What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Adam Lambert sings the 2012 theme song, “Time for Miracles” view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Watch the Adam Lambert music video for the 2012 theme song. See 2012, in theaters Nov 13
79 Comments
- ThinkBox, on 10/12/2007, -5/+34Then why didnt they just make a Giant pyramid form and pour it into that?
:) - dlown77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27clearly they melted the limestone with their lazors.
- OmniMe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22guess it wasn't aliens after all...
- jpwhitmore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19Read on. The higher stones were pored thus the lower ones are natural limestone and cane be fossiliferous.
- txrat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18fossiliferous!
- elraghy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Check this out and judge yourself. This is a presentation by the scientists
http://www.mse.drexel.edu/max/PyramidPresentation.htm - betacmag4u, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13who needs aliens when you've got this guy? or maybe he is an alien?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRRDzFROMx0 - Koskun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14The theory that the stones of some of the pyramids being a form of concrete (I think the first commenter may be taking the definition of concrete to literally) has been around for a while now. I'm glad to see it is getting more press.
How ever the pyramids were built, it is still a marvel of accomplishment, whether it was stone, concrete, whatever. - andydumi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Even so, pouring stones that size, that high is still a marvel of engineering.
- mb3581, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Silly Humans....The Gou'ald built the Pyramids to have a place to land their Hatak
- kyeetza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"It speaks to some basic human needs, that there is a tomorrow - it's not all going to be over in a big flash and a bomb, that the human race is improving, that we have things to be proud of as humans. No, ancient astronauts did not build the pyramids - human beings built them because they're clever and they work hard. And 'Star Trek' is about those things." ~Gene Roddenberry
People often make the incorrect assumption that people in the past were somehow not as intelligent as present day people, so we concoct these crazy conclusions that aliens built the pyramids and stone henge. Seriously, if we ever are able to travel to other planets that are inhabited with intelligent life, would we build ***** and then leave without a trace? - Javaman74, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7As the article points out, limestone was only used as an outer casing, which was smoothed and polished. The inner core, which is most of what we see today, was granite. Regardless of whether the upper layer of limestone was poured or not, the multi-ton inner stones still would have been hauled into place. Well, that or the grays lifted them into place with their spaceships.
- sabbac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Maybe you've not heard about an ancient civilization called the Romans? Most of the Colosseum is concrete, and that's a little bit older than 50 years, I think. I'm just guessing here, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13This doesn't make sense.
Limestone doesn't "dissolve to a slurry" in water, and even if it did, when dried again you would not get concrete. You get concrete by burning limestone (which destroys any fossils in the rock) with clay, then adding water and sand.
The limestone of at least one of the Giza pyramids is fossiliferous. - beasty_dave_Mk2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I stopped reading when they said that the wheel wasn't invented by that time.
- felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8You left out a very important part of the headline: "scientists claim."
If you read the article, it's clear that this is still a theory. A theory that is gaining ground, but "Despite mounting support from scientists, Egyptologists have rejected the concrete claim, first made in the late 1970s by Joseph Davidovits, a French chemist"
Marked as inaccurate, because I know some people only read headlines on Digg. - tdhurst, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6You can't dispute fact, but you can dispute evidence.
- ElectricKetchup, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Obviously the aliens built the pyramids to laugh at our confusion as we try to discover how they were built.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Hail Xenu!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4From the article: "Some dissenters say that levers or pulleys were used, even though the wheel had not been invented at that time."
What can one say, but: God, I hate idiots.
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/chariots.htm
I miss the days when these people used to insist The Pyramids were made by aliens in flying saucers. - dstywho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4how does rebar support a pyramid? Rebar is used to support concrete cantilevers and ledges where there is a shearing force. Rebar makes the concrete stronger because concrete holds better under compression rather than tension.
- joeshlub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's not cement. Did you even look at the article?
- LiveFastDieOld, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5In the far future, scientists will have the same type of debates in an effort to understand how the people of the early 21st century ever managed to install Zune software on a PC.
- DrexelPyramid1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Hi – I’m Alex, one of the researchers on this project at Drexel University. Many of your observations are great!
I HIGHLY recommend the following two links:
1) Davidovits (who first proposed it decades ago) actually MAKING the pyramid blocks by pouring them! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQk_yBHre4
2) Official presentation from Dr. Michel Barsoum’s group at Drexel University: http://www.mse.drexel.edu/max/PyramidPresentation.htm. (Sorry it’s HUGE right now, we’ll be compressing it soon. We'll also be putting out a detailed White Paper soon.)
Azur2, I agree, you wouldn’t expect limestone to dissolve in water, and you do describe the general process for Portland Cement. “Geopolymers” however, work on an entirely different chemical reaction. WaterDragon, you’re right that this was originally proposed decades ago, as Davidovits in France released a book in the late 1980s on the topic.
Some more food for thought now. Here are some difficulties with the “carve and hoist” theory:
- Multi-ton blocks, up to 60 tons each and an average of about 2.5 tons, fit together so precisely that a playing card can’t be wedged between them.
