JohnB

It looks more like a quartz base to me. I've seen Emerald similar to the fourth picture. I have seen this crystal a number of times but I can't remember it's name. I could get shot for this advice but......go down to the largest New Age, Healing Shop you can find. Belief in the healing powers of crystals requires a deep knowledge of the different types of crystals. Let me know if you can't get an answer and I'll take the pics to a couple of my clients for identification.

Please do try to keep up. The next one is "Ocean Acidification", or a good bet is "Declining Fish Stocks" and we are all going to die/starve/fight horrible wars with one another. I'd keep an eye out for "Biodiversity crossing a tipping point leading to complete ecological collapse" as well. I just think that we'll continue to see the pattern of "Wrath of Mother Earth" replacing the "Wrath of God". It will still conform to the standard pattern. "You have sinned and will be punished in the future for your sins. But if you grant me power and money I will save you." Chuck in a way to buy absolution as well and you've got a good chance.

I've thought a bit on this since reading it earlier. One thing that comes across is that the mind doesn't "travel" as such. For want of a better word it is "cloned" at the recieving point. From your description the transmitting mind is scanned and the results of the scan are impressed on the entangled particles thereby causing changes at the recieving point and the integration of the mind there. Note though that the original mind still exists at the transmitting point. So after transmission we have two minds, the original and the clone. Presumably the original mind would like some of answer or it's going to be a one sided conversation. This would mean that the clone would get scanned and the transmission direction reversed. So the original transmission point now has the original mind and the clone of the clone that came back with the reply. This is going to get messy very quickly and it would appear to be rather inefficient, something I don't think we would expect from machine intelligences. It would, I think, make more sense if the intelligences used "bots" or "messbots" for the transmission of information. These would be non self aware programs that are transmitted and destroyed once they deliver their message. Since they would be software and non sentient, "use and delete" makes sense. It's the transmission of information that is mportant, not the transmission of the minds. I think one of the difficulties with this supposed species is their narrow limit. By being essentially confined to the storage hardware on the asteroid, they cannot expand. Even using entanglement, they cannot go anywhere that they haven't been before and set up recieving equipment. Stagnation would set in rather early, both sociological and astronomical. My 2 cents, anyway.

Fair enough, but the question remains "Why?" Why would entropy be pleasing to the eye? Fashions of beauty have changed many times over the millenia but AFAIK, this one has remained constant, almost by definition that makes it unusual. Why is it such a strong influence in what is a purely subjective area? We're moving the question from "What is pleasing to the eye?" to "Why is it pleasing to the eye?" I don't have a good answer but I find the question interesting.

Klaynos, yes they are valid, but what is the point of the OP? Demonstrating that heliacal rising is a valid observation is akin to demonstrating that metres and kilometres are a valid method of measuring distance. It begs the question "So what?". As Sayo pointed out, the OP didn't "make a specific proposal, ask a well-defined question, or provoke any particular discussion", one has to wonder what the point of starting the thread was. I suspect the thread starter believes himself to be in posession of deep and arcane knowledge that is previously undiscovered by the thousands of researchers who have gone before him and can actually read the texts he bases his work on. The hook is in the last part of the OP and I think we are supposed to resond by asking him to kindly share the benefits of his wisdom so that we poor mortals can understand what is "really" being said in these ancient texts. (The fact that g-f can't read the texts anyway is beside the point. ) The spirit of Von Daniken lives on.

I'm sorry SHA, but as we already have a number of members currently fulfilling their nefarious plots to rule the world, I will have to ask you to take a number and wait your turn. At the moment you are in the queue just behind "phi for all" and his plan for "gigantic levitating squid". However, do keep developing your plans as we don't know if iNows "Ant powered Earthquake machine" will pan out. If it fails to live up to expectations we can fit you in between the "Cattle Flatulence Volcano Maker" and the "Mutant Zombie Ladybugs". Cheers.

(Emphasis mine) A rather elementary one will suffice. Anybody who has read more than a childrens primer on AE knows of the 72 days Sothis spends in the Underworld (below the horizon) each year. It's rising from the Underworld was the indication that Inundation was about to start. Or do you have a different interpretation, g-f?

I've always liked this take on the idea. I think the final verse has incredible depth and promise. Christ in the Universe By Alice Meynell (b. 1847) WITH this ambiguous earth His dealings have been told us. These abide: The signal to a maid, the human birth, The lesson, and the young Man crucified. But not a star of all The innumerable host of stars has heard How He administered this terrestrial ball. Our race have kept their Lord’s entrusted Word. Of His earth-visiting feet None knows the secret, cherished, perilous, The terrible, shamefast, frightened, whispered, sweet, Heart-shattering secret of His way with us. No planet knows that this Our wayside planet, carrying land and wave, Love and life multiplied, and pain and bliss, Bears, as chief treasure, one forsaken grave. Nor, in our little day, May His devices with the heavens be guessed, His pilgrimage to thread the Milky Way Or His bestowals there be manifest. But in the eternities, Doubtless we shall compare together, hear A million alien Gospels, in what guise He trod the Pleiades, the Lyre, the Bear. O, be prepared, my soul! To read the inconceivable, to scan The myriad forms of God those stars unroll When, in our turn, we show to them a Man. Some might also find this article from the Vatican Observatory interesting as it covers the topic "Religious Implications from the Possibility of Ancient Martian Life."

Kaplunk. You must keep in mind that you are drawing conclusions from one particular English translation of a Greek translation of a Hebrew text. Do you really want to bet on the accuracy compared to the original?

Fair enough, but why is it also pleasing to the eye? Buildings designed in this ratio look "better" and more "balanced". Artwork using it is prettier. I take your point about why it occurs in nature as it simply makes sense. But why is it so esthetically pleasing as well? How is our sense of beauty attuned to it? The questions are philosophical, but very interesting.

Zolar, quite possible. The school of thought I follow looks at it sort of this way. There is a creative force, but not a "God" as such. The creative force caused the Universe to be the way it is. I personally view this as by kicking around various factors during the Big Bang. The laws of the creator are written into the very fabric of time and space itself, represented by Pi, e, the Golden Mean and probably heaps of others that we haven't discovered yet. (Beats the hell out of a couple of stone tablets.) While these things don't tell us why the Universe was made but they give us an insight as to how it was done. "Why" is for the philosophers, "How" is for the scientists. The thing is that the Golden Mean and others "resonate" (for want of a better word) with us because we recognise them as the signature of the creator. Just as the Golden Mean is a sign of the creator in the Universe, our response to the Mean is a sign of the creator in us. I can't of course provide any proof to back up a single word of the above, but it is to me consistent with observations, and in no way compromises the beliefs of others, and it makes me pleased o consider it as a possibility, so I do.

Not being from the US I'm not too familiar with the US networks. But as I understand it FOX tends to the right and the others tend to the left. I don't see that this is actually relevent. The assumption is to use the others as a baseline to compare with FOX and this would be fine if the others really are a baseline. Since we are talking about scaring people and healthcare costs, wouldn't a definitive comparison between networks be needed first? The implicit assumption of using the other networks as a base is that FOX is an outlier "bad" news wise, while this might be politically true, the connection to "bad" news content is pure conjecture. How many reports of "bad" things, the prominance given to each item, the number of "follow up" stories, even the number of "related" items broadcast. These factors would need to researched first to find out if FOX is indeed an outlier in "bad" news reporting. Where does it put the original hypothesis if FOX comes in in the middle of the pack and not as an outlier? I think that the problem with the study as originally proposed is that there are too many assumptions, a mistake in any of which will influence the outcome. This would render results meaningless. Quantitive values would have to be assigned to certain factors before any study findings could be viewed as "conclusive" in any way.

Karu, it's tripe. From the about page of the source; Yes, everybody's persecuting them and hiding the truth about Hungarian antiquity and superiority, blah, blah, blah. It's a nationalistic, egocentric circle jerk. (They probably wear funny hats and have a secret handshake too. )

So you've failed. At least we've got that out of the way. Unfortunately Ophiolite, his knowlege of physics is significantly higher than his knowledge of ancient texts. I realise that g-f's constant repetition of pointless and incoherent statements has probably put this thread on watch, but I ask the mods not to lock it. I'm only a Galileo and a Mum away from Bingo.

Be funny if she was a lurker here.

No mate it isn't. I've been extremely patient and polite for 7 pages now while you spout rubbish. Here is the test. The test is whether you can name the lines or admit that you are full of bullshit. Can you pass the test?

Considering that this statement immediately follows a post in which I state; If "occult leanings" remove the ability to focus, then I can only wonder what removes the ability to read and comprehend english. Your rather strange comparison of Utterance 572 only demonstrates that you actually have no idea about the process of translation of these old texts. You are currently claiming some sort of authority and ideas based on texts that you admit you cannot read. I suggest you learn to read heiroglyphs if you wish to further your ideas and give some weight to your arguments. Anyway, back to the translation process. I'll use pronounciations from here as examples. We start with the writing on the wall or payrii. Step 1 is to transcribe the writing to our notes. We can't normally take the wall with us, so we copy down the glyphs. Step 2 is to rearrange the glyphs so that they read left to right rather than right to left as some do. It doesn't really matter, but it makes the finished translation easier to read and you will have to reverse at some point, might as well be now. Step 3 is to transliterate the glyphs. This is simply assigning the phonetics to each glyph. This is done directly for each glyph and you finish up with sentences that look like this: "b3kt nb niwt pr" Step 4 is to "flesh them out" a bit. Ever wondered why there are so many "E"s in texts and names? We add "E"s as vowels where we can, but other letters can be used as well. So the sentence becomes: "b3ket neb niwut per" I've added 3 "E"s and 1 "U". Step 5 is to give the meanings for each glyph/word. So the sentence is now : (female servant) (Lord, Master) (Town, village, city), (Temple, Palace). Step 6 is to put them together considering the context. We know the sentence concerns a woman who lived in a village and there was no palace nearby, (Because of where it was found) so we now have: (female servant) (Master) (Village) (Temple). Step 7 is to finish the translation by putting it together as: ""N" was the female servant of the Master of the Village Temple". We could also say that she was a "Handmaiden in the Village Temple" roughly correct but not as accurate. The relevence to Utterance 572 and incidentally why I prefer the Mercer type of translation, is this. Mercers translation stops at Step 6 with the literal meaning of each glyph or passage whereas Faulkner goes on to poetically fill out the narrative. So, becomes One could also rather prosaically put it as: "They put their arms out so as to make a ladder for you to ascend unto heaven, where the double doors of the sky will open before you" (JohnB 2010) The only reality we have is the original inscription. All translations are effected by the opinions and poetic leanings of the translator. This is why the process of translation must have so many steps to be accepted as sound. You must show all steps in the translation to demonstrate that your own poetic leanings only enter at the final stage. Mercer avoids this by stopping at the Step before the poetic interpretation. I'll add that Step 6 is possibly the most important because context changes with time. A small town which worshipped Thoth in the early period may have become a great city in the late period dedicated to Bast. So knowing when the writing is from is vital to tell you whether you are discussing a small town or large city and which God. Research can also change context. We might translate a text based on the idea of a small town only to have later excavations reveal the town was larger and more important than originally thought and so the context of every translation changes with this new knowledge. So does this mean that you found 14 passages in the Faulkner translation that start "Repeat 4 times" and these passages are not in other "Pyramid Texts"? That if you were to quote the lines I would find them missing in Mercer? Either way, I say again. Quote the lines! You keep making claims but aren't even willing to say where these "missing lines" are missing from. Time to be blunt. Put up or shut up. This is a science forum, not a place for you to make random claims.

