How were the pyramids in Egypt built?

[Slow_Moving_Vehicle]

@cladking

Are you proposing then that by “guessing” or "woo’ the anbcients invented the calender and aligned the pyramid more perfectly N/ S than virtually anyt building standing on the planet today?

Swing and a miss.

They had to have science and there’s no evidence of anby sort for “metaphysics” like modern science.

To me as a generalist this is the most telling of all facts.

No, cladking, he’s not suggesting the pyramid builders used guessing and woo to build them. (And they didn’t invent the calendar - the earliest calendar so far appears to be the Warren Field calendar in Scotland and dates to 8000 BCE.) The pyramid builders used the math and physics they had available to them.

What Czarcasm was saying was that you are using pseudoscience and woo to bolster your idea. You are saying that your theory rests on physical evidence that is covered by the pyramids - your “geyser field” - but works to explain your idea, so it must be there. That’s reasoning in advance of your data. Also, you cite your interpretation of some Egyptian texts that you claim only you have understood. How do you know that your interpretation is valid? Because they back up your ideas about pyramid building. That’s circular reasoning. Never mind that your interpretation is based on your claim that the language they’re written on is fundamentally different than any other human language discovered or described, or that you appear to subscribe to a theory of language that is questionable at best, and discredited in the strong version you seem to hold.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt about your frequent claim of “visceral knowledge”; I think, after reading several of your posts, that by “visceral knowledge” you mean “a body of facts that one has mastered thoroughly”, as perhaps an literary scholar might have on Shakespeare after having written a PhD. dissertation on Macbeth. But your claims that only you can understand the texts, and that animals and babies speak a natural language, and that the authorities of Egyptology are suppressing the truth, which, when exposed, will radically alter everything we think about modern science, marks you as yet another peddler of woo.

[Latro]

@cladking

They actually believe it is a book of incantation!!! I don’t know where they get this stuff other than the 4000 year old joke book we use for language.

They get it from the fact thtat they are not from a book, as you say, but from the inside of a tomb.
Opening phrases like “words to be spoken” or “say this three times” or “Oh Unas (the dead guy) you are not dead, you are alive and sit at the throne of Osiris!”
Or “Re-Amoun, Unas is coming to you.” And on and on an on.

Silly egyptologists.

[Latro]

@cladking

I didn’t know I did that and I have no clue who he is.

There’s not really much doubt as to the purpose of the pipes. It’s not established fact but it is known that they created cores when they drilled since there are cores that match drill holes.

This is just a freakin’ picture so please ignore the source;

Yes ignore that the source says that this was a copper draining pipe that ran for 300 meters from one of the pyramids.
your visceral reading of german must be off a bit.

http://www.gizapower.com/petrie/giza5.gif

This is a granite core with a spiral groove on the edge. It is not really understood how it was made but…

Excuse me, but you are the only one saying that drills were only invented in 3500 BC.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@cladking

All ramps are debunked (see post #152).

I actually have pictures of pyramids being built using ramps. So no, in fact.

[cladking]

@Revenant_Threshold

I actually have pictures of pyramids being built using ramps. So no, in fact.

I’m a big fan of evidence. Whatcha got?

[cladking]

[quote=“Latro, post:783, topic:706559”]

Yes ignore that the source says that this was a copper draining pipe that ran for 300 meters from one of the pyramids.
your visceral reading of german must be off a bit./quote]

They had pipe and it has been found in numerous places.

Excuse me, but you are the only one saying that drills were only invented in 3500 BC.

Of course the concept of drilling goes back much further. The drill used to make core 7 and the huge diameter pipes for unknown drilling are a quantitative advance that coinstitute a qualitative change.

[cladking]

@Latro

They get it from the fact thtat they are not from a book, as you say, but from the inside of a tomb.
Opening phrases like “words to be spoken” or “say this three times” or “Oh Unas (the dead guy) you are not dead, you are alive and sit at the throne of Osiris!”
Or “Re-Amoun, Unas is coming to you.” And on and on an on.

Silly egyptologists.

The concept that these are incantation goes way beyond “silliness”. It’s not only that they start with the command to read it aloud and contain other types of instruction to the reader but what they say. One starts out “To say; Listen up men…”. Others have absolutely no contyext to support the nonsenssical belief that they are incantation.

I guess Egyptologists figured it required magic for them not to understand somerthing so they must be incantation.

The PT would have been known to the authors as “The Ritual of Ascension”. There are no grammatical or spelling errors in them and there are no misstatements about nature. The “errors” are caused by Egyptological interpretation and these errors disappear in my interpretation.

