GEOPOLYMERIZATION:
I just watched a show dealing with the Incan Andean cosmology
that said they believed in 'As Above, So Below'. This is one of
the three laws of the Magi and the Dictum of Hermes that our
secret agent of British Intelligence has on the back cover of
his book Secret Societies.
Dr. Davidovits is the modern patent holder of many geopolymeric
rock-making or concrete processes and I talked at length with
his co-author Marjorie Morris in 1993-4 about a variety of
things related to their book 'The Pyramids: An Enigma Solved'.
In the interest of brevity I'll leave out how they were
back-stabbed in a media hatchet-job by WGBH Boston who produced
what the BBC takes to schools all around the world. It is a
video called 'This Old Pyramid' and it was shown on U.S.
National TV as well as 'The Nature of Things' with David Suzuki.
I saw his letter saying he didn't know they had used fork-lift
trucks and modern tools to build this small pyramid that shifted
in the sand after a few weeks and didn't have the 'fit' anyway.
The recent April issue of Scientific American deals with this in
a somewhat tangential manner as it mentions the Miller-Urey
Chicago creation of life experiment that was taught as creation
of animate from inanimate for many years although it actually
isn't creation, of much more than a few basic proteins. However,
that start which became a dead end in some people's minds has
continued to produce valuable insights. This particular article
helps one see how the attunement may have been initiated by the
collective consciousnesses within inanimate matter or mountains
that the natives of the world revere. It may be a bit of a
stretch but the nanotube article and other science from solid
state chemistry as well as the work of Drs. Robins and Tiller
would support it as well.
"Carbon-based molecules needed protection and assistance to
enact this drama {The beginning of life, which NASA now knows is
everywhere.}. It turns out that minerals could have served at
least five significant functions, from passive props to active
players, in life-inducing chemical reactions. Tiny compartments
{What Robins calls 'energy wells'.} in mineral structures can
shelter simple molecules, while mineral surfaces can provide the
scaffolding on which those molecules assemble and grow. Beyond
these sheltering and supportive functions, crystal faces of
certain minerals can actually select particular molecules
resembling those that were destined to become biologically
important. The metallic ions in other minerals can jump-start
meaningful reactions like those that must have converted simple
molecules into self-replicating entities. Most surprisingly,
perhaps, are the recent indications that elements of dissolved
minerals can be incorporated into biological molecules. In other
words, minerals may not have merely helped biological molecules
come together, they might have become part of life itself!" (11)
Geopolymers are revolutionary for the concrete industry {He is a
member of the Board of Portland Cement and a Director of a
French concrete development consortium or research entity. His
Doctorate in chemistry began his journey.}. Any type of rock
aggregate can be used, and concrete made with the geopolymeric
binder is practically indistinguishable from natural stone.
Geologists unfamiliar with the technical possibilities afforded
by geopolymerization have scrutinized geopolymeric concrete and
have mistaken it for natural stone. This is unprecedented
technology; no tremendous heat or pressure is required... sets
rapidly at room temperatures to form synthetic stone...
To develop a new branch of chemistry is one thing, but to apply
that chemistry to ancient history is quite another. How did I
learn that the pyramid stone is also geopolymeric? Any theory
must be feasible; then, there must be evidence; and ultimately,
hard scientific proof is required. All mysteries associated with
pyramid construction must be resolved. {The pyramid rock weighs
20-25% less than quarried stone and the same as geopolymeric
rock. This does not mean that Christopher Dunn's finishing
engineering doesn't apply and that molds were used when obelisks
or special rocks were required either. He doesn't deal with the
healing or other energy in some of these surrounding structures
either.} A description is found in the ancient science
encyclopedia written by Pliny the Elder (A.D. 23-79), the Roman
naturalist. Pliny's account is not legendary or written
esoterically; it clearly describes the salient features of the
technology. But Pliny's description has not been understood by
modern science, because to recognize what is written, one must
have the appropriate knowledge? {Or at least enough to actually
hear what is being said.}
To date, the passages related to alchemical stonemaking confuse
scholars, resulting in gross errors of translation on Pliny's
work. Worse, the salient principles and characteristics of the
ancient science being unknown, the translators dismissed Pliny's
account as erroneous. De Roziere commented on the problems of
translation:
'M. Grosse, author of a German translation of Pliny, highly
esteemed by learned people, points out that in the whole of this
description the Roman naturalist seems to have done his best to
make himself obscure. 'Despite my familiarity,' he said, 'both
with Pliny's style and the meaning he gives to terms, it has
been difficult, sometimes even impossible, to translate the
passages clearly and exactly.' The reason was certainly that he
was unfamiliar with the substance that Pliny was describing...
