Once you have eliminated the impossible...

[UC]

whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true....


http://www.livescience.com/1554-surprising-truth-great-pyramids-built.html

[UC]

On Nov 16, 3:22 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true....
>

> http://www.livescience.com/1554-surprising-truth-great-pyramids-built...

Yet, some scientists are stupid, and call the idea:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/africa/23iht-pyramid.1.12259608.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

""The pyramids are made from solid blocks of quarried limestone. To
suggest otherwise is idiotic and insulting."

What a moron Zahi Hawass is!

[UC]

On Nov 16, 3:27�pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 3:22 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true....
>
> >http://www.livescience.com/1554-surprising-truth-great-pyramids-built...
>
> Yet, some scientists are stupid, and call the idea:
>

> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/africa/23iht-pyramid.1.122596...

>
> ""The pyramids are made from solid blocks of quarried limestone. To
> suggest otherwise is idiotic and insulting."
>
> What a moron Zahi Hawass is!

'Experts' can be a stubborn lot, despite the lack of evidence:

http://voices.yahoo.com/the-stones-great-pyramids-cut-cast-2582252.html

I believe it is highly likely that they were cast....

[John Stockwell]

On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:22:21 PM UTC-7, UC wrote:
> whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true....
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.livescience.com/1554-surprising-truth-great-pyramids-built.html

The quarry sites are known. Here is an article about one of them:

http://www.aeraweb.org/gpmp-project/great-pyramid-quarry/

Note also that many of the stones are packed with fossil shells:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/04/28/2229383.htm


Incidentally, concrete making is a fairly intense industrial activity.
First limestone has to be burned to make quicklime, which is then mixed
with sand. So, you would have had to have had a limestone crushing facility,
kilns to burn the limestone and mixing facilities. Nothing like that has
ever been found. The "cast block crowd" (of 2) doesn't seem to be winning
on this.

Here is a discussion of the stratigraphy of the area:
http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/excavations-seila-egypt/4-geology-gebel-el-rus-area-and-archaeology-sites-eastern-fayum-egy

[UC]

On Nov 16, 3:57�pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:22:21 PM UTC-7, UC wrote:
> > whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true....
>

> >http://www.livescience.com/1554-surprising-truth-great-pyramids-built...

>
> The quarry sites are known. Here is an article about one of them:
>
> http://www.aeraweb.org/gpmp-project/great-pyramid-quarry/
>
> Note also that many of the stones are packed with fossil shells:http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/04/28/2229383.htm
>
> Incidentally, concrete making is a fairly intense industrial activity.
> First limestone has to be burned to make quicklime, which is then mixed
> with sand. So, you would have had to have had a limestone crushing facility,
> kilns to burn the limestone and mixing facilities. Nothing like that has
> ever been found. �The "cast block crowd" (of 2) doesn't seem to be winning
> on this.
>

> Here is a discussion of the stratigraphy of the area:http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/excavations-seila-egypt/4-geology-gebel-e...

They have me convinced on the basis of fit alone. There's simply no
way they could have cut stone to such precision on such a massive
sale. It could not be done even today!

[UC]

On Nov 16, 3:57 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:22:21 PM UTC-7, UC wrote:
> > whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true....
>

> >http://www.livescience.com/1554-surprising-truth-great-pyramids-built...

>
> The quarry sites are known. Here is an article about one of them:
>
> http://www.aeraweb.org/gpmp-project/great-pyramid-quarry/
>
> Note also that many of the stones are packed with fossil shells:http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/04/28/2229383.htm
>
> Incidentally, concrete making is a fairly intense industrial activity.
> First limestone has to be burned to make quicklime, which is then mixed
> with sand. So, you would have had to have had a limestone crushing facility,
> kilns to burn the limestone and mixing facilities. Nothing like that has
> ever been found.  The "cast block crowd" (of 2) doesn't seem to be winning
> on this.
>

> Here is a discussion of the stratigraphy of the area:http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/excavations-seila-egypt/4-geology-gebel-e...

These are very strong points:

6. The Human Element

The pyramid-builders are romantically pictured as thousands of slaves
under the lash, heaving on long ropes at great effort, towing huge
blocks of stone for miles and up steep ramps.

Indeed, some stone may have undoubtedly been moved in that fashion, or
using oxen.

Although rough stone quarrying was clearly done, tools available were
only copper, and reportedly to date, few if any such tools have been
discovered. Simply because of the technical difficulty, the skilled
cutting of fine stones was more likely restricted and applied to the
cutting of special purpose stones , such as the massive granite blocks
used in interior structures.

Alternatively, thousands of slaves in lines passing reed basket after
basket of "concrete mix" hand to hand, endlessly as a human conveyor
belt, could in 20 years, very easily build a structure the size of the
Great Pyramid, much as ants build huge, and very tall, natural
structures. Insect structures equally impressive in proportion to the
size of the individuals that built them do exist in nature; a common
termite in Australia, nasutitermes triodiae of northern Australia
builds huge structures up to 8 metres (26 feet) in height. (3) .

Clearly many individuals working collectively, if organized, can
create astounding structures, even "one grain at a time". Many
examples of labour-intensive, large construction projects exist in the
world today, such as the Great Wall of China, the Taj Mahal, ancient
temples and cities, and cathedrals

7. The Stones Do Not Match

It must be noted and is of special and revealing interest to observe
that not all of the stones in the pyramids consist of the same
material, and the subject stones do not match the composition of stone
from known sources or historically acknowledged quarries. Variations
in "stone", not explained by quarry source or availability, are
evident. It is, therefore, unless locations and sources of identically
matching stone can ultimately be located and proven, completely
logical to hypothesize that some building components may have been
cast in place using a form of concrete.

[John Stockwell]

Yes. This was done by ancient peoples in many areas of the world.

The method is quite simple but is labor intensive. The surface of the stone
is pounded with a rounded stone, such as a river cobble. Any part of the
stone that deviates from flatness is powdered by pounding with the rounded
rock.

To fit stones, together, they would be fit temporarily, and mismatch points
would be hammered flat.

So, no, there is no need to invoke special technology.

-John

[UC]

It simply seems the harder way to do things, and the Egyptians were
not stupid.

[Paul J Gans]

UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Nov 16, 3:57?pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:22:21 PM UTC-7, UC wrote:
>> > whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true....
>>
>> >http://www.livescience.com/1554-surprising-truth-great-pyramids-built...
>>
>> The quarry sites are known. Here is an article about one of them:
>>
>> http://www.aeraweb.org/gpmp-project/great-pyramid-quarry/
>>
>> Note also that many of the stones are packed with fossil shells:http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/04/28/2229383.htm
>>
>> Incidentally, concrete making is a fairly intense industrial activity.
>> First limestone has to be burned to make quicklime, which is then mixed
>> with sand. So, you would have had to have had a limestone crushing facility,
>> kilns to burn the limestone and mixing facilities. Nothing like that has

>> ever been found. ?The "cast block crowd" (of 2) doesn't seem to be winning

>> on this.
>>
>> Here is a discussion of the stratigraphy of the area:http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/excavations-seila-egypt/4-geology-gebel-e...

>They have me convinced on the basis of fit alone. There's simply no
>way they could have cut stone to such precision on such a massive
>sale. It could not be done even today!

Nonsense. That is an argument from incredulity.

There is ample evidence that the ancients were capable of a number
of building projects that seem impossible to us. Why? Because
we assume that they had no real tools, were ignorant of practical
mechanics, and were stupid to boot.

I'll just mention one or two you may have heard of. Stonehenge
in England is one example (and there are a number of other
henges in England and on the continent as well). Another is
Mycenae in Greece, whose walls and in particular the Lion
Gate involve the moving and placing of stones of great weight.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Paul J Gans]

UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Nov 16, 5:07?pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, November 16, 2012 2:02:21 PM UTC-7, UC wrote:

>> > On Nov 16, 3:57?pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:22:21 PM UTC-7, UC wrote:
>>
>> > > > whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true....
>>
>> > > >http://www.livescience.com/1554-surprising-truth-great-pyramids-built...
>>
>> > > The quarry sites are known. Here is an article about one of them:
>>
>> > >http://www.aeraweb.org/gpmp-project/great-pyramid-quarry/
>>
>> > > Note also that many of the stones are packed with fossil shells:http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/04/28/2229383.htm
>>
>> > > Incidentally, concrete making is a fairly intense industrial activity.
>>
>> > > First limestone has to be burned to make quicklime, which is then mixed
>>
>> > > with sand. So, you would have had to have had a limestone crushing facility,
>>
>> > > kilns to burn the limestone and mixing facilities. Nothing like that has
>>

>> > > ever been found. ?The "cast block crowd" (of 2) doesn't seem to be winning

>>
>> > > on this.
>>
>> > > Here is a discussion of the stratigraphy of the area:http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/excavations-seila-egypt/4-geology-gebel-e...
>>
>> > They have me convinced on the basis of fit alone. There's simply no
>>
>> > way they could have cut stone to such precision on such a massive
>>
>> > sale. It could not be done even today!
>>
>> Yes. This was done by ancient peoples in many areas of the world.
>>
>> The method is quite simple but is labor intensive. The surface of the stone
>> is pounded with a rounded stone, such as a river cobble. Any part of the
>> stone that deviates from flatness is powdered by pounding with the rounded
>> rock.
>>
>> To fit stones, together, they would be fit temporarily, and mismatch points
>> would be hammered flat.
>>
>> So, no, there is no need to invoke special technology.
>>
>> -John

>It simply seems the harder way to do things, and the Egyptians were
>not stupid.

Yes, but burning limestone is needed. So I guess the Egyptians
cut down all the trees in Egypt to produce the raw materials
needed to build the Pyramids.

