How did the Egyptians build the pyramids?

[shunyadragon]

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.

Comments?!?!?! I have cited academic references on issues such as casing stones and in post #798 on the question of natural stone versus cast blocks.

 

[GoodAttention]

Comments?!?!?! I have cited academic references on issues such as casing stones and in post #798 on the question of natural stone versus cast blocks.

Unfortunately it seems that person was unable to note any of what you posted..

 

[shunyadragon]

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

Can you set aside a Exodus agenda and deal with the historical facts of the ancient Egyptian history.

 

[shunyadragon]

Unfortunately it seems that person was unable to note any of what you posted..

His very aware of my posts and cited and acknowledged them,

 

[Pogo]

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.

The Surprising Truth Behind the Construction of the Great Pyramids

"This is not my day job." So begins National Science Foundation-supported researcher Michel Barsoum as he recounts his foray into the mysteries of the Great…

new.nsf.gov

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.

Thank you for your more expert analysis, but my question now is if 4+ thousands of years ago we were truly capable of creating a faux limestone, what research has been done since then to confirm this discovery.?
I personally find it seemingly unlikely that limestone could be undifferentiably recreated down to the SEM level but maybe they could enlighten us beyond a 2007 pop=sci article.

Thanks in advance

 

[GoodAttention]

His very aware of my posts and cited and acknowledged them,

History of comments to me beg to differ, but time to move on.

 

[GoodAttention]

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.

The Surprising Truth Behind the Construction of the Great Pyramids

"This is not my day job." So begins National Science Foundation-supported researcher Michel Barsoum as he recounts his foray into the mysteries of the Great…

new.nsf.gov

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.

Thank you

 

[cladking]

Comments?!?!?! I have cited academic references on issues such as casing stones and in post #798 on the question of natural stone versus cast blocks.

Those are not academic sources. Egyptologists would scoff. Of course they scoff at science too but that's not the point.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

Likely the dolomitic limestone was not used. and note there were sources with low Magnesium, which may have been the primary sources

Please respond to post #598 also research on the type of stones used in the pyramids.

More to follow . . .

 

[shunyadragon]

Those are not academic sources. Egyptologists would scoff. Of course they scoff at science too but that's not the point.

No, Egyptologists do not scoff at science they use science as science. You throw stones at Egyptologists and scientists,

You have failed to document the supposed experiments and the results you do to support your claims,

 

[shunyadragon]

Those are not academic sources. Egyptologists would scoff. Of course they scoff at science too but that's not the point.

They are academic sources and of course do not fortunately deal with metaphysics.

You have failed to document the supposed experiments and the results you do to support your claims,

 

[GoodAttention]

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.

The Surprising Truth Behind the Construction of the Great Pyramids

"This is not my day job." So begins National Science Foundation-supported researcher Michel Barsoum as he recounts his foray into the mysteries of the Great…

new.nsf.gov

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.

Silicon dioxide is sand, which would have been plentiful.

The other source would be mica, which if treated with acid would potentially leave even finer silicon dioxide particles.

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.

To get nanoparticles I would imagine burning the treated mica with calcium acetate.

Calcium acetate decomposes to calcium carbonate and acetone. If the acetone is not combusted, silica dioxide would become dispersed within it as nanoparticles.

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.

Vinegar is the key, in fact the massive breweries thought to be for beer production would have had far more use in making ascetic acid.

 

[shunyadragon]

Silicon dioxide is sand, which would have been plentiful.

The other source would be mica, which if treated with acid would potentially leave even finer silicon dioxide particles.



To get nanoparticles I would imagine burning the treated mica with calcium acetate.

Calcium acetate decomposes to calcium carbonate and acetone. If the acetone is not combusted, silica dioxide would become dispersed within it as nanoparticles.


Vinegar is the key, in fact the massive breweries thought to be for beer production would have had far more use in making ascetic acid.

this description does not match the analysis of the poured blocks used t the tp of the pyramids,
Foe one thing there are no nano particle involved. Gypsum was one of the ingredients

 

[Pogo]

Those are not academic sources. Egyptologists would scoff. Of course they scoff at science too but that's not the point.

