What stone are the Egyptian pyramids made of. The ancient Egyptian pyramids of Giza. Features of the arrangement of the pyramids
8 502
How the largest Egyptian pyramids were built in Giza. We are assured that the Egyptian pyramids were built of monolithic stone blocks cut down in quarries, transported over considerable distances and, it is not clear how, raised up and laid on each other. Moreover, stone structures turned out, which sometimes rise to a height of more than one hundred meters. For example, the height of the Cheops pyramid is about 140 meters.
The size and height of the great Egyptian pyramids and many other megalithic structures of "antiquity" contradict the real capabilities of the ancient builders. However, various ridiculous theories are still being invented to explain, for example, how huge stone blocks were delivered from quarries and then rose to the height of the pyramid. It is believed that thousands and thousands of slaves worked in quarries, cutting down monoliths weighing from 2.5 to 15 tons, and then on a "sleigh" pulled them to the construction site. And then, supposedly with the help of ingenious lifting machines or with the help of some giant inclined mounds of sand, fifteen tons of blocks were dragged to a height of many tens of meters.
It turns out, however, that there are no mysteries here. The only mystery is how the Egyptologists were able to "not see" that the vast majority of the blocks of the large Egyptian pyramids are made of concrete.
As I. Davidovich discovered, an important component of such concrete was mud from the Nile River, containing aluminum oxide. In Egyptian deserts and salt lakes, carbon dioxide is available in large quantities. For the production of geopolymer concrete, other components are also needed, which are also available in Egypt.
The problem of crushing of rocks and ore in ancient times was solved in the image and likeness of CRUSHING GRAIN - mortar, grain mill, millstone. In the area of \u200b\u200bthe Gebeit deposit in the mountains near the Red Sea (in Egypt), Doctor of Geological Sciences Razvaliaev A.V. observed dozens of millstones for crushing gold ore with a diameter of up to 50-60 centimeters. The rock was ground by millstones and transferred for washing to the shore of the now waterless river valley. There was a flushing. Smaller crushing devices of this kind are also known - graters.
This simple rock crushing technology could quickly lead to the invention of CONCRETE.
Let us explain what concrete is. To obtain primitive concrete, it is enough to grind the rock into a fine powder, remove moisture from it, and then mix it with water. The easiest way to use soft breeds. For example, limestone, whose outlets are located directly on the pyramid field in Egypt. Here you could take it just under your feet, next to the pyramids under construction. Further, in order to obtain cement, it was necessary to thoroughly dry the rock so that moisture came out of it. But in the conditions of hot and dry Egypt, where it rains sometimes every five years, i.e., special drying was unnecessary. After grinding the Egyptian rock, the finished cement immediately turned out - that is, dehydrated powder.
If dry fine powder is poured into a box, knocked together from boards, filled with water and thoroughly mixed, then after drying the powder particles are firmly bonded to each other. When the solution finally dries, it solidifies and turns into stone. That is - in concrete.
At the same time, small stones could be added to the solution. After solidification, they turned out to be “frozen” into concrete. In this way, the amount of cement powder needed to make the pyramid blocks could be significantly reduced.
Such, in rough outline, was the medieval technology for the production of concrete. After some time, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish such concrete blocks from those cut from the same rock, since they are destroyed, eroded and take the form of "natural stones".
The idea of \u200b\u200bconcrete Egyptian pyramids could be treated differently. For example, consider this another “theory” among others, just as unfounded. And we would not write about it in such detail, if not for one circumstance. The fact is that there is undeniable evidence that, for example, the Cheops pyramid is really made of concrete.
This evidence is a CHAPS PYRAMID STONE BLOCK FRAG taken from a height of fifty meters from the outer masonry of the pyramid. It is a chip of the upper corner of the block. The maximum fragment size is about 6.5 centimeters.
As can be seen from the photo, the surface of the block is covered with a fine mesh. A careful examination shows that this is a trace of the mat that has been superimposed on the inner surface of the formwork box. It is clearly seen that the mat was bent at right angles along the block face. And at a short distance from the edge of the block, another mat was imposed on it with overlapping. It is seen that there is a fringe along the edge of the second mat. There are no fibers along the edge, they fell out, as usually happens on the untreated edge of wickerwork.
The upper surface of the block, from which this chip broke away, was uneven, bumpy. This is clearly visible by the debris itself. Although part of the upper surface of the fragment was sawn off for chemical analysis, the remainder had a pristine tuberous appearance. It should be so if it is CONCRETE, since concrete forms a hilly surface when solidified. To avoid this, in our time, special vibrators are used to level the hardening surface of concrete. The Egyptians of the fourteenth and seventeenth centuries did not have vibrators. Therefore, the surface of the blocks was uneven. Moreover, it is UPPER, not touching the formwork. The LATERAL surface is even, but GRID from the tracks of the MAT. If it was a sawn stone block, then its upper surface would not differ from the side.
According to an eyewitness, who personally broke this chip from the block of the Cheops pyramid - for which he needed to buy a special permit - FOLLOWS OF THE FORMWORK WERE SEEN ON ALL BLOCKS in this place of the pyramid. Recall that it was at a height of fifty meters, on the side of the pyramid that is opposite to the entrance to it. Excursions usually do not lead there. An ordinary tourist can see only the lower rows of masonry, bypassing the pyramid around. But there are no traces of formwork below. Maybe - hesitated on purpose. Or maybe the reason for this is frequent sandstorms in these places. They carry fine sand to the pyramids and, of course, grind, smooth the surface of the lower blocks. After all, the blocks of the pyramids are quite soft. Their hardness corresponds to the hardness of gypsum or a human nail. Therefore, sandstorms could completely "squeeze" the surface of the lower blocks and destroy traces of mats on the formwork. But at a height of fifty meters, the sand no longer rises by the wind. And there, such traces, as we see, are EXCELLENTLY PRESERVED.
It is difficult to admit that modern pyramid specialists have not “noticed” this amazing fact. In our opinion, there can only be one explanation. Egyptologists understand that in this case they are wrong, but they are trying hard to preserve the "beautiful" fairy tale, painted by their predecessors, about how the pyramids were built. And most importantly, if you tell everyone that the pyramids are CONCRETE, no one will believe that they are already "many thousands of years old".
Now, by the way, many other "riddles of the pyramids" also disappear. For example - why are the blocks of the pyramids not covered with cracks? After all, geologists are well aware that any natural limestone, being a sedimentary rock, has a LAYERED structure. Therefore, over time, natural cracks inevitably appear in it along the layers. But concrete, being a homogeneous, amorphous material (since it was crushed and mixed), does not form cracks. As is observed in the Egyptian pyramids.