[UC]

On Nov 16, 7:32 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Pyramids-An-Enigma-Solved/dp/0880295554/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1353112400&sr=8-1&keywords=morris+pyramids+solved

[UC]

On Nov 16, 7:32 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Pyramids-An-Enigma-Solved/dp/0880295554/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1353112400&sr=8-1&keywords=morris+pyramids+solved

[UC]

On Nov 16, 7:32 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

Of the two possibilities, it seems that casting is more likely based
on the evidence:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Pyramids-An-Enigma-Solved/dp/0880295554/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1353112400&sr=8-1&keywords=morris+pyramids+solved

[Tom McDonald]

No. We have the tools, we have the quarries, we have the housing for
the workers. We have no evidence for casting, no lime kilns, no
massive caches of tree-harvesting tools, nothing written to show
casting was ever done on any scale, and no puddles of hardened,
spilled concrete.

And archaeologists have looked into the issue, and found no support
for casting.

OTOH, we have non-specialist, avocational dilettantes (including you,
You See) who got a wild hare, went looking for what they wanted to
find, and found...nothing.

> http://www.amazon.com/The-Pyramids-An-Enigma-Solved/dp/0880295554/ref...

Yes. Some folks who don't know any better, and don't understand how
the ancients did big things with stone without modern tools. You seem
to be one of them.

[Tom McDonald]

No. No it isn't.

> http://www.amazon.com/The-Pyramids-An-Enigma-Solved/dp/0880295554/ref...

Twenty-four years ago. Fully debunked by real archaeologists in the
meantime.

Here's the most important review:

"I'm not even an Egyptologist and I can disprove this guy. First,
since he's a geologist he should be able to see the sedimentary layers
in the stones which match the quarries exactly. This is a huge hole in
his theory which he conveniently leaves out. Second, it would take
much longer to pulverize the limestone rather than to take a block and
haul it. Third, if they were going to cast stones, why make them
travel sized? They could have made much larger blocks to save time.
Four, cast stones would have prints from the wooden molds. They aren't
there, but there are chisel marks from cutting the stones.
Davidovits's method not only doesn't match the stones, but also seems
it would take even longer. He mixes in a few false statements, some
jabs at people that have studied the pyramids their entire lives and
fools readers with a theory that anyone with half a brain could
disprove. Go to Egypt and take a look at the Great Pyramid and you
will see the gaps between blocks that he says you cannot fit a human
hair through, you can actually stick your whole arm in. This book only
tries to convince you by calling the entire scientific community that
does not accept his theory crazy and stupid."

[UC]

Bullshit

[Mike Painter]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:58:57 -0800 (PST), UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>They have me convinced on the basis of fit alone. There's simply no
>way they could have cut stone to such precision on such a massive
>sale. It could not be done even today!

It can be and has been done. The only difference between the tools
used then and now has to do with the materials the tools are made
from, not how they work.

Obviously there are any number of points where a human hair would not
fit between the blocks but in general this is not true.
Have you severe looked at any of those rocks?
http://gei.aerobaticsweb.org/images/EGYPT/Egypt_2881_1024x1536.jpg

As for casting then in place.
1. The mass that would have top be moved is increased.
2. How exactly do you do it?
3. Where are all the forms?
4. Why are no two stones exactly the same size? Bricks are, adobe is,
tiles are.
5. Why did they use a different form for each "brick"?
6. Ever poured concrete? The sides and bottom takes the shape of the
form, the tops are all smooth.

If you can find it, Nova's This Old Pyramid Season 19 Episode 15 shows
how it was done.
"Egyptologist Mark Lehner and stonemason Roger Hopkins ('This Old
House') test theories on how pyramids were built, by constructing a
scale model in Egypt. "


--
"When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." ~ Robert Pirsig

[Mike Painter]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 00:28:19 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>
>>They have me convinced on the basis of fit alone. There's simply no
>>way they could have cut stone to such precision on such a massive
>>sale. It could not be done even today!
>
>Nonsense. That is an argument from incredulity.

I can split a block of granite with just a few feathers, a hammer, and
a hand drill, into two parts will fit together seamlessly...

http://www.miconproducts.com/wedges.html

These, except for the material have not changed in thousands of years.

[Harry K]

On Nov 16, 12:22�pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true....
>

> http://www.livescience.com/1554-surprising-truth-great-pyramids-built...

Have you even noticed that any website with "truth" in the name always
lies?

Harry K

[Klaus Hellnick]

"Paul J Gans" wrote in message news:k86lt0$qd1$6...@reader1.panix.com...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IIRC, this happened on Easter island. A bunch of religious fanatics wiped
out their ecosystem and caused themselves to starve to death, unable to make
or repair fishing boats.
Klaus
P.S.: Sorry about the poor attribution marking, I still have not found a way
to make Windows Live Mail do the >> thing.

[Mike Painter]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 20:07:08 -0800, Mike Painter
<mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 00:28:19 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>>They have me convinced on the basis of fit alone. There's simply no
>>>way they could have cut stone to such precision on such a massive
>>>sale. It could not be done even today!
>>
>>Nonsense. That is an argument from incredulity.
>
>I can split a block of granite with just a few feathers, a hammer, and
>a hand drill, into two parts will fit together seamlessly...
>
>http://www.miconproducts.com/wedges.html
>
>These, except for the material have not changed in thousands of years.

And if you change "granite" to "limestone" you get a video and find
you don't even need the drill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8QYVYceWv8

[eridanus]

nah! The pyramids were put in place by the extraterrestrials. This
is the theory of Von Denniken. And Jesus was an extraterrestrial in
disguise.

Eridanus

[eridanus]

El viernes, 16 de noviembre de 2012 20:22:21 UTC, UC escribió:
> whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true....
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.livescience.com/1554-surprising-truth-great-pyramids-built.html

what is amazing is that nobody had observed this thing before.
The proves look convincing.

Eridanus

[Tom McDonald]

No, really. You do seem to be one of the folks who don't know any
better. I've studied archaeology at the graduate level, and have read
quite a bit in both pyramid construction and Egyptian labor usage. You?

[Mike Dworetsky]

Really? My virus checker blocks the site as potentially harmful. Maybe I'm
just being paranoid...

It is far from convincing as there is no archaeological evidence that
ancient Egyptians were making cement in such huge amounts. It requires
grinding up an equivalent amount of limestone and a lot of heat. This would
be harder than cutting large blocks and moving them up inclined ramps.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[Mike Dworetsky]

Do you suppose they just phoned up Ace Concrete and had it delivered by
cement mixer truck? It is very hard work to make concrete; and John has
given you a very reasonable explanation of how stones could be fitted
together. Ancient peoples (and right up to the 20th C) tended to build in
brick or stone, and made limestone mortar only to hold it all together if
required.

[eridanus]

El sábado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 04:02:20 UTC, Mike Painter escribió:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:58:57 -0800 (PST), UC
>
> <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >They have me convinced on the basis of fit alone. There's simply no
> >way they could have cut stone to such precision on such a massive
> >sale. It could not be done even today!
>

> It can be and has been done. cast The only difference between the tools

> used then and now has to do with the materials the tools are made
> from, not how they work.
>
> Obviously there are any number of points where a human hair would not
> fit between the blocks but in general this is not true.
> Have you severe looked at any of those rocks?
> http://gei.aerobaticsweb.org/images/EGYPT/Egypt_2881_1024x1536.jpg
>
> As for casting then in place.
> 1. The mass that would have top be moved is increased.
> 2. How exactly do you do it?
> 3. Where are all the forms?
> 4. Why are no two stones exactly the same size? Bricks are, adobe is,
> tiles are.
> 5. Why did they use a different form for each "brick"?
> 6. Ever poured concrete? The sides and bottom takes the shape of the
> form, the tops are all smooth.
>
> If you can find it, Nova's This Old Pyramid Season 19 Episode 15 shows
> how it was done.
> "Egyptologist Mark Lehner and stonemason Roger Hopkins ('This Old
> House') test theories on how pyramids were built, by constructing a
> scale model in Egypt. "

---

> "When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." ~ Robert Pirsig

In this case you are looking a little like those geologists of 1920 rejecting
the Theory of Wegener.
Nobody is going to dispute that limestone, specially the Egyptian
limestone can be easily cut with a copper chisel.

It would had been easier at the start by cutting and putting in place the
cut stones. As long as they were not too big. But not for it was
impossible to move bigger stones, but for it was not practical for
a project of this size.
They could had changed their mind, as they watched the problems
involved. It was necessary to build the pyramid before the pharaoh
would die.


It is one thing to carry a monolith of great mass to the place.
In this case, we are talking of a monolith, even if it weights 70
tons or more. Another question would be carry stones so big
to the top of the pyramid, to make a joke.

They could had use a mixture of crashed lime stone, easy to
carry up to the high levels of the pyramid, some lime, and
diatomaceous earth. Are common materials. Easy to carry up
on a ramp to the pyramid.
Other question are the case of the granitic stones on the burial
chamber. This was a real work for the extraterrestrials of Von
Deniken. I mean, this was a real human work.
Then, it could have used both techniques. Real hard work with very
big stones of hard granite, as well as some cast stones in other
places. One technique did not made impossible the other.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/africa/23iht-pyramid.1.12259608.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The problem here is one of surprise. Twenty thousand repetitions
had made a truth, and now you cannot believe there is another god.

If the Egyptians could have made some many wonders, nothing
would imped them to discover a way to cast some concrete stones.

Of course, this has taken us by surprise. Then, if this news are real
it could tell us more about the thousands of brains that was visiting
the Egypcian antiquities and had not seen those cast stones.

This is about the same story as the geologists that could not figure
some silly thing, like slow convecting cells of molten rock moving
inside the earth and pushing some continents apart from each each
other.

Eridanus

[eridanus]

El sábado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 11:17:19 UTC, Mike Dworetsky escribió:
> eridanus wrote:
>

> > El viernes, 16 de noviembre de 2012 20:22:21 UTC, UC escribi�:

There was not any need to do it in all works. For to make lime
was not any cheap. It consumes a lot of fuel.
In the case of the pyramid, they could had used casted stones with
a cement to finish the pyramid before the pharaoh would die. But
for more terrestrial works like temples and buildings, it do not
make any sense to used casted stones. They do not look nice at all.

