The Surprisingly Plausible Theory that the Pyramids were Poured from Ancient Concrete
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 тра 2024
- Get 50% off your first month of any KiwiCo subscription! KiwiCo.com/TIFO
→Some of our favorites: • Featured
→Subscribe for new videos every day!
ua-cam.com/users/TodayIFo...
This video is #sponsored by KiwiCo.
Sources:
Berninger, Sheila & Rose, Dorilona, The Surprising Truth About How the Great Pyramids were Built, Live Science, May 18, 2007, www.livescience.com/1554-surp...
Jana, Dipayan, The Great Pyramid Debate, Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Conference on Cement Microscopy, Quebec City, PQ, Canada, May 20-24, 2007, nebula.wsimg.com/1b249a805d9a5...
Category: Pyramids, The Geopolymer Institute, www.geopolymer.org/archaeolog...
Davidovits, Joseph, They Built the Pyramids, Geopolymer Institute, May 2008
Harnell, James & Storemyr, Per, Ancient Egyptian Quarries - an Illustrated Overview, Geological Survey of Norway, 2009, www.ngu.no/upload/Publikasjon...
Engineering the Pyramids Special Projects, Drexel University College of Engineering, drexel.edu/engineering/academ...
Get 50% off your first month of any KiwiCo subscription! KiwiCo.com/TIFO
WHERE DO I KNOW THIS GUYS VOICE FROM??!?
I’m sorry this was so intriguing
Coming from business blaze, this seems so strange. Where is the death?
Why does your basement have windows simon?
Dearest Simon,
I love to watch your presentations. Yes, our neighbors (coughs, excuse me, neighbours) to our north may complain a tad about you, however, they also claim to have the better beer, though, that would be best saved for another letter and presentation...Simon presenting the five best beers of the Three North America Countries. A Simon Whistler and Irish People Try combination.
but, I digress
I love when you get one quarter to one third into a presentation and mumble, something to the effect, I need to pre-read these. I would like to air quote every history program that I have watched on UA-cam and cable (specifically History Channel) 'the stone and poured concrete will last centuries, if not millennia.' That being said, why do the humans that inhabit the earth presently believe they are the only ones that were capable of the generation of electricity.
I was watching a presentation of Aramu Muru, located near lake Titicaca. It was described as being two things, 1) odd that a tribe could transport stones weighing countless tonnes (I believe that is the proper term for a metric ton) hundreds of miles over rocky and steep cliffs, making the transport difficult, if not seemingly impossible. And 2) why and how was there a lake next to Aramu Muru that molecularly the same combination of sand as what the rocks that made up the Aramu Muru, and essentially the same size as the final effort of the rocks that make up the Aramu Muru.
Another item that all the history programmes I have watched drilled into my head was that metals (iron, copper, etc) corrode over time.
For some reason, these channels and presentations limit the abilities of the individuals constructing the items they are talking about; The Pyramids, the stone structure at Aramu Muru, etc.
I guess I am using the Occam's razor theory. One of the presentations of the Aramu Muru panned the whole village that made up the mountain village in Peru. It showed a room about 10 foot high, 11 foot deep, 11.5 to 12 foot across. In fact, it showed two of them next to each other. The rooms are often looked at and given question as to their purpose. I paused it and looked up induction furnaces from the 1929 period, and, OMG, they looked very similar. Too similar in ways. Why is it so hard for people to consider the idea that people from that time, an estimated between 700 AD to pre-3000 years ago, and further back, were in fact advanced enough to have electricity and to make a heating system that utilized the induction furnace, or just understood how to generate enough heat to melt said substances. Life Without Humans, a really interesting program series from The History Channel, shows how most items that are iron go into a crumbled pile of iron oxide after five to nine centuries of nonuse and exposure. And who says the bowls used for the furnaces corroded? Maybe they were transported and used again, leaving behind the parts of the procedure that have the least impact on production. It was hot enough to melt steel in the 1920s, it could be hot enough to melt the sand that was poured into moulds to make the Aramu Muru and Pyramids. If glazed pottery existed in that time period and both melted steel (1510c melting point) existed and glass (sand melts at 1700c) existed, why would it be so difficult for the sand in both to have been melted, then poured into place?
I would also like to bring up a point that, when studying the pyramids, researches found oval bubbles that they couldn't explain. Small, rice shaped, bubbles that were present when the melting of sand to recreate rock were similar to the small bubbles found in the rocks in the pyramids. Sorry, but, that is a huge "bang one's head against the wall until your theory fits with what happened" rather than looking at the theory presented and the end results. I love how scientists refuse to take suggestions, no matter how plainly or politely presented.
Thanks for this, btw, I am enjoying it.
The fact that the Ancient Egyptians were as old to the Ancient Greeks as the Ancient Greeks are to us is mind blowing.
That's actually pretty insane to think about.
And there are some civilisations that make them look modern. EG the egyptiand were around 4000 years ago. The civilisation that resulted in Jericho? 11,000. Also if you are talking about the Greeks. Which Greeks do you mean? Classical or Ancient? The Ancient Greek civilisation collapsed with the Bronze Age Collapse in 1173BC. The "Greek" civilisation before them was 7000 years old.
Almost. Alexander the Great died 2343 years ago. The Old Kingdom of Egypt collapsed around 1800 years before Alexander. Still pretty unfathomable timescales.
Cleopatra was born closer to the invention of the Instagram than to the construction of the pyramids.
@James Smythe Except of course the evidence that shows them older does not take into account the higher water table 4000 years ago,
People tend to forget that humans living 4000 years ago were the same humans as living today. They had their own geniuses like Einstein or Tesla. People whose curiosity matched intelligence. People capable of discovering brilliant solutions to problems. They weren't monkeys. Those were intelligent, thinking humans, just without the gift of 4000 years of accumulating knowledge and technology.
Yes, but their achievements are impressive given the fact that so much of their time and energy went into not starving. Einstein wouldn't have published his theories if he had to spend 16 hours a day farming.
Lets not forget that Ancient Egyptian Priests where defiantly the world class scientists of their day. Pythagoras spent decades there studying.
Probably yes, propably not. 4000 years is a long time and many could happened to cognitive abillities, intelligence and creativity of averege people .
@@neurodegenerat5221 the introduction of the color blue into language is a very interesting topic on the idea of the changing mind.
@@neurodegenerat5221 today, so many minds are not challenged, we have computers, calculators, and of course Google... how many people under 40 do you know that can properly make and count back change without a computer telling them what the change should be?
"To suggest otherwise is idiotic and insulting" (8:50)
How would it be an insult to suggest Egyptians used brains over brawns in order to build these magnificent structures? Their ingenuity and dedication remains as commendable.
Hawaz and people with similar goals and agendas dismiss the theory for two obvious reasons:
1. they desperately want the pyramids to be of Egyptian origin so they get the credit for building them;
2. their ancestors are responsible for the partial destruction of the pyramid's outer layers which were used to construct buildings in Cairo.
Lesson one in the act of lies and deceit is by praising yourself and by always putting the blame on someone else.
@@SCEPSIS-zw9wv or just so they can milt an crazy amount of money from visitors by foreshadowing an idea that pyramids were build by aliens or superior knowledge of ancient Egyptians
Because when you think about it there is just "concrete"
Nothing is mysterious and magical anymore and doesnt attrack visitor
@@kristialb2680 its not concrete its limestone and the limestone decay on the sphinx proved that it wasn’t only a few thousand years old its in fact 12 thousand years old at the least. Also all methods we’ve tried simulating that they could have used to build them are all false or they just wanted to absolutely build these pyramids despite how fucking tedious and back breaking it would be EVEN for the slaves. They’d all die before the whole thing is finished so they either cycled them out group by groups or they just tryna find a way to explain the pyramids that make sense and fit the narrative of how school taught us how they were built and how the government wants us to be limited on our knowledge of human history for some fucked up reason. They want you guys to be dumb and you all clearly are misguided . Well not all but most
Dont insult
UA-cam tells me there are 4 comments yet I only see one
8:45 That Egyptian guy said that believing cement was used was "idiotic and insulting", but gives no explanation why. He is the one being idiotic and insulting. He is probably against the idea because maybe he fears it'll take some of the mystique away, and somehow hurt tourism.
He did give solid reasons they just didn't show it here
Tourism was what came to mind first to me as well.
The real reason is that the blocks were not poured and were cut and quarried. We have proof of this through geological chemical composition testing.
@@brando8248 only for the granit portions, everything else that mainstream science uses comes from Egyptian scientists that haven't changed their stance in like 70 years . All tests are done by them otherwise it's illegal by Egyptian law for along time now.
@@brando8248 also givin human error the pyramids would be crooked in one way or another no matter how perfect the craftsman. Now multiply that by 10000s of craftsman that built the pyramids. The human error would be exponentially impossible not to happen without a mold to make things far more perfect. Even if they cut the stone from the quarrys they would lose shape being moved so far, so possibly maybe the concrete was added to the outside of these cut stones to make them more perfect, or they were just made to perfection sometimes when it couldn't be cutt perfectly
They probably put the quarried stone down and were like, "jesus man, that shit was ridiculous, and the aliens aren't returning our phone calls. There's got to be a better way to do this."
I loved the jesus part
Why should we return their calls? Do humans help chimpanzees pile rocks? No. Why should we?
😂😂😂😂
then it would be "wait, who the fuck is jesus?"
