Pyramids
Dear Reader:
I decided to start this blog to shed some more light on the research that we recently published in the J. of the American Ceramic Society and funded by the Ceramics Division of the National Science Foundation. It is important to emphasize the following:
a) our technical results are unambiguous: the pyramid stones have regions with chemistries and other feature that not only we did not find in the natural samples collected and examined from the vicinity of the pyramids, but more important, chemistries and features that do NOT exist in sedimentary rocks, such as limestone! As far as I am aware, no geologist has come out saying that the chemistries and features we reported can exist in natural limestone. If you are aware of such a study - published or otherwise - please let me know.
b) the samples we looked at are NOT recent renovations for two simple reasons: First, they do not remotely resemble Portland cement or concrete. Second, and much more important, I am not aware of anybody that can actually make this kind of reconstituted stone at this time. There is no doubt or debate. One of the samples had a layer of calcium phosphate that can be obtained from bones - on the surface! If anybody can show me a microstructure that even comes close to what we reported, published or not, please let me know.
c) The presentation that can be found at http://www.mse.drexel.edu/max/PyramidPresentation.htm is not the evidence we are talking about. That can be found in - highly abbreviated form - the last 4 slides of the presentation. It is not a substitute to the technical paper.
d) The purpose of the presentation is simply to add, what I call additional circumstantial evidence to the case.
e) Over the past 4 years we looked at chemical analyses, over 1000 photomicrographs (scanning electron microscope pictures) and other characterizations.
f) Before putting words in my mouth, it is imperative that the facts be checked and double checked. And the facts can be found in the scientific paper - solely. It is not what was published in the NY Times or the Philadelphia Inquirer or any other paper or blog. The presentation is not evidence; it only becomes evidence when the rocks are tested and found to be not natural.
I want to make an analogy. If this were a murder case, do you think we provided enough evidence to re-open the case? If you think that is so, then I have accomplished my mission. That is all we are asking. Let me emphasize again: I think more work needs to be done by us our others. If our work is confirmed by others, that represents progress; if not then we need to understand where the discrepancy comes from. I am a scientist: I have no problem changing my mind if new evidence proves me wrong. I am not married to my conclusion. If anything, our current work shows the danger of falling in love with your own theory.
Our work in no way diminishes what the Ancient Egyptians accomplished. To reconstitute a stone that not only fools generations of experts, tourists and scientists, but does so even after 4500 years is simply stunning.
Now, if you are still looking for a huge mystery, try and figure out how the Ancient Egyptians cut natural granite with nothing harder than copper. How they dragged roughly 70 ton granite blocks (the weight of a locomotive!) without wheels and placed them on top of the King's chamber is ...... I have run out of superlatives; your turn....
Lets for a minute ASSUME we are wrong - that will become clear with time. However, geopolymers are absolutely real; we make them in the lab reproducibly. We add dirt, dirt, dirt to water and we get a concrete that rivals Portland cement concrete. In contradistinction to the latter, we produce very little CO2. So if our work educates the world about this green cement, then I have done some good. Finally, if this technology is used by the destitute of the world - it is, after all, a 5000 year old technology, how complex or expensive can it be? - to build esthetically pleasing and long lasting homes and shelters, then I plead guilty. Ironically then, this study of 4500 year old rocks is not about the past, but about the future.