The pictures looked like casted stones. Another question is if the
pics are real or not. I had never been in Egypt in my life and
had seen only a few pictures that you can see in books. But if
these stones were incomprehensible for those in place trying to make
sense of what they were watching, they had not mentioned the case
of the rare stones.

Then, as they do not understood what they would watching, they do not
said anything.

Eridanus

[Richard Norman]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 20:01:34 -0800, Mike Painter
<mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:58:57 -0800 (PST), UC
><uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>They have me convinced on the basis of fit alone. There's simply no
>>way they could have cut stone to such precision on such a massive
>>sale. It could not be done even today!
>
>
>It can be and has been done. The only difference between the tools
>used then and now has to do with the materials the tools are made
>from, not how they work.
>
>Obviously there are any number of points where a human hair would not
>fit between the blocks but in general this is not true.
>Have you severe looked at any of those rocks?
>http://gei.aerobaticsweb.org/images/EGYPT/Egypt_2881_1024x1536.jpg
>

The Incas did a much more careful job. Just google images for "Inca
stone wall". In fairness, the major Egyptian pyramids were coated
with a surface casing of finely fitted dazzling white stone that was
supposedly quite smooth. What you see now are the interior foundation
stones which needed only strength, not esthetics.

[UC]

On Nov 17, 6:17 am, "Mike Dworetsky"
<platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> eridanus wrote:
> > El viernes, 16 de noviembre de 2012 20:22:21 UTC, UC  escribi :

> >> whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true....
>

> >>http://www.livescience.com/1554-surprising-truth-great-pyramids-built...

>
> > what is amazing is that nobody had observed this thing before.
> > The proves look convincing.
>
> > Eridanus
>
> Really?  My virus checker blocks the site as potentially harmful.  Maybe I'm
> just being paranoid...
>
> It is far from convincing as there is no archaeological evidence that
> ancient Egyptians were making cement in such huge amounts.  It requires
> grinding up an equivalent amount of limestone and a lot of heat.  This would
> be harder than cutting large blocks and moving them up inclined ramps.
>
> --
> Mike Dworetsky
>
> (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

No, it does not. That's the point. The only way, in my opinion, that
it could have been done with cut blocks would be to bury the pyramid
as you go, so that the effort to lift them to the higher points is
less. Then you would have to clear it all away.

[UC]

On Nov 17, 6:17 am, "Mike Dworetsky"
<platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:

> eridanus wrote:
> > El viernes, 16 de noviembre de 2012 20:22:21 UTC, UC  escribi :

> >> whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true....
>

> >>http://www.livescience.com/1554-surprising-truth-great-pyramids-built...

>
> > what is amazing is that nobody had observed this thing before.
> > The proves look convincing.
>
> > Eridanus
>
> Really?  My virus checker blocks the site as potentially harmful.  Maybe I'm
> just being paranoid...
>
> It is far from convincing as there is no archaeological evidence that
> ancient Egyptians were making cement in such huge amounts.  It requires
> grinding up an equivalent amount of limestone and a lot of heat.  This would
> be harder than cutting large blocks and moving them up inclined ramps.
>
> --
> Mike Dworetsky
>
> (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

Read the book. It was not Portland cement.

[Tom McDonald]

Have you read the book? If so, perhaps you could tell us what the
composition of the concrete was.

If not, why are you nattering on about details?

[Nick Keighley]

On Nov 16, 8:57 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:22:21 PM UTC-7, UC wrote:

> > whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true....
>
> >http://www.livescience.com/1554-surprising-truth-great-pyramids-built...
>

> The quarry sites are known. Here is an article about one of them:
>
> http://www.aeraweb.org/gpmp-project/great-pyramid-quarry/

I've *seen* it

[Nick Keighley]

On Nov 16, 10:12 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 5:07 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Friday, November 16, 2012 2:02:21 PM UTC-7, UC wrote:

> > > On Nov 16, 3:57 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:22:21 PM UTC-7, UC wrote:
>
> > > > > whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true....
>
> > > > >http://www.livescience.com/1554-surprising-truth-great-pyramids-built...
>
> > > > The quarry sites are known. Here is an article about one of them:
>
> > > >http://www.aeraweb.org/gpmp-project/great-pyramid-quarry/
>

> > > > Note also that many of the stones are packed with fossil shells:http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/04/28/2229383.htm
>
> > > > Incidentally, concrete making is a fairly intense industrial activity.
>
> > > > First limestone has to be burned to make quicklime, which is then mixed
>
> > > > with sand. So, you would have had to have had a limestone crushing facility,
>
> > > > kilns to burn the limestone and mixing facilities. Nothing like that has
>
> > > > ever been found.  The "cast block crowd" (of 2) doesn't seem to be winning
>
> > > > on this.
>
> > > > Here is a discussion of the stratigraphy of the area:http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/excavations-seila-egypt/4-geology-gebel-e...
>

> > > They have me convinced on the basis of fit alone. There's simply no
>
> > > way they could have cut stone to such precision on such a massive
>
> > > sale. It could not be done even today!
>

> > Yes. This was done by ancient peoples in many areas of the world.
>
> > The method is quite simple but is labor intensive. The surface of the stone
> > is pounded with a rounded stone, such as a river cobble. Any part of the
> > stone that deviates from flatness is powdered by pounding with the rounded
> > rock.
>
> > To fit stones, together, they would be fit temporarily, and mismatch points
> > would be hammered flat.
>
> > So, no, there is no need to invoke special technology.
>
> > -John
>
> It simply seems the harder way to do things, and the Egyptians were
> not stupid.

harder than what? antigravity? laser cutting? Giant space goats
excreaing the pyramids?

[Nick Keighley]

any fossils seen in the limestone?

[UC]

On Nov 17, 10:17�am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

The authors do go into that, but I did not buy it yet. I saw it at a
used bookstore.

[Mike Dworetsky]

Unfair comparison. Wegener did not in fact have lots of evidence. In
particular, he was missing what we have now: sea floor spreading, and
mid-ocean ridges (unknown to Wegener); alternating magnetic field directions
in sea-floor rocks; actual measurement of continents moving (from very
accurate geodesy from satellites). So other geologists were simply saying
that Wegner had an interesting observation but continental drift was no more
than a wild guess at that point.

At this time we have observations that the pyramid stones are solid
limestone with fossils embedded, exactly as expected for natural cut
limestone. And there have been investigations of just how these stones
could be moved using long ramps, rollers, and lots of manpower.

On the other hand, there is no evidence at all that stones were cast in
place, no evidence for large-scale concrete manufacture, and so forth.

[UC]

On Nov 17, 10:52 am, "Mike Dworetsky"
<platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> eridanus wrote:
> > El s bado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 04:02:20 UTC, Mike Painter
> > escribi :

> >> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:58:57 -0800 (PST), UC
>

> >http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/africa/23iht-pyramid.1.122596...

We have no more evidence that they were cut. We must therefore rely on
other approaches. The idea that they were cut in dragged is a romantic
fantasy that fits preconceived ideas about Egyptian life, slaves, etc.

[jillery]

Your point is quite correct wrt Egyptian pyramids. But depending on
how you define "ancient", concrete was used as foundational building
material in pre-Christian Rome. In fact, much of the Roman ruins
still standing are made from concrete, in part because those made from
stone were taken apart by the locals and the materials used for new
construction.

[Richard Norman]

No, the notion that Hebrews were slaves in Eqypt or that slaves of any
sort build the pyramids is romantic fantasy that fits preconceived
ideas. That very large work crews busy during the Nile floods worked
on the pyramids is something that has a great deal of evidence, not to
mention credence.

[Richard Norman]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 06:55:02 -0800 (PST), UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:


>
>No, it does not. That's the point. The only way, in my opinion, that

>it could have been done...

This is the entire problem. Your unlearned opinion isn't worth very
much.

[UC]

On Nov 17, 11:42�am, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 06:55:02 -0800 (PST), UC
>

> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >No, it does not. That's the point. The only way, in my opinion, that
> >it could have been done...
>
> This is the entire problem. �Your unlearned opinion isn't worth very
> much.

If YOU were going to build a pyramid, how would you do it? Start with
that.

[eridanus]

El s�bado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 15:52:19 UTC, Mike Dworetsky escribi�:

> eridanus wrote:
>

>
> Unfair comparison. Wegener did not in fact have lots of evidence. In
> particular, he was missing what we have now: sea floor spreading, and
> mid-ocean ridges (unknown to Wegener); alternating magnetic field directions
> in sea-floor rocks; actual measurement of continents moving (from very
> accurate geodesy from satellites). So other geologists were simply saying
> that Wegner had an interesting observation but continental drift was no more
> than a wild guess at that point.

In the case of Wegener, the most serious evidence he has was the contour
of several continents. You do not needed more to start thinking he was right.
Simply by applying some elemental concept of probabilities to see if the
coincidences of those contours were the result of some random appearance.
But most scientists at the time, preferred to ignore Wegener and his theory.
If they (the geologists and other scientists) would had accepted the challenge
presented by Wegener they would had been able to invent the concept of
an earth that was hot inside, with some form of molten lava, and moving
in convection cells. These ideas were within the theoretical capabilities
of most scientists of the late 19 century. But they were castrated perhaps
by some other luminaries, like Lord Kelvin saying the "earth is cold"
and "it have an antiquity of 10 million years".

> At this time we have observations that the pyramid stones are solid
> limestone with fossils embedded, exactly as expected for natural cut
> limestone. And there have been investigations of just how these stones
> could be moved using long ramps, rollers, and lots of manpower.

Nobody can say the Egyptians were not cutting stones with chisels.
All their monuments, even the exterior part of the pyramids were
made of cutting stone, for it was the best way to show the beauty of
a good work.
The novelty part is that in some moment they were able to invent some
form of "crude concrete" to make the filling of some huge pyramid.
And the reason to do so was the need to hasten the works to finish well

before the pharaoh would die.

