This is exactly the kind of thinking generated by modern language that looks at things from infinite distance. It seems to make perfect sense. No one would question the logic.
Unfortunately none of it is true in the real world where the pyramid exists. If you used the finest level there is nothing to keep the stone from gaining or losing altitude. You can build a shallow staircase. Most masons then and now would tend to have the whole thing in a fairly straight plane and water would puddle in the middle. We today don’t have fine enough control of altitude so when we pour floors we don’t even try to do it in one piece so in long buildings they are poured in segments with each being level. Water will puddle in the middle of each segment but the problem isn’t severe because segments are small enough.
The pyramid is built to extremely exacting standards. They had no means to level the 770’ long base other than cord, line of sight, or water. Each would produce a signature result. By measuing the altitude of the base at various locations it will be seen that each point is exactly the same distance from the center of the earth indicating they used water.
Their estimate of the diameter of the earth was off so much this would show up as well but then I don’t believe they had any means at all of applying this knowledge to the curvature of the pyramid base. Everything they did was simple and common sense; they used water to achieve a perfect level . They needed a perfect level because any entrapped water couldn’t be used and would go to waste. Efficiency and efficacy is why they did such fine work at all.
These were not tombs and they were not dragged up ramps.
They flooded the entire region around the primeval mound and then built the water collection device at the level of the water. It took months or years to build these devices because they are huge so the area was flooded for months or years. Herodotus said they spent ten years on the “causeway” and this probably includes the rest of the water catchment device which definitively was built before the pyramid because it lies under the pyramid.
I would disagree it is similar. I would certainly agree that the book of the dead is derived from the PT but anyone can understand the book of the dead and no one really understands the PT based on my criteria. So long as simple concepts aren’t understood and it’s inconsistent then the writing (meaning) isn’t understood.
I’m sure this woman is nobody’s fool and I’m hardly competent to judge her work but I’ve read it and can state categorically no language will ever be so complex you need a book to explain any of its words.
No. The little tiny pyramids were also built before the babel event. Truth be told though there is some writing from this same time period that looks fairly “modern”. This is why I’ve been suggesting the last couple years that modern language crept into the everyday lexicon for centuries before the ancient language was suddenly stopped as if by edict. …perhaps an edict written on the Tower of Babel.
I simply have no way of knowing these things at this time. Perhaps it can be deduced when the language is better understood and its “confused form” has been better analyzed. In a sense there are three languages, ancient, modern, and modern “interpretation” of ancient languge. Many “holy” books and the hermetic texts are in this last language. Many ancient book may be attempts at preserving ancient knowledsge rather than the scribblings of the sun addled.
I find Egyptological interpretation to be wholly unenlightening. We don’t seem to know the simplest things about the pyramid builders. My theory crosses most of the I’s and dots the T’s.
Yes. Exactly!
The word itself isn’t the point. It’s the “operation” dictated by the word. A computer arrives at a useful program by following the words and a listener of the ancient language arrived at the meaning of the speaker. The words weren’t the meaning, it was the context they created while following the rules of grammar.
It really isn’t groundbreaking, I know that. Many have proposed this before including some Egyptologists. But state of the art at this time tends to lean strongly toward saying they didn’t have water and it was too much trouble to haul it in. It would take vast amounts to keep the area flooded and if it were done in sections then it would show unevenness as if a level were used. I’m quite confident testing the altitudes will proove the entire base was flooded while it was built. If there were no water here just the leveling could take a 1000 men years of work. Why would they go to such extreme effort to level the base? It simply isn’t important whether the base is even level or not if it’s just going to be filled in with ramping material. A perfect spherical base is virtual proof there was water on site and strong evidence for geysers.
Perhaps I shouldn’t do it but I mix Greek ideas and Egyptian ones pretty freely. Many people don’t realize the myth of Osiris and Set is actually Greek origin and didn’t exist until the Greeks invented it.
I believe the Greeksstudied the ancient writing in extreme depth. Everything that survived from ancient times was poured over by Greek scholars trying to make heads or tails of it. Of course they couldn’t because they lacked modern science and google but they made some inroads into it. The Greeks adopted every culture they conquered and none moreso than the Egyptians; especially the ancient Egyptians. This ties modern thought closely to Greek understanding of ancient Egyptian, or at least a confusion of ancient Egyptian. This compounds my problem because it makes everything seem even more fanciful than it really is. It flies in the face of our confused understanding of everything we think we know.
It seems “natural” to confound Greek and Egyptian since we are that confoundation. “Elysium fields” may be a confusion of a specific line in the PT.
Yes, I am aware that there’s no proof that the ancient Egyptian could even be translated in 600 BC. But I believe they had enough material to make a go at it.
I’m disappointed nobody has called you on your attempt to Godwinize the thread.
cladking overstates, as usual. Normal thinking is that they dug a ditch around the base and filled it with water to provide a level baseline. No need to flood the plateau.
Osiris and Set appear in Egyptian art over two thousand years before any Greeks made it down the Eastern coast of the Mediterranean to have serious contact with the Egyptians. It even predates Homer by almost a thousand years.
Yes, the Greeks plundered Egyptian mythology, studying it and adding it to their own, but to claim that the Osiris myth is Greek in origin is simply wrong and lacks any basis in fact. (We’re back to you claiming that everything you believe is based in fact and then you providing claims that have no connection to fact.)
But like an exceedingly complex algebraic equation the odds of having multiple solutions is extremely low. I’d guess well under 1: 10 ^ 25. Of course they would be higher if it could be shown that words really had multiple meaning and if they were really so complex that each word required an entire book to understand then the odds of other solutions approaches unity. If words were so complex though, the PT could never be understood because every understanding is equally valid. It might as well be a book of incantation even though it is obviously ritual.
Of course my estimate also depends on my solution not being a function of confirmation bias. The estimate is based on a simple multiplication of the various permutations required to solve the entire work. There are several key spots that confirmation bias could enter but the cohesiveness and consistency argue that it must be the reality rather than my own input. I have no great desire to find ANY specific means to build the pyramid, I merely sought the means by reading the work of the builders. I had no preconceptions and worked on it for many months before discovering the water source was CO2 geysers. The %age of work done by nature and that done by man can not be determined by me at this time but I believe nature did the lion’s share of the work and men mostly just tended the equipment. I seriously doubt any stone was dragged up any ramp at all on the entire project.
I have searched for other solutions. Some are actually good fits and almost any idea can be supported by at least a few lines in the PT. But, very soon the consistency is lost and word meanings would have to be highly amorphous; so much so that “none” means “all” or “up” means “down”. Other solutions are a difficult thing to ponder when you can already see two interpretations fairly clearly; the one I believe is real and the one that’s right in a left handed sort of way but demands numerous scribal errors and raises many inconsistencies.
I keep saying that there is no direct evidence of any sort any great pyramid was a tomb but the fact is the PT repeatedly, consistently, and coherently says the pyramids were NOT tombs. It pretty much says they believe it was built by the gods and every indication and the physical evidence agrees.
There is no one thing that proves they had geysers just as there is no one thing that proves they used ramps. They probably had geysers and not ramps because ALL of the physical evidence points at water and “none” of it is consistent with ramps. Logic makes an even stronger case for water in my opinion but it’s easy to see why few people share that opinion. People are looking for something simple that ancient people could actually use and the first thing we think of is ramps. We don’t realize how tough the engineering would be for a mile long ramp extending 480’ into the air.
If you used a ditch to level the pyramid it would only about halve the amount of water needed. You couldn’t go in segments or altitude would drift so you either keep it filled or continually refill it. I can’t imagine in simple means to achieve a perfect sphere other than flooding the area and keeping it flooded. Keep in mind that even if you kept a square shaped ditch flooded around the pyramid to use as a level the altitude of the pavement would undulate on either side of this ditch. This would mean to get the base of the pyramid to form a sphere the ditch would have to be right up next to the pyramid and no such feature is apparent in the picture. I’m contending they needed it to be flat for efficiency and the only means to achieve flatness was to maintainb it in a flooded state as it was built. If it is as flat as I propose that will show that they used water and imply a need for it to exist in this specific way. It is not consistent with ramps just as all the facts are inconsistent with ramps (see post #152). If and when more data are gathered these will be inconsistent with ramps and fully consistent with water as well. This is the very nature of science and the reason we do it (or ever did it), to make accurate predictions. Science that can’t make predictions is useless and probably false.
The meaning of all the vulgar terms remained the same. Words like Run, walk, hop, skip, and jump all appear to be the same as they were when the book of the dead was written. Most of the colloquial terms as well had very little or no drift in meaning. If it weren’t that these meaning were “known” the PT wouldn’t even have been recognizable as being translatable. If these meanings really are known as is apparent it ties all possible solutions to their meanings. Since many lines appear sensible with these meanings it further implies that these are a sort of “bedrock” to which every solution must be able to conform.
Most of the difference in my possible solution and Egyptological interpretation is with the scientific words that were used to direct meaning. If my understanding of the formatting is correct then there can be no other solution in the real world. It would take the hand of providence or omnipotent aliens with a warped sense of humor to bury some other meaning in this writing. The two meanings would have to be designed into the language.
I’m very strongly of the opinion this understanding is a remarkable case of confirmation bias or is the sole possible solution. Due to the consistency (~98%) I believe it’s most probably reflective of author intent.
Without data we’ll never know and it’s great to see it’s about to start flooding in.
You could put water in a clear hose open at both ends. Hold the hose so the top of the water is on your mark and wherever you hold the other end the top of the water will be at the same elevation. I doubt ancient Egyptians had clear hose but I think something simpler than flooding the whole plain could be done.
For the 100th time, this is a straw man, virtually all researchers now do not think that a big huge ramp was used. This has been pointed out countless times already and insisting on it just discredits you, not to mention that it is really a very basic logical fallacy.
And speaking of science, your refusal to even look at modeling is a very basic failure of architecture, showing that you do not have a clue.