Aliens skipped their shift to pop a few crop circles ;)
Thought i clicked the wrong video and almost clicked away before realizing rhat Simon was indeed hosting.
He is Simon's podcast partner. 🖖
Hes the owner/writer of every video.
His audio is astonishingly bad.
Daven usually just writes the videos I guess this time he did the sponsor ship part
@@RinnzuRosendale owner? Very cringe
I originally found this theory in a 3.5 hour documentary on UA-cam titled "The Great K Pyramid," or something like that. I then ordered Davidovitts' book "Why the Pharaohs Built the Pyramids with Fake Stones." Great read. Not only does he break down the chemical aspect, but analyzes from mythological standpoints as well. Hieroglyphics were considered as well, as it's unknown whether or not each symbol had one or a variety of meanings. Perhaps the best evidence in my mind was his recreation of various sized blocks using custom wooden moulds. Upon filling the moulds one of the larger moulds began to leak, leaving a distinct crack in the corner. After concluding his experiment he found similar cracks on similar stones found on the Khufu pyramid. I am sold on Davidovitts' theory, but as for the granite I'm unsure for now.
Agree. Cement for the stones. Yes.
How did they mould/shape the granite? No idea. I’m still thinking about it.
The same video mentions solar lenses, and I’m really sold on that idea.
A big flaw in the theory is that the interior blocks are all different sizes, if poured they would have varied little.
@@knight2255 Not at all, you just keep boarding it up and keep pouring on top, you can see the similar shapes they used on walls, the more you interlock the blocks differently, the stronger it is. Pyramids, you just keep them a similar shape, self leveling and just finish them precisely at the corners.
@@producermind9030 Davidovits has his own video on the pyramid on youtube "Building the Pyramids of Egypt with Artificial Stones" his explanation for real looking granite is that it's real granite from a quarry.
Some dismiss his theory based on the assumption that his claim is all material is reaglomoraeted, ignoring that this is not what he is saying.
@knight2255
perfect precision is only necessary for the outer layer if you want the smooth surface that was intended, filling up everything else with less precision makes sense as it's simply unnecessary from a builders perspective. An indication if random artificial and random natural shapes could be possible based on the precision of the seams, but I have so far not seen data on this.
While Davidovitz's hypothesis is intriguing it, along with others as you noted, suffers from significant weaknesses. 1) While the blocks may be "compositionally identical" to the local limestone (he suggests this as evidence of the raw material) this fails to eliminate that the blocks were actually quarried from this material.
2) Opal is a component of both the local limestone and the blocks. Crushing the limestone and casting it into blocks would not only crush the opal, but the cast blocks would be dissociated from the groundwater geochemical conditions necessary to form "new" opal, so this would need to be explained.
3) The native limestone is full of a one-cell, marine fossil Foraminifera called Numulites, which produced a flat, coiled shell ranging in size from a small button to a half dollar. These lived in seas 55-35 million years ago. Numulitic limestone comprises most of the blocks in the pyramids. Although Numulites are large, being composed of calcium carbonate, they are not hard, and would be readily crushed by the grinding process needed to make cement. They are intact in the pyramids' blocks by the millions.
4) Petrographic thin sections (slices of rock glued to microscope slides and ground so thin polarized light will pass through) made from pieces of pyramid rock show intact microtextures that require varying pore-water chemistries to form. These would not develop from a single pour and subsequent exposure to meteoric water. (Oil companies did extensive exploration on the Giza Plateau back in the 1950's).
5) The compelling presence of granite was rather dismissed as "only constituting a small percent of the rock in the pyramid". While true, being a very hard, intrusive igneous rock having large, intact crystals, is incapable of being crushed and cast. The Egyptians' ability to quarry it would make working with the soft Numulitic limestone easy.
Davidowitz poses interesting questions but he should have consulted a Geologist with experience in carbonate petrography (absolutely NOT Scott Wother) before he's published. Had he done so, he would have seen why his hypothesis is untenable.
BTW, I have a PhD in Geology/Geophysics and considerable experience in Petrography.
Your comment is full of holes
I can't writing that much, have 1 example.
You say in 5, about water pores not being formed in x....
What if they made the pyramid like bunkers
Multiple layered pours for single blocks, making it stronger
Like there's more too
Can't be bothered writing that mucn
It's weird how so many people seem to be interpreting this ancient concrete theory as a suggestion the Great Pyramids somehow aren't an amazing achievement.
Once you find out about Tartaria & The Mud Floods Etc all of this starts to make complete sense, the people that built these structures & buildings harvesting electricity from the Ether, NOT by slaves and low IQ ancient people but by highly advanced humans that we're not told about and this history is hidden and we get lies hinting towards some Aliens, the Reality is the Tartarian Empire and using free energy.
We are living in a more barbaric dirty electrical society the ancient people did not.
Research this truth, we also don't live on a Globe in Infinite space but thats another Truth for your soul to seek.
@@Carmichael_ lmao wtf did i just read
@@Carmichael_ what's you're research, because there's a few basic things you can do to observe the curvature of the earth, additionally you can't have free energy, there's a limited (yes astronomical, but still limited) amount of energy we have access too, think about rolling a ball down a hill, it takes more effort to get the ball to the top, than the ball rolling down generates
Additionally if they were that advanced it would have Been recorded, if not by the people's (I highly doubt that, recording is a common human trait) then explorers would have recorded it, yall seem to forget that archeologists just really like dusty old rocks, and old human remains they aren't some super level conspirists
Plot Twist: It is Ancient Concrete... *MADE BY "ANCIENT ALIENS"!!!*
@@Carmichael_ Bullshit. These kinds of conspiracy theories are just as damaging as the Ancient Aliens garbage, and just as ludicrous. You are talking about Atlantis levels of bullshit. Ancient people didn't use electricity "pulled from the Ether," whatever that means.
I love how angry the egyptologists got at people doing actual science .
They hate it when they are challenged with science and facts because it erodes their thin Veneer of bullshit.
Actually they have good reason to argue against it since some of the blocks used still have the points where they were snapped off at the quarry. They are unfinished and definate proof that at least some of them were quarried. I am not arguing against the concrete idea i am just pointing out that their counter argument has merit and i am sure they have more reasons than just that 1 that i know of.
@@mattking993 maybe they were poured oversize and cut to final size?
@@mattking993 I'm assuming you are talking about the blocks found at the quarry. This could just as easily be written off as them breaking the blocks off for transportation to the processing plant so long as the "concrete" blocks are not missing ingredients that the mined blocks contain. You can add things to concrete but you can't remove .
The reason you would mine blocks and process them elsewhere is to keep your mine clear for mining.
Of course cause once the mystery is solved so is the sum of their profits.
Offended native: "No, my ancestors weren't some genius chemical engineers and inventors. They were OOK OOK ME CUT BIG ROCK"
Weird flex, but ok
So, that makes way more sense than any other theories I’ve heard and it’s probably what accounts for the appearance of erosion on the surface of the blocks. There was a guy on JRE that was ruffling the feathers of Egyptologists with his geological findings, that showed surface erosion consistent with it being rained on for quite a long time period. The problem with that is that it would’ve meant that the pyramids were far older than we had originally thought, by tens of thousands of years-and I’m not willing to dismiss his observations because the timeframe makes it implausible. It just means that there’s another reason it would look like it does today, and I’d bet that if you compared the erosion patterns of Limestone concrete blocks to cut Limestone, I’d bet that the concrete blocks would probably appear more eroded than not.
In any case, if I were betting on any of these theories, I’d want my money on this one.
That was the Sphinx, not the pyramids.
@@MrEazyE357 it is possible the site is much older than the sphinx itself. Its a great theory and would be awesome if true though. Its not unknown for significant religous/holy/worship sights being used for a very long time for many things.
There are fossils in some of the blocks. I struggle to understand how a fossil could survive being ground up. So i'm leaning towards a lost technology / technique. Or they found the pyramids.
"The theory is idiotic and insulting."
He said without any sense of irony.
gutspraygore Zahi Hawass is a bastard. Don't listen to him. He has no credibility
Yes, I wondered why he thinks it is insulting. The theory basically says the Egyptians invented concrete. Insulting..?
@Max Powers That's a common problem, a lot of "experts" DON'T know what they're talking about in a great many fields, and rely upon others just knowing a little bit less.
@@LeoH3L1 Being an "Expert" just means that person has mastered the accepted "truths" about the subject matter. Anything that challenges the accepted truths will of course confound such a person.
Zahi Hawass loves his rocks... I guess that's why he's so dense. Huehuehue... don't SHOOT ME!!!
I’m still stuck on how and why the invention of ancient concrete that lasts 7000+ years is “insulting.” 🤦🏻♂️
Exactly! If anything it's a more intelligent and elegant solution than brute-forcing the construction with quarried blocks.
Because it's plausible and relatively easy. It suggests that ancient Egyptians were in fact NOT capable of superhuman feats, but just very resourceful. People don't like it when you expose the man behind the curtain.
Well, modern concrete is only expected to stay sound for 200 to 300 years. So accepting that an ancient concrete would last thousands is hard for modern engineers to swallow. This despite the fact Roman concrete 2,000 plus years old has been found still intact.