They do not need to cut much trees, to make lime. Limestone or
even plaster (calcium sulphate) were easily cooked by burning dry
papyrus. They needed only small ovens to make the lime.
Only the houses of the rich people were made with cut stones. The
poor people used adobe to build their houses. In Europe, poor
people made their houses with some timber and mud. The exterior
covered with plaster, like in Egypt. Unless you were too poor to
plaster the walls, and only gave them a whitewash.

You only need to apply some discriminating reason.
The first thing to know is if those pictures are real, and not a fine
work of photo-shop. For those stones do not look as cut stones.


Eridanus

[eridanus]

El s�bado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 16:37:19 UTC, Richard Norman escribi�:

I agree on that. The work of the pyramids and other works were mostly
conscript young people and some older specialists. Not the work of
slaves. And even less the work of some Hebrew slaves.

Eridanus

[Tom McDonald]

In addition to which we know that there was a permanent, year-round
workforce (I've heard best estimates of ca. 25,000) who did the more
technical work. AIUI, the farmers, etc, that were used during the
inundation of the Nile did the bulk of the grunt work.

You are quite right in noting that there is no evidence,none
whatsoever, that slaves were used to build the pyramids in Egypt, at
least during the century or so of the great pyramid building boom
starting ca. 2500 BCE.

That UC doesn't seem to know this suggests his understanding is based
on the straw man of the old, romantic notions he rightly rejects.

[Tom McDonald]

On Nov 17, 9:17 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> On Nov 17, 1:22 am, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 6:37 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > > Of the two possibilities, it seems that casting is more likely based
> > > on the evidence:
>
> > No. We have the tools, we have the quarries, we have the housing for
> > the workers. We have no evidence for casting, no lime kilns, no
> > massive caches of tree-harvesting tools, nothing written to show
> > casting was ever done on any scale, and no puddles of hardened,
> > spilled concrete.
>
> > And archaeologists have looked into the issue, and found no support
> > for casting.
>
> > OTOH, we have non-specialist, avocational dilettantes (including you,
> > You See) who got a wild hare, went looking for what they wanted to
> > find, and found...nothing.
>
> > >http://www.amazon.com/The-Pyramids-An-Enigma-Solved/dp/0880295554/ref...
>
> > Yes. Some folks who don't know any better, and don't understand how
> > the ancients did big things with stone without modern tools. You seem
> > to be one of them.
>
> any fossils seen in the limestone?

Yes. That, in addition to the stratigraphy of the blocks which exactly
matches that of the nearby quarries, and the fact that to get concrete
you would need to pound the limestone to powder, suggests that UC's
view of how the Egyptian pyramids were built is, to put it in his
delicate phrase, 'bullshit'.

[jillery]

Don't be silly. It was giant turtles.

[jillery]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 03:58:02 -0800 (PST), eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>El s�bado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 04:02:20 UTC, Mike Painter escribi�:

IIUC your point is that the Egyptian could have used some kind of
wet-setting mixture that isn't quicklime based, for the blocks higher
up the pyramids. This idea eliminates the problems of hauling huge
stones up a tall ramp, and avoids the need for huge ovens and large
amounts of fuel to make modern-day concrete.

ISTM a reasonable test is to examine the pyramids to see if the
material composition of the blocks changes according to elevation. Is
there anybody posting here that can say that is definitely the case or
not?

[Richard Norman]

If I were Pharoah I would simply say to my chief engineer "build me a
great pyramid!".

If I were the chief engineer I would say "lets see, now. We have
already built little bitty and then small and then larger step
pyramids and a whole bunch of 'great' pyramids. So let's just do it
bigger and better this time."

For details I would have my secretary get an inter-library loan from
Alexandria for David Macaulay's book and look at the pictures.

(Note to serious archeologists and knowledgeable amateurs -- I do
realize that Macaulay is not the be-all and end-all for pyramid
construction. I am also aware of the relative dates of pyramid
building, the Alexandria library, and Macaulay's life. This is the
internet and you can never be sure who will take you seriously.)

[Bruce Stephens]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> writes:

[...]

> IIUC your point is that the Egyptian could have used some kind of
> wet-setting mixture that isn't quicklime based, for the blocks higher
> up the pyramids. This idea eliminates the problems of hauling huge
> stones up a tall ramp, and avoids the need for huge ovens and large
> amounts of fuel to make modern-day concrete.

If you were doing that, why would you cast them into blocks? Wouldn't
that be much more work than just casting layers of concrete (which would
then fuse together, and which could be made naturally smooth on the
outside)?

[...]

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/17/12 9:12 AM, eridanus wrote:
> El sábado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 15:52:19 UTC, Mike Dworetsky escribió:
>> eridanus wrote:
>>
>[...]

>> Unfair comparison. Wegener did not in fact have lots of evidence. In
>> particular, he was missing what we have now: sea floor spreading, and
>> mid-ocean ridges (unknown to Wegener); alternating magnetic field directions
>> in sea-floor rocks; actual measurement of continents moving (from very
>> accurate geodesy from satellites). So other geologists were simply saying
>> that Wegner had an interesting observation but continental drift was no more
>> than a wild guess at that point.
>
> In the case of Wegener, the most serious evidence he has was the contour
> of several continents. You do not needed more to start thinking he was right.

The continental contours were suggestive, but were not that good as hard
evidence, because the fit is far from perfect. The continental contours
were the main evidence used by Warren Carey in his expanding earth
theory. The fit is much better on a smaller globe.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Richard Norman]

There is a serious problem with that idea -- where would you get the
rebar?

(OK, it isn't serious. Nothing about the cast blocks idea is
serious.)

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:20:14 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:

>whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true....
>
>

>http://www.livescience.com/1554-surprising-truth-great-pyramids-built.html

The main problem with this conjecture is that the conclusion
rests on the single premise, which is demonstrably untrue;
nothing about how the pyramids are known to have been built
(by this thing known as "evidence from multiple sources") is
"impossible", and the techniques aren't even unique to
Egypt.

Is there *any* lunacy to which you won't subscribe if it
seems to support your "scientists are incompetent idiots"
mania?
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

[Richard Norman]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 09:53:38 -0800, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:

>On 11/17/12 9:12 AM, eridanus wrote:
>> El sábado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 15:52:19 UTC, Mike Dworetsky escribió:
>>> eridanus wrote:
>>>
>>[...]
>>> Unfair comparison. Wegener did not in fact have lots of evidence. In
>>> particular, he was missing what we have now: sea floor spreading, and
>>> mid-ocean ridges (unknown to Wegener); alternating magnetic field directions
>>> in sea-floor rocks; actual measurement of continents moving (from very
>>> accurate geodesy from satellites). So other geologists were simply saying
>>> that Wegner had an interesting observation but continental drift was no more
>>> than a wild guess at that point.
>>
>> In the case of Wegener, the most serious evidence he has was the contour
>> of several continents. You do not needed more to start thinking he was right.
>
>The continental contours were suggestive, but were not that good as hard
>evidence, because the fit is far from perfect. The continental contours
>were the main evidence used by Warren Carey in his expanding earth
>theory. The fit is much better on a smaller globe.

The continental shelf contours are much a much better fit.

[eridanus]

El s�bado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 17:37:19 UTC, jillery escribi�:

The good work had to be on the outside and on the noble parts, like in
burial chamber. Then instead of carrying up "all the building blocks"
needed as it was assumed, they could had been howling some lime, some
water, some crash limestone, and some mud. They mixed the equivalent
mass of a big stone, and made an artificial stone, that got harder as
time passed. But on the exterior, they needed real cut stones, that are
much harder and contained better the weight. But it was also a problem
of weight. As the artificial stones were compressed, they hardened.

>
> ISTM a reasonable test is to examine the pyramids to see if the
> material composition of the blocks changes according to elevation. Is
> there anybody posting here that can say that is definitely the case or
> not?

It is easy to see if this is right or not. But a part of the mysticism
is being robbed to the pyramids, if that were true. Then, I understand
the alarm of the chief Zahi Hawass as he got the news.

Are the pictures of those weird stones real, or are a work of photo-shop?
If the pictures are real, they do not look at all as cut stones.
I am not affirming the photos are real. I do not know.

Eridanus

[eridanus]

El sábado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 17:57:19 UTC, Mark Isaak escribió:
> On 11/17/12 9:12 AM, eridanus wrote:
>

> > El s�bado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 15:52:19 UTC, Mike Dworetsky escribi�:

>
> >> eridanus wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >[...]
>
> >> Unfair comparison. Wegener did not in fact have lots of evidence. In
>
> >> particular, he was missing what we have now: sea floor spreading, and
>
> >> mid-ocean ridges (unknown to Wegener); alternating magnetic field directions
>
> >> in sea-floor rocks; actual measurement of continents moving (from very
>
> >> accurate geodesy from satellites). So other geologists were simply saying
>
> >> that Wegner had an interesting observation but continental drift was no more
>
> >> than a wild guess at that point.
>
> >
>
> > In the case of Wegener, the most serious evidence he has was the contour
>
> > of several continents. You do not needed more to start thinking he was right.
>


>
> The continental contours were suggestive, but were not that good as hard
> evidence, because the fit is far from perfect. The continental contours
> were the main evidence used by Warren Carey in his expanding earth
> theory. The fit is much better on a smaller globe.
>

The fact that so many continents fitted approximately were enough
evidence. You could not accuse weird coincidences for the fit. With a
very light perception of probabilities you had it. The only hard evidence
would had been to see the continents joined together and then going
separate. The movement is very small to be discerned even today with
the GPS satellites.

Eridanus

[eridanus]

99% of the work was done by cutting stones

Eridanus

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:20:14 -0500, UC wrote
(in article
<6999f215-30d3-42e2...@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>):

> whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true....
>
>
> http://www.livescience.com/1554-surprising-truth-great-pyramids-built.html
>

Feh. The Goa'uld did it! The pyramids are Goa'uld spaceships!

