Nice to see it is your last try, because with that clarification one can say that indeed, you do not have a clue, that is not how cold water CO2 geysers do work, it is at the time the water comes out (and just before that, underground) that the acidic content is there.
By your own words, this step is useless, the “water was carbonated was far away from the pyramid” but because you do not have problem with contradictions there you go again.
Of course, just by the words here it is clear that you have no clue about the massive amounts of water coming out and how much alka seltzer is needed.
Again, the huge big ones going all the way to the top, as noticed you used them as straw men, most researches already agree that smaller ones were most likely. And we already linked to sources and evidence of many ramps.
Moving the goal posts, I was talking about architecture, that is the most related science here. And of hydraulics, chemistry and physics, that also do not agree with your theory.
Thomas Huxley talked before about Science, but as you demonstrate here that we have is a great tragedy of pseudo-science, the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by ugly facts.
Remember, the nanosecond you are talking about tangible evidence and supported physical models we are not talking metaphysics, we are talking physics, use the proper tools or be ignored forever by the people that count in this matter.
You can dance and weave to your heart’s content, but your initial claim was dumb and your follow-up is an evasion. I never made a claim that fiber rope could not be strong enough to do a job. You made the absurd claim that “There’s no fundamental difference in the nature of wire rope and hemp rope. They both work on very much the same principles and are damaged by the same neglect and misuse. They show similar signs of wear and mistreatment.” There are fundamental differences between metal and fabric rope. Certainly, they will both deteriorate if not maintained, but based on that comparison, there is “no fundamental difference in the nature of” a bamboo shied and the armor on a battleship. The conditions that will damage one are generally different than the conditions that will damage the other.
And, unlike your claim, he was never “excommunicated” from the league of extraordinary Egyptologists. However, after imagining that he was “cast out” by other Egyptologists, (a claim for which you have provided no evidence), you then come back to claim that his most important work on Ancient Egypt was utterly wrong.
More of your imagination. You have not yet cited a single example of all the mean-spritied things you have said against “Egyptologists” and the fact that you treat them as some sort of monolithic closed group that can (and does) “excommunicate” people from their midst indicates that you are basically imagining nearly everything you have said against them.
You have been asked on multiple occasions to provide the reference or citation for statements that you have attributed to your imaginary “Egyptologists.” On the few of occasions when you provided a link, (although never an actual quotation), the links have not supported your claim, often directly contradicting your claim.
I feel sorry for you and your delusions, but you are utterly unpersuasive in your arguments; you have never supported your claims except with more silly claims. I suppose it is comforting to live in a world when one believes that he or she is the sole possessor of Truth, but it requires one to imagine that they are the only person in the world capable of that brilliance and that is more hubris than I would be able to live with.
I guess I’m just more accustomed to speaking with individuals who are a little closer to Egyptology. When I use terms like “excommunicated” it sounds like I’m comparing Egyptology to a religion and this is exactly the intent. Actually it would be more accurate to cal Egyptology a “science founded on the assumptions that ancient people were sun addled and changeless bumpkins who dragged towmbs up ramps”. They are truly a science from this perspective but the assumptions essentially make them a religion. ALL Egyptologists believe these things even though they use different words to say them and Many Egyptologists have no interest in the more ancient Egyptians. But these are still defining characteristics of Egyptologists. As a religion, to the degree it is a religion, they do keep out outsiders and they do sometimes kick out insiders.
That Budge was an insider and is now an outsider is wellk known in most places I post;
“I’m an Egyptologist and I have to say that in Egyptological circles, Budge is considered laughable. The only reason for the continued prominence of his work is that it’s out of print, meaning that for publishing companies it’s a license to print money. Religion is not my field of specialization at all, but one can certainly find a number of good scholarly books on religion that are accessible to a general audience without having to resort to the wild inaccuracies of Budge.”
Budge is usually wrong just like all religious people and all scientists and everyone else. I’m usually wrong as well but then I know more of the pitfalls than some people so I might be avoiding a few of them.
