Lost Technologies of the Pyramid Builders - Possible Evidence for Acoustic Engineering in Aswan

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Harte

Look, my comments are based in my own experience sculpting with different rocks (but mainly really soft ones, like alabaster), so I get the progression from a raw piece of rock to a finished, glass-smooth surface.

If these are to be believed as the first step in removing material (which it seems that this is the case...these were the tools used to remove rock and create the rough shape), the what you just described to me makes zero sense, both in process and in efficiency. When you look at the scallop shapes, they appear as though they are a cross section of a cylinder--as if you could lie a cylinder of the same circumference and length into the scallop and it would rest comfortably.

They don't appear so to me.
Have you tried to find out what the dimensions of these scallops are, or are you just looking at internet pictures?

Please note that the progression from a scalloped surface to a smoother surface (scalloping removed) is visible right there on the same obelisk.
Regarding fire, as I said, you'd have to be careful with the fires. The cracking I'm talking about is not the granite itself, it's the crystalline matrix on and just below the surface - on a microscopic scale.
The method wouldn't be used for finishing, just for removal of material prior to finishing.

Smooth surfaces were accomplished with rubbing stones (that is not in dispute, given the AE's left depictions of exactly this process,) which would remove any scarring like you see on the pic of the wall you posted.

Similarly, such scarring would be removed by rubbing stones on the other obelisks, after the glyphs were carved into the stone.

Possibly, microscopic analysis of the surface of several existing obelisks could show fine cracks in the crystal matrix. But such analysis isn't all that easy to perform on an obelisk unless you remove a piece of it - something that's probably frowned on. That's why I said what I did about evidence of fire. After all, even if microscopic cracks could be found, it would still be speculative that they were caused by fire.

Harte

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: jeep3r

So I'm afraid there is no way ancient monumental blocks could have been levitated into place. You may argue all you please with archaeology, but you can't argue with physics.

I can't remember having mentioned levitation anywhere. But exotic alternative explanations aside, the pounding-theory doesn't seem to explain the patterns we see and therefore it's not very convincing to me.

If they really used dolerite balls for pounding, then one wouldn't expect the high-edged ridges to remain visible so distinctly. It would be a slow, gradual process and even if many workers would have been pounding in a row, they certainly wouldn't have been hammering for hours in exactly the same spot to cause those dimples and ridges.

a reply to: jeep3r

You mean you think they shaped and smoothed stone blocks with sound?

Get out of here. At least acoustic levitation is a physical reality.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: jeep3r

You mean you think they shaped and smoothed stone blocks with sound?

Get out of here. At least acoustic levitation is a physical reality.

I wouldn't jump to conclusions yet as to "how" they did it, but IMO we have two problems with the quarry marks:

1. They are not consistent with the pounding-theory (and dolorite balls won't help us here)
2. They are highly indicative of vibration-induced interference patterns as demonstrated in this thread

As far as I'm concerned this requires further investigation and I wouldn't be surprised if the effect can be replicated in a soft substance like clay or cement before it hardens. Sound, as a mechanical wave, is apparently one option to produce very similar interference patterns, but it may not be the only way to achieve these kinds of results.

originally posted by: jeep3r
a reply to: Marduk

I'm not disputing that AE's were using stone balls to shape some of their artwork, but did they create those particular patterns in Aswan with diorite balls? I'm not so sure and one would think they'd have pounded away those edges, for sure.

Creating those squar'ish patterns via pounding alone would require doing it in the same spot by each worker. But that doesn't really make sense IMO if you can get rid of the bevelled edges in the same process without much extra effort. That would probably also make it easier to do the finer work and polishing of the surface afterwards.

Haters gonna hate cobber.......stuff 'em !!! ONLY dudes whom know FOR CERTAINTY what happened, are the chaps physically there at the time. So let them seem all definitive and authoritative as they wish, I for one find your theory quite interesting........& possible due to not knowing anyone physically there & myself included.
Just agree they have the bigger pens also & let 'em go on being all intelligent to themselves.

originally posted by: jeep3r
a reply to: Marduk

I'm not disputing that AE's were using stone balls to shape some of their artwork, but did they create those particular patterns in Aswan with diorite balls? I'm not so sure and one would think they'd have pounded away those edges, for sure.

Creating those squar'ish patterns via pounding alone would require doing it in the same spot by each worker. But that doesn't really make sense IMO if you can get rid of the bevelled edges in the same process without much extra effort. That would probably also make it easier to do the finer work and polishing of the surface afterwards.

So the same culture that used some form of advanced acoustic stone cutting technology, also had large numbers of people doing part of the work by whacking at it with stones, by hand.

Don't think so.

originally posted by: jeep3r

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: jeep3r

You mean you think they shaped and smoothed stone blocks with sound?

Get out of here. At least acoustic levitation is a physical reality.