@@bluelionsage99 That said I think I read/heard somewhere that the recipe for roman concrete was rediscovered recently, maybe we'll be making a return to form on long-lasting concrete structures
@@bluelionsage99 It seems that in the case of the pyramids, it was not so much ancient concrete but a method to reconstitute crushed limestone back into solid stone blocks. The aggregate and the cement are one in the same thing, unlike concrete where the aggregate is a separate material bound by the cement.
Scientist: "These ancient Egyptians are so smart they figured out a way to turn limestone into concrete much better than we would have ever imagined! How brilliant of them!"
Prime minister:"no dummy they cut and carry rocks in big way we no get, don't be stupid and make them seem dumb. Old Egypt big smart, cut and carry heavy rock not pour and mix"
@@GryffieTube evidence helps tho, which he has. Also either way my point was this guy made the Egyptians seem waaaay smarter than we already thought, if anything it should be taken as a complement even if wrong, it's better than "oh they couldn't do this, must've had help"
@@GryffieTube "The point - over your head" Smiley wasn't arguing the techniques he was simply stating machoism vs intellect and the disregard to further investigate any possibilities. Seems pretty anti-scientistic on your part, I mean what part of "chemical analysis found both samples to be identical" doesn't make sense?
No. Do not misrepresent the situation pls. For the love of God. Stop that.
1) Your comment starts of with turning an assumption into a fact. That is the first misrepresentation.
2) The second is that the assumption does not even match the unproven theory pushed forward by the chemist.
3) The third one is to assume that not pouring concrete limeblocks dimishes the intelligence of the people from the Old Kingdom, or that anyone else would think like that as a result.
4) The fourth misrepresentation is the insinuation that pouring concrete would be easier to cutting/moving the stone, ignoring the time to dry/harden and the necessary resources, and how this would change logistics.
5) The fifth misrepresentation is the total disregard of the evidence for cutting/moving stoneblocks, which is a lot to ignore. You can not just ignore that.
- A quarry near the pyramids with the same type of stone
- The Merer papyri... Locations of other quarries...
- difference in quality of limestone within quarries and between quarries (nearby pyramid and Tura f.e.)
- Evidence of cutting marks..
- No evidence of these moulds while there is plenty of evidence of boats and sleds...
- Absence of locations of concretemaking practises (descriptions, risidue, moulds,...) and you would think you would find at least traces of that when considering the amount of "limestonebricks" that would have to be made?
-...
The reality, wether some people like it or not, is that there is way more evidence for the cutting/moving of stoneblocks than there is for the pouring theory.
6) I'd just like to add the difference between saying someone is dumb or saying a theory is dumb. Looks like a small difference, but it is in fact a big difference and an important nuance to make. In action you could make a dumb move, but that doesn't guarantee the person is dumb too. It's also the difference of going personal or not. = creating conflict or creating space to discuss respectfully.
We also have to understand that not everyone knows as much of one thing as someone else does and vice versa. A chemist is not a geologist or an egyptologist and vice versa. They can come together however to discuss their findings. That said, and altho Zahi Hawass is understandably very "careful" with hypes, diplomacy and preservation of the pyramids, I would not mind if this chemist - who's not a geologist - was permitted to conduct more research in the manner of gathering more samples (which are limited in his current research).
I will make a small confession tho, I do think Zahi Hawass likes to be the authority on the pyramids... If that is the real reason why he would be careful with invasive research done to the pyramids, I would not be so sure about that.
Erosion might be the most powerful evidence to prove that the pyramid stones were poured cement concrete. First, erosion is happening almost universally to all the pyramid stones coming to our eyes. Secondly, the erosion on some megaliths revealed a crumb within the megaliths' crust. The crumb was made up with bricks of different sizes and colours. Thirdly, no similar erosion is happening to any other stones in other places than the pyramid complex such as the alleged quarry site in Aswan. Fourth, erosion can also be used to prove the granites to be poured cement concrete because many granite blocks have lost half of their original mass.
it was a power plant
So in other words. The Pyramids weren’t by stones. Its all cement with a mixture of other things. Because if were stones, it would not erode?
Where exactly are these granite blocks that have lost half of their weight located? Because the great pyramid only has granite on the INSIDE, so how could it possibly have eroded, from the inside, to such a degree that it lost half of its weight?
What you say makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever. How can something possibly erode from the INSIDE OUT? Moreover, granite is a conglomerate igneous rock. If a rock is igneous in origin, it’s very easy to tell the difference from non-igneous rocks.
Regarding your erosion at Aswan, again, where, exactly, are you supposedly checking to see that no other similar erosion has taken place? Aswan is a QUARRY, not a monument. Therefore, none of the stone FROM Aswan is just laid out in the open to weather for thousands of years, so how could you have any clue whether it has eroded to the same degree?
Your claims are just bullshit with zero evidence and zero scientific basis. Just because you have a dream and write it down doesn’t make it true.
@@aaronperelmuter8433 : The granite blocks that have eroded to half of their original size can be seen in this video: ua-cam.com/video/EaQr917lRgI/v-deo.html.
When you open it, you just fast forward to 19:29 and pause or stop there.
@@aaronperelmuter8433 ： Were you convinced?
"would have required so many trees that egypt would have been deforested"
well... not a lot of forests there these days...
The trees came from Lebanon and had nothing to do with pyramid building.
@@greybone777 at one point there were likely forests there tho... and now there aren't... could just have been massive sloths eating them, or pyramids.
@@greybone777 Correct. They were used among other things to peel plywood to make forms, aka molds for the pour. Anybody of a certain age living around Puget Sound is familiar with log booms. Floating a bunch of logs from Lebanon to the Nile would not be a problem. In fact, it would be a jolly pleasant ride.
Unless they were built earlier than we expect it was. It was basically a damn rainforest until the end of the last ice age.
@@henryhewitt1571 floating all those logs across the sea, wow
Idk, seems like pretty concrete evidence to me.
🥁 Ba dum tts🏆
@Pimp Jerk fr definitely top underrated comment of the year
Oh, Be'have !
I agree. It makes absolute sense.
Umm you just have to look at the left over obelisks still embeded in the quarrys to know that they were not using cement of any kind.
This guy clearly watched " Pyramid 4k 2019"..... The guy who made that video is a champion. 3 hours of greatness.
I’ve linked this video in other videos about the “spooky incredible mystery of magically crazy building of the Egyptian aliens”. Thank you for covering this. It’s amazing work they did, beautiful, and obviously shockingly high-quality, lasting so long! Facts are way more satisfying than guesses.
Any "scientist" who immediately disregards a theory is not a scientist.
They also call it a "hypothesis" not a "theory".
@Max Powers I think they can keep using theory. My biologist ( PHD ) girlfriend always corrected me.
Not changing the definition does pose a problem though. Lay people will think they understand the words scientists are using, but wont.
In that sense, scientist coming up with new code words that people have no clue what they means could be for the better.
But... I've been in a room full of material
scientists. And they weren't talking in code and they were still pretty intelligible to me.
Now I know why my ex's didn't like going to programmer parties with me.
The "literally" == "figuratively" thing annoys me. It represents a dulling down of the accuracy language. And English is already imprecise enough.
And why I say "imprecise" I actually mean "inaccurate" if that is even a word.
Unless they have compelling evidence that the theory is completely batshit stupid. There are fossils in the pyramids. They are not cement, they are 100% quarried.
@@kevinslater4126
If the limestone used to make the cement has fossils, then there would be fossils in the cement.
Well, there's an extent to that. Some theory's are just plain dumb and you can very easily dismiss them. The infinite Hitler theory is a good example of this
Even if it was pored concrete, it is still an amazing feat of engineering that modern society should strive for. Where I live we can't get a patch of road concrete to last a winter.
Winters in Egypt are a real killer. Sometimes you get up to .01 inches of snow!
"And Pharaoh said to his people: “I have not known a god for you other than myself; so Haman, light me a fire to bake clay so that I could build a rise high enough, maybe I see Moses’ god whom I think is a liar.”
[Quran 28.38]
How could an illiterate man who lived 1400 years ago have known that those uppermost blocks were made from baked clay? (Ancient Concrete) How did he know the Pyramids at all were of such great height?
Hate to break it to you, but limestone wouldn't hold up in winters either.
@@naeemkashmir722
Clay is nothing like concrete made out of limestone. You could just as well say that clay and modern concrete are the same.
Besides, some of Muhammed's companion were very litterate, like Harith ibn Kalada, who studied medicine at a school named Jundishapur.
@@Zift_Ylrhavic_Resfear its not the same as modern cincrere but it has comcrete strength. There are many studies to show this. Its acknowledged by western sources. Pls research rather than being blind.
Hhaha do you know what the houses were made of in arabia during the 7th century? They were not made of concrete lol so what ie your point? Why would anyone in the middle of a desert in 7th century Arabia care about Egypt??
Do you know that the pyramid knowledge was losr to time til the rosetta stone. Even the Quran answers the pyramid text directly if you do a little research.
Great theory and I love the commentary here 😀 it's nice to hear soany people's thoughts on this
Ahh, another human who struggles to hit their M on their keyboard like myself 🤣. Everytime I say "so many" it ends up "soany"
Also if they figured out how to cast limestone they could've figured out a way to cast multiple minerals including granite. I'd love to see more studies and reverse engineering of this theory!
