• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How did the Egyptians build the pyramids?

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Your source is extremely useful.

Look at the lack of dolomite in the pyramid blocks compared to the Giza bedrock and plateau samples.

It strongly suggests the pyramid stones were treated to remove the magnesium containing dolomite, concentrating the calcite within the final stones.

This must have been done chemically within an aqueous solution that would have required breaking the original stone down!
I do not agree with the bold, The chemical composition of the limestone cannot be changed, The lab results reflect the actual composition of the natural stone, There are different layers and types of limestone in the plateau. I would have to do more research.

I checked another reference and determine the primary stone used in the pyramids if limestone with very little or n Magnesium. Though some of the stone may be dolomite, becaause it exists in the layers in the region. Dolomite in appearance most often cannot be distinguished from limestone
 

GoodAttention

Well-Known Member
I do not agree with the bold, The chemical composition of the limestone cannot be changed, The lab results reflect the actual composition of the natural stone, There are different layers and types of limestone in the plateau. I would have to do more research.

I checked another reference and determine the primary stone used in the pyramids if limestone with very little or n Magnesium. Though some of the stone may be dolomite, becaause it exists in the layers in the region. Dolomite in appearance most often cannot be distinguished from limestone

Look at the source table, it is clearly significant that the pyramid stones do not contain dolomite.

Contrast this with the composition of the bedrock samples, where the ratio is almost one to one.

Now, either the bedrock samples are not the source and therefore irrelevant (then why mention it), or the rock was indeed used and changed.

As you know, such “limestone” would have been soft and porous due to the dolomite composition, so it would need to have been treated to be useful in construction.

In fact, in cannot be limestone without it.
 

GoodAttention

Well-Known Member
I do not agree with the bold, The chemical composition of the limestone cannot be changed, The lab results reflect the actual composition of the natural stone, There are different layers and types of limestone in the plateau. I would have to do more research.

I checked another reference and determine the primary stone used in the pyramids if limestone with very little or n Magnesium. Though some of the stone may be dolomite, becaause it exists in the layers in the region. Dolomite in appearance most often cannot be distinguished from limestone

Also, your source doesn’t describe natural stone, which I believe is bound stone.

It states 3 types of carbonate stones are used, mudstone, wackestone, and grainstone. My understanding is, these are not “natural” carbonate stones.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
Also, your source doesn’t describe natural stone, which I believe is bound stone.

It states 3 types of carbonate stones are used, mudstone, wackestone, and grainstone. My understanding is, these are not “natural” carbonate stones.
What is your point here? The above are natural stone as I understand the term, how are you claiming them, not to be natural? You seem to be arguing that something resembling them has been produced by manmade processes because they don't completely fit the definition of "carbonate stone"? If this is the case, something more than the chemical possibility of precipitating magnesium out of a slurry is going to be needed to make even the son of a person who studied geology consider some unknown hypothesis relating to the pyramids.
I see some interesting claims here, but no consensus as to how they are to fit together beyond chemistry.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Also, your source doesn’t describe natural stone, which I believe is bound stone.

It states 3 types of carbonate stones are used, mudstone, wackestone, and grainstone. My understanding is, these are not “natural” carbonate stones.
The analysis was sam[pes taken from the pyramid at various locations. all were natural stone. From What
I have cited before described some molded stone on the highest levels. I will look for more references, ALL the references I have found describe the pyramids as constructed of mostly or all natural stone,
 

GoodAttention

Well-Known Member
What is your point here? The above are natural stone as I understand the term, how are you claiming them, not to be natural? You seem to be arguing that something resembling them has been produced by manmade processes because they don't completely fit the definition of "carbonate stone"? If this is the case, something more than the chemical possibility of precipitating magnesium out of a slurry is going to be needed to make even the son of a person who studied geology consider some unknown hypothesis relating to the pyramids.
I see some interesting claims here, but no consensus as to how they are to fit together beyond chemistry.

This guy…

Did you read the source in full?

Go read the Dunham classification revised by Wright in 1992, and stop being pedantic.

I am not a geologist, and I don’t tailor my words to be. I have given a reasonable explanation for the removal of dolomite, the rest is for you to figure out.
 

GoodAttention

Well-Known Member
The analysis was sam[pes taken from the pyramid at various locations. all were natural stone. From What
I have cited before described some molded stone on the highest levels. I will look for more references, ALL the references I have found describe the pyramids as constructed of mostly or all natural stone,

Your source says most of the stone was quarried nearby, do you accept this?

If so, how do you explain the lack of dolomite in the pyramid stone?

Is condensed grainstone a natural stone?
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
This guy…

Did you read the source in full?