- The Great Pyramid is the largest of all the pyramids. To fit into the accepted timeline for its construction, one block, weighing on average more than two tons, would have to be placed every six minutes. The number of men working in the quarries to harvest the blocks, to transport them across the desert, and to drop them into place at the site is estimated to be substantially larger than the population of the nearby city at Giza.
- Their copper tools would have blunted almost immediately when carving solid limestone.
- Many of the outer pyramid blocks obviously and curiously take the non-uniform shape of surrounding blocks.
All that being said, there are also some difficulties with the “poured” theory:
- There are obvious natural grains in granite pyramid blocks. This means they’re almost certainly natural.
- Observation has shown that the lower 2/3 of the pyramid seem to be filled with rubble! (rocks which seem to have been cut and “tossed” in.
- Archeologists have discovered a quarry which shows evidence of carved blocks.
So, we propose a HYBRID theory. Portions of the pyramid were cast, while others were poured. This is work involving PhDs from around the world, electron microscopes, and a couple of grad students (like myself) that make this stuff daily! Our work shows that the outer and inner casing blocks (the outermost part, and the inside hallway lining) are not natural limestone. They are however, consistent with CASTING! Take the TEST in the presentation! You’ll be able to see with your own eyes which blocks are cast, and which are poured.
Check out the links above for more information! We don’t pretend to know it all. More research is needed. Whatever it has to do with the pyramids though, we’re SURE this geopolymer stuff will be useful as a sustainable, environmentally friendly building material. Think developing communities upgrading from grass huts and mud brick to roads and “geopolymer concrete” houses. For next to free. More details to come :) - o0o0steve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Similar interesting block structures at Sacsayhuaman, in Peru: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacsayhuam%C3%A1n
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@elraghy: Thanks. That presentation was *god-awful*.
He doesn't do any detailed analysis of the stone, doesn't know which parts may be modern restaurations or whether it's using mortar, doesn't look at fossils in the stone, doesn't compare to the local stone the pyramids is supposedly built from.
He simply look at how well the blocks fit together: if they fit together well, he assumes they were cast in place, not hewn.
This is particularly silly as primitive stonework without any binding material *requires* that stones fit together perfectly, cf incan stonework.
It is possible parts of the stonework were cast, but I don't think these "researchers" prove anything at all. - davecor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The base stones were quarried, there must have been TONS of limestone chips and dust to get rid of.
Some clever slave probably had the bright idea and popped a papyrus note into the suggestion box in the slave break-room.
I'm sure they rewarded him with reduced lashings and an extra handful of millet. - fearofcorners, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How might they leave a record? Easily. They sure left records of everything else. Anyway, super advanced technology like that doesn't exist in a vacuum. If they had anti-gravity they had nuclear physics, medicine, etc, etc. And they didn't. Case closed.
- VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4True, probably because most of them are on digg.com
(couldn't help mysel) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2* As you agree limestone doesn't dissolve in water. What is your proposed mechanism the egyptians used for pulverizing the limestone?
* Have you done any comparison between the "cast" stone and limestone from the proposed quarries? I assume you've talked to some geologists; what do they say?
* Perfect fit between stones is *required* for robust masonry when not using mortar; buildings with multi tonne blocks are found in primitive architecture throughout the world, e.g. in central & south america.
Frankly your argument seems to be based on personal incredulity: You can't believe a primitive people with copper and stone tools would be able to fit multi-tonne blocks together. Yet we actually know they could, cf e.g. finely crafted granite sarcophagi (and granite is much, much harder than limestone!).
I'd also be very interested in hearing how these "geopolymers" are made, what the composition is, and what causes them to harden. It is not obvious to me that a watery mix of pulverized limestone and a little diatomaceous earth should harden into something resembling concrete. - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I encountered similar research, nearly 20 years ago, when it was suggested that that the stones in the pyramids were cast, incorporating a specific clay from a nearby riverbed, that was high in certain aluminum compounds and would make stone-casting possible.
That theory, if true, was said to also explain how the pyramid builders had achieved such incredibly precise fitting of the stones, as thy were 'cast', each against the next one, instead of 'stones' having been cut and put in place.
I think it appeared in the weekly Science Times section of the NY Times, around 1989. So it definitely wasn't the online version. - pegasus6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm very familiar with this subject. Before commenting, got to http://www.mse.drexel.edu/max/PyramidPresentation.htm for presentaion slides and to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQk_yBHre4 for a demonstration of the the process of making limestone concrete. The Giza plateau sits on a deep bed of limestone permeated with clay which will disperse when soaked in water. When strong alkali and other ingredients are added it slowly becomes a stone-like binder. Like epoxy, only a little is needed, so the concrete looks like native limestone. They Egyptians were master 'alchemists'. the supposed lost technology to build the pyramids was a materials technology for making stone. Barsoum's contribution is the use of modern materials science to show the existence of synthetic rock on the Giza plateau. This is a new and important window on Egytptian technology.
- azurechaos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3what are you talking about?
- HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Let's not forget how the famous Damascus steel swords have been found to contain carbon nanotubes.
Many inventions are found by accident. Viagra was a discovered by accident and the original research was on a different line.
What about the mechanical computer that charts the heavens that was only recently figured out?
Technological advances are forgotten all over the place and every day. - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5@ azur2
"The limestone of at least one of the Giza pyramids is fossiliferous"
Certainly, sand or gravel that included fossils could have been used in the mix. Get some Portland cement, and throw a bunch of seashells and other fossils in it, along with sand...and see if it still sets up.
Do this in a large container, and be sure you are standing in it at the time, just to prove your certainty that it will not set up.
;-0 - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1OK, I've read through the given links, and these are my thoughts:
1) "Geopolymer" seems to be a very roundabout way of making a cement-based stone with fossils as filler. The whole dissolve the limestone thing (which I still don't understand), adding natron etc seem to be designed solely to produce a rock with similar characteristics of the natural stone in Giza, because then there is slaked lime added which will react with the silicates and act as binder. While it is a feat to make rocks similar to natural rocks, that will not have been a priority for the egyptians.
If they knew that burning locally occurring clay-rich limestone, pulverizing it, and then adding water and sand, produced concrete blocks of superior strength, why go through all the extra steps to create a stone similar to the naturally occurring local stone?
2) Bronze and even impure copper tools are hard enough to cut limestone. Stone and wood tools will have been used too.
3) A pyramid is the most thermodynamically stable shape there is, basically a 'heap'. This is why so many civilizations have built pyramids, and why the egyptian pyramids are still standing: they can't fall down. This has some importance wrt the irregular filler "rubble" rock you're seeing inside the finely shaped structural stones and stones used in corridors: there was no need to have perfect fit there.
4) Surely you guys are not serious about the remarks about the egyptians making cast granite?
5) The comparison of alleged natural to allleged cast stone in the presentation is simply a comparison of the over all look of irregular rocks (assumed to be natural) and finely shaped rocks (assumed to be cast).
I still say you guys need to get a couple of geologists and material scientists, to compare your recreated cast rock to alleged ancient cast rock and alleged hewn rock. - pilgrim3970, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"the early concrete they used was obviously alien tech."
Exactly! Because, afterall, it is silly to think that ancient men with their primitive minds could have built the pyramids on their own.
/sarcasm - betacmag4u, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There is no God. The Bible is a fairy tale. Grow up.
- siszam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Amazing. scientists can't prove simple things but still people put faith in them and believe in them instead of God. Sad and pathetic.
- jshusta, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"How can you dispute 'evidence'?"
you say, "i dispute this evidence." and what you mean when you say that is, "these things that are facts (maybe), they are irrelevant; they are not evidence of such-and-such, but of something else which i feel is unrelated." - keraneuology, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Old research... I first read the theory that at least some of the stones were poured over 20 years ago. Another theory that is interesting on a few levels is that the pyramids were built as giant water pumps that not only provided water for irrigation but with the help of cofferdams provided water that allowed larger blocks to be floated to higher layers of the pyramid for placement.
The guy claims that if you built a fire in one of the rooms (that happens to have a lot of soot stains) and put a checkvalve in some other spot of the corridor then you'd be able to get enough suction to pull water out of an underground aquifer.
http://www.thepump.org - laugh, study, mock, ignore, dismiss or embrace as you desire - jesselee54, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Quote from article: "...the wheel had not yet been invented at that time". Use this as a guide to the rest of the "facts" presented.
- gyneric, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1you're right; this is very old research - Prof. Michel Barsoum has been studying the pyramids and his theory for the last 26 years. Download his presentation at http://www.mse.drexel.edu/max/PyramidPresentation.htm
- hawkeye17, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I don't buy it. It must have been the ancient aliens that built them all! It's not like humans have any capacity for creating and thinking right??!! I'm obviously joking, but is anyone else tired of cable shows speculating that ancient humans couldn't have built these great monuments without the help of some aliens or other such nonsense? Even in ancient times, humans everywhere had a vast capacity for brilliant ideas made real.
- HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Much was lost when the Library of Alexandria was burned to the ground...
- gettarat, on 11/24/2008, -0/+1In the far future, scientists will have the same type of debates in an effort to understand how the people of the early 21st century ever managed to install Zune software on a PC.
http://pyramidsofgiza.org/ - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Azur -
"* Perfect fit between stones is *required* for robust masonry when not using mortar."
Yes, it is required but, that statement does not tell you how to achieve that perfect fit. - Photoblog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2makes sense to me, you can dissolve lime and keep the fossiliferous, you just have to grind it up in larger chunks
- jhshukla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1slave dint know how to read or write. he might have made a suggestion but not using a written form.
- vuzman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The concrete we use today is actually not as good as the concrete the romans used. The method the Romans (and it seems others too) used to make concrete has been lost through time, and concrete was re-invented centuries later. We are still not as good as they were then.
-
Show 51 - 79 of 79 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