Egyptologists just get mad and refuse to discuss it at all. Skeptics and “science types” are the worst except for poets. The best reception is where I’m well known or among friends who know I’m not prone to flights of fancy. Computer programmers, linguists, and chemists take it relatively well. Remarkaby I’ve never had any feedback from religious people except a very very few who find it either profound or blasphemous.
Skeptics are the worst and the more they “know” about Egyptology the worse they are.
I always say nobody takes it seriously but there are a lot of people who are just waiting for guidance from Egyptologists who refuse to comment at all.
I believe a lot of people think it’s possible I’m right but lack the knowledge to form an educated opinion. This is the crux of the problem because unless I’m right there’s almost no evidence at all. If I am right people will forever wonder how all the evidence could be missed. The idea sounds so fantastic that people don’t want to get on board. I believe Egyptologists are in danger of becoming marginalized because they won’t consider it and at least much of it will prove to be true.
I should add that this theory is really a product of message boards and this is related to the poor reception. It was not only discovered by google but it was formed and massaged by message boards. Early incarnations of the theory had severe flaws that were corrected due to the input of Egyptologists and others. It was Egytologists who had the most influence. About the time I proposed “geysers” in ~'08 was when they got scarce. I’ve not only had criticism from outside sources but also have had a lot of help in discovering consistencies.
Umm, claddy, old boy? You might want to take a look at some of the other threads in this forum. Ones on, say, homeopathy, or antivaxxers. Or religion. The SDMB is, um, not very receptive to woo. As you might have noticed.
For a start, why don’t you build or model the counterweight apparatus? If the physics and the materials (rope, etcc) work out (that is, it actually lifts stones, and speedily and reliably enough to have built a pyramid in the time they are thought to have been built in), then you have real, objective evidence that the Egyptians might have used your method. If it doesn’t work, then you’ll know you’re on the wrong track.
Innovations and breakthroughs don’t come from idle speculation. Put the work in, if you’re actually taking this seriously.
Thank you for supporting the case for ramps. These lines clearly describe four ramps allowing the pyramid to ascend. Perhaps your confusion stems from the fact that they had no word specifically for “ramp” and instead used a term that can be mistranslated as “ladder.”
Clearly, but discussing the value of models, and the success and influence of other people’s practical experiments (Tim Jenison, Thor Heyerdahl, etc) has a slightly above zero chance of changing his mind. Unless it’s just a matter of laziness.
Those pesky “science types”, with their insistence on evidence and modeling and refusal to accept unsupported assertions!
That is, people who don’t necessarily have any expertise in archaeology or engineering. And I’m going to call bullshit on linguists supporting your “metaphysical” language or your “I-can’t-read-Egyptian-but-I-can-understand-it” nonsense . You’ll have to provide a cite for me to accept that statement.
So, it’s not really a theory then - just a idea that you’ve been tossing around and refining in your head for a decade. You’ve argued it on message boards, but have done no real research to turn it in to an actual testable hypothesis. Got it.
See, here’s the thing, cladking - you might not have the time, or resources, or ability to do any serious work on your idea. Not everybody does - ideas are great, but a brother’s gotta pay the rent, right? We can’t all be Indiana Jones.
But without that serious research, your wild idea is just that - a wild idea. And the Internet is full of those. Arguing on the internet doesn’t make you a scientist - it just makes you The Food Babe.
Once more, this thread pays for itself in this link alone. I’d never heard of The Food Babe, and am damn glad I learned from a debunking site rather than from a “true believer” of any sort. Thank you for the prophylactic protection against that…dolt.
What exactly is the model for? Am I supposed to be trying to prove the heavier pan of a balance scale will still fall even if there’s stone on it and water in the other? Everything I’m proposing is well within known theory. Modeling is superfluous.
If anyone at all needs to make a model it is Egyptology. They are claiming there is some ramp configuration that would allow 6 1/2 million tons of stones to flow into a pyramid without trhe haulers tripping over one another. Such a ramp system has NEVER been described and when anyone tries it is blown out of the water as an impossibility. They can’t be built or they simply can’t work.
It’s ironic that ramps have no evidence for support but no one is concerned they haven’t been modeled even by computer but pulling stones up one step at a time which is evidenced somehow needs modeling. I suppose if I were proposing aliens did it then you’d want me to build a levitation gun or a faster than light propulsion.
Ramps are debunked (post #152 still stands and the word still isn’t attested). Perhaps Egyptologists should try modeling something that can be built and is evidenced. Even as ridiculous as ramps are, modeling is irrelevant since given enough ramping material and enough manpower then even ramps could work. The only real problem is they lacked an economy massive enough to project this kind of power on ramps.