It also becomes clear the absence of the so-called "tan" on the surface of the pyramid blocks. Such a "tan" is formed over time on the open surface of any natural stone. The surface of the stone darkens due to the fact that various chemical elements go on it from the inside. This is due to the crystalline structure of natural stone. And on the concrete "tan" is almost not formed, since the crystalline structure in it is destroyed by grinding the rock into powder.
Another "astounding mystery" of the Cheops pyramid disappears. It has long been noticed that in the Cheops pyramid, in some of its places, "the thickness of the joints, which at first glance seem like simple scratches made on the surface of a stone, and sometimes even almost invisible, is ... about 0.5 mm." “Can you imagine,” the Egyptologist J.F. Lauer exclaims pathetically, “how much effort was required to fit the blocks, often weighing many tons?” Indeed, it is hardly possible to imagine it. Moreover, as we see, the upper surface of the blocks is BUGGY, not aligned. And what - the next upper block was ideally placed on such a bumpy surface so that the gap between them turned out to be vanishingly small? At the same time, the upper block was weighing fifteen tons. This is hardly possible. Egyptologists do not give any intelligible explanations on this subject.
But with the understanding that the pyramids are made of concrete, everything falls into place. If the upper block was made of concrete, directly in place, then there was no gap between it and the lower block. Liquid cement was poured into a wooden formwork from above and completely repeated the bumpy shape of the lower block.
But then where did the “thin seams” between the blocks come from? It turns out that these seams were formed due to the thinnest layer of lime mortar, "to this day preserved in the form of the thinnest thread no wider than a piece of forged silver." Consequently, the builders of the pyramids SPECIALLY SEPARATED NEARBY BLOCKS so that they would not stick to each other. Before casting a new block, they covered the surface of the previous blocks with some kind of solution to prevent sticking. This was done competently, because otherwise the pyramid would have turned into a SINGLE HUGE CONCRETE MONOLITH, WITHOUT SEAMS. Such a colossal structure would inevitably soon burst under the influence of internal stresses, as well as under the influence of constant and very significant changes in temperature in this place of Egypt. It was possible to avoid internal stresses only by folding a pyramid of SEPARATE concrete blocks. So that she could "breathe", removing the emerging stresses.
As for the quarries preserved on the other side of the Nile, from which the stone was brought to the pyramids, this only applies to the stone FACING of the pyramids. We have already said that the lining was once completely covered by the Cheops pyramid. The remains of granite and limestone FACING are still preserved, for example, at the top of the Chefren pyramid.
And finally, we turn to the “father of history” Herodotus. After all, it was Herodotus who left a detailed description of the construction of the pyramids, to which all modern Egyptologists refer. It is striking that Herodotus, in almost straightforward text, describes the construction of the pyramid using the MOBILE WOODEN FORMWORK, that is, the construction of concrete. To understand this, just think about its text. Herodotus writes:
"This pyramid is built like this. First it goes in the form of a staircase with ledges, which others call platforms or steps. AFTER HERE THE FIRST STONES were laid, THE OTHERS LIFTED WITH THE USE OF THE AIDES BRIDGED FROM SHORT BEAMS. So the stones were lifted from the ground to the first step. .
There they laid a stone on another aisle; from the first stage they dragged to the second AID, with which they lifted to the second stage. How many rows of steps, so many lifting devices. Perhaps, however, there was ONLY ONE LIFTING DEVICE, which, after raising the stone WITHOUT LABOR, WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE NEXT STEP. "
But if you read the text of Herodotus, it is difficult not to see in it the description of the WOODEN WOODEN FORMWORK, with the help of which they were "lifted", that is, cast, step by step, more and more concrete blocks were laid on each other. If you think about it, Herodotus describes a simple structure like a collapsible wooden box from short boards where concrete was poured. After concrete hardening, the box was disassembled and transferred to the next step.
Thus, we again came across a striking example of reluctance to give up even completely absurd theories, since they entered the history textbooks. Moreover, in our opinion, the main driving motive is the fear of affecting the Scaligerian chronology. After all, if you start to doubt it, then the entire building of the "ancient" and medieval Scaligerian history falls apart like a house of cards.
If the "ancient" Egyptians used concrete for the construction of the pyramids, then, of course, they could be used for the manufacture of other structures. In fig. we give a photograph of the "ancient Egyptian" plate, covered with hieroglyphs. Today, it is kept at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. The bottom of the plate is broken off, which allows you to see how it was made. This is obviously a CONCRETE slab. AT THE BREAK OUT PLACE THE READINGS OF THE REINFORCEMENT ARE PERFECTLY VISIBLE. Apparently, it was made of twigs or ropes. As today, reinforcement gives concrete extra strength. Today it is made of iron rods. It turns out reinforced concrete. But in the Middle Ages, iron was expensive. Therefore, the reinforcement in the "Ancient" Egypt was made from rods or ropes.
The first wonder of the world. How and why were the Egyptian pyramids built Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich
Chapter 2. Concrete Pyramids
Chapter 2. Concrete Pyramids
1. The mysteries of ancient Egyptian stone construction
Now consider the most interesting question. How were the great Egyptian pyramids and other grandiose stone structures of ancient Egypt built? Historians assure us that the pyramids and the temples surrounding them were allegedly made up of solid stone blocks sawn with copper saws (?!) In quarries and brought in for tens and hundreds of kilometers. Believe it is very difficult. See fig. 100, fig. 101, fig. 102. In addition, it is completely incomprehensible how the ancient Egyptians raised such huge blocks to a considerable height and laid on each other,. Recall that the height of the Cheops pyramid is about 140 meters.
Fig. 100. The rows of granite pillars in the temple of the Sphinx in Giza are huge solid pieces of stone weighing tens of tons with a perfectly flat surface, without a single crack. Allegedly they were sawn in Aswan’s granite quarries with copper saws, polished by hand and transported to Giza at a distance of 500 kilometers. 2008 photo
Fig. 101. In the masonry of the walls of the temple of the Sphinx in Giza, blocks weighing hundreds (!) Tons were used. How the ancient Egyptians could move such blocks remains a mystery. And, most importantly - for what? There is no need for them. With the same success, the walls of the temple could be made up of much smaller stones. The task of moving such giant blocks would be extremely difficult today. 2002 Photo
Fig. 102. The stone blocks of the Cheops pyramid weigh several tons, and sometimes tens of tons. Such blocks cannot be lifted and moved manually. But they are perfectly laid - they stand in even rows, tightly fitted to each other. 2006 Photo
The dimensions of the great Egyptian pyramids and the blocks that make them up are in obvious contradiction with the methods of construction that, according to historians, were used by the ancient Egyptians. From time to time, Egyptologists come up with various ridiculous theories to explain how, for example, huge stone blocks were transported from distant quarries in Aswan to the site of the construction of the pyramids in Giza for hundreds of kilometers. And then they went up to the height of the pyramid. It is believed that thousands and thousands of slaves worked in quarries, chopping (or sawing) monoliths weighing an average of 2.5 to 15 tons, and then dragging them on skids to the Nile, loaded them onto boats and brought them to the construction site. Then, allegedly, with the help of ingenious lifting machines (fantasized by historians without any engineering calculations), multi-ton blocks were raised to a height of tens and hundreds of meters. See, for example, fig. 103. Or they dragged them upstairs on gigantic sloping mounds made of sand. One of these amusing "theories" is given and even illustrated in the book of the famous Egyptologist Jean-Philippe Lauer, p. 199. See fig. 104. However, from a construction point of view, all these “theories” are pure fiction.
