How were the pyramids in Egypt built?

[XT]

@cladking

I remember it. It wasn’t really relevant to any of my argument so I simply didn’t address the error caused by reader extrapolation of what I had written to support a mninor point.

Yes, that is the Merrer, but his diary contains an account of hauling presumedly Turah Limestone across the river in the 27th years of “Khufu’s” reign. In this account he says that the “boats” were stopped at an island before continuing on to the Great Pyramid (undoubtedly under construction).

Ok, so you were wrong about the port thing but it was minor so we should just move along. Gotcha. Glad you cleared that up then.

Now, about those cold geysers…

[simster]

@Telemark

Apparently **cladking **has found Joseph Smith’s lost Seer Stones. That would explain a lot, no?

as soon as he says “this means that and that means this” - he’s interpreting, not reading.

Reading would e like

“left bird ankh ankh water scribble right bird”

stating that “Osiris means geyser” - well, thats interpretation - I don;t care how stoned you are.

[Peter_Morris]

@cladking

… the Egyptians are called stinky footed bumpkins by Egyptologists …

Can you provide a reference for this? Who, precisely, uses this term?

[GIGObuster]

Quoted because **cladking **did ignore it and **XT **can ask it better:

@XT

Like this. Let’s just focus on your contention about CO2 geysers. Who are these supposed geologists who say there are no such thing? Can you cite actual geologists saying this? You asserted it, but you’ve asserted a lot in this thread without backing it up. A quick Google search seems to show that there ARE cold water geysers, so I question an actual geologist would make this claim…one that can easily be looked up in literally 2 seconds.

GIGO seems to be making the point, however, that if there WERE cold water geysers that the chemical make up would have a rather adverse affect on the limestone portions of the pyramids. You seem to be responding by quoting YOUR interpretation of Egyptian text at him, and then making claims about using chemistry to counteract the acidic byproduct of those cold water geysers on the limestone. Here’s the thing…you’ve provided zero evidence for, A) the existence of such a geyser anywhere near the Giza plateau, B) evidence for any sort of machine to utilize said evidence free geyser, C) exactly how the Egyptians of the Old Kingdom period would have counteracted the acidic effect on the limestone and what, precisely it would have taken to do it, and D) physical evidence that they did whatever you are asserting they did. Basically, you’ve given nothing on this one vertical topic that shows you are engaging in debate. And this is just ONE vertical topic.

Why don’t you forget about all the other vectors of topics in this thread and concentrate on just this one and, without using an appeal to your supposed knowledge and interpretation of Egyptian writings, actually answer the questions being raised. Where was the geyser, precisely? What was it composed of? How much water pressure was there from it? How, exactly, did the Egyptians supposedly harness that pressure to build the machine you were talking about? How did they get around the effects on the limestone?

Well cladking?

[Clark_K]

@cladking

Yes. Indeed. Exactly.

It would simply be impossible to determine the meaning of any of this in a vacuum. As soon as you start to “interpret” the ancient language the meaning simply evaporates and you are left with disjointed and incoherent concepts that are always contradictory to other “statements”. This is exactly why every other attempt to understand it failed; it was doomed to failure before the process even began. The meaning was in the formatting so taking the concepts apart for individual study and research simply made the resulting meaning appear to be just like the meaning inm the book of the dead. The people who wrote the book of the dead misunderstood their ancestors in exactly the same way we do. All human knowledge was in the language so this means all science, history, math, everything was contained within the language and couldn’t be translated into modern language. When the ancient language failed people were left without the very tools and knowledge needed to understand it. The vocabulary survived but the language had failed. The new languages that arose were highly “confused” and they still really are though large inroads have been made in reducing the confusion.

In order to “solve” the meaning you have to learn the referents. Each time a word is used in context it acquires more meaning and it becomes that context, that referent. As words are solved meaning emerges which helps solve more terms and the process snowballs. But this language still can’t be translated even though meaning can be increasingly deduced. Part of the difficulty is that these words were translated by people who don’t understand author intent. If this was retranslated with author intent as the goal a great deal more meaning would emerge as well as more of the rules of grammar which would yield more meaning yet. This language had aspects of being “three dimensional” so there’s still a lot in it that I can’t solve and part of the reason is it needs retranslation.