I’m just amused by the way no one wants to accept the simplest statement without an authority to support it or a model or some reference in a book. This theory is unprecedented so there is no support. It overturns all the books and what we think we know. People want to disprove it based on the lack of references or models but these are irrelevant and so too are the semantics and word games leveled at it.
The fact is they obviously pulled stones straight up the side one step at a time. It’s my contention I only know this because I understand the ancient writing. The fact is there are several ways to learn how the pyramid was built but the religion (Egyptology) in charge refuses to employ any of them. They refuse to engage me in debate or even address things I’ve learned.
While they are studiously ignoring me they are scrambling to save the nonsense hypothesis that the ancients used ramps to build pyramids. These are the facts.
Here are a couple predictions; it won’t be long until pulling stones straight up the side is established knowledge. This will occur with or without Egyptological consent. It’s just this obvious. Within the next ten years a water source will be discovered at at least a couple of the pyramid sites. This will eventually put pressure on Egyptology to do the science or Egyptologists will be removed from their position of oversight of Egyptian antiquities by the Egyptian government. I rarely mention this but demeaning ancient Egyptians does not cast modern Egyptians in any better (or worse) light than other peoples. As more proof emerges there will be increasing pressure on institutions to solve this. This goes far beyond Egyptology and they have dropped the ball. They dropped the ball decades ago and people don’t seem to care. They have been in a century and a half long rut and show no inclination to get out of it.
And your source is just one more message board without any serious link to a genuine “Egyptologist.” That Budge’s theories have been superseded by later investigation is not the issue. Your odd claim was that he was “excommunicated” at the time he was living. Pointing to a college student who dismisses his work eighty years later does not make your point, it just indicates that you really imagine most of your claims. Once again, you are pointing to a citation that fails to actually support your claim.
Dude, you’ve repeatedly argued that saying the Egyptians had a religion is insulting them. There’s nothing ambiguous here.
To be fair, they are doing scholarly work, and you are making up assertions. The former is a lot harder. I’ve already shown where you’ve snipped lines out of context, and blatantly distorted the words.
And I never thought I’d write this, but it’s true: I understand the Pyramid Texts better than you do.
Take it up with this guy, he’s saying they did have beliefs that can only be described as mystical:
I’m not sure this is strictly true. But even if it were it certainly isn’t true that having religious beliefs is insulting to my mind. It would only be insulting to call someone religious if they specifically didn’t have a religion. I doubt the ancient Egyptians would even understand the concept of “belief”. To them “theory” was simply an accumulation of observation that could make accurate predictions. They didn’t even believe in their knowledge like we believe in the theory of evolution or global warming. I can imagine their laughter at the idea that there are an infinite number of pyramids built with an infinite number of ramps.
But try to explain the concept of faith to them and it would probably fall flat and the language likely didn’t allow it at all. They simply believed in the logic of what they saw and didn’t know the logic they used was a metaphysical language. It was like mathematics set to words and grammar in some ways.
They did not believe the king was literally transformed into the pyramid which built itself by means of the water source. Rather this was just ritual where they saw off their deadking. It was an expression primarily of loss and mourning. They believed that he’d always be with them so long as he was remembered and the pyramid and water would assure he’d be with them forever.
People are looking at the PT like it’s the be all end all of Egyptian beliefs but it is nothing of the sort. It’s a silly little book of ritual that just happened to be the only thing that survived.
I simply don’t care what Egyptologists believe and never have. I very studiously avoided even seeing their opinions while I began with the PT. If I had come to the same conclusions then I’d have actively sought their opinion and counsel but I disagree completely with them so their opinion is stillof very little interest to me. Yes, some Egyptologists are very sharp and can have some very keen insights but mostly anything involving the great pyramid builders will be of no value to me because they work within the confines of their previous conclusions. Their expertise can be impressive and within their expertise I always defer to them. They might translate “I3.t-wt.t” as “young thing” one time and something else another but this doesn’t change the fact that it has one siungular meaning in context and none of their translations captures this meaning very well. You may think there’s a lot of variability in the beliefs of Egyptologists but nothing could be further from the truth. There are four assumptions that they EACH AND ALL share. Stated in their terms;
ALL Egyptologists believe the ancient people believed in imaginary beings who were conscious and controlled human destiny and were called “gods”.