Fig. 103. Fantastic modern reconstruction of the “lifting machine”, with the help of which the “ancient” Egyptians allegedly dragged blocks onto the pyramid. Taken from, p. 69
Fig. 104. One of the modern theories invented by Egyptologists in an attempt to explain how huge blocks of Egyptian pyramids climbed to great heights and fit. But hardly such utopian ideas could be used in real construction. Taken from, p. 199
I must say that the individual blocks of the great pyramids and the temples surrounding them weigh not even tens, but HUNDREDS OF TONS. Such blocks can be seen, for example, in the walls of the temple of the Sphinx in Giza, standing next to the pyramids, see fig. 101 above. Egyptologist J.F. Lauer naively believes that the ancient Egyptians “SUCCESSFULLY MOVED monolithic blocks of increasing weight. The limit in this regard was apparently reached during the reign of Chefren. Hölsher discovered blocks from 50 to 60 cubic meters in the thickness of the walls of the lower temple of his pyramid. meters weighing about 150 tons, and in the walls of the upper temple one block 13.4 meters long, weighing about 180 tons, the other - with a volume of 170 cubic meters. meters weighing about 500 tons! Quite obvious, - rightly says J.F. Lauer, - that there could be no question of loading such blocks into draggers ”, p. 189. One of the giant blocks remaining from the temple of the pyramid of Chefren is clearly visible in Fig. 89 above.
The colossi of Memnon, located in Central Egypt on a level ground, away from hard rocks, “were originally made from whole pieces of exceptionally hard quartzite - a stone that, due to its high hardness, is practically impossible to process. Colossi weighed 750 tons each and rested on 556-ton stone foundations. Including the bases, their height was originally 63 feet (about 19 meters - Auth.), which corresponds to the height of a seven-story building. The colossus’s shoulder width is 20 feet (about 6 meters), the length of the middle finger is 1, 35 meters ”, p. 40. Subsequently, the Colossi of Memnon were broken above the belt and fell to the ground, p. 136; , from. 70–71. Today they are back in place, but are in a dilapidated condition. Their upper part is assembled from pieces. Colossi of Memnon in their modern form are presented in Fig. 105.
Fig. 105. Colossi of Memnon. Modern photography. Taken from, p. 137
European scientists who first studied the Colossi of Memnon during the Napoleonic expedition of 1799 were struck not only by their size and hardness of the stone. Upon closer inspection of the surface of the Colossi, it was found that the sculptor’s cutter — and the Europeans were sure that the Colossi were sculpted using the cutter, because they simply could not imagine any other way of making them — had never deviated an iota when encountering such hard impregnations in stone such as flint or agate. Europeans knew that with ordinary stone carving this is simply not possible. This circumstance, as well as the too high hardness of the quartzite itself, of which the Colossi consisted, led European scientists to conclude that the Colossi of Memnon were sculpted using some mysterious method unknown to European science, p. 41.
J.F. Lauer suggests: "probably," the monstrous stone blocks for the pyramids were moved on skating rinks. But this assumption is not substantiated by anything and, moreover, completely implausible. Wooden rollers under such a weight would simply get stuck in the sand. And on a hard surface, a 500-ton block would quickly grind them into chips. In addition, in Egypt there are no hardwoods at all. The main tree in Egypt is a palm tree, which has a grassy loose trunk and is unsuitable as skating rinks. But that's not the point. Even in our time, moving a 500-ton stone block would be an extremely difficult technical task that cannot be solved without powerful construction equipment. However, the pyramid builders did not have modern technology! They did everything manually or with the help of old devices.
A perplexing question arises. What prevented the "ancient" Egyptians from dividing such huge blocks into parts to facilitate their work? Indeed, according to Egyptologists, stone blocks of very different sizes were successfully "cut out" in the quarries of Ancient Egypt. Why did the ancient Egyptians suffer with multi-ton blocks instead of working with smaller blocks? And thereby greatly simplify your life? For Egyptologists, all this remains a mystery. No wonder they still write numerous books and studies on the "riddles" of ancient Egyptian construction. For example, the book of J.F. Lauer is called: "The riddles of the Egyptian pyramids."
It turns out, however, that there has been no mystery here for a long time. The only mystery remains with what persistence (worthy of better application) Egyptologists do not want to notice the discovery of chemical engineers made several decades ago, according to which ancient Egyptian stone construction was carried out with widespread use of CONCRETE.
From the book Empire - II [with illustrations] the author6. Hypothesis: Some large structures of "antiquity" are made of concrete. Fig. 19.51 Fig. 19.52 Fig. 19.53 Let us now consider the question - how were the largest Egyptian pyramids built in Giza. We are assured that the Egyptian pyramids were built of monolithic stone
From the book Lost Gospels. New information about Andronicus-Christ [with large illustrations] the author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich From the book Project Russia the author author unknownChapter 4. The principle of the pyramid. Each person has an opinion about their own place in society. Like a thousand years ago, and now, with all our behavior, we demand recognition of our significance. There are millions of examples in everyday life. We demand from everyone, from the waiter and
From the book The First Wonder of the World. How and why were the Egyptian pyramids built the author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich2. The discovery of I. Davidovich: the pyramids are made of concrete. In the second half of the 20th century, a French chemist, a professor at the University of Bern, a specialist in the low-temperature synthesis of minerals, the founder of the Institute of Geopolymerization in Paris, Joseph Davidovich, expressed and
From the book Lost Gospels. New information about Andronicus-Christ [with illustrations] the author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich2. The monstrous “ancient” structures of Baalbek in Lebanon and Palmyra in Syria are made of concrete, and date back to the XIV-XVI era
From the book New Chronology of Egypt - II [with illustrations] the author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich10.6. Pyramids made of concrete. Now consider the question - how were the largest Egyptian pyramids built in Giza. We are assured that the Egyptian pyramids were built of monolithic stone blocks cut down in quarries transported over considerable distances, and,
From the book Rus and Rome. Colonization of America by Russia-Horde in the XV – XVI centuries the author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich12. Hypothesis: some megalithic structures of "antiquity" are made of concrete. The problem of grinding rocks and ores in ancient times was solved by the pattern of crushing grain - mortar, grain mill, millstone. In the area of \u200b\u200bthe Gebeit deposit in the Red Sea Mountains, Dr. A.V.
