In news:Xns98196448E5350kiwilovesomewherenz@203.109.252.31,
Harvey@NZ <kiwilove@co.nz> typed:

"Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:ycHBg.3914$Cz6.1796@newsfe5-win.ntli.net:

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 :)

I don't think the poured concrete mix idea for building a pyramid
has any kind of logic to it. There is no sense to it, does not add up.
If the stone blocks have the tell tale signs they were quarried and
cut (looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, therefore is a duck) only
the method of cutting is in contention?
How does the poured technique work? Are the stones mashed up into
dust? then mixed, heated, etc? then poured into moulds - doesn't make
any sense to go that route - any type of builders wouldn't go the hard
route to end up with a product that looks like something else, ie.
cut. Geologists/scientists ought to be able to tell the difference
when scientific scrutiny is brought to bear on this.
And if she does have that evidence, the next thing to do is to
replicate their technique, which is the only way to prove 100% that it
works...

Well I imagine with extremely advanced technology if everything is
fundamentally energy one could design things in a kind of advanced AutoCAD
program and simply create it using special projectors powered by anti-matter
or something :) One could also replicate things atom for atom. Making
crystal skulls would be a doddle and one could have a wail of a time cloning
oneself but of course one could even create a whole designer planet on which
to live. :)

But I would doubt the ancient Egyptians had anything like that. :)

The whole thing about the Great Pyramid - is to realise that first
you have the original design and intention, of what it was used for.
Then you have it abandoned due to a cataclysm, then you have it reused
for a secondary purpose, in which the Egyptians used it for, and then
it probably further decorated/redecorated.
And looking at the Giza Plateau, you have to look at it this way.
Which were the original oldest buildings on the site? And then to add,
which came next and next?
It is said the Great Pyramid is 73,000 years old and there are
similiar ones in Mexico and China, covered up - which will be
uncovered soon? With knowing their general positions, I wonder if
someone can pinpoint exactly where they could be? Discovery of these
other identical pyramids would put to rest, that the Ancient Egyptians
built the Great Pyramid.

Well I suppose there is the other possibility whoever built the Pyramids
simply left. I suppose my theory above might sound a little far fetched. But
only because we artificially limit our horizons and what science might
achieve. Probably because we fear the responsibility of godhood. What if
there are no limits? :)

What if the Pyramids were a device for projecting energy in order to create
matter, This might explain why the Moon appears exactly the same size as the
Sun, there's no reason why it should be so. and of course it does look like
it was made of Concrete with a generous mix of Titanium Oxide :)  Need a
Pyramid give me the map coordinates and I'll press the button, you may
notice the whole national grid goes down for a few seconds ;)

Of course if that really were the order of the Universe, IOW technology can
feasibly manipulate and create Worlds and actually it's all a lot more
simple than we are lead to believe, then there is every possibility it has
already been done. The fact that the establishment works hard to limit our
horizons to prevent us from becoming gods, does actually make some sense,
and indeed this is mentioned in the book of Genesis when mankind was
expelled from the Garden of Eden. The Gods feared that we would have access
to the tree of life and become like them, so placed a flaming sword at the
gates of Eden. Of course Governments would have a vested interest in
covering all this up, since egomaniacal, all powerful gods don't do
democracy LOL :)

Obviously I am speculating here. But if there are no limits to evolution and
what we might achieve through science and technology, then godhood is our
destiny.

-- 
Amanda