It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evidence Suggests Incas Could Dissolve & Reconstitute Limestone

page: 3
26
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: zinc12


Mayāsura was renowned for his architectural abilities. It is said he ruled over MayaRastra (present day Meerut in India). It was believed that Mayāsura and his people could even melt stones for constructing their great architectural wonders.


en.wikipedia.org...

Those same myths also state that he designed and constructed flying cities. What's your point?




posted on May, 9 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

I just put it there as some might like to explore the mythology along with the etymology of his name (maya).

Whilst I believe ancient peoples were more advanced then we give credit for I am not of the opinion these stones were ever liquid. Masons are known to select stone for quality and I can imagine they would reject rough grain limestone in favour of fine grain limestone. The fact that the stone differs from the stone in the nearby quarry probably only confirms that the stone was taken from a different quarry or cut from a different layer of the same quarry.



posted on May, 9 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: jeep3r
Another feature being ignored by the "reconstituted" theory is that these blocks only fit 'perfectly' along their front (exposed) edge. The back edge is full of gaps and relied on a filler material to keep the blocks fitted.



The blocks were 'wedge shaped' and were only precisely scribed and coped to fit tightly along their leading edge. A "poured" block (not that there ever was such a thing) would not be wedge shaped and would conform to adjoining "poured" blocks uniformly along it's entire width and not only the leading edge.

I agree they certainly weren't "poured."

However, I chased down the pic you posted. I think it comes from here.

The site proposes a method. The author gets a critique from this guy, Vincent Lee (who has apparently been studying Incan Architecture for decades.) Here's what he said:




Interesting idea. It would certainly work in the situation you posit where the fit onlyexists at the finished face, and there are situations where this appears to be the case.

However, there are many places where the fit extends some distance into the joint and a few (the Sacred PLaza at Machu Picchu, for example, and some joints at Sacsawaman) where the fit goes all the way through to the other side. Even the "face only" joints go all the way through on the bedding (bottom, bearing) face. You can see the inprint of the entire upper stone in the courses below anywhere a wall's been dismantled (lots of this at Ollantaytambo). Worse, all these faces that penetrate into the joint are typically warped, not flat, and bear no geometric relation to one another (aren't parallel to each other). Thus, your stone lying on its back with a template above changes shape as one proceeds deeper into the joint. The template, too, therefore needs to change shape constantly as the cutters move down the sides of the stone.

You're quite right that the three options are trial and error, templating (which is basically the same thing with a substitute for the upper stone) and scribing. There are many reasons to reject straight trial and error, but templating is tempting. Consider, though, that the (often very large) template must be strong enough to resist many movements w/o damage, it must be dimensionally stable to a tolerance of several millimeters (absolutely resistant to shrinkage, warping, rain, drying), it must duplicate its parent shape in three dimensions (as noted above) and finally be light enough to be worth all the trouble. This is a very tall order with the materials available to the Incas.

Scribing is the obvious way to transfer irregular shapes (watch a log cabin being built). The principle is moronically simple and works perfectly on big rocks with fairly simple joint patterns. The trick is applying the scribe to all the many weird joints, but I'll bet there's a way.


Harte




posted on May, 9 2016 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: zinc12
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

I just put it there as some might like to explore the mythology along with the etymology of his name (maya).

Whilst I believe ancient peoples were more advanced then we give credit for I am not of the opinion these stones were ever liquid. Masons are known to select stone for quality and I can imagine they would reject rough grain limestone in favour of fine grain limestone. The fact that the stone differs from the stone in the nearby quarry probably only confirms that the stone was taken from a different quarry or cut from a different layer of the same quarry.


Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying.



posted on Dec, 16 2016 @ 11:03 AM
link   

As you looked, a Stone was cut out without human hands
DANIEL 2:34



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: UFOdanger

Daniel 2:36 This was the dream,






posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Is it beyond possible that they poured the mix into a container of some sort. Maybe the hide of something large.. Which could explain their odd shapes and sizes.. then fitted into the wall using timber?

**Further detail.. Pour the dissolved limestone mixture into the belly/hide of a large skinned mammal (think of a large leather sack) Wait until it hardens. Cut off the hide and you have a bulbous, odd shaped, yet smooth stone to place.

Just some outward thinking.

Of course this is all bogus if they lacked the initial ability to dissolve / fashion their own limestone cement.

..that's all I got.
edit on 19-12-2016 by Triton1128 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-12-2016 by Triton1128 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2016 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Triton1128
Is it beyond possible that they poured the mix into a container of some sort. Maybe the hide of something large.. Which could explain their odd shapes and sizes.. then fitted into the wall using timber?


Scientists would have noticed this some 100 years earlier and would be writing about it now.

Limestone is not a single density polymer

It has layers with fossil shells, different sized crystals, different properties.

Had it been melted and reconstituted then there would be one of two scenarios:
* the full block would be a solid unit the same everywhere throughout the block with no difference in any sections
* a partial - the areas where the rock was "fitted" would be very different than true limestone with different sized mineral crystals and a really different texture throughout a part of the rock... layer lines would disappear in that area.

These would cause a difference in color and texture in those areas.



posted on Dec, 20 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Triton1128
Is it beyond possible that they poured the mix into a container of some sort. Maybe the hide of something large.. Which could explain their odd shapes and sizes.. then fitted into the wall using timber?


Limestone is not a single density polymer

It has layers with fossil shells, different sized crystals, different properties.

Had it been melted and reconstituted then there would be one of two scenarios:
* the full block would be a solid unit the same everywhere throughout the block with no difference in any sections
* a partial - the areas where the rock was "fitted" would be very different than true limestone with different sized mineral crystals and a really different texture throughout a part of the rock... layer lines would disappear in that area.

These would cause a difference in color and texture in those areas.

When you heat limestone, you get quicklime, not molten limestone. Once quicklime cools, it returns to calcium carbonate, but all powdery, not stony.
Ask an Earth Scientist:

 According to the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, the mineral aragonite(Calcium carbonate) will decompose at 825 degrees C. Calcite (actually what the limestone would be composed of but also calcium Carbonate) was not listed for 1 atmosphere, but I would guess that it is somewhat similar to the case for aragonite. In any event it does not melt but decomposes to atmospheric carbon dioxide and CaO (calcium oxide, or "quick lime," a powder). Another book said that to form quick lime place limestone in a kiln and cook it at 600 degrees C. Apparently to melt limestone (which I kind of doubt, the handbook said it would melt at 1339 degrees C if at a pressure of 103 atmospheres (no forest fires here). Hope that helps!
Dr. Craig Glenn, Professor
Department of Geology and Geophysics
University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822


You want melted limestone, you'll need about 100 times atmospheric pressure in your oven.

Harte



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join