You don’t recognize it because Egyptologists have everything delineated in terms of stinky footed bumpkins. Instead of the mason’s shop on the east side they have a “mortuary temple”, instead of a path to the port they have a “holy walkway” or “causeway”. Instead of the water collection device thaey have the “holy enclosure”. Across the board they have invented terms consistent with their beliefs about the ancients. They are each and every one wrong.
The port was at the end of the so called causeway and it recieved the stone. The builders village had its own port but it was very lightly used because THERE WERE NO ROADS! It was behind the Wall of the Crow to protect it from the gasses.
There were no religious structures at Giza and there was no religion and no belief in magic. Theseare modern confusions. You can’t build a great pyramid and leave no evidence. Evidence is exactly what we are looking at today. When you reverse engineer this evidence you won’t end up at stinky footed bumpkins but at ingenius people who lifted stones one step at a time.
MECHANICAL ADVANTAGE OF SIMPLE MACHINES Pulleys
A pulley, which is derived from the Greek word polos, meaning axis, is a wheel with a groove. A rope, belt, or cable runs inside the groove. That mechanism can be used alone or connected with other pulleys in a pulley system. The greater the number of pulleys in the system, the less force it will take to lift an object. Try to lift a 50-pound boulder with just your arms and then use a pulley to pick it up. The pulley makes lifting the boulder easier because it reduces the effort required to lift. But notice that, although lifting becomes easier, you pull a rope that travels a greater distance than the height to which you lift the boulder. This extra distance decreases your effort by giving you a mechanical advantage. The mechanical advantage of a moveable pulley is equal to the number of ropes that support the moveable pulley. (When calculating the mechanical advantage of a moveable pulley, count each end of the rope as a separate rope). You can calculate this number for any pulley system using the following methods.
[/QUOTE]
apparently - you spend all your time at the irony shop.
No pulley provides mechanical advantage? Where do you get this stuff from? And why should anyone take you serious when you don’t seemingly know anything about anything? Here…educate yourself on how pulleys provide mechanical advantage.
Of course, it’s moot, since the Egyptians didn’t have pulleys except in your own mind.
Again, what do you base all of this on? Again, what do you base all of this on? Again, what do you base all of this on? Again, what do you base all of this on? Again, what do you base all of this on? Again, what do you base all of this on?..
The carbonated water that came to Giza came from a long way off. By the time it got to Giza it was saturated in most chemicals. When it sprayed up it it lost its carbonation and its ability to hold these chemicals creating the ben ben stone. As it warmed it lost the ability to hold even more creating the primeval mound under the ben ben.
This is simple chemistry and physics.
The ancients understood it quite well;
1881a. The eye of Horus is offered to thee; it is young with thee; it is large with thee,
The opening for the water gets smaller with time as it limes up.
It always amazes me how poorly modern people understand simple science. Yet the ancients could expresss complex ideas incidentally to what they were actually talking about. The ancients always expressed scientific ideas preoperly and they knew they were ignorant. Modern people always express scientific ideas inaccurately and they know they are omniscient.
Oh you mean the funicular, I have seen the images you pointed at before and it is clear that you do think also that the causeways were also the channels for the funiculars.
And what were the causeways made of?
Basalt paving and limestone walls, As pointed before your idea of workers enjoying a soda drink from time to time is really silly as the walls of the funicular channel would not last a week thanks to all the soda water making the limestone fizz away.
This is reality. Evidence is always right in front of your eyes but it is always open to misinterpretation and poor observation. There’s plenty of evidence that the so called valley temple sat next to the river. In English you can call this a “port”. It wasn’t mere coincidence there was a massive “ramp” connecting this port to the mason’s shop. The stones were sawn and we know they weren’t sawn before arriving at the port. Do the math. This is all simple enough once you just accept that the reason there’s no evidence for ramps is that there were never any ramps.
No, this is just nonsense tripe, check what happens in natural and the artificial geysers, the reason they work is precisely because the reaction that makes them possible still leaves a lot of carbonic acid.
And it is clear that you claimed that the geyser was under the pyramid (one of the reason why we don’t see it now) so your say so of the soda water coming from a long way is just a contradictory statement. And you many times did reference the workers enjoying a soda drink from time to time.
