How were the pyramids in Egypt built?

[GIGObuster]

@cladking

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.

Nope, what you are denying too is that efforts like the one you are doing could be impossible to categorize, in reality groups of scientifically minded generalists and skeptics do look at the evidence too and in places like Rationalwiki they are put in the proper columns. People smarter that I’m already knows your number.

But Rationalwiki is too opinionated, so I do not use them as much unless the article is well sourced, for more serious articles I prefer to look at groups like from the Skeptical Dictionary, but one has to notice how dismal your sub field is when they put those ideas in the same column of discredited pseudo-science in an article titled:

Piramidiocy.

Let me tell you, that a more serious group does go for such extremes of dismissal is not common, unless it is very bad, not even creationists get that treatment.

[cladking]

@GIGObuster

And those theories all fizzle once one looks at basic chemistry and what actually comes out of co2 geysers.

You do realize mostly what comes out of CO2 geysers is cold water at elevation?

This is all my theory needs to power it; cold water at elevation. It really doesn’t even need to be cold but, hey, the Egyptians always mentioned its temperature and its effervescense as well.

Everything in it is accounted for. By weight it was water, calcium carbonate, sand, siderite, “silicon”, copper sulfate, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide and numerous relatively trace minerals. If they actually did science and tested the ben ben growing there today this is what they’d find.

[GIGObuster]

@cladking

You do realize mostly what comes out of CO2 geysers is cold water at elevation?

This is all my theory needs to power it; cold water at elevation. It really doesn’t even need to be cold but, hey, the Egyptians always mentioned its temperature and its effervescense as well.

Everything in it is accounted for. By weight it was water, calcium carbonate, sand, siderite, “silicon”, copper sulfate, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide and numerous relatively trace minerals. If they actually did science and tested the ben ben growing there today this is what they’d find.

Still just nonsense when you omit carbonic acid. That that is what it is found coming out of natural and man made cold geysers. And your idea of how that acid was neutralized is bananas. You actually need a lot of modern pipes and big facilities to do that.

[cladking]

@GIGObuster

Nope, what you are denying too is that efforts like the one you are doing could be impossible to categorize, in reality groups of scientifically minded generalists and skeptics do look at the evidence too and in places like Rationalwiki they are put in the proper columns. People smarter that I’m already knows your number.

But Rationalwiki is too opinionated, so I do not use them as much unless the article is well sourced, for more serious articles I prefer to look at groups like from the Skeptical Dictionary, but one has to notice how dismal your sub field is when they put those ideas in the same column of discredited pseudo-science in an article titled:

Piramidiocy.

Let me tell you, that a more serious group does go for such extremes of dismissal is not common, unless it is very bad, not even creationists get that treatment.

From the linked site;

“That all those centuries of hieroglyphics that give no indication of a high-tech society, were done that way so that future generations wouldn’t know how advanced the Egyptians were?”

What’s truly amazing is that all those people talking about confirmation bias can’rt see when they themselves engage in confirmation bias!!! Sure there’s no evidence for high tech in the writing but there’s no evidence of superstition either since nobody even knows what the “eye of horus” is. If an ancient saw our wroiting about “thermonuclear reactions” he might think it’s magic too. If he saw it he might be certain it was magic. Egyptologists look at something they don’t understand and pronounce it magic. They strip an entire culture from tombs and announce they were obsessed with death. They look at a pyramid in the middle of a graveyard and say it mustta been a tomb.

But Egyptologists can’t be guilty of confirmation bias because they are a science based on four common sense axioms.

Mebbe someday they’ll be called “circular axioms”. They mustta used ramp so they did use ramps. The circular axioms amount to nothing at all except orthodox confirmation bias.

[cladking]

@GIGObuster

Still just nonsense when you omit carbonic acid. That that is what it is found coming out of natural and man made cold geysers. And your idea of how that acid was neutralized is bananas. You actually need a lot of modern pipes and big facilities to do that.

NO!!!

Carbonic acid is just a word. It is a word that describes a solution of CO2 and water. It is nothing more and all solutions of CO2 and water are carbonic acid.

