You’ve been told this, but “debunk” has a meaning that is NOT “I don’t believe it, neener, neener, neener”.
Now, for real science, here’s how water actually can help build pyramids: Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 175502 (2014) - Sliding Friction on Wet and Dry Sand
Of course, any scientist can see that you are mistaken on your theory and it is thanks to the inconsistencies that everyone is noticing already.
Please provide a cite from someone that has been in space that this can be seen from space.
I want to write a book about how the pyramids were not built.
Chapter 1. Ancient Aliens
Chapter 2. Geysers
We need to keep this thread open for a while so I can get some more chapter ideas.
Of course it’s not a “theory” in the definitions of modern science. It is a theory within the definitions of ancient science.
But if “debunk” means to show there is a preponderance of evidence against a proposal then the fact is ramps are debunked. (see post #152). People don’t want to argue these points. Some have been addressed in the past but none successfully in my opinion and some haven’t been addressed at all.
When I first saw this I thought it was a joke. The study was released right after Egyptology apparently in response to my observation that the builders village was far too small for stone draggers announced the village mustta been a port and I had responded there’s no such thing as a port with no roads in or out.
It was the builders village and it hid behind the Wall of the Crow across the wadi (dry river bed) because CO2 sometimes poured down it. It had no roads because the supplies delivered to it were used in it. Supplies for the pyramid and stones went up the causeway pulled by a type of funicular. The men walked to work and caught rides up the hill with the stones. They were lifted to the job site in a special lifter made to carry men;
1532c. that they may announce thee to Rē‘, to him who lifts up (his) arm in the East.
1533a. Thou dost not know them; thou art astonished at them;
1533b. thou hast laid them in thine arms like herdsmen of thy calves.
1534a. Thou art as he who prevents them from slipping out from thine arms.
Min lifts up his arm in the east as nephthys cares for the men in the boat.
Sleds and stones are not dragged over wet sand. Even if this were a plausible hypothesis, where did the water come from to wetten the sand?
There’s nothing to argue against, you don’t have any real evidence. The fact that you haven’t been convinced is irrelevant; you haven’t been able to convince anyone else that your ideas have merit is more telling.
It remains a just made up theory until better evidence is provided.
It does not work that way, you need a cite from several researchers that agree with you, if no one is produced, then one goes for what researchers agree with, ramps are not debunked among the preponderance of experts and historians; and models are very useful to give us clues on were to look for more evidence and as Houdin showed, the physical models led him to find strong evidence to support his theory:
So, yeah, I have to say it: by not bothering to consider the use of physical computer models to flesh out your theory that is evidence that you are not doing this right at all.I think you are not paying attention.
Again as other posters noticed, “neener-neener” is not a scientific or academic position that can be respected.
From the geysers. Boom. Your debunking is debunked.
For the last freakin’ time-There is no “ancient” science that is different from “modern” science. There is only “science”. Here is one of the basic definitions(from Wiki:
Science (from Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
You still have no clue how science works.
To be fair, satellite photos would count. I’ve never been in space, but I can use Google Maps and “see things from space.”
But, yeah, an actual cite would be handy.
This may well be a valid point. My question though is exactly what this point actually means. How is it possible that the idea that is best supported by evidence including all the evidence is simply dismissed? This is exactly the question that has driven me to concentrate on the nature of thought and language.
Before this project it was very difficult for me to see through the eyes of a specialist. I had ALWAYS organized my knowledge as a generalist even before I started using intuition almost exclusively. This occured rather naturally for me because I never believed anything I was told until I could incorporate it into my “belief” system. It had tobe what was considered factual biut then it also had to fit what I already new. There are still concepts that don’t fit. I’m not saying they are wrong, merely that I hold the knowledge to the side.
So why aren’t people swayed. Surely it goes far beyond poor salesmanship. Why do people look at the parade of physical evidence I present and believe it’s all red herrings? My best hypothesis at this time is that almost everyone with two brain cells torub together is a specialist now days. They are either physicists or machine operators but they see the world in terms of what they know. They trust specialists in other fields (like Egyptology) to be able to see the obvious. We all rely on many specialists through out every aspect of our lives. WQe would be highly disturbed to see our doctor working as a bellhop or, worse, our bellhop telling us we need to cut back on cholesterol and get more exercize. Just as bellhops see the world in terms of the characteristics of good tippers doctors see the world in terms disease and cures. We don’t so much see reality as our own spectra of reality as it applies to our knowledge or jobs. None of the evidence I cite is conclusive so people just figure Egyptologists can’t be too wrong.
People can be wrong. We can be dead wrong. Just like the patients of surgeons who wouldn’t wash their hands we can ALL be wrong and we can ALL be dead. Nature has no soft spot for humans and we are headed for very hard times because of specialization. We are making severe mistakes and ever compounding them because the status quo is so comfortable. Even people working 14 hours every day to earn a living picking throughg garbage don’t want anything to change because they might have to spend 16 hours a day. We waste far more resorces than we consume and the vast bulk of all human resources.
But why do people think that if Egyptologists won’t do simple science it’s OK. When did the age of reason give way to shark jumping? How can society function at all even on auto-pilot if nobody still believes in science and evidence? How do people tolerate mystical zealots in charge of discovering our past?
Google maps photos are mostly from planes. I’m not sure any of the them are from satellites.
That’s a pretty good defoinition of science but there are two sciences. The one we know that is founded on a very simple metaphysics which is observation > experiment, and the one I rediscovered used by ancient people and animals which is observation > logic where the logic is the same natural logic that drives math and is ancient/ animal language. It was a highly complex metaphysics but it worked. Due to its nature it cast off very little technology and the pyramid is an artefact of this science and its technology. It is not a monument to superstition as we superstitiously believe. This will become obvious to people in the future who will marvel we believed in ramps.
Of course geysers sound fantastic but the evidence still says they pulled the stones straight up the side one step at a time. The evidence still says they had water on site.
Got one you can actually cite?
I’m always on the look out for inconsistencies. I’ll wager you can’t come up with one.
This is absolutely 100% wrong. You have not presented evidence, you present conclusions of your own making. We don’t care about specialists, and anyone on this board will be subject to the same kind of scrutiny no matter what their credentials are. We are looking for some conclusive evidence from you of even the slightest thing and what we get are your wild speculative interpretations of pictures. The reality here is only limited by the actual reality that we can measure.
Whatever kind of problem you have with Egyptologists is irrelevant here.
Lol.
It sounds like all the ramp believers stand on one side of the scale and the alts stand on the other.
Put on a few pounds for the cause, eh?
I doubt this is what the ancients meant by “balance” (maat). They weighed a feather against the dead king’s hearth to calibrate the equipment but they didn’t determine reality by the weight of the believers.
It was beginning to sound almost reasonable but then we go to the land of big logic fail: :smack:
The ones that found about how bacteria killed people were also specialists in their field, you are dead wrong even on what specialization means and how beneficial it was for humanity. Generalists like Houdin find evidence and consult experts to make his ideas go forward.
There are indeed many layers of fail demonstrated already on your efforts so far.
Nope, this is like a creationist demanding that there should be a controversy about evolution, but as any academic can tell you: where is that controversy? and in a previous discussion I found that indeed creationists had only one big book by a related expert in favor of intelligent design and the influence or citations are almost nil and almost no new research or book has come from any working expert in biology recently supporting the debunking of evolution.
So it is with ramps and pyramids, your definition of what is debunked or not is really based just on “neener-neener”