+1
@@uwatmusic Except we know the granite was quarried at Aswan. There is not doubt about that whatsoever. The quarries are still with the same mineral structure as the granite used in the pyramids. There's even an obelisk still in place in the quarry that was pounded out of the granite and is much larger than any granite used in the pyramids.
ua-cam.com/video/KMAtkjy_YK4/v-deo.html
I’ve always wondered if they could take pieces of granite from the quarry and use them to make a concrete. Then it would have a similar structure but a much more practical way of transport. Who knows. With all the information suppression we probably won’t ever know.
Granite has a different structure to limestone. Limestone is sedimentary and compresses rather that grows similar to sandstone native American Pipestone. Granite is metamorphic. Which means it grew and changed. And should one sufficiently heat it up or grind it up into appropriate means of making concrete you would find it would turn from granulated to closer to greyish with less character n pattern.
Concrete still makes the engineering no less impressive!!!
It makes it more impressive, as it's a more elegant, sophisticated solution to a problem rather than using brute force. It doesn't mean the theory is right or wrong, of course.
@@terryfuldsgaming7995 This video seemed to explain that the granite was quarried while the limestone was poured. I did not hear a question or comment about the lower stones not poured but you may be right. I have never been to the pyramids nor am I a chemist or geologist of any type to be able to tell them apart anyway. and actually, to have seams is just saying they were poured individually and not all at the same time. The mystery continues because it was never written how they were constructed and the fact they didn't write it down might indicate it was a normal and well known practice at that time to which way they did it. Still a fun mystery to ponder... =D
@Robert Flask If it were true, probably. The fluid dynamics involved in such an undertaking as that would be pretty high if I don't miss a guess.
@@terryfuldsgaming7995 I agree!!
@@terryfuldsgaming7995 The granite work, however, is a tiny fraction of the other stonework in the pyramid, in both quantity of material and hours of labor required to shape and place them. You save an enormous amount of time and treasure by just doing the granite work and pouring the limestone blocks. I think if a quarry could be found nearby that had natural limestone of the same composition as the pyramids' limestone it would prove the conventional theory. However an inability to find natural limestone in the area that matches the composition of the pyramid limestone lends strong credence to the theory it was poured. And the kicker is it isn't be some new and amazing technology the Egyptians alone had and disappeared with the pyramid-building Pharoahs, humans had been using concrete for thousands of years before the pyramids were built. Why wouldn't they use concrete for the blocks and dress up the interior with granite? look around your neighborhood or maybe even your own home, builders and architects do the very same thing to this very day. : )
That minute and a half ad intro was pretty sucky.
There's a way to scroll through and fast forward thru the video for a reason. . I agree tho, ad should have at least been at the end of the video
@KtotheD J only works on popular ads, doesnt when It's the first 2mins of the vid.
Dude, ... what u said is purely insulting u know. U watch for free and yet u complain about an ad? get real and respect the creators. Ps Yt Prem here. Am jobless rn due to covid btw. Yes am dong fine thank u.
@@MonographicSingleheaded Feedback is encouraged, big fella. Chill your sauce.
@@MonographicSingleheaded your use of punctuation and poor grammer is almost as annoying as the minute plus ad,...
Fun and interesting video Simon! No surprise Zahi Hawass hates this theory, he hates most "new" ideas based in science. Hawass has delayed more discoveries than any "Pharaoh's curse" lol.
He's essentially employed by the US
Zahi Hawass IS the curse of the Pharaohs...😉
Let's think through this:
Couldn't they scan the outer stones and look for repeating patterns that would imply the use of a mold?
Also, wouldn't molded (rather than cut) stone would have few, if any, chisel marks?
How much weight could a cast block support?
It's an interesting and novel theory, and is on its face plausible enough to earn further research and testing.
So, let's start with the older (earliest) pyramids and look for evidence of this (or any other) technique.
This mystery can (and will) be solved; IMO, the trick (process) is to take a systematic approach to observing the evolution of the design and building of the structures.
Let's gather and publicly debate the evidence, and then let each of us judge for ourselves to the satisfaction of his/her own reason.
PS: as a trained engineer, one mistake many make is to try to analyze the most complex structure first. Who could possible infer how a computer chip were made if they started with even an 8088 chip, or how a plane flys by analyzing an SR-71? Go back to the step pyramid, through the bent and red pyramids and then the later, greater pyramids, and document apparent techniques in materials and construction. Over time, the pieces of the puzzle will find their place.
If "ancient concrete" was used, then why would the Unfinished Obelisk in Aswan be worked on flat to the ground? Why wouldn't the Egyptians make it easier on themselves and just mold the obelisk already in its position and standing up with this "ancient concrete"?
@@TheCasanovaPugilist147 Good question, but the answer is, I think pretty straight-forward: granite is much harder than limestone (and concrete made from limestone).
Material internal to a structure (here, the plausible concrete) can be much less environmentally resilient than a 'softer' ancient concrete, allowing for a self-supporting item, which also maintains shape and designs/writing (not to mention, it's just more aesthetic). So, a cast block is consistent with an interior pyramid 'stone' but not with a weather-facing obelisk.
If you want a modern example, go to any old and un-renovated hotel and stay in a room with an older marble countertop (as opposed to a granite or quartz countertop). You'll notice that it's grooved and worn. You'll also see this in older buildings with marble staircases -- they have smooth, worn (often almost angled) staircases. Limestone is software than marble, and ancient concrete is typically software than limestone.
Granite allows for messaging on weather-facing surfaces that lasts for millennia; no concrete (even modern concrete) will hold a clear notched message over centuries, much less millennia (see, for example, any old graveyard).
So, to directly answer your question "why didn't the Egyptians make it easier on themselves and just mold the obelisk already in its position?"
Because: (1) they knew it wouldn't last, (2) it wouldn't look as good, and (3) I'm not convinced that creating a single mold would even work, much less be "easier." Pouring blocks at a time *might* be easier, but you'd still face the issues of longevity of the structure as well as the longevity of the art and writings.
PS: I've seen videos claiming that you can see that denser materials "fall" to the base of each of the block (which would support heavier items settling during casting).
PSS: my main objection the casting theory is that, to me, it would be much harder to grind all that stone, move it, and then use LOTS of precious water (which would also have to be carried), mix it, and then cast -- either in place or at a fixed location -- than to just cut the stones to begin with. I could, however, see some "waste materials" being cast into selected smaller blocks, especially near the top or used to create corner-supports with odd shapes. Still ... it would be great to see some evidence.
@@ThrashLawPatentsAndTMs I see. Wouldn't it make sense then to apply the same principles of building the pyramid towards an obelisk with the interior or in this case the inside of the obelisk being made out of ancient concrete and the outside out of granite? Basically, what I'm trying to say is if the Egyptians were focused on making the obelisk last, then wouldn't you build the obelisk with the inside hollowed out and once erect and in position, you fill the hollowed-out insides of the obelisk with the ancient concrete to give it more weight and stronger base making it tougher to tip over and at the same time, the exterior is protected by granite that will last for a millennia.
Similar to a lollipop where the outside is made of a tougher candy material and the inside is made up of softer candy material. Would be much easier than just constructing the obelisk purely out of granite and would require less manpower to erect the obelisk standing and in its location. This is assuming the ancient Egyptians definitely needed a ton of manpower to move these heavy ton obelisks into place but if they had some sort of tech that allowed them to move these obelisks into place easily regardless of weight then obviously there would be no point in constructing a lighter hollowed out granite obelisk because it would just add more time in the construction process of "hollowing out" the obelisk. That or the builders didn't care, they just cut the granite into the final obelisk shape as quick as possible and used pure brute power with the help of many slaves and animals like elephants to erect these heavy structures into their desired place.
@@TheCasanovaPugilist147 Why would you waste time and manpower hollowing out the interior of a stone?
I'm curious: have you ever held granite, limestone, and marble and compared the materials?
RE: Elephants -- as far as I know there were no elephants in Egypt, and the only beasts of burden were (much later) mules, then also camels and horses in the modern age (meaning last 500 years)
@@ThrashLawPatentsAndTMs hollowing the obelisk out for the purpose of it being lighter to erect upwards.
If only there was some -- ahem -- concrete evidence.
I'll see myself out.
Bravo.
You will find wood stuck in the stone
@John Barber yes that went over my head. I get it now lmao
😃😃😃
Guy who makes shocking discovery with scientific evidence: "Hey guys, look at this cool data I found"
Egyptologists: "YOUR DATA IS STUPID, YOUR ROCKS ARE STUPID... YOU'RE STUPID!!!!!"
The counterpoints of 'smart' people...
No, their data IS stupid. There are fossils in the Pyramids. The idea that any of them were poured from ancient concrete is absolutely absurd and can be dismissed outright. Anybody who argues otherwise bases their claims on ignorance.
@@kevinslater4126 it's obvious that who are unable to comprehend, or didn't listen to a word that was said. carry on in your ignorance.
If that is what you think happens in academia, I'm fairly sure you've never even come close to a research university. Why don't you sit down and let the big boys handle this.
@@ems7623 so you think Davidovits never came to a "research" facility? he's right that response of Howass was juvenile and very telling.
@@kevinslater4126 what if it was a lot of medium rocks and a concrete substance to fill the gaps and smooth the sides
This is the first I've heard of this. Fantastic stuff.
Great Video
After seeing the block with the bronze or copper handles imbedded in it, I wonder why some continue to tell everyone that every block was chiseled.
