Precision Cut Pyramids
It is hard to imagine exactly what the world was like, after the Flood. It is even harder to imagine how sedimentary rocks slowly, lithofied, into what they are today. Metamorphic rocks are sedimentary rocks, being pressurized and heated at the same time.After that process, are they lithofied completely or no?
I know we have seen 'wrinkle walls' in carved out mountain-sides, and possibly in the Grand Canyon, but I am not sure if they are ever metamorphic. Anyways, I have often wondered, if partially dried stones, were used to build the pyramids. Once set in place they would form to their surroundings over a period of time, b4 drying completely. This would explain the 'perfect fit', of these huge boulders, in many pyramids.
Is it possible for stone to be solid yet not as brittle as we think of today?.
Views: 19
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Justin on -
Not sure. I don't think they used partially dried stones as that would be pretty hard to mass manufacture in an oven like environment such as Egypt. For the stones to be a perfect fit you'd have to have a "perfect" chiseler.
-
Permalink Reply by Richard K on -
There wouldn't be a need to 'manufacture' or cook. They are not mud. But the point is that those seams would blend together as those huge rocks 'settled' over time, b4 the lithofication was complete.
No perfect chiseler necessary, is my point. :)
-
Permalink Reply by Terrance Egolf on -
Not well read on this topic, but if there were any evidence of compression that would close up a gap of, say, 1/4 in. per tier, then the pyramid (e.g., Khufu) would have settled as much as 36.5 in. (146.5 m high divided by 1 m per tier times 0.25 in. per tier).
Since careful surveys of the pyramid do not show any settling amounting to about a meter, it is more likely that the blocks were actually cut to the size and shape seen today.
-
Permalink Reply by Richard K on
-
Good point... That's why I like to ask stupid questions. :)
Terrance Egolf said:Not well read on this topic, but if there were any evidence of compression that would close up a gap of, say, 1/4 in. per tier, then the pyramid (e.g., Khufu) would have settled as much as 36.5 in. (146.5 m high divided by 1 m per tier times 0.25 in. per tier).
Since careful surveys of the pyramid do not show any settling amounting to about a meter, it is more likely that the blocks were actually cut to the size and shape seen today.
-
Permalink Reply by Terrance Egolf on
-
Richard,
I wrote "Not well read on this topic,..." I hope you realize I was referring to myself. lol
Terry
-
Permalink Reply by Kevin W Anderson on -
What if the stones were formed in place like concrete? A French scientist, Joseph Davidovits, has proposed this type of scenario for the construction of the pyramids. He also has evidence that the Egyptians had the knowledge and the capability to accomplish it. Check out this link, http://www.geopolymer.org/category/archaeology/pyramids
When I visited the pyramids several years ago, I noticed that the large blocks fit together exactly, but I also noticed that the stones had fossils that were visible were not cut through. If the blocks were quarried and cut as usual, there would be fossils that were cut through. It looks like the marine shell fossils were a part of the soft limestone that was used in the process and were left in the mix as aggregate. Dr. Davidovits has duplicated these results and also shows how other artifacts were formed that have defied even modern day technology to accomplish.
Just food for thought, we tend to think of ancient man as primitive and unintelligent, but the Romans constructed a concrete dome some 2000 years ago, that has yet to be out spanned.
-
Permalink Reply by Allen Roy on -
The Great Pyramid of Giza (and the others there) are made out of limestone. Limestone does not 'dry out'. It hardens through chemical processes that form a crystalline structure. In someways it is like concrete, but it is not concrete. The idea that the stones of the pyramid were cast in place has been proposed before, but is highly unlikely. First off, you can make concrete, but you cannot make limestone. Limestone is the result of the Flood and on such massive scale that you cannot get the ingredients to make the small blocks.
The quarries for all the limestones have been located with a few kilometers of the pyramids. This was done by matching the structures found in the blocks with the limestone layers of the region.