It is the CO2 coming out of solution that drives the eruption. It isn’t so much carbonic acid coming up it is water and CO2. In ancient terms it was osiris and his efflux. They even stored a sample of his efflux at Giza which was probably destroyed in 1935 or in 2011;

“This is the sealed thing which is in darkness, with fire about it, which contains the efflux of osiris and it is put in Rosteau; it has been hidden since it fell from him, and it is what came down from him on to the desert of sand; it means that what belonged to him was put in Rosteau.”

It doesn’t seem to matter to people that Egyptologists are blundering about without knowing what they are doing and refusing to do the simple science that would tell them. Who are the real scientists here; the person who wrote about saving a sample of CO2 for future generations or the clowns who are calling the shots today?

[GIGObuster]

@cladking

NO!!!

Carbonic acid is just a word. It is a word that describes a solution of CO2 and water. It is nothing more and all solutions of CO2 and water are carbonic acid.

It is the CO2 coming out of solution that drives the eruption. It isn’t so much carbonic acid coming up it is water and CO2. In ancient terms it was osiris and his efflux. They even stored a sample of his efflux at Giza which was probably destroyed in 1935 or in 2011;

“This is the sealed thing which is in darkness, with fire about it, which contains the efflux of osiris and it is put in Rosteau; it has been hidden since it fell from him, and it is what came down from him on to the desert of sand; it means that what belonged to him was put in Rosteau.”

It doesn’t seem to matter to people that Egyptologists are blundering about without knowing what they are doing and refusing to do the simple science that would tell them. Who are the real scientists here; the person who wrote about saving a sample of CO2 for future generations or the clowns who are calling the shots today?

You tell me, the reality is that you are an ignorant of what it comes out of the CO2 geysers that we can see today:

Cold Water Geysers of Analavory

The “geysers” are located in an area close to some aragonite mines. Excess water from the mines are removed by metal pipes that terminate at the bank of Mazy River. The water is warm and rich with carbonic acid that easily dissolves large amounts of lime along its way. Further the water goes through iron pipelines, and carbonic acid dissolves iron as well. The carbon dioxide rich water rushes along the pipe under pressure and when it emerges at the end of the pipeline, the sudden decrease in pressure causes the dissolved carbon dioxide gas to erupt in bubbles producing a geyser like phenomenon. This is similar to opening an aggravated bottle of soda.

Indeed, so much for saturation, the eruption only means that even more carbonation is underground (and making caves that do make the area were the well is located unstable). In reality the water does still come out with a lot of carbonic acid. And the reason why you are so desperate here is because it is clear that since the saturation is not there the other option is then for the giant jug of Alka Seltzer water. Problem is that that is not how one can counteract acid in a flow of water, there is a need for a lot of huge tanks and mixers to counter the acid properly.

And since those things and technology are missing from your fancy interpretation of the PT it also makes it more likely that well, you are wrong about using the PT as evidence of this. There is no evidence for your flights of fancy.

[Fear_Itself]

@cladking

In ancient terms it was osiris and his efflux.

How do you know osiris is CO2 water? How did you come by this interpretation?

[GIGObuster]

@cladking

From the linked site;

“That all those centuries of hieroglyphics that give no indication of a high-tech society, were done that way so that future generations wouldn’t know how advanced the Egyptians were?”

What’s truly amazing is that all those people talking about confirmation bias can’rt see when they themselves engage in confirmation bias!!! Sure there’s no evidence for high tech in the writing but there’s no evidence of superstition either since nobody even knows what the “eye of horus” is. If an ancient saw our wroiting about “thermonuclear reactions” he might think it’s magic too. If he saw it he might be certain it was magic. Egyptologists…

Full stop, the ones I linked are not Egyptologists, they are generalists with a lot of expertise in other fields and constantly investigate the current status of pseudo-science. You are dealing there with folks that are keenly aware about confirmation bias.

The one that has it in high concentration is you.

[cladking]

@Fear_Itself

How do you know osiris is CO2 water? How did you come by this interpretation?

I’m not certain I remember the exact thunderbolt moment that it struck me or the logic that led to it. There have been a great number of eureka moments. Everytime I’m certain that this will be the clue that convinces people.