My guess is they started off with quarried stone and suffered cost and time overruns, and decided to finish with concrete.
The design elements suggest that using granite was part of the plan, like using Iron rebars while pouring concrete.
"This project is going to run over time and budget. These stones are taking far longer to set than anticipated"
"Alright, bugger using granite for the rest of them then.."
Or use nice polished granite and limestone for the visible areas, and cheap concrete for the fill areas no one will see (until 4000 years later)
@@dangerrangerlstc they're structural ua-cam.com/video/eGqfdXkAQMk/v-deo.html not that a huge pile of precise stones wouldn't be impressive already but it isn't just a pile it's a building, with bones
@@snooks5607 fill areas can be structural too. Like fill on the back side of a earth dam, the weight is important, but what its made out of isn't necessarily that important
Out of all the possibilities I’ve ever heard, this, by far, makes the most logical sense
@@andrewholdaway813 No way you could do it 1 go. The forms would be inlmpossibly massive and would have to hold back the hydraulic pressure of an entire pyramids worth of concrete. If you do it in chunks you can reuse forms. Not to mention how would they mix it all at once? I for one buy onto this concrete theory as the most plausible explanation to date.
@@andrewholdaway813 No, your explanation is confusing, I keep re-reading it and don't understand your point. How does using the roughly cut inner blocks to support subsequent blocks, result in a humongous block of concrete? And you say, 'If the pyramid was cast from a form concrete why would it be in discrete blocks?' suggests that you are saying that instead of casting blocks of concrete, that they built an actual form (or cast) shaped like a pyramid to pour (or cast) the concrete into, which as Robert points out, would be completely impossible since no structure (at least not in those times and nearly impossible now with modern technology) would be able to retain the hydraulic force of that much liquified cement. Plus, it is clear that they are discrete blocks, not an entire cast form.
@@andrewholdaway813 You're more thorough explanation makes much more sense, and I agree it is unlikely that they had the technology for self-setting concrete, otherwise there would be other examples of it being used besides, like statues or defensive walls for example.
@@andrewholdaway813
There are so many mysteries of the past that I would love to know. Like who figured out fire, and cooking food on it. Wouldn't it be amazing if we could figure out who decided to try intentionally putting animal meat, or mixtures of plant matter onto a fire to make better food? Domesticating animals, forming villages and towns. But the cooking thing, which I think was the key to human evolution, that is what I would so love to know. But the pyramids are quite a mystery themselves.
@@richardduerr9983 I've had this thought also about cooking food. My best theory is hominids found a burnt carcass after, say a forest fire, and ate it. Cooked food is easier to digest than raw food. They probably liked how it tasted and how it made their stomachs work much less. Just my own theory.
"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." -- Folk and Campbell (2018)
ua-cam.com/video/KMAtkjy_YK4/v-deo.html
@@johnzy78 That video is nearly 4 hours long. What's the timestamp for where it addresses those observations?
Why would an Egyptologist find this theory "insulting"? Either the theory makes so much sense that the Egyptologist is saying, "of course we already thought of that." Or, the Egyptologist has some extreme bias.
Well, certain people like to romanticize certain parts of the past. Scientists are still people. And if he strongly believes it to be true that they were super advanced and could make something that requires technology they didn't have. He will still try and hold onto that belief. Contrary to popular belief, most scientists aren't actually that much smarter than average people, and can have just as much blind faith in something as anyone else.
The most logical explanation i have ever heard was from a friend Rob. He flatly stated that the stones were placed with Very Accurate Catapults. There you have it Hawass deny that one.
That would've made an amazing Monty Python sketch.
@@TheOriginalJphyper Absolutely never thought of that, but holy crap i can picture them in my head would have been hilarious.
Yep. 2 (or more) catapults firing blocks at each other. Everything's falling into place now.
I wanna have a beer with rob
lol
Occam's Teacup: The simplest explanation is "Aliens."
Because it rests in a Saucer.
You Sir are a genius, for this you win the internet, you have given me the best laugh of the evening. Thank you.
@@kingoneeyed3433 Yeah, it's one of my favorite jokes, thanks. (I've also got Occam's Guillotine: Skipping the experiment, and looking for the "Proof" of your assumption is like cutting off your head, so you don't have to shave. It's all part of Occam's Arsenal.)
Why did Occam cross the Mobius Strip? (Answer: So he could get to the same side.)
The number of blocks required is probably vastly overstated. If you look at where some of the passages have been cut the dressed blocks only make up the main walls, outside and rooms with the rest being rubble infill. This can be seen on the roof of the cut passages.That means that potentially up to 90 percent could be rubble making the number of blocks required much less.
Great stuff!
It's also worth mentioning that an analysis on the blocks showed that tiny iron filings in the bricks from different parts of the pyramids were all found to be pointing magnetic north. That's only a possible scenario if the blocks were poured at the site. What are the odds they were all carved and happened to be places in the exact same orientation as they were in the quarry?
The actual theory in question freely admits that 90% of the blocks are solid quarried stone. They only claim a few of the very highest stones were possibly poured.
@@nodak81 still makes it's construction much more feasible
@UCDS1Gbu2zBXpxByAdVHrdjw the higher you get on the pyramid would signify that they couldn't do it from the ground lvl anymore and transport it. Plus it's only stuck at a low percent because they can't test every rock without destroying the pyramid. Think about it . Those numbers you were given were complete guesses, and they were made that way so mainstream science would not shut them down for trying to change the narrative 🙄
@@nodak81 scientists are not even allowed to get samples from the pyramids most of the time, and every time it points toward something that's different from the narrative they shut it down instantly. Most of the research done was against Egyptian law and has been undermined. So all these people saying otherwise haven't even seen real data and have only seen the fake reports made by Egyptian scientists that haven't done a thing to learn anything about the pyramids for over 60 years
The quarried blocks were put there by aliens. That’s never been in question. The poured concrete blocks were made by humans because the aliens didn’t know how to pour concrete. Didn’t you watch the video?
burlap pattern found in the limestone block have convinced me that geopolymer was used. No one is going to carve a pattern like burlap in rock for no good reason.
There is a question I keep asking that gets ignored by everyone, with the attitude of, "nothing to see here, move on".
If the blocks were cut and transported up the Nile from Tura, ten miles away, I find it beyond comprehension that 2.3 million blocks could be transported without some form of in-transit incident, like a sinking boat, or a collision of boats, or boat running aground and capsizing. So my question is....has anyone located any blocks on the river bed that may have been lost in transit? If 0.0001% of blocks were lost in Nile transit there should be 230 blocks on the Nile bed over a ten mile stretch, has anyone found just one.?
Remembering that 20 years = 7300 days, so, 2.3 million/7300 meaning that 315 blocks were needed to be brought up the Nile and unloaded daily, 24/7/365/20. This means that unloading every block must take no longer than 4.57 mins. Moreover, can someone explain how you unload a 70 ton granite block in 4.57 mins..!!!
As a return trip with loading and unloading would take about a day it is reasonable to believe at least 315 boats would be needed. Also, 20 miles = 35200 yards, meaning each boat would be 112 yards spaced between the next boat, this means a block has to be unloaded before the next boat, 112 yards behind it arrived.
HAS ANYONE STUDIED THE LOGISTICS OF THIS ENDEAVOUR.....IT WOULD SEEM NOT..!!!
My PhD is in Engineering, so I am not a logistics expert or statistician, but I have an idea that an unbrainwashed six year old would question the validity of the block on boat up the Nile theory.
So the guy that came up with it still said his theory has lots of flaws. Great argument! Questions about mixing the stone cement/whatever mix it is. Does it contract and expand like all other mixes during temperature changes? How much would each block expand during a 100 degree day and contract during a 20 degree night F? Most cement pours are not level until you grind them down. I can't imagine keeping a poured mix level throughout and when it dries and contracts to not have any soft spots or shrunken spots. How did they mix it? Shovels, Sticks, Trees/wood? Did anyone do the math on how many they can mix and place, dry, and then add another piece? If you just kept pouring how would there be spaces between that are so tight you can't get paper through it? How do they hold the wood in place for such a large stone while it dries? Its elevated and slanted. Did wood boards and tree stumps hold them in perfect place? Did they reinforce the blocks with steel like we do today? No metal inside to hold it in place? Must have been one hell of a mixture.
I agree with your statements. As I was thinking of the exact same issues.
That and including that cement/concrete is actually porous. Which you alluded to. Concrete being porous erodes surprisingly quickly, in the realm of time passing, if water is frequently poured over it i.e. exposed to rain and the tiny pores that form also start to create cracks that water starts to funnel into the structure further weakening it and eventually will cause massive fissures that further break down the structure.
Go look at Any pictures of abandoned cities, the concrete buildings breakdown within 50 years, sometimes faster maybe last 100 years at best, before crumbling apart.
And they have reinforced steal throughout.
It is highly unlikely that a large cement/concrete structure would last anywhere near what they have.
Yes I know many were once covered/buried in sand and Egypt is a desert. But The oldest ancient Pyramids built would have been long eroded and crumbled away BEFORE the last ancient Pyramid would have been built.
Google various abandoned modern cities and look at how quickly buildings erode and read on exactly how concrete is poured and set and the erosion issues known by construction companies.
Finally, if they did hypothetical caste the stones out of cement/concrete, why not make them smaller, bigger than bricks but much smaller than the slabs used?! Wouldn't this make the whole entire process easier, especially to ensure that they have set properly and could be more easily moved to build the pyramids.