[Latro]

The ‘reader’ is the deceased himself.
Or rather one soul-aspect of himself, his ka.
Whille his other aspect, his ba, is on it’s way to the heavens, his ka is left to find his way to the place to be judged. After that his afterlife begins, or he is eaten by the crocodile.
The writings on the walls are instructions to help the ka along.

[cladking]

@Slow_Moving_Vehicle

. (And they didn’t invent the calendar - the earliest calendar so far appears to be the Warren Field calendar in Scotland and dates to 8000 BCE.) The pyramid builders used the math and physics they had available to them.

The Egyptians and or Sumerians invented the calender we use today.

What Czarcasm was saying was that you are using pseudoscience and woo to bolster your idea.

Please provide an example. I try to keep my hypothesis true to TWO sciences and will want to fix any errors.

You are saying that your theory rests on physical evidence that is covered by the pyramids - your “geyser field” - but works to explain your idea, so it must be there.

No! I am explaining why so little evidence exists. Until someone actually gets out there and lookks for it with SCIENCE we can’t even say that all that surives is under the pyramid or doesn’t exist. No data doesn’t mean no reality it meansd Egyptologists are too busy trying to parse the PT and understand stinky footed bumpkins to run simple tests.

Also, you cite your interpretation of some Egyptian texts that you claim only you have understood. How do you know that your interpretation is valid?

I don’t really “know”. But with my interpretation the writing is internally consistent. It is logical and makes perfect sense from the perspective of people using geysers. It is consistent with their and our understanding of the laws of nature. It is consistent with the physical, cultural, and historical evidence. And not least of all this interpretation makes predictions. For instance some Egyptologists actually translate Rosteau (the ancient name for Giza) to mean “Place of Ramps”. But the proper definition is “Mouth of Caves” and Hawass was led into a cave he said didn’t exist. The water bubbling up from below in the Sphinx Temple must come from an underground conduit as well; a cave.

Egyptologists pitch woo. I’m talking about facts and one fact is that Egyptologists can’t talk about pyramid building without bringing up the subject of magic. This is pseudoscience by definition.

Never mind that your interpretation is based on your claim that the language they’re written on is fundamentally different than any other human language discovered or described, or that you appear to subscribe to a theory of language that is questionable at best, and discredited in the strong version you seem to hold.

Perhaps I shouldn’t talk about the language but this is one of the things that took the most getting used to for me. The ancient people obviously couldn’t have thought like we do and then wrote the PT as a book of ritual. Egyptologists are just trying to force them to think like we do through thewir interpretation that has yielded NO KNOWLEDGE WHATSOEVER in 150 years. They change the translation more whith each passing year and still nothing makes sense. Of course a book of magic spells can’t make sense can it? They still don’t know how many times to waive whichg sceptre over how many toiad livers. Either Egyptologists are stupid or it’s not a book of magic. Obviously Egyptologists aren’t stupid so you do the math.

But your claims that only you can understand the texts, and that animals and babies speak a natural language, and that the authorities of Egyptology are suppressing the truth, which, when exposed, will radically alter everything we think about modern science, marks you as yet another peddler of woo.

I do not believe they are suppressing the truth. I believe they don’t care one bit about the truth unless they are right. They simply be distracted from looking for ramps and stinky footed bumpkins.

Do you think I expected to find a natural language? I could never have invented such a thing. I found it. I extrapolated the implications. It explains why we can’t learn the simple animal languages, babies babel, the story of babel, and why we think the way we do. It explains why we talk past one another and why messages get distorted. It explains human history and why human history doesn’t extend all the way back to cavemen or even to the invention of writing. It explains countless things like how we arrive at answers in our sleep (or is this woo too). It explains our institutions and how man survived without modern science until we invented agriculture.

Of course we didn’t already know this because modern language masks it’s own nature. “I think therefore I am” would be taken as a joke by ancient language speakers. The person who uttered it would be demoted to the most menial tasks and segregated from other people. Everyone knew that language created man kind but they didn’t understand science because they understood only one wayt to think that masked its own nature as being metaphysical. They said “human progress has no feminine progeniture” because language based metaphysics is invisible to the individual thinking in the language. I’m sure you don’t understand this but if you can get Egyptology to do the math then someone who can explain it much better will be along.

[Czarcasm]

@cladking

Do you think I expected to find a natural language? I could never have invented such a thing. I found it. I extrapolated the implications. It explains why we can’t learn the simple animal languages, babies babel, the story of babel, and why we think the way we do. It explains why we talk past one another and why messages get distorted. It explains human history and why human history doesn’t extend all the way back to cavemen or even to the invention of writing. It explains countless things like how we arrive at answers in our sleep (or is this woo too). It explains our institutions and how man survived without modern science until we invented agriculture.