It was back in '08 and I had been studying the PT and starting to frame out a few simple concepts. I had just realized that each of the “gods” was actually a natural phenomenon and I was going to have to piece together exactly which one each were. At the timew this just seemed impossible because the same terms were used to characterize each of the “gods”. Each was the most powerful, pre-eminant, and foremost. There seemed few clues. I had narrowed down to only three primary suspects what drove water to the base of the pyramid and one of these was CO2 geysers.

I finally put two and two together when I solved “I3.t-wt.t” as being CO2 based on context. At that time I thought it probably meant “gas of yeast” or what we’d call “yeast gas” but this turned out to not be true based on Egyptological knowledge. It is most probably “risings begetter” per the dictionaries. It is exactly hoiw they named their scientific terms. This gas caused bread, cake, beer, and osiris to rise. It begat rises.
2109. The sky trembles, the earth quakes before the god, before N.
2110a. N. [is not enveloped] by the earth;
2110b. ’I 3;.t-wt.t, thou art not enveloped by the earth.
2110c. Thy fame is by day; thy fear is by night, as a god, lord of fear.

CO2 is emitted from the earth before and as the god stands. His efflux isn’t corpse dripping to tiptoe in but a deadly gas that accumulates in low lying areas at night when solar heating stops.

2111. [O] Osiris, the overflow comes, the inundation hastens, Geb groans.

It is this degassification “nwt knw” that brings the inundation on the uplands at Giza;

1944a. + 2 (Nt. 777). The time of inundation comes, the wȝg-festival comes, to the uplands, it comes as Osiris.

2113. O N., [the inundation comes 1, [the overflow hastens], Geb [groans].
      2114a. Exult in the divine efflux which is in thee; let thy heart live;

791a. It is agreeable to thy nose on account of the smell of ’I3;.t-wt.t;
791b. for thy feet when they hit thy feast (carry thee to thy feast);

This appears to be rising bread at the feast.

198a. O ’Inw-Crown, thou has come forth from him as he came forth from thee.
198b. The great ’I3;.t has given birth to thee, the ’I3;.t-wt.t has adorned thee;
198c. the ’I3;.t-wt.t has given birth to thee, the great ’I3;.t has adorned thee,

The water crown comes forth as a result of the gas. It is adorned with rainbows. (sometimes translated; “sky arcs”).

455c. after thou hast taken possession of the white crown in the water-springs, great and mighty, which are in the south of Libya,

1503b. The head of N. also is lifted up by Re;‘; the odour of N. is as that of ’I3;.t-wt.t-serpent.

Fluidic flows were known as “serpents”.

[cladking]

1553b. They tremble who see the inundation (when) it tosses;

This line could have given it to me but it didn’t because I didn’t understand the context at that time.

[GIGObuster]

So that figures, it is a dogmatic view of a peculiar interpretation of the PT. Not different from what many bible literalists are doing.

Of course this has nothing to do with evidence. And the fanciful interpretation does not match the evidence, and there is less evidence of what is actually needed with the treatment, transportation or extraction of the soda water.

[cladking]

@GIGObuster

So that figures, it is a dogmatic view of a peculiar interpretation of the PT. Not different from what many bible literalists are doing.

Of course this has nothing to do with evidence. And the fanciful interpretation does not match the evidence, and there is less evidence of what is actually needed with the treatment, transportation or extraction of the soda water.

It’s been 4750 years since there was water spraying up at Giza. What evidence for water are you seeking when the travertine deposits are under the pyramid?

You’re talking about erosion caused by an acidic media but you are simply wrong about this. Yes, it was highly acidic but, no, it would not cause any erosion at all in the limestone if it was already saturated in calcium carbonate and the builders said it was saturated. Everything is probably pretty much gone but modern testing could find some traces probably. There was apparently copper hydroxide produced by a chemical reaction in the water and deposited on the north side of the pyramid base. This is nearly insoluble in water so might still have traces if youlook for it. There are numerous other chemicals that are expected but they aren’t being tested. There is the ben ben in the Sphinx Temple which is growing even now.

