<HTML>Especially when it is as creative as this.
Francis, this is absolutely fabulous. I hope that ALL the various people attempting to explain pyramid construction see a little bit of themselves in it.
My favorite line?
The part where the only discernible difference between a geolegomer block and a real limestone block can only be seen by microscopic analysis performed by you! I would
by
Anthony
-
Ancient History
<HTML>PRICELESS PESSIMISM
or
The Importance of Being Skeptical
Does pessimism have a place in science?
Well, in all honesty, the answer is quite simple: <i>science would not be possible without it.</i>
Let me explain.
Because of a funny mathematical proof related concept, <b>it is impossible to prove a negative.</b> You can not “prove” th
by
Anthony
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Nothing is wrong with the picture. The machine works - but that's only the first step.
The second step will be to see if it is practicable or not and if it can be traced back to Egypt. To dig this out may need some time.
There are enough books on the market claiming to have "solved the riddle of pyramid building" which haven't done the second step. Davidovits, Ot
by
Frank Doernenburg
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Where are you getting 70 tons?
The typical KC ceiling block is 320 x 52 x 73 inches, or 702 cubic feet. At 163 pounds per cubic foot, this amounts to 114,400 pounds, or 57.25 tons.
Courtesy of Petrie.
Now... the difference between a 57 ton block and a 70 ton block is actually negligible, but I've been noticing HORRENDOUS liberties taken with stone weights at megalithic sites.
by
Anthony
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Well, Anthony, the solution is SO easy that it hurts me that you didn't get it yourself.
Water only can run uphill when the vector of gravitation was changed in early times. The solution is so simple - even Joseph Davidovits needs it!
You remember: Mrs. Morris informed us that the lime stone was dissolved just by flooding the quarries with nile water (by redirecting the river).
by
Frank Doernenburg
-
Ancient History
<HTML>You want my quick take?
Both you AND Toby Wilkinson got ripped off.
Same as the French team AND Davidovits.
I think the culprit here is the Guardian... not the presenters.
Think about it... Geopolymers with no mention of Davidovits.
Meteoric Benbens and no mention of Bauval.
What do they have in common?
I'll tell you what... the stories are BOTH over ten years OLD!
Who rea
by
Anthony
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Paul,
This article is actually quite funny.
It read EXACTLY like Davidovits... only 20 years post-facto.
<i>"The theory, being explored by scientists at Montpellier University, has thrown Egyptology into turmoil. It could destroy thousands of years of speculation on the greatest of all riddles of the sands, one that has fascinated Hollywood and made fortunes for novelist
by
Anthony
-
Ancient History
<HTML>In word, "yes".
Someone can tell you.
But if you're not interested in the workers or their lifestyle or the foremen or the lead architect's familial relation to Khufu...
Then why does it matter?
This field has been fair game for just about any crackpot that wanted to offer a theory. Cayce said they used rayguns and flying machines. Davidovits says they'r
by
Anthony
-
Ancient History
<HTML>It just dawned on me...
While Harrell was discussing the crumbling of the wet limestone, I suddenly envisioned one Dr. Josef Davidovits holding a baggie of limestone and water... and watching it dissolve.
Now, his was extremely soft kaolinic limestone (if memory serves) and that is NOT the material found in the bulk of the plateau.
However, this sand was wet for a DAMN sight longer
by
Anthony
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Thanks - but the price a little bit over my range.
The funny thing: I am really not really interested in faience. I learned much in the geopolymer-debate. In fact, I learned so much to see wha geopolymer-faience is poo-pohed by orthodox egyptologists (if they even recognize this idea)
BTW: I really believe, that Geopolymer is a phantastic material. What I read about Geopolymer shows
by
Frank Doernenburg
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Do you mean have they re-created a pyramid block that cures?
The main point is that Dr. Davidovits re-created the matching binder. This binder is used in casting projects of all kinds today, although the modern formulas improved as his research progressed.
Just the same, casing blocks are an improved formula over the main blocks of the Great Pyramid.
Anybody can cast big blocks, b
by
Dave
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Looks like a typo for page 183 (instead of 138). All Frank had to do is look in Lucas's index under sodium silicate to see that she made a simple typo and that it's no big deal.
I see nothing misleading in the quote about the ovens. One must know how to read between the lines because of course the researcher who wrote the article assumed that quartz was melted at high tem
by
Dave
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Hello, Folks.
Following Margaret Morris' response below, there were some seriuos questions raised about the applicability of the textual references.
In this one, Frank has made a rather revealing observation:
<b>
MM said:
""The body material, whether fine or coarse, is seen when examined microscopically to consist of sharp, angular grains of quartz, without any
by
Anthony
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Here's the rest of it, in case it doesn't go again...
************
IF we hold to our standards, then no one can complain about our analysis. If we screw up and say that Davidovits is just trying to market his company, or if MM says that Frank's opinion is worthless because he's neither chemist nor geologist, then we will get NOWHERE. If you have a personal comme
by
Anthony
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Claire, as proxy for MM...
Thanks. We've been awaiting such info, and now it's here.
What I would suggest we do now is ASSUME that all data and processes regarding Davidovits' CLAIMS (chemical analysis and production) are absolutely true and irrefutable.
