I’m suggesting Egyptology should start employing the scientific method.
It will have to be modified slightly to apply.
They should be able to figure it out. I just want the data.
Not necessarily. They could go into it willing to throw out their preconceptions and accept that conventional experts have that reputation for a reason, then learn about the many subjects that are involved, compare each new concept with what they already knew, try to work out in their heads or on paper whether it would work, see what others say about it, then adjust their ideas accordingly.
I am not saying he should parrot the company line–nobody ever won a Nobel for that–but conventional wisdom is a good starting point because most of the hard stuff has been done already. Somebody who puts thousands of hours into real study would be well on their way toward becoming an expert. But not far enough for a Nobel.
Studying hydraulics and geology and how carbonated aquifers work and where to find one and how the ancient Egyptians could drill that deep in rock would be a start. Copper tubes spun by bow drills can handle inches and a few feet, but more than that is a stretch. He should look for similar examples and work from there. The problem is that so much about any of this available in books and the internet is just bullshit, and he should learn critical thinking skills first so he’s not sent off on a wild goose chase like the one he’s been on.
As I said earlier there is a huge modern (1939?) structure sitting on the north end of the “knsti-canal” that fed the eastern cliff face counterweight. They are filling holes on the plateau with concrete and drilling holes in the air shafts looking for gold.
Let’s see. I say they meant exactly what they said and Egyptologists say their writing is incomprehensible gobbledty gook that’s so bad it’s impossible to figure out the meaning of even the most basic terms. I say when they said “osiris tows the earth by means of balance” what they really meant was “osiris tows the earth by means of balance” or “using balance ossiris tows the earth”. Egyptologists say they are the only onbes qualified to understand it and no two of them agree on the meaning.
That’s what makes this whole thing so fascinating. cladking - so far as I can understand him - is proposing a hypothesis that is not hugely unreasonable. The bit about catching geyers right at their crests seems far-fetched, but in the context of nonsense people have spouted about the Pyramids, it’s not too nonsensical; he’s not claiming that the Illuminati or the Knights Templar built them with anti-gravity beams.
But the way he’s defending his idea - moving the goalposts, responding to every post, citing his viscera and a text that only he can read as evidence, shifting the burden of proof - seem to mark him as a True Believer.
I’d never heard of the Thirteenth Stroke of the Clock metaphor before, but it nicely explains why I’m all :dubious: about his claims. I don’t know or care enough about the pyramids to judge his idea. But I know enough about language to see that he doesn’t know much about it at all.
There you go! We’ll get you thinking if it kills us. 
Not only do no two Egyptologists agree on the meaning but no two of them agree on the translation. Even if two did agree on a translation (they don’t) they will take the statement from different time periods.
It’s a mess. Then they have the timerity to say everyone else is wrong because it’s not supported by the “cultural context”. Someday this will all seem like a bad joke.
Careful what you wish for.
I’m pretty hard on Egyptologists and for the main part they don’t really deserve it.
But there are two things they do I find reprehensible. One is to block progress and refuse to do the testing.
The other is to propogate the lie that they have a mountain of evidence for their beliefs. Thgere is no mountain of evidence. NOBODY knows much about the pyramids. Even in aggregate all the knowlkedge about the pyramids and their builders doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. Sure they put a lot of hard worrk and genius into learning the tiny bit they have but it is just a very tiny bit.
I’ve said many times I’m no expert and don’t know much (even about pyramids) but I know more about them than the average Egyptologists and I know the PT as well as almost ANY of them. They hate arguing PT with me because I can use the writers’ own words against them. They simply won’t talk PT with me at all. They used to and then they won’t.
I understand why they’ve come to argue the way they do. There’s more woo in this area than any other so they just needed canned arguments. In their mad rush to silence oppoisition they simply forgot to listen to what others are saying. Much of the alternative ideas have at least a grain of truth in them. I seriously doubt pyramids will sharpen razor blades or once housed aliens but many people have studied these and many people have valuable insights. Even some of the most outlandish theories can have some small truth in them. This is a far more complex subject than it appears on the surface and Egyptologists are doing a disservice to everyone by sticking to their guns come hell or high water (or in this case, both).