A passage from Book 31 of Pliny's encyclopedia made no sense to
the French scholars. But the passage is compelling in its
support of the existence of alchemical stonemaking. The passage
appears in Latin as follows:
Nitrariae Aegypti circa Naucratim et Memphim tantum solebant
esse, circa Memphim deteriores. Nam et lapidescit ibi in
ascervis: multique sunt cumuli ea de causa saxei. Faciunt ex his
vasa
Translated into English this passage reads:
In previous times, Egypt had no outcrops of natron except for
those near Naucratus {Where the Milesian consortium set up their
trading city around the 6th century BCE.} and Memphis, the
products of Memphis being reputedly inferior. It is a fact that
in accumulation of materials it (natron) petrifies (minerals).
In this way occurs a multitude of heaps (of minerals) which
became transformed into real rocks. The Egyptians made rocks of
it.
This particular passage is simple and straitforward, so there is
no error of translation." (12)
The next quote from him should be read in light of the recent
archaeological finds that show agriculture and an alphabet
(Flinders Petrie knew of a much more ancient alphabet of a
non-hieroglyphic nature in Egypt in the early 20th century as
did MacDari. Grant notes a pre-existing Canaanite alphabet.
Gimbutas has shown a lot that relates to this as well as to the
Tartessus written history Strabo said recorded 7,000 years
before Christ, etc. etc.) from a thousand years before the Nile
had these things. There is evidence of an advanced agriculture
in the Nile that existed while the Sphinx was built and then
left the area during the wet phases of the last Ice Age around
7,000 BC as well.
"The Great Pyramid in front of Khafra's pyramid has become more
controversial than ever in light of recent geological studies.
Based on the severe manner in which blocks covering the lower
layers of the body and paws are eroded, the age of the Sphinx
has, once again, come into serious question.
Today, the Sphinx is attributed to Khafra (Chephre in another
language). Earlier Egyptologists believed it was erected a great
deal earlier than his reign, perhaps at the end of the archaic
period. The Sphinx looks much older than the Pyramids.
No inscriptions connect the sacred monument to Khafra (except
reconstruction gangs graffiti), but in the Valley Temple, a
dozen statues of Khafra, one in the form of a Sphinx, were
uncovered in the 1950's. Some Egyptologists claim a resemblance
between these statues and the face of the Sphinx.
A document which indicates greater antiquity, however, was found
on the Giza Plateau by French Egyptologists during the
nineteenth century. The text, called the 'Inventory Stele',
bears inscriptions relating events during the reign of Khafra's
father, Khufu. The text says that Khufu instructed that a temple
be erected alongside the Sphinx, meaning that the Sphinx already
existed before Khafra's time. The accuracy of the stele has been
questioned because it dates from the Twenty-first Dynasty
(1070-945 BC.), long after the Pyramid Age, but because the
Egyptians took great pride in precise record keeping {Well,
let's say they were well aware of glory and posterity; they
would also have known what happened in a time closer to their
period of history, than Egyptologists today.} and the careful
copying of documents, no authoritative reason exists to discount
the text as inaccurate.
