pyramid blocks actually poured cement?

[Joe]

A friend just loaned me "The Pyramids An Enigma Solved":
http://www.amazon.com/Pyramids-Enigma-Solved-Joseph-Davidovits/dp/0880295554

Their theory is that the blocks of the large pyramids are poured concrete!
Quite a wild idea. Of what I've read so far, it seems at least plausible.
The authors seem to understand enough about geology to distinguish native
stone from poured concrete.

This is the first I've heard of this theory. The book is from '88- if the
theory caught on, I'm sure I would have heard about it.

And no, I'm not a flake into "pyramid power" or UFOs or creationism- I just
find this cement theory of the pyramids to be fascinating.
Joe

[JTEM]

Post by Joe
Their theory is that the blocks of the large
pyramids are poured concrete! Quite a wild
idea. Of what I've read so far, it seems at
least plausible. The authors seem to understand
enough about geology to distinguish native
stone from poured concrete.

This is bullshit.

The claims are pure nonsense, and it's predicated
on ignorance.

We know for a fact, for example, that the ancient
Egyptians carved much, much larger blocks using
nothing but crude tools, and moved them great
differences.

We call this much, much larger blocks "obelisks."
Maybe you've heard of them. Heck, the Egyptians
even left a few in place to show us how they did
it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfinished_obelisk

Post by Joe
This is the first I've heard of this theory.

Technically it's not a theory. And as it is a load
of horse shit, don't give it any more thought.

[Joe]

You're probably right- but I'd be more convinced if I saw some scientific
analysis of the blocks rather than just rants against the "theory". I'm a
huge skeptic but you never know....

What would be most convincing to me that the theory is false would be if a
geologist studied the blocks and said that beyond any doubt- that it's
natural stone, not man made- based on geological evidence.

Joe

Post by JTEM

Post by Joe
Their theory is that the blocks of the large
pyramids are poured concrete! Quite a wild
idea. Of what I've read so far, it seems at
least plausible. The authors seem to understand
enough about geology to distinguish native
stone from poured concrete.

This is bullshit.
The claims are pure nonsense, and it's predicated
on ignorance.
We know for a fact, for example, that the ancient
Egyptians carved much, much larger blocks using
nothing but crude tools, and moved them great
differences.
We call this much, much larger blocks "obelisks."
Maybe you've heard of them. Heck, the Egyptians
even left a few in place to show us how they did
it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfinished_obelisk

Post by Joe
This is the first I've heard of this theory.

Technically it's not a theory. And as it is a load
of horse shit, don't give it any more thought.

[JTEM]

Post by Joe
What would be most convincing to me that the
theory is false would be if a geologist studied
the blocks and said that beyond any doubt-
that it's natural stone, not man made- based
on geological evidence.

You've got it backwards. The burden is on those
making the claim -- and that extraordinary claims
require extraordinary proof.

The sad fact, my darling friend who doesn't under
the burden of proof, is that geologist have already
studied the blocks, to the point of being able to
match the quarries they came from.

(the casing stones, of course, came from a different
location)

[Joe]

Well, I'm not pushing the idea and I do understand science, with a few
science degrees of my own- but the author does address the issues you talk
about. If you read his book you'll see he's not some starry eyed whacko.
After reading the book you won't come to the conclusion that the idea is all
that extraordinary- which is why it needs to be looked at further. I suggest
there is a slight chance he may be on to something. After all, cement isn't
rocket science.
Joe

Post by JTEM

Post by Joe
What would be most convincing to me that the
theory is false would be if a geologist studied
the blocks and said that beyond any doubt-
that it's natural stone, not man made- based
on geological evidence.

You've got it backwards. The burden is on those
making the claim -- and that extraordinary claims
require extraordinary proof.
The sad fact, my darling friend who doesn't under
the burden of proof, is that geologist have already
studied the blocks, to the point of being able to
match the quarries they came from.
(the casing stones, of course, came from a different
location)

[JTEM]

Post by Joe
Well, I'm not pushing the idea and I do understand
science, with a few science degrees of my own-

Yet you misplaced the burden of proof?

I'd ask for your money back.

Post by Joe
but the author does address the issues you talk
about.

"Address" and "establish with hard science" are two
completely different things. And, no, CLAIMS about
hard science are worthless. Cite the actual peer
reviewed work, or the "hard science" doesn't exist.

Post by Joe
If you read his book

I won't put a dime in the author's pocket, especially
when I know for a fact that the Ancient Egyptians did
carve out GIANT blocks -- some weighing over 1,000
tons -- using the crudest tools, and then moved them
great distances and then turned them on end.

Again: Obelisks.

Post by Joe
you'll see he's not some starry eyed whacko.

If it's who I think it is, it's an "inventor" looking
for that proverbial "million dollars worth of free
publicity" for his carbon-friendly concrete.

Post by Joe
After reading the book you won't come to the
conclusion that the idea is all that extraordinary-

But it is. It can only NOT be extraordinary if you
view it in isolation -- strip the pyramids from their
historical & geographic context.

Like I said previously, we already know where the
stones were quarried. You have to pretend that this
isn't true in order to take your nonsense seriously.