The stones were quarried and then moved by hand into position. The blocks at the bottom of the pyramid are massive (4 to 5 ft hight) , but the higher you get progressively smaller and smaller the blocks become. By the time you get to the top they are only some 20 inches thick. (they are still heavy, but not so much as those as the bottom).
Actually, the largest blocks in the pyramid are not limestones, but granite blocks that form the Kings chamber. They are some 30 by 10 by 10 feet and are quarried some 100 miles up the Nile. The had to be quarried, shaped, moved onto boats, shipped down the river, moved on to land and then drug up to the pyramid site.
-
Permalink Reply by Kevin W Anderson on
-
The blocks that were created using This type of fossil-shell limestone concrete would have been cast or packed into molds. Egyptian workmen went to outcrops of relatively soft limestone, disaggregated it with water, then mixed the muddy limestone (including the fossil-shells) with lime and tecto-alumino-silicate-forming materials (geosynthesis) such as kaolin clay, silt, and the Egyptian salt natron (sodium carbonate). The limestone mud was carried up by the bucketful and then poured, packed or rammed into molds (made of wood, stone, clay or brick) placed on the pyramid sides. This re-agglomerated limestone, bonded by geochemical reaction (called geopolymer cement), thus hardened into resistant blocks. When blocks were created using this technique they looked just like limestone. What caught my attention was the lack of fossils that were cut through.
Allen Roy said:The Great Pyramid of Giza (and the others there) are made out of limestone. Limestone does not 'dry out'. It hardens through chemical processes that form a crystalline structure. In someways it is like concrete, but it is not concrete. The idea that the stones of the pyramid were cast in place has been proposed before, but is highly unlikely. First off, you can make concrete, but you cannot make limestone. Limestone is the result of the Flood and on such massive scale that you cannot get the ingredients to make the small blocks.
The quarries for all the limestones have been located with a few kilometers of the pyramids. This was done by matching the structures found in the blocks with the limestone layers of the region.
The stones were quarried and then moved by hand into position. The blocks at the bottom of the pyramid are massive (4 to 5 ft hight) , but the higher you get progressively smaller and smaller the blocks become. By the time you get to the top they are only some 20 inches thick. (they are still heavy, but not so much as those as the bottom).
Actually, the largest blocks in the pyramid are not limestones, but granite blocks that form the Kings chamber. They are some 30 by 10 by 10 feet and are quarried some 100 miles up the Nile. The had to be quarried, shaped, moved onto boats, shipped down the river, moved on to land and then drug up to the pyramid site.
-
Permalink Reply by Richard K on
-
What do the quarries, look like today?
Allen Roy said:The Great Pyramid of Giza (and the others there) are made out of limestone. Limestone does not 'dry out'. It hardens through chemical processes that form a crystalline structure. In someways it is like concrete, but it is not concrete. The idea that the stones of the pyramid were cast in place has been proposed before, but is highly unlikely. First off, you can make concrete, but you cannot make limestone. Limestone is the result of the Flood and on such massive scale that you cannot get the ingredients to make the small blocks.
The quarries for all the limestones have been located with a few kilometers of the pyramids. This was done by matching the structures found in the blocks with the limestone layers of the region.
The stones were quarried and then moved by hand into position. The blocks at the bottom of the pyramid are massive (4 to 5 ft hight) , but the higher you get progressively smaller and smaller the blocks become. By the time you get to the top they are only some 20 inches thick. (they are still heavy, but not so much as those as the bottom).
Actually, the largest blocks in the pyramid are not limestones, but granite blocks that form the Kings chamber. They are some 30 by 10 by 10 feet and are quarried some 100 miles up the Nile. The had to be quarried, shaped, moved onto boats, shipped down the river, moved on to land and then drug up to the pyramid site.
-
Permalink Reply by Allen Roy on
-
I have a limestone rock I got from the redwall limestone that appears in Grand Canyon. ( I got it outside the NP at an old quarry). Fossils appear on it that are not "cut through" either. Acid rain water seeped down cracks in the limestone and etched the surfaces of the crack and exposed pristine fossils. Acid rain has been eating away at the surface of the exposed rocks of the Great Pyramid, also exposing pristine fossils. This is not unusual.