Of course we didn’t already know this because modern language masks it’s own nature. “I think therefore I am” would be taken as a joke by ancient language speakers. The person who uttered it would be demoted to the most menial tasks and segregated from other people. Everyone knew that language created man kind but they didn’t understand science because they understood only one wayt to think that masked its own nature as being metaphysical. They said “human progress has no feminine progeniture” because language based metaphysics is invisible to the individual thinking in the language. I’m sure you don’t understand this but if you can get Egyptology to do the math then someone who can explain it much better will be along.

Pure unadulterated woo in it’s natural form.

[Great_Antibob]

@cladking

The Egyptians and or Sumerians invented the calender we use today.

Wow, no. This is incredibly wrong. It takes not 5 minutes of Googling to find a ton of information about calendars.

Our current calendar is more or less the result of hundreds of years of tinkering with some of the early Roman calendars, which were lunar in origin.

To the extent the Roman and Egyptian calendars are linked, the causality arrow goes the other way. The modern Coptic calendar is based on the older Egyptian calendar with some Roman touches added on top.

The Sumerian calendar was primarily lunar with 354 days a year and extra months added from time to time. Ours is definitely solar with a leap day added occasionally. There’s no link between that calendar and the one we use today.

Seriously, do some basic research.

You should base your opinions on verifiable facts. Instead, you seem to be assuming facts will alter themselves to conform to your opinions. That’s bass-ackwards.

[cladking]

@Latro

The ‘reader’ is the deceased himself.
Or rather one soul-aspect of himself, his ka.
Whille his other aspect, his ba, is on it’s way to the heavens, his ka is left to find his way to the place to be judged. After that his afterlife begins, or he is eaten by the crocodile.
The writings on the walls are instructions to help the ka along.

No. Egyptologists fret a great deal trying to keep these individuals separate and it was difficult to impossible for me at first.

The reader is just a narrator for the rituals that were read to the crowds. It would be utterly impossible for someone to have to memorize all these. I’ve read them hundreds of times and I can recall only a few verbatim and I know what they mean. Memorizing gobbledty gook is orders of magnitude more difficult than poetry or ritual. Generally speaking if youfollow these you know who the ptronouns refer to and surprisingly Egyptology has morst of them right. Whenever “I” appears without introduction it is almost always “thot”; the phenomenon of human progress. It is a sort of scientific first person.

Most of the other things you say are from later beliefs after the collapse of the language. The ka is the pyramid upon which he is cremated. His “shadow” evaporated at death. His ba ascends to heaven on the smoke of his pyre. His heart was used to calibrate the equipment, and he lives eternally as the geyser and where hi ka and ba commune in heaven. This might superstitious but it wasn’t the way they understood it. It was just ritual that developed over generations to ease their mourning at the loss of a king. Of course if they didn’t lioke the king his heart didn’t match the weight of a feather and they didn’t build the pyramid because he wasn’t “justified”. The pyramid, hi ka, wasn’t justified if he was a bad king and people didn’t mind getting a new one. There was no superstition,no belief in an “afterlife” and no ramps. The pyramids were easy enough to build because they built themelves just like the primeval mound.

[cladking]

@Great_Antibob

Wow, no. This is incredibly wrong. It takes not 5 minutes of Googling to find a ton of information about calendars.

Our current calendar is more or less the result of hundreds of years of tinkering with some of the early Roman calendars, which were lunar in origin.

To the extent the Roman and Egyptian calendars are linked, the causality arrow goes the other way. The modern Coptic calendar is based on the older Egyptian calendar with some Roman touches added on top.

The Sumerian calendar was primarily lunar with 354 days a year and extra months added from time to time. Ours is definitely solar with a leap day added occasionally. There’s no link between that calendar and the one we use today.

Seriously, do some basic research.

You should base your opinions on verifiable facts. Instead, you seem to be assuming facts will alter themselves to conform to your opinions. That’s bass-ackwards.

I don’t know.

But a few things are very apparent. One is that the Egyptians used a 365 day calender.

Indeed. I believe they actually used two calenders but my knowledge here is limited. A great deal of what is presented as fact from all sources is actually opinion.

[simster]

@cladking

I’m a big fan of evidence. Whatcha got?

This is ironic.

[Czarcasm]

@simster

This is ironic.

From a man who has said this:

There was no superstition,no belief in an “afterlife” and no ramps. The pyramids were easy enough to build because they built themelves just like the primeval mound.

it is beyond ironic-it is pathetic.

[cladking]

@Czarcasm

Pure unadulterated woo in it’s natural form.

People want links to geytsers, can’t argue specific points, can’t see parallel lines, and won’t make specific statements about where I deviate from reality.

