At least one Pa. university seems to be producing something worthwhile.
Portland cement injects a large amount of the world's carbon dioxide into the atmosphereIs this sentence supposed to make sense?
Wonder if it was a later repair job???
GGG ping
Explains the form lines plainly visible in the cantilevered passageways. Forty years ago before polymers were kewl, my brother, a retired stonemason, said the walls were probably poured in some sections. Why not? Plenty of sand around. Add a little water and stuff, mix well, and viola! A pyramid.
This is nothing new. I read several articles with microphotography back in 1989 by a Professor Davidowits published in Concrete International.
I was persuaded by these articles that this was worth investigating. The type of cement used has different common names but the technical one is alkalai-activated alumino-silicate cement. This cement is quite distint and different from ordinary portland cement and has several advantages over portland cement such as durability, strength, dimensional stability (non-shrink) and rapid cure.
What doesn't make sense is this guys apparent assertion that block were cast and then dragged into place. It makes for more sense, if you are using concrete in the first place, to cast the blocks in situ.
This is not a new theory.
It appeared many years ago and was discredited.
Years ago, the Smithsonian proved that, with the use of only eight pieces of wood, large stone blocks could be easily moved with just a fraction of the manpower. They do this by forming two wooden "wheels", held together with pins, which turn the rectangular blocks into cylinders.
To build a pyramid, you first lay the bottom layer of stones, and then you pile dirt around them to form a dirt ramp that you can then roll the next layer up. Eventually, all but the top of the pyramid is covered with dirt. And when it is done, take away the dirt and there is your pyramid.
Dirt ramps were long since used in the region. Perhaps the most famous example was the giant dirt ramp used to attack Masada, in AD 70, by the Romans--far larger and more complex than anything the Egyptians would have needed.
Now if things were so relatively easy, compared to the traditional model, at the pyramid site, it would also explain why the quarry and stone carving cities have been found, but no equivalent giant slave city to actually build these same pyramids.
As far as the concrete blocks, I would think that when making the majority of the pyramid, the blocks could be somewhat irregularly sized. However, for the final outside layer, you would want them as regularly sized as possible--hence molded concrete blocks, for aesthetic reasons.
The reason that such blocks only seem to exist at the top of the pyramid can be explained by the fact that many of the lower blocks were long ago looted for other buildings.
They still refuse to recognize it is not the Cheops pyramid.
It was built around 11,000 BC or 37,000 BC or +26,000 years until one arrives at a logical point. IOW, man did not build it or man as we know today did not build it.
I could have sworn there were two more topics about this, but here's one at least:
Pyramids were built with concrete rather than rocks, scientists claim
UK Times Online | Today | Chalres Bremner
Posted on 12/01/2006 6:55:23 PM EST by Rodney King
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1747201/posts
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
Gods, Graves, Glyphs PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
bump