If you are going to respond to the idea that, well then why didn't they then cut the stone smaller, read about stone slab cutting and how and why they use various ratios of possible dimensions for cutting of various types of stone. This will explain why they cut as large as possible while insuring you can still produce a constant size.
You know, there are many other stone cut ancient buildings that use similar sized cut slabs than just the Egyptian Pyramids.
If you keep watching there’s a post credit scene. Something about pyramids.
Haha! Burn!
I will gladly take this ancient concrete theory over ancient aliens any day, ancient concrete at least doesn't erase the wonder of human accomplishment.
EDIT: (looks at reply number) ...holy god damn am I suddenly glad my reply notifications aren't working...and so full of anti-science nonsense and conspiracy too...at least there're plenty of people rebutting it, but guys, I think y'all are arguing with brick walls here...
But muh History Channel!
Agreed:
Keep in mind - Ancient Rome had Concrete, but the Holy Roman Empire did not....
it is wrong tho
@@feliperamos9191 The ego on scientist is immense.
I would give serious thought on any theory over ancient aliens, with the exception of ESP...
I've thought this for a long time and wondered why it wasn't a popular theory. A visit is definitely on my bucket list
I love how the idea that they just poured the stones in on the spot popped in my head so I had frantically searched hoping someone else had the same realization. As soon as they said they were "insulted" you can tell they are more concerned with ego than the science. It's very well possible that the actual science is being covered uo by ego to make it remain one of the 7 world wonders
The more mysterious, the more tourism. If the people in front tell you the truth, they will lose money on tourism simple as that
@@chrisl1878 yeah I meant to say money too. The pyramids will be a tourist attraction still, but you wouldn't have those people saying "I felt like I was in the presence of a god"
This actually makes a lot of sense. Considering that Greeks and Romans were one of the first people to use concrete and the Greeks had strong ties to Egypt in trade. So what if the Greeks and Romans learned how to make concrete from the Egyptians?
Romans made their concrete out of lime, volcanic ash, and seawater. I don’t know of any such concrete found in Egypt
Romans came along 2000 years after the pyramids were built. Pyramids were as old to the Romans as the Romans are to us.
@@mgreco712 look one culture sees something sees that it's good and replicates it or make it better using resources they naturally have
@@justaregularguynamednoah1581 It’s also possible the Romans developed concrete independently
@@mgreco712 look I'm out here to question shit bro I'm out here with an open mind. I'm trying to look at it from a different perspective.
Ah yes, Zahi Hawass; that bastion of truth and honesty.
I think he got tossed for illegal trafficking of artifacts. He is a piece work for sure.
@@mmercier0921 He ravaged Tut's mummy.
He failed to mention simply burying the pyramids in sand to add the higher blocks, then removing the sand.
Um.... Lmao. Minecraft
@@loloppololp9304 Hahaha...not what I meant, but you've surely hit upon an even greater solution.
How could they possibly hand carve millions of blocks to such precision with the tools they had. I like the poured into molds theory, it's by far the one that is most plausible .
Archiologists: “how were they able to fit these two blocks so perfectly together with no gap between them???”
Egyptians: just poured concrete...
Just think, if they had an internal ramp so that people could carry buckets up to the top...
@@joejoejoejoejoejoe4391 carrying buckets of cement?
Egyptologist: nah thats a stupid idea. Dragging a 5 ton rock with ropes is a much better
@@lifes40123 I saw one thing about " how they built the pyramids " that proposed that they built a water tight tunnel up the side of the pyramid, and used buoyancy devises to float the blocks to the top, they didn't seem to realise that building a water tight shoot, to handle the considerable water pressure of 139 meters head of water, not to mention water tight doors at the bottom would be considerably more difficult and technical to make than a pyramid.
Of course they could have trained dinosaurs to carry the blocks....
Problem no1. The pyramid is made out of granite
@@BetamaxV .3% of it
I wish one of my ancestors would have had stock in Giza Ready Mix. All of my relatives would be trillionaires by now.
😃😃😃
i think the same could be said about machu picchu, as a stone mason i always thought that those stones werent stones at all but concrete that had been poured into sacks of some kind then stacked and the bag could be cut away after it dries. same technique can be done with whole bags of concrete to make garden walls
looks like shit tho
makes you wonder how much other structers back then that since. heen detroyed the the pynx
That’s forking awesome!! I feel like an itchy part of my brain has FINALLY been alleviated after all these years
If you read Davidovits’ books, watch his videos on his web site, analyse his critic’s arguments and carefully read those studies by independent scientists that support him, you eventually come to the realization that Davidovits is most likely correct. Nobody has a better hypothesis or more scientific evidence in support. In another hundred years students will be saying “Seems obvious. Why did they fight against his ideas?” Answer: Ego, politics, self importance.
I often think of how future generations will look back on ours…
It’s not looking like it’ll be very good if I’m honest.
Because everyone thinks that it is their theory that will make future people go "Sounds obvious."
That's ironically the most obvious part that people don't get when they accuse others of arrogance and hubris, forgetting it is in every human being by nature.
Gatekeepers. It's hard to admit you're wrong. Like everyone getting jabbed. They double down.
Or the geologic facts that show his hypothesis, however appealing, is incorrect.
Year old comment, but another good example of this is Alfred Wegener theorizing Pangea and continental drift in 1912. His theory is so painfully obvious if you just look at a global map. But on top of just the shape of continental coastlines, he had compelling amounts of fossil evidence as well. He traveled the globe and found fossils of the same species existing at the exact same time on entirely separate continents. The same species on separate continents is otherwise unexplainable unless the landmasses had once been connected. Despite all his evidence, Pangea, plate tectonics, and continental drift was not widely accepted as factual until the mid 1950/60s because the science community had no adequate explanation to the forces that moved the plates. 30 years after his death science was finally like: okay its probably true, sorry.
Some of the best advice I ever received at University was "Every theory should be viewed as potentially correct until you can conclusively show it to be false"
That’s really bad advice and the defeats the purpose of falsifiability. People use that logic to say that aliens built the pyramids and god made the earth using magic
@@matthewjohnson3656 Very true, but this was meant not to say that aliens or -insert god of choice here- did a thing, more as a reminder to keep an open mind and not discredit an idea simply because you disagree with it. And remember, the ancient egyptian concrete theory has some merit, while the alien/god theory has ZERO evidence to back it.
(edit) gave your comment a like, you are very correct in your criticism, far too many fools use false logic and bad science
@@LittleRabbit1138 Exactly. we shouldn't consider a theory until there is SOME evidence, and then we should only have confidence in it as far as the evidence points to it exclusively being the answer.
@@matthewjohnson3656 Sherlock Holmes said it perfectly, “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
The documentary is on youtube. It 3hrs of amazing documentation start to finish :
"The Movie Great Pyramid K 2019 - Director Fehmi Krasniqi"
m.ua-cam.com/video/KMAtkjy_YK4/v-deo.html
Great video thank you.
Considering that modern Humans with all of our Engineering understanding can't determine the exact method of how the great Pyramids were built, Concrete construction (at least in part) makes perfect sense.
The only possible explanation is that Aliens flew hundreds of light years here, so they could build some stone structures and make crop circles.
And anal probes, don't forget the anal probes.
I will never forget that. Or forgive. He owes me dinner.
Duh
@@TheGrungy1 wow what a low bar and it's a wonder why women get taken advantage of.
@@jonathanday4553
Ironic that someone who calls herself "sillygoose" has zero sense of humor.
I once saw a PBS special where they built a small pyramid. One thing I noticed about it was that the only time that the onsite foremen was able to get anything done, was when he threw the Egyptologists off the site.
Yeah, what's even more inexplicable is how ao many people simply cannot imagine hundreds of thousands of Egyptians, ancient or not, being able to stack up a bunch of stone blocks lol especially since the Nile, which is where 90% of their farmland is located, (on the floodplains during the low season,) is flooded annually, driving them all to harvest and store their yields away every year at exactly the same time, and finding something else constructive to do until the flood waters recede once again and the season begins again anew.
For roughly six months of every year, the Nile flooded its banks and not only re-enriched the floodplain farmlands, but also allowed the workers to focus on other things until the waters receded again, allowing them to get back to work on a new season.
That's precisely the time the Egyptians set aside for their massive building projects, among other activities, guaranteeing a continuous workforce of laborers, all at various skill levels, every year.
The guilds would work year round for the purposes of the Pharaoh and the Religion, including Carpenters, bricklayers, and stone Masons, and they'd pass their knowledge on from one generation to the next, on and on, and you can still see the evidence of this in their projects themselves, to this day.
But, when the projects had accumulated a certain amount of quarried stone, (limestone, granite, and sandstone,) lumber for scaffolding and other carpentry-related equipment, and the construction sites were sufficiently prepared, they would time their work to coincide with the annual Nilometer harvest, which would release tens of thousands of laborers to the worksite to begin laying courses of the quarried stone, until the Nile receded again and they'd have to get back to preparing for the next harvest.
It's really not rocket science lol and this is exactly how most ancient non-nomadic civilizations in the region, (the middle east, Asia minor, North Africa, and the Indian steppe peninsula,) existed, particularly those civilizations reliant on great rift or river valleys and deltas in the desert for subsistence.