And you have presented what academic sources in rebuttal of his exposition of academic claims?
Honestly, I don't even know what you are claiming or how Egyptologists should even consider it.

Is it that some not Egyptologists may have some questions about the composition of some of the stone in some pyramids indicating knowledge of a technology unknown even today? Has this anything to do with the accepted consensus that the pyramids were built by ancient Egyptians?

Could you enlighten us or are you just JAQing (Just Asking questions)?

 

[GoodAttention]

this description does not match the analysis of the poured blocks used t the tp of the pyramids,
Foe one thing there are no nano particle involved. Gypsum was one of the ingredients

I suspect the analysis taken that includes gypsum is to suggest it was used as the final outer casting of the pyramid, mixed with calcium carbonate, which is what made the pyramids once white and smooth.

I don’t think it was added into the cast block.

 

[gnostic]

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

For a thread that have a lots of posts per day, if a poster ask you to quote what you stated in the past posts (or someone else’s post), or just address/answer his or her question again, then out of curtesy, my advice to you, you should do one or the other, rather than have him or her, shifted pages of posts, looking for your post or shunyadragon’s post.

That would be the most speediest & convenient way to end the impasse, and to move forward. Right now, you are in impasse with @Pogo .

 

[cladking]

I suspect the analysis taken that includes gypsum is to suggest it was used as the final outer casting of the pyramid, mixed with calcium carbonate, which is what made the pyramids once white and smooth.

I don’t think it was added into the cast block.

Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that many stones have a lot of variability in the amount of water they can absorb. Perhaps it has something to do with the specific conditions under which they form. It certainly would seem that the variability in the ease with which they can be destroyed by fire would vary even more!

A lot of calcium carbonates came up with the water at Giza and this precipitated out as the CO2 came out of solution. This material might be exceedingly easy to pulverize.

There is actually vaterite in the walls of the queens passage. This fact is widely ignored because it is so incongruous with Egyptological beliefs as is vast amounts of foreign sand at both Giza and Saqqara.

 

[GoodAttention]

For a thread that have a lots of posts per day, if a poster ask you to quote what you stated in the past posts (or someone else’s post), or just address/answer his or her question again, then out of curtesy, my advice to you, you should do one or the other, rather than have him or her, shifted pages of posts, looking for your post or shunyadragon’s post.

That would be the most speediest & convenient way to end the impasse, and to move forward. Right now, you are in impasse with @Pogo .

That person engaged my conversation with someone else, and couldn’t show an iota of respect or initiative to read the source we were discussing, even after repeated prompting to do so.

Since having the source reposted there is not even a squeak.

Colossal waste of time.

 

[GoodAttention]

Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that many stones have a lot of variability in the amount of water they can absorb. Perhaps it has something to do with the specific conditions under which they form. It certainly would seem that the variability in the ease with which they can be destroyed by fire would vary even more!

A lot of calcium carbonates came up with the water at Giza and this precipitated out as the CO2 came out of solution. This material might be exceedingly easy to pulverize.

There is actually vaterite in the walls of the queens passage. This fact is widely ignored because it is so incongruous with Egyptological beliefs as is vast amounts of foreign sand at both Giza and Saqqara.

Im not the resident geologist, but I believe rocks don’t retain water unless they are porous.

Carbonates don’t dissolve much in water either unless it is acidic, in which case it will react.

I’m certain calcium carbonate, calcium oxide, calcium sulfate, calcium acetate, and 5% malt vinegar all played important roles for the pyramids.

 

[cladking]

Carbonates don’t dissolve much in water either unless it is acidic, in which case it will react.

CO2 dissolved in water is carbonic acid. Under great pressure it holds huge amounts of CO2 and is most highly corrosive to many compounds including the siderite binder in sandstone and this is why there is so much sand at the pyramid sites. Calcium carbonates precipitate out in large amounts and this was spoken of in the Pyramid Texts.

My understanding is all natural stone absorbs at least some water and this absorbency varies from one type of stone to another and from stone to stone. Wet stone would not only conduct heat better but as the water boils would cause the stone to disintegrate.

If nothing else these observations might account for how the builders reduced as much stone as they did with the little fuel they had available. As with everything they did they used their heads instead of their backs. They were a force of nature that Egyptology refuse to study.