10148 replies to this topic

[zoser]

Abramelin, on 29 December 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

Why don't we use heat to give huge boulders a shine? Because it is impractical.

And in case of the chemical brew it may simply be too dangerous, but the Incas were not known to be too squeamish about things like that.

The theory is totally refuted Abe.  Look at the caves, the quarries and look at the less precise Inca walls.  It just doesn't make any sense.

Edited by zoser, 29 December 2012 - 12:15 PM.

[Abramelin]

zoser, on 29 December 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

The theory is totally refuted Abe.  Look at the caves, the quarries and look at the less precise Inca walls.  It just doesn't make any sense.

It does make sense when you are willing to think of another method they might have used to give their stones a shine.

It is not totally refuted because no chemical analysis has been carried out on the surface layers of the stones and quarries. And I mean a chemical analysis of the compounds, not just the elements.

And at least there are reports of some sort of plant and/or chemical brew that was very toxic and corrosive.

There are no reports of vitrification by heat.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 29 December 2012 - 12:21 PM.

[seeder]

Oniomancer, on 29 December 2012 - 01:26 AM, said:

I've always heard it with no L like pidgin English.

Kampz wrote:


Did you use paprika?

[Abramelin]

Several hypotheses have been advanced to explain how the Inca, stonemasons could cut stones to fit together so tightly that not even a piece of paper can be slid between them. In fact, some of the stones fit so tightly that I could not even blow air between them. Protzen (1986), following Bingham (1913), concluded that the stonework had been done by pounding with quartzite hammers. Jessup (1934) and Goetz (1942) championed grinding and polishing with sand and water. Bingham (1913) and Frank (1980) thought that the stones had been cut and shaped by wedging, using wood, metal, freezing water, or the expansion of heated vermiculite. Arnold (1983) proposed the use of organic acids.

-

Chemical processes. Most minerals in rock may be slowly changed by chemical reaction with organic acids and may produce compounds that are soluble in water. Cutting with organic acids (Amold, 1983) might be possible if the acid could be kept in contact with the rock long enough for the reactions to take place. A water solution is required for ion transfer to take place during the reaction. A string wetted with the acid and placed against the stone would then make a reaction line from which the soluble compounds could be washed. The water solution, however, would surely get into preexisting fractures so that the rock would hardly have cut surfaces intersecting low-angle mineralized fractures such as the one shown in figure 2. Furthermore, since most acids do not react with quartz, it seems likely that the quartz grains would stand above the surface. It is concluded that the rocks could not have been cut and polished by acids.

>> ME: I hope I have shown that there are acids that do react with quartz, or maybe better, with other material contained by the quartz.
I also don't think the Incas used stones that contained fractures because an unexpected total fracturing of the stone might occur during its transport or placement.

http://www.ianlawton.com/am10.htm



Garcilaso de la Vega wrote about the Festival of the Sun that still takes place each year in Cuzco, Peru.

The fire used for this sacrifice had to be fresh or, as they said, given to them by the hand of the Sun. For this, they took a large bracelet, belonging to the high priest, and similar in form to that usually worn on their left wrists by the Incas. The central motif of this bracelet was a very carefully polished concavity as big as half an orange. They turned this to the sun to capture its rays, which they then concentrated on a small wisp of very dry, fluffy cotton, that caught fire instantly.

So, it seems possible, if not probable, that the Incas used sunlight for their energy source.

The Incas to whom Garcilaso refers were actually only the emperors, who obviously knew how to concentrate solar energy. Peru is largely high and dry and just south of the equator, where sunlight is available all year long. The great god of their culture was Inti, the sun god, and the Incas mined and used vast amounts of gold. Because gold is a wonderful reflector of solar energy, it seems likely that the thermal energy source used by the Incas to cut the stones was solar energy concentrated by gold mirrors.

http://www.ianlawton.com/am10.htm


I think the "Myth Busters" team has shown that sunlight and dozens of mirrors focussed at one point of a wooden boat won't even set wood on fire, let alone melt rock. But true, that was done from a great distance.

OK, so maybe the Incas used huge concave golden mirrors to melt the stone. If that was true, I think a Garcilaso de la Vega would have mentioned it, or any other chronicler or conquistador.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 29 December 2012 - 12:48 PM.

[zoser]

So what your saying is that the artefacts exposed to the elements got their shine from 'Desert Varnish' (all but the cruder exposed walls) but the walls not exposed such as Cuzco walls and the cave artefacts got their's though polishing?

Hmm

Edited by zoser, 29 December 2012 - 12:53 PM.

[Abramelin]

zoser, on 29 December 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

So what your saying is that the artefacts exposed to the elements got their shine from 'Desert Varnish' (all but the cruder exposed walls) but the walls not exposed such as Cuzco walls and the cave artefacts got their's though polishing?

Hmm

No, that is not what I was saying.

[zoser]

Abramelin, on 29 December 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

OK, so maybe the Incas used huge concave golden mirrors to melt the stone. If that was true, I think a Garcilaso de la Vega would have mentioned it, or any other chronicler or conquistador.

Yes I think probably they would have.

Edited by zoser, 29 December 2012 - 12:57 PM.

[seeder]

Abramelin, on 29 December 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

Several hypotheses have been advanced to explain how the Inca, stonemasons could cut stones to fit together so tightly that not even a piece of paper can be slid between them.

The voice of reason has to say, that even if you take 2 randomly found round stones and balance them on top of each other, at the point of contact is no space...for even a piece of paper to be slid under, somewhat obvious perhaps?

