meltology

An interesting concept was mentioned in a grotto group i am a part of that i can't find much about nor do i understand. its a called meltology, the idea (from what i can piece together) that rocks were once giant brick buildings that were melted into what we see as the current geology from some kind of event. insight?......


adrenogate.net... bal-catastrophe-x-factor-event/

a reply to: trinmass

Did you see what just happened to Easter Island ?

a reply to: trinmass

What if they were silica trees?

a reply to: trinmass

Electric surge from planetary alignment and completing a current would do such in theory. I like the theory that a current was completed and the main shock wave hit the grand canyon and other points.

I watch storm clouds build all my life and have always felt the height and a couple more variables allows a current completion and you get lightening. Which wether thats the case or not I have always been able to predict the first lightening strike within 15 minutes at most. Not to mention my own electric, static and magnetic experiments seem to fit. Skin Walker ranch experiments and the grounded rockets creating lightening.

Not advocating for this but a lot of it keeps bringing me back to electric universe with a tad bit of hollow earth and scaleing.

a reply to: trinmass

If they melt then we should have solid, shallow "lakes" of specific types of minerals, and that doesn't happen.

a reply to: musicismagic

No. What happened?

originally posted by: musicismagic
a reply to: trinmass

Did you see what just happened to Easter Island ?

Can not pull up anything? Any links available?

Really?

a reply to: ArMaP

Forest fire that charred some of the moai apparently causing irreversible damage.

www.theguardian.com...#:~:text=A%20forest%20fire%20that%20t ore,damage%20to%20the%20archaeological%20site.

a reply to: andy06shake

Rock does get affected by fire, depending on the type of rock it can break in pieces, but it takes a very high temperature to melt rock.

a reply to: ArMaP

Vitrified rock aka what seems to be the premise of the thread is probably going to require the likes of lightening strikes or the proximity of extreme volcanic activity to produce.

Most of the Moai are carved from volcanic tuff or so im lead to believe which has a melting point of around 600°C.

a reply to: trinmass

Ouch. That hurts my brain.

Maybe Earth was built by the Magratheans after all?

Tiktok pseudoscience.

Nothing is written on it (of merit) because it's so ludicrous and retarded to begin with.

Igneous rocks are definitely melted. Molten rock deposits are one of the ways (the main way) to piece together geological history. But those usually melt within the earth and then rise to the surface... nevermind.

Picked a random video.

www.tiktok.com...@oneradmaven/video/7097674074729598251

Geology answer: I am in The Santa Ana Mountains. It is a pennisular range in southern California that formed millions of years ago. The core of these mountains, like many other in the west, are formed from mesazoic batholiths. Those are granite igneous provinces that cool before being pushed to surface by the movement of the earth crust. With most being caused by the subduction of The Farralon Plate underneath the North American Plate. Magma then rose to the surface pushing up the volcanic arc in the Sierra Nevadas. That also coincided with the formation of the Basin and range. The Casades of today are much like the Sierra Nevada at the time this granite (melted rock) was exposed 15 MYA.

While formed from the same granite batholiths as most of the west it is now part of the Salinian Block (Everything West of The San Andreas) and moves in the same direction as the Pacific plate.

While there is evidence of melted rocks I know nothing of geology and could never tell you how granite forms, let alone gets exposed by the geological process.

its a ridiculous theory, i'm a geology major when this conspiracy was presented to me i thought flat earth was the most ludicrous conspiracy but i'd say this ones up there. so what were the buildings made of?

a reply to: trinmass
Sometimes archaeological finds can re-write history, so maybe some history needs to be re-written, but we need good evidence to do that.

What is unfortunate is that there are a handful of "entrepreneurs" who are re-writing history and selling it to a naive and gullible audience who appear to lack critical thinking skills and research capabilities. Brien Foerster is one such person who apparently is at the center of information in the link you posted, and there are others like Graham Hancock, Erich Von Daniken and Georgio Tsoukalos with his ancient astronauts "theory", which is based almost entirely on either lies or misinterpretations of the evidence.

What is even more unfortunate is that the fake history sold by these people sells better than real history sells. I think there's partly a psychological aspect to conspiracy theories like these and electric universe, where the premise is that thousands of PhD researchers are all completely clueless and entrenched in their "paradigm" so refuse to look at alternate explanations. If the alternate explanations were correct and supported by evidence, aspiring young scientists would have lots of motivation to bring the history re-write into the mainstream because that's how scientists advance their reputation, by shaking things up with good evidence, not maintaining the status quo. The psychological aspect seems to be something like "All these thousands of PhD researchers are so dumb to believe mainstream science, but by believing in this conspiracy theory that disagrees with mainstream science, I'm smarter than all those PhD dummies".

It's even spilled over onto the "history" channel in "scare quotes" because nowadays it seems to have more pseudohistory like ancient aliens than real history. The history channel actually did have real history at one time, but apparently pseudohistory is not only more popular, but also advertisers have demand for airing commercials to people who are gullible and have a low level of critical thinking skills, so I'm sure they have no trouble selling the ad space in those pseudo-history shows like ancient aliens.

