Coolness; thank you! I’ve read some Diamond, but didn’t remember this bit. Interesting.
I suppose, if deer were to be domesticated, they’d be kinda ruined by the experience. Compare dom. cattle to wild cattle, or dom. turkeys to wild turkeys. It dumbs them down quite a bit. So…let us rejoice in wild deer!
Should I ask for a clarification here, or…
Well, if your domicile is at 90° N, 0° W, sure.
You’re probably right, we might could. I am by no means an expert - I was remembering what I read in Guns, Germs and Steel, and also on Wikipedia. I would also think that deer, were it possible to domesticate them, could be used to carry burdens. And you could probably get a good amount of milk from the bigger breeds, like elk and moose.
But IANA biologist, and have no problem admitting I might be, and often am, wrong.
I’m not sure what the question is.
Ancient science was lost completely with the collapse of the language. The species would have died back and probably never recovered and never invented modern science except almost all the ancient technology survived the coillapse of science. This technology (agriculture in particular) allowed large populations and the continuation of cities.
It is very difficult to go backward. The knowledge needed to be nomads was mostly lost by the time of babel. Human population would have undergone a bottleneck. During this time the ancient scientists would have still been making new discovery but this had to end as well (these might have been “the nephilim”). The language was doomed to utter collapse and this collapse ended all science as it was known at that time.
This is debunked. See post #1932.
If it was “lost completely”, then:
I get that you believe this and all…but you *do *understand that it has absolutely no basis in fact, right?
Language was its metaphysics.
It’s entirely possible the ancient science is of extremely little value to us. But this isn’t the point. The point is that we can come to understand the ancients and to better understand ourselves. It should at least help in deciphering animal languages.
I believe it coiuld be critically important to us but until people start working on in all I have is opinion and my opinion is just as worthless as Egyptological opinion.
We need facts and logic, not opinions.
Does this sentence mean anything at all to anyone other than cladking? If so, could you please explain it to me?
What do you even mean when you misuse the word metaphysics?
Nah. Your opinion, (based on nothing but yourt imagination), is much more worthless than that of the Egyptologists.
And after over 650 posts, you have provided neither.
No! In what world are things like “the earth is high under the sky by means of the arms of tefnut” some kind of incantation? Almost none of it at all actually sounds like either magic or abracadabra.
Utterance 621.
In what world does a dead king run about (in corpse drippings no less) smelling the eyes of non-existent gods? This doesn’t look like some magic words to me.
445d. It is our brother who is bringing this (boat) for these bridge-girderers (?) of the desert.
Come on! This doesn’t say “roast three toad livers and baste in nightshade juice”. Is the dead king supposed to tell the ferryman he’ll be bringing along another boat soon? The illogic here is vast and comprehensive.
“Now be still men, hear…”
Who does the dead king recite this magic to?
Even if anything did make some sort of sense the fact is that the entire work in internally inconsistent as it’s interpreted according to Egyptologists. We are trying to understand a culture based on what Egyptologists call gobbledty gook and magic. This is the height of insanity. Even if Egyptology is correct, especially if they are correct, it’s insane to try to understand a culture based on a book of incantation that isn’t even logically consistent as a book of magic.
There is a failing here but I doubt that the failing is on the part of the ancients. We have utterly misapprehended their language and thought. Translators say they can only “circumscribe the meaning” and then Egyptologists failed to ever even read it. They began interpreting it even before they had read it.
This should all seem obvious before so very long. “Ramps” were a crazy idea and born of ignorance and prejudice, not science. You want “modeling” so badly why not ask Egyptologists why they NEVER modeled ramps!
The last post was a little bit of a fib. Just this year for the first time it was finally done. Anyone keeping up with the debunkment and other posts shouldn’t have too much trouble spotting the fatal flaws in the model and there is no evidence to support the model. Again the justification for proposing a ramp at all is “they mustta used ramps”.
As poor as this study is, it is actually one of the best at addressing many of my concerns. Besides being debunked all ramp theories suffer a major flaw; the stones were pulled up five step pyramids one step at a time.
Jeesh.
[QUOTE=cladking]
This should all seem obvious before so very long. “Ramps” were a crazy idea and born of ignorance and prejudice, not science. You want “modeling” so badly why not ask Egyptologists why they NEVER modeled ramps!
[/QUOTE]
Except, as you’ve been repeatedly shown and told, THEY HAVE. I know you don’t want to accept this, or even deal with it in your narrative, but you’ve been shown several examples of such models and had cites linked to you repeatedly showing how they have been modeled, both on computer and with folks actually bothering to do real world testing. The fact that, after all this you can’t grasp even this part is telling…again, it’s like you don’t understand that folks can scroll up and see what was said. You seem used to basically drowning out argument through repeated assertion of non-facts and mystical bullshit, relying on sheer fatigue to eventually drown out all opposition and ‘win’ (in your own mind) the argument…that, and, perhaps having verbal communications where you can change (again, in your own mind) what was and wasn’t said. However, as with many things, it’s really only YOU who is fooled by any of this stuff…anyone else even nominally following along can see where the real data and fact are, as opposed to assertion and horseshit, which is really all you’ve provided, despite folks trying to engage you and asking you to back up ANYTHING you’ve written. Something you have singularly failed to do through page after page of this train wreck.
I say we stop addressing him. He’s obviously too obsessed to listen to anyone but himself, because that’s better than me thinking he might be trying to get a rise out of us for his own enjoyment.
cladking, go back to my post about getting a website. You’ll save your fingertips by not having to repeat the same bullshit over and over, and if you leave out a comments section nobody will disagree with you.