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

[jillery]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 17:49:27 +0000, Bruce Stephens
<bruce+...@cenderis.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Perhaps for the same reason modern builders shape concrete. But that
really wasn't my point. You snipped that part out.

[jillery]

Exactly.

[jillery]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 10:36:51 -0800 (PST), eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>El sábado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 17:37:19 UTC, jillery escribió:

[...]

>> ISTM a reasonable test is to examine the pyramids to see if the
>> material composition of the blocks changes according to elevation. Is
>> there anybody posting here that can say that is definitely the case or
>> not?
>
>It is easy to see if this is right or not. But a part of the mysticism
>is being robbed to the pyramids, if that were true. Then, I understand
>the alarm of the chief Zahi Hawass as he got the news.
>
>Are the pictures of those weird stones real, or are a work of photo-shop?
>If the pictures are real, they do not look at all as cut stones.
>I am not affirming the photos are real. I do not know.

What pictures?

[UC]

Any schoolboy could see how Africa's west coast and South America's
east coast fit together perfectly. I noticed it at once, when I was a
kid studying geography.

[UC]

On Nov 17, 3:32 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 10:36:51 -0800 (PST), eridanus
>

> <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >El s bado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 17:37:19 UTC, jillery  escribi :

>
> [...]
>
> >> ISTM a reasonable test is to examine the pyramids to see if the
> >> material composition of the blocks changes according to elevation.  Is
> >> there anybody posting here that can say that is definitely the case or
> >> not?
>
> >It is easy to see if this is right or not.  But a part of the mysticism
> >is being robbed to the pyramids, if that were true. Then, I understand
> >the alarm of the chief Zahi Hawass as he got the news.
>
> >Are the pictures of those weird stones real, or are a work of photo-shop?
> >If the pictures are real, they do not look at all as cut stones.
> >I am not affirming the photos are real.  I do not know.
>
> What pictures?

I bought the Davidovits-Morris book. Ask questions and I will look
within.

[UC]

I have read that slaves did not work on the pyramids. How this is
known I do not know.

[UC]

On Nov 17, 12:37 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 03:58:02 -0800 (PST), eridanus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >El s bado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 04:02:20 UTC, Mike Painter  escribi :
> >> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:58:57 -0800 (PST), UC
>

> >http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/africa/23iht-pyramid.1.122596...

>
> >The problem here is one of surprise.  Twenty thousand repetitions
> >had made a truth, and now you cannot believe there is another god.
>
> >If the Egyptians could have made some many wonders, nothing
> >would imped them to discover a way to cast some concrete stones.
>
> >Of course, this has taken us by surprise.  Then, if this news are real
> >it could tell us more about the thousands of brains that was visiting
> >the Egypcian antiquities and had not seen those cast stones.
>
> IIUC your point is that the Egyptian could have used some kind of
> wet-setting mixture that isn't quicklime based, for the blocks higher
> up the pyramids.  This idea eliminates the problems of hauling huge
> stones up a tall ramp, and avoids the need for huge ovens and large
> amounts of fuel to make modern-day concrete.
>
> ISTM a reasonable test is to examine the pyramids to see if the
> material composition of the blocks changes according to elevation.  Is
> there anybody posting here that can say that is definitely the case or
> not?

It is quite possible that both techniques were used. I have purchased
the Davidovits-Morris book and will be conversant with its contents
when I have finished it.

[eridanus]

El sábado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 20:32:18 UTC, jillery escribió:
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 10:36:51 -0800 (PST), eridanus
>
> <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>

> >El s�bado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 17:37:19 UTC, jillery escribi�:

>
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> >> ISTM a reasonable test is to examine the pyramids to see if the
>
> >> material composition of the blocks changes according to elevation. Is
>
> >> there anybody posting here that can say that is definitely the case or
>
> >> not?
>
> >
>
> >It is easy to see if this is right or not. But a part of the mysticism
>
> >is being robbed to the pyramids, if that were true. Then, I understand
>
> >the alarm of the chief Zahi Hawass as he got the news.
>
> >
> >Are the pictures of those weird stones real, or are a work of photo-shop?
> >If the pictures are real, they do not look at all as cut stones.
> >I am not affirming the photos are real. I do not know.
>
> What pictures?

Look here
http://www.materials.drexel.edu/News/Item/?i=948

there are a couple of pictures. One over the other. One presents the
supposed casted stones, and the other below, the common cut stone blocks.

Eridanus

[Mike Dworetsky]

jillery wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 11:21:24 -0000, "Mike Dworetsky"
> <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> UC wrote:
>>> On Nov 16, 5:07 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Friday, November 16, 2012 2:02:21 PM UTC-7, UC wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 16, 3:57 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:22:21 PM UTC-7, UC wrote:
>>>>

>>>>>>> whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true....
>>>>

>>>>>>> http://www.livescience.com/1554-surprising-truth-great-pyramids-built...
>>>>
>>>>>> The quarry sites are known. Here is an article about one of them:
>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.aeraweb.org/gpmp-project/great-pyramid-quarry/
>>>>
>>>>>> Note also that many of the stones are packed with fossil
>>>>>> shells:http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/04/28/2229383.htm
>>>>
>>>>>> Incidentally, concrete making is a fairly intense industrial
>>>>>> activity.
>>>>
>>>>>> First limestone has to be burned to make quicklime, which is then
>>>>>> mixed
>>>>
>>>>>> with sand. So, you would have had to have had a limestone
>>>>>> crushing facility,
>>>>
>>>>>> kilns to burn the limestone and mixing facilities. Nothing like
>>>>>> that has
>>>>
>>>>>> ever been found. The "cast block crowd" (of 2) doesn't seem to be
>>>>>> winning
>>>>
>>>>>> on this.
>>>>
>>>>>> Here is a discussion of the stratigraphy of the
>>>>>> area:http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/excavations-seila-egypt/4-geology-gebel-e...
>>>>

>>>>> They have me convinced on the basis of fit alone. There's simply
>>>>> no
>>>>
>>>>> way they could have cut stone to such precision on such a massive
>>>>
>>>>> sale. It could not be done even today!
>>>>

>>>> Yes. This was done by ancient peoples in many areas of the world.
>>>>
>>>> The method is quite simple but is labor intensive. The surface of
>>>> the stone is pounded with a rounded stone, such as a river cobble.
>>>> Any part of the stone that deviates from flatness is powdered by
>>>> pounding with the rounded rock.
>>>>
>>>> To fit stones, together, they would be fit temporarily, and
>>>> mismatch points would be hammered flat.
>>>>
>>>> So, no, there is no need to invoke special technology.
>>>>
>>>> -John
>>>
>>> It simply seems the harder way to do things, and the Egyptians were
>>> not stupid.
>>

>> Do you suppose they just phoned up Ace Concrete and had it delivered
>> by cement mixer truck? It is very hard work to make concrete; and
>> John has given you a very reasonable explanation of how stones could
>> be fitted together. Ancient peoples (and right up to the 20th C)
>> tended to build in brick or stone, and made limestone mortar only to
>> hold it all together if required.
>
>
> Your point is quite correct wrt Egyptian pyramids. But depending on
> how you define "ancient", concrete was used as foundational building
> material in pre-Christian Rome. In fact, much of the Roman ruins
> still standing are made from concrete, in part because those made from
> stone were taken apart by the locals and the materials used for new
> construction.

I don't think civilizations much older than Rome had concrete. Is there any
evidence that the Greeks had it? And is there any proper evidence that the
Egyptians actually used it? The Great Pyramids were built at a time that
was more ancient to the Romans than the Romans to ourselves.

[Mike Dworetsky]

Richard Norman wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 08:16:38 -0800 (PST), UC
> <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 17, 10:52 am, "Mike Dworetsky"
>> <platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> eridanus wrote:

>>>> El s bado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 04:02:20 UTC, Mike Painter
>>>> escribi :
>>>>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:58:57 -0800 (PST), UC
>>>
>>>>> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>

>>>>>> They have me convinced on the basis of fit alone. There's simply
>>>>>> no way they could have cut stone to such precision on such a
>>>>>> massive sale. It could not be done even today!
>>>

>>>> This is about the same story as the geologists that could not
>>>> figure some silly thing, like slow convecting cells of molten rock
>>>> moving inside the earth and pushing some continents apart from
>>>> each each other.
>>>
>>>> Eridanus
>>>
>>> Unfair comparison. Wegener did not in fact have lots of evidence. In
>>> particular, he was missing what we have now: sea floor spreading,
>>> and mid-ocean ridges (unknown to Wegener); alternating magnetic
>>> field directions in sea-floor rocks; actual measurement of
>>> continents moving (from very accurate geodesy from satellites). So
>>> other geologists were simply saying that Wegner had an interesting
>>> observation but continental drift was no more than a wild guess at
>>> that point.
>>>
>>> At this time we have observations that the pyramid stones are solid
>>> limestone with fossils embedded, exactly as expected for natural cut
>>> limestone. And there have been investigations of just how these
>>> stones could be moved using long ramps, rollers, and lots of
>>> manpower.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, there is no evidence at all that stones were
>>> cast in place, no evidence for large-scale concrete manufacture,
>>> and so forth.
>>>

>>> --
>>> Mike Dworetsky
>>>
>>> (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
>>

>> We have no more evidence that they were cut. We must therefore rely
>> on other approaches. The idea that they were cut in dragged is a
>> romantic fantasy that fits preconceived ideas about Egyptian life,
>> slaves, etc.
>
> No, the notion that Hebrews were slaves in Eqypt or that slaves of any
> sort build the pyramids is romantic fantasy that fits preconceived
> ideas. That very large work crews busy during the Nile floods worked
> on the pyramids is something that has a great deal of evidence, not to
> mention credence.

Indeed. Didn't archaeologists find some of the large stones engraved on the
inner side with signed inscriptions along the lines of, "Volunteers from our
village cut and placed this stone in the pyramid; all hail the great pharaoh
Ming"?

