The Surprising Truth Behind the Construction of the Great Pyramids

  • Thread starter Evo
  • Start date

Moonbear

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,350
51
Why not simply build a form that casts the concrete in one solid piece? See any large construction site for examples.
If you visit modern-day construction sites where they use large concrete forms to pour entire floors and walls at one time, you'll notice the construction of those forms is from steel to hold the weight of all that concrete, and also includes steel rebar within it to give it more stability. If you don't have steel yet, you have to build with smaller blocks, and the gaps between the blocks protect against cracking from expansion and contraction.

It also makes sense to me to use different materials for the foundation (lower layers) than for the upper layers, just due to the amount of weight each layer needs to hold. Bringing in whole blocks for the lower levels may have been stronger for a foundation layer, but once the pyramid got too tall to lift/hoist those large blocks in place, carting up the rubble (perhaps it was also a "thrifty" use of the chips and dust left after cutting the blocks at the base out of the quarry and fitting them on-site) and using it as a cement to form the blocks on the upper layers.

I don't think this necessarily changes history though, since it still would require an immense amount of labor to do the construction, it's just a difference on what the labor was doing and where the technology existed...chemistry/materials rather than apparatus for hoisting/transporting large blocks of limestone. But, the reason there were so many different versions of how the pyramids were built (i.e., slave laborers, paid laborers, was it just vast numbers of laborers doing a lot of heavy lifting, or did they have the technology to lift those large blocks with less laborers) is that it remains quite speculative.
 

G01

Homework Helper
Gold Member
2,649
16
Isnt it in the bible, about how the pharaoh slaved the jews and built the pyramids?

Thats where the saying "Let my people go!" comes from.
The bible mentions that the Jews were slaves in Egypt. Nothing about them building the pyramids though.
 

chemisttree

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
3,027
31
A complete discription concerning the methodology and chemistry of the process was proposed by David Davidovits many years ago. DD is a cement expert and has proposed a completely plausible process.

http://www.geopolymer.org/library/papers-discussing-davidovits-pyramid-theory

Like modern-day concrete, the blocks of the pyramids (according the the theory) contain aggregate that themselves contain fossils. The claim that the presence of fossils confirms a quarried stone is totally preposterous since even modern-day concrete contains aggregates that contain fossils.

The cement is definitely not of a portland type but is of a polysilicate type. This type of cement only requires amorphous silica and alkali (in the form of sodium hydroxide or carbonate) to produce a cement. Available calcium is incorporated into the amorphous polysilicate structure resulting in a fairly strong, low heat generating and chemically resistant material. This reaction is described in all of DD's many patents and is completely valid... I've done this stuff myself! No calcined calcium is required for the reaction, only amorphous silica (in the form of non-calcined diamataceous earth or opaline chert, etc...) and some source of natron.

I believe that the egyptians were using natron for other uses as well.

In the pyramids, the blocks are all under compressive loads as opposed to how modern-day concrete is used. Modern-day concrete requires steel reinforcement for the tensile properties required of modern concrete structures and is usually formed using wooden forms. Steel forms are a fairly recent development...

What hasn't been answered to my satisfaction is the chemistry on a fine scale of the cement vs. aggregate. In modern-day concrete, it is clear from inspection that the concrete is a composite material. The chemistry of the cement is radically different from that of the aggregate unless chrushed cement is used as aggregate as Lafarge does with their calcium aluminate lining product.
 

Evo

Mentor
22,848
2,302
Yes, it was Joseph Davidovit's theory that Barsoum was asked to verify.

According to the caller, the mysteries had actually been solved by Joseph Davidovits, Director of the Geopolymer Institute in St. Quentin, France, more than two decades ago. Davidovits claimed that the stones of the pyramids were actually made of a very early form of concrete created using a mixture of limestone, clay, lime, and water.

“It was at this point in the conversation that I burst out laughing,” says Barsoum. If the pyramids were indeed cast, he says, someone should have proven it beyond a doubt by now, in this day and age, with just a few hours of electron microscopy.