ALL Egyptologists believe there was no major change in either the language or the religion from the time the PT were written to the time the book of the dead was written.
ALL Egyptologists believe the great pyramids were tombs.
ALL Egyptologists believe that the primitive Egyptian had only the coursest and most brutish means to lift stones. Virtually all believe in ramps but a few speak of other very porimitive and labor intensive possibilities.
I simply take the liberty of paraphrasing their beliefs as changeless and superstitious bumpkins dragging tombs up ramps. It saves a lot of time and typing. No, they wouldn’t agree with the paraphrasing but it still is reflective of reality. ALL of these assumption are wrong. They had reasons to adopt these assumptions but they are still wrong. The word “ramp” still is unattested and there is still no direct evidence any great pyramid was a tomb. They still don’t understand the PT as PROVEN by the fact they don’t know what a single one of the 27 different magic sceptres were for or the origin of the icons. It is illogical to assume there was no change if they don’t understand the only writing that survives. Their assumption are hereby laid bare and probably false. If this were not sufficient ramps remain debunked (see post #152).
Asking me to support Egyptological beliefs or even to report them is somewhat misplaced. By the same token Egyptologists scoff at anything that doesn’t accept these assumptions. ALL Egyptological work occurs within these assumptions and don’t apply to the real world unless these assumptiuons are each correct. This is the nature of science and Egyptology is a science based on four axioms.
It is simply my opinion that each of these axioms has already been shown to not apply or at best, to probably not apply or have no basis to show applicability.
You may call this hubris but I have no illusions about my contribution or scholarship. I am merely an average joe who simply stumbled on a mammouth and earth shaking rediscovery. I’m very surprised how poorly recieved it has been but at the same time the theory seems to be making inroads. I can’t really explain the poor reception. Probably people are just so confident in their ability and the ability of professionals to spot truth that they assume this has been given due consideration and rejected by professionals. They assume it can’t be true because it flies in the face of so many beliefs. It has upset many of my beliefs and I thought I had none.
[QUOTE=cladking]
I’m very surprised how poorly recieved it has been but at the same time the theory seems to be making inroads.
[/QUOTE]
Can you point to a single person it’s making inroads with? You seem to define terms (as well as everything else) differently than everyone else, so maybe ‘making inroads’ to YOU means something like ‘well, I’ve convinced myself…again…that my deluded ramblings are the cutting edge’.
It’s only been explained to you, over and over again, in excruciating detail EXACTLY why your theories (to use that term very loosely) have gotten a ‘poor reception’…but like everything else, you ignore what people directly tell you and instead search for some alternative explanation. It’s as if you feel that someone stumbling on this thread will only see your last replies and think that there is some sort of controversy or that your view is somehow valid and this theoretical person won’t scroll up and actually read what’s been written. I mean, seemingly YOU don’t understand the concept of scrolling up to see what’s been written, so perhaps they won’t or can’t either?
Possibly it’s because folks don’t believe your wild ass assertions, that you provide with nothing to back them, and noticed the repeated and basic mistakes and erroneous info you have spewed out. Not that this takes a super sleuth type, since someone with even a rudimentary grasp of basic physics, chemistry, material science, or, hell, a high school science class under their belt could spot the massive flaws in many of your assertions and arguments.
You keep telling yourself that, man. Keep the faith! And know, deep down inside, that the lurkers finding this thread without slogging through it all won’t be able to scroll up and actually see the discussion! You’ll be vindicated yet!