[eridanus]

Egyptians wrote a lot as to know that slaves were not common. But they
conscripted people either for a war or to make great public works.

In general, the state had wheat enough to feed the army of conscripts. For
to raise taxes was rather easy, thanks to the Nile.

Eridanus

[Mike Dworetsky]

eridanus wrote:
> El s�bado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 17:57:19 UTC, Mark Isaak escribi�:

>> On 11/17/12 9:12 AM, eridanus wrote:
>>

>>> El s�bado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 15:52:19 UTC, Mike Dworetsky
>>> escribi�:

Not if you are able to remove the military decryption degredation imposed on
signals used for civil purposes. And this can be done with special
permission.

>
> Eridanus

[eridanus]

El sábado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 21:27:18 UTC, Mike Dworetsky escribió:

>
> > Your point is quite correct wrt Egyptian pyramids. But depending on
> > how you define "ancient", concrete was used as foundational building
> > material in pre-Christian Rome. In fact, much of the Roman ruins
> > still standing are made from concrete, in part because those made from
> > stone were taken apart by the locals and the materials used for new
> > construction.
>
> I don't think civilizations much older than Rome had concrete. Is there any
> evidence that the Greeks had it? And is there any proper evidence that the
> Egyptians actually used it? The Great Pyramids were built at a time that
> was more ancient to the Romans than the Romans to ourselves.

Remember that "our thinking" reflects the ideas we had read in books.

Unless the piece of news you read contradicts some well entrenched principle
of physics or chemistry, anything is possible.

Eridanus

[Mike Dworetsky]

UC wrote:
> On Nov 17, 12:12 pm, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> El sábado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 15:52:19 UTC, Mike Dworetsky
>> escribió:

The point is that at the time, this was the only evidence that Wegener could
muster (plus, I recall, some evidence about the similarity of fossils of
great age on the two continents). So while Wegener had an idea that was
much later proved right with hard evidence, at the time the evidence was
sparse and not enough to convince skeptical scientists. I recall an article
by Fred Hoyle from ca. 1950 in which he concluded that Wegener was wrong
(this was about two decades before the discovery of magnetic field
alternation in sea floor rocks). So, yes, he was wrong too, but he had good
reasons to be critical at the time.

[eridanus]

El sábado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 21:37:18 UTC, Mike Dworetsky escribió:
> eridanus wrote:
>

> > The fact that so many continents fitted approximately were enough
> > evidence. You could not accuse weird coincidences for the fit. With
> > a very light perception of probabilities you had it. The only hard
> > evidence would had been to see the continents joined together and
> > then going separate. The movement is very small to be discerned even
> > today with
>
> > the GPS satellites.
>
> Not if you are able to remove the military decryption degredation imposed on
> signals used for civil purposes. And this can be done with special
> permission.

An inch or two a year is too much precision to be detected by a military
GPS. If Africa is separating from America one inch a year, you will have to detect a difference of position of half an inch in a year.
I do not think military GPS have such a degree of precision.

Eridanus

[Mike Dworetsky]

eridanus wrote:

> El sábado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 17:37:19 UTC, jillery escribió:
>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 03:58:02 -0800 (PST), eridanus
>>
>> <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>

>>> El s�bado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 04:02:20 UTC, Mike Painter
>>> escribiďż˝:

No one has yet mentioned the enormous amount of heat generated by chemical
reactions as concrete hardens and dries out. In fact you would have to wait
many weeks to lay more stones on top of an existing layer of concretebecause
it won't have optimum strength for many weeks. That would slow down the
construction considerably.

[Tom McDonald]

On Nov 17, 3:02�pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 17, 12:27�pm, Tom McDonald <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > In addition to which we know that there was a permanent, year-round
> > workforce (I've heard best estimates of ca. 25,000) who did the more
> > technical work. AIUI, the farmers, etc, that were used during the
> > inundation of the Nile did the bulk of the grunt work.

Sorry. The 25,000 figure is more likely to be the entire workforce on
the Great Pyramid, not the (much smaller) number of permanent,
probably professional, workers who did the more technical jobs. (See
link below.)

> > You are quite right in noting that there is no evidence,none
> > whatsoever, that slaves were used to build the pyramids in Egypt, at
> > least during the century or so of the great pyramid building boom
> > starting ca. 2500 BCE.
>
> > That UC doesn't seem to know this suggests his understanding is based
> > on the straw man of the old, romantic notions he rightly rejects.
>
> I have read that slaves did not work on the pyramids. How this is
> known I do not know.

It's not clear that no slaves were used, but, as I wrote, I know of no
evidence of slaves on those construction jobs.

One of the reasons why it isn't likely that slaves were used, at least
for the permanent work force, is the existence of a number of tombs
built and used by the pyramid builders themselves. Some of them are
very well-built and decorated. It seems that they worked on their
tombs on their own time.

Another reason is that the workers' barracks, bakeries, dining halls
and food refuse piles show that the workers were well-fed and well-
housed. In addition, they seem to have gotten pretty good medical
care, although their skeletons show how hard they were working.

The following is from a tourist site, but it comports pretty well with
other, more technical, papers and articles I've read on the subject. I
will note, before UC does, that the writing is not especially good,
though it does get the information across.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/pyramidworkforce.htm

[eridanus]

El sábado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 21:42:19 UTC, Mike Dworetsky escribió:
> UC wrote:
>
> > On Nov 17, 12:12 pm, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> >> El s�bado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 15:52:19 UTC, Mike Dworetsky
>
> >> escribi�:

I have the vague idea that Fred Hoyle was a little nuts. Not sure really
and had not checked on the google.
Most scientist are absorbed in their own work and do not stop to enter
into this sort of polemics as the moving continents.

The obligation were more on the shoulders of geologists, and perhaps
astrophysicists. Both had some responsibility to "think" freely on this
problem. It was not rocket science.
Today any high school boy can understand this matter without problems.

Then, why not the geologists? Or even the astrophysicist if this rare bird
existed at the time?

Eridanus

[eridanus]

El sábado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 21:47:18 UTC, Mike Dworetsky escribió:
> eridanus wrote:
>

> > It is easy to see if this is right or not. But a part of the
> > mysticism is being robbed to the pyramids, if that were true. Then, I
> > understand the alarm of the chief Zahi Hawass as he got the news.
>
> > Are the pictures of those weird stones real, or are a work of
> > photo-shop? If the pictures are real, they do not look at all as cut
> > stones.
>
> > I am not affirming the photos are real. I do not know.
>
> > Eridanus
>

> No one has yet mentioned the enormous amount of heat generated by chemical
> reactions as concrete hardens and dries out. In fact you would have to wait
> many weeks to lay more stones on top of an existing layer of concretebecause
> it won't have optimum strength for many weeks. That would slow down the
> construction considerably.

It is not the modern concrete. But an old one made with lime and mud
and crashed limestone. The Egyptian limestone was a soft limestone.

If any heat was produced while doing this work it easily dissipated if
they were casting one floor layer of stone in a few days.
We are not talking of the Hoover dam.

Eridanus

[Tom McDonald]

On Nov 17, 3:27�pm, "Mike Dworetsky"
<platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:

<snip>

> I don't think civilizations much older than Rome had concrete. �Is there any
> evidence that the Greeks had it? �And is there any proper evidence that the
> Egyptians actually used it? �The Great Pyramids were built at a time that
> was more ancient to the Romans than the Romans to ourselves.
>

We had a discussion about this on sci.archaeology.some time ago. IIRC,
the most ancient evidence of concrete was in Asia (China?), and was a
floor about six feet by six feet. It had a green tone, probably from
the materials used in the cement rather than paint or other coloring.

Again from memory, this was about 3000 years ago, or about 1500 years
after the hey-day of the Egyptian pyramid builders.

[eridanus]

El s�bado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 22:12:17 UTC, Tom McDonald escribi�:

There is a story in relation to the Ptolemy's map of the world. He was
compiling information from the world. One of the informations he dismissed
was one about some Phoenicians that made a long voyage around Africa. He
read that they were going south till a point in which the sun was always
overhead. After a time, the sun was shining on the norther side. They
traveled all around Africa and entered back at home by passing the Pillars
of Hercules. He made a note about this, telling that he dismissed the story
as fake, for nobody could believe something so absurd as the sun shining
from the north. The sailors had to look north at noon.

I mean our mind works in reference to what we had read. If we had read it
is true, and not is false.
But in recent months a series of videos had passed about Chinese technical
advances I never had heard off. Most of them were much older than those
discovered or used in Europe. The is the concept that many of these
advances occurred long time before in the west.
I had not doubted this could be true informations. I never heard them about
except about the powder, the silk and the paper.

Eridanus



Eridanus

[Ernest Major]

In message <0753944f-21d5-4071...@googlegroups.com>,
eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> writes

>El sábado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 21:37:18 UTC, Mike Dworetsky escribió:
>> eridanus wrote:
>>
>
>> > The fact that so many continents fitted approximately were enough
>> > evidence. You could not accuse weird coincidences for the fit. With
>> > a very light perception of probabilities you had it. The only hard
>> > evidence would had been to see the continents joined together and
>> > then going separate. The movement is very small to be discerned even
>> > today with
>>
>> > the GPS satellites.
>>
>> Not if you are able to remove the military decryption degredation imposed on
>> signals used for civil purposes. And this can be done with special
>> permission.
>
>An inch or two a year is too much precision to be detected by a military
>GPS. If Africa is separating from America one inch a year, you will
>have to detect a difference of position of half an inch in a year.
>I do not think military GPS have such a degree of precision.

There are papers out there reporting measurements of plate motions and
distortions. I don't recall how they do it - GPS has about 10m accuracy
(Galileo is projected to have 1m accuracy), and I don't see offhand how
differential GPS can be extended to a continental scale.