The fact that the inner blocks fit so well together is no surprise to rock masons. It does not take modern technology to shape, polish and move rocks with the accuracy shown in the pyramids. Just time and patience. It is 'scholars', who don't know anything about rock masonry, who are shocked at the accuracy. There was a PBS documentary a few years back which showed local Egyptian masons building a mini-pyramid using simple technology which showed all the "amazing" accuracy found in the great pyramid.
The thing that is amazing about the great pyramids of Giza is their size, not their construction.
The quarries were covered by desert sands for millennia, until a couple decades when ago archaeologists began moving sand in an area that appeared to be a quarry. Like most quarries, they are large holes in the ground with flat surfaces on the sides and bottom. Actually, most of the large stones that appears at the bottom layers were most likely quarried from a small hill that stood where the Great pyramid stands now. They are a different quality of limestone than the stones higher up in the pyramid. You can match the consistency, types of fossils, etc found in the building blocks to exposed walls in the quarries. The same layering found in the quarries are found in the blocks.
-
Permalink Reply by Francis M Russell on -
The building of the pyramids and other other ancient structures (including Noah's ark) tend to mystify and amaze modern scholars and scientists no end. Yet when we read the Bible we discover that our first and early ancestors such as Adam and Eve SEWED fig leaves (Gen3:7), Cain BUILT A CITY (Gen 4:17),Tubal-Cain FORGED a variety of BRONZE and IRON TOOLS (Gen:4:22). All these things were done while Adam and Eve were still alive, meaning within at least the first couple of hundred years after creation. These few examples show that man was created an intelligent being by God who obviously endowed man through Adam with intuitive skills to use the environment and its materials to his advantage.
So why the mystification and amazement among todays scientists? I suggest one of the major reasons is rooted in the teaching of evolution (should really be termed evil-ution) with it's ideas that we descended from a common ancestor with the apes and therefore man has progressed from tree-dwelling, to cave-dwelling, to modern self-made - shelter dwelling homo sapiens. According to evolutionary believing scientists and scholars man started out as stupid as the apes but evolved into a "thinking simian" and finally developed the intelligence to invent and discover technology etc.
I think we sometimes don't give the "ancients" - such as the pyramid-building Egyptians - the credit they deserve.
-
Permalink Reply by Allen Roy on
-
The lithification process of sediments into rock need not take very long. And it typically has nothing to do with 'drying out'. In limestones, the process is a chemical process that uses water for the chemical reactions to work. In sandstones, the cements are either calcium carbonate (the same stuff limestone is made of) or quartz. Both of these are water borne into the spaces between the sand grains. Again the bonding processes are chemical reactions. For quartz, the process involves the dissolved SiO2 in the water to bond with each other and the sand grains which are also mostly quartz. In a flood setting, water is already in the sand and lithification takes place right away. Naturalists like to believe that water had to slowly seep down through other layers in to desert sand deposits and slowly cement them together. Thats why we hear that it takes along time.
Mudstones are cemented by CaCo3 and SiO2 also. At least some are. Some are not cemented and as soon as they get wet they turn back to mud.
Metamorphism is a process that takes igneous and sedimentary rock and by high temperatures or high pressures or both, morphs existing mineral crystals into other mineral crystals. Metamorphic rocks typically contain minerals that volcanic or sedimentary rock do not and cannot contain. Throughout the entire metamorphic process the rock is fully lithified, it is a solid state transformation.
Since everything in rocks are mineral chemical reactions, the reactions can work either way in the equations. Which is why weathering destroys rock surfaces. Most of these reactions are stable only in high temp, high pressure environments. At the surface of the earth the environment for the minerals is unstable and they break down. However, the process is slow because there is typically a very high hump that the chemical reactions must get over before the reaction can work. That is why diamonds remain in the condition they are. However, throw diamonds into a fire and they turn to carbon.
Resources
© 2012 Created by Creation Conversations.
Powered by