From the book Stalin v. Great Depression. Anti-crisis policy of the USSR the author Verkhoturov Dmitry NikolaevichChapter Seven Century of Concrete “From the point of view of engineering achievements, the Dnieper construction is the most significant of such structures ever erected by man, the difficulties that have been overcome here with great success were also
From the book Russia. China. England. Dating of the Nativity of Christ and the First Ecumenical Council the author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich From the book of Their Majesty the Pyramids the author Zamarovsky VoitechCHAPTER X PYRAMIDES OF THE V AND VI DYNASTY “Mountains of the Pharaohs” of the IV dynasty remained unsurpassed. The kings of the V dynasty after the heretical trick of Shepseskaf again returned to the pyramids, but refused to compete with their predecessors; their followers from the VI dynasty about such
From the book Book 2. The Rise of the Kingdom [Empire. Where Marco Polo actually traveled. Who are the Italian Etruscans. Ancient Egypt. Scandinavia. Russia-Horde n the author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich6. Some large structures of "antiquity" are made of concrete. Now we will consider the question - how are the largest Egyptian pyramids built in Giza. We are assured that the Egyptian pyramids are composed of monolithic stone blocks cut down in quarries,
the authorChapter 3 THE BIRTH OF A PYRAMID Mastaba - the predecessor of the pyramids_When the first scientists-researchers of the Egyptian pyramids discovered that these structures are, among other things, primarily the giant tombs of the pharaohs, the question immediately arose: how ancient
From the book Secrets of the Ancient Pyramids the author Fisanovich Tatyana MikhailovnaChapter 6 Pyramids in the Tropics Palenque Mayan cities are located in two regions of Central America. One of these areas is a very large territory of the Central American Cordillera. The Usumasinta River flows through the entire region, and along its banks
From the book The New Era of the Pyramids by Coppens PhilipChapter 6. Pyramids in Europe April 2006 turned out to be restless for the pyramids. On Thursday, April 6th, all major newspapers in the world announced the opening of a new pyramid in Mexico. Hill of Stars (in Spanish "Sierra de la Estrella") in Istapalap, one of the suburbs of the Mexican
From the book Bridges author Kote RainerConcrete bridges What is better for bridges - concrete or steel? A new method of building bridges: half-arc of the bridge across the river. Argen in the area of \u200b\u200bAllgäu in southern Germany was first reinforced with concrete in a vertical position, then they were lowered and docked on strong cables
From the book Essays on the History of Architecture T.2 the author Brunov Nikolay IvanovichOne of the greatest mysteries in the history of mankind is the engineering feat of the ancients, which led to the creation of the great pyramids of Egypt. For millennia, historians, architects and scientists have been trying to find an explanation for the appearance of these giant structures. To this day, the mystery is not fully solved, and no one knows for sure how it was done. It is not surprising that many different explanations have appeared, and in this review the 10 most viable theories of the construction of the Great Pyramids.
1. Ancient cars
Naturally, the first thought that comes to mind when you think about building a building is the need to use cranes to lift and transport heavy pieces of metal or stone. The first pyramids were step pyramids with large flat surfaces on which heavy cranes could stand and work. Of course, ancient cultures knew about levers and pulley systems, and they probably used something similar to create the first pyramids. However, the version of cranes or the so-called "cranes" is not particularly plausible in the case of the Great Pyramids of Egypt, since there were too small surfaces for the installation of hoisting gear of this magnitude.
2. The pyramids were originally hills
An interesting but bizarre explanation for the appearance of the pyramids is that they initially arose as natural rock formations, and then stone blocks were laid out on the slopes of these hills from top to bottom. A similar idea was first proposed in 1884 in the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette at a conference of scientists. Perhaps this is precisely what Herodotus had in mind when he said that the pyramids were built "from top to bottom."
3. Polishing and leveling manually
One of the most complex and mysterious facts associated with the construction of the pyramids is the way in which the Egyptians could cut stones with such extreme accuracy that they could be laid with virtually no gaps between them. It is impossible to squeeze even a sheet of paper into the junction between the two stones. Therefore, scientists are perplexed as the Egyptians achieved such accuracy in the processing of stone. Even today it is impossible to recreate this with diamond-cutters, let alone the most primitive hand tools. The following theory suggests that the Egyptians did not at all have better tools than they have now. They just used what they had much better. For example, they allegedly leveled blocks of stone, using two poles of the same height, connected by a narrow rope, under which the stone was placed. If the rope touched the surface somewhere, this place was marked with red ocher, and then the roughness was scraped off with a flint scraper.
4. Limestone concrete
Perhaps an even more plausible way to achieve perfectly smooth stone surfaces was that the stones were made by pouring liquid limestone concrete into molds. There seems to be some evidence to support this theory. Under a microscope, Egyptologist Jean-Philippe Lauer found air bubbles on the surface of stones, which indicates that air could get into the liquid concrete. According to the findings of the American Ceramic Society, it seems that the internal structure of the stones was formed in a process that happened very quickly, like concrete hardening.
5. Zigzag ramps
This is the first of various theories of ramp ramps. Theories of the direct ramp were not considered, since such a ramp would have to be larger than the pyramid itself and extend outward from it by 1.6 kilometers, given the assumed slope of 7 degrees. For the ramp to make sense, it would have to be completed throughout the entire process of creating the pyramid. Although a zigzag ramp would require less material than a straight ramp, this is almost as implausible as it would have to be constantly adjusted as the pyramid got higher. Therefore, such theories have been widely discredited.
6. Wet sand
Today, some proponents of the following theory believe that the stones for the pyramid were dragged along piles of sand that were previously wetted to make the stones easier to move. This theory explains the transportation of stones from quarries hundreds of kilometers from the construction site, as well as how workers moved the stones up with a slope. But will the wet ramp provide sufficient stability for stones weighing up to 20 tons that needed to be lifted up. Also a question is how wet sand can be used as a support for the feet of people who dragged it all. At best, this theory can only explain the transportation of stones. As a method of raising stones, it fails.