Yes, indeed. Many words as I use them have a single meaning but no one should need to know this to understand. Think of draining a swamp. You don’t just slog in and start digging or you’ll be up to your eyeballs in mud and you might drown. First you need to approach the task at the proper time and dig small channels back along the lower areas. As the water table lowers you make paths back into the heart of it looking for things you want to save and getting a feel for the terraine. As time goes by and the channels are accentuated the swamp slowly transforms into a woods. Your ability to walk these paths even in wet whether prove the existence of inroads. If the swamp isn’t flooded in wet whether you know it’s just a matter of time until it no longer has characteristics of being a swamp.
There are many parallels with cooperating with other people do understand ancient people. The widespread and pernicious belief that ancient people were superstitious is the water. The idea they could only use primitive means to accomplish things is the mud. The higher ground is knowledge that these people performed brain surgery and fitted stone with “optical precision”.
The way I figure it everytime someone comes along one of my paths he gets a perspective he’s never seen before. Very few people walk in swamps so now he sees something new and he carries his new-found perspective away with him when he leaves. This is why new theories involving pyramid building involve water and geysers and pulling stones straight up the side. This might even be why even the professionals seem to be paying a lot more attention to water and water handling devices at the ruins of these sites. The object of peoples’ attention is apparently changing and, I believe, this will prove sufficient to finding the key to the proof.
I linked to a book recently written claiming the pyramid was built with geysers earlier. I was credited in that book. There are a lot of people working along these lines. Even some of the existing water based theories have suggested the water might have originated from geysers now.
It was shortly after the ramp debunkment appeared that workers were removed from the workmen’s village and made to live on ramps. It was right after an optical means of showing the “tri-lobed” disc was actually the mks-sceptre that it was removed from the entrance of the Cairo Museum and hidden away in a back room. It was right after a cave art the Tomb of the Birds was proven to exist that the entrance was sealed up.
Think of all this as the paths in the swamp getting more and more traffic as the water levels drop ever further.
I have seen your logic and tactics before coming from moon landing hoaxers, ancient alien believers, 9/11 truthers, Shakespeare deniers, ESP believers, and many other pseudo scientists.
Suffice to say is that your inroads were already looked at and debunked. That it was debunked many times does not stop any of the ones proposing woo woo. That is just a “quality” they also have, as it is their penchant of writing books and not doing science. It is one of the hallmarks of pseudo scientists.
Every time there are discussions like this one the “best evidence” is that a book was published. Problem is that that nowadays it just a way to get away from peer review and to avoid looking at inconvenient facts that dismiss the whole idea.
What you demand in the end is to drop from the knowledge accumulated into the swamp of contradictions and woo woo. Can not do that, I already followed that path when I was a kid, but even before becoming an adult I found about how the human mind can fool their owners, and science is a tool to get away from the foolish ideas.
Let me address the above first. I am not suggesting anything we know is wrong. I am suggesting that much of what we know is only true from some perspectives and all of it is true only with in the definitions and axioms that underlie it. This should be self evident to everyone but for some reason it isn’t. Even most of the greats of science missed it. Of course most of the great scientists have been too busy to ponder much metaphysics so naturally they could be confused about specific issues.
All my thinking is my own. I don’t believe in the fantasies of children and I never did. Even as a child I thought for myself and even then I understood the nature of science and metaphysics. I had put a huge amount of thought into metaphysics even before I found the ancient science. Perhaps this is part of what enabled me to see the ancient science when it was right in front of my eyes. Almost all discovery is pure blind luck but it usually occurs to the individual most suited to it. In a sense it is skill but the individual percieves it as luck. One simply needs to stumble on the proper observation and know enough theory to recognize it as anomalous.
I seriously doubt there’s a book of woo that crackpots read from to try to delude people but I can assure you I’ve not seen it. And I can assure you that nowhere else is anyone talking about one metaphysics in terms of another. I can assure you that all discovery and all invention require at least a rudimentary science and understanding of its metaphysics. Ancient man didn’t stumble on agriculture outsdide of theory. You could say that “evolution” was the first theory man invented so that he could stumble into agriculture. Cities naturally sprang from this. Writing arose from the needs of groups; again we stumbled into it as it was likelky derived from tokens. But, look, where is our history??? Writing was invented in 3200 Bc but history doesn’t start for more than 1200 years.