Instead of science they spend their money looking for gold and proof of their theories. They spend resources to make the site comfortable for tourists even if it means filling potential evidence with tons of concrete. Much of the plateau has never even been excavated. They’re looking for all the wrong things in all the wrong places. The ancient name of the site was “Mouth of Caves” and they aren’t even excavating the caves.

1551a. To say: This thy cavern there is the broad-hall of Osiris N…
…
1553b. They tremble who see the inundation (when) it tosses;
1554a. (but) the marshes laugh; the shores are become green;

[cladking]

1555b. (is) in the mouth of those who run to them on the good day of running (while running is good).
1556a. “Set is guilty; Osiris is justified,”
1556b. (is) in the mouth of the gods, on the good day of the going upon the mountain.
1557a. (When) inundations are upon the land,
1557b. he who hastens with his soul goes to his cave;

This all makes the best sense if you just ignore the words in parentheses. These are words that the translator added to help you understand that aren’t actually in the text.

A good day of running upon the mountain is when tossing inundations are upon the land. The mountain is the pyramid and “running” is the operation of the equipment that built it. Standing (and integral) water is responsible for numerous problems but the spraying water runs nonetheless.

They had an odd way of expressing themselves but this doesn’t make them stupid or ignorant.

[cladking]

@GIGObuster

So that figures, it is a dogmatic view of a peculiar interpretation of the PT. Not different from what many bible literalists are doing.

Yes, it is very different.

I’m not suggesting that something written in our language is being misinterpreted.

I’m suggesting it’s not written in our language at all. It was written in the primeval language where meaning was in context and nature was expressed in terms we mistranslate as “gods”.

[GIGObuster]

@cladking

It’s been 4750 years since there was water spraying up at Giza. What evidence for water are you seeking when the travertine deposits are under the pyramid?

Make up your mind, it was far away from the pyramid or under?

@cladking

You’re talking about erosion caused by an acidic media but you are simply wrong about this. Yes, it was highly acidic but, no, it would not cause any erosion at all in the limestone if it was already saturated in calcium carbonate and the builders said it was saturated.

You have no clue, really, this was linked before and it shows how water with less acid than what the cold water geysers spew does to limestone.

You only have a flawed interpretation of a text whose context is clearly related to the afterlife of the king. Nothing else to support your say so of "the builders said it was saturated"

@cladking

Everything is probably pretty much gone but modern testing could find some traces probably.

Not, because it is less probable that the pyramids were made with a cold water geyser.

The flow observed in current active cold water geysers that have pressures that could plausible reach the heights assumed for the pyramid shows that the speed of the water makes very unlikely that a huge jug of Alka Seltzer took care of the problem, in reality a lot of tanks and other equipment are needed besides that huge jug to properly treat the water.

http://deq.mt.gov/StateSuperfund/UBMC/watertreatmentplant.mcpx

[GIGObuster]

@cladking

Yes, it is very different.

I’m not suggesting that something written in our language is being misinterpreted.

I’m suggesting it’s not written in our language at all. It was written in the primeval language where meaning was in context and nature was expressed in terms we mistranslate as “gods”.

And what I’m showing regarding the problems with the geyser water is that this does not depend on the builders being gods or the representation of forces of nature, the laws of physics and chemistry do not care about what we think.

Of course it is clear that what you think is more into the area of “a wizard did it” than in the area of engineering and plausible technology.

[XT]

@GIGObuster

And what I’m showing regarding the problems with the geyser water is that this does not depend on the builders being gods or the representation of forces of nature, the laws of physics and chemistry do not care about what we think.

Of course it is clear that what you think is more into the area of “a wizard did it” than in the area of engineering and plausible technology.

And this is what it all boils down too. When confronted with actual physics or chemistry the King o’ Clad falls back on his interpretation of texts that clearly he doesn’t understand. However, even if he DOES have a perfect understanding of it, it’s as meaningless wrt science and how things operate in the real universe as the Bible or any other ancient text. Either something works in the real world or it doesn’t, regardless of what some guy on the internet THINKS some ancient Egyptian wrote or even what they actually wrote. Physics, chemistry, material science, geology…none of those changed since the Egyptian Old Kingdom. Trying to hand wave or move the goal posts or continually shift the discussion to fit the interpretation is simply a transparent and frankly sad attempt to fit the preconception to fit in the real world.