See man, this is where you are just wrong. Imagine we plopped the best engineers, architects, and you in the desert next to a bunch of geysers in the desert this afternoon. We tell you that you had to build a pyramid using water. Do you think the consensus would be “Let’s build an 81 foot tower to catch water at the top so we can easily fill our counterweight sled!”. No way. You let a fun idea morph in your mind into the “best” idea.
How about you cite any Egyptologists actually saying this stuff?
You don’t say that, you add your own interpretations (such as the gods actually being scientific terms for natural processes). All the text you’ve provided so far has been filtered through these interpretations.
That’s exactly what I say; osiris tows the earth by means of balance means exactly what it says. Yes, I believe “osiris” is the “name” of the geyser and that this is the only way the sentence can be literally true. Egyptologists don’t have a clue what it means burt they ALL agree that “osiris” was an imaginary consciousness in which the ancients believed. THIS IS WHERE THEY WENT WRONG. They assumed the ancients were superstitious so what they said wouldn’t be expected to make any sense at all.
Yes. My “interpretations” are very different. I believe everything they said was not only literally true but literally accurate and meant literally. This is how I solved the PT by context. I asked what each word had to mean for the writer to be sane and intelligent. It simply turned out that they meant what they said. Egyptologists think they contradicted themselves over and over. Egyptologists think they used bad grammar and tripped over their tongue a lot. Egyptologists don’t know what even the most basic terms mean.
It’s really quite laughable watching them squirm and unable to define basic coincepts. They write entire books to not say something I can write in a short sentence fragment. Here is one of them (a brighter one at that) trying to say what the eye of horus is (an opening for water);
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. The concept that the ancients were sane and meant what they said just doesn’t seem to even register as a possibility to these people. It’s like they translated the whole thing and when they got done EVERYBODY just forgot to read it.
The difference is something like a tenth of an inch. There’s no way to know.
I’m willing to wager that Egyptology does use the Scientific Method. What exact modifications do you recommend?
It was physically painful but I actually read this claptrap.
All they would need to do is solve it the same way I did. I can understand why they didn’t. I can not understand why they noe resist the fact that there is a solution that is consistent with the words. It’s like I’m not speaking the same language they are. How ironic that there’s a communication issue but I have no problem with the ancients.
I once designed a computer system for a small manufacturing plant that had an extensive recipe. This process was very simple but there were hundreds of steps that were occurring cyclically and simultaneously. These processes required numerous calculations with each batch produced. After my project was completed the boss told me to have the software people (that’s right, I don’t speak computer either) right up a summary for the various operators so they could see the changes from the old system. I got the three page report and didn’t know what it was!!! There were lots of keywords that seemed to apply to my work but the entire thing was gobbledty gook. I read it through over and over and then about the twelth time I realized they had done exactly what they were asked; they described the changes they made to the program in a language only a programmer could comprehend (I did do a little programming in my youth). My boss almost fainted when he saw it. Needless to say it was never published.
Ironically the ancient language has some very close similarities to computer code. So solving the ancient language bore similarities to figuring out computer code or figuring out the explanation of computer code written by programmers.
Even today people doin’t think alike. Is it really so strange to imagine a time that knowledge was primitive and everyone thought alike because of the language they used?
Cladking, I think you should accept that your language interpretations are personal not universal. Or at least, the rest of the world will always think that. They can inform your thoughts and decisions but no one will ever take them as evidence. Enjoy it but keep it out of your proofs/debates in the future.
Because you know, water counterweights have some cool advantages istm. You can adjust on the fly easier for one. The sled idea too, just build back and forth on opposite walls. A solid pulley sled seems cheaper than a ramp. Or rather, the opposite wall acts as a steep ramp in the water sled pulley counterweight system.