It turned out that nobody had completely proven the theory…yet.

“What started as a two-hour project turned into a five-year odyssey that I undertook with one of my graduate students, Adrish Ganguly, and a colleague in France, Gilles Hug,” Barsoum says.
 

chemisttree

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
3,027
31
and it took us a few hundred years to come up with the idea that it could be made of cement... whcich civilization is the advanced one?
The one that learned to use air conditioning in the deserts of Egypt!
 

chemisttree

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
3,027
31
1,488
18
The pyramids were never made by jewish slaves. Thats just myth from the bible.
I don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but the Bible says they made bricks. First using straw as an ingredient, then, as a punishment, without straw. That they worked on Pyramids is just another myth from the movies.

Exodus 5:5-10 -
5: And Pharaoh said, "Behold, the people of the land are now many and you make them rest from their burdens!"
6: The same day Pharaoh commanded the taskmasters of the people and their foremen,
7: "You shall no longer give the people straw to make bricks, as heretofore; let them go and gather straw for themselves.
8: But the number of bricks which they made heretofore you shall lay upon them, you shall by no means lessen it; for they are idle; therefore they cry, `Let us go and offer sacrifice to our God.'
9: Let heavier work be laid upon the men that they may labor at it and pay no regard to lying words."
10: So the taskmasters and the foremen of the people went out and said to the people, "Thus says Pharaoh, `I will not give you straw.

Check this out. Possible hints to how the heavy blocks, possibly even the 70 ton granite blocks, were manuevered:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pCvx5gSnfW4"
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Evo

Mentor
22,848
2,302
Joseph is David's son.
In your own link, all references are to Joseph Davidovits. I don't find a mention of a David Davidovits anywhere and all credit for the theory appears to belong to Joseph.
 
Last edited:

chemisttree

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
3,027
31
In your own link, all references are to Joseph Davidovits. I don't find a mention of a David Davidovits anywhere and all credit for the theory appears to belong to Joseph.
Yes, of course you are correct. I don't know how I remember Davidovits' name as David... but it is wrong.
 
6,171
1,271
I actually argued against someone here when they suggested the blocks were formed and not natural because I had not seen any proof otherwise, now I admit I was wrong.
You might be refering to me. From a thread a couple years ago:
I saw a thing on TV a few years ago in which it was claimed that when moving a pyramid block around to measure and weight it, it broke in half and they found hairs inside, sticking out of the rock. This could only happen if the blocks were cast. I have no idea if that story is true, though. Casting the pyramid blocks in place would have made the construction easier since you can transport your materials in much smaller, easier to handle quantities.

In any event, I should think it would be a fairly easy matter to settle from mineral analysis.
Actually, the outer limestone casing was blocks of limestone that were polished, it wasn't a layer of a cement like substance.

The earlier 5th dynasty pyramids were made with brick, perhaps the show you watched was about one of these pyramids?
I don't think so. This particular guy was maintaining that the Egyptians had cast all the blocks in place with a special formula. This split block incident was the main reason he seemed to think this.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=95538&highlight=pyramids
 

Evo

Mentor
22,848
2,302
zoobyshoe said:
I saw a thing on TV a few years ago in which it was claimed that when moving a pyramid block around to measure and weight it, it broke in half and they found hairs inside, sticking out of the rock. This could only happen if the blocks were cast. I have no idea if that story is true, though. Casting the pyramid blocks in place would have made the construction easier since you can transport your materials in much smaller, easier to handle quantities.

In any event, I should think it would be a fairly easy matter to settle from mineral analysis.
Eerily prophetic zoob. Yes, you were right.
 
109
1
if the stones were cast why is their so much variation in the block sizes.
 

Evo

Mentor
22,848
2,302
if the stones were cast why is their so much variation in the block sizes.
Probably due to the multiple forms for the casting.
 
2,904
13
I don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but the Bible says they made bricks. First using straw as an ingredient, then, as a punishment, without straw. That they worked on Pyramids is just another myth from the movies.




