There’s a difference between keeping an open mind and unscientific speculation.
This veers closer to the latter. Davidovitz’ claims were self-admittedly made based on limited information, namely insufficient examination of pyramid materials outside of Egypt and limited access to the actual, real deal. Study of the actual pyramids shows the theory doesn’t work very well.
There’s a large difference between encouraging independent investigation and unquestioning credulity. We’re all fine with people trying to research and publish new findings. That’s entirely different from being credulously accepting of all such findings in the face of existing evidence.
It doesn’t really matter if they studied these things their entire lives. There are conspiracy theorists, many with advanced degrees, who have spent decades trying to debunk the moon landings, the 9/11 attacks, the JFK assassination, etc. What does matter is if their findings and research match reality. In this case, they don’t, at least to the extent the evidence shows.
Sure, there are cases where the scientific process has eventually overturned a previous consensus. Plate tectonics comes to mind here. But that one was built on decades of additional supporting evidence and was not accepted until the evidence was overwhelming, as should be the case with science. But the theory of concrete blocks to form the majority of the pyramids is not one of these. There’s not a lot of supporting evidence, and it has not gotten any better with time. Actually, it’s gotten worse. And that’s how science works sometimes. Again, there’s a difference between open minded investigation and unquestioning, unreasonable credulity.
And I will stake my Archaeology degree on my being right, that those stones are not manmade concrete, and that anybody who denies that either doesn’t know what he’s talking about or, like Davidovitz, is trolling to sell books.
I am by nature incredibly skeptical. And my implication was one of consideration not necessarily acceptance. The point was, flat earthers and moon landings hoaxers aren’t performing anything that remotely resembles proper research and/or the scientific process.
I am curious to know what recent studies you’re looking at with regards to the concrete block hypothesis getting worse. Because there have been a number of very recent studies highlighting things like the lack of a sedimentary structure, magnetic alignment, etc. in support of it.
Well, they do publish their findings, at least to the same level you accept on the pyramids. That’s not a good sign that your skepticism extends only to some things but not others.
(bolding mine)
Davidovitz’ “paleomagnetism”? There’s a small (big) problem with it. The pyramids in question are aligned to true north/south, not magnetic north/south. Yes, there’s a difference between true and magnetic north.
As mentioned above, the lack of a particular sedimentary structure is also not much evidence on its own. There’s several different kinds of limestone stratigraphy. Lack one particular type is not evidence the stone is a concrete composite. And the stone in the pyramids is consistent with the stone found nearby.
That indicates the ancient Egyptians had a knowledge of astronomy, which we already know is true. It doesn’t indicate anything about magnetism because the alignment is wrong for magnetic north. So, yes, that evidence is worse for the theory and indicates not skepticism but unquestioning credulity.
What utter bullshit is this? You can see lamination, ripple structures, cross-bedding and even in-situ trace fossils in pyramid blocks (see, for instance, the Folk & Campbellpaper). Any geologist - fuck, anyone with a first-year geology credit - should be able to recognize that those are sedimentary features.
Oh I see. You’re saying that there is no evidence that anything at all was pulverized. Understood, however now both you and Antibob have made counter claims without citing any evidence. I’ve provided a number of data points that state what various parties have found under a microscope. You’re telling me that they either didn’t see what they think they did or misinterpreted their data. Also on a related note, one of the citations from that link does actually go into detail with regards to the lack of a sedimentary structure in the blocks which you mentioned earlier. I’m more than happy to read any source you might provide. But if you’re simply going to dismiss everything with which you disagree with a digital hand wave then we can’t go any farther.
Oh I’ve no doubt they do, but as I said to Antibob the way they get to their conclusions bears no resemblance to science of any form. And from my perspective, I see well written, well cited, relatively recent, peer-reviewed papers from Davidovits et. al. Yet you’re telling me that the community at large is lambasting them. And as a scientist myself, but not formally trained in archaeology or geology, I don’t see that lambasting happening. Where is it? I will read whatever source you’d care to provide. Please educate me with something other than blanket dismissal. :dubious:
I’m not sure what you’re referencing. I’m not talking about Davidovits. There was a 2012 study that concluded that likely there’s a mixture of natural and cast stones owing to the fact that the magnetic moment of a cast stone will align to the magnetic poles and quarried one will be random simply based on how it was cut and placed.