The point to remember though is that EVERY time a term is used it retains the exact same meaning with no deviation at all. Modern language speakers seek the meaning of every word in every sentence to take the meaning but ancient words didn’t function this way. You don’t need to understand some esoteric book written about the meaning of the “eye of horus” to know it was an opening for fluidic flows. It is always and only such an opening and it usually refers to the eye of the geyser itself. But every opening through which the products of the geyser flow is another eye of horus. This really isn’t that complicated, it’s just different. The ancient Egyptians didn’t think like Egyptologists. They didn’t think like we do. They sortta thought like me in a left handed sort of way.

Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra. Shaka, when the walls fell.

[Mangetout]

@Peter_Morris

Can you provide a reference for this? Who, precisely, uses this term?

Well, I googled ‘stinky footed bumpkin’ and all I could find was more posts from cladking on other message boards.

[Kamino_Neko]

@Mangetout

Well, I googled ‘stinky footed bumpkin’ and all I could find was more posts from cladking on other message boards.

cladking, or other posters commenting on his use of the phrase. He’s oddly enamoured with the phrase, considering that this is at least the third MB that’s pointed out how it’s emblematic of his lack of a convincing argument.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Mangetout

Well, I googled ‘stinky footed bumpkin’

Band name!

[XT]

@Kamino_Neko

cladking, or other posters commenting on his use of the phrase. He’s oddly enamoured with the phrase, considering that this is at least the third MB that’s pointed out how it’s emblematic of his lack of a convincing argument.

I seem to recall, skimming through the thread on the other board, that someone made this comment TOO the cladking, and he seems to have been so taken with it that he’s incorporated it into his own narrative. At least, he’s yet to produce anything like a cite (for anything, really) of an ‘Egyptologist’ using this phrasing or really holding anything like what he claims.

[Latro]

So, what exactly is a stinky footed bumpkin, clad?
What does one have to do or believe to rank as one?
You say it’s not religion, you say you respect religion. Plus you believe some religious stuff yourself, like te tower of babel story.

[simster]

@Latro

So, what exactly is a stinky footed bumpkin, clad?
What does one have to do or believe to rank as one?
You say it’s not religion, you say you respect religion. Plus you believe some religious stuff yourself, like te tower of babel story.

As near as I can tell - he is trying to imply that :

a) the ancient egyptions were farther advanced then we give them credit for
b) somehow using ramps is not something advanced folks would do
c) egyptologlist who claim “theymustausedramps” are equating them with peoiple that can’t save 15% or more.
I have never harbored the view that the ancient egyptions were ‘stinky footed bumpkins’ and had they used ramps - it was simply a very elegant simple solution to a complex problem - far simpler than this monstrosity of a device that cladking thinks they musta used.

“Advanced Civilization” does not mean that simple tools were not used, nor does it mean they had to use a “super” machine where a simple one would suffice.

[XT]

@simster

As near as I can tell - he is trying to imply two things

a) the ancient egyptions were farther advanced then we give them credit for
b) somehow using ramps is not something advanced folks would do
c) egyptologlist who claim “theymustausedramps” are equating them with peoiple that can’t save 15% or more.
I have never harbored the view that the ancient egyptions were ‘stinky footed bumpkins’ and had they used ramps - it was simply a very elegant simple solution to a complex problem - far simpler than this monstrosity of a device that cladking thinks they musta used.

“Advanced Civilization” does not mean that simple tools were not used, nor does it mean they had to use a “super” machine where a simple one would suffice.

Exactly. The fact that the Romans and Greeks, who DID actually have access to more advanced crane technology used ramps and that, even today WE use the bloody things depending on the problem being solved kind of says it all wrt the utility of ramps in construction. Just because you could do something in a more complex or complicated way doesn’t mean you should or that it’s the best way to do it, and the Egyptians were just like everyone else…you solved a problem not based on whether it made you look more advanced but on what was the best solution to the problem using the technology available to you along with the resources available.