So zosers argument that this - is precision - is not the way to argue the subject is it? Balance 2 flatish stones on top of each other, and there may be even further points where a piece of paper cant fit.

But so what?

If its so important for you to find out, hell, go on a geology forum, like this one but with rock hounds and learned people, write one post with your queries, and get the answer from those who know and can tell you, rather than scrap it out on a mysteries forum where , dare I say, no one really is an expert on the subject, so its a totally fruitless venture, to argue with people who may not know

Now why not do that if its so important? Thats the logical thing to do isnt it?  But let me guess that you wont bother to do that, because you dont want a solid fact or theory that takes away your incessant beleief - that because YOU cant figure it out, and coz no-one here is a geology expert, (I assume)  that aliens are the answer...

You dont ask the man behind the take away counter to diagnose a spot on your tongue do you?  No...you go to the ones who do know, ie your doctor.

So for as long as you keep wondering about the same old thing, shiny rocks...and for as long as you dont get the right answer, then in your mind its gotta be aliens or lazers or smoke and mirrors.

But its not evidence of aliens.


edit: This is a post I should have put on one of zosers, sorry Abe...  I know you dont believe it either!

Edited by seeder, 29 December 2012 - 01:20 PM.

[Abramelin]

Abramelin, on 29 December 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:

No, that is not what I was saying.

Yep, that was a bit short-ish, lol.

I said the Incas maybe have imitated the natural process that results in certain forms of 'desert varnish' by using chemicals.

We don't know how they applied it, so we also don't know how also the quarries got their shine.

But yes, other structures may have gotten their glaze by exposure through the elements and microbial and lichen action.

[seeder]

So my last post on subject of shiny rocks... its nothing to do with aliens for sure

And I have no ideas about rocks or geology, the subject just doesnt light my candle..but...

Marble:

"The word "marble" derives from the Greek "μάρμαρον" (mármaron),[2] from "μάρμαρος" (mármaros), "crystalline rock", "shining stone",[3][4] perhaps from the verb "μαρμαίρω" (marmaírō), "to flash, sparkle, gleam".[5] This stem is also the basis for the English word marmoreal, meaning "marble-like."

Shining stone eh?

http://en.wikipedia....arble#Etymology

So the question is then, what other rocks 'naturally' shine when cut?  As above states the term is: marmoreal, meaning "marble-like."

Other than this I dont think arguing about rocks has anything to do with aliens whatsoever ...

Edited by seeder, 29 December 2012 - 01:46 PM.

[Abramelin]

Marble is rock containing high quantities of calcium carbonate, and I think that is not what the Incas used.

[seeder]

Abramelin, on 29 December 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

Marble is rock containing high quantities of calcium carbonate, and I think that is not what the Incas used.

sure yes, its just an 'example' of another way of thinking about it,

for ex:  that diorite vase I posted ages back had a shine to it...(and thats the stone being the one zoser famously quoted as being 'impossible' to work with)

heres a pic, cant find the one I originally posted but I expect they are all the same

http://artworld.uea....ts/diorite-vase

Ok that was likely smoothed finely, polished if you like as it was intended to be a fine item... but maybe if you just cut into diorite tho it will reveal a shiny surface? Liker breaking flints open? I have no idea

as said I wont and cant talk about something I know nothing about, ie geology/stones, (unlike some people)

either way, it just doesn't interest me really,  we 'can' talk about aliens and I may have something to contribute in stating why I dont believe it, but I cant think why, at all, that a finish on rocks/buildings is connected to ET

edit to add:

1: During the Kofun period of Japan, Sue ware was decorated with greenish natural ash glazes. From 552 to 794 AD, differently colored glazes were introduced. The three colored glazes of the Tang Dynasty were frequently used for a period, but were gradually phased out; the precise colors and compositions of the glazes have not been recovered. Natural ash glaze, however, was commonly used throughout the country.

http://en.wikipedia....c_glaze#History

note: the precise colors and compositions of the glazes have not been recovered, so even that bit of knowledge has gone, did aliens glaze the pottery...just  because man cant remember the recipe?

and

"Glazing is a method of varnishing pottery that coats the surface to seal pores and create a glassy finish. Although the inventor of glazing is unknown, the technique for tin glazing pottery was first discovered by the Assyrians and later used in Mesopotamia in the 9th century BC.

http://www.answerbag.../q_view/2267957

so when we see that the ancients had a desire to glaze their pots and lord knows how many attempts were made to get that right, its not a huge assumption to make ...that they also decorated, somehow, other things like important structures is it?

Edited by seeder, 29 December 2012 - 02:29 PM.

[zoser]

Abramelin, on 29 December 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

There are no reports of vitrification by heat.

It was never observed.  It doesn't need to be.  The evidence is clear.

It's about detective work not hearsay.  When hearsay backs up the detective work that's even better.

Edited by zoser, 29 December 2012 - 04:15 PM.

[zoser]

seeder, on 29 December 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

The voice of reason has to say, that even if you take 2 randomly found round stones and balance them on top of each other, at the point of contact is no space...for even a piece of paper to be slid under, somewhat obvious perhaps?

What is the relevance of this?  We are discussing multi tonne andesite blocks that make contact so perfectly across the total mating surfaces, sometimes in 2 sometimes in 3 dimensions.  That's a bit different to putting one boulder on top of another.

LOL

[zoser]

Abe: a reply from Brien about how he measures volumes:




Brien Foerster    Reply to your comment on: Lost Human Species Of Paracas Peru: Elongated Skulls
Fill with sand, and then put the sand in a known volume container.

Edited by zoser, 29 December 2012 - 04:21 PM.