Fragments of early papyruses and tablets, as well as the later
writings of the third century B.C. Greco-Egyptian historian {A
priest} Manetho, claim that Egypt was ruled for thousands of
years before the First Dynasty, some texts claim as much as
36,000 years earlier. {A deep mine in Egypt is reported to have
been dated to 35,000 BC. that came to light in the last year or
so.} This history is dismissed by Egyptologists as legend {Even
though they use Manetho?s kings list extensively in their own
fabrication.}. However, ancient Egyptian history is viewed by
scholars mostly from a New Kingdom perspective because numerous
documents have survived from Thebes. The capital of Memphis,
founded during prehistoric times, was a vitally important
religious, commercial, cultural and administrative center with a
life span of thousands of years, but unfortunately, it has not
been effectively excavated.
{Britannica tells us: "the excavations of Thomas W. Jacobsen at
the Franchithi Cave on the Bay of Argos... by 13,000 - 11,000
B.C. and that the cultivation of hybrid grains, the
domestication of animals, and organized community tuna hunts had
already begun.? (13) This is in Crete where another major Keltic
administrative colony existed, to go along with Malta and
probably Byblos if not what is known as Harappa, and also
Finias.}
The recent geological studies of the Sphinx have kindled more
than debate over the attribution and age. The established
history of the evolution of civilization is being challenged.
A study of the severe body erosion of the Sphinx and the hollow
in which it is situated indicates that the damaging agent was
water. A slow erosion occurs in limestone when water is absorbed
and reacts with salts in the stone. The controversy arises over
the vast amounts of water responsible.
Two theories are popular. One is that groundwater slowly rose
into the body of the Sphinx. This theory produces irreconcilable
problems: A recent survey carried out by the American Research
Center in Egypt (ARCE) determined that three distinctly separate
repair operations were completed on the Sphinx between the New
Kingdom and the Ptolemaic rule, that is, during a period of
roughly 700 to 1,000 years. The study also indicates that the
Sphinx was already in its current state of erosion when the
early repairs were made. No appreciable erosion has occurred
since the original damage, nor is there further damage on the
bedrock of the surrounding hollow, an area that never underwent
repair.
Knowing this, one must consider that the inundating Nile slowly
built up levels of silt over millenia, and this was accompanied
by a gradual rise in the water. During Khafra's time the water
table was about thirty feet lower than it is today. For the
rising groundwater theory to hold, an unbelievable geological
scenario would have to have taken place. It would mean that from
thirty feet lower than today's water table, water rose to about
two feet into the body of the Sphinx and the surrounding hollow,
where it caused erosion for roughly 600 years, and then stopped
its damaging effects.
Historians find the second theory that is offered more
unthinkable. It suggests that the source of water stemmed from
the wet phases of the last ice age--c.15,000 to 10,000 B.C.-
when Egypt underwent periods of severe flooding. This hypothesis
advocates that the Sphinx necessarily existed before the floods.
If it could be proven, well-established theories about
prehistory would be radically shaken. The world's most
mysterious sculpture would date to a time when historians place
humanity in a neolithic setting, living in open camps and
depending largely on hunting and foraging." (14)
Thus the Egyptians would have to give up their claim to having
built it. This is their pride and joy and it is difficult to
admit such a lie. The truth when one looks at all the facts; is
that there is no way the Egyptians built the Great Pyramid. If
it was not the Phoenicians then it was African cultures such as
Timbuktu, who we know even less about. It is likely they and
other people around the world merely imitated it and its
capstone which is older than its base (ARCE carbon, AMS,
dating). The capstone may have been used as a model to
demonstrate the effects of two perfect tetrahedra in a perfect
pyramid that generates 'phi' and the kind of design that the
nautilus deep sea shell contains. These are not co-incidences
and reflect on knowledge gained through attunements with
spiritual things or 'direct cognition'. The only other possible
explanation is the alien theory or an advanced hominid that rose
to our current level of technical understanding that went into
space or somehow disappeared. Would they have gone to space like
we can, and return for appropriate or unique resources needed
from their evolutionary home? We must keep an open mind and not
try to make facts force-fit easy theories. That approach is
common in science and goes by names like 'reductivism',
'gradualism', and 'direct inference'.
About the author:
Author of Diverse Druids, Columnist for The ES Press Magazine,
Guest 'expert' at World-Mysteries.com
|
