4 ms·

Nice to see geopolymers mentioned. Geopolymers are becoming more common around the world. They can be formulated from local materials and in many cases have s

Nice to see geopolymers mentioned. Geopolymers are becoming more common around the world. They can be formulated from local materials and in many cases have superior material properties to Portland cements. Joseph Davidovits of the Geoplymer Institute has been instrumental in the spread of his lifes work, geopolymers. Davidovits also claims that many ancient megalitic constructions were made using geopolymers which fits with stories of technologies that soften rocks. Geopolymer Institute is an amazing resource on the subject. https://geopolymer.org https://geopolymer.org Pyramids of geopolymer, https://youtu.be/znQk_yBHre4 https://youtu.be/znQk_yBHre4

BelenusMordred 5y ago
I've only ever heard it being called geocrete but looking further now that seems to be a portmanteau.
cptskippy 5y ago
> Geopolymer Institute is an amazing resource on the subject. https://geopolymer.org https://geopolymer.org I find it odd that so much of their front page and entire site is dedicated to defending the theory that the pyramids were made of man-made or re-agglometared stone. The hypothesis is mentioned in the Wikipedia article "Egyptian pyramid construction techniques"[0] under the hypothesis subsection but mostly dismissed: Dipayan Jana, a petrographer, made a presentation to the ICMA (International Cement Microscopy Association) in 2007[46] and gave a paper[47] in which he discusses Davidovits's and Barsoum's work and concludes "we are far from accepting even as a remote possibility a 'man-made' origin of pyramid stones." Apart from that, the only other references to the theory or institute are in the Pyramidology article subsection Ancient astronauts [1] which references an article by Joseph Davidovits of the Geopolymer Institute: Several proponents of ancient astronauts claim that the Great Pyramid of Giza was constructed by extraterrestrials, or influenced by them. Reading through all of this it comes off as fanciful and reminds me of reading those books about Ghosts, Bigfoot or Monsters in elementary school. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_construction_techniques#Limestone_concrete_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_construction_... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramidology#Ancient_astronauts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramidology#Ancient_astronaut...
- tastyfreeze 5y ago
  I would like to see independent corroborating analysis before accepting the hypothesis as fact. But re-agglomerated stone is a much simpler explanation than anything that has been posited so far. A little different but if you consider that geopolymers were known to the ancients the schist disk is less mysterious as well. One of the applications Davidovits sells is high temperature geopolymer composite parts. The parts are stone in shapes that would be impossible to carve or make in any other way. https://www.materialstoday.com/polymers-soft-materials/features/reinforced-geopolymer-composites-a-critical-review/ https://www.materialstoday.com/polymers-soft-materials/featu...
  - cptskippy 5y ago
    I'm not discounting geopolymers as a viable technology, I just think dedicating the majority of your site to defending a hypothesis instead of promoting your technology is odd. Also it seems like it would be pretty simple to prove or disprove the hypothesis scientifically but no one seems to care enough to try, which doesn't speak to it's credibility. Instead they argue about the provenance of samples analyzed 40 years ago and subsequently destroyed.

BelenusMordred 5y ago

I've only ever heard it being called geocrete but looking further now that seems to be a portmanteau.

cptskippy 5y ago

> Geopolymer Institute is an amazing resource on the subject. https://geopolymer.org https://geopolymer.org I find it odd that so much of their front page and entire site is dedicated to defending the theory that the pyramids were made of man-made or re-agglometared stone. The hypothesis is mentioned in the Wikipedia article "Egyptian pyramid construction techniques"[0] under the hypothesis subsection but mostly dismissed: Dipayan Jana, a petrographer, made a presentation to the ICMA (International Cement Microscopy Association) in 2007[46] and gave a paper[47] in which he discusses Davidovits's and Barsoum's work and concludes "we are far from accepting even as a remote possibility a 'man-made' origin of pyramid stones." Apart from that, the only other references to the theory or institute are in the Pyramidology article subsection Ancient astronauts [1] which references an article by Joseph Davidovits of the Geopolymer Institute: Several proponents of ancient astronauts claim that the Great Pyramid of Giza was constructed by extraterrestrials, or influenced by them. Reading through all of this it comes off as fanciful and reminds me of reading those books about Ghosts, Bigfoot or Monsters in elementary school. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_construction_techniques#Limestone_concrete_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_construction_... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramidology#Ancient_astronauts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramidology#Ancient_astronaut...

tastyfreeze 5y ago
I would like to see independent corroborating analysis before accepting the hypothesis as fact. But re-agglomerated stone is a much simpler explanation than anything that has been posited so far. A little different but if you consider that geopolymers were known to the ancients the schist disk is less mysterious as well. One of the applications Davidovits sells is high temperature geopolymer composite parts. The parts are stone in shapes that would be impossible to carve or make in any other way. https://www.materialstoday.com/polymers-soft-materials/features/reinforced-geopolymer-composites-a-critical-review/ https://www.materialstoday.com/polymers-soft-materials/featu...
- cptskippy 5y ago
  I'm not discounting geopolymers as a viable technology, I just think dedicating the majority of your site to defending a hypothesis instead of promoting your technology is odd. Also it seems like it would be pretty simple to prove or disprove the hypothesis scientifically but no one seems to care enough to try, which doesn't speak to it's credibility. Instead they argue about the provenance of samples analyzed 40 years ago and subsequently destroyed.