I wonder if cladking approached those emails from geologists the same way he approached hieroglyphics? He doesn’t actually *know *what they say, but his gut tells him that they agree with him?
I wonder if they were actually geologists, or if they were ‘Egyptologists’ in disguise! They could be part of the conspiracy after all. :eek:
When did Gould get a Nobel? And his lifetime study was of land snails, not fish. Either Fry or his elves got some 'splaining to do!
I thought it through and decided not because it would quickly transform into this thread, just with more swearing and more overt questioning of his sanity.
nm…
Well, yeah I think it was kinda nutty for Fry to report that, but the point that was made stands:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/by/fish
As for the matter at hand, I still think that many scientists are very pedantic so I still think that cladking just encountered very pedantic geologists that followed notes about how co2 geysers were not proper ones, and it is also possible of getting confused because in geology there are different fields of expertise, knowing how far cladking likes to go when his ox is gored it is not strange that he found many geologists that would not accept what he is looking for and instead of sour grapes he is complaining about a case of sour geysers. 
I am not equipped to teach people physics. Since my knowledge is so shallow it’s a wonder I usually get it right. No one would want to learn it from me anyway since it has to be translated to use it in class. Tell me, why is there an encrustation of salt all aound and under the Dead Sea. This salt water body has been drying up for many decades. So why isn’t the salt dissolved?
I’m supposed to prove by citation that there shouldn’t be water on hills in deserts!!!
I’d consult Websters. I actually pposted an Egyptologist who said there was a water worn canal leading from the pyramid base. Now we want me to read everything every Egyptologist ever said to see if one said there was water on the hill drained by this canal in the desert drained by that same canal!!!
Sorry, but this is illogical. The answers you need are too basic and fundamental for me to address. This is the same problem with Egyptologists who don’t understand that the work to build a pyramid increases geometrically with its height. I can’t make them understand this. I can cite the equations but they are none the wiser for it.
29.980179, 31.134289
I don’t know if this is right. I can only provide simple directions.
I do not believe they needed and piping technology in the operation of the geyser. They needed pipes to drill the well but not necessarily to get the water to such heights. They did need the djed which is in essence a short pipe. This was a sycamore log wrapped in rope. I believe it was probably attached to a short piece of copper pipe pounded into the top of the well which also accomodated a pressure relief mechanism of some sort to protect the djed and upper eye in case of unusually high pressures.
It is improbable their pipe could withstand such pressure so some parts of my theory may require a little reworking. But this won’t affect the core technology they needed to lift the stones.
It was siderite that the Egyptians mistook for red ochre. I don’t understand the question.
I believe the Tower of Babel story is a confused rendition of the reality. It was written in the ancient language and “translated” into modern language. A very similar version appears in Sumerian. I can only guess at the reality but I’m figuring someone from Babel invented the new language and inscribed it on a tower or that the decree that mandated usage of the new language was posted on a tower in Babel. There are other possibilities. No ancient source of the story appears to survive and no modern source. Only two confused versions.
His coordinates seem to place it directly at the base of the north wall of the pyramid, slightly east of center.
Yes. More importantly perhaps is that even though they weren’t very advanced, especially in chemistry and physics, is that they used all their knowledge at once so they were more effective than modern people. We think in language and their language was highly effective for thought.
Theres nothing wrong with using ramps when it’s the most efficient way. It is sheer madness to endanger the lives of all Egyptians wasting resources to build a tomb for a dead king who lives forever using any means at all.
Oh, do tell us as to what you think is the real story behind the Tower of Babel.
You’re among people who generally *do *know physics, and are trying to teach it to you. Are you prepared to learn it?
There is nothing strange or random and there is no insight.
I simply solved the meaning of the words through context. Where everyone else just took the translations at face value as referrring to gods and magic, I didn’t. At every juncture I asked what a word had to mean for a sentence or concept to be logical and sane. If they said “tefnut makes the earth high under the sky” I simply assumed that this was literally true and they meant this exactly. I assumred there were no errors in the work and where Egyptologists find hundreds I didn’t find any (to speak of). Where other interpretation show massive internal inconsistencies and contradictions, my solution shows no inconsistencies or contradictions. Where Egyptologists don’t know the meaning of any of the 27 different magic sceptres mine solves the meaning of 15 oof them and sheds light on most of the rest. Where Egyptologists believe every word has countless meanings that can never be solved, my solution says every word has a single meaning.
There are no contraditions. There is no magic and ancient people didn’t believe in gods. This makes perfect sense since beliefs would have impeded the ability of ancient man and animals to survive in a world that is independent of belief.
Thank you. That’s what I was aiming for; 10’ north and 35’ east.
Can you find any plan or photograph showing this hole?
But you didn’t. You provided a possible interpretation – you didn’t solve anything. Maybe your interpretation is correct, but there’s no way to tell just by reading your posts about it.
I’m sure you think this is so, but you’ve failed to demonstrate it.
I don’t believe you. I don’t believe that ancient people didn’t share the same sorts of biases and other psychological factors that exist today. I don’t believe they were special – they were just people, and they were no better or worse in fundamental nature than people are today. There are no flaws and no virtues that exist now that didn’t exist then, and vice versa.
I doubt I’m still capable of translating it into terms I can comprehend.
It was tough enough the first time.
It’s just a shame I’ve lost so much of it.
Yes, this has become painfully clear to me. All I can do is reiterate that my solution doesn’t require word meanings to change like Egyptological interpretation. My solution is consistent with nature. My solution shows that the PT are internally consistent.
It seems improbable to me that they can be internally consistent and not accurate. For this reason I believe my “interpretation” is correct.
Your interpretation isn’t consistent, though, as it fails to account for all the passages which speak of the gods in terms that are totally inapplicable to natural phenomenon, such as:
1197a. N. found the gods standing,
1197b. wrapped in their garments,
1197c. their white sandals on their feet.
1197d. Then they threw their white sandals on the ground,
1197e. they cast off their garments.
1198a. “Our heart was not joyful until thou didst descend,” say they;
1198b. “may that which was said of you be that which you now are.”
Those fucking visitors, always coming down from Porlock at precisely the wrong time! 
I’m not sure – metaphors can be part of “word meanings”, and your interpretations can be wrong on the word meanings (especially since we’re looking at translations of ancient texts).
You haven’t shown this, especially with the CO2 stuff.
This is pretty meaningless. Someone could, through some extremely strange analysis, interpret those texts to be saying nothing more than “the Nile River is wet”. That might be internally consistent, but it doesn’t make it any more likely to be correct.
Also, as Human Action points out, I don’t think your solution is actually “internally consistent”.