It’s notable that the King o’ Clad focuses his strawman arguments wrt the use of a ramp on the single ramp theory almost exclusively, and doesn’t really even attempt to address what most historians and archeologists ACTUALLY posit, which is that the Egyptians used a bunch of ad hoc technologies on each pyramid site…there wasn’t one big solution to How They Did It(tm…arr), but instead a bunch of small solutions to each problem they encountered and the experience they gained from earlier attempts.

[cladking]

@Clark_K

Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra. Shaka, when the walls fell.

Shaka! Mirab, his sails unfurled.

[GIGObuster]

So he admits defeat and he is leaving.

Oh well.

[cladking]

Like this. Let’s just focus on your contention about CO2 geysers. Who are these supposed geologists who say there are no such thing? Can you cite actual geologists saying this? You asserted it, but you’ve asserted a lot in this thread without backing it up. A quick Google search seems to show that there ARE cold water geysers, so I question an actual geologist would make this claim…one that can easily be looked up in literally 2 seconds.

I’m never going to answer this question.

These folks took time out of their busy schedules to answer my eMail and engage me in conversation. It would be the height of rudeness to pay them back by potentially embarrassing them. They are highly qualified and intelligent scientists and I’m simply not going to do it. If you want to do your own study of the %age of geologists who are aware of CO2 geysers then have it.

God knows everyone makes mistakes and 3% of physicists lack a working knowledge of the wheel.

GIGO seems to be making the point, however, that if there WERE cold water geysers that the chemical make up would have a rather adverse affect on the limestone portions of the pyramids.

This is simply wrong. It is in error.

No liquid or acid can dissolve ANYTHING after it’s saturated in that compound. The water with CO2 in it was saturated in calcium carbonate before it ever came out of the ground. The water was degassing as it came out of the ground so it was less able to hold calcium carbonate in solution. For this reason it deposited calcium carbonate in the well, in the conically shaped stone on top, and on the ground all around the opening. It continued depositing calcium carbonate all the way to the “marsh of offerings” which we call the Mena House Golf Course.

You seem to be responding by quoting YOUR interpretation of Egyptian text at him, and then making claims about using chemistry to counteract the acidic byproduct of those cold water geysers on the limestone.

I was merely trying to show the builders understood the chemistry here.

Here’s the thing…you’ve provided zero evidence for, A) the existence of such a geyser anywhere near the Giza plateau, B) evidence for any sort of machine to utilize said evidence free geyser, C) exactly how the Egyptians of the Old Kingdom period would have counteracted the acidic effect on the limestone and what, precisely it would have taken to do it, and D) physical evidence that they did whatever you are asserting they did. Basically, you’ve given nothing on this one vertical topic that shows you are engaging in debate. And this is just ONE vertical topic.

None of this is true. You’re merely rejecting the evidence because it doesn’t suit current beliefs. There is evidence for water and this was a hill in a desert where there should be no water. The same applies to the cistern found recently that can only be filled by running water in a desert. There is no running water in a desert which implies there was a water source at the bese of the pyramids. The cliff face counterweiughts imnp-ly a water source. The huge water collectiuon device buiult before the pyramid says there was a water source and it was integral to construction just as the five steps says how it was constructed. While this is all pretty convincing evidence I don’t think it holds a candle to the details like the sand that came up with the water or the words of the builders chiseled into stone.

Where was the geyser, precisely?

10’ due north of G1 and 35’ east of the N/S Center Line.

What was it composed of?

It was carbonated water spraying through a 5" hole that was drilled into a fissure below. It was capped by a choke which was an 8’ tall sycamore log which was hollow and had a row of teeth at the top. The water contained the minerals and compounds previously listed.

How much water pressure was there from it?

Irrelevant. They actually had a scale for pressure but they didn’t measure this pressure. Suffice to say the pressure launched the water to 81’ 3".

