I have to say again: It’s not that important! I can guarantee you that less than .01% of the population is "afraid of the pyramid ". You are conflating your neo-mystical reading of old texts ( which if true would be very radical) with your slightly bizarre pyramid building scheme (which if true would be merely interesting tto those inclined to history trivia). I think in future internet debates you should downplay your unique ancient language skills. If you do that for a while I bet you’ll find that many people will disagree with your idea but nobody will think you’re outrageous for suggesting a water based counter weight. You’ll get most argument on catching the geyser stuff.
Well, back then he was called Moab, but yes.
Maaan, that’s a blast from the past. I loved that guy.
The entire bottom third of the pyramid was stained according to ancient reports and the bottom third of the glyph for “pyramid” was red.
I do agree it’s not unusual for ground water to stain things. Perhaps, though, the color of the staining isn’t as important as the existence of a mineral accretion forming around something coming up from below.
Are we talking science or Science! ? Cause if the latter, I want to hear more about clockpunk pyramids that turn into zeppelin-borne dreadnaughts and such.
The author is an old friend of mine. If you’ll look you’ll see that he credits me in the book. (though he does spell my name wrong)(twice) His work is all his own though he borrowed the carbonated water idea from me.
As I said earlier most of the new theories about construction involve water. Chris Jordan’s theory is just the closest to mine so far. Someday it might be interesting to study this long drawn out process to see how things really change. Everything seems to have always started with an idea that arises in several places simultaneously and spreads.
You’re probably right but .01% of the population is the Egyptologists.
Mebbe it was I’mMoetep. :smack:
They had fun with the geyser and writing about it. Large flocks of birds were drawn the the wetlands around it and they used the djed to shoot them down. They also said;
127c. The abomination of N. is dung; N. rejects urine.
127d. N. loathes his abomination.
128a. The abomination of N., it is dung; he eateth not that abomination,
128b. just as at the same time Set shrinks from these two companions who voyage over the sky.
Defecating in the well if done quickly enough would launch the results over the sky and might obviate the need for toilet paper. If done too slowly it might make a story a doctor could tell for many years.
Poor little birdies.
So, just want to see if I have a handle on this water theory. In summary, they used water jet geysers to lift the stones up on pressurized water then somehow moved the stones off the geysers and put them in place? Is that a good summary of how this all supposedly worked?
Yeah open up your ears. 
788a. To make a libation. To say: Thy water belongs to thee; thine abundance belongs to thee;
788b. the efflux goes forth from the god, the secretion which comes out of Osiris,
788c. so that thy hands may be washed, so that thine ears may be open.
…
791a. It is agreeable to thy nose on account of the smell of ’Iḫ.t-wt.t;
Libations were mixtures of natron and water. “Abundance” is probably a mistranslation of a “verb” that means “geyser” (an action form of a noun). The efflux goes forth when mixed with natron. Baking soda and seltzer water are excellent for cleaning ears and soap is often made of natron.
Seriously? Wow, what a horribly inefficient and dangerous method. You’d be better off using a bunch of manual labor.
Though if I wanted to surreptitiously kill a civil engineer from literally gut busting laughter…
No.
The water was caught at the top of its trajectory by being passed through a hole in the bottom of a man made structure. this water was collected at altitude and then channeled to large counterweights that were connected to loads on the other side of the pyramid such that it could lift them.
This crap here:
where you give a bunch of random quotes from ghod-knows-where? It’s getting damn boring, and it doesn’t help your case one bit. You might be getting visions/insight/gut feelings from reading this, but to me it just sounds like random ramblings from a street preacher.
This is so insane Mythbusters wouldn’t even attempt it.
You may well be right, I’ll have to think about it.
I came to the Pyramid Texts very early on. I had an hypothesis about using water to build pyramids that on its surface looked just like my current theory but it had very very little evidence to back it up. It was strictly logic based and would sound entirely possible to almost anyone. An Egyptologist told me it sounded good but it couldn’t possibly be correct because it didn’t fit the “cultural context”. I asked how to learn about this cultural context and the response was that I could never understand the ancient Egyptians until I understood the Pyramid Texts.
