Proof that the ancients used concrete

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Byrd
The stones were cut directly from the rock and not "hand shaped from giant quarried blocks of bedrock." Some of the partial blocks are still in space and you can see the trenches where people crouched to hammer out the underside of the blocks.

We see the same process in other quarries, including the one in Luxor where Hatshepsut's unfinished obelisk lies.

The rubble would have come from the clearing of the Giza plateau to make it flat enough for the temples, walls, and other features. There is no shortage of sand and rock chips on Giza.

This is what I'm saying--every single process that you just mentioned is cutting and shaping blocks from bedrock using human hands to do the work.

Nothing that you just said, nor that Harte has said, nor what IgnorantApe has said, negates that.

No, but they DO negate what you actually said:

But I would also argue that so does the claim that every stone in the pyramid was hand-shaped from giant quarried blocks of bedrock and transported a relative long distance (for the size and mass of the object) uphill and up ramps and positioned relatively perfectly into place.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Jesus...still on this? Let it go, as you're not paying attention to what I've repeatedly noted was meant by my comment about every stone being hand-shaped.

I figured that we had moved on from this--I'm bored of correcting your misunderstanding of what I've said.

Best regards.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Harte

Wow...I don't think that you're using "straw man" properly, but you do whatever you want to.

Obviously, you're either unwilling to watch the videos and/or discuss the material contained within. If you did watch them, you would realize that the first video acknowledges that some of the blocks are natural stone, while others show both visual and microscopic evidence of being a poured stone. The second video elaborates greatly on the microscopic aspect of examining some of the stones, but it also acknowledges that some, if not most, of the stones in the pyramids are natural stone.

Do you want me to pretend unfamiliarity with the hypothesis?
I don't need to watch your video.

Regarding crushing soft stone, here you are inventing an unknown quarry. Are you not aware of the quarries on Giza?
Why invent an imaginary "soft stone" quarry that's never been found?

Do you think only the soft stone was taken out of the existing quarries? What about the hard limestone that constitutes the side walls of these quarries? Does limestone differentiate horizontally as well as vertically?

What, exactly would be the advantage of casting blocks and then dragging them up the pyramid when you can eliminate the crushing and casting (and building a million or two distinct concrete forms) and just drag them up the pyramid?

Gaps between stones prove they certainly weren't cast in place.
I linked a pic, did I not?

Harte

If the AE utilized a lost poured stone method why have blocks, rubble infill, more blocks, and then casing stones outside of the currently visible structural blocks? If forms were being utilized to pour block shapes on each course the exterior structural blocks could have been formed with the finished face that the now largely missing casing stones provided. Why do the granite blocks comprise such a minority of the stones in the construction. The ability to pour them would have been a boon for construction and could have led to an even stronger finished product.

Mortar in the horizontal planes would have be unnecessary as a bottomless form could have been employed and the heat from the lower layers could have accelerated curing of ones at higher levels. At some point heat would become an issue as the the structure rise because it would have been too warm to pour subsequent layers of blocks without them fracturing. Unless of course a cold water co2 geyser continuously fed a coolant to regulate temperatures.

@slapmonkey

Yes I watched the video. I found it entertaining if less than illuminating. I have a decades long career of smacking rocks with blunt objects and find stone pounders/Bronze tools far more plausible than the purported lost geopolymer technology. Correction copper/arsenic not bronze though the strength would be similar.