The plant that softens stone.

originally posted by: solve
a reply to: Harte

I have seen the comparisons pictures and analysis of man made vs natural stone, there is evidence of the geopolymer structure, and if one have heard the tales of the ancestors, it all adds up.

There can not be organics in natural andesite.

This statement is not true. I believe it was shown false in this very thread, but I might misremember.
Turns out there are several known lava flows containing organics, explained by subduction of organics.

This is the sort of thing you'd hear from a materials guy that doesn't know much about Geology.

originally posted by: solve
You know it is hard to get the truth out there because of religious governments, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out the reaction that it would cause if they would have to admit the stories of slaves dragging giant stones is bogus.

That's right, since no one in academia believes slaves had anything to do with it.

originally posted by: solve
I would say that this is all common knowledge in ten years.
But the way things are progressing, well... Exiting times.

Fat chance. It's been ten years since Davidovits made the original claim, and he has yet to produce any evidence, nor has he created any geopolymer that even slightly resembles the one he claims.

originally posted by: solveOne must also remember, that we are on the edge of a new era of cheap, recycled, and extremely durable building materials, we can build things made for eternity, the geopolymer and metamaterial market is going through the roof, as we speak, and because big coin is involved, distortion of truth is to be expected.

Well, at least you didn't blame it on the Illuminati or Bilderbergers.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Progress has been slow, because it makes all kind of things float to the surface, but lately this has been changing, studies done in different countries have come together, universities all over the world have a combined effort, and from this, companies have emerged, on top of all that, green politics are currently being pushed and lobbied forward. This is bad news for the traditional industries.

Just wait and see i guess,

a reply to: solve
Yeah...
BS.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

BS?

Well i do not care about you programming problems enough to continue further this discussion. Good day to you too.

a reply to: skjalddis

Awesome thread.

I never considered a plant .
But I have long believed that the ancient megalith builders knew how to soften stone somehow.

This geopolymer theory for megalithic stone blocks is a red herring. In some cases, the stones have been geologically traced to the quarries from where they were cut. Anyway, casting of geopolymers in moulds would have created identical sizes and shapes. On the contrary, the polygonal walls found all over the world are made up of blocks of many sizes and shapes. The polygonal format was to make walls earthquake-proof. It would have been totally incompatible with mass production of stone blocks from a few different sized moulds that could not have generated all their exact jigsaw-like fitting.
The theory does not stand up to the evidence.

a reply to: micpsi

It beats aliens or lasers.


Thoughts?

PS. Molds can easily be made for only casting a single unique block, not that many molds to do with walls made of huge blocks.

How do you get the mold off the bottoms?

How do you account for the layer of mortar beneath each stone layer
in the GP?

Harte

originally posted by: solve
a reply to: micpsi

It beats aliens or lasers.

Thoughts?

PS. Molds can easily be made for only casting a single unique block, not that many molds to do with walls made of huge blocks.

Beats aliens and lasers? How unimaginative! There are far more realistic options than that. Of course, molds can be made for casting single blocks. But what would be the point of that? Polygonal wall building would have required a mould for every uniquely shaped block. That's ridiculous! You still have to shape the mould so that contiguous blocks would fit together. That amounts to huge extra preparation. No way was moulding ever involved in polygonal walls, quite apart from it being inconsistent with some of the geological pieces of evidence in certain sites firmly connecting stone blocks to quarries.

originally posted by: Harte
How do you get the mold off the bottoms?

How do you account for the layer of mortar beneath each stone layer
in the GP?

Harte

When you construct a wall with this method, there is no mold in the bottom, you only support around it. Not sure what you mean by the other question, very tired.. If you mean between the stones, it could be simply brushed on between casts, you can even multi layer the cast stones themselves.

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: solve
a reply to: micpsi

It beats aliens or lasers.

Thoughts?

PS. Molds can easily be made for only casting a single unique block, not that many molds to do with walls made of huge blocks.

Beats aliens and lasers? How unimaginative! There are far more realistic options than that. Of course, molds can be made for casting single blocks. But what would be the point of that? Polygonal wall building would have required a mould for every uniquely shaped block. That's ridiculous! You still have to shape the mould so that contiguous blocks would fit together. That amounts to huge extra preparation. No way was moulding ever involved in polygonal walls, quite apart from it being inconsistent with some of the geological pieces of evidence in certain sites firmly connecting stone blocks to quarries.

Well somebody grab a hammer and a piece of andesite and start making crazy (SNIP) constructions with impossible forms created with impossible accuracy. Just saying that masters and molds can produce this.

originally posted by: solve

originally posted by: Harte
How do you get the mold off the bottoms?

How do you account for the layer of mortar beneath each stone layer
in the GP?

Harte

When you construct a wall with this method, there is no mold in the bottom, you only support around it. Not sure what you mean by the other question, very tired.. If you mean between the stones, it could be simply brushed on between casts, you can even multi layer the cast stones themselves.

You imagine that blocks poured in place would leave a gap between the stones?
How does that work?
What is the purpose of the mortar if you're just pouring blocks in place?

Have you never even looked at a close-up of the structure?
Here. Take a look at your "poured in place" stones:
link to pic
Harte

a reply to: Harte

The way you would accomplish 'getting the molds off the bottoms' is to have a very thin high tensile strength dissolvable material as the mold, and just let it biodegrade. Not such a problem. The humble material cellulose would most likely have the strength and biodegradability to do that even. When it is gone and the stones settle, you 'can't fit a knife blade between the stones'. Theoretically.

In practice? Who knows? I am being devils advocate here.

originally posted by: Fowlerstoad
a reply to: Harte

The way you would accomplish 'getting the molds off the bottoms' is to have a very thin high tensile strength dissolvable material as the mold, and just let it biodegrade. Not such a problem. The humble material cellulose would most likely have the strength and biodegradability to do that even. When it is gone and the stones settle, you 'can't fit a knife blade between the stones'. Theoretically.

In practice? Who knows? I am being devils advocate here.

And the mortar?
I mean, it would be long dry before the mold bottom decomposed, so what's the point of it?

Harte

Harte

a reply to: Harte

In my scenario, Harte, with all due respect: there is no mortar. Zero need.

a plant that softens stone just to fit someone`s ancient alien/ high tech phantasies while trying to bend archeological realities is just a lazy excuse..for really nothing.
rather a plant that softens brains.

originally posted by: Fowlerstoad
a reply to: Harte

In my scenario, Harte, with all due respect: there is no mortar. Zero need.

Exactly my point.
Since the layers of mortar (on the bottoms AND the sides) are there for anyone to see, how did that happen?
pic1
pic2
pic3

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Fowlerstoad
a reply to: Harte

In my scenario, Harte, with all due respect: there is no mortar. Zero need.

Exactly my point.
Since the layers of mortar (on the bottoms AND the sides) are there for anyone to see, how did that happen?
pic1
pic2
pic3

Harte

Aye i think i know what you mean, i think the last two layers on those structures was a layer of a castable sandstone(the mortar you spoke of) to bind all together, and then finally the large stone plates that were the surface of the structures.

originally posted by: solve

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Fowlerstoad
a reply to: Harte

In my scenario, Harte, with all due respect: there is no mortar. Zero need.

Exactly my point.
Since the layers of mortar (on the bottoms AND the sides) are there for anyone to see, how did that happen?
pic1
pic2
pic3

Harte

Aye i think i know what you mean, i think the last two layers on those structures was a layer of a castable sandstone(the mortar you spoke of) to bind all together, and then finally the large stone plates that were the surface of the structures.

If you'll look into it, you'll find that the mortar wasn't "castable sandstone." And I don't know how anyone can look at those pics and come away still maintaining the stones in question were in any way cast.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Different strokes for different folks i guess, have a nice day,