It’s a wonder everyone doesn’t wake up and see just how confused we really are even 4000 years after the collapse! Maybe we aren’t getting any better. Maybe we can’t get any better. Maybe when God scrambles brains they stay scrambled.

But for those among us who are superstitiuous you might ask yourselves what God will do when we try to invade heaven again. He took away our science and language last time. What will be the price next? Vonnegut suggested that we could lose our complex language and become aquatic. …So it goes.

Pure woo indeed. “Woo” is also closing ones mind and not applying one’s knowledge to facts and evidence. “No science at all” is preferable to “pseudo-science” but science only works when its used by people seeking truth. Science doesn’t come to you, you have to go to it. If you wait for it then someone elkse might not do it.

I think this is part of the problem with science now days. There’s so much knowledge needed that most people (even scientists) are willing to accept professional opinion as gospel. Truth by authority is dangerous to the species. It is far far worse than pseudo-science.

[Latro]

@cladking

The reader is just a narrator for the rituals that were read to the crowds.

What crowds? It’s a small chamber inside a pyramid. Normal people would have papyri inside their coffins.

it would be utterly impossible for someone to have to memorize all these.

That is why they are written down.

[Latro]

@cladking

People want links to geytsers, can’t argue specific points, can’t see parallel lines, and won’t make specific statements about where I deviate from reality.

It’s a wonder everyone doesn’t wake up and see just how confused we really are even 4000 years after the collapse! Maybe we aren’t getting any better. Maybe we can’t get any better. Maybe when God scrambles brains they stay scrambled.

But for those among us who are superstitiuous you might ask yourselves what God will do when we try to invade heaven again. He took away our science and language last time. What will be the price next? Vonnegut suggested that we could lose our complex language and become aquatic. …So it goes.

Pure woo indeed. “Woo” is also closing ones mind and not applying one’s knowledge to facts and evidence. “No science at all” is preferable to “pseudo-science” but science only works when its used by people seeking truth. Science doesn’t come to you, you have to go to it. If you wait for it then someone elkse might not do it.

I think this is part of the problem with science now days. There’s so much knowledge needed that most people (even scientists) are willing to accept professional opinion as gospel. Truth by authority is dangerous to the species. It is far far worse than pseudo-science.

I think it is about time i backed slowly away, while smiling politely…

[XT]

@cladking

I don’t know.

But a few things are very apparent. One is that the Egyptians used a 365 day calender.

Indeed. I believe they actually used two calenders but my knowledge here is limited. A great deal of what is presented as fact from all sources is actually opinion.

What time period are you claiming the Egyptians had a 365 day calendar for? It’s been a while, but I believe that during the Old Kingdom (which is when we are talking about) they used a lunar cycle calendar with 354 days and corrected every several years by having a year with 384 days.

I want to say that they didn’t have a 365 day calendar until the Ptolemaic period, but I’m willing to see a cite since it’s been a rather long time since I looked at this stuff. Here is a perfect opportunity for you to show an actual cite to back up one of your claims!

[Great_Antibob]

@cladking

But a few things are very apparent. One is that the Egyptians used a 365 day calender.

They sort of did but it wasn’t actually a 365 day calendar.

How something that isn’t even true can be “apparent” is beyond me.

Seriously, do some basic research. It’s a tired meme but still true: Google is your friend. People, especially around here, don’t respect anybody who regularly spouts things that can be found false in under a minute of Googling.

@cladking

Indeed. I believe they actually used two calenders but my knowledge here is limited.

Then why present as fact something about which you have limited knowledge?

Seriously. Stop doing that for your own sake.

If it’s simply an opinion - present it as opinion rather than as fact.

You do yourself no favors arguing the factual basis of concepts for which you admit you have little to no actual knowledge.

@cladking

A great deal of what is presented as fact from all sources is actually opinion.

From you? Certainly, you are presenting opinions as facts.

From others? In this thread, not so much.

I know this has been explained but you really don’t science well.

You’re stuck at what I call “Step 1”. Step 1 is basically read up on a topic and develop some ideas and hypotheses that might make sense.

To actually fully do science, you have to go past that and back your ideas with evidence and/or experiment.

Science is not about making stuff up and taking that as “truth” until different evidence comes by. Rather, it’s closer to say it’s about taking your own hypotheses as “false” and eventually working out they’re actually true, despite your best efforts to disprove them.

Evidence is NOT “it makes sense to me and now it’s on you to show how it doesn’t”. That’s backwards.

That’s why real scientists (vs movie scientists) always use qualifiers in their statements. “In my opinion” or “our best guess” or “there is a correlation” rather than make definitive statements. Proving something is false is usually easier than proving something is true.