> What we have left over all over the world are
> remains of structures of complicated shape and
> massive scale most of which are natural stone of
> some kind. And by natural stone, I mean they have
> the crystal structure of material that is
> typically formed from volcanic, or sedimentary
> processes and can be verified as such by
> geologists quite easily. In some cases, they can
> even tell us where that stone is from. Most
> importantly, we can tell the difference between
> natural stone and concrete.
My primary concern is more about igneous rock and not so much about sedimentary. As I recall, those “marshmallow” bulbous blocks are igneous (granite, gneiss, andesite, etc.), not limestone. Likewise, we don't see "bosses" on sedimentary rock. It's almost exclusively limited to igneous rock.
It’s not at all clear how those early civilizations (Egypt, Peru, etc.) would have been able to work natural igneous stone, and so this opens the possibility that such work may be significantly older than we think and/or that the builders had a method that we still are unaware of today.
> However, lets presume there is some ancient
> technology that allows us to liquefy stone so that
> it might be formed into shapes for artistic or
> structural purposes. At present, to imagine that,
> with our present material science limitations, we
> can only see that being possible by the use of
> extreme heat. So lets say we consider this
> hypothetical technology generated extreme heat,
> enough to effectively melt stone. If so, then
> what ever the mold material was that was used to
> form the shapes we see today, had an extremely
> high melting point. Much higher than granite.
> Also, we can presume that a higher melting point
> implies a much harder material, (see link below):
> So its safe to say if melting stone was necessary
> to form it through extreme heat, then what ever
> material they used for the molds would easily
> survive today as its hardness would greatly exceed
> granite and therefore be virtually indestructible.
> Then of course this scenario begs the question of
> how they made those molds, but that's an
> unnecessary digression.
As I recall, natural volcanic granite can contain about 2%-4% water, or more. But when you melt granite with extreme heat at normal atmosphereic pressure, the water vaporizes out of the slurry so that when it cools and hardens, it has less water than before it was melted, typically less than 2%. So it should be easy to determine if any granite blocks were the result of softening with extreme heat.
> So, lets now consider a larger leap and presume
> they had some magical technology that could melt
> stone to liquid, but without that limiting process
> effect of extreme heat. Lets presume it could be
> done with totally manageable temperatures allowing
> mold material to be fairly simple stuff that early
> man could easily work with like wood.
We heat water to boil it, but it’s not really the heat that boils it. Rather, the heat simply lowers the air pressure above the water which causes the water to evaporate violently. But you can boil water at room temperature simply by putting it in a vacuum to remove the pressure. Same principle when divers contract the bends when they surface too quickly. You also can boil water by running tuned microwaves through it at room temperature.
Nothing magical about any of that, unless you don’t know about vacuums, freeze drying or microwaves.
> What I've suggested many times about the
> possibility of liquid mold able stone is that this
> technology would allow them to create far more
> elaborate shapes. Imagining and creating the
> shapes was never the hard part for early man. 3D
> visualizing and the artisan skill of sculpture is
> inherent as an ability in the modern human brain.
> Its not an advanced form of intelligence that
> we've only recently developed. Its simply a skill
> that's been there since the beginning. So if we
> some how figured out how to liquefy stone at a
> manageable temperature allowing us to make molds
> to form it, we'd see countless sculptural and
> architectural designs that vastly exceed what
> remains today. It would be almost commonplace,
> considering we're talking about granite remember.
> So the absence of those findings tells me that its
> highly unlikely they were ever able to make molds
> for stone.
Excellent point, but it does make a few assumptions about how widespread such a method might have been. For example, if the method was very “expensive”, then I would expect it to be used only for certain essential functions and not for less practical decorative applications. But that said, how can you be so sure that some of those granite monolith statues we see in Egypt weren’t fabricated from a slurry?
Of course, I’ll be the first to entertain the notion that the architectural ruins we see today are a tiny fraction of what’s actually out there still waiting to be discovered. I recall hearing that more than 90% of all ancient ruins in Egypt have yet to be discovered there.
> When considering the technological advancements of
> ancient civilizations, you can break it down into
> different disciplines and different degrees and
> stages of advancement of those separate
> disciplines. For one, with respect to the
> discipline of material science, it seems that they
> were certainly able to soften stone. And I
> believe that advancement came earlier than the
> ability to create architecturally complicated
At this point, there is no principle that prohibits the possibility that intelligent beings on Earth may have been around for FAR longer than we originally thought and have gone through many cycles of growth and catastrophe with each successive ice age, astronomical catastrophe, etc. Whether such intelligent beings were around 100k or 1000k years ago is still to be determined, but from my perspective, it seems very tenuous to argue that all of that stonework around the globe was accomplished within the past 6000-15,000 years or so. The physical evidence strains that notion to its breaking point, in my opinion.
> The walls in South America would be a good example
> of early structural application of this stone
> softening. In the absence of that leap, the
> seamless connections of the stones in those walls
> is extremely confounding. But if you presume they
> could soften or loosen the material bonds of
> granite to the point that it would sag like
> Plasticine, then those connections begin to appear
> as a rudimentary and early application of that
> Yada yada yada. I could go on and on, but I'd be
> interested to see if anyone else is thinking along
> these lines.
I’ve seen some of those blocks in the Andes disassembled so that you can see the opposing faces within a complex joint, and one surface can have many angles and small pocks and bumps while faithfully mating to the equal but opposing surface contour. I saw one block in Machu Picchu with 32 distinct surfaces where every surface was perfectly jointed to neighboring blocks so that you couldn’t fit a credit card into any of the joints. Same is true for the 280 ton block at Sacsayhuaman. It clearly appears to have been softened substances that ooze against each other in semi-fiuld fashion. For what it’s worth, when I asked the guides who did the stonework, they typically shrugged their shoulders pointed up to the sky.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 28-Aug-17 21:22 by Origyptian.