The ancients were very familiar with the hydraulic cycle and it was named “nehebkau” which translates to “gatherer of the works of (gods)” and “he” was the “natural phenomenon of the hydraulic cycle”. Of course this is opaque to Egyprtoilogists even though it appears in the PT which shows they were very familiar with the concept of the evaporation of water and it’s falling on earth to form rivers which carried it back to the sea. But Egyptologists don’t understand the hydraulic cycle so of course they didn’t see it.
1140c. (he is dried) by the wind of the great Isis, together with (which) the great Isis dried (him) like Horus.
…
1146a. N. is the pouring down of rain; he came forth as the coming into being of water;
1146b. for he is the Nḥb-kȝ.w-serpent with the many coils;
Nehebkau is a serpent because all fluidic flows were known as serpents. Just as his son nht-knw which is the “natural phenomenon of degassification of a liquid” is a serpent.
Egyptologists missed this because they jumped to the conclusion that the ancients were stinky footed bumpkins. But the fact is the ancients make far fewer mistakes about nature and how it works than Egyptologists. The slowest Egyptian mad fewer misstatements than the average Egyptologist. It’s impossible to understand the ancient language unless you solve the referents and know more science than the speaker. These were trained scientists who wrote this stuff.
There was no rain in the desert to make wet sand and their cisterns had inlets to small to fill when it rained. They had effervescent running water like wine so it would have been silly to wetten sand to drag stones.
1723a. Raise thyself up (like) Ḫnti-Ḫm (chief of Letopolis),
1723b. when the great bread and this wine-like water were given to him.
These people were not superstitious bumpkins, we are.
[QUOTE=cladking]
These people were not superstitious bumpkins, we are.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, you and the mouse in your pocket certainly are. You are full of…er, you are full of magical thinking and superstitious philosophy. You are also immune to facts, logic and reason. When presented with something that runs counter to your narrative you start to spout mystical horseshit that, I presume, you think means something, but which in fact makes you look like a nut and does less than nothing to forward your nebulous argument. You asked if HA ‘believes’ that large stones could be dragged across wet sand using a wooden sled…in actuality, ‘belief’ doesn’t come into it. He KNOWS they can be because, unlike you, someone (actually lots of someones) have bothered to, you know, fucking get a big rock and a wooden sled and some guys to DO it. Ironically, had you clicked the link you’d have seen an actual Egyptian painting showing actual Egyptians DOING it as well. But you are totally immune to reason and immune to facts that run counter to your narrative.
They venture a guess that stones can be dragged on wet sand and this is called “science” now days.
Even the dumbest dog knows to walk the shore line where the sand is wet so he doesn’t sink in. I suppose this makes dogs “einstein”. If my dog walked in the dry samnd I’d get a new dog.
The proposal that you can drag 50 ton stones over wet sand because it’s easy is simply so ludicrous it doesn’t really deserve this much comment. It’s about akin to the recent suggestion that the pyramid builders lived on ramps.
Egyptology is having a little trouble right now reconciling their belief in ramps with the evidence there were no ramps so more of this claptrap may occur. In a couple years they’ll admit that stoines mustta been pulled up one step at a time and they still won’t gather the evidence or performn the science that would show how it was done. They were satisfied with "they mustta used ramps for a century and a half and now there’s actual evidence stones were pulled up one step at a time. This should be good forever so they’ll percieve no need to do any science forever.
Why do people support this stuff? Ramps are debunked but it wiull take years before anything really changes because the status quo is sacrosanct. Today we know everything so we don’t need no stinkin’ science.
And if you had investigated the drawing you’d know that this was a statue dragged to a specific location. It has nothing to do with dragging 2 1/2 million stones into a large pile. It is irrelevant to the topic at hand which is "how
were the pyramids in Egypt built?. Just like every single nonsensicalk thing that Egyptologists dig up to support the romantic and hackneyed ramp idea it is wholly and utterly irrelevant.
There is no evidence any stone was ever lifted on any great pyramid using a ramp. Additionally they are debunked and people are coming to see they are debunked (see post #152). The Egyptological paradigm known as the frankenstein mummy has been cut off at the knees. It is found to be empty inside and founded on nothing but air and sand. The word “ramp” isn’t even attested from the great pyramid building age and they are scranmbling to try to explain why or how there was such an omission.
451a. Behold, N. brings to thee thy great left eye as healer.
451b. Take it, the intact (one), to thyself from N.; its water is in it, being intact;
I understand this stuff isn’t obvious but doesn’t it seem the least bit strange that their words seem to agree with me and that I can cite those exact words?
That will come in a few centuries after “they mustta pulled stones up one step at a time”. By that time they’ll have destroyed every shred of evidence looking for the gold that was never even there and paving the entire plateau for the tourists.
Not really. Because you’ve offered exactly zero, zilch, nada, bupkis evidence that A., your translations into English are accurate, and B., your interpretation of your translations is accurate.
Besides, I think you missed an important fragment of the PT:
Utterance 283
424a To say, Unas jerks indeed his thumb, the left one, against you
424b And strikes his forehead, saying:
424c “Geysers? What the hell are geysers? We used
424d ramps and sledges.
424e And our feet were indeed stinky, at the end of the day.
424f Turn off the computer and go get some fresh air, dude.”
They can see all others posts and conclude that you do not know what debunking is and all the others showing how ignorant you remain regarding many items like you did with modelling, something that architectural science uses a lot.
