What is Digg?108 Comments
- dahitman2389, on 10/11/2007, -34/+308Damn, I got bored reading it. For others who don't want to spend the time:
Pyramids = Old ass concrete mix. K THX BAI. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -19/+167FACT: 21st Century Americans are waaaay dumber than ancient Egyptians
REASON: Ancient Egyptians didn't have fake cable news networks - masamunecyrus, on 10/11/2007, -5/+111People neglect to comprehend the fact that people 4000 years ago were just as smart and resourceful as we are now, the only difference is that we have discovered more. But even with limited knowledge, so much is possible. For instance, the Pyramids are built almost perfectly level. They accomplished this by digging up where the foundation was to stand while leaving several pillars still in the pit. Then, they filled the pit with water and marked the water lines on the pillars. These water lines were exactly level so they leveled off the pillars, drained the water, and then made the foundation at an equal height to the pillars, thus making a level foundation.
- malcolmreynolds, on 10/11/2007, -10/+105I learned all I needed to know about ancient egypt from SG-1. True, no?
- ChuckIT, on 10/11/2007, -6/+95well...i mean...that just makes sense. . . you think about it, god they chiseled perfect blocks every time? why must we think that just because they are "ancient" that they are not resourceful and intelligent. . .
- russellnation, on 10/11/2007, -9/+96no way they totally chiseled the stones piece by piece, thats why there is so much sand over there.
/sarcasm - signal15, on 10/11/2007, -4/+64If this theory is correct, would it be possible to carbon date this stone? When it was manufactured, some organic material most certainly made its way into it.
- coldphoenix, on 10/11/2007, -8/+57AND scientology
- MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -4/+51Landing Pads for Goa'uld Motherships!!!
"The reason you're here, Doctor. This big ring was discovered in the sands of Egypt near Giza."
"Then I was right! The pyramids really were landing sites for interplanetary starships that enslaved primitive populations by posing as their gods."
"Well…we, uh, found the ring in the sand." - YellowStar, on 10/11/2007, -0/+34Is there a digg.com-equivalent for smart people? This place is turning into a sadder version of fark with just as low signal-to-noise ratio.
- Rekutyn, on 10/11/2007, -1/+31There is zero historical evidence of that. In fact Egyptian stone workers were some of the most revered laboring forces of the day. They were well fed and well paid.
- Dumbledorito, on 10/11/2007, -8/+38@theguy23: Watch "Jesus Camp." Some people DO worship the President, as nutty as it seems.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHEmWgW4qwg - signal15, on 10/11/2007, -8/+37Dr. Zahi Hawass is going to be pissed.
- ragsmaloy, on 10/11/2007, -11/+39Actually I think they started from the top and then worked their way down to the easier bits
- themoose, on 10/11/2007, -1/+24@ragsmaloy (first comment)
yeah, they managed that with their zero-gravity devices that they engineered previous to the pyramids. - SadMartigan, on 11/25/2008, -2/+23The first rule of reconstituted limestone, you don't talk about reconstituted limestone.
- ATHEISTinHELL, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16Let my well paid people go!!
- signal15, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16Hawass being pissed was actually kind of a joke, and kind of not a joke. Traditional Egyptologists have always been extremely resistant to even entertaining the idea that they may have been incorrect about anything, even when confronted with compelling new evidence. However, it's hard to blame them because of all of the crackpot ideas that some have suggested (e.g. Graham Hancock and some of the alien theories).
Personally, I think this theory holds quite a bit of promise. The article does mention that no copper chisels have ever been found on the Giza plateau. I've seen theories where they supposedly carved the stone by banging on it with granite stones, but the sheer magnitude of this just seems improbable to me. I'm not saying it couldn't have happened, I'm simply saying that it is improbable. Additionally, older pyramids were constructed of much smaller stones and not fitted as precisely as the stones on newer pyramids, these would have been easier to quarry and would be more likely. If the Egyptians did discover concrete between the earlier pyramids and the pyramids at Giza, it would explain why their pyramid building skills suddenly had a huge advancement. - Kinjiru, on 10/11/2007, -7/+22@ Nudar
Parting of the red sea not simply crossing it you ninny.