One thing that would help is averaging the GPS position of a site over
time. I don't know whether that is enough to solve the problem.
--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

In message <1d993c91-8545-4b25...@googlegroups.com>,
eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> writes

Because we have much more evidence know that Wegener did.
--
alias Ernest Major

[Richard Norman]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 14:42:47 -0800 (PST), eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>There is a story in relation to the Ptolemy's map of the world. He was
>compiling information from the world. One of the informations he dismissed
>was one about some Phoenicians that made a long voyage around Africa. He
>read that they were going south till a point in which the sun was always
>overhead. After a time, the sun was shining on the norther side. They
>traveled all around Africa and entered back at home by passing the Pillars
>of Hercules. He made a note about this, telling that he dismissed the story
>as fake, for nobody could believe something so absurd as the sun shining
>from the north. The sailors had to look north at noon.
>

The Tropic of Cancer is just a little below Aswan. Anybody familiar
with Nubia, as the ancient Egyptians must have been, would be familiar
with the sun in the north at noon during some times of the year.

Ptolemy was Greek-Roman and might have been ignorant of that fact.

[Paul J Gans]

UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Nov 16, 7:32?pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >On Nov 16, 3:57?pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:22:21 PM UTC-7, UC wrote:
>> >> > whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true....
>>
>> >> >http://www.livescience.com/1554-surprising-truth-great-pyramids-built...
>>
>> >> The quarry sites are known. Here is an article about one of them:
>>
>> >>http://www.aeraweb.org/gpmp-project/great-pyramid-quarry/
>>
>> >> Note also that many of the stones are packed with fossil shells:http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/04/28/2229383.htm
>>
>> >> Incidentally, concrete making is a fairly intense industrial activity.
>> >> First limestone has to be burned to make quicklime, which is then mixed
>> >> with sand. So, you would have had to have had a limestone crushing facility,
>> >> kilns to burn the limestone and mixing facilities. Nothing like that has

>> >> ever been found. ?The "cast block crowd" (of 2) doesn't seem to be winning

>> >> on this.
>>
>> >> Here is a discussion of the stratigraphy of the area:http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/excavations-seila-egypt/4-geology-gebel-e...

>> >They have me convinced on the basis of fit alone. There's simply no
>> >way they could have cut stone to such precision on such a massive
>> >sale. It could not be done even today!
>>

>> Nonsense. ?That is an argument from incredulity.
>>
>> There is ample evidence that the ancients were capable of a number
>> of building projects that seem impossible to us. ?Why? ?Because
>> we assume that they had no real tools, were ignorant of practical
>> mechanics, and were stupid to boot.
>>
>> I'll just mention one or two you may have heard of. ?Stonehenge
>> in England is one example (and there are a number of other
>> henges in England and on the continent as well). ?Another is
>> Mycenae in Greece, whose walls and in particular the Lion
>> Gate involve the moving and placing of stones of great weight.
>>
>> --
>> ? ?--- Paul J. Gans

>Of the two possibilities, it seems that casting is more likely based
>on the evidence:

>http://www.amazon.com/The-Pyramids-An-Enigma-Solved/dp/0880295554/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1353112400&sr=8-1&keywords=morris+pyramids+solved

Tell me how they got the fossils into the casting.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Paul J Gans]

Tom McDonald <kil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 16, 6:37?pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> On Nov 16, 7:32 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >On Nov 16, 3:57?pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> On Friday, November 16, 2012 1:22:21 PM UTC-7, UC wrote:
>> > >> > whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true....
>>
>> > >> >http://www.livescience.com/1554-surprising-truth-great-pyramids-built...
>>
>> > >> The quarry sites are known. Here is an article about one of them:
>>
>> > >>http://www.aeraweb.org/gpmp-project/great-pyramid-quarry/
>>
>> > >> Note also that many of the stones are packed with fossil shells:http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/04/28/2229383.htm
>>
>> > >> Incidentally, concrete making is a fairly intense industrial activity.
>> > >> First limestone has to be burned to make quicklime, which is then mixed
>> > >> with sand. So, you would have had to have had a limestone crushing facility,
>> > >> kilns to burn the limestone and mixing facilities. Nothing like that has
>> > >> ever been found. ?The "cast block crowd" (of 2) doesn't seem to be winning
>> > >> on this.
>>
>> > >> Here is a discussion of the stratigraphy of the area:http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/excavations-seila-egypt/4-geology-gebel-e...
>> > >They have me convinced on the basis of fit alone. There's simply no
>> > >way they could have cut stone to such precision on such a massive
>> > >sale. It could not be done even today!
>>

>> > Nonsense. That is an argument from incredulity.

>>
>> > There is ample evidence that the ancients were capable of a number

>> > of building projects that seem impossible to us. Why? Because

>> > we assume that they had no real tools, were ignorant of practical
>> > mechanics, and were stupid to boot.
>>

>> > I'll just mention one or two you may have heard of. Stonehenge

>> > in England is one example (and there are a number of other

>> > henges in England and on the continent as well). Another is

>> > Mycenae in Greece, whose walls and in particular the Lion
>> > Gate involve the moving and placing of stones of great weight.
>>
>> > --

>> > --- Paul J. Gans
>>
>> Of the two possibilities, it seems that casting is more likely based
>> on the evidence:

>No. We have the tools, we have the quarries, we have the housing for
>the workers. We have no evidence for casting, no lime kilns, no
>massive caches of tree-harvesting tools, nothing written to show
>casting was ever done on any scale, and no puddles of hardened,
>spilled concrete.

>And archaeologists have looked into the issue, and found no support
>for casting.

>OTOH, we have non-specialist, avocational dilettantes (including you,
>You See) who got a wild hare, went looking for what they wanted to
>find, and found...nothing.

>> http://www.amazon.com/The-Pyramids-An-Enigma-Solved/dp/0880295554/ref...

>Yes. Some folks who don't know any better, and don't understand how
>the ancients did big things with stone without modern tools. You seem
>to be one of them.

People built cathedrals that are still standing using basically
the same tools the Egyptians used.

[Richard Norman]

The 10 m accuracy is long out of date. Current accuracy of commercial
systems is almost always better than 3 m and often better than 1 m.

Here is a paper titled "GPS geodesy with centimeter accuracy":
http://www.springerlink.com/content/532302364562364t/

There are geodesic techniques other than GPS measurements that were
used to directly measure continental drift.

[Richard Norman]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 01:16:38 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans

The original work described a concrete-like material with limestone
rock (containing fossils) embedded in a cement matrix.

[jillery]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:24:44 -0800 (PST), eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>El s�bado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 20:32:18 UTC, jillery escribi�:

>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 10:36:51 -0800 (PST), eridanus
>>
>> <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>

>> >El s�bado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 17:37:19 UTC, jillery escribi�:

>>
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>>
>> >> ISTM a reasonable test is to examine the pyramids to see if the
>>
>> >> material composition of the blocks changes according to elevation. Is
>>
>> >> there anybody posting here that can say that is definitely the case or
>>
>> >> not?
>>
>> >
>>
>> >It is easy to see if this is right or not. But a part of the mysticism
>>
>> >is being robbed to the pyramids, if that were true. Then, I understand
>>
>> >the alarm of the chief Zahi Hawass as he got the news.
>>
>> >
>> >Are the pictures of those weird stones real, or are a work of photo-shop?
>> >If the pictures are real, they do not look at all as cut stones.
>> >I am not affirming the photos are real. I do not know.
>>
>> What pictures?
>
>Look here
>http://www.materials.drexel.edu/News/Item/?i=948
>
>there are a couple of pictures. One over the other. One presents the
>supposed casted stones, and the other below, the common cut stone blocks.

Too bad the pictures are so small. And it doesn't say where the
pictures were taken. Not a useful bit of evidence for the proposed
experiment.

[jillery]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:43:42 -0800 (PST), eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>El s�bado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 21:37:18 UTC, Mike Dworetsky escribi�:

>> eridanus wrote:
>>
>
>> > The fact that so many continents fitted approximately were enough
>> > evidence. You could not accuse weird coincidences for the fit. With
>> > a very light perception of probabilities you had it. The only hard
>> > evidence would had been to see the continents joined together and
>> > then going separate. The movement is very small to be discerned even
>> > today with
>>
>> > the GPS satellites.
>>
>> Not if you are able to remove the military decryption degredation imposed on
>> signals used for civil purposes. And this can be done with special
>> permission.
>
>An inch or two a year is too much precision to be detected by a military
>GPS. If Africa is separating from America one inch a year, you will have to detect a difference of position of half an inch in a year.
>I do not think military GPS have such a degree of precision.
>

Use your imagination. Stick a marker on each continent, record their
location, come back in 10 years.

[jillery]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 21:26:42 -0000, "Mike Dworetsky"

<plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:

>jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 11:21:24 -0000, "Mike Dworetsky"
>> <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:

[...]

>>> Do you suppose they just phoned up Ace Concrete and had it delivered
>>> by cement mixer truck? It is very hard work to make concrete; and
>>> John has given you a very reasonable explanation of how stones could
>>> be fitted together. Ancient peoples (and right up to the 20th C)
>>> tended to build in brick or stone, and made limestone mortar only to
>>> hold it all together if required.
>>
>>
>> Your point is quite correct wrt Egyptian pyramids. But depending on
>> how you define "ancient", concrete was used as foundational building
>> material in pre-Christian Rome. In fact, much of the Roman ruins
>> still standing are made from concrete, in part because those made from
>> stone were taken apart by the locals and the materials used for new
>> construction.
>
>I don't think civilizations much older than Rome had concrete. Is there any
>evidence that the Greeks had it?

I can find no concrete evidence of the use of concrete as foundation
material before the Romans.

>And is there any proper evidence that the
>Egyptians actually used it? The Great Pyramids were built at a time that
>was more ancient to the Romans than the Romans to ourselves.

So you don't consider Romans ancient. Either way, the use of concrete
is a lot older than many people imagine. I don't know why the
technology was ignored after the Empire's collapse.