It was more that there simply was no sedimentary structure. Davidovits et. al. noted that they fossil remains were in disarray as if they’d been crushed and stirred around. But again, I’m more than happy to read any counter evidence you can provide.
No, I’m saying there’s no evidence for aggregate blocks, which would require 2 different matrices, and evidence of cross-boundary breaks in nummulites.
I think we are actually saying the same thing from 2 different directions. That there is no mortar and/or the destruction evident from creating said mortar in so far as a structure that would differentiate it from naturally formed aggregate components.
I read your link by the way. It does make some very good counter points. Two that I found most convincing were that the blocks were not found to be fused to the blocks below them the way one would expect if they were cast and the presence of l-shaped re-entrant blocks which simply wouldn’t make sense to cast.
Still there seems to be evidence to the contrary however that suggests that some of the blocks were indeed cast. And again I’ll remind you that Davidovits himself clearly stated that he believed pyramids to be a mixture of cast and quarried blocks.
Nope. I’m saying the only “aggregate blocks” in the pyramids that meet my definition are the blocks themselves
…wait, so you didn’t find that the sedimentary structures that are said not to exist, actually do exist, “convincing” enough?
Nope. All evidence has been sufficiently dealt with, and already was in 1992, as I cited, and then in 1993 with the Harrel and Penrod paper.
Yeah, me and William of Ockham would like to know why there’s any need for cast stones then, if there are clearly quarried blocks throughout the structures.
Why would the molds all be aligned the same way? You’d expect some to be rotated 90 degrees (or 180 or 270) depending on the pour, but that doesn’t happen? How?
A quarried one wouldn’t necessarily be random either. You’re not going to cut adjacent rocks at random angles. Rocks placed next to each other are more likely to have been cut from the same face and transported in a similar fashion.
Counter-evidence? The source quarry itself. The original source rock still exists. Has the same sedimentary structure (Eocone). Denying it exists is … denying something that we know exists. I suppose it’s possible that this concrete-like mix could have the same appearance and structure, but the simpler explanation is that the rock that looks like the same as the stuff in the quarry came from the quarry.
I don’t think you quite understand. Crushed and liquefied limestone is going to align its magnetic moment to the earth’s poles. So if you cast something in place, it will magnetically align itself to (magnetic) north/south. And the only way that will change is if you pick that stone up and reorient it after it has solidified. And the same rules apply to naturally occurring limestone deposits. So it’s an attempt to answer the question was this particular block liquid or solid when it was placed in this particular position?
But actually now that you made me type that out, I see the flaw with that study. Any realignment of the magnetic moment would only apply to the mortar.
Yeah, fuck that study. I’ll get back in the quarried camp now. :smack:
You know what we geologists call a block of solid aggregate without any artificial “mortar material” around it? We call that a block of rock.
Pointing out the actual implications of what you say is not putting words in your mouth.
I didn’t say you did.
So you speed-read, but missed the entire section dedicated to sedimentary structures. Or that most of the photos themselves were of those same sedimentary structures? :dubious:
It’s more “convenient” to quarry aggregate (and meticulously trim the fossils in them so as not to leave broken edges), mine and process (calcining lime etc - are you aware how fuel-intensive that process is, BTW?) the other concrete ingredients, and mix them to precisely match the substrate of the aggregate such that the two are indistinguishable, make forms for blocks (which formwork never leaves a trace) from the oh-so-abundant Egyptian lumber, and wait while the concrete cures - all so you can cast some blocks right next to the ones which are obviously quarried because they display all the features of natural rocks from the area?
Are you using some definition of the word “convenient” other than the one the rest of us know?
Never mind the shells; just think of the fuel cost. IRL, anybody who brought that up in a planning meeting would get sandals thrown at him.
William of Ockham was brought up because making blocks indistinguishable from natural blocks adds several layers of needless cost and complexity and is therefore silly. In my engineering years (I’m old and have been many things) I would challenge myself to design a part to be as complex and expensive as I could but I wouldn’t bring those to production meetings.
Was the claim about the discovery of a record describing the use of manmade canals to float the blocks all the way to the work site a legit thing or a hoax?