cladking, holes are holes and stone is stone and it wouldn’t float any better upside down. We are both grasping at air, trying to figure out its function. That’s a professional disease, so in this isolated case you are thinking like an archaeologist; they also hate to admit that they don’t know what something was used for. The usual default is “ceremonial purposes,” which works well for something found in a tomb. A lamp on a pole is as good a suggestion as any, but I’m unwilling to say that for sure. A base for something is probably wrong, owing to its fragility.
While it is sometimes hard to guess an artifact’s original use, it is often easy to say what it wasn’t, and your idea makes no sense whatsoever. However, it is better than others’ claims that it is a propeller, as it would not operate as a propeller. Where do people get this shit?
You are wrong, as usual, about it not being a work of art. The beautiful, thin leaves sweeping off the base indicate the hand and eye of an artist in its construction. Maybe it would be more useful in the afterlife.
There are many other pictures on the net if you prefer.
Yes. They were debunked a few posts back. No amount of saying they mustta used ramps will change this fact.
“Most archaeologists agree that a system of ramps must have been used to drag the millions of blocks into their positions in the various pyramids.”
This “mustta” statement has been madew in a million ways but the fact is that it’s quite clear they pulled stones up 81’ 3" high steps EXACTLY AS BOTH the gravimetric scan and the builders said. They most certainly did NOT “mustta used ramps”. This is a simple fact.
Nope, you are not even wrong, what I was referring is what the experts are reporting to the BBC and National Geographic, they report what most experts are considering are the most likely explanations, for something to be debunked you need to show also that most experts agree with you.
Since that is not the case (as I looked already) you are wrong, it has not been debunked among the experts and academics, as XP pointed out, you need to work it out in science or historical journals so they will see that the ramp ideas are properly debunked. (not holding my breath for that one, as your response about the pretty pictures showed, you are not very good at pointing at good evidence or respected sites*)
Until then you are wrong.
*Or I should say: your only demonstrated ability shown here so far of just pointing at sites that are mummified does not give me or anyone here the confidence that you are aware about the march or time, or that you will be able to cite properly when you make your paper to the historical journals.
Of course it is! That’s because you have decided that a mks-scepter is something it isn’t–IT IS A STICK!
I weary of the nonsense you keep spouting. Throw out your nine years of “research” and reenter the field with a cleared head and the knowledge that you don’t know shit. Maybe you can learn something, and maybe come up with a new insight that isn’t crazy-wrong. And stop listening to your gut. It knows digestion, nothing else.
I saw this thread got revived, skimmed, and saw that someone was contesting the “traditional” ways, and groaned because yet another guy arguing that aliens are the best explanation. I was pleasantly surprised that this was not the case, but rather a real historical discussion about alternative scientific hypotheses for how they were built. Yay.
People today are confusing ancient art with reality. Ancient art was an attempt to depict reality (amun) in two dimensions and it followed “rules” just like language follows rules. “Natural phenomena” (gods) existed in four dimensions but were ascribed the most appropriate human and animal characteristics to be depicted in ink or paint. “Tools” or “machine parts” were depicted in one dimension retaining their essential elements toi the degree possible. Some of these are quite obvious like the “shm-sceptre” was a paddle shaped device that was inserted into the crown of the water spray to divert it into the mn-canal so in depiction it is a paddle shaped stick. Some are more subtle like the “dm-sceptre” was a pulley or roller that redirected the rope between 20 and 52 degrees at the pyramid edges. These are depicted as a stick shaped as a sine curve. The w3s-sceptre operated the djed and had a holder that gripped the neck of vases for dumping “libations” (solutions of natron) into the well to force eruptions.
Exactly how the mks-sceptre came to be a stick with a nodule, I’m sure I don’t know but it might be a depiction of the sceptre as the nodule within the nurse canal.
Ancient art shared many of the same considerations as the language.
This is reasonable but let me put it this way then;
There is an important object with no known referent missing from the ancient record. We know that it made light by night only when it was violently rocked and it burned oil in a canal. When it burned in the morning it signaled men to report to work on a good day of running upon the mountain;
1555b. (is) in the mouth of those who run to them on the good day of running (while running is good).
…
1556b. (is) in the mouth of the gods, on the good day of the going upon the mountain.
1557a. (When) inundations are upon the land,
We know this object was unpacked at the beginning of pyramid building season in June. We know it was kept afloat by rennenutet’s channeling of CO2.
This was a very remarkable object of unestimable importance to the great pyramid builders since it is mentioned all through the tiny amount of evidence that survives. One would think it might be found in a tomb of a high ranking official if one beat the odds and survived.
The object I’m associating with being the fire-pan has all the required characteristics. For many years it sat right at the entrance of the Cairo Museum but almost as soon as I identified it, it was removed and hasn’t been seen since.
We all pick and choose our facts and I’m no different. However there are no established facts that work against my theory to my knowledge. There are a few minor inconsistencies but I believe these will mostly be seen to be nothing once data stars roilling in.
One of the problems with all research into the pyramids is the lack of solid evidence. However my theory does account for all of the known facts where ramps are contradicted by many of them. Facts just want to stick to this theory. I believe that despite how “surprising” this may be there is a very significant probabilty (~75%) that the great pyramids were all built with the weight of water falling from the heights of their first steps.
The problem with most ideas about how the pyramids were built is the near void of evidence. A case can be made for aliens or giants but defending the position is exceedingly difficult. These ideas usually start with an assumption like “there mustta been aliens” or “there mustta been rampos”.
