| May 6, 2024, 7:58 pm UTC |
 |
| In: The Hall of Maat > Ancient History - Ancient History and Archaeology > Topic |
| Goto: Forum List • Create A New Profile • Log In |
|
Ancient History •
Ancient Egypt •
Laboratory •
Humanities •
Apocalypse •
Paper Lens •
Coffee Shop Exhibitions, Conferences, Lectures, Journals • Alternative Geometry and Numerology |
| August 07, 2001 04:03PM |
<HTML>PART 9: Block Features; Disaggregating Rock; More On Lift Lines; Subterranean Structures Again
Block Features
Frank Doernenburg quotes me as follows, “I cannot tell if Doernenburg's photograph of Menkaure's pyramid shows limestone or granite. In any case, Egyptologists believe that this pyramid was restored in the 19th Dynasty or possibly later. Doernenburg presents the photograph as proof of the standard carving theory without any regard for the history of restoration work.”
Frank Doernenburg then writes as follows about my remarks quoted above, “Hihi. [sic] A great geologist-critic who can not distinguish limestone from granite? The blocks are limestone core blocks near the top (south side). In a region where no restoration had taken place.”
Margaret Morris replies: Frank Doernenburg’s infantile mocking aside, the ancient Egyptians tore down entire pyramids and moved monuments. How does Frank Doernenburg know which portions were restored when Egyptology has not come to definitive conclusions? Frank Doernenburg should cite a source.
In addition, I have already explained that Frank Doernenburg cannot make a legitimate case based on the size or shape of blocks or tool marks, given all of the factors discussed in this rebuttal that must be taken into account. What is important is a study of the chemical nature of any blocks in question.
Frank Doernenburg quotes me again, “Let us take a closer look at Frank Doernenburg's so-called proof. He offers photos of the Meidum and other pyramids to make his point. However, the geopolymer theory holds that the blocks of Meidum were shaped and then set into place.”
Frank Doernenburg responds as follows to my above-quoted remark, “Well, now that is REALLY funny. No Egyptologist knows how to MOVE blocks, therefore they hat [sic] to be polimeric.[sic] And now the blocks should have been casted BEGFORE [sic] and transported THEN to the pyramid????? So now they HAD BEEN [sic] transported?????”
Margaret Morris replies: Although my explanation is lost on Frank Doernenburg, in my last rebuttal I clearly explained that the first pyramid blocks were relatively small. They were cast into mud-brick molds or hand-shaped so that they look like roughly worked field stones. Regardless of how they were fashioned, they were small enough to be carried by one or two men and stacked to build the first pyramids.
Only when the alchemically-made stone (geopolymeric rock-concrete) proved to be excellent for building did workers graduate to making large blocks so heavy that they were made directly in place.
These simple facts have been offered in our published literature for over a dozen years, but Frank Doernenburg fails to understand because he does not bother to read the fundamental literature that explains the evolution of pyramid construction using geopolymerization.
Frank Doernenburg adds, “BTW: The blocks in the bent pyramid are the biggest blocks used in pyramids, the standard blocks in the great pyramid are much smaller...”
Margaret Morris replies: According to Herodotus (5th century BC) and Abd el-Latif (AD 12th century), a myriad of casing blocks on the Great Pyramid measured 30-feet-long. (Abd al-Latif. The Eastern key: Kitab al-ifadah wa‘l-i‘tibar of ‘Abd al-Latif al-Baghdadi. Translated in English by Kamal Hafuth Zand, and John A. and Ivy E. Videan, Allen and Unwin London (1964), 117. 16; Herodotus, The History of Herodotus, New York, L. MacVeagh, The Dial press; Toronto, Longmans, Green & company (1928), 124-126)
Disaggregating Rock
Frank Doernenburg again quotes me, “Furthermore, none of the rock at Giza ever had to be crushed. In the Nova film, Davidovits demonstrated that limestone from the Giza quarries will come apart in water within hours because of its high kaolin clay content.”
Frank Doernenburg then declares, “He demonstrated nothing. He showed some mud in a plastic bag, that's all.”
Margaret Morris replies: Sadly, Frank Doernenburg pretends that Dr. Davidovits, an award winning, internationally recognized materials scientist who founded and pioneered a new branch of chemistry he named geopolymerization (which produces a binder comparable to that of pyramid stone), rearranged his industrial schedule to participate in the Nova film so that he could wave around a meaningless plastic bag full of mud in front of the camera. Frank Doernenburg arrogantly contents that Dr. Davidovits did nothing more than show “mud in a plastic bag, that's all,” thereby showing utter contempt for state-of-the art materials science. Clearly, Dr. Davidovits’ demonstration was lost on Frank Doernenburg.
However, anyone with knowledge of the scientific literature immediately recognizes that it confirms Joseph Davidovits’ demonstration. Joseph Davidovits showed that the kaolinitic limestone at Giza required no crushing at all, because it comes apart after several hours of soaking. It releases its kaolin clay (the mud Doernenburg refers to). The shells separate or are easily disaggregated. This dissagregated material, which contains the needed silica and alumina materials in the form of kaolin, is perfect for making geopolymeric limestone concrete. Only the simple ingredients needed to cause geopolymerization, i.e., needed to integrate the silica and alumina so that a new silico-aluminate (a zeolitic cement) is formed, need be added.
As for the confirmation in the scientific literature, geologist K. Lal Gauri conducted tests and charted the components of the weakly bound limestone in the Sphinx quarry, where Davidovits selected material for his on-camera demonstration. Gauri measured the quantity and content of water soluble salts and non-carbonate clastic materials (clays and silt) in the layers of the Sphinx. Salts and clastic are readily affected by water. The salts dissolve and the clays and silt expand in water. (Gauri, K.L., "Geological Study of the Sphinx," Newsletter American Research Center in Egypt, No 127 (1984), 24-43)
Also see Aigner, T., "Facies and Origin of Nummulitic Buildups: An Example from the Giza Pyramids Plateau (Middle Eocene, Egypt)," Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlung, V. 166 (1983), 347-368. Mark Lehner summarized Aigner's study as follows:
"...According to Aigner’s model, the Pyramids Plateau began as a bank of nummulites seen to exceed 30 m in thickness in the northern escarpment. A shoal and reefal facies was laid over the southern slope of the nummulites bank. A "back bank" facies was, in turn, laid over the shoal reef, forming a series of limestone/marl beds which ‘lens out’ over the shoal reef to the N. In practical terms, this left the very hard and brittle limestone of the nummulites bank to the NNW part of the Pyramids Plateau, and the softer thickly bedded layers to the lower SSE area of the plateau..."
In other words, the Great Pyramid is built on hard limestone, and the nearby limestone in the quarries is much softer. (Lehner, M., "The Development of the Giza Necropolis: The Khufu Project," Mitteilungen des Deutschen Institutes, Abteilung, Kairo 41 (1985), 113-114)
Also on page 118 of the same report, Lehner writes:
"...According to Aigner’s depositional model of the plateau, the pyramid was based on the harder, more massive nummulites bank which swells up along the N-NW part of the formation…"
As usual, Frank Doernenburg’s retort (“He demonstrated nothing. He showed some mud in a plastic bag, that's all”) is unreasonable, incorrect, and merely shows his hostility, bias and inability to comprehend information. Frank Doernenburg shows the height of arrogance by assuming he can trash scientific research when he is unfamiliar with the scientific literature and shows himself unable to comprehend simple, basic premises.
More On Lift Lines
Frank Doernenburg quotes me, “What Frank Doernenburg is alluding to in his distorted explanation.”
Frank Doernenburg responds, “Well, you should rework your home page then : And IIRC it was told in the Nova-documantation [sic] too.”
Margaret Morris replies: My web site does not contain one word that even remotely resembles Frank Doernenburg’s distorted explanation concerning the production of lift lines. It never has. It is up to Frank Doernenburg to quote from my web site, which he does not do because such material does not exist. We see that Frank Doernenburg invents information. He has also misunderstood information presented by Joseph Davidovits in the Nova film.
Frank Doernenburg continues, “More: the stones eg. [sic] in the bent pyramid clearly show break patterns. Plaease [sic] domonstrate [sic] how to do this with polimeric [sic] blocks. If the blocks are not casted, [sic] please explain how to form blocks from soft mut [sic] (the consistency in which they are transported up). if [sic] no [sic] cast explain why there is no stone in the gaps below the stones, and if they are formed outside the pyramid and transported THEN please explain the advances opposed to "normal" quarrying (oops, forgot that they couldn't quarry at all :-) )”
Margaret Morris replies: I have already explained strata as lift lines in concrete (see above). As for the rest of Frank Doernenburg’s remarks, instead of hurling questions like weapons, as if they disprove something, why does Frank Doernenburg not try to understand the concept of high-early strength rock-concrete, i.e., synthetic rock? The geo in geopolymer stands for rock, and polymer denotes the polycondensation of polymeric minerals. Packed blocks will be strong enough to walk on immediately. Huge blocks contain lift lines (which look like strata), as do all very large concrete blocks. Anyone can visit Dr. Davidovits’ website and download some of the free technical papers that explain the chemistry of geopolymerization, the properties of the synthetic rock, how it is made, the ways in which it can be worked and the features it will achieve.