These words DON’T seem to agree with you. You make translations of the translations that agree with you. This is honestly a problem you have. You think these things are obviously true, but they aren’t. You aren’t citing exact words. You are citing your own unique interpretation of those words. You will never, I repeat never, convince anyone this way. No one is ever going to match your visceral knowledge. So if you honestly want to convince anyone, you must switch to physical and demonstrable proofs. Give up trying to get people to listen to your unbelievable language skills.
[QUOTE=cladking]
And you ignored my objections.
[/QUOTE]
No, actually, I didn’t…I threw them in your face. Everyone but you seems to realize this.
They tested it in the real world actually…which is more than you did by an almost infinite margin. Thus far you’ve done nothing at all except blow smoke. Had you read the articles linked and followed the additional links you could see they did more than ‘venture a guess’.
What you are doing isn’t called science…hell, it’s not even really good bullshit. It’s actually kind of sad and pathetic to be honest.
Straw must be on sale in your neck of the woods.
Because they actually took the time to test their theory, have actual historical and archeological evidence and they seem to have at least taken one or two physics classes while getting their doctorates in history, archeology and/or anthropology…while you have exactly dick. No one takes you seriously because you are so ridiculously transparent and your objections are laughable.
Here’s the thing, chief…maybe the Egyptians did use water to lubricate the sand, or maybe they did it some other way. At least THIS particular theory has been tested, and they COULD have done it this way. Or they might have used some other method. Your own theory is completely untested and so ridiculous that even YOU don’t seem to want to do more than gas on about it. Also, and correct me if I’m wrong here, but unless your machine is supposed to have been able to drag blocks from miles away the Egyptians would still have had to move the stones from the docks or from the quarries to where the pyramids were, regardless…and your pet theory doesn’t deal with any of that, just as it doesn’t deal with how the base was made. You’ve ALREADY ADMITTED AS MUCH. So, all of your objections here make you look even more ridiculous.
Asserting something over and over doesn’t really equate to evidence. This doesn’t seem to daunt you, but it’s true. You can keep saying the same unproven bullshit and it still won’t suddenly make a pile of horseshit into a believable narrative.
You should have let him post then…maybe your mouse buddy could have helped you from looking so bad. Unless he’s really not your friend, of course.
Newsbit about water changing the resistance of dragging stone on wet vs dry sand which shows an ancient picture with a guy pouring water in front of a sled. But pay this no mind, cladking. You know the "truth "regardless.
Of course, as it has been scientifically demonstrated.
Nope, I have no scientific background beyond a few college courses and the like. But purl=https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.175502]here’s the paper, complete with fancy physics charts and such. Looks like they did the work…unlike some other folks I could name, who refuse to test their theories, even though they are allegedly backed by “all the evidence”. Suspicious, that.
Cite?
C’mon, man, that’s pure handwaving.
Maybe if you did some modeling or testing of your own, you’d feel better?
[QUOTE=Human Action]
Rivers? Springs? The usual places one gets water?
[/QUOTE]
Could just be a rumor, probably untested, but I’ve heard that Nile thingy might have had some of that dihydrogen monoxide stuff. They might have been able to use that.
(This of course was one of the silliest of the king o’ clads objections, though really they were all him handwaving, and is kind of ironic for a guy putting forth the theory that the Egyptians used some kind of hokey water counter balance system to move the rocks up the pyramid vertically, fended off with not-ramps)
Good point, his theory features a massive water storage system adjacent to (or under) the great pyramid, so it’s a strange objection to raise…if they couldn’t get water near the pyramids, then cladking’s theory is shot to pieces.
Yes. They had water stored at the base of the pyramid as well as in the Lake of the Jackal at 70’ on the pyramid. So there was absolutely no need to ever redefine the builders village to a port with no roads in the first place. If there wasa no water in these places as my theory predicts thewn they’d have had a long haul carrying the warm muddy schistosomiasis laden water up from the river.
There has never been such a thing as a port with no roads. There is no evidence to suggest it was a port. It is the builders village and it is so tiny because there were very very few builders and half of them were womenm and children. Ramps are debunked based on facts and logic and no amount of dumping water on sand will make ramps regrow.
You do realize it hasn’t been shown that a 50 ton stone can be dragged over sand? How wet would the sand have to be and how deep under the runners to support so much weight? What’s to the greatest pounds per square inch sand can support without collapsing?
My dog just walks closer to the water until he doesn’t sink in but then he doesn’t do much math or weigh 50 tons.
They have shown pictures of the sand and it is a different fraction of the sand art Giza.
Just because there’s not much of a punchline and you don’t see the humor doesn’t mean it isn’t funny. This nonsense is in response to my objections and the debunkment. Even Egyptologists can see that some parts of the debunkment are legitimate (they all are) and are trying to shore up the failed theory. They believe my observation that the builders village is too small is the strongest part of the debunkment so they invented a port with no roads and wet sand. The concept of men dragging 50 ton stones on wet sand up hills and then sleeping on ramps is ludicrous just like the whole ramp concept. There were no ramps and they are still debunked.
If I knew how to prove the sky is blue I’d work on that instead. In the meantime all the evidence agrees stones were pulled straight up the side one step at a time.
All the evidence agrees they did it the easy way.
All the evidence agrees they did it the direct way.