How, exactly, did the Egyptians supposedly harness that pressure to build the machine you were talking about?

They weren’t building a machine by our reckoning, they were building a pyramid. They never even tried (well they kindda did but let’s save it) to harness the pressure. They simply aimed the water up onto a platform above. As they gained experience the platform wrapped around the spraying water and it was called the “upper eye of horus”.

How did they get around the effects on the limestone?

The limestone was stained red by the siderite. This color was incorporated into the heiroglyphs and was reported by ancient travelers to the pyramid who mistook it for a vewry high flood.

[Peter_Morris]

@cladking

… the Egyptians are called stinky footed bumpkins by Egyptologists …

Can you provide a reference for this? Who, precisely, uses this term?

[cladking]

@GIGObuster

So he admits defeat and he is leaving.

Oh well.

PICARD: Indeed. Are they truly incomprehensible? In my experience, communication is a matter of patience, imagination. I would like to believe these are qualities we have in sufficient measure.

[Trinopus]

I’m reminded of a quip in Jack Vance’s fantasy novel “Rhialto the Marvelous,” where an immortal savant translates an unknown language by what one might call the “Exhaustive Tolkien Method.” He made up new languages, one after the other, over millennia, until, by sheer luck, he made up one that actually fit the document in question.

The “Bogosort” of linguistics.

[XT]

[QUOTE=cladking]
I’m never going to answer this question.

These folks took time out of their busy schedules to answer my eMail and engage me in conversation. It would be the height of rudeness to pay them back by potentially embarrassing them. They are highly qualified and intelligent scientists and I’m simply not going to do it. If you want to do your own study of the %age of geologists who are aware of CO2 geysers then have it.

God knows everyone makes mistakes and 3% of physicists lack a working knowledge of the wheel.
[/QUOTE]

Ok, so this is a totally unsubstantiated claim that you can now retract, having zero evidence for it. Let’s push on, shall we?

This is simply wrong. It is in error.

No liquid or acid can dissolve ANYTHING after it’s saturated in that compound. The water with CO2 in it was saturated in calcium carbonate before it ever came out of the ground. The water was degassing as it came out of the ground so it was less able to hold calcium carbonate in solution. For this reason it deposited calcium carbonate in the well, in the conically shaped stone on top, and on the ground all around the opening. It continued depositing calcium carbonate all the way to the “marsh of offerings” which we call the Mena House Golf Course.

‘Wrong’ being a euphemism for ‘I don’t understand or have a clue about this’ I take it. You’ve already been shown that CO2 geysers, both natural and man made DO THIS ALREADY, and your response is simply to assert that they don’t based on a faulty understanding of chemistry 101 stuff about super saturated solutions (I assume that’s what you are babbling about anyway…gods know, since you continually show you don’t know anything about ANY of this stuff).

I was merely trying to show the builders understood the chemistry here.

Sadly, you haven’t shown any such thing. And you haven’t given any sort of answer to my question except to assert that I’m wrong…after being shown, repeatedly, that this is actually how it works. I mean, I can see if you don’t understand the chemistry…I only got a freaking C (as my highest grade) in college chemistry, so I can sympathize. But you have been shown cites demonstrating how it works in the real world, so you don’t HAVE to really understand the nuts and bolts to grasp that it works this way, and not the way you assert. What you’d need to do is SHOW ME A CITE DEMONSTRATING HOW I’M SUPPOSEDLY WRONG FROM A REPUTABLE SOURCE.

None of this is true. You’re merely rejecting the evidence because it doesn’t suit current beliefs. There is evidence for water and this was a hill in a desert where there should be no water. The same applies to the cistern found recently that can only be filled by running water in a desert. There is no running water in a desert which implies there was a water source at the bese of the pyramids. The cliff face counterweiughts imnp-ly a water source. The huge water collectiuon device buiult before the pyramid says there was a water source and it was integral to construction just as the five steps says how it was constructed. While this is all pretty convincing evidence I don’t think it holds a candle to the details like the sand that came up with the water or the words of the builders chiseled into stone.

