4 ms·

"cement" is just the beginning of a more fascinating journey into the work of Joseph Davidovits. I encourage anyone interested in this to read his books, includ

"cement" is just the beginning of a more fascinating journey into the work of Joseph Davidovits. I encourage anyone interested in this to read his books, including "The Pyramids: An Enigma Solved" and "Why the Pharaohs Built the Pyramids with Fake Stones". This isn't a crank theory. He has patents on the process, which ironically, could have been declined on the basis of "prior art", but since no one believed him, he has the patents. One can buy kits of everything needed to mix up personal batches and independently confirm his chemistry. https://www.amazon.com/Pharaohs-Built-Pyramids-Fake-Stones/dp/2951482043/ https://www.amazon.com/Pharaohs-Built-Pyramids-Fake-Stones/d... https://www.amazon.com/Pyramids-Enigma-Solved-Joseph-Davidovits/dp/0880295554 https://www.amazon.com/Pyramids-Enigma-Solved-Joseph-Davidov... https://www.davidovits.info/book-why-the-pharaohs-built-the-pyramids-with-fake-stones/ https://www.davidovits.info/book-why-the-pharaohs-built-the-...

war1025 7y ago
Don't know whether this is crank science or not, but it certainly seems like an intriguing theory.
jedimastert 7y ago
I do love the theory, and the elevator pitch makes a lot of sense. Unfortuantely I don't have the bandwidth to really dive into it like I'd like to, but I did find what seems to be a paper disputing his claims[0]. Below is the abstract (emphasis my own): > Since 1974 Joseph Davidovits, a French concrete chemist, has been proposing that the pyramids and temples of Old Kingdom Egypt were built of geopolymer “concrete” poured into molds, rather than quarried blocks of limestone. We use geological evidence and engineering principles to demonstrate the flaws in this daring hypothesis. Pyramid and temple blocks show sedimentary bedding, burrows, and optical and SEM-scale properties characteristic of normal microporous limestones, and they are cut by tectonic fractures. Block dimensions and shapes are not likely to be the product of pouring into wooden molds, and some blocks show quarrying marks. It is not easy to give a geological education to a brilliant and determined chemist. [0]: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.5408/0022-1368-40.1.25?journalCode=ujge19& https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.5408/0022-1368-40.1.2...
throwaway5752 7y ago
I found this persuasive: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.5408/0022-1368-40.1.25 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.5408/0022-1368-40.1.2... (Journal of Geological Education, Volume 40, 1992 - Issue 1), "Are the Pyramids of Egypt Built of Poured Concrete Blocks?" "Since 1974 Joseph Davidovits, a French concrete chemist, has been proposing that the pyramids and temples of Old Kingdom Egypt were built of geopolymer “concrete” poured into molds, rather than quarried blocks of limestone. We use geological evidence and engineering principles to demonstrate the flaws in this daring hypothesis. Pyramid and temple blocks show sedimentary bedding, burrows, and optical and SEM-scale properties characteristic of normal microporous limestones, and they are cut by tectonic fractures. Block dimensions and shapes are not likely to be the product of pouring into wooden molds, and some blocks show quarrying marks. It is not easy to give a geological education to a brilliant and determined chemist."

war1025 7y ago

Don't know whether this is crank science or not, but it certainly seems like an intriguing theory.

jedimastert 7y ago

I do love the theory, and the elevator pitch makes a lot of sense. Unfortuantely I don't have the bandwidth to really dive into it like I'd like to, but I did find what seems to be a paper disputing his claims[0]. Below is the abstract (emphasis my own): > Since 1974 Joseph Davidovits, a French concrete chemist, has been proposing that the pyramids and temples of Old Kingdom Egypt were built of geopolymer “concrete” poured into molds, rather than quarried blocks of limestone. We use geological evidence and engineering principles to demonstrate the flaws in this daring hypothesis. Pyramid and temple blocks show sedimentary bedding, burrows, and optical and SEM-scale properties characteristic of normal microporous limestones, and they are cut by tectonic fractures. Block dimensions and shapes are not likely to be the product of pouring into wooden molds, and some blocks show quarrying marks. It is not easy to give a geological education to a brilliant and determined chemist. [0]: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.5408/0022-1368-40.1.25?journalCode=ujge19& https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.5408/0022-1368-40.1.2...

throwaway5752 7y ago

I found this persuasive: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.5408/0022-1368-40.1.25 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.5408/0022-1368-40.1.2... (Journal of Geological Education, Volume 40, 1992 - Issue 1), "Are the Pyramids of Egypt Built of Poured Concrete Blocks?" "Since 1974 Joseph Davidovits, a French concrete chemist, has been proposing that the pyramids and temples of Old Kingdom Egypt were built of geopolymer “concrete” poured into molds, rather than quarried blocks of limestone. We use geological evidence and engineering principles to demonstrate the flaws in this daring hypothesis. Pyramid and temple blocks show sedimentary bedding, burrows, and optical and SEM-scale properties characteristic of normal microporous limestones, and they are cut by tectonic fractures. Block dimensions and shapes are not likely to be the product of pouring into wooden molds, and some blocks show quarrying marks. It is not easy to give a geological education to a brilliant and determined chemist."