To even include something like, "Aliens," in the list of possible explanations is just a failure of imagination, really. Something that hasn't even been demonstrated to be a possibility in the first place doesn't get to be included on any such list at all, at least until it's shown to actually be a real thing.
(It's absurdly ridiculous that I, or anyone, would even have to say this! 😂)
Even if it would be a sufficient explanation, doesn't mean it can be a potential explanation, because there's justas much evidence for "Aliens" as there is for "magic" or divine intervention! (Or, "Pyramid-creating Pixies.") They're all effectively panaceas, or "explain-all's"
Something that can do anything is an explanation for nothing. It's an attempt to solve a mystery by appealing to an even bigger mystery.
To be unable to imagine the ancient Egyptians being able to stack a bunch of stones is to not give them the credit they deserve, as well. They accomplished something astonishing, that long out-lasted their very civilization into the present day, and nobody else deserves the credit for that achievement than them.
What they were shooting for was immortality, and that's something they came closer than any other ancient civilization in history to achieving. The fact that they're still so widely known and discussed, all these thousands of years later is proof of that.
Along with all the millions of people, throughout history since then, that have encountered and marvelled at their accomplishments. Including World government and religious leaders, and historical figures in their own right, from Alexander the Great to Napoleon, have all been awed and inspired when visiting the place.
It's something that links us all, throughout the world, regardless of race, religion, etc., and across time.
We've all looked up at the exact same Moon, every human being that's ever lived, and we've all been inspired by the accomplishments of the ancient Egyptians, those of us who have seen what they have done.
Showing every successive generation down through the ages what people are capable of, literally moving mountains.
That belongs to them and them alone. No "Aliens," or anything or anybody else gets to steal the credit for that. ✌
too long didn't read
The recent break down over at Ancient Architect about the stones in Peru I think leads even more credibility to the concrete/ poured theory. It explains the fit, the bulging and the knobs
This is the most viable theory yet. Also explains an assortment of other ancient structures. Geopolymer can be made from an assortment of stone types and outperforms concrete in many cases. Highly feasible theory.
A Florida man build a castle of huge rocks several tons each by hand. A Michigan man literally moves rocks weighing 25 tons or more by hand…by himself…and using nothing but handmade tools that the Egyptians had and pebbles. If one man can use leverage to complete such a task then I’m certain the Egyptians could with all their slaves
Once you find out about Tartaria & The Mud Floods Etc all of this starts to make complete sense, the people that built these structures & buildings harvesting electricity from the Ether, NOT by slaves and low IQ ancient people but by highly advanced humans that we're not told about and this history is hidden and we get lies hinting towards some Aliens, the Reality is the Tartarian Empire and using free energy.
We are living in a more barbaric dirty electrical society the ancient people did not.
Research this truth, we also don't live on a Globe in Infinite space but thats another Truth for your soul to seek.
@@Carmichael_ Your truth is only true to you. If you are attempting to convince someone you need to provide reasons for that person to be convinced. As it stands, your comment is a bunch of unbacked claims.
@@Carmichael_ I don't think you understand what proper research is.
How did they bake and then crush millions of tons of limestone into a powder to make so much concrete? What kind of lime kilns and crushing tools did they use? Where did they get the fuel for so many lime kilns? No other concrete structure has been built anywhere close to this size until the 20th century. Concrete takes an enormous amount of energy to produce in such quantities.
Finally a “theory” that sits well in my mind lol
"And Pharaoh said to his people: “I have not known a god for you other than myself; so Haman, light me a fire to bake clay so that I could build a rise high enough, maybe I see Moses’ god whom I think is a liar.”
[Quran 28.38]
How could an illiterate man who lived 1400 years ago have known that those uppermost blocks were made from baked clay? (Ancient Concrete) How did he know the Pyramids at all were of such great height?
@@naeemkashmir722 So what?
@@TheBaconWizard ua-cam.com/video/c2ovILc_sKY/v-deo.html
pls explain how this was known.
@@naeemkashmir722 It wasn't known, it was alleged and the brainwashed minions automatically say yes to authority.
@@TheBaconWizard you are so stupid lol i actually don't even have the energy to reply. Did you even watch the link i posted?
I've had this theory for a couple years now.glad to know I'm not the only one.
"all of Egypt would have had to have been deforested" I mean......where did the trees all go anyway?
Stone retains water, pouring any liquid creates suction, not a sliding effect,. What they are pouring is sand or something like fine gravel. When you "sandwich" sand between two pieces of stone, the stone becomes fairly easy to move. This technique is used even today. You can test this yourselves. Next time when you go to the beach, throw some sand on leveled hard surface, like a sidewalk,,then place a solid flat object on top of it. Step on it, and watch how fast it slides and you fall on your arse.
Now drag an 80 ton block up a steep slope, before it slides back down again. remember, the slope/ramp would have taken nearly as much material to build.
They're pouring water _on_ sand to make it a surface such that the sled won't dig in. This technique has been tested and shown to work, greatly reducing the work required to pull the blocks over the surface that actually existed between the river and the pyramid locations.
Transporting it over hard flat surfaces (which I don't deny that sand would help with) is the easy part and doesn't require someone standing on the sled pouring the stuff right in front of said sled.
You seem to be mixing up the challenges of moving the blocks to the construction site and lifting them to height.
l o l
@@terryfuldsgaming7995 what angle would this ramp be at, say .5 of the height of the pyramid?
It would actually make more sense to build the rooms with quarried stone then use poured blocks for the remainder.
I had to read your comment twice to make sure you weren't using "then" for "than".
Today's low rate of literacy on the Internet makes me do my best to avoid using certain words just so people don't have to pause when reading what I have written when they come across certain words.
@@acoow I don't know man... Your sentence composition is hot garbage. Read your second sentence to yourself (out loud if you have to), then ask yourself again exactly how superior you think you are.
@@acoow did you just inaccurately attempt to grammar nazi someone? That is worse than doing it in the first place.
It could well be some form of ritual where those tombs and rooms WERE quarried stone then enclosed using the poured concrete as a form of "headstone"
@@TyroPirate I'd rather deal with what you think is "superiority" than with your need to insult someone, just so you can feel better.
Love to see you do a video on the internal Spiral Ramp theory... seems plausible with a great deal of evidence, including ground penetrating technologies... Ive actually believed it was built using both methods for a while now...
ua-cam.com/video/KMAtkjy_YK4/v-deo.html
When I was in high school physics class we were assigned to figure out the physics behind building the pyramids. Needless to say we missed this theory and ended our presentation with the common theory that is, Aliens.
Thanks for covering this. Really. It's about time someone with a voice said something. It's is such an obvious solution to a "baffling" question.
"...al of Egypt would have had to have been deforested." Well, you don't see many trees in Egypt today, DO You? Lol. Someone is totally going to run with this. It's 2020.
#egyptiantreesmatter
Scrawny, little guy is trying to get a job as a lumberjack and is asked about his experience. He reply that he worked in the Sahara. "BUT its a desert"! "It is now".
I edited it for brevity, but you get it.
The documentary is on youtube. It 3hrs of amazing documentation start to finish :
"The Movie Great Pyramid K 2019 - Director Fehmi Krasniqi"
m.ua-cam.com/video/KMAtkjy_YK4/v-deo.html
and the mountains are gone as well.
Joe Blow, according to another UA-camr the pyramid was built on top of a rock hill/small mountain, so all the Egyptians did was built around it (probably knocked a few years off the building project, if they would start from a flat ground level)
Over years i was in a bubble to find an theory how the blocks comes to gieza, i never thought that the solution could be so easy
Quite absurd. The so-called "Diary of Merer" details limestone deliveries to Giza.
-In the ruins of the work camps we have the remains of tools for cutting and polishing stone, but not for pouring concrete.
-Pouring concrete is self-leveling, but only for that particular block. That means every block would need to have the precise amount of concrete to be level with it's lateral companions, however the blocks are not of a uniform width. Why bother making molds of different sizes in width and depth?
-Where are the mold marks? Ancient Roman aqueducts show the "fingerprints" of wooden molds into which the concrete was poured. Yes, the Pyramids are much older, but many of the stones are pristine and show no such markings.
-Concrete requires a heating process to chemically prepare the concrete to properly bind. You don't simply mix a bunch of stuff together and you have concrete. Such heating would require vast kilns and fuel. There is evidence for ovens at Giza, but they are for making bread and are not appropriate for concrete. We know these are bakeries based on the presence of millstones and pottery.
-We know the Egyptians used wooden sleds, not only from the artwork but we actually have examples. For instance the Sledge from mortuary complex of Senwosret I which is in the Met Museum in New York. We have no evidence of a means of moving water or wet concrete up so high. It's difficult to move a heavy stone up many meters. It's even harder to move heavy water and mortar up the same path without spilling it.
-If the Egyptians could move the giant granite stones into position, there is no reason to think they couldn't have done it with smaller, more easily worked limestone.
-A top down view of the great pyramid reveals an interesting clue: the interior stones are skewed in one direction, the exterior stones are aligned much more precisely to the cardinal coordinates. But when the tops of the pyramids were made, if they were poured with "such great precision", why would they be skewed in such a way? Wouldn't it be easier to square the molds off and pour?