I wouldn't jump to conclusions yet as to "how" they did it, but IMO we have two problems with the quarry marks:

1. They are not consistent with the pounding-theory (and dolorite balls won't help us here)

How do you know this? Have you measured any of the hammerstones found in the quarry and have you measured the individual holes?

2. They are highly indicative of vibration-induced interference patterns as demonstrated in this thread

However, these patterns don't appear in a nice contained area and they change with distance from the sound source. Furthermore, they only appear in fluids or powders; not on solid surfaces.

Yes, I can prove this.

You know those cars that drive down the street with the bass thumping so loudly you can hear its pounding beat inside your car or inside your house? If 'vibration induced interference patterns' appeared in solids, you would see them appearing in the metal of these cars and in the road beneath them. Your CAN see the vibrations if they sit over a puddle of water, however.

The speakers used to produce this effect are much stronger than the ones putting waves in water or dust.

originally posted by: fotsyfots
ONLY dudes whom know FOR CERTAINTY what happened, are the chaps physically there at the time..

So no one has ever been convicted of a criminal offence unless there's been several eyewitnesses to the crime

You should be a defence lawyer for the indefensible
Either that, or maybe get a clue...

originally posted by: Byrd

However, these patterns don't appear in a nice contained area and they change with distance from the sound source. Furthermore, they only appear in fluids or powders; not on solid surfaces.

IMO it's not inconceivable that these interference patterns, under controlled circumstances, could be confined to a certain area. And yes, it would require the substance to be in a fluid state. If distance, amplitudes and reflections are more or less constant you would get a pretty consistent grid-like pattern incl. the typical dimples and bevelled edges.

Chinese singing bowls, for example, create this kind of pattern in a confined area when resonating (via rubbing the handles or hitting the bowl with a mallet). Note the pattern in the area around the center:


In the image above we can see the interference patterns created by different waves reflected from the sides of the bowl in a pretty steady fashion. Similar patterns (with the typical bevel effect) can also be seen in icebergs as a result of thawing under certain conditions:


For comparison, here's again a section of the Aswan quarry showing the grid pattern with slight variations in size and form (also see this post for further similarities):


An interesting question would of course be if the granite structure of the quarried section would in any way differ from the untouched sections (from a micro-structural perspective). Perhaps this is something for Joseph Davidovits to look into?

originally posted by: jeep3r
Perhaps this is something for Joseph Davidovits to look into?

I don't think he will be interested, he tends to require evidence over delusion. So far you have ignored all the overwhelming evidence against an idea which is nonsense which you came up with before you saw the evidence from a culture you have demonstrated that you know nothing about...

originally posted by: Marduk

I don't think he will be interested, he tends to require evidence over delusion. So far you have ignored all the overwhelming evidence against an idea which is nonsense which you came up with before you saw the evidence from a culture you have demonstrated that you know nothing about...

I'm no Egyptologist, quite right, but if I were I might still call into question the mainstream explanation for the quarry marks discussed in this thread. You may also have noticed that I didn't ignore the pounding theory, but I still don't think it's the process that created these patterns.

And while all this may seem like nonsense to you, I for one think it's something worth investigating further. Apart from that, I'm delighted to see that you accept Davidovits as a researcher and scientist that bases his conclusions on evidence and facts. I might get back to this phrase of yours in future discussions about reconstituted limestone.

originally posted by: jeep3r
I might get back to this phrase of yours in future discussions about reconstituted limestone.

Then you didn't hear that was shown to be nonsense as well and has been for a decade
I am not surprised

originally posted by: jeep3r

originally posted by: Byrd

However, these patterns don't appear in a nice contained area and they change with distance from the sound source. Furthermore, they only appear in fluids or powders; not on solid surfaces.

IMO it's not inconceivable that these interference patterns, under controlled circumstances, could be confined to a certain area. And yes, it would require the substance to be in a fluid state. If distance, amplitudes and reflections are more or less constant you would get a pretty consistent grid-like pattern incl. the typical dimples and bevelled edges.

Chinese singing bowls, for example, create this kind of pattern in a confined area when resonating (via rubbing the handles or hitting the bowl with a mallet). Note the pattern in the area around the center:

Sound wave patterns appear when the material is a uniform consistency - and the singing bowls' sounds don't shatter it or cleave it or even levitate it. Granite is not a uniform substance. Each of the minerals within it powders or shatters at a different frequency. In addition, sound waves don't focus like laser light waves do... you need something that can focus as a small beam width to make a cutting device.

originally posted by: Marduk
a reply to: rounda

So in other words, you aren't ready to criticise the radiocarbon dating which proves the Egyptians built all the pyramids

yup, that's what I thought

Really?

So the carbon-dated 4th dynasty tomb pyramids are accurately dated, but the only human remains found in them to give credence to the tomb theory doesn't match the timeline, using the same carbon dating?

You're just #ing with me, right? You can't possibly believe what you're arguing, can you?