All of it’s true because, though you fail to grasp this, you’ve yet to show ANY evidence for me to reject. Hell, I wish you’d provide one fucking scrap of evidence that wasn’t entirely based on your assertions or on your interpretations of Egyptian text so I COULD freaking reject it…just as a change of pace.

But let’s break it down. You’ve shown no evidence of geysers, or water on a hill that shouldn’t be there. You’ll need to provide a cite for water on a hill, a citation from a reputable source that it shouldn’t be there, and then evidence that said water is from a geyser. Thus far you’ve provided exactly dick wrt evidence that isn’t an assertion coming from you. After you’ve shown ANY of this we could then move onto the supposed/presumed collection device and the rest, but I’d prefer to start with the basics because if you haven’t proved A we don’t need to even consider B, C or D.

10’ due north of G1 and 35’ east of the N/S Center Line.

Sigh. Is this supposed to impress anyone? Give me the freaking Google Maps coordinates. Here is the Giza Necropolis complex…where…the fuck…on the map…are you talking about?

It was carbonated water spraying through a 5" hole that was drilled into a fissure below. It was capped by a choke which was an 8’ tall sycamore log which was hollow and had a row of teeth at the top. The water contained the minerals and compounds previously listed.

And your evidence for any of this bullshit is? Do you have a cite to a reputable source showing said hole and describing said sycamore log and teeth? Feel free to link to it, because you merely saying this is meaningless at this point.

I did the math btw (with some assumptions) on a 5" hole and geyser and I’d say that, depending on how big a load your magic machine supposedly lifts it would take 10 to 20 minutes to fill your big ass ‘boat’. However, that’s a hell of a lot of water spewing out, presumably continuously, so can you point out where the erosion channels for this all is? We are talking about a flow rate of 200+ GPM continuously flowing for basically decades, if not centuries (I’m guessing you claim it wasn’t flowing that much before and that they somehow plugged it after completing the pyramids, or something like that). I tried calculating the pressure you’d need to pump that volume of water up your 80’+ high step but I’m not sure what assumptions to make for Egyptian pipe tech. Using today’s tech it’s .42 (or .44) PSI per square inch per foot (as I’m sure many 'dopers know, I’m rounding off and approximating all of this to beat the band…but it’s a good estimate to work with for ball park figures)…which would be around 168 PSI needed to get it up there. I have serious doubts that the non-stinky footed Egyptians had pipe tech that could withstand that sort of pressure, but I’m sure you have a hand wave for that, and honestly I just don’t know pipe material that well to know if that’s off the charts ridiculous or possible (I’m guessing not possible even for more modern systems, but I admit I don’t know and haven’t bothered to try and look up what PSI ancient pipe systems could do).

Irrelevant. They actually had a scale for pressure but they didn’t measure this pressure. Suffice to say the pressure launched the water to 81’ 3".

It would be, as noted, something on the order of 170 PSI, so it’s not ‘irrelevant’…it’s actually directly relevant. What you’d need to demonstrate for this one vertical part is that the Egyptians had pipe tech that could push water 80’ in the air from a 5" natural geyser. Here, at least, is your big moment clad! I don’t have any idea if they did or not, so you could get a cite to show they did have pipe tech to make a water tight pipe that could go 80’ in the air (and however long it would have to go from the geyser of course, which is going to increase the PSI you’d need…unless they could magically move the geyser around the construction site, of course) to fill your ‘boat’ with multiple tons of water!

The limestone was stained red by the siderite. This color was incorporated into the heiroglyphs and was reported by ancient travelers to the pyramid who mistook it for a vewry high flood.

So, how did the iron carbonate effect what GIGO was asking you earlier? I’m not seeing how it would have, to be honest. Also, do you have a cite for this, because this was the case there would be tons of physical evidence for it.

[GIGObuster]

@cladking

PICARD: Indeed. Are they truly incomprehensible? In my experience, communication is a matter of patience, imagination. I would like to believe these are qualities we have in sufficient measure.

Sorry to say, you don’t follow your own say so.