I always hate people claiming pyramids were built by aliens because they always dismiss the idea that people back in ancient times were pretty damn clever
Not to forget hard working. We often overlook that even where older civilisations were more intelligent than we credit them for a lot of their achievements involved simple "brute force"
This seems to be one of the main arguments used by academia... Nobody who questions the origins of the pyramids automatically assume ancient people were bumbling idiots that didn't accomplish great things. Whether it was aliens, or a lost civilization from before the younger dryas period, the science is official... a lot of these megalithic constructions are 12+ thousand years old, and we really don't anything about the builders, or the culture that produced them.
The fact that Zowie Hoohah says it isn't so is a major point in the theory's favor.
@@GryffieTube I'm just a rando that recognizes a fraud-pushing bullshit artist when I see one. Btw - if I'm such a nobody why did you feel you needed to write a long triggered paragraph about the status of your butthurt over what I wrote?
#LetsGoBrandon
The flaw in this theory, is the lack of hydraulic machinery needed to repress the "concrete" back to the same pressure it would be if done in nature.
This vid definitely helped scratch the itch of not knowing how the pyramids were built.
As I read it some years ago now, the theory doesn't claim that all blocks were poured, just some. The theory also accounts for how precisely certain blocks are fissured or fractured, explaining that those features are more consistent with pouring problems such as errors in cooling speed or a broken cast than with stone moving accidents.
I like this new theory. The ancients had secrets for making concrete that we still don't understand.
If I had to make a pyramid today, I'd use concrete. It all makes sense.
If you made a pyramid today out of concrete it wouldn’t get through planning permission.
Concrete is horrible for the environment much easier to just make a hollow frame structure with a stone facade. Also won’t kill the planet.
Facts! The Romans knew how to pour concrete under water and get it to setup.
@@tarnyowl6068 first, this was obviously a joke. Second, making concrete using the methods of today is what causes the CO2 release, the first issue with concrete.The second issue of runoff, when looking at the impact of a solid concrete structure vs a hollow one makes zero difference and would have the same impact. Your entire comment has zero basis in fact.
Expanded polystyrene!
Or empty boxes like they use in car chase scenes in movies.
📦
📦📦📦
📦📦📦📦📦
📦📦📦📦📦📦📦
📦📦📦📦📦📦📦📦📦
Thanks for covering this topic. I attended a lecture which included this topic at the Cleveland Museum of Art in the late 1980s. Quite baffling.
This makes so much sense
TIFO: would require so many trees that Egypt would have been deforested.
Ra: So you've never heard of the Sahara forest?
TIFO: you mean desert?
Ra: It is now...
to be fair it prob wouldn't of been the first time a people used up all their wood
@@robert48044 happened to me last night. My lady was not impressed.
@@ddieter02 they never are, lol
@@robert48044
Easter Island. They hunted all the animals and cut down all the trees so they couldn't make ships to move to another Island.
@@robert48044 wouldn't have
I have been aware of this for nearly a decade when I learned that a civil engineer from University of Illinois (an expert in concrete) visited the great pyramids of Egypt. He is highly confident that what he daw was concrete. He even went as far as to locate where the concrete was mixed. Besides, learning how to make concrete is not that far from making mud bricks.
Once you find out about Tartaria & The Mud Floods Etc all of this starts to make complete sense, the people that built these structures & buildings harvesting electricity from the Ether, NOT by slaves and low IQ ancient people but by highly advanced humans that we're not told about and this history is hidden and we get lies hinting towards some Aliens, the Reality is the Tartarian Empire and using free energy.
We are living in a more barbaric dirty electrical society the ancient people did not.
Research this truth, we also don't live on a Globe in Infinite space but thats another Truth for your soul to seek.
@@Carmichael_ egyptians came up with the round earth. As well as time. lol
@@Carmichael_ mud flood? Oh fvck off.
@@Carmichael_ "Low IQ ancient people"? Same anatomy, same IQ potential.
@@Carmichael_ where is the best place to learn about this? Who is the best person to watch?
The thing I always find amazing is there is no pictures of the pyramids and hieroglyphics and you never hear many people ever mention that
Nice video, very well conceived and presented. I spotted two/three inconsistencies, though:
1) the assembly of the core has been pretty rougher than the assembly of both the outside and the corridors' casings and the visible part of the corridors casing. The Egyptians were pretty much confident that the inner core building tolerances could be way rougher than the high precision required by visible jobs;
2a) the match between the stones and the quarries is not exactly the same as purported by the Author, they've found way greater resemblance between the surrounding quarries and the masonry, and the slight differences could be well explained by weathering and other time related issues endured by the stones in more than four millennia;
2b) the outside remaining casing matches perfectly the limestone quarried in Turah.
i love how business blaze simon is slowly creeping into all his channels
I love how some one says the SAME EXACT comment literally every video. 🙄
Beep boop intitate: originalfunnycomment.exe
Beeeep boop
@@ARF_average Joined Dec 22, 2014
I would expect Erik to have more than two subscribers on one of his alternate channels. WHO ARE YOU FIEND?!?!?!?!
@@user-ellievator a humble student
@@ARF_average As am I. Well done, sir. Bounce on.
Zahi Hawass has done more to hold back academic research than any other Egyptologist in history.
@@GryffieTube no one needs credentials to make a claim about something, stop gatekeeping
@@GryffieTube you may not be gatekeeper but you are incredibly rude!
Maybe, but Graham Hancock has done more damage and held back the public understandings of the Egyptians then any person in history, all to sell some books.
@@usemythirdarm Graham Hancock and the likes*
I agree. These people are the quacks of science.
I loathe their lack of intellectual honesty and context in anything that has to do with finding out "truth" while focussing only what they want to be true, and that's just not how science works!
I've literally been thinking about this for like a year. Makes so much more sense
when I was a kid.i was looking at the pyramids in a picture.and thought to my self.that stone looks very strange.like the broken concrete on the playground.....
I read about Davidovitt's geopolymer theory in OMNI magazine back in the late 70s. Thank you!
"The blocks perfectly fit together" this is only true on the outer most face blocks, the inner blocks are quite irregular.
Almost like, like normal humans, they only really cared how the outward facing blocks would look to save time and effort.
It's funny how there's really no mystery to the pyramids at all; they're just big piles of rocks in essence and we know who built what and when and have clear evidence of the style being developed and perfected over time.
@@MajesticSkywhale The only thing as misguided as people thinking the pyramids were built by aliens, are people who think we know all there is to know about how/when/why the pyramids were built.
@@UnknownUzer we don't know all there is, because it was millennia ago. But we do know how, when, and why the pyramids were built, so
You're irregular.
@@UnknownUzer misguided? The alien theory is flat out stupid.
It’s so easy to disprove the geo polymer theory. The presence of intact nummulites (fossils). They wouldn’t be present if the rock was crushed up and glued/melted back together.
In thousands of years time a archaeologist digs up a iPhone. Archaeologist: “How did such primitive peoples create this?!”
His mate down the pub: “Aliens!”
Content starts at 1:33
That is a long advertisement, almost 15% of the video.
Yeah, even worse there is already ads on TOP of the video that google/youtube have on the video since it's monetized. Literally around 1/4th of the video on average is ads that's tv levels of bad.
@@dotapazappy Nothing is free in this world but this is pretty close. Not sure why you're complaining.
@@rbach2 Mostly because it used to be free.
@@chemicalratt939 free is never forever, it should be obvious that it would not be sustainable
@@rbach2 maybe your time is free, but mine is not
There are many problems with the hypothesis. The biggest is that most of those blocks are not regularly sized or shaped. Did they make a new mold for each block? And why are they not level? The theory would only make sense for the outer casing blocks, which were regularly cut, but that only accounts for a fraction of the total blocks.
If they used a hybrid of quarried limestone and poured limestone, they could have laid out the quarried stone across each vertical layer (one layer at a time) in a checkerboard pattern, and then filled the cubic holes with poured limestone.
An amazing fact about the great pyramid is that, for 3800 years it was the tallest human made structure on the planet. Whilst it has long since lost that title, it will probably hold the title of holding the record for being tallest building for the longest period of time indefinitely.
My friend you made a common Misconception that the pyramids were made 4 thousand years ago because that is a Bare minimum some Archaeologist Believe it could’ve been made up to 60,000 years ago because of water erosion on the Egyptian Spinx, I don’t feel it’s that old myself but I’ve got no Reason to doubt it either look up Anthony west and you’ll learn how they Suppress actual outside Independent work being carried out and the head of the Egyptian archaeologist society has been accused multiple time’s of Illegally selling antiquities and him being a Religious man could have a part in it and there being a 97% religious public it would not go down well to say Here’s facts to say that the world outdates Christianity and Islam teachings, so I think there’s a lot not being told to us, to me personally it’s not a big deal but to people who pay to Study this kind of work in college it is, and that’s part of the Problem because what professor is going to want to put his hands up and admit that he’s been teaching students wrong for the last 20 years? So the solidify this narrative by accusing archaeologists who think otherwise of being wrong or none scientific, it’s crazy if you ask me.
@@nobodyspecial6267 Actually, I was using the age of the Great Pyramid of Giza as 4500 - which, for 3800 years it was the tallest human made structure (until St Paul's Cathedral was completed in around 1221). For some of the 3800 years, the pyramid could have been taller as it was probably finished in marble and could even have had a golden block at it's apex. So, Lincoln Cathedral may be the structure that stripped it of it's title in 1311. I don't really care for theories that scientists are suppressing the real age of the pyramid.