As pointed before, the nanosecond you talk about evidence that demonstrates your contraption to work, we are talking physics. (And chemistry and architecture)
And this point of yours was demonstrated to be a dumb one because it was under the context of you showing how experts were useless. It actually showed what experts do to convince others that fail to grasp what is going on, Lister checked the published science, made detailed descriptions of his theory, set experiments, eventually he was shown to be correct.
You are doing none of it.
There is no evidence and the quantities of natron described in the PT make only sense in the context of rites or/of humidification, as noted it makes even less sense to use those pitiful quantities of natron to “seed” the geyser: physically speaking you do have to push the natron water deep, as just dumping it in a hole will only hit the water on the top and the fizz would be even more pitiful. This is why to get those gushers with a soda bottle and Mentos you need to have the Mentos go to the bottom of the bottle/cave, and in much larger quantities than the ones you think, you only demonstrate a lot of ignorance.
Of course there is no evidence of the underground water with the chemicals needed under the pyramids, cold water geysers happens close to mountainous terrains because they need a lot of other rocks more resistant to the carbonic acid underground.
It’s impossible to gain knowledge directly through observation. Observation and experimental result have to be seen in context and within a framework of understanding. We get only glimpses and fleeting looks at reality and we must incorporate this information with what we know.
What good are experimental results if they aren’t understood or are misinterpreted? What good is observatrion if we still don’t know what we’re seeing?
I think the most salient property is that all other non animal languages make perfect sense to humans or can be deduced if there is enough writing. Here there is so much writing it can be translated but still makes no sense.
You might call this a “lack of a property” but so far as we know languages are designed chiefly solely for the purpose of making sense. One that makes no sense is illogical. It just stands to reason that it makes sense but we can’t see it.
Maybe I can say it another way and save a couple posts.
A tool determines the nature of the work that is done with it. Just as the nature of ancient science determined what it could learn and the order it learned it, language determines what can be communicated and understood. It’s not solely deduction that allows me to make these assertions but extrapolation and theory.
Modern scientists are interpolating between scientific experiments where I am extrapolating scientific knowledge of different types. I don’t really “know” all this and if you read carefully I’m not really suggesting I do so much as I’m suggesting the huge differences that will naturally arise from seeing the world from different perspectives. Of course all this is very much contingent on the pyramids having been built with water. If I’m wrong then we’re right back to the PT making no sense and maybe they dragged the stones up one step at a time using brute strenght.
It’s all contingent on how the pyramid was built and ALL the evidence agrees that they used water while the PT says it was CO2 geysers.
See, most people here are fundamentally empiricists. I believe that empiricism has shown itself to be the most effective way of exploring our universe that humankind has yet discovered. Science works.
Apparently, you reject empiricism. That’s fine, I get that. But own it. Accept that you are operating under very different definitions of “evidence” and “fact” and even “logic” than your audience. Accept that you cannot, and will not, provide the sort of evidence we request. Accept that what you are positing rests on faith and belief, not science. Accept that you are witnessing.
Of course this weapons grade ignorance is contradicted right away by you:
“Observation is critical in science, but scientists often make inferences about what those observations mean. Observations are part of a complex process that involves coming up with ideas about how the natural world works and seeing if observations back those explanations up.”
-Understanding science from UC Berkeley.
But enough about yourself.
You are indeed thinking that this is very linear. The linear scientific method implies that science is done by individual scientists working through these steps in isolation (This really sounds familiar in this thread).
“But in reality, science depends on interactions within the scientific community. Different parts of the process of science may be carried out by different people at different times”. Like Houdin as an architect realizing one way the Pyramids might had been made. Or Lister applying biology to medicine, in this case completely ignoring physics and chemistry only leads to Lysenkoismif a person that ignores all other related experts and sciences manages to gain the ear of people in power.
The “Bull of Heaven” is dead. Long live the work of the Bull of Heaven.