There are a few sites that have addressed these pseudo-archaeology "religions". Here's one such link

Bad Archaeology: what is it?

Bad Archaeology is all around us. Many of its ideas are pervasive in popular culture. Its publications sell more than publications dealing with real archaeology. Its web presence is much stronger than that of real archaeology. This is especially true of internet forums, where the most bizarre of conspiracy-oriented ideas are given free rein. With this site we are trying to show that most Bad Archaeology is completely vacuous and valueless. In doing so, I hope that we can also provide a reference point for Good (or at least, Better) Archaeology.

Here's a thread on Brien Foerster who is the main source for your link. Foerster has profited significantly from his pseudo-history:

Brien Foerster, Hidden Inca Tours

Although we would like to laugh this off and toss this into the Comedy Channel, he has recently become the Director of the Paracus Skull Museum in Peru. This man makes a fortune off of giving tours and fake history...

The thread mentions that $4000 per person tour sold out early, so Foerster is doing it for fun and profit, and people apparently like hearing his pseudo-history.

originally posted by: trinmass
its a ridiculous theory, i'm a geology major when this conspiracy was presented to me i thought flat earth was the most ludicrous conspiracy but i'd say this ones up there. so what were the buildings made of?

The buildings were obviously made out of the trees that were chopped down by giants - and whose stumps still exist all around the world, mistakenly identified by silly geologists as being mountains

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The established scientific community acts very much like the inquisition of the old days, towards ideas that contradict the accepted model.
It's happend before, and people got assassinated for having ideas that weren't accepted by the scientific community of it's time.
now a days it's more tame with just a little character assassination.
what exactly is assuring us that we aren't stuck in a false paradigm again?

Something is not quite adding up, and my hunch tells me the observers expectation is the big missing part.
Back in the days it was religion now its science that holds the weel in steering these expectation.
If reality is generated inside out contrary to the current model outside in, then these institutions hold an enormous amount of power and their hostility against ideas that go against the current model is making much more sense.

Quantum mechanics has opened the door for a paradigm shift of flat to round earth magnitude and sometimes I think that the arguments must have been very similar when folks started to peak into the sky and noticing that something wasn't adding up.

I certainly don't want to be part of the inquisition. And if we once believed to live on a flat earth there really is no limit to how wrong we could be this time around.

a reply to: AndyMayhew

Could there be biosynthesis methods that are not carbon based?

a reply to: Terpene

The established scientific community acts very much like the inquisition of the old days, towards ideas that contradict the accepted model.

If there's evidence supporting the current model, the current model is favored.

I witnessed real time around 1998 the introduction of new data which nobody was expecting, and the scientists were of course skeptical at first, but the new data held up to scrutiny and so far I don't see any scientists still sticking to the old model because they were married to it. So when they dont' accept a new model I suspect it's likely because of a lack of sufficient data to support the new model. That's pretty much what happened with plate tectonics. Mainstream science rejected it due to insufficient evidence, but when sufficient evidence was presented, they accepted it. That's not an inquisition, that's a rational, evidence-based approach.

Quantum mechanics has opened the door for a paradigm shift of flat to round earth magnitude and sometimes I think that the arguments must have been very similar when folks started to peak into the sky and noticing that something wasn't adding up.

I don't see what quantum mechanics or looking in the sky has to do with the topic of this thread, meltology or any other kind of fake archaeology. A lot of the fake archaeology is just lies, which certainly has nothing at all to do with quantum mechanics.

And if we once believed to live on a flat earth there really is no limit to how wrong we could be this time around.

When do you think the scientific community thought the earth was flat?
Hint: They didn't. Erastothenes in ancient Greece not only knew the earth was round but he measured the size of the globe with respectable accuracy.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

How you had to put fake in front of an unaccepted theory, isn't all to scientific... It's more of a social engineering trick.

You're a smart cookie, I'm sure you understood what i was trying to say.

Plate tectonic or the heliocetric model... We've been wrong before and not just a little, it could still be the case...

Carry on with the inquisition...

a reply to: Terpene

It's not really an inquisition.

It's just bad science.

I love reading dry geology stuff and meltology works completely in reverse. There is no room for melting into place. There is absolutely nothing valid about this one.

People can go to the Sierra Nevada and see evidence all they want but reality says otherwise. Magma plutons uplifted the crust, formed a volcanic chain, and then eroded away to expose the granite core and the metamorphic rock created by the magma that rose to the surface as a plate was absorbed into the mantle under North America. Top-down doesn't work here. Or pretty much anywhere molten rock pushes towards the surface.

It's also a misunderstanding of earth's crust's composition, which is 8% sedimentary, 12% metamorphic, and 80% igneous. The stone at the surface is like a thin facade of accumulation. It doesn't take much erosion to expose all the stuff that actually is melted rock.

While science folks can be just as bad as The Vatican in 1500 sometimes, this is not going to be one of those cases where science was wrong.

Theoretical physics. Definitely. You can come up with anything and there's probably some theory close. With only math to back it up it ends up as mostly mental masturbation with proofs.

Not this one. Not with how slowly and/or predictably geology works everywhere.