So, as noted, you are only demonstrating a gross ignorance of the tools that are used.
Of course it is essential (for you) to ignore that the physical modelers that worked with the ideas of Houidin also showed how the haulers did not trip over one another. You seem to have the impression that modelers can not simulate how humans can interact with materials and where they can be while pulling material up a ramp.
Yet another item where you show only gross ignorance.
Once again, this shows another gross ignorance about when something is debunked, it also does require that more than one researcher to agree with you, so far the number of active researchers that agrees with no ramps used in making pyramids ever is zero. (And we are talking smaller ones, not the straw man one big one that you think Egyptologists propose.)
[QUOTE=cladking]
It’s ironic that ramps have no evidence for support but no one is concerned they haven’t been modeled even by computer but pulling stones up one step at a time which is evidenced somehow needs modeling. I suppose if I were proposing aliens did it then you’d want me to build a levitation gun or a faster than light propulsion.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that’s ironic…well, except that ramps HAVE been modeled and people have actually built and tested their theories of how they could work. With real ramps and real blocks of stone and reap people hauling on real ropes. Except for that, it’s pretty ironic, to be sure.
And it’s definitely ironic that you continue to ignore the fact that there is archeological evidence of ramps on the Giza plateau and keep repeating the claim that there is no evidence…of course, you do this by both ignoring that evidence and by pointing out there is no DIRECT evidence of the ramps being used to build the pyramids.
Still don’t grasp the whole ‘people can scroll up’ feature of a discussion like this, ehe? Yes, by now we are all aware that ramps have been debunked in your own mind…except, not really, since you admit to using ramps to fend off blocks of stone in your Rube machine. Oh, and the ramps undoubtedly used in constructing the base parts that you don’t care about (because obviously you couldn’t use your wonderful mouse trap machine until you have a pyramid to build it on).
Like they have done, right? Gods, you are hilarious. You ARE the Food Babe…you rely on the ignorance of your audience to just buy into your bullshit. Ramps HAVE been modeled…multiple times. And some ramp designs have been tossed out because, once modeled they didn’t freaking work. In addition, various ways to move the stones have been tried…not thought about, but actually tried out in full scale with real people and real blocks (and stinky feet that really smell bad). I’ve SEEN it with my own real eyes. I’ve pulled on a rope to do testing (admittedly, not for building a pyramid but for moving a block such as those at Stone Henge…my feet DID stink though).
You have nothing, on the other hand. All you have is the ignorance of your audience and the ability to spout a seemingly endless stream of bullshit. You build strawmen and then tear them down. You handwave enough to float a block to the top of a pyramid all by yourself.
To demonstrate whether the machine you’re proposing would work, if it could be built with the materials and knowledge available at the time, and how quickly it could be used to build a pyramid, with what level of manpower, and so forth. Y’know, actual tangible reality. That’s how amateurs have advanced science before.
See, the specifics matter. For example: gunpowder explosions result in expanding gasses, as we all know. Therefore, my theory that the Ancient Egyptians built high-powered rifles out of reeds needs no testing; I can just point to the physics of expanding gasses and be done with it. Agreed?
First off, whether other theories are correct has no bearing on whether your theory is correct. Egyptologists could be wrong about everything, and that wouldn’t make you right. So, the constant references back to mainstream theories does nothing for your theory, except highlight how little substance there is to it.
Second, your policy of deliberate ignorance is again coming back to bite you, as modeling of ramp-based construction have been done. Here is one example. Note that, in order to test the wet-sand theory, the team actually tested the wet-sand theory, as opposed to insisting they were right and calling it a day.
So, whether it is laziness, lack of confidence, or being so far removed from scientific thought that you can’t conceive of concepts like falsifiability, your refusal to test or model anything is quite damning to your theories. Clearly, you cannot be persuaded from your views through discussion; pretend that the rest of us are the same way. You must move beyond hot air and into testable reality.
I’m not proposing some radical new science like levitation ray or warp drive. I’n not suggesting the ancients had anything we’d call high tech. If I were then, yes, I’d have to have some very convincing math or build a model that could at least lift a molehill. I’m merely claiming to have Rediscovered how the great pyramids werew built primitive technology. I am not required to prove a balance scale works any more than Egyptologists are required to show that ramps could have worked.
Of course I can be dissuaded but not with semantics, evasions, irrelevancies, and non factual statements. I need facts and logic to turn my course.
Yes, by now we are all aware that ramps have been debunked in your own mind…except, not really, since you admit to using ramps to fend off blocks of stone in your Rube machine. Oh, and the ramps undoubtedly used in constructing the base parts that you don’t care about (because obviously you couldn’t use your wonderful mouse trap machine until you have a pyramid to build it on).