Trying to develop a plausible ramp theory, people eventually began to realize that a spiral ramp can be built at the same time as the pyramid. It will run along the outer part of the pyramid and continuously rise up as it is being built. Proponents of this theory of the external spiral ramp include Mark Lehner, an archaeologist at Yale University. The main problem when using a spiral ramp is maneuvering with stones. It’s hard enough to drag huge stones up the slope, but the need to constantly turn them to climb in a spiral creates even greater complexity. That is why the theory of an external spiral ramp is implausible.
8. Theory of water mines
How about building a long underground dam underwater from a local water source at a reasonable distance from the quarry, and then using water “mines” to lift stones up. This theory suggests that a water dam was used to transport stones, and that stones were carved and grinded in water. After precise grinding of the stone, pieces of light material were attached to it, which provided buoyancy. Thus, the stone floated up, and its surface was protected from impacts on other stones.
There is some evidence that similar water mines were used to build structures in other parts of the world (for example, it is believed that canals were used to build Angkor Wat in Cambodia). However, if such a canal was used to build the Great Pyramid in Giza, where did it go and why was it destroyed. Presumably, the construction took 10 years, and the length of the canal should have been 10 kilometers, since this is the distance from the Nile River to the place of the pyramid in Giza. In addition, even if this theory is correct, it still does not explain some other nuances in the pyramid.
9. Extraterrestrial intervention
The more time it takes to figure out how the pyramids were built by man, the more it seems that the answer suggests something else. Although extraterrestrial intervention is usually rejected by scientists, many Egyptologists and historians believe that the pyramids were built by aliens. Hearing this theory, many immediately laugh at it. However, extraterrestrial intervention is no more a “wild” theory than many others. Given all that is known about the pyramids, it may be reasonable to conclude that ancient cultures could not build these incredible structures themselves. Even with all the modern technologies, today people are completely unable to build pyramids, such as those in Egypt. Therefore, it seems incomprehensible that the ancient primitive civilization possessed both technology and ingenuity for the construction of the pyramids with such extreme accuracy.
The Great Pyramid of Giza faces almost exactly north, with a deviation of only 3/60 degrees. It is aligned even more accurately than the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, London, which points north with a deviation of 9/60 degrees. Another remarkable mathematical feature of the Great Pyramid is that the perimeter divided by height is 2π (deviations are insignificant). A number of other exact mathematical numbers are associated with the pyramids, but the most important thing is to take into account the speed with which they were built.
Considering 2.3 million stones weighing an average of 2.5 tons each, it is estimated that one stone needed to be installed every two minutes. This includes all the time necessary for perfect cutting of the stones, moving them for many kilometers through the desert, climbing the slope of the pyramid, and then laying them in place. It is very difficult to believe that primitive people did all this.
10. Jean-Pierre Guden on the theory of the internal ramp
Recently, one person has been trying, independently of all others, to unravel the mystery of how the pyramids were built. This is a French architect named Jean-Pierre Gooden. Since the 1990s, he devoted all his time to the study of the Great Pyramid and was able to develop the most brilliant theory of building pyramids ever created.
According to Gooden's theory, the Great Pyramid was built using two separate spiral ramps. The first was an external spiral ramp, rising about 30 percent up, and the second was an internal spiral ramp through which heavy stones were pulled to the very end. Gooden calculated that this inner ramp had a slope of 7 degrees. This spiral ramp also included open sections at the corners for workers to rotate the blocks (it is believed that cranes were also used here). In addition to the inner ramp, Gooden was also able to explain how the King’s Chamber was built, as well as the most mysterious room in the Great Pyramid - the Great Gallery.
Massive granite blocks to the Tsar’s Chamber were dragged through the Great Gallery using a long pulley system. Thus, the Grand Gallery exists for quite practical purposes. Inside are signs that support this theory, such as wedge holes in rocks. They are believed to have been used to support the pulley system. Using digital technology, a team of programmers was able to test this idea. They were able to confirm that the drawings of the pyramid made by Gooden correspond to mathematical indicators and that the inner ramp is believable.
However, the most surprising thing is that they were able to find evidence of the actual existence of the ramp by scanning the pyramid, which revealed a spiral image. It may well be the remains of an internal ramp. Of course, this theory provides the most plausible explanation of how the pyramids were built.
The editor presents:
There is a huge literature on the ancient disappeared civilizations, that ours is one of many. And still, in our culture, no, no, and a certain “Euro-centrism” and even “Western-Euro-centrism” are slipping. And not only at the household level. Marx, for example, created the theory of socio-economic formations on the basis of rather random events of Western European history that were not at all characteristic of other civilizations.
And in the public mind it often took shape: well, Greece, well, Ancient Rome, and earlier savages, to which one can attribute the cutting out of rocks of tens of tons of stone blocks and dragging them by hand in the desert.
Read about the collapse of yet another myth - ancient and enduring, like ... Egyptian pyramids.
Electron Dobruskin,
editor
1982 year. A congress of Egyptologists is held in the Canadian city of Toronto, bringing together all the experts in this field of knowledge. Congress Peace Flow Blasts Sensational Report
french chemist, professor at the University of Bern Joseph (Joseph) Davidovich: as a result of chemical analysis of samples from the pyramids of Cheops and Aunt, it was found that they are without any doubt made of artificial stone, and are not fragments of natural rock, as they contain chemical elements that are not found in natural formations. Simply put, this is concrete.The initial shock of Egyptologists was replaced by a unanimous opinion:
"This cannot be, because it can never be!" . So, you can pretend that you did not see anything and did not hear anything.But the Egyptian authorities just heard everything. Davidovich in 1984 turned to them with a request to allow on-site research in order to prove the artificiality of the materials from which the sphinx and other structures and monuments are made. He was denied. The reason was set as follows:
"Your hypothesis represents only a personal point of view that does not correspond to archaeological and geological facts" ."EGYPTIAN NOODLES"
Of course, the crown number of Egyptian tourism are the pyramids. And the Cheops pyramid is one of the seven wonders of the world and the only one that has been preserved is a sparkling diamond in this crown. What does official Egyptology say about the construction of the most famous pyramid?
It is known that the Pyramid of Cheops was built 4.5 thousand years ago. Construction was carried out over 20 years with the forces of 20 thousand workers (in some sources, the number of employees reaches 100 thousand). During this time, 2.5 million stone blocks weighing from 2.5 to 15 tons were laid in the body of the pyramid, but there were blocks of 80, 150, and even 500 tons each. Moreover, the adjustment of the blocks to each other is so accurate that it is unattainable even today with the current level of development of construction equipment.
Already only these data give rise to a huge number of questions. Firstly, through simple arithmetic, it turns out that every five minutes one block fit into the body of the pyramid. And this day and night, without lunch breaks, sleep, waiting for the weather ...