Where to start? Firstly, I think by clearing up a misunderstanding. The rather large opus of Sethe's work can be quickly divided into two distinct phases. The first phase was the transcription of the pyramid texts from the walls of the tombs. This was his seminal work that others have built on and is the standard work used today. His second phase, that of actually translating the inscriptions was never finished due to his death. It is the translation, not the transcription that is referred to in g-fs quote; I have no doubt that had he the time he would have finished the work and probably modified some of his translated passages. None of this however effects the accuracy of his transcriptions from the tomb walls. G-f, you are aware that there is a very real difference between a transcription and a translation, aren't you? Frankly I starting to wonder. Sethe's work was published in 1908, the link I gave is to the scanned copy in the Library of the University of Chicago. You can go to the library if you wish and see the book for yourself. Under any definition you care to try, it is a "published" work. You keep talking about "Occult". So a direct question and let's see if I can get a direct answer. Exactly how is the Library of the University of Chicago considered "Occult"? For some reason you are taking exception to linking to "Sacred Texts". Strangely enough, I would think that the Pyramid Texts classify as "Sacred Texts". I can't see why you disagree. I note the site actually has a wide range of sacred texts, including a King James version of the Bible. Does this now make the Bible an "Occult" text? I have to ask, if not legends or funery texts, what do you think the "Pyramid Texts" are? Those texts translated by Faulkner and other under that title are a small group of the collected Egyptian texts. They are not the only ones, nor are they the earliest, nor are they in any way definitive. Another text disagreeing with the Pyramid Texts doesn't make either text or translation wrong. It simply means that they differ. I'm at a loss as to why you can't seem to understand this concept. You simply cannot look at any text in isolation, it must be considered with respect to the other texts from the time. Actually you do find it in the Pyramid Texts, in fact you find it in just about any transcription of heiroglyphics. It might be "N", or "P", or in the case I showed above "W". The letter is inserted at the transcription stage so that the poor sucker drawing all the glyphs doesn't have to do the same one (the Cartouche) over and over again. It means "Insert name of Pharoah here". This was explained before and I suggest youu go back and actually read what I have written. You have apparently either failed to read or failed to comprehend my statements. You do realise that some of the spells and incantations included in the "Book of the Dead" are the same ones as are found in the "Pyramid Texts", don't you? As in, the same passage can be found in both texts? While on this topic, why do you complain about a multiplicity of texts? Of course there are more than just the "Pyramid Texts" as repositories for knowledge about ancient Egypt. You seem to be giving the Texts the same prominance in Egypt as the Bible has for Christianity. A better idea is to consider the Pyramid Texts as equivalent to a Gospel in the New Testament. It is one story out of many, and in a number of ways the stories contradict each other. This is not unexpected when dealing with religious texts that have evolved over nearly 3,000 years. Your lack of ability to even recognise the correct heiroglyphs is not my problem. I have a news flash for you g-f, Faulkners "Pyramid Texts" are translations of what is carved into the walls of pyramids. The picture I posted is the actual wall inside the Pyramid of Unas that passage 341 comes from. I did this so that you could see the progression from wall to transcription to the two (slightly) different translations. You just can't get more "original" than that. However, if you feel that I'm intentionally misrepresenting things, feel free to post a picture of the original heiroglyphs of 341 and we can take it from there. As to who was the mother of Horus, it varies depending on the source. This has been known for years and again I cannot understand why you can't accept this. The Pyramid Texts say one thing and other texts say another, why is this so hard to comprehend? Even going right back to an early Budge translation, (warning 33 meg pdf file) we see starting on Page 308 two separate and distinct versions of the Creation story. They are even labelled Versions "A" and "B". Go back and read it again. At no time did I in any way equate or confuse Sothis with the Morning Star. I pointed out that in translations of a certain passage in the Pyramid Texts it says of Unas that his sister is Sothis and his Mother the Duat. How you make Sister=Mother I fail to understand. And why should I deny something I never said? Firstly it was "Morning Light" in your quote. Secondly I gave you two different translations of the "Pyramid Texts" by different authors to show that the translation you are using is wrong. Thirdly I gave you the original transcription that the translation came from. and Lastly I posted a picture of the bloody wall that is the Pyramid Text. Not a translation, interpretation or transcription, but the original heiroglyphs carved into the stone in the Pyramid of Unas. What more do you want? Should I fly to Egypt and take a picture myself and post that? The problem here is that you are assuming that your translation contains a "proper identification" of the morning star. I've shown you that it does not. In your world, the book you read is correct and all others are wrong. This attitude is invalid. You aren't judging things on their worth or accuracy, but simply on whether they agree with your particular translation of the "Pyramid Texts". It doesn't work that way. On the basis of proof, since your translation disagrees with other translations, the original transcriptions and what is actually written on the walls themselves, the only valid conclusion is that your translation is not valid. As a final point, and I did ask this earlier. Can you elaborate on these "missing" riddles? Where are they missing from? Which translations have them and which ones do not? Or are you just blowing smoke?

You are assuming the Pyramid texts are the earliest and only version. The problem is that with a multiplicity of legends, which one do you believe? I chose Nut because I prefer that particular story. You are quite free to choose Isis or Hathor if you wish, I won't say you are wrong. All that I ask is that you phrase it as "In the version I read, it was Hathor." There isn't actually a definitive answer, it all depends on which story you read. When I said "your" translation, I meant "the one you are using". Of the two translations I offered, one was by Mercer, an older but in this case, I think better translation. More to the point I show the original, scanned from the book, original copy of the glyphs. The work of Sathe is the standard work in this area. Because of his accuracy, if I wished to do my own translation of the Pyramid Texts I don't have to go to Saqqara personally, I can use his notes. Which is exactly what Faulkner did. I quote from the preface of his book (Page vi); Please note that in the paragraph before this one Faulkner says; Faulkner makes it plain that he a) Kept it very simple and basic and B) based his translation on the work of Sethe. Have another look at the picture called "Line 341". That is a picture of the drawing of the inscription that Faulkner used for his translation. If you were to go into Faulkners office and find Sethe's book in the bookcase and open it to page 193, that is what you will see. The link is to the University of Chigago library, who have placed the work online. How is this possibly "occult"? You seem to be rather big on originals and it is possible to go back further than Sethe's work. I have done this for you. I have provided not only a picture of the actual wall the inscription is written on but I've even outlined in red the relevent passage. It doesn't get any more original than that. What is inscribed into the wall is the "Pyramid Text". It isn't occult and it doesn't need review, it's a carving on a bloody wall, it simply exists. I did this so that you could compare for yourself whether or not Sethe was an accurate depiction of the inscription on the wall of the antechamber. If you can find a difference you will be the first person in 100 years to do so and the only person to look at the comparison and do so. I think we can accept the work of Sethe as accurate, don't you? Working from there, the third line of 341 as quoted is; If this translation were accurate, then we should see the glyphs for "My offspring" twice in line c, but we don't. Since we see two different sets of glyphs, then it stands to reason that we should have two different phrases in our translation. Since the glyphs refer to both "Sothis" and the "Duat" then so to should the translation. The translation by Mercer does this, the one from PT online also does so, Faulkners does not. Ergo, Faulkners translation is incorrect. It simply doesn't match what is carved into the wall of the tomb. As to Faulkner working for the British Museum etc, etc, here we call that "Appeal to Authority". This is a logical fallacy that somebodys word should be accepted simply because of who he is or where he works. Who he is doesn't matter, where he works doesn't matter, only the demonstratable truth of his words matters. And those words are incorrect. If you feel I'm wrong in this, by all means argue, show me where the translations are wrong. I've shown you where and how the Faulkner one is incorrect, you could at least do me the same curtousy. As a final note. I'd like you to expand on these 14 riddles that were removed. You've mentioned it a few times and frankly I haven't heard this before and would like to know which passages you are referring to. For preference, which lines or Utterances are involved and in which published translations are they included or excluded. From what I've seen so far I think that you are probably wrong, but I'm certainly willing to listen and let you make your case. Cheers.

