PDA

View Full Version : Walloon professor of physics explains that the Pyramids of Egypt are made of concrete



Maciamo
01-12-06, 21:34
Guy Demortier, Professor of physics at the University of Namur, explains in the latest edition of the famous French-speaking magazine Science & Vie (http://www.science-et-vie.com/) how the Great Pyramids of Egypt were in fact most probably built by pouring a sort of concrete into wooden boxes to make each block of the pyramids.

He demonstrates the impossibility of the theory that slaves pulled the huge blocks from quaries many kilometres away. The first reason was that the chemical composition of the blocks does not match that of quaries anywhere near the pyramids. The second argument is that no wooden sled, onto which the blocks were supposedly carried to be pulled, would have resisted the weight of such huge blocks. The third reason is that there was no space on the 6 ha around the pyramid to fit 100,000 people, which is the supposed number of workers it took to build the Pyramid of Cheops (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Cheops). The fourth is that a block should have been placed every 4 minutes, working day and night for 365 days a year during 20 years to place the 2.600.000 blocks of the Pyramid of Cheops.

Professor Demortier suggested that the blocks were made from a sort of cement made of stone powder and gravel mixed with water and poured into wooden frames on location. The extremely dry local climate would have turned the paste into stone relatively quickly. This would have made the job much easier, and would explain how the Pyramid of Cheops was indeed completed in about 20 years during the reign of Khufu. Chemical analysis of the blocks seem to support this new theory.

I didn't read about other monuments made this way, but it would seem much easier to carve the Sphynx had it been made of soft mortar than in huge blocks of hard stone.

RockLee
07-12-06, 18:09
That's some interesting reading!! It would indeed be impossible for slaves to build it and pull the blocks.

Sensuikan San
11-12-06, 08:57
A most interesting theory. And one with much merit.

cBut one which (as usual) begs as many questions as it offers answers!

gConcreteh, as we know it today, was certainly in use during the Roman period – indeed the Romans are usually credited with inventing it – and it may well have pre-dated ancient Rome. However, when it comes to the construction of the pyramids, whether one accepts the theory or not, one has to ask:

Where would the gblocksh be poured ? On the ground? Or in-situ?

If they were poured on the ground, they would still be blocks that had to be hoisted by whatever means into position. Just like natural stone blocks.
If they were poured gin-situh – then there would presumably be a thin separator between each block and its preceding neighbor. Admittedly, this could have been paper, but c. why bother? Is there evidence to support the existence or absence of such diaphragms?

Why not pour much larger gblocksh than would seem to be evident? Even in recent modern times, concrete dams have been constructed by pouring concrete by gbucket chainh in quite large pours (much larger than the typical stone block on a pyramid). Why restrict construction by insisting upon quite small gblockh sized elements?

Just how many slaves does it take to produce gstone powderh in sufficient quantity to build a pyramid? Thatfs one heck of a lot of pounding! Or was it just sand?

Stone dust/sand and water just wouldnft cut it to make concrete. Concrete doesnft gseth in the heat of the sun; it gsetsh by chemical reaction. You would also need a binding agent which would also kick this reaction in (– usually this is lime). Otherwise you would simply get something like an adobe – which would not have survived this long. Wind and weather would have destroyed it centuries ago. What was this agent? Where would it come from? Chemical analysis of any one small portion of any block on any pyramid would be able to prove this quite quickly and quite easily. Has this been done?

I agree that this is a very interesting and quite plausible theory. It is also one that I would be more than ready to entertain, given more discussion and analysis.

But, as mentioned, it is not an instant answer to the age-old question of how the pyramids were constructed.

After 45 years in the construction industry, I think it might just be quite as quick to raise a block of stone into place as it would be to prepare formwork, mix concrete, place it in the form, wait for it to ggo offh and strip the form cc

But I may be wrong c..

W

Maciamo
11-12-06, 11:12
Where would the gblocksh be poured ? On the ground? Or in-situ?

It was in-situ, according to what they explained on TV.


If they were poured gin-situh – then there would presumably be a thin separator between each block and its preceding neighbor. Admittedly, this could have been paper, but c. why bother? Is there evidence to support the existence or absence of such diaphragms?

The documentary suggested that wooden separators (or mould) were used. There is no evidence because wood doesn't remain intact for 5000 years, especially that this wood was certainly used for other purposes (e.g. house material) afterwards. Wood being so scare in Egypt, I am sure that they would not have wasted it by just throwing it away, but re-using it. Hence the disapperance of all evidence. (that is my explanation, not the documentary's).



Just how many slaves does it take to produce gstone powderh in sufficient quantity to build a pyramid? Thatfs one heck of a lot of pounding! Or was it just sand?

If I remember well this "powder" already exist in a natural state not so far from the Pyramids. They made chemical analysis on the Pyramid blocks that confirmed that it matches this kind of "stone powder", sand or whatever.


Stone dust/sand and water just wouldnft cut it to make concrete. Concrete doesnft gseth in the heat of the sun; it gsetsh by chemical reaction. You would also need a binding agent which would also kick this reaction in (– usually this is lime).

Lime is a kind of stone. They didn't mention what stone it was, but searching on the web I found it was mainly limestone and granite.



After 45 years in the construction industry, I think it might just be quite as quick to raise a block of stone into place as it would be to prepare formwork, mix concrete, place it in the form, wait for it to ggo offh and strip the form cc


Have you been to the Pyramids ? Each block is about 1 cubic meter and weighs an average of 2.5 tons.

RockLee
14-12-06, 00:28
Those people weren't slaves either. They found out not even 1 person who worked was under-fed. So that proves they were not slaves but workers.

Maciamo
14-12-06, 00:57
Those people weren't slaves either. They found out not even 1 person who worked was under-fed. So that proves they were not slaves but workers.

That doesn't prove anything. Poorly fed people work less well. Being a slave just mean that they are "owned" by a master, who can tell them to do anything they want. Greek and Roman slaves were sometimes treated as well as family members, and sometimes given their freedom after some time.

Maciamo
01-04-07, 11:13
Now a French architect claims is has found a better solution to all previous theories after 8 years of research : BBc News : Mystery of Great Pyramid 'solved' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6514155.stm)

However, I don't see how is "inner ramp" theory is easier, either to imagine or to carry out, that the concrete solution.