Go read the Dunham classification revised by Wright in 1992, and stop being pedantic.

I am not a geologist, and I don’t tailor my words to be. I have given a reasonable explanation for the removal of dolomite, the rest is for you to figure out.
You have a way to remove magnesium from a large surface area suspension but that is very different than removing dolomite. Your not being a geologist may have something to do with your misunderstanding.
Again, I ask, what is your point in questioning the magnesium content of the stone? Is it because you think it came from somewhere else? or do you think you have evidence that local stone was put through some unknown and unevidenced process and then reconstituted such that geologists would mistake it for a different type of stone?
Yes chemically you can selectively precipitate magnesium, that is HS chemistry, but how are you concluding that all of the other physical characteristics of stone have been modified in this environment but not others?
 

GoodAttention

Well-Known Member
You have a way to remove magnesium from a large surface area suspension but that is very different than removing dolomite. Your not being a geologist may have something to do with your misunderstanding.

Are you aware of the dolomitization process?

Are you aware of the theory to reverse this process?

Again, I ask, what is your point in questioning the magnesium content of the stone? Is it because you think it came from somewhere else? or do you think you have evidence that local stone was put through some unknown and unevidenced process and then reconstituted such that geologists would mistake it for a different type of stone?

Again, did you read the source? The lack of dolomite in the pyramid stone is glaring in comparison to the source stone.

Yes chemically you can selectively precipitate magnesium, that is HS chemistry, but how are you concluding that all of the other physical characteristics of stone have been modified in this environment but not others?

I doubt you even understand the chemistry.

I haven’t concluded anything, that is your one track pessimism leading you there
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
Are you aware of the dolomitization process?

Are you aware of the theory to reverse this process?



Again, did you read the source? The lack of dolomite in the pyramid stone is glaring in comparison to the source stone.



I doubt you even understand the chemistry.

I haven’t concluded anything, that is your one track pessimism leading you there
No you haven't concluded anything, you haven't even hypothesized anything. You have only stated that the magnesium content according to you is lower than the accepted source for the stone and in other posts talked about an unevidenced mechanism for removing magnesium from an unevidenced processed version of the putative source stone.

My question is what is your point? Two simple solutions are that the stone came from elsewhere but that is not evidenced or that somehow these prescientific people engineered a massive project to process the local stone in such a manner that they have fooled 150 years of geologists looking at the structure by utilizing a process that has never been demonstrated at scale because why even do it?

What pray tell is your understanding with evidence and method for why you think that there is a deficit of magnesium in the stone?
 

GoodAttention

Well-Known Member
No you haven't concluded anything, you haven't even hypothesized anything. You have only stated that the magnesium content according to you is lower than the accepted source for the stone and in other posts talked about an unevidenced mechanism for removing magnesium from an unevidenced processed version of the putative source stone.

My question is what is your point? Two simple solutions are that the stone came from elsewhere but that is not evidenced or that somehow these prescientific people engineered a massive project to process the local stone in such a manner that they have fooled 150 years of geologists looking at the structure by utilizing a process that has never been demonstrated at scale because why even do it?

What pray tell is your understanding with evidence and method for why you think that there is a deficit of magnesium in the stone?

According to me?

I reviewed the source, which for some reason you are incapable of doing.

Don’t waste my time.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
According to me?

I reviewed the source, which for some reason you are incapable of doing.

Don’t waste my time.
Don't waste our time, you are claiming a source that you don't seem to be able to explain except to say that we are wrong about something. Repost it and we can review it again with specific comments that you can then demonstrate your understanding. And while you are at it, explain how it is relevant or evidenced in regards to the specific pyramids at Giza.

If you are confident in your position, this should be no problem.
 
Last edited:

GoodAttention

Well-Known Member
Don't waste our time, you are claiming a source that you don't seem to be able to explain except to say that we are wrong about something. Repost it and we can review it again with specific comments that you can then demonstrate your understanding. And while you are at it, explain how it is relevant or evidenced in regards to the specific pyramids at Giza.

If you are confident in your position, this should be no problem.

It was @shunyadragon source, go find it and learn.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
It was @shunyadragon source, go find it and learn.
He hasn't presented anything that I could understand as supporting your rather undefined proposition as far as I can even tell what it is.
Maybe we should just restart with what are you claiming and maybe @shunyadragon can repost his link.
Otherwise since you can't seem to explain it, we maybe should just put it down to your misunderstanding.
 

GoodAttention

Well-Known Member
He hasn't presented anything that I could understand as supporting your rather undefined proposition as far as I can even tell what it is.
Maybe we should just restart with what are you claiming and maybe @shunyadragon can repost his link.
Otherwise since you can't seem to explain it, we maybe should just put it down to your misunderstanding.

