Do you have a cite for this incredible assertion? No, of course you don’t. Ramps were used before and after the building of the great pyramids. It’s incredible (bordering on ludicrous) that you would assert otherwise, regardless of whether they were used in building the Giza pyramids.
I don’t even know what to say to this. :smack: The ironic part, to me, is that you are attempting to debunk a ramp, one of the simplest but most effective means of moving large weights from a lower elevation to a higher by claiming it would have to spring out of the ground full blown (and ignoring archeological evidence of ramp us in just about every culture INCLUDING the Egyptians) while claiming your weird water system, which has zero physical evidence came from 40,000 years of human scientific understanding.
You might be onto something! Has anyone asked claptrap…er, I mean cladking…if s/he is a Mac user??? Maybe Macs are the extension of the ancient language, and it might be his or her inspiration, having delved it’s secrets…it might be showing cladking the way and the truth!
It’s not the way modern science works. It is the way ancient science worked and it is the way “generalism” works. It has also been called “nexialism” but this word has connotations I don’t intend.
“Logic” has little or no meaning in modern language because everyone has their own understanding of everything. It’s impossible to make a logical statement when every individual deconstructs your words differently. This is why philosophy barely advances. Ancient language employed the same sort of natural logic that is found in math. The words couldn’t be deconstructed and everyone took the same meaning. Because it was metaphysical and based on nature it was always logical to the degree it was understood. Someday maybe I’lltry to put intowords how “generalism” is similar to this. For now I’ll be ecstatic if even one person is following this thinking.
Because every word had a single meaning it was mere child’s play to solve each of the terms in the language. It’s a sort of reading comprehension; if you don’t know what a word means then it can be deduced by how it’s used in context. Once you figure out what the words mean it’s easy to see author intent.
The only thing that made difficult is that you have to understand science correctly and know as much science as the writer. To complicate it further their science was primitive in some areas and sophisticated in others. They got very few concepts wrong and therse might be a misunderstanding of theory definition (names) by the author rather than a flaw in their science. The writers of the PT were of course scientists just like every other animal on earth at the time but they were probably those individuals with a proclivity for writing ritual rather than keeping abreast with metaphysics.
There is no discord between what they said, painted, and built. There is no discoerd between this cultural context and the physical evidence.
Does it really matter how it was discovered that they pulledstones up one step at a time to build pyramids? Since ramps are debunked (see post #152) and all the evidence says stones were pulled up then it’s time to stop the madness of trying to prove that ramps that never existed were used to the exclusion of real science. It’s like these are the dark ages and people just don’t care that they aren’t doing simple testing like infrared and ultraviolet imaging. They are satisfied with knowing it “mustta been ramps” even AFTER THEY ARE DEBUNKED.
Do the science and then maybe you’ll want to revisit my interpretation of ancient language and human history.
There are some very interesting concepts about ancient Egyptians’ ancient history that might be implied in the writing. It seems they knew all human history. I think they knew the greats of the past and how discovery was made. History of science should be deducible by the nature of the science. A great deal can be reconstructed.
You can call it confirmation bias and you could be right but how then did I debunk ramps and show extensive (albeit shallow) evidence that they pulled stones up one step at a time?
Here’s one thing I must have missed somewhere, cladking.
Where do you get your ‘ancient language’ texts from?
It’ s not the pyramid texts, is it? 'Cause they’re in plain egyptian and have been translated.
Precisely what’s being claimed. Also claimed is that only his own interpretation/translation is “the” correct one (ETA: with not much in the way of evidence).
Not really. He’s claiming the existing translations are ok but that much of the material is metaphorical in nature and that only his interpretation is the correct one.
ETA: This post and this post kind of explain his philosophy on proper interpretation.
Ramps were used before and after the building of the great pyramids. It’s incredible (bordering on ludicrous) that you would assert otherwise, regardless of whether they were used in building the Giza pyramids.