In news:Xns9818754CA5A12kiwilovesomewherenz@203.109.252.31,
Harvey@NZ <kiwilove@co.nz> typed:

"Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:DwpBg.1933$Cz6.1559@newsfe5-win.ntli.net:

In news:44d5fd77$0$12841$dbd41001@news.wanadoo.nl,
dre <v> typed:

and read this before you go berserk...



http://www.margaretmorrisbooks.com/giza_power_plant_meltdown.html

The main flaw that strikes me in that whole highly ambitious argument
is in order to make any form of concrete you need powdered rock.
Admittedly rock can be powdered by crushing and grinding, so not
impossible with primitive means, just bang the rocks together. But
you'd need an awful lot of concrete to build the great pyramid.

The other aspect is where is the information that shows how this rock
was hardened and set. If the mixture didn't have the right properties
it would not harden properly. The other thing is the author talks
about Diorite pots, this substance is said to be as hard as quartz.
Obviously it would be very difficult to grind such a material into a
powder, and even if you could make a kind of diorite concrete. I
imagine one would need to fire the pots in a kiln so that the
particles could re-fuse together to the same hardness. But what about
granite? How does one make granite concrete? Processes that involve
firing usually require the inside of the object be hollowed out
otherwise it will crack and fall apart, anyone who has ever done
ceramics knows this. The only other method that might work is some
form of internal heating process involving microwaves or ultrasound
carefully controlled using computers and technology very likely
beyond even what we have today and certainly not available to the
Ancient Egyptians.

It's an interesting idea but apart from an attempt to debunk the idea
that the Egyptians had power tools the author provides no supporting
evidence to show geopolymerization actually works or is a viable
explanation. She merely uses long words with no evidence to support
her argument.

In fact I'm pretty certain if one studied geopolymerization fully one
would discover the heat and pressure necessary to fuse some types of
rock together in that way would only be available to a highly
technologically advanced people. Actually similar theories have been
postulated about those Crystal skulls, but moulding and fusing quartz
in that way is AFAIK beyond current technology so if that is how it
was done, it would suggest they were made by a people with technology
far beyond our understanding.

It would have been nice if Margaret Morris actually had some
technical background in the field of which she goes on about,
and simply had more than 'researcher' to her credit.
Her confrontational debate attitude, I think is more offputting
than of help to her.

At least Christopher Dunn has more than that, to his credit - he
is more creditable with his theories because it is within his
area of expertise and knowledge that he talks about.

Well basically Margaret Morris is trying to debunk Christopher Dunn's ideas.
Like a lot of debunking articles though her article attempts to support an
established view so is lacking in supporting evidence since debunkers
practically always assume the established view is self evident and gives
their argument a weight simply because certain ideas are accepted in certain
established intellectual circles.

But if one is going to come up with an idea like geopolymerization. IOW the
Ancient Egyptians used to buy Instant stone in a box (just add water, build
your own pyramid with these simple instructions) from their local Wall-Mart,
like some sort of cake mix, I think there needs to be some actual evidence
(apart from modern concrete) that one can make proper stone in that way. I
guess it might be possible to make something that looks like limestone. But
granite is a different matter and I dare say diorite would require heat and
enormous amounts of pressure to form into pots, and of course one would need
to have it in a powdered form to make a kind of clay or concrete which could
be worked or moulded, that would require the ability to grind up the
materiel in the first place.

It's an interesting alternative theory but I don't think it works in support
of accepted theories in regard to technological time lines. In fact if one
were able to manipulate materials to the extent the article claims the
technology available to the Ancient Egyptians would be far beyond anything
we have today, because we are just using "primitive" steel reinforced
concrete and certainly couldn't make giant monumental statues out of
concrete without using steel reinforcement. So in some ways the article's
claims are so "off the planet" that it would suggest the Ancient Egyptians
must have had alien friends :)
-- 
Amanda