Tell you what. If you like I’ll have Amazon send you a copy of that short book (if any are left), and you can read the argument on my dime.

Meantime, give my regards to Joanne.

Most physicists tended to believe in the aether until long after 1905. Einstein got his Nobel prize for other work.

But returning to the topic at hand, it’s hard to deny that there is now fairly strong evidence for the pyramids being at least partly built from man made stone. The sociological tendencies of the human species (where almost all knowledge is acquired by hearsay) will have that the people who know the least about the arguments will be the most certain in their convictions. See the sociological analysis of gravity waves, “Gravity’s Shadow” for details.

My complaint is in comparing this theory, which is published in the peer reviewed literature now by a half dozen well pedigreed authors, and which makes a heck of a lot more sense than the alternatives, is being compared to a claim that the lighthouse at Alexandria was composed of an LED by a person who is neither an Egyptologist, chemist, geologist, or material scientist, and who has read essentially none of the literature on the subject.

The majority believes one thing or another, and then they find their view reinforced by the fact that it is held by the majority. That is not science, that is circular reasoning. If you don’t know squat about a subject, shut up about it, and avoid contributing to the already strong human tendency to swim with the school.

This is extremely misleading. Newton was indeed head of the mint for a while, but that was *well after* he became famous as the greatest scientist of his time.

Indeed. Being head of the royal mint was a prestigious post that gave Newton a good income and a position in London society, and came after many years at Cambridge and a term as Member of Parliament (and after the publication of Principia Mathematica).

“quantum mechanics and relativity were both crackpot ideas at one time”

I’m not aware of any time when relativity was viewed as a crackpot idea. What are you referring to?

I know very little about the early history of quantum theory (by “early” I mean pre-Bohr) but I don’t think that many people thought of, say, Planck, as a crackpot.

Special relativity was widely accepted very soon after Einstein published his paper; other scientists like Lorentz and Poincare had been toying with similar ideas, after all, though not in such a unified, complete fashion. General relativity was also well received; Schwarzschild published his point-mass solution within a year, and expeditions to measure gravitational lensing and test G.R. were made as soon as possible (i.e., once WWI had ended).

Part of “early” quantum history was one of Einstein’s other 1905 papers, showing that Planck’s light-as-quanta idea would explain the mysterious photoelectric effect.

“There is an assumption that the best minds on the planet are in academia and they’ve thought everything up. … Newton was the head of the British mint.”

This is extremely misleading. Newton was indeed head of the mint for a while, but that was *well after* he became famous as the greatest scientist of his time.

“quantum mechanics and relativity were both crackpot ideas at one time”

I’m not aware of any time when relativity was viewed as a crackpot idea. What are you referring to?

I know very little about the early history of quantum theory (by “early” I mean pre-Bohr) but I don’t think that many people thought of, say, Planck, as a crackpot.

Granted, it’s only natural to equate concrete with tacky strip malls amidst sprawling parking lots as well as with Communist-style architecture, an architecture severely lacking in artistic expression. In fact, I’d say: the anti-concrete crowd is way too wrapped-up in this notion that the manipulation of huge rocks symbolizes not only shock&awe kinda artistry but mind-boggling sort of human ingenuity.

Just think about it for a moment: it’s rather silly to conclude that the chemistry of concrete is not only less romantic but is less intellectually challenging than the physics of pushing and pulling big chunks of granite.

I’ll remark: mechanical engineers and hard-core Egyptologists ought to get over it! After all, when it comes to ‘Pyramid Schemes’ (BTW, Mark, I love it;)), chemical engineering/synthetic crystalization is on equal — if not higher — footing with mechanical engineering/natural crystalization. Hence, I’ll argue: in the pyramid scheme of things, concocting concrete is just as — if not more — worthy of respect as putting levers and pulleys to granite.

No, most of the time, crackpot ideas are, indeed, crackpot. And I certainly wouldn’t want to disparage the scientific credentials of the Journal of Archaeological Science, or North Texas University, or the state of science back in 1993. On the other hand, I have read somewhere that more than 50% of peer reviewed papers are in error. And a 2006 article at the Journal of the American Ceramic Society, with three well credentialed authors from the Department of Material Sciences at Drexel University and the French National Aerospace Research Agency, does state that at least some of the pyramid blocks are cast.

Academics read papers with preconceived notions as to the likelihood of the paper being correct. If their prejudice is against the paper, they will read until they find the first thing that they disagree with and then stop, pronounce themselves “fair minded” for having wasted their time, and conclude that the paper was, in fact, incorrect. They will only go back and read more carefully if someone they respect tells them that they need to look again.

The more arrogant the person, the easier it is for him to maintain the illusion that he is always right. For the case of the cast pyramids, a person needs to, at the very least, carefully read the Davidovits book book before coming to a conclusion. Or if the reader is too stupid to understand the simple arguments, they can use the traditional technique of weighing the stengths of the parties disagreeing. For example, Barsoum has quite a long list of publications.

By the way, speaking of ideas that sound crackpot, one should recall that quantum mechanics and relativity were both crackpot ideas at one time.

Sometimes ideas that sound crackpot are, in the end, really crackpot!