Anyone know about the world supply of cement?

mazdeuce wrote: They make it from limestone.

...or in China's case, computer parts & dead political prisoners.

In reply to iadr:

I'd like to know a little more.

While you may be correct, the overly intellectual scientific thinking seems to baffle basic logic.

They are contradictory METHODS, moreso than materials. Poured in place man made materials and techniques have very little in common with natural stone masonry techniques. They pretty much universally have completely different appearances, and most certainly different structural characteristics (coalescence of aggregate particles, etc.).

Some people think artificial stone materials look like stone. I do not. I am no scientist, but I have NEVER had the slightest problem recognizing poured materials and techniques. It kind of sounds like someone is over thinking it and missing the basics. Any stone mason could tell them, why ask a microscopist?

Then there is the social scientist perspective- Why would they do this? They didn't have the 10,000 year perspective to determine one technique would last longer than the other, stone masonry is pretty common (basic tools, etc). Why would they create a process (heat, crushing, etc) to do a technique they knew nothing about, and where is the remains of this quarry/ manufacturing facility?

I don't actually know novaderrick's point, but this is what I am assuming. It seems very illogical, impractical, and almost completely unbelievable to conclude they used concrete (based on the basic measurable data available, short of an electron microscope), so why presume this? And please tell me more, because it is incredibly interesting if there is any truth to it.

because once you question something, you can question everything.

Hmmm...

Wiki said: Davidovits' method is not accepted by the academic mainstream. His method does not explain the granite stones, weighing well over 10 tons, above the "King's Chamber", which he agrees were carved. Geologists have carefully scrutinized Davidovits' suggested technique and concluded his came from natural limestone quarried in the Mokattam Formation.[41] However, Davidovits alleges that the bulk of soft limestone came from the same natural Mokkatam Formation quarries found by geologists, and insists that ancient Egyptians used the soft marly layer instead of the hard one to re-agglomerate stones.

Wiki said: Davidovits' hypothesis recently gained support from Michel Barsoum, a materials science researcher.[42] Michel Barsoum and his colleagues at Drexel University published their findings supporting Davidovits' hypothesis in the Journal of the American Ceramic Society in 2006. Utilizing scanning electron microscopy, they discovered mineral compounds and air bubbles in samples of the limestone pyramid blocks that do not occur in natural limestone.[43]

Wiki said: Dipayan Jana, a petrographer, made a presentation to the ICMA (International Cement Microscopy Association) in 2007[44] and gave a paper[45] in which he discusses Davidovits' and Barsoum's work and concludes "we are far from accepting even as a remote possibility of a "manmade" origin of pyramid stones."

There is a little evidence to suggest that at least some of the blocks in the pyramids were poured, but right now it looks like at least the vast majority of them were carved:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/africa/23iht-pyramid.1.12259608.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

But we know all this because of "overly intellectual scientific thinking." An experienced workman's eye and "common sense" are no substitute. Concrete recipes have been forgotten for centuries before, so I wouldn't say that a block must be carved because it doesn't look like modern concrete.

Smarta$$ McPoopyPants wrote: dead political prisoners.

No, that's what politicians' replacement organs and plastinated corpse art are made of

So, it looks like Davidovits' hypothesis makes no claims about the granite work, only about SOME of the limestone.

He agrees the granite was carved.

So, here is my question...

If everyone agrees that some of the very large stones were carved, moved, and placed, why presume that there were 2 ENTIRELY different techniques to build the structure?

The construction techniques of the pyramids has baffled architects and archeologists for centuries. Davidovits is now suggesting that there was not one mystery technique, but 2 entirely different ones.

Interesting.

I suspect the truth is there were multiple methods. I'll bet the builders saw nothing as waste, including the quarry slurries, runoff, etc. They probably used everything, in varying ways.

GameboyRMH wrote: But we know all this because of "overly intellectual scientific thinking." An experienced workman's eye and "common sense" are no substitute. Concrete recipes have been forgotten for centuries before, so I wouldn't say that a block must be carved because it doesn't look like modern concrete.

I agree.

But it's not a question of what the concrete looks like. It's a question of how it was formed and/or tooled.

It is almost impossible to replicate natural appearances with any formed material, because by nature of being formed, the process will include repetitions which do not occur naturally, simply because they are using a form.

It sounds like Davidovits is suggesting some of the core, or less visible components may have been poured. That actually makes some sense in a lot of ways.

Interesting theory.

GameboyRMH wrote:

Smarta$$ McPoopyPants wrote: dead political prisoners.

No, that's what politicians' replacement organs and plastinated corpse art are made of

You all lie, we all know what made them........