10148 replies to this topic

[Abramelin]

When I watch some of these photos I realize the 'glaze' could not have been caused by melting.

If a rock is molten or just its surface, no weathering can wear off the surface. It would be hard and stable as glass.

But if the surface has been chemically treated, the shine will wear off because it isn't strongly attached to the lower layer of untreated rock.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 05 January 2013 - 05:52 PM.

[Harte]

Abramelin, on 05 January 2013 - 05:44 PM, said:

When I watch some of these photos I realize the 'glaze' could not have been caused by melting.

If a rock is molten or just its surface, no weathering can wear off the surface. It would be hard and stable as glass.

Again, depends on the rock:

Quote

Basalt is a common extrusive igneous (volcanic) rock formed from the rapid cooling of basaltic lava exposed at or very near the surface of a planet or moon.
SNIP
Compared to other rocks found on Earth's surface, basalts weather relatively fast.

Wiki

Basalt is a stone that was molten on the surface, at one point, just like any melted stone would be (that is, if anyone actually believes native Peruvians ever melted any stone.)

Harte

[seeder]

Of course there is a big chance that any vitrified rocks..were quarried that way...and not vitrified after a structure was built

[Oniomancer]

Abramelin, on 05 January 2013 - 05:44 PM, said:

When I watch some of these photos I realize the 'glaze' could not have been caused by melting.

If a rock is molten or just its surface, no weathering can wear off the surface. It would be hard and stable as glass.

But if the surface has been chemically treated, the shine will wear off because it isn't strongly attached to the lower layer of untreated rock.

.

This is something I've been wondering about with this "layer" they're talking about. No surface is invulnerable. Any polished surface is subject to mechanical scratches, pits and dings. Even obsidian glass breaks down chemically into perlite from atmospheric exposure. It occurred to me that Cuzco has an enormous freeze/thaw differential, which could easily cause any surface layer to pick off preferentially over time, giving the appearance of a skin.

There are some rocks which exhibit so-called onion skin weathering or exfoliation:



This layer incidentally is the result of glacial polishing.

[Oniomancer]

seeder, on 05 January 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

Ok having watched now all 6 parts, this is a 'very' good reference to watch, for anyone interested that is


part 1: http://www.videopedi...ire-Part-1-of-6

part 2: http://www.videopedi...ire-Part-2-of-6

part 3: http://www.videopedi...ire-Part-3-of-6

part 4: http://www.videopedi...ire-Part-4-of-6

part 5: http://www.videopedi...ire-Part-5-of-6

part 6: http://www.videopedi...ire-Part-6-of-6

.

Pay close attention to the part where they show how the domed faceting actually makes the stones easier to pull by reducing surface drag.

[Abramelin]

Harte, on 05 January 2013 - 06:07 PM, said:

Again, depends on the rock:

Wiki

Basalt is a stone that was molten on the surface, at one point, just like any melted stone would be (that is, if anyone actually believes native Peruvians ever melted any stone.)

Harte

"Compared to other rocks found on Earth's surface, basalts weather relatively fast."

But I am talking about the glazed surface that indeed looks like glass. I am not talking about the weathering of basalt or granite.

[Abramelin]

Oniomancer, on 05 January 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

This layer incidentally is the result of glacial polishing.

It is?

[Oniomancer]

Abramelin, on 05 January 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

It is?

Or rather the polish is, according to the site:

http://www.tectoniqu...id=27&Itemid=73

[Abramelin]

Oniomancer, on 05 January 2013 - 07:13 PM, said:

Or rather the polish is, according to the site:

http://www.tectoniqu...id=27&Itemid=73

Thanks.

That should give a Zoser a second thought.

[the L]

Harte, on 05 January 2013 - 03:35 PM, said:

Bore-ring

Harte

Ofcourse because it doesnt fit in scientific community. And if something doesnt fit, label it and ignore it.

But to me it is all but defenetly not boring.
Why? Maybe you need to read again.

the L, on 03 January 2013 - 10:09 PM, said:

In the Sanskrit Samarangana Sutradhara, it is written: Strong and durable must the body of the Vihmana be made, like a great flying bird of light material. Inside one must put the mercury engine with its iron heating apparatus underneath. By means of the power latent in the mercury which sets the driving whirlwind in motion, a man sitting inside may travel a great distance in the sky. The movements of the Vimana are such that it can vertically ascend, vertically descend, move slanting forwards and backwards. With the help of the machines human beings can fly in the air and heavenly beings can come down to earth.

The Hakatha (Laws of the Babylonians) states quite unambiguously: The privilege of operating a flying machine is great. The knowledge of flight is among the most ancient of our inheritances. A gift from 'those from upon high'. We received it from them as a means of saving many lives.

[Harte]

the L, on 05 January 2013 - 07:28 PM, said:

Ofcourse because it doesnt fit in scientific community. And if something doesnt fit, label it and ignore it.

But to me it is all but defenetly not boring.
Why? Maybe you need to read again.

No, maybe you need to respond to my actual comments rather than ones you fabricate and attribute to me.

A tome on architecture is boring, L.  There are a paltry few pages in your book concerning vimanas, and a thousand on architecture, hence nobody is willing to pay for it.  Let us not forget that it was you that couldn't even find an English translation.

Let me know if you find it free online, and never assume I haven't read all the great Hindu epics that are available for free.

Maybe not every word (the Mahabarata is just way too long, and, yes, boring as well.)  However, I've read much even of that monstrous work.

I think, should you ever choose to use the search function here, you can confirm that I'm fairly well-read on the subject.   Most of my posts speak for themselves and, on this subject, I've posted plenty.

Harte

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

the L, on 03 January 2013 - 10:09 PM, said:

I found something which is on my mind till moment I stumble upon.


In the Sanskrit Samarangana Sutradhara, it is written: Strong and durable must the body of the Vihmana be made, like a great flying bird of light material. Inside one must put the mercury engine with its iron heating apparatus underneath. By means of the power latent in the mercury which sets the driving whirlwind in motion, a man sitting inside may travel a great distance in the sky. The movements of the Vimana are such that it can vertically ascend, vertically descend, move slanting forwards and backwards. With the help of the machines human beings can fly in the air and heavenly beings can come down to earth.

The Hakatha (Laws of the Babylonians) states quite unambiguously: The privilege of operating a flying machine is great. The knowledge of flight is among the most ancient of our inheritances. A gift from 'those from upon high'. We received it from them as a means of saving many lives.



Anyway I search for English tranlation of Samarangana Sutradhara and I couldnt find it. I realy start to think that we talk about suppressed knowledge.
If those two are true. Sadly I cant check Hakatha too.


Abramelin

Did you find your plant? Or Arab Sci Fi ?

is that true? I mean, is that what it says? if so, what is the rational explanation?

[Babe Ruth]

The rational explanation is that life teems in the universe.  And man is rather primitive when you get down to it, and arrogant.

There is ample evidence that this planet has been visited, and it only makes sense, considering our tiny spot in the universe.  Wee tiny spot.

[Harte]

Lord Vetinari, on 05 January 2013 - 07:56 PM, said:

is that true? I mean, is that what it says? if so, what is the rational explanation?

Unlikely, unless you think they were flying around in the sky as recently as 1000 AD, approximately when that book was written.

Harte

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Harte, on 05 January 2013 - 08:01 PM, said:

Unlikely, unless you think they were flying around in the sky as recently as 1000 AD, approximately when that book was written.

Harte

So it doesn't actually say that, you mean? So was it faked, or is it a (deliberate?) mistranslation?