-----Original Message----- From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Paul Deema Greetings several -- especially Robert B Interesting concept. Haven't had time to read much as I'm pre-occupied at the moment with another matter. I did do the usual Googling thing however, and didn't find too much support for this hypothesis, especially seeing that it is more than 20 years since it was floated. So , not much MS support for an experiment that breaks the MS paradigm ?. And that?s a surprise? Would MS rush to embrace a concept that says their professional careers and Discovery channel income is now a shambles? Would you put truth above $ ? Yes, 20 years since first published, but 2 months since it was experimentally proven by microanalysis. See - don?t skip - my prior links to chemical analysis: 12/2006 This site -- http://doernenburg.alien.de/alternativ/pyramide/pyr17_e.php -- gives a reasonable criticism I think. Of particular interest are the photos of typical core characteristics of pyramids of the era in question. You'll note that the tenth of a millimetre accuracy is not shown and the blocks are essentially of different shapes -- not cast from the same mould obviously.pyramidenpy In general this site is outdated since the polymer analysis and physical test. In the light of this new evidence the criticism isn?t supportable ( or even w/o it) A request to update the content and address a list of conceptual problems with the current critique will be sent to the link?s author, Frank Doernenburg, cc to this forum. Where is .1 mm accuracy claimed? It?s unfalsifiable after 5000 yrs since placement. Have already stated the molds were of different sizes for seismic stablity. How hard is it to change a wooden frame consisting of planks? Or to build several types of frames? This is a defense of the MS position? Cutting and moving the quarry stones is easier than building wood frames? The analysis and conclusion of the limestone concrete theory relates only to the pyramid studies at the great pyramid at Giza and concludes the pyramids are a mixture of both, with concrete types at the top; yet the photos are selected from pyramids of other places and times, about which no claim is made w/o separate and independent study. The pictures were taken of the core, when the top stones were of concrete type. The core stones were natural , as the Times coverage below states. Using photos that don?t apply is called a logical strawman ? attacking a position not taken as if it were. From footnote 7 in Casting Stones at the pyramids: The Times December 01, 2006 Pyramids were built with concrete rather than rocks, scientists claim Method used only at higher levels Blocks set using a limestone slurry The Ancient Egyptians built their great Pyramids by pouring concrete into blocks high on the site rather than hauling up giant stones, according to a new Franco-American study. The research, by materials scientists from national institutions, adds fuel to a theory that the pharaohs? craftsmen had enough skill and materials at hand to cast the two-tonne limestone blocks that dress the Cheops and other Pyramids. Despite mounting support from scientists, Egyptologists have rejected the concrete claim, first made in the late 1970s by Joseph Davidovits, a French chemist. Until recently it was hard for geologists to distinguish between natural limestone and the kind that would have been made by reconstituting liquefied lime. But according to Professor Gilles Hug, of the French National Aerospace Research Agency (Onera), and Professor Michel Barsoum, of Drexel University in Philadelphia, the covering of the great Pyramids at Giza consists of two types of stone: one from the quarries and one man-made. ?There?s no way around it. The chemistry is well and truly different,? Professor Hug told Science et Vie magazine. Their study is being published this month in the Journal of the American Ceramic Society. The pair used X-rays, a plasma torch and electron microscopes to compare small fragments from pyramids with stone from the Toura and Maadi quarries. They found ?traces of a rapid chemical reaction which did not allow natural crystalisation . . . The reaction would be inexplicable if the stones were quarried, but perfectly comprehensible if one accepts that they were cast like concrete.? The pair believe that the concrete method was used only for the stones on the higher levels of the Pyramids. There are some 2.5 million stone blocks on the Cheops Pyramid. The 10-tonne granite blocks at their heart were also natural, they say. The professors agree with the ?Davidovits theory? that soft limestone was quarried on the damp south side of the Giza Plateau. This was then dissolved in large, Nile-fed pools until it became a watery slurry. Lime from fireplace ash and salt were mixed in with it. The water evaporated, leaving a moist, clay-like mixture. This wet ?concrete? would have been carried to the site and packed into wooden moulds where it would set hard in a few days. Mr Davidovits and his team at the Geopolymer Institute at Saint-Quentin tested the method recently, producing a large block of concrete limestone in ten days. New support for their case came from Guy Demortier, a materials scientist at Namur University in Belgium. Originally a sceptic, he told the French magazine that a decade of study had made him a convert: ?The three majestic Pyramids of Cheops, Khephren and Mykerinos are well and truly made from concrete stones.? The concrete theorists also point out differences in density of the pyramid stones, which have a higher mass near the bottom and bubbles near the top, like old-style cement blocks. The concrete theorists say that they will be unable to prove their theory conclusively until the Egyptian authorities give them access to substantial samples. Now why would the Egyptian government not allow samples to be taken for analysis from huge stone monuments, already in disrepair? Think. There is a huge tourist industry built around the pyramids. How many people would come to see concrete slabs in the hot desert of Egypt, when they can be seen in any city? If you are interested in excellent masonry (including large blocks) have a look at these two addresses -- http://www.brynmawr.edu/Acads/Cities/wld/03080/03080m.html Interested in concrete polymer technology, since that?s the issue. Who said the Inca stones of 500 years ago were the same type as the Egyptian ones of 5000 years ago? http://www.brynmawr.edu/Acads/Cities/wld/03090/03090m.html This is *real* accuracy. I believe these joints are water-tight, they are dry ie without mortar, and the stones are granite, -- not capable of being created by any "slurry casting" methods. Some of these are also *very* large. This is just another one of those mysteries -- we don't know how they did it, but this does not nean that God did it or aliens did it or it was done with magic or psychic powers. I suggest the Egyptian phenomenon is of similar kind. Why is this *real* accuracy* as opposed to *unreal* accuracy? Why do you believe these are watertight? From just a picture? What?s the relevance of watertight to the pyramids? Good point. Granite can?t be cast from a liquid. Then how does MS explain the formation of the granite basement rocks from the cooling of molten material and lava in the earth?s MS past? The largest stones shown are not cubes but tapered like natural stones. Are you saying the quarry stones were naturally formed as cubes?? If not, what?s the point? It?s true the pyramids are a mystery?.. if you ignore logic and physical evidence ? which is a key step in the MS scientific method I do marvel at your credulity. You seem always to be poised like a compressed spring waiting to pounce on MS (not the charity I support [Chuckle]) on the most sparse and flimsiest of evidence. Has no one ever remarked upon this to you? Man is intelligent and ingenious. Given sufficient motivation, he can achieve amazing feats, at which I marvel, even with quite primitive technology. This ingenuity and intelligence eventually produces a sophisticated technology. I do wish you could join me on this mountain top. Paul D You are too kind to say I?m marvelous. I search for the truth and pounce when it?s ignored. I note that many MS (Mad Scientists?) pounce on any mention of a religious or Biblical connection to modern science. I too marvel at your presentation of counter examples which have already been addressed in the ref links, or have little of no relevance to the issues raised, like Mexican stone work, photos of other pyramids or of the bootom stones at Giza. People have remarked that my remarks are remarkable. Reread my noting of the descent of man from the Fall, and Philip?s support. The technology of today is the Father?s support for us to fill the earth ? nothing that we accomplish is outside His plans. Technology increases our dependence on each other ? another lesson from Him. Do you think we could survive if individuals had to support modern infrastructure? Some people can barely replace a light bulb. If your car/ TV/PC breaks down, can you fix it yourself, or build a new one? While you may marvel at technology, I wonder at the helplessness of a typical modern man , having very limited practical and technical skills for basic survival, without the existing infrastructure and access to others also having different but limited survival skills. You may think you?re on top of the mountain, but if the base of support is swept out from under you, you?re in for a BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIG fall. Robert