If we can proceed from the assumption that none of the above claims about what Davidovits has PRODUCED are untrue
by
Anthony
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Hi
I emailed MM with some geopolymer questions - and she has generously replied and given me permission to post the reply here. Sorry for the time delay - I almost never check my mail LOL
My questions were:
I think that we seem to be stuck on two points:
1 The (apparent) melted glass in Egyptian faience. Sandy has tried
to state that it was not glass, then it was opal ct tu
by
Claire
-
Ancient History
<HTML>I don't see any quartz vein in your photo. I will be interested to see if this is a geopolymer. If so, it was started then abandoned and then later someone tried to remove it.
A geologist with the right matrix training should be able to say one way or the other, but to disprove a geopolymer such work is fundamental. If a coordinated project at the Serapeum seems unlikely, maybe
by
Dave Donaldson
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Blue wrote:
>
In my mind, the larger the block, the more prone it
> would be to impressing itself, and exhibiting flaws like
> bubbles, and such.
Clay may have been a bad analogy... it was mine, not Davidovits. Think of having airbubbles in a thick concrete formula, instead.
> All right, so let's just suppose they've packed these
> gargantuan blocks in
by
Anthony
-
Ancient History
<HTML>No, Sandy JP insisted on that there was no glass, but the binding and glazing was DONE by Zeoliths. That the binding and glazing CONSISTS OF Zeiloths. That is one of the many problems.
Zeolioths are crystals, in the sources I named are electrone microscopic photos of faience objcts where you can distinguish between amorphous glass masses and the embedded quarz crystals. And there you
by
Frank Doernenburg
-
Ancient History
<HTML>And, to add to it...
the samples of Egyptian Faience have been professionally identified as melted quartz... nothing else.
Whatever the "process" that Davidovits has created must PERFECTLY mimic the appearance of melted glass as well.
Anthony</HTML>
by
Anthony
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Hi Frank,
Thanks for your thoughts.
So I must assume that you do not believe that their is a way to use a "chemical reaction" to alter the crystalline structure of the silicon in a zeolite so that it can result in an amorphous end product? In other words, you believe that the only way to make that kind of change is thru the physical (non-chemical reaction) process of simply
by
Litz
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Miss. Morris cites from one of Davidovits' papers below I think... the "volcanic silica" (which I suspect is a.k.a. volcanic glass) pops-up a few times. One would expect to see at least some volcanics dispersed in a shallow marine carbonate limestone like the Mokattam Formation.
"Importantly, chemical analyses of this white coating show the same unusual mineralogy
by
Archae Solenhofen
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Hi, Dave, and welcome to the Ma'at boards!
You noted that: "They do look natural."
Some of us would reply, "That's because they are natural!" (See Chris's and Archae's posts here.)
Both Chris and Anthony noted the presence of machining marks. You can see them yourself if you examine the photos Chris posted, as well as on his website and in h
by
Blue
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Hm, again I munst apologize. English is not my mother tongue so I sometimes don't get a joke. Therefore I don't know if your remarks ("Who is Davidovits") are meant funny or not. So please take my apoligies when I run in open doors now (German proverb)
Davidovits - well, that's the guy who invented the idea we are discussing about for such a long time now. Th
by
Frank Doernenburg
-
Ancient History
<HTML>uhmm .. what has zeoliths to do with gravity at all, ehh?
I've been at Giza and I know how the topographical area looks like, but I've also seen a few of them modern canals on the trek between Luxor and Aswan and back ... So I still think the idea of a canal leading the water to the quarries was a good idea, and it would've worked perfectly for this site if the quarrie
by
al-Urman
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Ahem - the point was made by me. Paul tried to rescue this detail of Davidovits...
But in contrast to JD or SJP he accepted it instead of telling me to be stupid not to know that Zeolithes could change the vector of local gravity :-)))
FD</HTML>
by
Frank Doernenburg
-
Ancient History
<HTML>I really enjoyed learning about Davidovits' reconstituted stone and hard mortars in Egypt. These beautiful blocks fit with the historical theory because of the technological decline in reconstituting rock. Soft rock like this was easy to cut.
They do look natural. When do these beautiful stones date to? Roman, Greek or Egyptian antiquity?
I would believe the Egyptians could ma
by
Dave Donaldson
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Hi sandy,
Actually I did not mean you when I said that... to me you have a... a... an unusual version of certain aspects of chemistry that can be frustrating to deal with (like that definition of synthetic, where basically everything in the world that does not exist in a purely elemental form must then be called synthetic), but you seem to be honestly attempting to reconcile why natur
by
Litz
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Hi Liz!
The problem is the argument from Davidovits who wants to "flow the quarries" with water from the nile. Unfortunately the quarries are 40 m higher than the high water of the nile...
@al-Urman:
The water in ancient Egyptian times was nut much higher than it would be today without the Aswan dam. The Sphinx harbor was constructed with a high quai so that the feet of
by
Frank Doernenburg
-
Ancient History
<HTML>Thanks for this information, it makes sense.
The thingies in the plastic bag Davidovits produced in the nova programme were obtained from surface material. So I think it was old, weathered material.
IIRC he (and sandy) claim that there was a whole layer of this stuff on top of the plateau which has now completely vanished (formed to pyramids).
Several weeks ago sandy JP stopped answ
by
Frank Doernenburg
-
Ancient History