Skye, I was going back quite a while. I think it was Fraser who caused a ruckus by changing the dole rules. The point was that the surfers weren't surgeons, they were just happy to get money for nothing while waiting for the "surgeon" job to come up. Also, do you remember the screams some years ago when people were told their dole would be stopped if they moved to an area with already high unemployment? All those complaining because they couldn't move to Byron Bay and stil get the dole? As to the bait and switch, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating pulled it off quite well. How else do you think those "Long Term Unemployed" figures came down in a recession? Back then I was one of those slobs going for "training" and it was a Public Servant at the CES office that explained it to me. Specifically that it's not intended to do anything except make the gov look good. In a time of high unemployment, when nobody is hiring office staff, what is the point of training people in basic computing and office skills? And this was before MS Office was in wide use! No mate, "training" as practiced by the gov is a political ploy and nothing else. We would get a lot further giving the money to Universities to train the people we need. As to who gets taught what, I wasn't piling it on the Unis, the Gov is mostly at fault. It takes neither great intelligence nor foresight to look at the figures and go "Hmmm, we have 25,000 lawyers, 5,000 of whom work at Mc Donalds, should we really be training 10,000 more?" Far better to shut down some law and Humanities faculties and give the money to the real sciences. (Bloody biased for someone without a degree, aren't I? ) It's like we had the big push for Uni education rather than Apprenticeships, and the TAFE Colleges were deemed "second best". Nice, now we have heaps of Engineers to design wonderful new buildings and plants, but very few to actually build the damn things. Sparkies are worth over $120k up north. Concreters and plasterers are booked solid for at least the next 4 years which isn't bad for a "downturned" economy. Again, generally not the fault of the Unis, although I'll bet the Admins were very happy for the money with little outlay and so they didn't fight too hard. But a good example of very poor forward thinking on the part of Gov and their advisors. My job was Project Management, making sure the people, materials and skills all came together at the right time and in the right order. From all I have ever seen, these skills are sadly lacking in the Australian gov. Anyway, I don't know if it's that much of a derail. While we aren't as partisan as the US, politics is politics where ever you go and tactics follow the same patterns. The US is looking at extending benefits, this is in response to people not being able to get jobs in the depressed market. Note that it also means that "Long Term Unemployment" is already a problem. Given the Democrat control of Congress and a Democrat President it is only logical for the Republicans to use this in a "Will ya lookee heah! These poor AMERICANS have bin out of work for years! For years I say! And what have the Democrats done? Nothin'! They don't even know how to fix the problem that's why they extended the benefits! A vote for the Democrats is a vote for another 4 years on benefits, and it saddens my heart to see my fellow AMERICANS driven so low, it truly does." kind of way. Of course the Republicans don't have the faintest idea what to do either, but it sure makes for good tub thumpin' come election time. The only really viable response the Democrats have is to ramp up "training" so that people are "more prepared" for jobs when the Stimulus Package "kicks in" and the economy "rebounds". The training also has the effect of taking people off the "Long Term" list and moving them to the short term list. Add in a bit more about some package or other being "Investing in the Future of America" (or words to that effect) and it won't take long before the Democrats have their ads with some Joe Yokel saying: "Yes sir, I believe in America, I surely do. And since my retraining, I can not only flip the burgers at Mc Donalds, but I can fix the stove too. (I also studied Aeronautical Engineering so I could make better paper planes out of my Law degree, but that's another story.) Yes sir, I believe in America, I believe in the future and I believe in the Democrats!" *With a slow fade to medium close up still of Obama smiling and waving against a Stars and Stripes background.* Oils ain't oils Sol, but politics is politics.

You know that oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico? Now imagine something spewing out 50 times as much stuff, but instead of oil it's molten tock at 3,000 degrees. Things will get very bad, very fast.

Hmmm, we had similar problems a while ago. The number of unemployed "Brain surgeons" that could be found on a surfboard at Bondi beach was rediculous. We changed the law so that refusing a job, any job would get your unemployment benefit revoked. It is not the fault of the general populace that a lawyer cannot find a job as a lawyer and they should not be expected to pay for him to sit on his arse until his dream job opens up. He can take whatever work he can until he finds the job he wants. Noting also that Universities teach what they want to and not what society might actually need, there will often be surplusses of certain professions. Just because a Uni produces 200 lawyers, doesn't mean that the economy actually has jobs for them. Tough on the students, but nobody said life was going to be fair. The other thing that is going to come up now that benefits are being extended is the classic "Bait and Switch". "Long Term Unemployed" people look very bad on a governments report card, so in the spirit of "retraining" and "addressing the needs" of the job market here is what happens next. People on benefits for longer than time period "X" will be provided a training/retraining course (either free of charge or subsidised through private training orgs) to give them skills "suitable" for the "changed" job market. While on those courses the people will not be on "Unemployment Benefits" but will transfer to a "Training Allowance". Once the course is over they will revert to "Unemployment" benefits, but will not longer be part of the "Long Term Unemployed" group, they are now "Short Term Unemployed". So the gov can show how "Long Term Unemployment" is dropping and they can point to the "Training Programs" providing a "Skilled Workforce" for "The Future". They can spend a sh*tload of cash and except for a few extra staff for training orgs not actually achieve one, single, worthwhile effect. Isn't Democracy wonderful?