[UC]

On Nov 17, 9:27 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 21:26:42 -0000, "Mike Dworetsky"
>

Loss of knowledge. Dark Ages. Christianity. Etc.

[jillery]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 01:24:35 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans

Don't forget the Aztecs, Mayans, and Incans.

[John S. Wilkins]

eridanus <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

> There is a story in relation to the Ptolemy's map of the world. He was
> compiling information from the world. One of the informations he
> dismissed was one about some Phoenicians that made a long voyage around
> Africa. He read that they were going south till a point in which the sun
> was always overhead. After a time, the sun was shining on the norther
> side. They traveled all around Africa and entered back at home by passing
> the Pillars of Hercules. He made a note about this, telling that he
> dismissed the story as fake, for nobody could believe something so absurd
> as the sun shining from the north. The sailors had to look north at noon.

Actually, this is a story from Herodotus. For it he was called the
Father of Lies.

>
> I mean our mind works in reference to what we had read. If we had read it
> is true, and not is false.
> But in recent months a series of videos had passed about Chinese technical
> advances I never had heard off. Most of them were much older than those
> discovered or used in Europe. The is the concept that many of these
> advances occurred long time before in the west.
> I had not doubted this could be true informations. I never heard them
> about except about the powder, the silk and the paper.
>
> Eridanus
>
>
>
> Eridanus

--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
Honorary Fellow, University of Melbourne
- http://evolvingthoughts.net

[Mike Dworetsky]

eridanus wrote:
> El sábado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 21:27:18 UTC, Mike Dworetsky
> escribió:
>
>>
>>> Your point is quite correct wrt Egyptian pyramids. But depending on
>>> how you define "ancient", concrete was used as foundational building
>>> material in pre-Christian Rome. In fact, much of the Roman ruins
>>> still standing are made from concrete, in part because those made
>>> from stone were taken apart by the locals and the materials used
>>> for new construction.
>>
>> I don't think civilizations much older than Rome had concrete. Is
>> there any evidence that the Greeks had it? And is there any proper
>> evidence that the Egyptians actually used it? The Great Pyramids
>> were built at a time that was more ancient to the Romans than the
>> Romans to ourselves.
>
> Remember that "our thinking" reflects the ideas we had read in books.

Or archaeological journals? And books based on archaeology research?

> Unless the piece of news you read contradicts some well entrenched
> principle of physics or chemistry, anything is possible.

Possible, in that sense, but where in all the archaeology have they found
actual ancient Egyptian concrete? As jillery points out, the Romans did use
concrete for foundations and other structures(though more often they simply
used large dressed stones). No sign of it in Egypt.

[Mike Dworetsky]

eridanus wrote:
> El sábado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 22:12:17 UTC, Tom McDonald
> escribió:

I have doubts about the story, if for no other reason than Ptolemy was well
aware that the Earth was spherical.

>
> I mean our mind works in reference to what we had read. If we had
> read it is true, and not is false.
> But in recent months a series of videos had passed about Chinese
> technical advances I never had heard off. Most of them were much
> older than those discovered or used in Europe. The is the concept
> that many of these advances occurred long time before in the west.
> I had not doubted this could be true informations. I never heard
> them about except about the powder, the silk and the paper.

[Mike Dworetsky]

Well, not as ancient as the early Egyptians.

> is a lot older than many people imagine. I don't know why the
> technology was ignored after the Empire's collapse.

Mostly because large buildings were not being constructed for the next
500-600 years. Masons retained knowledge of how to use lime to make mortar.
And a lot of buildings (including churches) from the Dark Ages and Medieval
periods were built of stone robbed out of Roman buildings.

[John S. Wilkins]

Mike Dworetsky <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:

> eridanus wrote:
...

> >
> > There is a story in relation to the Ptolemy's map of the world. He
> > was compiling information from the world. One of the informations he
> > dismissed was one about some Phoenicians that made a long voyage
> > around Africa. He read that they were going south till a point in
> > which the sun was always overhead. After a time, the sun was shining
> > on the norther side. They traveled all around Africa and entered
> > back at home by passing the Pillars of Hercules. He made a note
> > about this, telling that he dismissed the story as fake, for nobody
> > could believe something so absurd as the sun shining from the north.
> > The sailors had to look north at noon.
>
> I have doubts about the story, if for no other reason than Ptolemy was well
> aware that the Earth was spherical.

No, the objection was that they had crossed the equatorial zone, which
was supposed not to be possible.

>
> >
> > I mean our mind works in reference to what we had read. If we had
> > read it is true, and not is false.
> > But in recent months a series of videos had passed about Chinese
> > technical advances I never had heard off. Most of them were much
> > older than those discovered or used in Europe. The is the concept
> > that many of these advances occurred long time before in the west.
> > I had not doubted this could be true informations. I never heard
> > them about except about the powder, the silk and the paper.


--

[Mike Dworetsky]

He was doing a set of lectures for the BBC and I recall this was one of
them. So he had to deal with matters outside his expertise in several
cases.

>
> The obligation were more on the shoulders of geologists, and perhaps
> astrophysicists. Both had some responsibility to "think" freely on
> this problem. It was not rocket science.

Actually, precise geodesy of moving continents IS rocket science.
Literally, in the sense that it involves precise measurement from
spacecraft. Thinking freely is all very well, but critical thinking is much
more of an aid to science than daydreaming ever will be.

> Today any high school boy can understand this matter without problems.

Because others have done the science of sea floor spreading, plate
tectonics, alternating magnetic fields in sea floor rocks, geophysics, etc.
High school students also know about the Big Bang and stellar evolution,
nuclear fusion in stellar cores, DNA, etc, but no high school student ever
came up with these ideas on their own.

>
> Then, why not the geologists? Or even the astrophysicist if this rare
> bird existed at the time?

Astrophysicists do not bother with anything as trivial as the Earth.

Geologists (geophysicists; actually, oceanographers) were the ones who first
found the alternating patterns of magnetic fields on the sea floor in the
early-mid 1960s (IIRC).

[Mike Dworetsky]

eridanus wrote:
> El sábado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 21:47:18 UTC, Mike Dworetsky
> escribió:
>> eridanus wrote:
>>
>
>>> It is easy to see if this is right or not. But a part of the
>>> mysticism is being robbed to the pyramids, if that were true. Then,
>>> I understand the alarm of the chief Zahi Hawass as he got the news.
>>
>>> Are the pictures of those weird stones real, or are a work of
>>> photo-shop? If the pictures are real, they do not look at all as cut
>>> stones.
>>
>>> I am not affirming the photos are real. I do not know.
>>
>>> Eridanus
>>
>
>> No one has yet mentioned the enormous amount of heat generated by
>> chemical reactions as concrete hardens and dries out. In fact you
>> would have to wait many weeks to lay more stones on top of an
>> existing layer of concretebecause it won't have optimum strength for
>> many weeks. That would slow down the construction considerably.
>
> It is not the modern concrete. But an old one made with lime and mud
> and crashed limestone. The Egyptian limestone was a soft limestone.

Mud?

So if the limestone was soft, wouldn't it also be easy to cut it as a block
into shape to give a tight fit?

>
> If any heat was produced while doing this work it easily dissipated if
> they were casting one floor layer of stone in a few days.
> We are not talking of the Hoover dam.

--

[eridanus]

El s�bado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 23:07:18 UTC, Ernest Major escribi�:
> In message <1d993c91-8545-4b25...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> eridanus writes

>

>
>
> >I have the vague idea that Fred Hoyle was a little nuts. Not sure really
> >and had not checked on the google.
> >Most scientist are absorbed in their own work and do not stop to enter
> >into this sort of polemics as the moving continents.
>
> >The obligation were more on the shoulders of geologists, and perhaps
> >astrophysicists. Both had some responsibility to "think" freely on this
> >problem. It was not rocket science.
>
> >Today any high school boy can understand this matter without problems.
> >Then, why not the geologists? Or even the astrophysicist if this rare bird
> >existed at the time?
>
> Because we have much more evidence know that Wegener did.
>
> --
>
> alias Ernest Major

we can blame the inertia. Science of that time (end of 19 century start
of the 20th) was very conservative. If someone with very high social
rank would had postulated the spreading of continents, science in general
would had accepted the idea.

Other ideas more stupid were accepted like the canals of Mars of Schiaparelli
of which Percival Lowell become an enthusiast.

It is true that British and US Americans had contributed to a lot of physical
information about surface of the earth. They were the leaders on the field,
so I understand they would felt a little offended that someone without any
social pedigree would challenge them presenting a "peculiar theory". It the
idea would had come from a British, or an American, things would had looked
different. This is very comprehensible.
Scientists are humans. But in that period, they were a lot more pretentious
than today. Scientist feel freer now to present any rare theory than never in the past history. Scientist today are more modest in the personal and more
daring to emit new theories.
Remember the reluctance of Darwin to present this book on evolution. He
waited some twenty or thirty years. He feared a general rejection. Many
scientists were fearing the theory of evolution would give way to a collapse
of the civilization and a revolt of lower classes against those in high rank.
It was when he heard the news that other man was planning to present a book
on evolution that he dared to.

Eridanus

[jillery]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 09:41:07 -0000, "Mike Dworetsky"

Of course.

>> is a lot older than many people imagine. I don't know why the
>> technology was ignored after the Empire's collapse.
>
>Mostly because large buildings were not being constructed for the next
>500-600 years. Masons retained knowledge of how to use lime to make mortar.
>And a lot of buildings (including churches) from the Dark Ages and Medieval
>periods were built of stone robbed out of Roman buildings.

But that goes only so far, literally and figuratively. Local people
reused stone as it was available locally. If they had to transport
stone very far, it made more sense to cut it out of local quarries.
And even local reuse rapidly eliminated the available supply.

Using cement as mortar is not at all the same thing. Roman concrete
was a structural material. The architects of Notre Dame and other
huge structures didn't use concrete even for flatwork. It's as if
making concrete became a lost art.