And way to give a link to a religious site for "proof" of something no one ever could prove *LOL* - neonhomer, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16To quote nonpareil from an older pyramids digg: "...compelling evidence that Chuck Norris built the pyramids in a day."
- AndrewMayne, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14The whole limestone quarry recently found nearby with finished and unfinished stones being carved out of the rock was just an elaborate ruse I tell you! Seriously though, the concrete pyramid concept is very old and not up to date with the latest research. Then again, most pseudoscience is like that.
- Hetman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12This is guy is just trying to create a market for his better than portland concret. Pyramide Concrete.
- ufcivil, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11I wrote a paper about this in 11th grade history class 13 years ago. The hypothesis was based on Davidovits' book Pyramids: an Enigma Solved. I didn't do so well on that paper, in fact I think it was the worst grade I had ever received in my high school career. Thanks for the article Sheila Berninger and Dorilona Rose. FU Mrs Eyberg.
- MYarms, on 10/11/2007, -7/+18Buried as inaccurate. Everyone knows that aliens built the pyramids.
- Kinjiru, on 10/11/2007, -18/+29Aww poor offended religious babies.. can't handle the truth that your religion is a CULT by definition?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult
read if for yourself and go ahead digg this down as well.. it would be following all of the other hypocritical things done in the name of religion! - tearor, on 10/11/2007, -6/+16OH Nose!!! Quick, bury this. You're shattering centuries of a speculatived realities.
- nreynolds, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9"You know what stinks about being a slave? They make you do work but they don't pay you or let you leave" - FRY
- dirtyfrog, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9I saw a show on either Discovery or the History Channel that had people testing the wind theory. I don't remember them using it for the stone placements of the pyramids, but they tested it on the obelisks. They were able to use a parachute type design with cloth and rope that was available at the time of ancient Egypt to lift, I think it was, a one ton obelisk enough were they could guide it into the hole they had dug and stand it straight up.
- Sober, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9I think it's much more probable that they carried buckets of water and limestone dust to the top of a several hundred foot tall structure instead of a single 70 ton block.
- cockmaster, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10"oh not the GEOPOLYMER THEORY AGAIN..."
if you ever catch yourself saying that out loud, you should just give up on life right then and there. - ArtificialAnus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9@artsike
Sorry, no. The pyramids were not buit by slaves. That appears to be a latter-day fairy tale.
See links.
"Not slaves. Archeaologist Mark Lehner, digging deeper, discovers a city of privileged workers."
http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/070391.html
"Were these militaristic kinds of conscripts? Certainly they weren't slaves...."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/explore/builders.html
AA - Xanin, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9The word 'slab' is now going round and round in my head.
- Rukaribe, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12@ signal15
Why would he be pissed? Wouldn't he be happy that his civilization was even more intelligent than we give them credit for? I'm sure he isn't so arrogant as to ignore this theory and write it off as blasphemy. I'm sure he'll be pleased and push for further investigation. - fragsta, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7I think something that a lot of people fail to understand is that "levels of technology" or how technologically advanced a culture is, is probably relative, just like everything else. We may consider our civilisation to be extremely technologically advanced, more so than any other civilisations which have fallen before our time, but how can we assume they didn't just take a different technological route to us? There are probably small areas of science we haven't even thought about that the Ancient Egyptians were quite deep into. That's what I think, at least. Perhaps I'm crazy, but you never know. Scientific discovery can't be linear, surely?
- Octtopsy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8You guys are so wrong. The pyramids were obviously manipulated using Adobe® Photoshop™® software.
- Phaedruss, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11So does this mean Where's Waldo isn't factually correct? :'(
- JasonCox, on 10/11/2007, -7/+13Tek'ma'te.
- memodude, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9reddit
- Sasabune, on 10/11/2007, -6/+10@theguy23
Care to tell us what is a non-fake god? - accelleron, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4off-topic, but once the ball gets rolling and you have a user-base in the millions, it's bound to happen.
- thejadedmonkey, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4I saw this guy present his findings about a month or two ago, and it was really crazy. I don't know if I believe him or not, but it sure is interesting and a nice shot for how to curb greenhouse emissions.