I’ve pout thousands of hours of study into the PT and now know it will never be completely understood because it has inside “jokes” and references to current events. But it is thick with meaning because the ancient language could pack it in almost three dimensionally; you had to know things to understand it so in a sense they were also talking about what they knew. It was metaphysical and meaning was in context.
If I drop the PT I suspect I’ll just hear more of the same; my theory doesn’t fit cultural context, why aren’t counterweights mentioned in the ancient language, why aren’t geysers in the artwork or the culture. So long as it’s a discussion these subjects will appear again and again. I can point to pictures drawn by the ancients of counterweights I know the scientific (3nw-boat) and colloquial (boat of balance) terms, I know numerous descriptive terms (boats tied together). I know isis was the natural phenomenon of the counterweight and she gave birth to horus the stone who has no feet and no arms from isis’ perspective;
1965a. “I have given birth to him for thee; I have deposited him for thee; 1 have certainly spit him out for thee.”
1965b. He has no feet; he has no arms,
1965c. and how shall he be assembled?
I can show the colors, feel, sights, and odors of pyramid building and life at the time. I canb describe the sight of the crown in the upper eye of horus and the thought of the man charged with deflecting it into the mn-canal.
I came to know this by studying the ancient language in conjunction with ancient science, modern science, logic, and the surviving physical evidence. At every step it was physical evidence that rules. Of course some of these ideas are supported primarily by the logic but everything is still rooted in the physical evidence.
The fire-pan is key to understanding this and tying up all the loose ends and this will come to be seen as poetic. It would be impossible to identify all the relevant physical evidence without understanding the PT. It would be exceedingly difficult to identify even the most important physical evidence without the PT. Geysers simply sprang from the PT.
Of course I can still be wrong. Confirmation bias is a powerful force among people and I’m people. One of the my earliest solutions in the PT was that the “eye of horus” was an opening for water and perhaps everything sprang from this. If this is wrong then everything derived from it is wrong. But then it needs tobe explained just how the physical evidence is all in agreement. Remember Egyptology just dismisses almost all the physical evidence by saying either “it is a religious structure” or “this evidence isn’t germaine to how the pyramiud was built”. My theory does explain all this evidence and can make predictions. It is consistent with new ongoing discoveries my professionals. This should accelerate as time goes by because attention of professionals will be drawn to things associated with water and using balance to lift stones. Discovery leads to discovery and mystery leads to mystery.
You’re certainly right that I’m mostly failing to get through to people and it is this that has had me exploring the causes. Many of these causes seem to be at odds with my personal models of how things work. Maybe I didn’t learn my lesson with the “proof” that anyttrhing divided by zero equals infinity. The question is which lesson I failed.
[QUOTE=cladking]
I’ve pout thousands of hours of study into the PT
[/QUOTE]
Pout? Well, I think I found the problem.
This system wasn’t invented all at once. It was invented over eight centuries after the geyser was first drilled in Saqqara in 3500 BC. Initially the water was caught on a platform built right next to the geyser. The platform was called the mehet weret and this “cow” is depicted wearing a counterweight in the artwork. This natural phenomenon (the cow) was overseen (more general) by the phenomenon of khenti n irty who was the “falcon who snatches things from the air with one eye”. The one eye he used was the eye that sprayed water onto the platform.
As time progresses they learned to build structure around the point the water came up in order to maximize what they caught until eventually they surrounded it entirely creating the “upper eye of horus”. Now it was presided over by khenti irty which was the “falcon who snatched things from the air with two eyes”.
None of this is the least bit compolicated if you use science. They simply used observation and logic just like every individual human had done for 40,000 years and animals still do.
My five minutes ran out. That was one of two big problems I wanted to correct.
I don’t suppose you happen to have an independent cite for this bit of history?
edited to add: Just a reminder-An independent cite would not be a link to yet another photograph coupled with your interpretation of what that photo means.
This again? Of course not. There are no Egyptologists who believe in anything other than course and brutish methods of building pyramids. It is the only means that is consistent with gobbledty gook spouting sun addled bumpkins.
If you mean the drill then the earliest known vases and cores date to that era. A real Egyptologist could provide a lot more details than I. But their guess as to the means these vases were made may notr be accurate.