Frank Doernenburg will finally have to break down and read the literature because I am not going to re-write this body of research here. Systems Engineer Mike Carrell considered the very issues Frank Doernenburg raises and many more, and then Mike Carrell contributed a chapter to my book (his chapter is titled Building with Geopolymer) that explains how to rapidly construct the Great Pyramid with high early strength geopolymeric rock-concrete.
Subterranean Structures Again
Frank Doernenburg asks, “If they could't [sic] quarry, please explain structures like Chentkaus, or the subterran [sic] chamber (polymeric, too? ;”
Margaret Morris replies: See my explanation on subterranean structures above. There is a tremendous difference between the tasks you name and quarrying millions of whole blocks in 24 years with primitive tools and shaping them to fit into level tiers, etc.
Furthermore, I hope that Frank Doernenburg can recognize that using simple tools to sculpt even giant structures like the Sphinx, the body of which is soft limestone, does not compare to building pyramids (each within one Pharaonic reign) with millions of blocks that fit into level tiers, etc.
Frank Doernenburg asks, “And explain the pick marks in this chamber, and the tool marks like the ones in Meidum. And the chisel marks which can bee [sic] seen everywhere in protected locations. And and and and...If you call ZTHIS [sic] "rebuttal", well...”
Margaret Morris replies: Giza has a history ranging 4,500 years. The activity may include Hyksos treasure hunting and other plunder, and does include ancient Egyptian reconstruction operations, Greek and Roman restorations, Arabic treasure hunters and masons who pried at, cut up, and removed blocks, and modern testing of block hardness and even plunder by early Egyptologists who used dynamite to open tombs and have torn away and hacked blocks. As I said, it would be impossible not to see tool marks even inside of the tombs today. There is no clear record of all the activities over the past 4,500 years, but the blocks Frank Doernenburg points to are in a minority.
The overwhelming majority of blocks exhibit no tool marks. The kind of tool marks Frank Doernenburg points to should appear all over all of the core and packing blocks if they were carved. I have also pointed out that geopolymeric concrete can be easily cut in an uncured state with simple Pyramid Age tools.
Please continue to the next segment..
Margaret Morris
August 7, 2000
Copyright © 2001</HTML>
Block Features
Frank Doernenburg quotes me as follows, “I cannot tell if Doernenburg's photograph of Menkaure's pyramid shows limestone or granite. In any case, Egyptologists believe that this pyramid was restored in the 19th Dynasty or possibly later. Doernenburg presents the photograph as proof of the standard carving theory without any regard for the history of restoration work.”
Frank Doernenburg then writes as follows about my remarks quoted above, “Hihi. [sic] A great geologist-critic who can not distinguish limestone from granite? The blocks are limestone core blocks near the top (south side). In a region where no restoration had taken place.”
Margaret Morris replies: Frank Doernenburg’s infantile mocking aside, the ancient Egyptians tore down entire pyramids and moved monuments. How does Frank Doernenburg know which portions were restored when Egyptology has not come to definitive conclusions? Frank Doernenburg should cite a source.
In addition, I have already explained that Frank Doernenburg cannot make a legitimate case based on the size or shape of blocks or tool marks, given all of the factors discussed in this rebuttal that must be taken into account. What is important is a study of the chemical nature of any blocks in question.
Frank Doernenburg quotes me again, “Let us take a closer look at Frank Doernenburg's so-called proof. He offers photos of the Meidum and other pyramids to make his point. However, the geopolymer theory holds that the blocks of Meidum were shaped and then set into place.”
Frank Doernenburg responds as follows to my above-quoted remark, “Well, now that is REALLY funny. No Egyptologist knows how to MOVE blocks, therefore they hat [sic] to be polimeric.[sic] And now the blocks should have been casted BEGFORE [sic] and transported THEN to the pyramid????? So now they HAD BEEN [sic] transported?????”
Margaret Morris replies: Although my explanation is lost on Frank Doernenburg, in my last rebuttal I clearly explained that the first pyramid blocks were relatively small. They were cast into mud-brick molds or hand-shaped so that they look like roughly worked field stones. Regardless of how they were fashioned, they were small enough to be carried by one or two men and stacked to build the first pyramids.
