Do you have some special powers or something? Us regular folks often picture things that don’t actually work, because we don’t have perfect understandings of physics and engineering.
You’re probably being metaphorical (or metaphysical), but is that an actual, evidenced term of derision? A google search only yields links to your message board posts.
Full disclosure, I’ve occasionally had issues with some of my running shoes, but no one has complained recently 
I have a great deal of visceral knowledge of ropes and slings. In my experience they do not break if used properly and inspected properly. Every year about 20 Americans die in industry from breaking ropes. In virtually every single case these ropes had not been inspected and or were used beyond their rated capacity. If a rope holds a weight the first time it’s used it will hold it everytime. If you exceed the rated capacity a little damage occurs with each lift. The damage caused by repeated usage can be seen by an experienced inspector. This damage can be very subtle but a weak spot just gets weaker; sometimes quickly.
Show me the evidence and logic tolead me to the truth. Show me where I’m wrong or inconsistent with known physical law.
A little touch of athletes foot will do it too, especially when its expanding.
Did you see this;
722a. Flesh of N.,
722b. rot not, decay not, let not thy smell be bad.
722c. Thy foot shall not pass over, thy step shall not stride through,
722d. thou shalt not tread upon the (corpse)-secretion of Osiris.
723a. Thou shalt tiptoe heaven like Śȝḥ (the toe-star); thy soul shall be pointed like Sothis (the pointed-star).
According to this translation osiris is was born dead has to be warned that if he walks in the corpse drippings of the king he should tiptoe. Here we have a powerful and imaginary consciousness who is advised to not walk but tiptoe in the liquids excreted from a decaying body.
This is so absurd it’s beyond description. Anyone who could write such a thing must have powerfully stinky feet;
1272a. If Isis comes in this her evil coming;
1272b. do not open to her thine arms; that which is said to her is her name (of) “wide of ḥwȝ-t (evil-smelling).”
They even believe the Goddess “Isis” stinks to high heaven.
Egyptology is so absurd it’s a wonder people can’t see it. It postulates that people can become strong through superstition.
I wasn’t going to bring up that oddity, but…yeah-what is this thing you keep bringing up about “stinky feet”, cladking? To the best of my knowledge no one else here has mentioned the topic. Are “stinky feet” a sore subject with you for some reason?
Yeah, I’m just going to start there.
Desmostachya bipinnata, or halfa grass (which I have to assume you’re talking about), grows narrow leaves up to 50cm in length. Your 5 inch (12.7cm) rope, then, has a diameter a quarter the length of each fiber.
That’s not rope; it’s very nearly felt. And you want to make it 30m long?
No. Sorry, that simply will not work.
Tell ya what. Instead of moaning about how the Man won’t do the simple tests required to support or refute your ideas, why don’t you pull a Thor Heyerdahl? In case you don’t know the name, he had a weird idea that ancient Pacific cultures could have traveled across the ocean (specifically that South American mainlanders could have populated the islands of the South Pacific.) Few in mainstream anthropology took him seriously; the consensus held that no hand-made raft could survive long open-ocean voyages.
So he just did it. He built a boat, using only the materials and techniques available to nontechnological pre-Columbian Peruvians. He called it the Kon-Tiki, and he sailed it 7000km across the ocean with a crew of six.
Now, modern anthropology generally holds that the South Pacific was not colonized by South Americans, for a number of reasons widely supported by DNA evidence. But he proved that it could have been done. By doing it.
You have a rare opportunity here. Ok, sure, the Gatekeepers of Egyptology are keeping you down. They won’t let you explore your ideas firsthand. That sucks, I’m sorry. But you can create a proof of concept in this one area.
Make a rope.
Get your hands on grass fibers. Doesn’t even have to be halfa; you can easily find comparable grasses native to North America or Europe, depending on where you live. Get some tar. Make a rope. Prove that this part of your hypothesis, at least is even possible.
You make that rope, and I will listen avidly and sincerely to everything else you have to say.
Of course not.
My knowledge in all subjects is highly limited. Even in my narrow specialty my knowledge is hardly extensive. Most people know many times what I know but I do organize my knowledge much differently. I’m a generalist (nexialist?) with a little training in physics and a great deal of training in metaphysics up to the 1920’s. While my command of modern science is poor and my command of ancient science is poorer yet I am the only person in human history to employ two sciences simultaneously. People will mistinterpret this so let’s just say that some concepts are simple enough my guts can work them out. I don’t really understand much except what my guts do.
If I always listened to my guts I wouldn’t post this.
So then sometimes you actually make mistakes, and sometimes (contrary to what you said earlier) you actually picture things in your mind that don’t work in reality?
Take it up with the ancient Egyptians. They made ropes out of many different fibers and according to modern analysis the most common was halfa grass. Those found at Giza are halfa grass.
Creating 5" diameter slings should have beenb easy enough for them and tarring them should be easy enough. There are 4" diameter ropes actually surviving.
Made of halfa grass? Where?
If you knowledge of ropes was actual instead of visceral you’d realize you were wrong. Ropes can break at any time, large ropes are particularly difficult to inspect because so many of the fibers are not visible on the exterior, and your ropes are tarred making inspection nearly impossible. Ropes do break on the first use and at any time afterwards and far more people would die in accidents if they didn’t already know that ropes can’t be trusted to keep them alive. You would also realize that even with steel cables lifting the weights you are talking about would be done at a much slower rate to prevent them from getting damaged or snapping under load.
Your theory falls apart in the details.
