> Origyptian Wrote:
> > What's your point, Thanos? Are you saying the only
> > way you can think of making such a "slurry" is to
> > crush the stone with a machine, and so therefore
> > that was the only way it could have been done?
> How could it be done without the use of machines
> doctor? It's a simple question which your imposing
> a lack of imagination on me does not answer.
100 years ago humans thought the "sound barrier" was impenetrable.
200 years ago they thought the only way to boil water was by applying heat.
300 years ago they thought humans couldn't fly.
Just because they couldn't think of a way doesn't mean there isn't a way. Right?
> > Can you fathom that perhaps things might have been
> > done in ways we still don't understand?
> Unless it was done by magic then I am not sure how
> they did it is beyond our understanding regardless
> of the method they used.
Not knowing how else it could have been done clearly doesn't mean it couldn't have been done another way that we haven't discovered yet.
> > Do you suppose that all we know today is all there is to
> > know, or that we already know all that was ever known in the past?
> So your answer to the question is....? Nothing.
I don't understand that conclusion. There is no practical explanation for how dozens of 70 ton slabs of granite were quarried in Aswan, lifted, shaped, and transported to some kind of boat that could carry such beasts 600 miles down the Nile to Cairo, then lifted off, transported to the construction site, and lifted 160 feet up a pyramid where each one was precision fit into place, not to mention there being zero evidence in the historic record of any such thing taking place according to anything close to the currently accepted timeline. No tools or methods in the artifacts, inscriptions, or papyri, and nothing in any tomb of a mason, foreman, architect, priest, or royalty. No record of any of the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of spectators who surely would have seen those things beng built over that 200 year span in the Old Kingdom. There's "Nothing" all over the place, and it needs to be reconciled.
> > And are you saying that it's not your "opinion"
> > that such a slurry was made by mechanically
> > crushing a stone with a machine,
> Please be honest doctor. Regarding my "opinion" in
> your own words it was in reference to:
> "Regarding the rest of your post, you're
> certainly entitled to your own opinion." which
> was about the whole "90%" business, curiously
> omitted from your response. Why do you try and
> make it something you know it was not?
There you go, initiating insults again. So I'm being dishonest again, eh? I said that "I recall" it was more than 90% which is 91%. You say 90%. OK then, make it 90%. Whether that's a significant difference to you, it's totally irrelevant to the point I was making.
> > but that if it
> > was a slurry then crushing it would have been the
> > only way it could have been done
> > simply because you personally cannot think of any
> > other way it could have been done?
> But yes, it would be my "opinion" granite slurry
> would be made from crushing granite into the
> smallest pieces possible which given I don't think
> it is practical they used hammers and adzes for
> the more industrial component of the work I would
> certainly vote for the use of some kind of
> machine. Which could be quite simple, say
> something like this:
> Though I don't think they made granite concrete,
> "slurry", in the least, I find the idea quite lame
> devoid of any evidence or practicality whatsoever,
> but if I were to imagine such things, yes, I
> think they would have crushed it first little
> different in principle than we do today.
So then you acknowledge it's your own opinion.
So what's the fuss about?
> But since I have no imagination maybe you can explain a way
> they would make granite slurry without the use of machines.
You are implying that if we can't think of how else it was done then there must not have been any other way. Yes, that does indeed convey a lack of imagination. It's an example of the notion that the humble 3 pounds of fat, water, and protein between our ears is sufficient to understand all the laws of physics that apply in the universe, all the forces of nature that control the timeline of life in the universe. It's astounding how many people rush torequire that it all fit into our own H. Sapiens logic. How do we reconcile all those megaliths at Baalbek, the andesite stonework in the Andes, stone boxes in the Serapeum with such a simplistic view of "machines" within a late stone age setting?
> > Why are you always looking for a fight when you
> > disagree with someone?
> I asked you a simple question doctor which your
> hystrionics and personal attacks on me seem to be
> nothing more than a smoke screen to avoid the
> inequity of your reasoning.
What personal attacks have I initiated?! Rather, you, consistent with your predictable inability to allow a different perspective than your own, immediately felt the need to resort to invoking legends and other sarcasm instead of simply engaging in civil dialog. Clearly, you don't even know you're doing it.
> No one is "picking a fight" and if you have an alternative to machines
> I may well agree with you for all you know, but
> instead of giving one you go on an unsolicited tirade.
What "tirade" have I initiated?! I'm not asking anyone to agree with me. I'm simply trying to understand why you only consider the physical crushing of stone and no other principle that we might not have discovered yet in the 21st century. Meanwhile, I'm not the one who inflates the difference between "many" and "most" and between 90% vs. 91%.
In my opinion, that stonework wasn't done when you or orthodoxy think it was done. From my perspective, the physical evidence strongly decries such an accomplishment and there is virtually zero evidence supporting it, just as there is zero evidence supporting the tomb hypothesis, ramps, and "magic". You have attempted to reconcile that stonework by invoking a Mesopotamian influence, and that's your own opinion. I interpret the evidence differently.
I have my own, apparently vastly different, opinion. WIth what I understand about the complexity of Nature and the universe, I allow the possibility of other intelligent logic, other principles we still do not understand, other intelligent species in our distrant past, and a more realistic timeline. If you don't allow such possibilities, that's your own opinion based on your own perspective of language, art, religion, physics, engineering, biomes, and natural cycles.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 29-Aug-17 13:33 by Origyptian.