I stumbled on mine. I started with “is there any evidence they used the weight of water” and then quickly found the PT and proceeded with “the PT mustta made sense”. I specifically sought common sense and logic. I tried to solve word meanings so it made sense and I believe I succeeded. Every word had only a single meaning which made it far easier but everything used three words which threw me for a while. Once you understand that meaning was expressed by the choice of the word used it starts making sense.
Don’t know if anyone here watches the Vsauce channel on YouTube or not, but this guy has a spin off channel that’s very similar. He also has this video on his take on how the pyramids were made based on the current understanding by experts in the field. It’s not an in depth video (it’s like a Vsauce video, short and sweet) but I figured I’d link to it since I happened to be surfing my various channels and came across it. If the 5 minutes this video takes is too long, you can skip ahead until about half way through where he talks about ramps, which if they have been debunked he is also unaware of.
cladking As you already acknowledged, there a near void of evidence for your ideas, but the fact is (as it is the fact that most experts do not see the use of ramps as debunked) that there is more evidence for ramps as the BBC explained in many other pyramids in Egypt, just like in the case of mistakes when the angle of the first non stepped pyramids was noticed and corrected midway the evidence points to the ancient Egyptians as also realizing that single ramps were found to not be effective in larger structures so a change to ramps that were smaller and going around the pyramid or internally was the way to go.
There is evidence in places like the great gallery in the great pyramid that shows were a counter weight was placed and used. And together with counterweights it is clear that the issue of how many men were used in the construction is easy to deal with, there were less men needed to to the job as the Egyptians just like architects of today found more effective and economical ways to do the job.
The theory that water was used to move the stones around the pyramid has many problems and more complications than the most recent ones about the internal ramps have to deal with.
IMHO just like with the previous efforts (that included mistakes) the Egyptians were making improvements of how to move stones and build pyramids in places that were far away from water, it is very unlikely that then they decided to use water power (and as I noticed in discussions elsewhere I have seen people like experts in fluid dynamics point out that just the proposed gates used to control the water would be more complex and harder to deal with rather than the more simple ramps and pulleys) when they already had for all intents and purposes the previous techniques with ramps pulleys and counterweights already perfected.
sayoing true knowledge is visceral may seem opposite science but it really isn’t. This is because modern scientific metaphysics doesn’t include things like reality being axiomatic. It’s simply the natrure of the way modern science works. Underlying principles are discovered through experiment and we then extrapolate these results to all of nature. That is reality comes into play only as it affects experiment. This is very different from ancient science.
But most of the knowledge of modern science is visceral in some individuals. With sufficient and appropriate experience even the most subtle scientific knowledge can become visceral. I think the problem here though is that we do a lot of improper extrapolation of results and we don’t see it because we see the world only in terms of what we think we know. This allows even the craziest ideas like “the pyramids were built with ramps” or “stones were pulled up one step at a time” to make perfect sense to almost anyone at all. We each end up with our own beliefs upon which we act and by doing so eventually become a product of those beliefs. It is very wise to “do like Cecil Adams” and try to believe only those things that are true. Otherwise we do become a product of things that aren’t true. To a large extent though this is the human condition since we have so little information and such puny tools to discover reality. Facts and logic are weak tools because we rarely have all the relevant facts and even the logic of the ancient language could fail if incomplete data was used.
This fact just isn’t widely known or acknowledged yet. I believe it won’t be many more years until it is.
Ultimately the only real evidence for ramps has been “they mustta used ramps” and this is highly illogical in light of the inefficiency of the means. But now days there is extensive evidence they actually used a far easier and far more efficient means; they pulled the stones straight up the side one step at a time.
I think the question that remains is the means that was used to pulled them straightup the side and I believe the answer is in the PT; counterweights full of water. They used funiculars and counterweights.
You keep saying that but thus far have provided zero evidence outside of your say so. The real evidence of ramps is found in the archeological record of their use, especially on unfinished pyramids, and not ‘they mustta used ramps’, which you keep claiming. Until you have some real evidence you are just blowing smoke, and saying that they have been debunked (in your mind) but that it will be years before this knowledge comes out is a load of horseshit. Show me a cite by a reputable archeologist or someone who is an expert in the field saying that ramp use in Egypt has bee debunked and you will go a long way to backing up your claims. Tell me that it’s been debunked by no one knows this yet and I’m going to simply dismiss you until this secret knowledge has been peer reviewed and actual experts in the subject have come to a new consensus. They haven’t, as yet, so it’s not been debunked, and as far as I know it’s not going to be debunked since, as I said, there is actual archeological evidence of their use.
There is plenty of evidence that stones were pulled up ramps to build some structures in Egypt and this pre and post dates great pyramid constuction and is concurrent with it. There’s just no question ramps were used in Egypt. The question is how were stones lifted on the great pyramids and it is here where there is no evidence it was ramps. The few ramps associated with great pyramids are too flimsy, point in the wrong direction, or point at the base of the pyramid so constitute evidence that ramps weren’t used to lift stones up onto the pyramid. These ramps are all explained by my theory and all work against the idea ramps were used on the pyramid.
I think that while we could legitimately say there is a near void of evidence for my theory today there are things that are relevant to this statement. If it is proven to be correct people will see the extensive circumstantial evidence and it will become quite “obvious” to everyone. There’s also the fact that all the physical evidence points in a single direction; the use of the weight of water. Throw in the a new paradigm to which facts adhere and lead to new discoveries and in twenty years everyone will marvel that we’ve been so wrong for so long.
does not give me or anyone here the confidence that you are aware about the march or time, or that you will be able to cite properly when you make your paper to the historical journals.
