You mean Disco Beaver from Outer Space!
nsfw old National Lampoon HBO special:
I like the idea of carving an existing mountain into a pyramid. Crush up the waste rock and spread around the base to make a nice flat expanse around it.
Are there some already 4 sided hard rock mountains that are good candidates? At a glance, it seems a lot of mountains are more roughly three sided?
Next store can be the giant mountain with the roller coaster bolted to it.
Any mountain could be carved into a pyramid shape, the only question is how much would have to be carved away. You’d want to be careful with what type of mountain you used, though. Don’t want to cut through multiple stratigraphic layers of widely different weatherability.
If we’re getting into carving mountains, why don’t we just pick a vaguely four-sided geographical feature, and simply wish strongly that it was made by humans until it becomes true.
Its worked really well here.
Raises hand
In…maybe November? While discussing Neil Oliver’s* A History Of Ancient Britain* series with my wife.
The blocks weren’t quarried. They were form-poured concrete.
I don’t think they’d mastered the art of pouring solid limestone at the time.
BTW, the “carve away the mountain” is essentially what they are doing with Crazy Horse monument in South Dakota.
Actually they had. Apparently it’s not a trivial matter to discern concrete from naturally occurring limestone deposits.
One of many articles on this…
Also this explains quite well why the faces are so flat and why each block fits so perfectly with adjacent blocks.
No, Davidovits’ claims have been debunked by researchers who are looking at a broader spectrum of evidence than just chemical attributes.
Dipayan Jana has looked at the evidence in a very thorough and well-written study, which is also not behind a paywall for once.
The ‘many articles’ are essentially continual copy-paste iterations of D’s basic claim.
Wow. Amazing how they managed to get all those nummulites in there … :rolleyes:
What’s so amazing about the blocks fitting? They’re rectangular. Rectangles fit. It’s not like we’re talking about jigsaw puzzle pieces, here.
What annoys me is that there are people today who cannot imagine our ancestors doing a good job at something. There are visible gaps between the structural stones, but no one could see them so so what. The casing stones, mostly gone now, were more accurately made, but gaps happen so they got filled with mortar and the whole surface was polished.
It’s been “debunked” by some and reinforced by others. Remember this was over 2 decades ago. Also keep in mind that Davidovits never claimed that all the blocks were cast in place. In fact, he openly pointed out the differences between cast v/s quarried blocks in his papers (a fact lost on Jana apparently).
You are right however in that it’s far from a globally accepted hypothesis, and I shouldn’t have spoken with such absolutism. That’s what I get for posting in my free seconds at work.
Understand that concrete is a mixture of mortar and an aggregate material which is typically whatever natural rocks they can find to chuck into the mold. So yes it will actually be full of nummulites. And Davidovits did mention that the lack of knowledge of typical construction techniques among geologists seemed to one of the things helping to perpetuate counter-claims to his research. Take that as you will.
Nummulites vary from 13mm to over 50mm. How did they survive being crushed for aggregate?
Basically, we know where the stones came from, how they were mined and finished, and how they were brought to the site. How? The Egyptians told us and drew pictures of the process! They never mentioned concrete and the stones look nothing like concrete. A concrete hypothesis is nonsensical on the face, and I don’t know why people keep supporting BS like that.
Why do you assume they’d have to be crushed? In the case of something as large as those blocks, the aggregate would be similarly … large. I remember pouring a solid concrete staircase with my dad when I was a kid. We tossed all manner of fill rocks into the form. Some were damn near bigger than me. And even pouring something as thin as 4" slab you’ll have thumb-sized aggregate chunks or larger.
If it were as cut and dried as you’re making it out to be, there wouldn’t be so many people discussing it today. Nor would there be teams trying to replicate the construction procedure or examine the blocks under electron microscopes. There is plenty evidence to support Daviodovits claim despite Banksiaman’s claim that it’s just the same paper copied and pasted again and again. It’s actually not.
this link…
cites no less than 7 independent papers that came to similar conclusions as Davidovits. But to be clear, I don’t wholeheartedly accept any of the hypotheses, and I tend to think the truth is probably a compromise somewhere in the middle of an overly complicated Venn diagram.
Also a quote from that link…
The thing about aggregate is that you can tell it apart from the matrix. And forams (and other fossils) would most definitely have been crushed or otherwise truncated if quarried for aggregate. That’s not what we see.
Unless you think the Egyptians carefully carved each aggregate block to avoid that, which is absurd.
Look, it is true that some sorts of concrete are a little hard to tell from some sorts of limestone on casual visual inspection. But the fossil-containing, sedimentary-structure-having limestone the pyramids are made of is *not *one of those. Especially when you can find identical limestone still in situ up the road.
Do you give the same credence to Flat Earthers and Young Earth Creationists?
Why are you making the assumption that everything has to be finely pulverized? That would just be making extra work for no reason. “Aggregate” can be very large. Call it fill-rock if it makes you feel better. So yes, there could be large, natural stones amidst the concrete. That wouldn’t be unusual at all.
At no point did I say anything of the sort.
Again, I think the truth is in the middle somewhere. Davidovits himself said that some rocks were clearly quarried. People seem to keep omitting that. But he, and many after him (some as recent as 2012) have provided no shortage of compelling evidence that many of the blocks were indeed cast in place. Which in turn has the convenient aspect of answering a large part of the transportation riddle.
I keep an open mind, and I give credence to those that are willing to research these things and publish their findings for the world. Such as the people involved in all the citations in the link I posted earlier. And I think you do them a huge discredit by lumping them in with people that reject the scientific process, and everything that the scientific community has accepted as fact and vetted a million times over. You understand that there are scientifically trained people that have studied these things their entire professional lives that seem to speak less confidently on them than you and dropzone. …just saying