Updated ideas of how the great pyramids were built

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,625
Australia
Yes, in their "theory" this is for the main blocks.... But for harder stones (like granite) they claim they melted them
I dont remember that . 'Melted' them ? With heat ?

I only remember reading about a CHEMICAL process .

I would like to see a citation from Davidoitts book about melting 'harder stones' .
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,625
Australia
So lemme get this straight. You have a block of stone, melt it, transport it and then put it in a mold of the same shape?
Any 'melting' that Tomar cited needs to be cited , I really do not remember Davidovitts writing about that ... he is 'all concrete ' ... I mean, the guy markets his geopolymer formula , he isnt going to throw in 'melting stone' becasue he doesnt sell that idea .
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,625
Australia
I would assume this would depend on the cement 'formula'.... If for example it includes a lot of stuff like sand, which is readily available "powder like" , pebbles etc....
then there would not be a lot of crushing involved....
The main ingredient is the crushed rock . Davidovitts 'motar' ...if you are still talking about this method , is supposed to be , according to him, a 'skin' that forms on the surface , two skins stuck to gether give an appearance of a thin layer of mortar between the blocks.
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,625
Australia
I assume the point of this theoretical excercise would be to:

A - break stuff down into lighter weights
B- once on site basically create any form you need by pouring melted stuff into a mold of the right shape
So, guys are carrying loads of 'lava' up a pyramid and pouring it into moulds ?

Seriously , where did you get this 'melted' idea from ? Its supposed to be a chemical dissolving and setting process .
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,625
Australia
Regarding the claim, limestone would have been one ingredient, but for it to make sense as you pointed out, the formula would have to include other ingredients that were easier to obtain in powder like or small rock form....
Otherwise grounding a rock into powder just to then reassemble the powder into the same or similar rock makes little sense, I agree with you
I explained it before ; base substance - in this case . whatever rock you are using or want to 'make ' ( ANU used mining tailings ) Nile mud, napthan, and various minerals , one being crushed malachite .
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,625
Australia
...

So it is interesting whether at least PART of the pyramid stones and other egyptian buildings could in fact have been made of a local concrete..... ( which of course would beg the question how and why such a useful invention could have been "lost" )
Nope , as I said , Davidovitts markets geopolymer ... it is NOT a lost techniques.

Melting stones with lenses sounds somewhat wild, but it seems to work here

But even if not melting it, could they have used similar techniques to "soften" the stone, thus making it easier to carve ?
So , thats modern technology melting a SPOT on a stone . Your speculation of 'softening' would need the whole stone to become hot and 'plastic' and ... errrmmm , ya know , you cant really 'carve' soft stuff , you have to sort of scrape and cut off, like pottery clay . How do you keep the whole block hot at the right temp as you carve it .

Its just plain silly . Thats why Davidovitts proposed addition of minerals that either delay or speed up the setting process.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
14,301
Nope , as I said , Davidovitts markets geopolymer ... it is NOT a lost techniques.



So , thats modern technology melting a SPOT on a stone . Your speculation of 'softening' would need the whole stone to become hot and 'plastic' and ... errrmmm , ya know , you cant really 'carve' soft stuff , you have to sort of scrape and cut off, like pottery clay . How do you keep the whole block hot at the right temp as you carve it .

Its just plain silly . Thats why Davidovitts proposed addition of minerals that either delay or speed up the setting process.
Re your various post

The "Davidottis" approach would be for the "basic" stones....

Re the melting via lenses, that is a separate hypothesis... What is impressive in the video is how fast (just a few seconds) the "spot" melts (and that is not in Egypt, where the sun beats down with more energy).... Since carving out stones with bronze tools is a difficult and time consuming process, one of the question is, whether using some variety of such a lens, the process can be made easier (e.g. you melt a short "line" (perhaps a few cm), carve it out - or scrape it out- (which is now easy as the stone surface is liquid or at least much softened) then melt the next few cm etc (in the process you might also shape the rock to a certain extent)....

Another question (which is the hypothesis in the OP video) is whether larger pieces of rock can be melted and then poured into (or over) a mold (much like cement is nowadays) in order to shape them as one wishes... Such hypothesis regularly come back regarding certain constructions , including in latin america... But of course have not been proven.
 

Matthew Amt

Ad Honorem
Jan 2015
3,074
MD, USA
Another question (which is the hypothesis in the OP video) is whether larger pieces of rock can be melted and then poured into (or over) a mold (much like cement is nowadays) in order to shape them as one wishes... Such hypothesis regularly come back regarding certain constructions , including in latin america... But of course have not been proven.
I don't know why you keep saying this is still a question, or "not proven". Building stones in EVERY culture were cut with stone or metal tools (sometimes using fire and water to cause cracks or flaking, or wooden wedges to split). It has been proven many times that this works, the tools still exist, the tool marks are still visible on the stones, and we even have clear depictions from those cultures of those methods in use. That is "PROVEN", by every sane standard.

Melting stones with lenses or mirrors on any significant scale is utter fantasy, and was never done. Simple as that.

Oh, and one tiny little detail that seems to have been overlooked, somehow? If you melt sandstone or limestone or any other sedimentary rock, or even if you melt granite or another igneous rock, and pour it into shape, what you have when it cools will NOT RESEMBLE THE ORIGINAL STONE. It will presumably look like solidified lava. Sorry, not a lot of lava pyramids in Egypt. Just a tiny nitpick, I'm sure it won't have any effect on these grand "theories"...

Matthew
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,625
Australia
Re your various post

The "Davidottis" approach would be for the "basic" stones....

Re the melting via lenses, that is a separate hypothesis... What is impressive in the video is how fast (just a few seconds) the "spot" melts (and that is not in Egypt, where the sun beats down with more energy).... Since carving out stones with bronze tools is a difficult and time consuming process, one of the question is, whether using some variety of such a lens, the process can be made easier
No .

Thats the answer, and its been given to you and explained why more than once .

(e.g. you melt a short "line" (perhaps a few cm), carve it out - or scrape it out- (which is now easy as the stone surface is liquid or at least much softened) then melt the next few cm etc (in the process you might also shape the rock to a certain extent)....
Even if they had such lenses , you wouldnt want to put your hand or a scraper near it . I suggest a type of mini hand held lens, with an inbuilt scraper that follows the line of the heat beam and scrapes out the 'lava' just behind the heat beam as it goes along .... like an .... ancient Egyptian 'blowtorch' .

Happy now ?

( Wow, I wrote all that and managed to keep a straight face all the way through it )

Another question (which is the hypothesis in the OP video) is whether larger pieces of rock can be melted and then poured into (or over) a mold (much like cement is nowadays) in order to shape them as one wishes... Such hypothesis regularly come back regarding certain constructions , including in latin america... But of course have not been proven.
Maybe .... if you totally ignore what I explained to you in my previous posts . But dont you let reason and logic get in the way now ! I can see you are 'on a 'role ' '.



1576873371211.png