Автор сообщения: gorm
Дата и время сообщения: 09 February 2009 at 23:50:28:
В ответ на сообщение: Re: Пирамиды не из бетона
Я уже давал ссылку по меньшей мере один раз:
Действительно, я как-то пропустил это.
Чтение переписки Барсоума и Соленфельда оставляет четкое впечатление дежавю. Настолько все это знакомо. Вот кое-что интересное.
Допотопные статьи как источник знаний о предемете + заглавные буквы:
"I noticed that Ireland (1947) is cited 4 times in Barsoum et. al. (2006) in reference to what appears to be your present state of knowledge on limestone geochemisry/mineralogy. I did not realize that that was the most up to date study available on sedimentary carbonate rocks. I am sure you have an exceptionally good reason for doing so, but if not, can you please provide some more recent research to back up your paper's 60-year-old assertions about limestone geochemisry/mineralogy?
THE ONUS IS ON YOU TO COME UP WITH ONE PAPER PUBLISHED ANYWHERE, ANYTIME THAT SHOWS LIMESTONE THAT LOOKS LIKE THE MICROSTRUCTURE OF LIMESTONE WE FOUND IN THE PYRAMID ROCKS. AND WHEN YOU DO FIND THAT REFERENCE MAKE SURE IT REFERS TO EITHER GIZA OR TURA LIMESTONE. I CHALLENGE YOU TO COME UP WITH SUCH A PAPER. I SUBMIT IT DOES NOT EXIST AND SO WHETHER I CITE A 60 YEAR OLD PAPER OR a 2006 PAPER IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL. THE GEOLOGY OF LIMESTONE HAS NOT REALLY CHANGED THAT RADICALLY IN THE LAST 40 YEARS, HAS IT?
I NOTE IN PASSING THAT YOU DID NOT CONTEST THE FACT THAT THE MICROSTRUCTURES WE SHOW ARE UNNATURUAL. IF YOU THINK THEY ARE NATURAL AGAIN THE ONUS IS ON YOU TO FIND THE EVIDENCE. UNTIL YOU DO, I AM AFRAID YOU HAVE TO LIVE WITH OUR CONCLUSIONS.
>The onus is on you to come up with one
>paper published anywhere, anytime that
>shows limestone that looks like the
>microstructure of limestone we found in
>the pyramid rocks. And when you do find
>that reference make sure it refers to either
>giza or tura limestone.
What like Harrell and Penrod (1993)? They apparently studied the same Lauer sample as you did with XRF, XRD, EDS, TGA, and optical petrography. For some reason they did not come to the same conclusion you did. I don't see it listed in your paper's references... I strongly suggest you make an effort to read it if you have not already. You also didn't mention to your readers that the Lauer Sample underwent leaching of its soluble salts for display purposes as stated in Morris (1993).
I guess we should also include into that Klemm and Klemm (1993), since after all they personally collected specimens form the GP and identified almost all the quarries using hand specimen petrology and whole-rock Sr/Mg, Sr/Rb, Zn/Cu/Pb, Mn/Co/Ni trace element analysis. Since you're a material science expert or whatever can you tell us why that works for geopolymer blocks? I notice you really did not mention that reference either in your paper.
>I challenge you to come up with such a paper.
>I submit it does not exist and so whether i cite
>a 60 year old paper or a 2006 paper is totally
>irrelevant and immaterial.
That's amazing you should feel that way considering all they really had 60 years ago for analytical testing of clay particles was XRD and that was with a camera and X-ray film type of measuring device. You cite a paper published before modern analytical techniques like XRF, XRD, EDS, TGA etc etc etc. even existed....and then assert it's irrelevant and immaterial.
>The geology of limestone has not really
>changed that radically in the last 40 years,
Considering that all the advanced analytical work for clay minerals was done in the last 50-60 years... yes.
>I note in passing that you did not contest the fact
>that the microstructures we show are unnaturual.
>If you think they are natural again the onus is
>on you to find the evidence. Until you do, i am
>afraid you have to live with our conclusions.
