The first of the seven wonders of the world - and the only one that has survived to this day! How many books and films are devoted to the "Great Pyramids" - three structures in the Valley of the Kings, how many assumptions and conjectures are piled around them, how many secrets and mysteries are attributed to them! Not the last of the riddles - how did they manage to build them ?!
Cabinet historians - alas, the overwhelming majority of historians are precisely "cabinet" - for 200 years they have been surprised and urged their readers to be surprised: how did the ancient Egyptians manage:
a) carve out such large stone blocks in quarries;
b) deliver them to the construction site;
c) raise them to a height of one hundred meters or more; finally, d) fit the bottom edges of the blocks to the uneven, wavy top edges of the blocks of the previous row with amazing accuracy.
Numerous attempts to reconstruct these processes have yielded little. The reenactors were only able to prove that many people, having unlimited time and eating very well, can drag a 2-ton block from the quarry to the pyramid. But only! Already lifting such a block to at least the second tier is still a problem, and there are a lot of tiers, and the monoliths in the body of the pyramids have a weight of 10 and 20 tons …
The proposed solution with the lifting of stones along the cyclopean sand embankment can only bring a smile - it is calculated that its construction and subsequent cleaning by excavators make the construction unacceptably long, comparable to the reign of a whole dynasty. If we follow the logic of historical authorities, it turns out that the pharaohs ordered the tombs almost to their great-great-grandchildren … But the most incomprehensible thing is that fit.
Promotional video:
A question right off the bat: if the ancient builders perfectly trimmed the 4 side faces of the "cube" for pairing with the neighboring ones, then who prevented them from doing the same with the top and bottom? Why did they create for themselves the enormous, and indeed hardly feasible work of accurately fitting uneven surfaces to each other? And then - how did it look technically? We worked on the upper block, raised it, tried it on - inaccurate! They took it off, earned some money … And how long will that construction take? In general, historians cannot offer a sufficiently productive technology that would allow the pyramids to be erected with real forces and within an acceptable time frame FROM STONE BLOCKS.
Meanwhile, there is a simple technology that completely removes all these questions. Perhaps this will upset someone, but the "mystery" of the pyramids has been solved for several years.
The French chemist, professor at the University of Bern, Joseph Davidovich, has been working for many years in the field of artificial stone technology, being not only a scientist, but also a successful businessman, co-owner of a building materials company. Having become interested in the material from which the pyramids are made, he did what, in fact, should have been done a long time ago, but the researchers, hypnotized by the authority of historians, did not even think about it.
He carried out a simple laboratory analysis of a sample of the "pyramid stone" and … sent three more samples to three independent laboratories - as a safety net. Naturally, as befits a real scientist, without indicating in the "accompanying" what kind of substance it is and where it comes from.
The answer came quickly and fully confirmed the result of the analysis of Davidovich himself: CONCRETE! Handicraft, low quality, but concrete.
There were no "blocks", it is not clear how they were hewn in the quarries. Soft limestone, which literally everywhere in the Nile Valley underfoot, was crushed with hammers into crushed stone right at the construction site, and then ground into dust with stone millstones, just like a mill grinds grain into flour. Dozens of similar millstones can be seen today, for example, in Egypt, in the area of the ancient gold mine Gebeit (Sinai Peninsula). They crushed gold-bearing ore into dust (and gold-bearing quartz, by the way, is not harder than limestone!) For subsequent washing. But for some reason they are not of interest to historians.
Today the resulting cement is dried in special inclined kilns at very high temperatures; at the same time, not only hydrated moisture is distilled off, but also the chemical composition of the substance changes, therefore today's concrete is stronger than granite. The pyramid builders did not have such furnaces, therefore, their concrete came out rather soft, but they did not have to build bridges from it, so they were quite satisfied with inferior cement dried in the sun.
The further process also did not require any ingenious devices - shovels, sacks and wheelbarrows, buckets of water and, of course, workers, it does not matter, slaves or civilians. All this unpretentious arsenal can still be seen at any construction site. The prepared mortar is poured into a plank box-formwork, which, after the monolith has hardened, is disassembled, transferred to the next position - and the process is repeated "to the bitter end."
This is where the answer to the "surprisingly accurate fit of uneven surfaces" lies. It is clear that the upper edge of the solidified monolith was uneven. Today, special vibrators are used to level the surface of the mortar; such a device is connected to the formwork and in a matter of seconds makes the surface even and strictly horizontal.
But the concrete workers of the pharaoh did not care much about the unevenness of the blocks: after all, either the next block or the facing would lie on top! When pouring on top of an overlying block, the solution, naturally, completely reproduced the shape of the underlying surface, without leaving a crack. And today historians feel the joints with awe: think what an amazing precision of fit!
The final point in this unusual study was put by our compatriot, also a professor, Doctor of Geological and Mineralogical Sciences Igor Vladimirovich Davidenko, and he put it in a purely Russian simple and elegant way. He reasoned like this: the manufacture of concrete monoliths involves the use of formwork. We have all seen clear, down to individual fibers, imprints of formwork boards on the surface of the hardened concrete. This means that if our assumptions about the technology of building the pyramids are correct, there should be such prints on their monoliths! But why is there no mention of this anywhere?
In Egypt, Davidenko easily found the answer. Indeed, there are no such traces on the lower tiers of the blocks. The storms that periodically rage in the desert carry with them millions of tons of sand, which, like emery, grinds their surfaces year after year. But the height of the rise of the sand is not great - no more than 10-15 m, and, having risen 50 m along the edge of the pyramid, prof. Davidenko found what he was looking for. Moreover, the imprints of the formwork were so clear that the blocks seemed to be molded yesterday.
They clearly show that the ancient builders upholstered their formwork boxes from the inside with coarse mats or sackcloth to reduce water leakage, and the texture of the fabric with all the seams and knots remained on the surface of the concrete. Comments, as they say, are unnecessary.
With the permission of the Egyptian Department of Antiquities, Prof. Davidenko broke off a corner of one of the blocks with characteristic traces of matter and, having provided it with an official certificate of authenticity, took it to Moscow, where the analysis carried out again confirmed what was already obvious: concrete! Two questions naturally arise. First, why hasn't anyone noticed this before? After all, concrete is noticeably different in appearance from natural stone!
Not so simple. This modern building concrete can really be distinguished from stone by eye. But there are a great many concretes, and among them there are those that even an experienced geologist cannot distinguish from stone without laboratory analysis. It is easy to verify this by looking at a good building materials store. You will see there a finishing stone for every taste: marble, serpentine, jasper - and all these are varieties of artificial stone, i.e. concrete! Try it, distinguish it from natural. The concrete of the pyramids is made of poor cement that has not been fired, therefore, when solidified, it accurately reproduced the texture of what it was obtained from - limestone.
Second question. If everything is now so clear and understandable, why is historical science dullly silent about the amazing discovery of the two professors?
Alas, corporate arrogance and snobbery are trademarks of the "history professionals". There are innumerable examples of the outrageous attitude of historians towards natural scientists, towards practical engineers, and there are no changes for the better ahead.
Unlike representatives of the natural sciences, for whom the revision of old theories in connection with the arrival of new data is a mandatory process, historians deadly cling to the ossified picture of the development of civilization, in general terms, formulated, to put it mildly, by not too knowledgeable scribes-scribes 500 years ago!
Perhaps this article will upset someone, and even irritate someone. It `s naturally; it is always a little offensive to part with a secret, a riddle, and a fairy tale, finally. But what can you do - no one has yet canceled Occam's principle, and he says, as a first approximation, that the most consistent solution to the problem is the correct one!"