If the King o’ Clad would actually read what folks write with an eye to understanding it in the context of the discussion he’d realize how flawed his theories are wrt what can be done in the real world using real world physics and real world materials…THEN he could consider it in the larger context of what the Egyptians of the time COULD have done, realistically. But it’s obvious (and has been for most of this thread) he’s not ever going to do that. Every time he’s shown something that directly contradicts his world view he goes through the same series of contortions he’s done for the last 15 pages or so, with the ultimate fall back a strawman of ‘Egyptologists’…by which he means essentially every scientist, engineer, archeologist, geologists, chemist, etc etc that can and has shown him how wrong he is. And then he’ll say something along the lines that he’s never seen any evidence presented that contradicts his theories.

[cladking]

@XT

And this is what it all boils down too. When confronted with actual physics or chemistry the King o’ Clad falls back on his interpretation of texts that clearly he doesn’t understand. However, even if he DOES have a perfect understanding of it, it’s as meaningless wrt science and how things operate in the real universe as the Bible or any other ancient text. Either something works in the real world or it doesn’t, regardless of what some guy on the internet THINKS some ancient Egyptian wrote or even what they actually wrote. Physics, chemistry, material science, geology…none of those changed since the Egyptian Old Kingdom. Trying to hand wave or move the goal posts or continually shift the discussion to fit the interpretation is simply a transparent and frankly sad attempt to fit the preconception to fit in the real world.

If the King o’ Clad would actually read what folks write with an eye to understanding it in the context of the discussion he’d realize how flawed his theories are wrt what can be done in the real world using real world physics and real world materials…THEN he could consider it in the larger context of what the Egyptians of the time COULD have done, realistically. But it’s obvious (and has been for most of this thread) he’s not ever going to do that. Every time he’s shown something that directly contradicts his world view he goes through the same series of contortions he’s done for the last 15 pages or so, with the ultimate fall back a strawman of ‘Egyptologists’…by which he means essentially every scientist, engineer, archeologist, geologists, chemist, etc etc that can and has shown him how wrong he is. And then he’ll say something along the lines that he’s never seen any evidence presented that contradicts his theories.

Do you have a specific objection to which I haven’t responded? Did you ignore my response if I did respond.

If you presented any “evidence” did I respond to it? Did you understands the response? Did you comment on it? In a debate you don’t just drop points if you think you’re right.

I’ve tried to respond to every point but if I missed one or you don’t agree we can revisit it.

I may be fighting a losing battle. Two geologists out of three tell me there’s no such thing as a CO2 geyser. I just don’t know how to fight such ignorance. Then I’ve got to try to explain a people and language which embraced all knowledge to specialists who know ever more about ever less. Axioms, definitions, basic principles, and metaphysics seem to lie well outside peoples’ grasp. Physical evidence means nothing because experts say it’s irrelevant and logic means nothing because everyone has adopted his own understanding of logic. Historical accounts mean nothing because everyone knows they’re all wrong. The culture means nothing because they were superstitious. Meanwhile most people seem to believe that if they can’t imagine it then it can’t be real and if they can’t understand how nature works then everything they need is on wiki.

Maybe the world just isn’t ready for the truth. Maybe Jung or Freud were actually right and rationality and evidence bear little role in beliefs and how people act. Maybe we won’t survive long enough to be ready for the truth. Superstition is very comfortable but superstition kills.

Maybe I’m wrong and I’m sure everyone better hope or pray I’m wrong. I know I’m the only person who can be wrong so if you do the math then I must be the one. How can everyone who knows exactly how things mustta been be wrong?

[Telemark]

@cladking

Maybe I’m wrong and I’m sure everyone better hope or pray I’m wrong.

You’re not close enough to reality to be wrong. You’re just different.

[cladking]

@Fear_Itself

How do you know osiris is CO2 water? How did you come by this interpretation?

Let me answer trhis more succinctly and as the ancients might;

1944a. + 2 (Nt. 777). The time of inundation comes, the wȝg-festival comes, to the uplands, it comes as Osiris.
1553b. They tremble who see the inundation it tosses;

(parenthetical editorial omitted in 53b)