I've heard Egyptologists called many things before, but that is a new one. Does "Occult" mean anything that you don't like, or is there a deeper meaning? Your reading comprehension skills need some work. I said Nut was the mother of Horus in the myth that happens to be my favourite. In other myths it is Isis/Hathor. Depending on which story you read, the identity of Horus' mother changes. Similarly in Genesis, whether Man was created before the animals or after depends on which chapter you read. It's the result of many Gods with different names and attributes being absorbed into the Pantheon over time. A further example is just to the North of me. The Glasshouse Mountains are volcanic plugs that have eroded and now sort of look like people. One aboriginal legend is that the mountains are the daughters of a great Shaman, who changed them into hills to prevent them being led astray by the young men of the tribe. Another tells of a family whose son went off to fight in a great battle over the sea, never to return. The family watched for his return every day until the Gods took pity on them and turned them into mountains so that they could wait until time ends and the soul of the son returns to be reunited with them. The main mountain in both legends is Tibrogargan. Was he a Shaman protecting his daughters, or a father waiting for his son? (I happen to prefer the second legend as it's more in keeping with the Gods behaviour in other legends.) These are the problems when dealing with legends. As to your Morning Star. This one is difficult for me. Those here know that I have often supported people in their right to have "unusual" interpretations of things, but I have always shied away from declaring an authority in a field "wrong". Assuming that your copy/paste of Line 341 is accurate, I now have no choice. Your translation is wrong. The relevent text is on the South Wall of the Antechamber in the Pyramid of Unas. On the attached photograph (iwenis9b) I've outlined the text of 341 in red. It reads from top to bottom and right to left. Looking at the upper part you can see that the glyphs do not repeat, so the two parts cannot begin with "My offspring". Different glyphs have different translations. As a secondary proof I have attached a second picture (Line 341). This picture is slightly modified as the original lines are over two pages in the original document. I combined them but did no other editing. The original is from Kurt Sethe's seminal work "Die Altaegyptischen Pyramidentexte Pyramidentexte nach den Papierabdrucken und Photographien des Berliner Museums" 1908. Kurt Sethe was the first to fully document the texts and all later translations are done from his drawings. Both Faulkner and Mercer translated the work of Sethe. Close inspection will show that Sethe made one change, he reversed the glyphs so that they could be read from left to right rather than right to left. This change is trivial and doesn't change the meanings in any way. The original can be seen here, and continues onto the next page. I doubt that the Library of the University of chicago is too "occult" for some to view. It will have been noted that the Cartouche for the Pharoah is labelled simply "N". This is a convention used in these texts basically meaning "Insert relevent Pharoahs name here". Identical texts are found in multiple tombs with only the name of the deceased changing, so having "N" allows for more generic translations. In both cases it will be noted the differences between the glyphs preceeding the glyph for Sothis and the glyph meaning "Morning Star". #341 is translated by Mercer thusly; From here. Pyramid texts Online has an apparently slightly different translation; From here. Both translations are pretty much the same though, it's just phrasing that differs. Mercer says "His mother is the Duat" which while differing in phraseology, is identical in meaning to PTs "The Duat has given him birth". Who else could give him birth but his mother? I really hate to say it, but other translations disagree with Faulkners, the original transcription disagrees with Faulkners translation and the actual heiroglyphs on the wall of the tomb disagree with Faulkners translation. I'm sorry g-f, but your translation is simply incorrect. Sothis and the Duat are not the offspring, but the sister and mother. Would you care to try again?

Women are the best thing about belonging to a species with two sexes. Genecks, it's a wonder Uni students manage to procreate at all. You're trying to work out the ins and outs of the possible future and you've yet to talk to the girl! Sheesh. Stop over thinking, stop asking everybody elses opinion about what a guy people haven't met should do about a girl they don't know. Just ask her if she'd like a coffee. If no, then fine you have your answer. If yes, you still have your answer so go for coffee and talk to the girl. Just talk to the girl. If you don't, somebody else will and you will luck out. Have you ever wondered why so many attractive and wonderful women are dating deadheads? Because the nice guys are so busy overthinking things that they never ask the girls out! They date the deadheads because the deadheads are the only ones who ask. What's the girl supposed to do? Keep batting her eyes at you and stay home on Saturday night, or accept a date from some fool with gristle between his ears? At least the fool is showing that he wants to spend some time with her, which right now would put him several points ahead of you. Go for it. Cheers, JohnB

Yes and no. It is a sequence that turns up over and over, even sunflower seeds follow the pattern. In this respect it is like an underlying number in the Universe , like pi or e. That doesn't make it any more divine than pi is though. So from that perspective, yes it is arguing from ignorance. Bearing in mind that there are those who believe pi to be a divine number. Since it is an "ultimate" number that the Universe is based on, that makes it a sign of the Creator. (One way of looking at it, I suppose) However, and what makes the ratio so fascinating is that when it is incorporated into the design of a building, the building is more "attractive" to the eye. The Parthenon uses the ratio extensvely IIRC. Somehow the ratio seems to cause our innate sense of "balance" and "beauty" to respond to it. I have no idea why it does this it just does, and I've yet to see a really good explanation as to why.