This thread is full of evidence and logic that disproves your theory yet you continue to ignore that. You have nothing but a fanciful story, and you haven’t mastered science yet if you can’t see the flaws in your concept much less look for them.
There is only one science…and there was no Tower of Babel.
I used to be able to shift understanding the PT from different perspectives with no effort at all. Now it’s becoming difficult and I don’t want to do it. I can still review it in my mind to search for aliens or anything but it’s more difficult and I automatically keep reverting the the “solution” I found.
Confirmation bias is very powerful even for me. So why don’t you believe it can affect Egyptologists? They can present no evidence for their belief in ramps other than things I’ve shown support my theory but I can show how all the evidence, shallow as it is, works for my theory. Why doesn’t predictive capability mean anything? How much longer do ramps need to fail before they are jettisoned? You’ll never read an Egyptologist talking about ramps without beginning and ending the argument with “they mustta used ramps”. This is invariable and satisfies the very definition of confirmation bias but I’ve NEVER made any equivalent statement. I confess I started this with a hunch they mightta used waterand figured five minutes with google would prove they didn’t. I started the PT with the deep seated belief that people are sane and intelligent and this is what I found.
We all seem to choose our own beliefs and people can’t or don’t want to believe we used to be free of superstition. We believe in our soulds that nature is beholden to science and math and that 1 + 1 is always and necessarily equal to 2 despite the fact that no two identical things exist to count. We can’t see outside our beliefs which were given to us by language that masks its own nature. It seems only natural that Egyptology wouldn’t want to actually take measurements or run experiments because it would distract them from looking for ramps and devining bones. They have millions of pot shards to put together and no time to do real science. Troweling for ramps was good enough for 19th century scientist so it must be good enough today.
Here’s that passage in context, for anyone who’s interested.
That sure sounds like a wish that the king’s body wouldn’t rot and putrefy, as bodies left to their own devices tend to do. “Treading upon the secretion of Osiris” (the god of the dead, recall) could be a metaphor for that state of putrefaction. The rest of the text is similar admonitions for the king to be well, to have his senses, to be made fresh, and so forth.
What was your interpretation of 721-722, again?
Why couldn’t a science based on observation and logic exist?
It does; there just isn’t a demarcation between “ancient” and “modern”, just one between “valid” and “invalid.”
The word “Science” already has a definition. Go find another word to define whatever the hell it is you think your “ancients” were trying to do.
Out of context this is hard to see. The meaning of ancient language was the context.
They desire that the king’s body does not decay and that it becomes transmogrified (what Egyptologists call Akhified) into the geyser which “lives” eternally and that his ka becomes the pyramid which will last a million years where it communes with his soul (ba) in heaven. To accomplish this the body is cremated and he is freed from his bandages.
Men must not walk in the efflux which comes forth from the water. This efflux is CO2 which collects in low lying areas and will kill the unwary. If you inadvertanly find yourself in such a place you should hurry out and walk on your tiptoes because just a few inches often makes the difference between life and death.
I assume you are talking about the rope from the lost fleet, but it’s always hard to say with you since you just assert stuff without providing any cites or context. Ok, so they could make a 5" diameter sling, and that will lift 2-6 tons in optimal condition (I’m basing this on the strength of modern rope btw, which is probably stronger than the Egyptian variety…and, I assume, you haven’t bothered to test it OR to do the math based on the actual tensile strength of the rope material you are asserting).
How long do you estimate the ropes used to actually pull up the stones and sling using your water counter balance system? Personally, and this is totally unsolicited advice, I’d stick to laying out the parameters of your theory here and steer clear of all the mystical horseshit, which does your argument zero good on this board. Don’t talk about how you read all this in the Bible or in ancient Egyptian texts or whatever…instead, describe, in detail how this machine would work. Would there be pulleys? How would they belay the system? What sort of super structure would it be? How many of these devices would there be? How would the water counter balance system be laid out and operate? Where would the excess water go and would they use some sort of charging tank? Pumps? How would the device operate in practice, i.e. a team of guys would move the stone into position, rig the harness, charge the system and…what? How rapidly would the stone move up? What would they do if they needed it to stop half way up? What happens if there is a failure in the system?
Sure it can. Scientists, like all humans, can irrationally resist shakeups to the status quo. The example of Thor Heyerdahl is spot-on. Ignaz Semmelweis has been mentioned too. I’d add Alfred Wegener. Sometimes the prevailing wisdom is wrong, and sometimes people are slow to realize this. I don’t think anything in this paragraph is remotely controversial; no one’s saying that scientists are always dead-right about everything or that there will never be modifications to our understanding of Ancient Egypt. To the contrary, recent work that’s shaken up the prevailing wisdom has already been mentioned, such as the one-big-ramp theory being discarded.
If you want people to accept that you’re right and the prevailing wisdom is wrong, you have to demonstrate that. And that’s where there’s a disconnect: I find your evidence weak and unpersuasive, especially in the face of how extraordinary your claims are. Your most radical ideas (the natural language, the tower of Babel, religion and mysticism not existing until modern times) are, oddly, little footnotes to your semi-plausible counterweight theory (geysers aside), and you don’t seem to bother to support any of them. (I have to question your priorities, too; compared to a natural language and so on, how the pyramids were built are the smallest of potatoes).
That’s just not the case. You claim it supports your theory, but it doesn’t, for the most part.
You’re probably the least qualified person posting here to judge your evidence, because it’s your evidence. You are extremely biased.
Such as?
Do you have an example of such an argument? You’ve never linked to anything any Egyptologists have written, and as I noted before, I have no confidence in your ability to summarize the positions of Egyptologists, rather than resorting to strawmen.