And so for 20 years. How is this possible and is it even possible? Ask the builders of Olympic facilities in Sochi. Maybe they know the answer?Further: it is believed that thousands and thousands of slaves worked in quarries, cutting down huge stone blocks. But experts are well aware that the yield of salable stone from quarries is approximately 20%, and the rest goes to the dump, this is a marriage. Moreover, the larger the blocks, the lower the percentage of finished products at the output. And this means that somewhere there must be mountains of waste, which in volume amount to at least 4
the Pyramid of Cheops. That's just nowhere in Egypt there is not even much less waste. So where did the stone blocks for the pyramid come from?By the way, how did the huge stone blocks get from the quarries? Modern experts have calculated that it would have taken ... 79 years to transport all the stone blocks using today's advanced technology. And the Egyptians calmly pulled multi-ton blocks to the construction site on primitive sleighs, and then raised them to the height of the pyramid, supposedly with the help of ingenious lifting machines or with the help of some gigantic sloping mounds of sand. At the same time, over 20 years they managed not only to transport, but also to put all the blocks in a pyramid. Ah yes well done!
HAIR FROM TRUTH
Continuing the study of Egyptian pyramid samples, Davidovich discovered more and more evidence of the artificiality of the materials that make up the blocks of the pyramids. So, almost on the surface of one of the samples, he found a hair. Studies in three different laboratories have shown that
"a small flagellum of three organic fibers, most likely hair" . But the presence of hair in natural limestone is ruled out. Limestone was formed about 50 million years ago, at the bottom of the ocean, and therefore the presence of organic residues in it is excluded by definition. Inside the stone, the hair could be in only one case: if, when mixing the solution, it fell into the mixture from the head or hands of the worker.When examining the pyramids with x-rays, signs of a chemical reaction were revealed. According to the French scientific journal Science and Life, the difference between the stones in the pyramids and the stones in the quarries was significant.
French scientist professor Drexel claims that the stones used in the construction of the Egyptian pyramids are actually synthetic and were cast like concrete during construction.As Davidovich discovered, aluminum oxide contained in large quantities in the silt of the Nile River was an important component of the stone blocks of the pyramids. This is another confirmation of the fact that the blocks of the pyramids were cast like concrete, with Nile silt being one of the components, and Nile water was used to mix the dry mixture.
Davidovich continued his research, the result of his searches was an inscription on the stele of the period
III dynasties. The decrypted hieroglyphs contained a recipe for the preparation of ancient concrete. He identified 13 components of an ancient Egyptian recipe, patented the "new old" concrete and began its commercial production.The studies allowed Davidovich to establish a new branch of applied chemistry, called geopolymerization. As a result of geopolymerization, concrete is created that is practically indistinguishable from some natural rock. The most important advantage of these artificial materials is that their production does not require either high temperatures, high pressures, or the intervention of otherworldly forces. Only long-term observations and experiments, which did the hardworking Egyptians. Geopolymer concrete sets quickly at room temperature and turns into a beautiful artificial stone. At the French Institute of Geopolymers (
Geopolymer Institute ) and now research is underway to develop new compositions of geopolymer concrete.The question is quite fair: didn’t anyone realize that the pyramids were made of artificial material? Let us give the floor to Davidovich himself. He's writing:
"Any rock can be used in crushed form, and the resulting geopolymer concrete is practically indistinguishable from natural stone. Geologists unfamiliar with the possibilities of geopolymerization ... take geopolymer concrete for natural stone ..."Our compatriot - famous traveler Vitaliy Sundakov - He believes that the ancient Egyptians prepared concrete in this way: they ground the limestone to the state of powder (it was not for nothing that during the excavations in the artisans' camp they found millstones, which, apparently, were used to grind the stone). As a binder used river sludge. Then the crushed rock was mixed with carefully dried and ground soft rock (limestone) and water, resulting in a solution with a natural aggregate, which was poured into a wooden formwork. Thus, step by step, huge blocks of the correct form were cast.
So, the composition of ancient Egyptian concrete Sundakov considers the following: limestone crushed stone with the addition of 5% limestone powder and 5% river sludge. There are more components in Davidovich’s formulation. But in any case, the recognition of the fact of use by the ancient Egyptians
geopolymer concrete provides answers to many questions that perplex Egyptologists.RIDDLES AND PUZZLES
Now it’s clear why the blocks of the pyramids are not covered with cracks. It is well known that any natural limestone, being a sedimentary rock, has a layered structure. Therefore, over time, natural cracks inevitably appear in it along the layers. But concrete, being a homogeneous, amorphous material (since it was crushed and mixed), does not form cracks. As is observed in the Egyptian pyramids.
It also becomes clear the absence of the so-called tan on the surface of the blocks of the pyramids. Such a "tan" is formed over time on the open surface of any natural stone. The surface of the stone darkens due to the fact that various chemical elements go on it from the inside. This is due to the crystalline structure of natural stone. And on the concrete "tan" almost does not form. Since the crystalline structure in it is destroyed by grinding the rock into powder.
Another “striking mystery of the pyramids” is perfectly explained - the uniquely accurate fit of the blocks to each other so that it is impossible to stick a knife blade into the seam. It’s just that the builders of the pyramids deliberately separated adjacent blocks so that they did not stick to each other. Before casting a new block, they covered the surface of the previous blocks with a thin layer of lime mortar to prevent sticking. This was done correctly, because otherwise the pyramid would have turned into a single huge concrete monolith, without seams. Such a colossal structure would inevitably soon burst under the influence of internal stresses. And also under the influence of constant and very significant changes in temperature in this place of Egypt. It was possible to avoid internal stresses only by folding a pyramid of separate concrete blocks. So that she can "breathe", relieving the emerging stress.
It was the use of geopolymer concrete in Egypt that made it possible to maintain such a large number of various objects to this day. According to the proven technology, temple complexes, statues and sculptures, sarcophagi and amphora vessels, as well as many, many other objects, structures and products, were created. Naturally, in each case, the builders selected a special artificial stone. In some cases, artificial limestone was made, in others - artificial granite, artificial basalt or artificial diorite.
for discussion at the seminar
from the World of News website
http: // mirnov. com / rubriki- novostey / 33- nauka- i- tekhnika / 2758- egipetskie- piramidy- izgotovleny- iz- betona
Seeing the debate about the construction of the pyramids, you involuntarily come to the conclusion that how little supporters of the so-called alternative history know about Ancient Egypt. Alas, semi-literate hamsters with iPhones and burning tour packages to Egypt only add fuel to the fire. They take pictures of things whose meaning they do not understand and do not even try to understand. All their knowledge is limited to a tourist guide. And now people who do not distinguish the Ancient Kingdom from the Middle one and confuse Ramses II with Senusert III, begin to draw “significant” conclusions that historians and scholars based on their kitchen logic, office knowledge and pictures from the school textbook. I will try to dispel a number of misconceptions.