Only when the alchemically-made stone (geopolymeric rock-concrete) proved to be excellent for building did workers graduate to making large blocks so heavy that they were made directly in place.
These simple facts have been offered in our published literature for over a dozen years, but Frank Doernenburg fails to understand because he does not bother to read the fundamental literature that explains the evolution of pyramid construction using geopolymerization.
Frank Doernenburg adds, “BTW: The blocks in the bent pyramid are the biggest blocks used in pyramids, the standard blocks in the great pyramid are much smaller...”
Margaret Morris replies: According to Herodotus (5th century BC) and Abd el-Latif (AD 12th century), a myriad of casing blocks on the Great Pyramid measured 30-feet-long. (Abd al-Latif. The Eastern key: Kitab al-ifadah wa‘l-i‘tibar of ‘Abd al-Latif al-Baghdadi. Translated in English by Kamal Hafuth Zand, and John A. and Ivy E. Videan, Allen and Unwin London (1964), 117. 16; Herodotus, The History of Herodotus, New York, L. MacVeagh, The Dial press; Toronto, Longmans, Green & company (1928), 124-126)
Disaggregating Rock
Frank Doernenburg again quotes me, “Furthermore, none of the rock at Giza ever had to be crushed. In the Nova film, Davidovits demonstrated that limestone from the Giza quarries will come apart in water within hours because of its high kaolin clay content.”
Frank Doernenburg then declares, “He demonstrated nothing. He showed some mud in a plastic bag, that's all.”
Margaret Morris replies: Sadly, Frank Doernenburg pretends that Dr. Davidovits, an award winning, internationally recognized materials scientist who founded and pioneered a new branch of chemistry he named geopolymerization (which produces a binder comparable to that of pyramid stone), rearranged his industrial schedule to participate in the Nova film so that he could wave around a meaningless plastic bag full of mud in front of the camera. Frank Doernenburg arrogantly contents that Dr. Davidovits did nothing more than show “mud in a plastic bag, that's all,” thereby showing utter contempt for state-of-the art materials science. Clearly, Dr. Davidovits’ demonstration was lost on Frank Doernenburg.
However, anyone with knowledge of the scientific literature immediately recognizes that it confirms Joseph Davidovits’ demonstration. Joseph Davidovits showed that the kaolinitic limestone at Giza required no crushing at all, because it comes apart after several hours of soaking. It releases its kaolin clay (the mud Doernenburg refers to). The shells separate or are easily disaggregated. This dissagregated material, which contains the needed silica and alumina materials in the form of kaolin, is perfect for making geopolymeric limestone concrete. Only the simple ingredients needed to cause geopolymerization, i.e., needed to integrate the silica and alumina so that a new silico-aluminate (a zeolitic cement) is formed, need be added.
As for the confirmation in the scientific literature, geologist K. Lal Gauri conducted tests and charted the components of the weakly bound limestone in the Sphinx quarry, where Davidovits selected material for his on-camera demonstration. Gauri measured the quantity and content of water soluble salts and non-carbonate clastic materials (clays and silt) in the layers of the Sphinx. Salts and clastic are readily affected by water. The salts dissolve and the clays and silt expand in water. (Gauri, K.L., "Geological Study of the Sphinx," Newsletter American Research Center in Egypt, No 127 (1984), 24-43)
Also see Aigner, T., "Facies and Origin of Nummulitic Buildups: An Example from the Giza Pyramids Plateau (Middle Eocene, Egypt)," Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlung, V. 166 (1983), 347-368. Mark Lehner summarized Aigner's study as follows:
"...According to Aigner’s model, the Pyramids Plateau began as a bank of nummulites seen to exceed 30 m in thickness in the northern escarpment. A shoal and reefal facies was laid over the southern slope of the nummulites bank. A "back bank" facies was, in turn, laid over the shoal reef, forming a series of limestone/marl beds which ‘lens out’ over the shoal reef to the N. In practical terms, this left the very hard and brittle limestone of the nummulites bank to the NNW part of the Pyramids Plateau, and the softer thickly bedded layers to the lower SSE area of the plateau..."
In other words, the Great Pyramid is built on hard limestone, and the nearby limestone in the quarries is much softer. (Lehner, M., "The Development of the Giza Necropolis: The Khufu Project," Mitteilungen des Deutschen Institutes, Abteilung, Kairo 41 (1985), 113-114)
Also on page 118 of the same report, Lehner writes:
"...According to Aigner’s depositional model of the plateau, the pyramid was based on the harder, more massive nummulites bank which swells up along the N-NW part of the formation…"
As usual, Frank Doernenburg’s retort (“He demonstrated nothing. He showed some mud in a plastic bag, that's all”) is unreasonable, incorrect, and merely shows his hostility, bias and inability to comprehend information. Frank Doernenburg shows the height of arrogance by assuming he can trash scientific research when he is unfamiliar with the scientific literature and shows himself unable to comprehend simple, basic premises.