As always you are wrong, the egyptologists and other experts do not worry about consistencies, because after all it was the religion of the ancient Egyptians. Then as now of course that there are inconsistencies, because that is what faith is indeed. Archaeologists only record then about what the ancient Egyptians believed about what would happen in the entrance to the world of the dead, not that those words described actual real things.
We do not need to care much about why they did it, or why those rites came to be, what it is important for the case of your contraption is to find what it is based on clearly real things; and clearly the amounts of Natron mentioned in the PT are useless to neutralize the acid for an inundation, but “useful” amounts for their rites of purification and embalming.
Straw must be on sale this week. 
It’s been linked to (in fact, the link uptread goes into more detail about the model), but I can’t be bothered to find it again. However, here is an article that talks about the various theories and briefly talks about the modeling software used (note, the article was from 2007…and the King o’ Clad was shown this theory several times in several different ways WITH links, yet the 2015 is ‘first time it was finally done’ in claddy’s mind, since he can use the resulting strawman to bat down arguments :p). Anyone besides Cladking…you use that wheel in the middle of your mouse to scroll up and down, and you can click on earlier pages to see what’s been discussed. Innovative concept, to be sure…
Just one more drive by then I’m out of here for the night. I found this little gem of a thread where our buddy the King o’ Clad was offered a model for an external ramp…which he declined to engage in the debate for (this was 2014) after a half hearted attempt at shifting the goal posts and going into what ‘math’ is.
(Mods, if this isn’t cool to link to another board feel free to delete the post…I just thought it was funny that a Google search on ‘pyramid ramps theories’ came up with SEVERAL threads that our buddy participated in, including the one I linked to earlier and this one.
While looking for an easy way to try to explain your confusion I stumbled on interesting fact or two and was able to reorganize my theory a little to better suit the evidence. It appears the scientific word for degassification was “nwtknw”, the colloquial term was “effervescense”, and the vulgar term was “imperishable stars”.
It’s odd really that the word “effervescent” appears repeatedly in the PT and the “foaming” appears as well but Egyptologists never noticed. I posted earlier about the foaming water that damaged walls and here’s another about nwtknw hacking up the house.
1926a + 2 (Nt. 748). thou who seest the hacking up of the house (by)
1926a + 3 (N. VI 709 + 16). [N]wtknw.
1927a-1 (Nt. 749). O N., behold that which was done to thee,
1927a-2 (N. 709 + 16). king N., and not only to thee, but, behold, against thy foot;
192 7a-3 (Nt. 750). it is not done on account of thee, nor on account of thy hand.
1927a (Nt. 750-751). Protect thyself against Nwtknw.
Probably of more interest to you is the wiki entry for “effervescence”.
Here it says the word has the same linguistic root as “fermentation”. This is the same thing seen over and over between ancient and modern language. Ancient languagfe took a perspective from the inside and saw the production of “I3.t-wt.t” causing the rise in bread, beer, cake, and gods so “named” it “risings begetter” while we see the process CO2 production in beer and call it “fermentation”. It’s not the words that change so much as it is the perspective. When they saw water effervesce it was a visible “serpent” returning to the air. They saw the damage done by the carbonated water and described it and where it damaged things exactly.
There are advantages to seeing things from the inside. If you could see the geyser from the inside you wouldn’t be describing it as impossible. CO2 geysers existed long before man had pressure vessels or natron to precipitate them.
When a soda or beer goes flat it is no longer acidic. When water from a geyser goes flat it no longer dissolves stone. I don’t know how to state this more simply. Geysers are real. They spray water and if you catch this water it can be used to do work. This isn’t theory or guess or opinion. It is simple fact.
Houdin’s internal ramp theory is debunked. ALL ramp theories are debunked.
As I’ve said numerous times including in this very thread Houdin’s internal ramp theory is not as solidly debunked as all other ramp theories. This is due to the actual nature of the evidence that debunks all ramps. Some of the physical evidence and logic that debunks all other ramp theories does not apply at all to internal ramps.
Of course I’m very familiar with Houdin’s models and I am not impressed by computer graphics and computations about growing wings. Houdin also is not an Egyptologist and his ideas tend to be held in some disdain by Egyptologists. They wouldn’t even let him do scientific teesting at his own expense. They were so busy destroying evidence they just didn’t have time for all the paperwork.
I left out the word “Egyptological” when I said “no ramp theories” have been modeled". I shouldda said “no Egyptological ramp theories” have been modeled. Obviously my command of the language as well as my precision are sorely lacking. I’ll try to be more careful so I don’t lose you in the future.
Lets leave behind your useless translations.
(Actually, if you think a little bit, one can conclude also that the effervescence observed matches also the purification or the embalming process. In essence what you try to explain away remains).
More ignorance, you are not explaining how you manage to send the tons of natron filled water underground to start the reaction and the geyser.
First you started describing the natron as a neutraliser of the acid and that was actually more plausible than sending it underground.
That is sad really, really sad, because I also report that they exist indeed, and they undermine what you claim.
It is simply a dumb idea at the levels that you are claiming that contraption worked. All the natural geysers are useless for this, the only option are the artificial ones and even those are 1) not reliable, 2) not strong enough to do the job. 3) You made your idea worse and more complicated by claiming now that the Natron filled water is injected into the ground. And 4) No reports of that kind of geyser in Egypt.
Acid rain demonstrates that even if flat the rate of wear is less because of the carbonic acid, but weathering of limestone would remain a problem, even at low concentrations this is what the wall of the funiculars and stone structures in the pyramid and you contraptions would had looked after a few days:
