Maybe simple for you but it took me months to trisect that circle. Don’t get me started on that double cube. It would have all been easier if I hadn’t wanted it to fit on my coffee table.
Eta: I should note that my personal circles are 359 degrees. So that complicated things.
I wasn’t aware of this. I know it used to be believed there was a single language which turns out to be true apparently but I wasn’t aware it was believed to be any differemnt than modern languages.
There are a lot of really bright people who say Egyptologists have no clue about the ancient math. They are simply jumping to conclusions just as they do with everything else.
I don’t know. Take it up with them.
Please provide an example of where I’m wrong so I can correct it. Maybe just one to start so you don’t confuse me. One will be plenty.
Perhaps this used to be true. I don’t know.
I do know it’s no longer true and doesn’t apply here. I do know that nature doesn’t give a fig about the opinion of experts and opinions are not the basis of progress. I do know that Egyptologists will not hear anyone who doesn’t profess a belief in stinky footed bumpkins who drag stones up ramps.
Their absolute refusal toi hear this theory says a lot about them and their methodolgy but it says nothing at all about all the ideas they refuse to consider. I’ve been trying to talk nice about Egyptologists but it’s difficult when they and their apologists simply refuse to test sites or consider ideas outside of ramps and bumpkins. Even if they were right their methodology is still wrong. If they are right they achieved it by accident despite science and facts, and logic.
They can’t check my theory because it lies outside their assumptions. No part of the paradigm even applies to my theory. You probably don’t understand this because it makes perfect sense that they count the nummber of angels that can dance on the head of a pin and I come along and say there’s no such thing as angels. Which calculation applies to me? If they mustta used ramps then it’s impossible they lifted stone straight up. They simply don’t want to hear it because they have no answers, only conclusions.
Every single real scientist I’ve contacted has helped but Egyptologists won’t answer eMails. Approach them with a ramp theory and you’ll be embraced. Suggest that maybe there were no gods and they stick their fingers in their ears and scream eeeek.
Peer review has always been irrelevant but never moreso than when the peers don’t want to hear it. The value of an argument is determnined by facts and logic. It is determnined by its predictive abilities and I win on these measures. I wilkl win in the long run as well most likely because I’m probably basically correct.
Those circles are getting smaller. 
Let me tell you that there was once one called Seethruart that promised that in 10 years all students were going to learn about the aliens on the moon and how the stuffed scientists at NASA were hiding them.
That was 14 years ago. And no, his “facts” and “logic” did not carry the day, simply because he missed the idea that progress does not happen just because of information that he only knew. Whatever a great idea or discovery one has it has to be tested and reviewed.
I rather consult what the active experts are telling us rather than reinventing the wheel, denying what science and experts are telling us is only a receipt to get famous all right, but not as the ones claiming “victory” from an armchair expect it.
“The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” - Carl Sagan.
Earlier in the thread I quoted Herodotus, who said that the pyramid was built as a step pyramid, with machines at each level to lift stones up to the next level.
Several people dismissed this hypothesis. However, in the last few days I’ve been reading up on pyramid construction and history. I’ve read about the Meidum Pyramid, which collapsed in antiquity revealing an internal structure. It shows a design pretty much as Herodotus described, a seven step pyramid that was filled in.
I personally find it much more plausible that the Great Pyramid was built with a series of short vertical lifts than any form of ramp.
[QUOTE=Peter Morris;18307273
I personally find it much more plausible that the Great Pyramid was built with a series of short vertical lifts than any form of ramp.[/QUOTE]
I agree. I don’t know what the 80 foot steps are that cladking is talking about, but that must be exactly how it was done. Using levers the blocks could have been lifted a few inches at a time level by level. No need for ramps, ropes, huge crews of men, or any more advanced machinery. I have to thank cladking for asking why the pyramid was stepped, and that made the answer obvious. This is even less of a mystery than I considered. I wonder if any of the Egyptologists who theorize on this subject have ever moved anything in their lives. It’s not a question of the most advanced technology at the time, it’s just a matter of the simplest technology available long before pyramid building was begun.
I’m not sure this pyramid offers a good guide to how the others were built - it seems to have been a bit of a failure that colllapsed in antiquity. It is well-kown that the ancient Egyptians used a variety of construction techniques, with greater or lesser success (indeed, Middle Kingdom pyramids were built totally different - and much more cheaply - with cores of rubble with interior bracing walls - which explains why they mostly collapsed into heaps: the earlier pyramids were made of solid stone, more or less - more expensive, but lasts longer).
Also, it could easily be the case that Herodotus was right - but if so, it was surely only by accident. By the time he was writing about Egypt, the great pyramids were already thousands of years old - it would be like me visiting Israel and writing about the construction techniques used by Herod to refurbish the Temple of Jerusalem, which I learned by talking to a few Rabbis (except in the modern era, those rabbis may have the benefit of reading accounts by professional archaeologists 
).
Building of the Great Pyramid of Giza: 2,560 BC
Herodotus writing: Aprox. 450 BC
Herod’s Temple: 20 BC
Me: 2015 AD
I’m closer in time to Herod’s Temple than Herodotus was to the building of the Pyramid of Giza!
Let me tell you a little story.
At the base of the cliff face counterweights where a golf course sits today was a beautiful marsh with fragrant egyptian sycamore figs growing around. These trees were special and even had their own “natural phenomenon” to watch over them. The were the nbhk trees in the marsh of offereings overseen by sopdu. They often had a wonderful fragrance that could be smelled in the entire area. All this water came down the in the counterweights that were very fast cycling. Also pouring down the cliff face was CO2 evacuated from the pyramid and the mehet weret by alternately opening the valve that selected gas or water. The “surges” of the winding watercourse pulled gas by circling in the covered canals that fed the counterweights. The canal was at the edge of the desert on top of the Giza Plateau (Rosteau means “mouth of caves”) and was called the knst.i-canal. “Knsti” trasnslates to “deserts edge”. This canal was of critical importance to coming to understands how the great pyramids were all built. It was so important because there is so little evidence. After the canal the only thing that survives is the fill that was put on the cliff face to shape it properly. Before the canal all that survives is the base of the valve that creates the “billows of the winding watercourse” which was attached to a 100,000 ton water collection device that still survives nearly intact but is invisible to most of us.
This canal is of the utmost importance and was found stuffed full with mummies (and daddies). These were intrusive burials as were found all over at these sites. So why isn’t this canal considered by Egyptologists? Why has it been dismissed and trashed forever? Why was it torn up repeatedly including as recently as the '30’s by King Farouk’s Palace?
It’s all because we can’t imagine an oddly shaped canal was of any importance. Back in the day that Egyptologists hadn’t made up their minds Petrie could see the canal but was so astounded he hid the fact of its exoiistence in a 92 word sentence;
“Hence it runs on, till, close to the edge of the basalt pavement, it branches in two, and narrows yet more; one line runs W., and another turning nearly due S., emerges on the pavement edge at 629.8 to 633.4 from the N.E. corner of the pavement, being there only 3.6 wide. From this remarkable forking, it [p. 50] is evident that the trench cannot have been made with any ideas of sighting along it, or of its marking out a direction or azimuth; and, starting as it does, from the basalt pavement (or from any building which stood there), and running with a steady fall to the nearest point of the cliff edge, it seems exactly as if intended for a drain; the more so as there is plainly a good deal of water-weanng at a point where it falls sharply, at its enlargement.”
This is most of what you need to figure it all out once you can identify as being important. Petrie may have cherry picked his information too much and weighted it to his vision but he was one of the last who didn’t know everything and was intellectually honest, otherwise he wouldn’t have reported it at all rather than hiding it in a 92 word sentence.
I’m repeating again “peer review” only applies to what they consider “peers” which by definition is “those who have accepted that stinky footed bumpkins dragged tombs up ramps”. I am in no way whatsoever a “peer” so they don’t want to hear it. They don’t invite ancient aliens and they don’t invite people who think the Egyptians were scientists. Ideas that are outside their assumptions can’t be considered at all because everything they know is contingent on these assumptions. Everything they know has been pounded to a framework created by these assumptions. Talking to me would be about equivalent to Isaac Newton explaining to a child that the earth isn’t flat. Newton would not consider the child a peer and would not seriously consider a paper that held the world to be flat just as Egyptologists can’t exist in a world where their assumptions aren’t true.
They argue about the meanings of the most basic terms like “eye of horus”. You don’t need to believe I can understand the work and the meaning of “eye of horus” to know that if they can’t understand the most basic terms then they can’t possibly understand the book. Yet, as soon as I say the eye of horus was the eye of the natural phenomenon that oversaw the Land of Rainbows I become the child who believes the earth is flat or whom has succumbed to woo. It ends the conversation it does not begin it.
Short answer is that being endorced by Egyptology simply means you might be right within the framework of tombs, bumpkins, and ramps.
Yeah, but then they got into a planned obsolescence business model, you hadn’t finished building the first level of your iMastaba 5 that they’d roll out the iMastaba 6 billboards, thinner walls, broadbank Nile access… Shameful.
One of the funnier things is all that has transpired since ramps were debunked. First they commissioned a computer study to show ramps could have been used. I wasn’t privvy to the details but it was very interesting results and I doubt they intentionally fudged them much. It was well within their capability according to the results. Of course this doesn’t mean much and it was just a computer model with escheresque ramping systems. But it was “science” at least in a sense. Then they decided the builders village couldn’t have been for the builders because it was too small and there was evidence people there lived well so they suggested it was a port and the builders lived on the ramps. When it was pointed out that the port had no roads they came up with a study that said stones can be dragged across wet sand real easy! This is state of the art now; the builders are still freezing on ramps and exposed to sandstorms while a nearby port has to wetten the sand just to tranship food to them. Forget the ten ton cladding stones. I know I’d hate to climb out of ramp in the morning and strap on a five ton stone so I could drag my bedroom suite up the pyramid.
It may not sound like I’m sympathetic to these people charged with knowing all this but I truly am. They are merely trying to advance human knowledge by standing on the shoulders of the greats of the past and they had no way of knowing that these greats had strayed so far from reality. The path of reality is very poorly marked even in the best of situations and in the Land of Rainbows most of the marking evaporated with the rainbows.
Nine years to open up a dialog is too long. All the balls have been in their court for years.
Cite for the existence of this city, please?
They’re not even aware you’ve wandered onto the field of play.
The thing is that the use of machinery is not the simplest technology. And **cladking **is not talking about lifts, but water moving the blocks up the pyramid.
Also before thanking him it is not very good to ignore all the evidence of ramps found in Pyramids that were made before and around the Giza complex. But in any case machines are still one explanation, and what I think is that the answer will turn out to be a combination of solutions.
And one of the issues with Herodotus is that he described the builders of the pyramids as slaves, not what it was found later. The Meidum Pyramid was also of an early construction era, when the transition from stepped pyramids to the way pyramids were then made in Giza.
Between them there is the mistake made that led to the Bent Pyramid, a pyramid that also does not show evidence that it was originally a stepped one. The problem with the Meidum Pyramid was to cover a stepped pyramid to make it a true one but that made the structure unstable and changes made in mid construction made the problem worse. The problem with the Bent Pyramid was that the original angle going up was not a good one. Both ways of construction were found to be not good ways to make true pyramids.
I’m sorry…moon dust?
.
I’ve been reading along for the past couple of pages, and I have to say I don’t understand the position that cladking is advocating. Could someone explain it to me? He doesn’t believe the idea that the stones were pushed up ramps, and there’s some talk I don’t get about CO2, but I don’t know what that has to do with the pyramids, or canals.
I believe this is the city. It’s not the origin of the word chemistry though.
And cat is out of the bag, of course scientists do not invite creationists and flat earthers, some ideas like ancient aliens and technology out of place are not good to consider anymore.
(There is evidence of technology out of place in the past, but it is also clear that a lot of it was not developed much outside the elite that had it like the Antikitera mechanism)
And BTW what Houdin did would had been impossible if you were correct, he is indeed an outsider that instead of just pondering from an armchair decided to look for evidence and he found enough to impress the “insiders”.
Akhmim is not “only a few miles north” of Giza.
Also, the only association I can find for it with chemistry is an alchemist from the 4th C CE.
His gut is his cite.