This thing was made principally of things that had no useful purpose after construction and many that were valuable and could be repurposed or recycled. All the rest of it was as ephemeral as a summer breeze. It doesn’t survive and would be no more expoected to survive than a ramp leaning on the pyramid. No, wauit, I misspoke. Logically there should be ramp fragments pointing up to the upper reaches on all the pyramids or at least some. Instead we have bits and pieces of ramps that are confiugured to support some means of lifting stones straight up the side EXACTLY AS I PROPOSE.
There is no part of this that isn’t evidenced in a logical way because it was the evidence that drove theory formation. Where something doesn’t quite fit then I’m always looking for new evidence and new ideas that make a better fit. I’m always lookiong for confirmation and contradictory evidence. It is the contradictory evidence that has the greatest ability to cause change in the theory.
It is anomalous observations that drive discovery.
If you think you have contradictory evidence then I’d like to see it. I’m fully aware my theory hasn’t been proven yet and this is somewhat concerning because I really don’t think Egyptologists are stupid. I would have expected someone to notice the truth by now even if they aren’t paying a lot of attention. I’d like to believe the current study of the G1 base is an attempt to falsify my theory but this isn’t set in stone. They implied results would be released immediately so we’ll see soon, perhaps. Maybe if they look close enough they’ll even find some damage created by your “acid” but I seriously doubt it since the geyser was literally flat by the time it became hathor. Hathor was hot enough but no mention is made of any attributes below the neck.
So says you, but not google or Wikipedia – from what I gather from some preliminary searches, the various stages of the Ancient Egyptian language are understood as well as other languages from that era.
Ancient Egyptian descended from the progenitor of all Afro-Asiatic languages (proto-Afro-Asiatic), which include Arabic, Hebrew, and numerous other languages.
ALL ideas are individual. No group of scientists and no committee ever had an idea. It’s impossible for inanimate objects and constructs to think. Think tanks exist only between your own ears and within your viscera.
Reality is a bear whether we recognize its existence or not. Mother nature always has had, has, and will have the last word. Reality unfolds chaotically and harmonically. It is automatic and would require an infinite number of calculations in an infinitely short time were not automatic. We are merely observers who have lost the playbook and put our faith in beliefs instead.
This discoinnect from reality gets more dangerous with each passing year. The threats to the human race become more serious with each passing year. Technology can’t save us because the chief threats are related directly or indirectly to this technology.
:eek:
I wouldn’t be putting any money down that your name even comes up in conversation, let alone that your “theory” is any sort of driving force behind any current studies.
If it makes sense then tell me what “eye of Horus” means.
If you can’t say it in terms easy enough for a caveman to understand (I’m too thick to need to understand it), then the writing makes no sense.
Remember my contention is the vocabulary can be translated but not the language. Showing that the words didn’t change is no evidence at all.
If it makes no sense then it’s not a language at all; it is the incoherent ramblings of sun addled bumpkins who thought one could be his own father and have four mothers.
I posted drawings. I believe models are irrelevant because the mechanics are so simple a caveman could do it. I’ve shown they had the technical ability and lknowledge to do it. A fiberglass model is kind of irrelevant to the capabilities of the great pyramids builders.
Why did no Egyptological model of ramps exist until just this year? This modelling wouldn’t even work if it were actually constructed due to fatal flaws but this doesn’t seem to bother anyone either.
The process is simple; they caught water at 81’ 3" and channeled it at this altitude to boats on top that were attached by rope to a load of stone on the opposite side. The ropes were strung across the top so that when the boat (counterweight) got heavy enough it fell 81’ 3" and lifted the load of stone. All the stones were pulled up one step at a time exactly as all the evidence shows. What would a model be for? This process is far simnpler and more primitive than ramps. It merely requires things they had in abundance and the knowledge to do it.
It could mean “the eye of a guy (or god) named Horus”. It may mean other things depending on context.
I see no reason to believe your contention, considering that the texts that have been translated seem pretty comparable to the texts translated from other ancient languages (like Sumerian) – lots of references to religion, lots of religious metaphors, etc.
From what I can gather, it makes as much sense as any ancient language. Just another language – I don’t think you grasp this, but I see no reason to see Ancient Egyptian as fundamentally different (except linguistically, obviously) than Sumerian, ancient Chinese, or any other ancient language.