Egypt pyramid era. This is the era of the Ancient Kingdom (28-23 centuries BC) - one of the few first Bronze Age civilizations among barbarians. Other were the Sumerians in Mesopotamia and the Harappa in Punjab. After a long bloody struggle, many small city-states were united under the rule of one king-pharaoh. To make their power legitimate, the pharaohs appropriated their divine status, created a bureaucratic apparatus, an army (the arsenals of bronze weapons belonged to the pharaoh) and brought the country under their control. The will of the pharaoh at that time was not limited by anything. Military campaigns allowed robbing neighbors and increasing the influx of copper and tin into Egypt, which were strategic materials at that time. Bronze was also enough for household tools, but they were in the minority - stone and wooden tools were used throughout the entire period of Ancient Egypt. The officials of the pharaoh controlled the population literally - everything was recorded in the documents: to whom, how much was issued and how much was produced. Moreover, the pharaohs appropriated all the arable land to private ownership. Pharaohs handed out lands to the nobles and temples as a reward. The population of Egypt was taxed and imposed, including for the construction of public buildings and canals. The peasant had no rights whatsoever - the ancient peasant communities slowly lost importance, lost their rights and fell under the power of the pharaoh and nobles. The peasant had to meekly work and praise the gods and Pharaoh, otherwise any official could beat him with a stick.
What technologies did the Egyptians of that time possess? They worked perfectly with stone (the experience was a thousand years old), made ceramics, owned metallurgy. From the Stone Age, the Egyptians received and developed drilling technology, including stone, leather, bone, and wood. They knew the fermentation process for making bread and beer. The Egyptians used the full range of materials available to them, down to bird feathers and guts. It should be remembered that Egypt, in addition to stone, experienced a shortage in everything, including wood, so there was a lot of reed, which was a lot (made from mats and baskets to ships, not to mention writing material - papyrus). There was no shortage of clay. The Egyptians knew how to make glazed ceramics - faience. They were able to make various paints and varnishes. The Egyptians did not know what kind of super-technology - they simply perfectly possessed the technologies available to them, which hamsters with iPhones were not even able to understand.
Slaves did not build a pyramid. One of the most stupid allegations of alternatively gifted comrades that supposedly historians tell them about the construction of the pyramids by thousands of slaves. There is clearly a knowledge gap. Alternative specialists demonstrate their ignorance by attributing false allegations to historians. Very convenient: he invented the crap - he himself denied it.
In fact, Egypt at the time was slavery patriarchal, that is, slaves were used in the household. There were not many slaves, mostly women. The pyramids were built by the most ordinary Egyptian peasants. Construction usually took 3-4 months during the flood of the Nile, when the peasants had nothing to do. Work on construction was a kind of coven for peasants, because they received food ration for their work. It is clear that the annual work unwittingly developed their professional qualities. Therefore, by the time of the construction of the Great Pyramids in Egypt there were enough professional builders. The stone blocks themselves were cut down by professional teams of masons who worked for the state for food, clothes and beer (there was no money at that time). It can be assumed that private orders were also carried out for the tombs of nobles. Bricks were able to all the peasants of Egypt.
The construction was watched by officials appointed by the pharaoh. It is difficult to say how much they understood in mathematics and geometry, but there were specialists who could calculate the base area and the angle of inclination. True, sometimes they were mistaken. So the pyramids of Pharaoh Snofru (2613-2589 BC) turned out to be defective: one Egyptologist called it “broken”, and the architects knocked down the second “pink” with measuring the angle of inclination.
The broken pyramid in Dahshur.
The "pink" pyramid.
Therefore, by the time of the IV dynasty, the pharaohs of which built the Great Pyramids, the Egyptians had accumulated experience and knowledge for such grandiose construction projects. Cheops, Mikerin and Chefren only used all the resources of their state and eventually undermined the economy of Egypt and the foundations of the power of their dynasty, when the priests of the god Ra in Heliopolis eventually seized power.
Pyramids built of 10-50 ton blocks. Another lie that alternative comrades feed unsuspecting readers. This is understandable, because drawings from children's books paint truly terrible pictures, where half-naked people drag huge blocks along the slope.
Something like this alternate brands brand historians.
These are actually nightmares from ignorance. In fact, large blocks are only at the base of the pyramid. The higher the pyramid, the smaller the blocks became. Here is a photo of the upper tiers of the Cheops pyramid - pay attention to pigeons for scale. The height of the block is 45-50 cm, that is, the Egyptians had saws to cut blocks of this size.
The horror about the middle blocks of the Cheops pyramid of 2.5 tons went from the outstanding English Egyptologist of the 19th century. F. Petri, who made the calculations on the pyramid. At the same time, for some reason, he calculated the mass of sandstone as 2.2 tons per cubic meter. m., although in reality - 1.7 tons per cubic meter. m. Weight of limestone - 1.6 tons per cubic meter. m. It is from these rocks that the pyramids were built. The volume of the Pitris block was calculated at 1.14 cubic meters. m. As you can see, in fact, the middle block did not reach 2 tons. But many blocks are less than a cubic meter. Even the largest blocks of the lower tiers do not reach 5 tons. This is understandable, masons would not make blocks that workers could not budge.
It is not difficult to notice that the ancient builders did not especially bother with the processing of blocks - they trimmed it somehow and that's enough. Anyway, then no one will see them, since the pyramid is faced with slabs.
Millions of blocks in the Cheops Pyramid. The myth went from Wikipedia (I don’t know who squeezed this information there).
The number of blocks of the average volume does not exceed 1.65 million (2.50 million m³ - 0.6 million m³ of rocky foundation inside the pyramid \u003d 1.9 million m³ / 1.147 m³ \u003d 1.65 million blocks of the indicated volume can physically fit in the pyramid, without accounting for the volume of the solution in the interblock seams); assignment to the 20-year construction period * 300 working days per year * 10 working hours per day * 60 minutes per hour leads to the laying speed (and delivery to the construction site) - about a block in two minutes.
