in thin section.

As far as my qualifications are concerned? My paper was published in the GSA Bulletin which was considered by many to the the most prestigious journal in the geological sciences at the time. I received no help from professors. That is quite an accomplishment. It was based on many things, but included an intensive study of the thin sections of limestone's and shales. Plus, in my initial post, I mentioned that I took Dr. Carozzi's sedimentary petrology class at the University of Illinois. We studied every type of carbonate rock in existence, and also looked at thin sections of concrete/cement! There is NO similarity between limestone and cement/concrete in thin section.

The only two rocks that could cause a problem would be comparing micritic ("fine grained") limestone with a fine-grained, pure cement. My basic knowledge about the limestones composing the pyramids is that they are full of large forams, so this this is not really a problem.

And why do my qualifications matter that much anyway since it doesn't take a rocket scientist to distinguish between cement/concrete and limestone. It takes only a minimal amount of brain cells for any geologist to distinguish between limestone and cement/concrete. It's easy. I thought that I explained that in my original post.

The bottom line. Is it limestone? If it is, then it isn't concrete/cement. Any competent carbonate petrologist could figure this out with a very minor amount of effort. And as important as the pyramids are, I have to believe that it has been done already.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Here is a link to a photo of one of the pyramids.

www.flickr.com...

I see two things that tell me that this appears to be limestone, not cement/concrete

1. Differences in stratification between different layers
2. Differential weathering between different layers
3. Differences in grain size between different layers

STRATIFICATION
Stratification is marked by the appearance of horizontal layers in a rock, most commonly sedimentary rocks (rocks formed by sediments/sedimentation). It results from several causes. Some rocks are naturally stratified such as laminated limestones formed in ancient mudflats or cross-stratified sandstones formed in stream beds. But some stratification forms from the sediments being covered by large amounts of additional sediments which causes compaction of the buried sediments, forming a layered structure to form. Most of this is natural layering, but it can also be caused by a process in carbonates (limestones and dolomites) called pressure solution.

To me, the rocks in the photo look like stratified limestone. I would not expect to see stratification in an artificial stone. An artificial stone is not going to compact because it is basically already solid once it has formed. And the weight of stones above it is going to be far below what is necessary for the geological process of compaction to take place. Also, I would expect an artificial stone to be rather homogeneous, not full of fine layering. Layering in an artificial stone, if that is even possible, would probably be something to avoid because it would probably weaken the stone.

DIFFERENTIAL WEATHERING
Differential weathering refers to the process where different parts of a rock weather at different rates. In the case of limestones, layers which are predominantly carbonate will weather slower, whereas layers containing a lot of clay minerals will weather faster. I suppose that could be reversed in some climates or situations. The point is, some layers often weather faster, producing a layer which is recessed back from the face of the stone.

Cement/concrete, I would assume, would tend to be homogeneous. You're not going to have a compositional difference resulting in different rates of weathering for different parts of the stone. An inhomogeneous artificial stone would tend to be weaker, so this situation would tend to be avoided by someone manufacturing the stone. If you had someone build a garage for you out of concrete blocks, would you want to look at it twenty years later and discover that some portions of each concrete block were now weathering away and are now recessed back from the face of the block?

Now look at the photo in the link above. Look at the stone to the little boy's right (our left). You can easily see both Stratification and Differential Weathering. The top half of the stone is jutting outward more than the bottom half (=differential weathering) because the lower half of the stone weathered faster. There is obvious layering in the lower half of the stone (=stratification).

LARGER GRAINS IN THE LOWER LAYER
There is one more difference in the two layers. The upper layer is extremely fine-grained (apparently micrite). The lower layer has some larger grains which are most likely small fossils.

If you now look above the little boy you will see stones that are similar to the one beside the boy. In all three cases the more weather-resistant part of the stone was placed at the top. I believe that this was done intentionally for an obvious reason. (I won't explain something so obvious)

FINAL ANALYSIS
These are the two layers in the three rocks under consideration:

UPPER LAYER
No stratification
More resistant to weathering
Very fine-grained rock with no apparent large grains

LOWER LAYER
Well-defined stratification
Less resistant to weathering
Coarser-grained rock that the above layer

All of this tell me that this is limestone, not artificial stone.



posted on Mar, 30 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Sorry for the bad edit-check on my last post. I wrote this response in about 8 minutes. The first sentence should say "three things." I initially saw the stratification and then differential weathering. Then I later saw the grain size differences.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 03:14 AM
link   
If there are some poured cement blocks in the Great Pyramid, they could be from Khufu's restoration or modifications. E. Cayce said it took 100 yrs. to build the GP. A much more likely figure. On the Inventory Stele, Khufu supposedly said he only repaired the GP.

www.hallofthegods.org...

www.atlantisrising.com...



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
in reply to your post i have read of french results & photos of MACHINE marks on the pyrimds & and surrounding area that is well supressed .saw marks are evident as are drills etc . it is known of a plant that can soften stone a purpleish plant/ flower i have read of an explorer in south america who found some in a bottle & spilled it on stone softing the stone enough for him to stick his thumb into it minutes later it had gone hard again cant remember where i read that folks as i read like mad



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Wonderful information OP, thanks for bringing it to my attention.

This idea is similar to those in Teotihuacan, but slightly modified. Theories there are that stone may have been melted and then poured into molds, as such because the rocks are so greatly aligned you cannot fit a piece of paper between them. S+F and thanks for the info about the book too, looks like an interesting read.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Iron oxide precipitates easily in liquids.
Iron oxide is present in the pyramid limestone analysis.
Suspended iron will naturally align to the earths magnetic field as has been seen in magma samples, and has been used to justify ancient pole-shifts and plate tectonics.

Could the magnetic alignment of the "poured" stones be used to prove the casting theory one way or the other?

Iron exibits ferromagnetism, and a ferromagnetic material under an external magnetic field develops a strong magnetic dipole.

It seems like it would be easy to test.

A melted or dissolved material with iron included should be obvious when tested.





top topics
 
122
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join