On Jun 29, 1:16=A0pm, amerikan-idle...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
<snip>
> As for the time-honored question of how the pyramids
> were built, Fellin said, based on what he had observed,
> it was nowhere near the gargantuan task as is generally theorized.
> <
> He emphasized that it did not require thousands of men
> working for hundreds of years because not a single
> multi-ton rock had to be hauled to the site from a great
> distance.
>
> (Fellin later revealed that the huge blocks were made
> on the spot, filling in wooden forms with a type of
> cement, the way sidewalks are fa****oned today.)
<snip>
Even a desk calendar with only one page, which nobody ever flips, is
right once a year.
Davidovits and Barsoum present a fair case that the pyramids may have
been built of reconstituted limestone (using limestone quarry debris,
soda, salt, and water - and not using scarce trees for wheels or sleds
or precious edible oil for lubricating runners).
The chemistry should work. The Geopolymer Institute has published the
results of analyses which show that not all pyramid limestone is
"natural" limestone.
http://www.geopolymer.org/news/cutting-edge-analysis-proves-davidovits%E2%80=
%99-pyramid-theory
This hypothesis, if proven out, would reassign the invention of
concrete from the Romans to the Egyptians.
The interior of the grand gallery
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/greatpyramid3.htm
has interesting features, notably a resemblance to cast concrete
rather than a construct of bricks laid along horizontal planes that
are *oblique* to the gallery.
Don't let it go to your head, Conrad. My weatherman still has a
better hit percentage than you.
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
|
