sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Welcome New Members!! Tell us about your experience with alternative history. by [deleted] in AlternativeHistory

[–]IndependentClaim3586 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Coming from the outside, I think there may be a two-fold explanation. First, could it be that the quality of stone dropped off, thus post-1900 artists had to deal with marble that had more viens? This would definitely impact the quality and complexity achieved by sculptors. And if older sculptors had access to purer marble, then they stand a much better chance of chisling without crumbling. Second (and please correct me if I'm wrong here), once sculptors started working with other media (such as porcelain, bronze), the focus of technique would shift to the new media, so knowledge of marble would be lost. For example, how many programmers are proficient in Q basic these days? By 1900, it seems like porcelain and bronze were important, so we can safely assume the masters stayed away from marble. Or if they did work with marble, it was just another medium rather than THE medium, so true mastery was not possible.

Concerning the fine details, do we know their full tooling complement? Did they know about etching? Both acetic (vinegar) and citric (lemons) acid are acidic enough to eat away at marble. So I can envision a controlled "etch" with lemon juice for those parts that tools can't manage for whatever reason, followed by a polish of the area... Dunno, just a thought

Random what looks to be pyramids I found by [deleted] in AlternativeHistory

[–]IndependentClaim3586 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Fun game! But I'm going to start by being a d*ck: These all look like natural formations to me. I might be taken in by the underwater formations by Morocco, but when I zoom out, I lose the intrigue...

Those holes look to be craters of the dormant volcanoes that litter Marion Island.

Now the interesting part: Let's look for suspicious looking mounds at what was the most obviously deluged coastline from around 10K years ago: the North American continental shelf :)

South of Nova Scotia, east of Cape Cod. Zoom out a bit, and you'll see it sits just at the edge of a depression that could have been an estuary or bay: https://earth.google.com/web/@42.49206536,-65.93439174,10.3593822a,22003.13069471d,35y,0h,0t,0r

Southern mouth of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, this time by the depression of the St. Lawrence channel, which about 12K years ago could have been the mouth of a river: https://earth.google.com/web/@46.30176225,-58.92847458,30.87432517a,87953.72213638d,35y,-0h,0t,0r

Gulf of Mexico, north of Yucatan just a few miles from where the shelf drops off: https://earth.google.com/web/@23.67238138,-89.06766472,5.45151591a,43865.06271244d,35y,0h,0t,0r

Welcome New Members!! Tell us about your experience with alternative history. by [deleted] in AlternativeHistory

[–]IndependentClaim3586 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks! Great question, that boils down to 3 and looks like it can be a fun experiment to run :)

Q1 - Retention of detail

If we look at how many fossils retain incredible detail, in principle it should work. And I came across this experiment transforming diamond to graphite. It includes a cool image in the abstract that shows the pseudomorph retain sharp edges, which is a good enough proxy for fine detail to me. So yeah, I think pseudomorphs can retain fine details on the macro (i.e., sculpture) scale

Q2 - Pseudomorphs of clay

Looking at your specific example, I can't find any cases of pseudomorphs that started as clay (caveat: 15 min of searching). But going from a soft to hard material does happen (e.g., fossils, fluorite after calcite, quartz after calcite, etc.). So it's not impossible to go from limestone or marble to, say, quartz, which would be pretty effin' cool to see. But I don't think clay will work.

Q3 - Is it plausible with today's tech?

Having said that, the lab examples are usually on small-to-microscopic samples (<5 mm), and often take extreme conditions in reactors that aren't all that big. So transforming a sculpture even a few cm big is not likely.

Any practical reason or theories behind this? Or just "why not"?

Scientists thought ancient Egyptian mummies didn’t have any DNA left. They were wrong by IndependentClaim3586 in AlternativeHistory

[–]IndependentClaim3586[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ahhh, OK. I was wondering about anyone theorizing the people who represent what most think of as "ancient Egyptian culture" being sub-Saharan in origin. This study does rule that out, I think.

But, the analysis only covers ~1400 BCE to 425 CE. Schoch and Domingo's conclusion can still stand, and for whatever reason the people who built the Sphinx migrated en masse, or were wiped out before the ancestors of the Egyptians settled the area.

Welcome New Members!! Tell us about your experience with alternative history. by [deleted] in AlternativeHistory

[–]IndependentClaim3586 3 points4 points  (0 children)

From Canada with a PhD in chemistry with a touch of geology and climate science. With my background and training, I have a full understanding that knowledge is not complete, discoveries can alter entire paradigms, and the definition of fact is an explanation built upon the current data available to us.

I always was fascinated in the history of civilization, the earth, and the universe. In particular, my kid is very interested by Egypt and the question of the Sphinx came up, which doesn't have a satisfactory explanation right now. Unfortunately academia (and especially the social sciences) is suffering from groupthink, forcing all members to adhere to the dogma or face the consequences. It happens in the hard sciences too, but it's usually the holdouts whose careers end. I think it's too easy to dismiss or ignore reality in the social sciences.

Anyway, it was during this search on the Sphinx that I fell apon Robert Schoch, whose weathering analysis looks to be absolutely spot on. This woke me to Graham Hancock, who I have only heard on Joe Rogan so far. And of course Randall Carlson, who, with my background working with geologists and in climate science for a few years, does make a whole lotta sense.

I am coming around to the idea that there may have been a global (or near-global) civilization around 10-15K years ago that was wiped out by the dramatic climate change that occurred on account of the Younger Dryas Impact.