If the story don't add up, and you have to use a method of dating to corroborate the story, which coincidentally, can only measure the time as far back as *gasp* when they claim the pyramids were built... with only a 60% chance of being "accurate"... then you must accept the extreme possibility their explanation is, oh my goodness, wrong.

originally posted by: rounda
So the carbon-dated 4th dynasty tomb pyramids are accurately dated, but the only human remains found in them to give credence to the tomb theory doesn't match the timeline, using the same carbon dating?

You're just #ing with me, right? You can't possibly believe what you're arguing, can you?

If the story don't add up, and you have to use a method of dating to corroborate the story, which coincidentally, can only measure the time as far back as *gasp* when they claim the pyramids were built... with only a 60% chance of being "accurate"... then you must accept the extreme possibility their explanation is, oh my goodness, wrong.

Ah you appear to have got your information on carbon dating from a creationist website and despite all the bluster, you haven't got a clue how it works have you... I mean apart from anything else, your later inhumation which is dated to a much later period seems to be a real problem for you, didn't you want the pyramids to be older, so why mention something inside them which is so well known to be a later addition that even bringing it up makes you sound unhinged..
Apart from anything else, you seem to be completely unaware of the heights of Sneferus pyramids, you think they are much smaller don't you, maybe you should check, because currently you are saying that Sneferu built those, when he is actually known as the one pharaoh who moved more rock for pyramids than any other, he could have built two great pyramids, But you're like, no they are completely inferior, the reverse is true and if you look at the way that Sneferus pyramids were constructed, they are like a set with the GP being the last in the line.

If I mention the quarry marks with Khufus name in them, are you going to come out with some bs from Zechariah Sitchin, well feel free, we could all do with a good laugh

thanks for playing

I'll believe they pounded out all that stuff, moved and polished it when I see it done, real time, accurate and actual size.

Would really like to see how they got one of them big ass obelisks out of the ground.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
I'll believe they pounded out all that stuff, moved and polished it when I see it done, real time, accurate and actual size.

Would really like to see how they got one of them big ass obelisks out of the ground.

probably a good idea to actually read the threads you post in before you post, that way you don't get to announce that you have decided on something before you saw the actual evidence contained therein. The OP was bs, a lot of the replies were not

originally posted by: Marduk

probably a good idea to actually read the threads you post in before you post, that way you don't get to announce that you have decided on something before you saw the actual evidence contained therein. The OP was bs, a lot of the replies were not.

The OP illustrates a problem with the quarry marks and the arguments posted up to now don't resolve this problem IMO. Call it what you like, but the debate is still up regarding the process that caused the specific topology of the granite surface shown in the OP. I don't see this as being the result of pounding using dolorite balls for reasons mentioned many times in this thread.

Apart from that, I think there's also another area somewhere with similar marks, where an obelisk was fully extracted. Would be great if someone could provide some imagery of this particular site, I think there has even been a project that made laser scans of the area. It would be interesting to compare both sites and their specific marks, especially the bottom of the trench where the obelisk was separated from the bedrock.

originally posted by: jeep3r

originally posted by: Marduk

probably a good idea to actually read the threads you post in before you post, that way you don't get to announce that you have decided on something before you saw the actual evidence contained therein. The OP was bs, a lot of the replies were not.

The OP illustrates a problem with the quarry marks and the arguments posted up to now don't resolve this problem IMO. Call it what you like, but the debate is still up regarding the process that caused the specific topology of the granite surface shown in the OP. I don't see this as being the result of pounding using dolorite balls for reasons mentioned many times in this thread.

So, your reason is "They don't look like that to me?"

I mean, that's the only reason given in the thread for not believing the granite was pounded out of the ground and pounded into (rough) shape.

originally posted by: jeep3rApart from that, I think there's also another area somewhere with similar marks, where an obelisk was fully extracted. Would be great if someone could provide some imagery of this particular site, I think there has even been a project that made laser scans of the area. It would be interesting to compare both sites and their specific marks, especially the bottom of the trench where the obelisk was separated from the bedrock.

You can also find the same kind of "scalloping" marks in Inca andesite quarries, with the same type of pounding stones laying about just like at Aswan.

Harte

originally posted by: jeep3r
the debate is still up regarding the process that caused the specific topology of the granite surface shown in the OP..

The debate which you have created in your head is maybe still up
Academic Egyptology which has more than proven its case, even demonstrating how it was done will carry on without your input. You have ignored all the evidence posted in this thread because of an idea you came up with before you were even aware of it, that standard is the typical level that the credulous post with, and I have to tell you, its not only not convincing, but to any reasonable person, its absolutely ridiculous.

You came up with this idea, before you carry on posting nonsense here, why not go show us how you can lift say, just a one ton block with your personal stereo, I'm sure if you could do that then you would revolutionise the way that people view the ancient world and you would become world famous and rich. But yanno, I don't think you'll do that, because you prefer blowing hot air on the internet where your standard for proof is non existent...

Are you aware that the motto of this website is "deny ignorance" it certainly isn't "be ludicrous"