Since, you are "unaware of any literature report" from pre-1947 research to back up your assertions, it's your responsibility to first research the modern geological literature and point out to us it's modern conclusions on this subject. That is... find some papers or books published over the last 20 years or so that make the same observations as Ireland (1947) that are asserted in your paper, because until you do you're going to have to live with natural/maybe unnatural? as your actual conclusion, because it's quite clear you don't know if you're basing it on a 60-year out-of-date work. If you can't be bothered to pursue the vast amount of literature on this subject then make an effort to visit Drexel's geology department, if they have one, and ask a few experts there to give you a hand because they most likely know a lot more then your cited pre-1947 research. Just curious.... were any of the people in your acknowledgment softrock geologists, especially someone that has actually published something on limestone geochemistry?
>I never claimed that the grainte was a
>geopolymer. If you read my presentation
>I marvel at the fact that it is natural.
Never said that you did... I'm just pointing it out so that it is absolutely clear to the readers of this Blog that it's a naturally formed, medium to coarse-grained, holocrystalline igneous rock."
Барсоум отвечает о граните:
"As for granite in the Great Pyramid... it's natural rock (Nicholson & Shaw 2000), after all it's a medium to coarse-grained holocrystalline igneous rock and not a geopolymer aggregate. So it's quite clear the ancient Egyptians were able to carve and lift them into the Great Pyramid with the tools that are attributed to them by Egyptologists.
I NEVER CLAIMED THAT THE GRAINTE WAS A GEOPOLYMER. IF YOU READ MY PRESENTATION I MARVEL AT THE FACT THAT IT IS NATURAL.
Old Kingdom technology is quite capable of moving 70 ton blocks by sledge and lever, and even up to a few hundred ton blocks for short distances and heights.
If you are concerned that they could not use a big ramp to raise the 50-60 ton granite roofing beams (Arnold 1991) to the King's Chamber then there are simpler methods. For example, they could just ramp the granite onto one of the lower courses and then ramp or lever them to the next course of core masonry (not really that high, about 1.5 m) as the course is being constructed... lots of storage and work space on the top surface of an unfinished pyramid. If they planned it right the heavy blocks would end up close to where they needed them for the construction of the King's Chamber. Granite can be carved with hand-powered stone percussion and copper lapidary tools. If you think granite is too hard, I would surely like to finally hear from a materials science and engineering expert exactly why that is...
I HAVE NO PROBLEM HERE EITHER. BUT SINCE ONE HAS TO CONCEDE THAT CUTTING THE GRANITE TO MAKE THE PERFECT MATCHES/SEAMS IS TIME AND ENERGY CONSUMING AND MAKES A LOT OF SENSE IF – FOR ESTHETIC REASONS - YOU ARE USING THE GRANITE AS AN OUTER CASING AS IN THE CASE OF THE EXTERIOR OF THE MENKAURE PYRAMID (SEE MY PRESENTATION). HOWEVER, IT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE WHATSOEVER TO SPEND THE TIME AND ENERGY, MAKING SEAMS THAT TIGHT IF YOU ARE THEN GOING TO COVER THEM WITH A CASING AS WAS DONE WITH THE BACKING BLOCKS! THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE SINCE WE SHOW IN OUR PAPER (FIG. 6) THAT THE BLOCKS IN THE INTERIOR OF THE PYRAMID DO NOT APPEAR TO BE CAST!"
Еще о граните:
"When I started this work I was convinced that the granite Had to be cast as well. However, after talking to David Walker, a geologist at Columbia University, he showed me the error of my ways. The reasons the granite is natural are: one we looked at some of it and found no geopolymer and two, the large veins clearly visible to the naked eye are totally incompatible with reconstituted stone. Therefore the granite is natural.... Now how it was carved.... no clue whatsoever..."
Вот каков был ответ на упомянутую статью, хамит, по-моему уже:
"Dear Solenfeld, It is remarkable to me that you post this paper, when I explained to you that after I made my presentation in front of Jana and other scientists in an oral session DEVOTED to the PUBLIC debate of whether some of the pyramid stone was cast or not, Dr. Jana, chose not to challenge anything I said. Nothing.. Not one question. Zero questions. The paper you found I have on my hard drive and was submitted to the conference BEFORE his talk, i.e. BEFORE he saw my evidence. Let me say it again since it is apparently not sinking in... After my talk, Drs. Jana AND Campbell had NO questions, no comments, nothing... But I suspect they may have been tired as you noted earlier.
Here is the bad news for you. I am currently sitting on irrefutable evidence that some of the stones were cast - from another pyramid. These results will be published in due time. So my dear friend I would stop digging the hole you are in and wait patiently for the evidence."
(Насколько понимаю, ничего этого опубликовано так и не было).