> Archae Solenhofen Wrote:
> > >But that said, how can you be so sure that some of those granite
> > >monolith statues we see in Egypt weren’t fabricated from a
> > >slurry?
> > Because a "rock" solidified from a slurry (i.e.
> > mixture of a pulverized rock with a liquid).....
> > would not be a granite and would not be called
> > such by anyone who understood basic geological
> > facts. If anyone here imagines that Egyptian
> > granite statues or anything else of such were made
> > from a slurry then start calling the "rock" what
> > it actually is. Good luck convincing all but the
> > most gullible of gullibles by actually calling it
> > what it clearly isn’t ………
> This would be a perfect example of the "backfire
> effect" when evidence is provided that clearly
> refutes an idea yet the proponent(s) of the idea
> ignores it then argues for the idea even more
> despite knowing it has been disproven. The
> conversation regarding port injection molding
> should have been over after this post yet it
> continues as if actual facts are meaningless.
> Let me say the same thing in a different way:
> When you take granite, for example, and crush it
> up to make your slurry, however you want either by
> machine or magic, you have fundamentally changed
> the structure of the rock. Structurally it is no
> longer what it was, it is now something else
> different than its natural composition. To
> reconstitute this rock, i.e. make the slurry, you
> need to add a binding agent to make it stick back
> together again meaning that now you must introduce
> a component that was not originally part of the
> natural rock thereby not only changing it's
> structure yet again, but its elemental composition
> as well. Meaning as Archae said it is no longer
> "granite" or whatever rock you started with, but
> something else.
> This is quarried Aswan granite:
> It is the same structural and physical composition
> at the quarry as it is the in the column or block.
> If you crush this rock to make a slurry then add
> something to it to make it stick back together it
> does not magically harden into exactly the same
> thing it was before indistinguishable from the
> natural rock it started as with no trace
> whatsoever of it ever being crushed or of the
> binder. This should be common sense to anyone and
> the end of the port injection conversation. How
> this could be is not a matter of one's imagination
> or lack thereof or some magical
> as-yet-hitherto-unknown-technology, but the simple
> physics of matter. But look at what follows-blah
> blah blah blah with some even making diagrams as
> to how it would be done as if, again, facts are
I'm not sure what you guys know about the "simple physics of matter" (let's not forget that Newton thought he had it all figured out, but then came Einstein), or what it is that makes you so eager to write off the possibility of any other principle in physics that we just might not be aware of yet because of the limited capacity of that tiny 3 pounds of fat, water, and protein between our ears. I highly doubt our human brains could actually fathom every force of Nature in the universe. It's very clear that our bodies have a very limited capacity to confront Nature and that other species are far better than humans at confronting some forces of Nature.
What's so amazing is that you can't see all the assumptions you yourself are making in the course of your narrative. According to you, we must all be lockstep with you about crushing/pulverizing the stone, how it was crushed, the use of a binder. You talk about there being no need for some "magical as-yet-hitherto-unknown-technology", but in the same breath neither of you actually have the remotest clue what technology was used to produce much of that stonework.
And yet you are so quick to dismiss anyone else's notions about simply softening stone as if that necessarily requires "magic".
"Blah, blah, blah" indeed.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?