More On Lift Lines
Frank Doernenburg quotes me, “What Frank Doernenburg is alluding to in his distorted explanation.”
Frank Doernenburg responds, “Well, you should rework your home page then : And IIRC it was told in the Nova-documantation [sic] too.”
Margaret Morris replies: My web site does not contain one word that even remotely resembles Frank Doernenburg’s distorted explanation concerning the production of lift lines. It never has. It is up to Frank Doernenburg to quote from my web site, which he does not do because such material does not exist. We see that Frank Doernenburg invents information. He has also misunderstood information presented by Joseph Davidovits in the Nova film.
Frank Doernenburg continues, “More: the stones eg. [sic] in the bent pyramid clearly show break patterns. Plaease [sic] domonstrate [sic] how to do this with polimeric [sic] blocks. If the blocks are not casted, [sic] please explain how to form blocks from soft mut [sic] (the consistency in which they are transported up). if [sic] no [sic] cast explain why there is no stone in the gaps below the stones, and if they are formed outside the pyramid and transported THEN please explain the advances opposed to "normal" quarrying (oops, forgot that they couldn't quarry at all :-) )”
Margaret Morris replies: I have already explained strata as lift lines in concrete (see above). As for the rest of Frank Doernenburg’s remarks, instead of hurling questions like weapons, as if they disprove something, why does Frank Doernenburg not try to understand the concept of high-early strength rock-concrete, i.e., synthetic rock? The geo in geopolymer stands for rock, and polymer denotes the polycondensation of polymeric minerals. Packed blocks will be strong enough to walk on immediately. Huge blocks contain lift lines (which look like strata), as do all very large concrete blocks. Anyone can visit Dr. Davidovits’ website and download some of the free technical papers that explain the chemistry of geopolymerization, the properties of the synthetic rock, how it is made, the ways in which it can be worked and the features it will achieve.
Frank Doernenburg will finally have to break down and read the literature because I am not going to re-write this body of research here. Systems Engineer Mike Carrell considered the very issues Frank Doernenburg raises and many more, and then Mike Carrell contributed a chapter to my book (his chapter is titled Building with Geopolymer) that explains how to rapidly construct the Great Pyramid with high early strength geopolymeric rock-concrete.
Subterranean Structures Again
Frank Doernenburg asks, “If they could't [sic] quarry, please explain structures like Chentkaus, or the subterran [sic] chamber (polymeric, too? ;”
Margaret Morris replies: See my explanation on subterranean structures above. There is a tremendous difference between the tasks you name and quarrying millions of whole blocks in 24 years with primitive tools and shaping them to fit into level tiers, etc.
Furthermore, I hope that Frank Doernenburg can recognize that using simple tools to sculpt even giant structures like the Sphinx, the body of which is soft limestone, does not compare to building pyramids (each within one Pharaonic reign) with millions of blocks that fit into level tiers, etc.
Frank Doernenburg asks, “And explain the pick marks in this chamber, and the tool marks like the ones in Meidum. And the chisel marks which can bee [sic] seen everywhere in protected locations. And and and and...If you call ZTHIS [sic] "rebuttal", well...”
Margaret Morris replies: Giza has a history ranging 4,500 years. The activity may include Hyksos treasure hunting and other plunder, and does include ancient Egyptian reconstruction operations, Greek and Roman restorations, Arabic treasure hunters and masons who pried at, cut up, and removed blocks, and modern testing of block hardness and even plunder by early Egyptologists who used dynamite to open tombs and have torn away and hacked blocks. As I said, it would be impossible not to see tool marks even inside of the tombs today. There is no clear record of all the activities over the past 4,500 years, but the blocks Frank Doernenburg points to are in a minority.
The overwhelming majority of blocks exhibit no tool marks. The kind of tool marks Frank Doernenburg points to should appear all over all of the core and packing blocks if they were carved. I have also pointed out that geopolymeric concrete can be easily cut in an uncured state with simple Pyramid Age tools.
Please continue to the next segment..
Margaret Morris
August 7, 2000
Copyright © 2001</HTML>
| Subject | Author | Posted |
|---|---|---|
|
Margaret Morris | August 07, 2001 04:03PM |
|
Blue | August 08, 2001 05:01PM |
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.