Really impressive. In fact, we do not know exactly how many blocks in the pyramid. Calculations are made speculatively, based on the total volume of the pyramid (minus voids and a rocky base). In fact, the pyramid may not be entirely monolithic. So, during excavations of the Knossos palace in Crete, archaeologists discovered that the ancient builders of the palace walls, where stone blocks were used, built them with cavities that were clogged with rubble. It can be assumed that this is Egyptian technology. And given that scientists constantly find mysterious voids clogged with sand in the Cheops pyramid, it is quite possible that the Egyptians saved time and materials in just such cavities, clogging them with sand and gravel. And besides, the error in this calculation is that such a concept as man-hour is not taken into account. Of course, if the workers, lining up in a row, will stack one block at a time, then the calculation is correct. So the alternatively gifted mind also thinks - they simply cannot imagine the organizational abilities of their ancestors. In fact, the construction was grandiose. Dozens, if not hundreds of brigades worked there. So the pyramid was built immediately on all four sides by several dozen brigades at the same time.
Cheops did not have time to finish his pyramid - he died earlier than the internal finishing work began. So he was buried in an unfinished tomb, where the working marks of ancient builders remained on the walls.
Therefore, millions of blocks in the pyramid of Cheops is still a big question that is waiting to be resolved.
Geopolymer concrete. Well, the most delicious. Alternatively, gifted individuals instead of looking for answers began to invent them. If, in their opinion, they could not build pyramids from stone, then it was cast from concrete. Why it is easier is not clear. The bike about the "geopolymer" concrete was thrown by a French chemist of Jewish origin Joseph Davidovich. It is not difficult to look at his website geopolymer.org to understand - Davidovich did a good business, shoeing suckers with tales of ancient geopolymers. Here and the sale of books, lectures, courses, paid of course. It is also not difficult to find out that the mythical Egyptian geopolymers have nothing to do with real geopolymers. In Russia, this new bike was picked up by two new hrenologists - Fomenko and Nosovsky, already shoeing our suckers.
Geopolymers are materials based on binders of alkaline activation (metakaolin, for example) or, based on finely dispersed amorphous or crystalline aluminosilicate materials, sealed with alkali or salt solutions having an alkaline reaction (usually solutions of hydroxides, silicates or aluminates of sodium and potassium). In the consciousness of alternatively gifted, this is not so. They just have a stone crushed into powder, which was diluted with water, after which anything can be made from the mixture - at least a block, at least a column, at least a statue.
The new hrenologists themselves, Fomenko and Nosovsky, imagine the process like this:
To obtain primitive concrete, it was enough to grind the rock into a fine powder, remove moisture from it, and then mix it with water. It is easier to use soft rocks, for example, limestone, whose outlets are located directly on the pyramid field in Egypt. Here you could take it just under your feet, next to the pyramids under construction. To obtain cement, it is necessary to remove moisture from the rock. But in conditions of hot and dry Egypt, where it rains sometimes ONCE AFTER FIVE YEARS, v.15, p.447, special drying was unnecessary. The breed was already quite dry. After grinding immediately finished cement was obtained. If you pour it into the formwork, knocked together from the boards, pour water and mix thoroughly, then after drying the particles of the crushed rock are firmly bonded to each other. When the solution dries, it will turn into stone. It will turn out primitive concrete.
This quote is the whole alternative theory about "geopolymer concrete". Next, adherents of Novochrenology usually have dozens of photos of supposedly “liquid stone” and supposedly historical insights of alternative brains. I can say one thing, do not really make such concrete, otherwise such "concrete" will fall apart right before your eyes. Why? Because a component with astringent properties must be present in concrete, but alternatively gifted creatures are not aware of this. In itself, crushed limestone or gypsum does not possess astringent properties. To do this, they need to be burned. It is because of the labor-intensive manufacturing process that concrete did not gain distribution until the onset of the industrial era. It was easier to cut down the stone block than to crush the rock into powder, burn, mix the solution. Machines facilitated and accelerated this process, as a result of which concrete displaced stone and brick from the building. But the Chukchi’s novochrenological scientists are not builders, but astronomers.
But let's move on to an alternative version of "geopolymer concrete". For some reason, alternative comrades are firmly convinced that casting a pyramid from concrete is easier than building from stone. Consider the building process of stone: a stone was cut down in a quarry, hewn, delivered to the construction site, put in a pyramid.
Now the process of casting concrete.
1. Cut down the stone.
2. Crushed stone into rubble.
3. Powdered crushed stone.
4. The powder was burned on fire.
5. Fall asleep in bags or baskets.
6. Delivered to the place.
7. Built the formwork.
8. Knead the solution.
9. Wait for the block to dry.
10. Put in the pyramid.
As you can see, this is a longer and more expensive construction method. What are the objections:
1. How and by what means crushed stone of herald and sandstone into powder? Some alternative comrades are of the opinion that they say the stone was rubbed on graters with hands. Well, let them try to do it themselves and see how they succeed. And it is not at all clear how such a trick will pass with granite, basalt, diorite or quartzite. They often offer historians, then a catapult to do, then a stone block to do. So I propose - to crush a couple of granite stones into granite crumb with your own hands. It will be very interesting to look at this process.
2. The number of tools for such work will be simply fantastic - hundreds of hammers, picks, pestles and all of expensive bronze and copper, which was very small at that time. Egypt of the Ancient Kingdom could not afford such a metal consumption when the country actually lived in the Stone Age.
3. It is not clear where the Egyptians took so much firewood for burning limestone or gypsum into lime. Egypt is poor in wood and barely enough for the needs of metallurgy and ceramics. And without firing, no concrete will work.
4. Bags for cement, as we are told by supporters of the alternative version, were allegedly in cash. Like, if the block, according to Pitri, is 2.5 tons, then having a bag of 50 kg is 50 bags for casting one block. So, alternative comrades, it was Egypt III millennium BC. e. There were no bag factories. All textiles were produced by women - wives and slaves. The bags themselves were mainly used for storing wheat - approx. 60 kg in a bag. The question arises: where did you get so many bags for millions of tons of cement?
5. How were these cement bags delivered to the construction site? The stone was mined on the opposite bank of the Nile. From the Nile to Giza - approx. 10 km
Drag bags on their own back - I advise alternative comrades to do such an experiment themselves. Dragging on donkeys is expensive for that time. And so many donkeys were not in Egypt. Drag and drop on a sled? So what is the advantage over a stone block?
6. What were the formwork made of? Wood in Egypt is a rare scarce imported raw material. It was barely enough for ceiling beams, furniture, weapons, therefore, it was necessary to import or plunder neighboring nations. And here we need tons of timber for formwork. We have 1.5 million blocks left for the Cheops pyramid, have not forgotten? But apparently, alternative comrades themselves understand this. A certain Kolmykov in a serious journal even published a new-chrenological article, where in all seriousness he wrote:
“The combination of features allows us to make a definitive conclusion that the blocks of the Cheops pyramid were made by casting into the formwork. The formwork could be, for example, animal skins sewn together or sheet metal with an uneven surface or other material fixed in the frame and allowing such marks to be left on the trace surface. "