What you claim is only possible with magic, and that is all what you have. Not useful at all.
The only thing you demonstrated here is that when science appears, you have to spew contradiction after contradiction to continue.
Not sure what that means, other than that you’re allowed to insert words at your whim? Nothing about flying in the text you said described flying, and the reference was to statues, not stones.
You’re clearly a True Believer who’s closed his mind to outside data, but why should I let blatant errors like that go uncorrected? Other people read these threads, after all.
And in that spirit:
Mistaken again, I’m afraid. Nothing about a “builder” in that passage:
492a. To say: If N. should be bewitched, so will Atum be bewitched.
492b. If N. should be slandered, so will Atum be slandered.
492c. If N. should be beaten, so will Atum be beaten.
492d. If N. should be hindered on this road, so will Atum be hindered.
493a. N, is Horus. N. comes after his father (in time); N. comes after Osiris.
493b. O thou, whose face is before him, whose face is behind him,
494a. bring this (boat) to N. Which boat shall I bring to thee, O N.?
494b. Bring to N. that which flies up and alights.
As usual: makes perfect sense in the context of an ascent to heaven; makes no sense as an instruction to a builder, in the middle of a section about the king being equal to the gods, and carved inside a sealed pyramid.
The water was harmless because it was not only saturated but it was also treated with a mixture of musilagenous myhrr, natron, and grease.
There were actually times that the water could erode support structures and this is mentioned in the PT.
1121b. also when he traverses the foaming sea, destroying the walls of Shu.
1122a. He ascends to heaven,
When it did damage these specific walls under the mehet weret it foamed. This water was untreated because it didn’t get treated until it went through the upper eye of horus.
I can’t understand why people find this so complicated. It was difficult for me to solve it but the heavy lifting is all done now. All you have to do is read it.
[QUOTE=cladking]
Evidence is what you are looking at?
[/QUOTE]
You asserting shit is not evidence…well, except evidence of you asserting shit and doing a lot of handwaving. To answer my own question, you are basing this off of your own assertions and interpretations. I don’t accept that. No one (except you and your mouse) are going to accept that.
It has nothing to do with accepting ramps or not accepting ramps except in your own mind. I don’t accept most of what you have asserted (and I’m being generous with the ‘most’ part) because you’ve backed it up with NOTHING. You assert stuff as if it’s true and as if we should just accept it when even on the simple stuff you’ve been shown to be wrong…repeatedly.
I have. But the math requires some sort of baseline assumptions, as well as at least a rudimentary understanding of Newtonian physics and material science…neither of which you have. You merely assert stuff, like your assertion of the failure rate of your machine and give absolutely nothing to back that up with.
I don’t even know what you are trying to say here, or what it means in the context of the discussion. It’s simply another version of you dumping a steaming pile of horseshit that you assert out of your ass, as if it proves something. It doesn’t…it just makes you look foolish.
Show me a map of the Giza plateau and point out exactly which structure you are babbling about. Can you do that much?
No evidence for this, and once again that is not what we find coming out of cold water geysers, and your solution only means yet another complication tossed into your imaginary mix. In fact the strongest you make the point that it was already saturated when the soda water came out, then the point that others reported about the water strength coming out is correct: the water coming out never then would had reached the heights or the pressure needed to move the stones.
Choose your poison for your geyser idea, and for everything else that you claim too.
So much for the workers enjoying a soda drink too.
Using some logic, if we take the choice that natron was used to neutralize the acidic content then we should find evidence of the industrial quantities excavated, evidence and an explanation about the delivery method of the tons needed to be moved to the top of the pyramid, and we need also a very good explanation how the monstrous fizzing produced by the reaction was contained.
And unless the neutralization took place [del]at the very bottom of the pyramid[/del] deep underground then we are talking about the acidic water undermining and eventually making huge caves under and inside the great pyramid.
You know it’s all about the ramp 'bout the ramps no foetida pedes…
I know what you are saying here, but have you considered that all of your knowledge about chemistry and chemical reactions (as well as physics and material science no doubt) has come from Egyptologists with a vested interest in keeping this knowledge secret? You’ve been duped by The Man, GIGO…plain and simple.