Faithfree, some help, please.

[Deep Sea Isopod]

There is a claim over at JREF that the reason it was possible to move the huge stones used to construct the pyramids is really simple, they weren't moved.

Stonehenge springs to mind.
Yes it was possible to move huge stones.

[Azathoth]

When you have an unlimited supply of disposable slave labour and plenty of time it isn't too difficult really

[Gawdzilla Sama]

When you have an unlimited supply of disposable slave labour and plenty of time it isn't too difficult really

ONE GUY built the Coral Castle.

[Faithfree]

Putting on sedimentologist's (sedimentary geologist's) hat -

I should be fairly trivial for a specialist to tell the difference between an original limestone block and a block composed of recently reconstituted limestone fragments. A variety of standard techniques like a thin section under a petrological microscope could be applied, and if you wanted to get more sophisticated you could do geochemical and isotopic comparisons between the fragments and matrix. Assuming we know where the limestone was quarried from, a simple visual comparison between the in situ rock and the blocks at the pyramids should give one a good idea.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Putting on sedimentologist's (sedimentary geologist's) hat -

I should be fairly trivial for a specialist to tell the difference between an original limestone block and a block composed of recently reconstituted limestone fragments. A variety of standard techniques like a thin section under a petrological microscope could be applied, and if you wanted to get more sophisticated you could do geochemical and isotopic comparisons between the fragments and matrix. Assuming we know where the limestone was quarried from, a simple visual comparison between the in situ rock and the blocks at the pyramids should give one a good idea.

Thanks. Can you see the difference between the two with a nice strong magnifying glass in the field, say at the Giza Plateau?

[Faithfree]

Putting on sedimentologist's (sedimentary geologist's) hat -

I should be fairly trivial for a specialist to tell the difference between an original limestone block and a block composed of recently reconstituted limestone fragments. A variety of standard techniques like a thin section under a petrological microscope could be applied, and if you wanted to get more sophisticated you could do geochemical and isotopic comparisons between the fragments and matrix. Assuming we know where the limestone was quarried from, a simple visual comparison between the in situ rock and the blocks at the pyramids should give one a good idea.

Thanks. Can you see the difference between the two with a nice strong magnifying glass in the field, say at the Giza Plateau?

Probably. One more thing, if I remember correctly (will go google in a bit) the pyramids are composed of nummulitic limestone, i.e. the limestone is made of fossil nummulites which are giant single-celled foraminifera with calcium carbonate shells. These flat disc-shaped fossils would naturally be aligned with the strata, but would be all broken up and randomly aligned if the rock was reconstituted.

[Faithfree]

Putting on sedimentologist's (sedimentary geologist's) hat -

I should be fairly trivial for a specialist to tell the difference between an original limestone block and a block composed of recently reconstituted limestone fragments. A variety of standard techniques like a thin section under a petrological microscope could be applied, and if you wanted to get more sophisticated you could do geochemical and isotopic comparisons between the fragments and matrix. Assuming we know where the limestone was quarried from, a simple visual comparison between the in situ rock and the blocks at the pyramids should give one a good idea.

Thanks. Can you see the difference between the two with a nice strong magnifying glass in the field, say at the Giza Plateau?

Probably. One more thing, if I remember correctly (will go google in a bit) the pyramids are composed of nummulitic limestone, i.e. the limestone is made of fossil nummulites which are giant single-celled foraminifera with calcium carbonate shells. These flat disc-shaped fossils would naturally be aligned with the strata, but would be all broken up and randomly aligned if the rock was reconstituted.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/science/fi ... a_0711.php
So right on the nummulitic limestone. Just compare the limestone from which it was quarried with the blocks. The nummulites will act as tracers to tell if the blocks are reconstituted or not.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Thanks, I copied this over to JREF.

[Faithfree]

Thanks, I copied this over to JREF.

Glad to be of service. Consulting fee = 1 beer, whenever we meet.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Thanks, I copied this over to JREF.

Glad to be of service. Consulting fee = 1 beer, whenever we meet.

Win lottery => trip to anywhere a Ratz is to buy beers.

[Robert_S]

If the limestone has fossils in it, then it was manufactured by Satan to spread his evolutionist lies.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If the limestone has fossils in it, then it was manufactured by Satan to spread his evolutionist lies.

Zplains why I find so many around here.

[Pappa]

Putting on sedimentologist's (sedimentary geologist's) hat -

I should be fairly trivial for a specialist to tell the difference between an original limestone block and a block composed of recently reconstituted limestone fragments. A variety of standard techniques like a thin section under a petrological microscope could be applied, and if you wanted to get more sophisticated you could do geochemical and isotopic comparisons between the fragments and matrix. Assuming we know where the limestone was quarried from, a simple visual comparison between the in situ rock and the blocks at the pyramids should give one a good idea.

Ah.... but what if you put the blocks together using sedimentation!

[Faithfree]

Putting on sedimentologist's (sedimentary geologist's) hat -

I should be fairly trivial for a specialist to tell the difference between an original limestone block and a block composed of recently reconstituted limestone fragments. A variety of standard techniques like a thin section under a petrological microscope could be applied, and if you wanted to get more sophisticated you could do geochemical and isotopic comparisons between the fragments and matrix. Assuming we know where the limestone was quarried from, a simple visual comparison between the in situ rock and the blocks at the pyramids should give one a good idea.

Ah.... but what if you put the blocks together using sedimentation!

So, got some unconsolidated calcium carbonate sediment and consolidate it into a block up on the pyramid using a natural sedimentation process? Possibly could be done with great difficulty but the resulting material could easily be distinguished from natural limestone, particularly from that in the nearby limestone quarry. Marine limestone cement is different in terms of chemistry, crystal structure and isotopes from cement formed outside of the marine environment. Using 'cement' in the geological sense as the crystallisation process that binds the particles together to form rock.

[Pappa]

Putting on sedimentologist's (sedimentary geologist's) hat -

I should be fairly trivial for a specialist to tell the difference between an original limestone block and a block composed of recently reconstituted limestone fragments. A variety of standard techniques like a thin section under a petrological microscope could be applied, and if you wanted to get more sophisticated you could do geochemical and isotopic comparisons between the fragments and matrix. Assuming we know where the limestone was quarried from, a simple visual comparison between the in situ rock and the blocks at the pyramids should give one a good idea.

Ah.... but what if you put the blocks together using sedimentation!

So, got some unconsolidated calcium carbonate sediment and consolidate it into a block up on the pyramid using a natural sedimentation process? Possibly could be done with great difficulty but the resulting material could easily be distinguished from natural limestone, particularly from that in the nearby limestone quarry. Marine limestone cement is different in terms of chemistry, crystal structure and isotopes from cement formed outside of the marine environment. Using 'cement' in the geological sense as the crystallisation process that binds the particles together to form rock.

I should have made my self clearer.... I was meaning create the blocks (probably as large slabs) using sedimentation in a marine environment.