This guy…

If you are not capable of going back in the comments to find what @shunyadragon posted, then this discussion is definitely not for you.

It’s clear your ability to understand the simplest of tasks is lacking, so best you excuse yourself.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Also, your source doesn’t describe natural stone, which I believe is bound stone.

It states 3 types of carbonate stones are used, mudstone, wackestone, and grainstone. My understanding is, these are not “natural” carbonate stones.
There was a claim that the pyramids were made of caste blocks by "Joseph Davidovits, director of the Geopolymer Institute in St. Quentin, France, more than two decades ago. Davidovits claimed that the stones of the pyramids were actually made of a very early form of concrete created using a mixture of limestone, clay, lime and water."

I previously cited a source for this, but this is a comprehensive research source that confirms my earlier reference, This comprehensive research has confirmed some of the highest stones were cast, but the overwhelming majority of the stones are cut limestone.


A year and a half later, after extensive scanning electron microscope (SEM) observations and other testing, Barsoum and his research group finally began to draw some conclusions about the pyramids. They found that the tiniest structures within the inner and outer casing stones were indeed consistent with a reconstituted limestone. The cement binding the limestone aggregate was either silicon dioxide (the building block of quartz) or a calcium and magnesium-rich silicate mineral.

The stones also had a high water content--unusual for the normally dry, natural limestone found on the Giza plateau--and the cementing phases, in both the inner and outer casing stones, were amorphous, in other words, their atoms were not arranged in a regular and periodic array. Sedimentary rocks such as limestone are seldom, if ever, amorphous.

The sample chemistries the researchers found do not exist anywhere in nature. "Therefore," says Barsoum, "it's very improbable that the outer and inner casing stones that we examined were chiseled from a natural limestone block."

More startlingly, Barsoum and another of his graduate students, Aaron Sakulich, recently discovered the presence of silicon dioxide nanoscale spheres (with diameters only billionths of a meter across) in one of the samples. This discovery further confirms that these blocks are not natural limestone.

Generations misled

At the end of their most recent paper reporting these findings, the researchers reflect that it is "ironic, sublime and truly humbling" that this 4,500-year-old limestone is so true to the original that it has misled generations of Egyptologists and geologists and, "because the ancient Egyptians were the original--albeit unknowing--nanotechnologists."

As if the scientific evidence isn't enough, Barsoum has pointed out a number of common sense reasons why the pyramids were not likely constructed entirely of chiseled limestone blocks.

Egyptologists are consistently confronted by unanswered questions: How is it possible that some of the blocks are so perfectly matched that not even a human hair can be inserted between them? Why, despite the existence of millions of tons of stone, carved presumably with copper chisels, has not one copper chisel ever been found on the Giza Plateau?

Although Barsoum's research has not answered all of these questions, his work provides insight into some of the key questions. For example, it is now more likely than not that the tops of the pyramids are cast, as it would have been increasingly difficult to drag the stones to the summit.

Also, casting would explain why some of the stones fit so closely together. 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.

Why do the results of Barsoum's research matter most today? Two words: earth cements.

"How energy intensive and/or complicated can a 4,500 year old technology really be? The answer to both questions is not very," Barsoum explains. "The basic raw materials used for this early form of concrete--limestone, lime and diatomaceous earth--can be found virtually anywhere in the world," he adds. "Replicating this method of construction would be cost effective, long lasting, and much more environmentally friendly than the current building material of choice: Portland cement that alone pumps roughly 6 billion tons of CO2 annually into the atmosphere when it's manufactured."

"Ironically," says Barsoum, "this study of 4,500 year old rocks is not about the past, but about the future."

-- Sheila Berninger and Dorilona Rose

This Behind the Scenes article was provided to LiveScience.com in partnership with the National Science Foundation.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
This guy…

If you are not capable of going back in the comments to find what @shunyadragon posted, then this discussion is definitely not for you.

It’s clear your ability to understand the simplest of tasks is lacking, so best you excuse yourself.
And just what should I be searching for that if you knew what it was you could link me to directly?
Or is it not really there.
Was it today, yesterday, just how many of @shunyadragon 's posts on how many subforums should I go through to find that which you think vindicates you?
 

GoodAttention

Well-Known Member
And just what should I be searching for that if you knew what it was you could link me to directly?
Or is it not really there.
Was it today, yesterday, just how many of @shunyadragon 's posts on how many subforums should I go through to find that which you think vindicates you?

You need to overcome your pride if you intend to continue learning.
 
Top