Check this out. Possible hints to how the heavy blocks, possibly even the 70 ton granite blocks, were manuevered:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pCvx5gSnfW4"

Wow! I love watching videos of regular guys off the street that come up with very clever ways of moving big stone blocks. Thats fantastic!

I saw another very similar thing on TV for raising Obelisks. You dig a pit, and with some ropes and a simple structure above, you let the obelisk slide into the pit and start pulling on the ropes to help tip the structure upright. Once your done you just fill the hole back up. Really ingenious stuff.

This is the kind of stuff I like. So simple, that its not simple at all, but very very clever.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
109
1
Probably due to the multiple forms for the casting.
but even in them days it would have made sense to make a standard sized cast.
 

Evo

Mentor
22,848
2,302
I love watching videos of regular guys off the street that come up with very clever ways of moving big stone blocks.
:rofl: your taste in videos is incredibly specific!

wow that video is amazing. I watched it without sound but that thing where he tips the stone from side to side is freakin' brilliant in a jar.

This is the kind of stuff I like. So simple, that its not simple at all, but very very clever.
I know! it always amazes me... the incredible (or frustrating if you're in the sciences or arts) thing about 99% of all brilliant ideas is that they all have that "ughh! I could've thought of that!" element to them. So simple and elegant that it never occurs to one to look there.
...
take the sliced-bread wheel, for example.... :uhh: :rolleyes: :biggrin:
some day it'll catch on.
 
ladies and gent's ,
read this carefully

http://www.cmc-concrete.com/CMC%20Seminars/2007%20ICMA%20Pyramid.pdf [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
F

FrancisZ

Well, at least we still have Stone Henge to impress us, with the earlier builders' ability to move extremely heavy objects.

[PLAIN]http://www.dailyventure.com/400x300/stonehenge_07.jpg [Broken]


What about those obelisk? Aren't those evidence of quarrying at least?

[URL]http://www.richard-seaman.com/Travel/Egypt/Aswan/AroundAndAbout/UnfinishedObelisk.jpg[/URL]

Would seem stupid to mold something in a rock quarry, miles away from it's intended destination.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, at least we still have Stone Henge to impress us, with the earlier builders' ability to move extremely heavy objects.

[PLAIN]http://www.dailyventure.com/400x300/stonehenge_07.jpg [Broken]


What about those obelisk? Aren't those evidence of quarrying at least?

[URL]http://www.richard-seaman.com/Travel/Egypt/Aswan/AroundAndAbout/UnfinishedObelisk.jpg[/URL]

Would seem stupid to mold something in a rock quarry, miles away from it's intended destination.
but many chemists and others of archaeology say the geopolymer is impossible because of we must have great furnaces to burn these stones and no evidence for these furnaces found
what about that?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Slaves labored at the pyramids. Hebrew means "dirty feet" in Egyptian, that is, people have no fixed home and wander looking for work. I do not see why Jews were not among the workers, if not the only workers, who labored at the pyramids.
Hebrew mean 'cross over' in Hebrew. It is not for certain that the Jews were ever slaves in Egypt, but if they were, it was 1000 years after the construction of the great pyramids at Giza.
 
Hebrew mean 'cross over' in Hebrew. It is not for certain that the Jews were ever slaves in Egypt, but if they were, it was 1000 years after the construction of the great pyramids at Giza.
so you mean the theory of the slaved blocks of pyramids is fake >>>>>
 
so you mean the theory of the slaved blocks of pyramids is fake >>>>>
No, I left open the possibility that they were built by Egyptian, or some other slaves.
 
ok any way this is not my idea
i mean which is stronger :
carved blocks or geopolymer blocks thats what i want to deal .
what do you think ?
 
173
0
Possible hints to how the heavy blocks, possibly even the 70 ton granite blocks, were manuevered...
Seeing videos like this, I applaud our early human ancestors! Truly amazing people, given what they had to work with.

I think some early humans were far, far more capable than we give them credit. I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover teens building palm-leaf model gliders and launching them from cliff-sides 100,000 years ago.

What I wouldn't give for a time machine...
 

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top