I understand what you’re saying and even coming toagrere with you but if I’m ever proven correct that there were geysers then it will be seen almost immediately I’m right about what the PT mean. There will then be a decade of intensive study and we’ll learn that at least some of the things I’m saying about the metaphysics are correct. I keep skipping ahead because that’s the direction from which I came. It was understanding the PT that allowed me to solve this. Everything else is just my explanation for how things can be as they exist. I just don’t know but I believe I will be proven to be essentially correct about most of these things. In the longer run there will be simpler explanations and all this will be thought of as quaint. But even in the long run people will think the pyramids were built with carbonated water. The difference will be that there is all sorts of proof.
Well I’m sure you are jotting things down so you can just rest easy in the fact that future Americanologists will be digging up your basement and pondering your scribbles. 
Remember you got into this because it was fun and interesting. It doesn’t have to be your White Whale.
I don’t know if anyone would ever be interested and my notes are indecipherable, often even for me. They are more like mnemonics written in code than coherent thoughts.
Speaking of language and code though I just learned a lot of the modern computer code has only a seven word vocabulary. Even the wordier programming languages use only 50 words. So modern technology and the internet is essentially brought to us by a seven word vocabulary.
Of course computers don’t get out much so they don’t need words like “run” or “jump”. They’re blind so they have no use for “see” or “look”. Across the board there are just lots of concepts a computer doesn’t need. They have no gut so they have no knowledge; just memory. My point here is simple. This is the reason there were so very few words in ancient language. It was arranged as a sort of computer code that directed the listener to the meaning and it used three classes of words to do it. We use tens of thousands of words to communicate because we have bugs in the language still. New words are invented to iron out the bugs. The ancients had all the stinkin’ words they needed and only added new knowledge as it was learned. The new knowledge was the theory itself and was composed of a single word. This word was a “god” and it was a place holder for theory. Gods weren’t defined like we might say “electricity is the flow of electrons in a conductor” but rather it was namned with existing wordes. To describe the god “electricity” it would be called “that which flows” “he whose arms turn dynamos” “son of lightning”. The totality of the names will account for everything known on any subject. Incidentally they did know about electricity but it’s unlikely they used it productively. It appears their knowledge was pretty limited.
Even stinky footed bumpkins need to talk to each other. So how did they do it with only a few thousand words? How could an orator get them fired up for another day of dragging stones up ramps with such a highly limited vocabulary? How could the masons explain their needs for shapes and frequency of supplies if all they could say was sekhmet this and isis that? It was simple; metaphysical language requires very few words. I’ve never heard a termite or beaver conversation yet they build giant air conditioned cities with crops growing under them and transform vast acreage into habitat. Science simply doesn’t require many words unless all the ones you have are confused.
Perhaps modern man will someday approach his own tower of babel because the number of words will become so staggering even scientists can’t remember all the ones they need.
The world was built and invented with a few thousand words. The four cornerstones were laid down using a few thousand words. This post is brought to you by seven words. “Tyranny of numbers indeed”.
OK, we can add computers to the list of things you don’t understand but feel free to pontificate on. You’re discussing keywords, and there are many more than 7 used regularly in any language, and that doesn’t factor in all the libraries and system calls that make languages useful. Let alone variables, which make code actually do things, or assembly code that all of this is translated into.
So, your entire premise is wrong. Anything you tried to build off of this is flawed as a result.
I have a different analogy because I’ve been wounded many times by Egyptologists even thought they now stand shorter and are shouting “have at you”. Also my quest is to do the impossible which is to refind the bubbles the ancients called “stars”. These bubbles were ephemeral when they existed and I need to find proof they once did! I think a little like an Egyptian anyway;
And I know if I’ll only be true
To this glorious quest
That my heart will lie peaceful and calm
When I’m laid to my rest
And the world will be better for this
That one man, scorned and covered with scars
Still strove with his last ounce of courage
To reach the unreachable star(s)
-Joe Darion
It was the impermanent nature of these bubbles that led the builders to refer to them as they referred to the stars that never set in the north of the sky; the “imperishable stars”. They desired that there might always be bubbles and somehow this just seems right for humankind.
I haven’t programmed since the 1960’s.
So how many words do operate programs now days?