It’s very comfortable to ignore the questions and figure there’s no accounting for the sun addled ancestors. They mustta invented agriculture by trial and error and dragged stones up ramps to build pyramids. We don’t need any more history than we have since it’s all wars, right? People don’t like having their beliefs shaken up so don’t address the actual claims like it’s impossible ramps were used to build the pyramid and they attack incidentals, irrelevancies, and semantics instead. I don’t recall a single word written about the debunkment (post #152) but there’s been a lot about everything else.
The great pyramids were five steps and it’s quite obvious stones were pulled straight up the side one step at a time. This required a fraction of the effort of dragging stones and there was no need to build ramps and then tear them down (twice). This is how they were able to build them straight; they could string lines to keep angles true. This is the evidence that exists and everything else is semantics. If you have logic or facts that support or deny any of this then that is what we should be discussing rather than who believed what as a child.
The reason metaphysics keeps popping up is people present Egyptological opinion as though it is fact. Egyptologists don’t agree on much of anything at all other than the four axioms. They have no evidence that the pyramids were built with ramps and never really claimed to. These are simply expert opinions they are not tested theory or based on any sort of science at all. Each Egyptologist proposes his own ramp configuration because there is no evidence.
Sure it is clear, you have the debunking and evidence in your mind or in a very specific ideology or faith.
Not very useful to others. That is why what you do is pseudo-science, not science.
What you miss that crackpots do follow the same path, and generalists that do investigate pseudo science for a living do put what you are doing in this thread in the same column as what past woo woo proponents did and do.
I’m sure I mentioned that all Egyptologists believe changeless stinky footed bumpkins dragged tombs up ramps. I say this a lot so I probably said it before here. That means all “peers” believe these four assumptions. If you don’t accept all of these assumptions they won’t talk to you. I reject all of these assumptions. Everybody who has a theory that rejects even one assumption won’t be perr reviewed. Egyptology is a science founded on four axioms. Just as a real scientist can’t deal with an idea that rejects any of its axioms, Egyptoilogy can’t deal with any idea that rejects their axioms. This is the nature of real science; even Egyptology which isn’t really a science since I’ve disproven one of their axioms (see post #152). This time they’ll need to reconfigure just to become a science again. (I’d suggest they just pencil in the idea that ancient people were superstitious)(don’t write it in stone since it too will need to be amended).
There’s another new theory that employs “funiculars” and one that suggests water was stored from rainfalls. There are various new theories about pulling stones straight up. There used to be a few new ramp theories every year but these are getting a little scarce. Even older theories are picking up aspects of mine like the incorporation of counterweights or geysers. Many of these ideas are quite interesting and there’s surprising amount of evidence for some. This doesn’t mean they’re right or I’m right but ramps are debunked and something has to fill the void.
And those theories all fizzle once one looks at basic chemistry and what actually comes out of co2 geysers.
The point here is that besides Egyptologists you have dismissed what historians tell us, and what physics, chemistry and architecture tell us what it should be done to make an idea like yours to be respected by others. You actually think that by dealing with one subset of a group of historians and scientific groups allows you to ignore what other fields of knowledge are telling you.
Not going to convince many with that.
The thing is that besides historians, academics and scientists that are involved in related fields you are behind the eight ball among skeptical groups that investigate fortean phenomenons or pseudo science.
That Egyptologists do not agree with you is the least of your problems.
What I am doing is neither science nor pseudo science. In modern terms what I’m doing is reverse engineering the pyramids and the culture that built them vis a vis the solution of the PT through context.
It is ancient science though because its being done through observation and logic. Of course a REAL ancient scientist might think of it as faux-science because it involves little direct observation. They’d think of it more like an historian combing old records looking for something specific or general patterns.
It’s not science but facts are facts even outside of science and logic exists outside of science as well. It’s just logic and facts.