- spammbunny, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Lets put on our favorite tinfoil hats and go a step further ; study this premise: that the Great Pyramids are plutonium mills.
http://www.nuclearpyramid.com/other_two_pyramids.php - jpdoane, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3metafilter
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"Still, as with all great mysteries, not every aspect of the pyramids can be explained. How the Egyptians hoisted 70-ton granite slabs halfway up the great pyramid remains as mysterious as ever."
...move on, nothing to see here... - nerdtron, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Yah, pretty sure that's just wrong. As far as I know, the workers who built the pyramids were farmers engaged in a sort of "work for welfare" system during the off-season. The work was hard, for sure, but they were well looked after in a period where they would otherwise be idle.
- indyGuy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Disciplines beyond traditional egyptology are putting forward theories and challenging the status quo. And almost every time, the egyptologists dismiss the theories immediately. Someone feel threatened?
- IckyChris, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4I don't get the big deal about two blocks fitting together so snuggly, wuggly that you can't fit a hair between them.
If you have a single flat template, you test every block with it and grind them and polish them until they are flat.
Then when you have two flat surfaces and put them next to each other you naturally won't be able to fit a hair between them.
As for the chemistry of the blocks, that's beyond me. But flat surfaces are no mystery. - trolleyfan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"I agree.. what makes more sense.. the WOODEN ramp that is able to support the workers weight and supplies that get taken up..."
Yes, because having several thousand feet of wooden ramp ought to be nice and cheap and easy to build in the middle of Egypt...
...that's sarcasm, BTW.
"and having teams of camels oxen or horses (whatever) drag large containers of supplies (water and imestone and what ever was needed)"
Camels haven't been tamed yet - and horses are way too expensive. People, now, Egypt's got people, lots of them - with lots of time on their hands while the Nile's flooded too.
"or having those same animals/people move several ton bricks.. sorry this does not hold water and smells worse then the alien theory"
20 people can drag a 3,000 pound stone. Heck, C. J. Cherryh once had a class of hers of teenage girls drag that much weight about the football field as an experiment! It isn't easy, but it can be done.
Now imagine 20 people each _carrying_ a 150 pound basket of "concrete mix"? Now imagine they each have to _also_ carry a 150 pound container of water - or IOW, double the number of trips up and down the pyamid they make. That's your "savings" by using "concrete" to build a pyramid.
Now try and figure out _why_ - if they're using "concrete" - they're pouring it in these 2.5 ton block shapes at all.
When we pour a concrete foundation do we break it up into a bunch of little blocks. No. Why? Because it's dumb, that's why. We pour it all at once - or as close as we can get to that. Even if you were limited to pouring 3,000 pounds at a time (why?), you wouldn't pour it in a block shape because that would take longer to harden and cure.
Now when we _do_ build out of concrete blocks do we pour them right where they're going to sit. No. Why? Because it's dumb, that's why. We pour them right next to where we have all the materials so we _don't_ have to haul all the materials to make the blocks up to where they're going to sit and - basically - double our work. If the Egyptians were making "concrete" stones for the pyramid, they would be doing several miles away, right down by the Nile, where the water was and where the "mix" could be easily delivered by boat - not making it ten times harder on themselves by trucking all this stuff to the pyramid site and then up on top of the pyramid before mixing it. Almost no one - except Davidovits - would be dumb enough to build something this way. You'd pour your blocks, wait for them to harden and cure, _test_ them (because having a bad batch of "concrete" blocks at, say, the fifty foot level of the pyramid means what you've just built is a pile of rubble, not a tomb), then carry the finished blocks to and up the pyramid an set them in place...
...oh, wait! That's using carved limestone blocks except with all the added work of making concrete...
Look, you can actually _go_ to the quarries where they carved out the blocks. It isn't this big mystery - lots of dedicated people working over a couple of decades can build almost anything even with "primitive" tools if they're smart enough - and the ancient Egyptians were smart enough. - trolleyfan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2http://www.aeraweb.org/khufu_quarry.asp
- tdawson2012, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5@Nudar
Do you know how many freaking armies and small forces crossed those waters in antiquity. It's certainly reasonable to assume that some fighting took place at those water ways, and ships carrying chariots were sunk and so on. We don't need magical fairy pipe dreams to explain everything. Take those blinders off son. -
Show 51 - 100 of 101 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is