cladking

At one time I was familiar with most of these terms and even some of the processes that generated the knowledge and terms. Now when I use the word "gene(s)" I'm referring to the entire encoding of the structure and each part of the structure that determines the nature of the indiviual as well as its growth, maintenance, and all physical characteristics. I am aware that many things like the developement of the lungs in the embryo is driven by rather simple genetic encoding. By the same token though there is vast difference between individuals and these are certainly not all related to experience and perspective. I am merely suggesting that the vast physical differences are each related to a difference in known or unknowns "genes" or their expression in conjunction with other genes. I believe it's common sense that most individual differences are inate and that all individual structure is determined by the "genes" whether it's highly similar to other individuals of the species or not. I believe it's common sense that no two rabbit legs are exactly alike. If you disagree then we probably have no basis for argument. I'm already certain that your expertise in the process of learning about biology and its application to understanding exceeds mine. I'm far less certain you're correct or that the extrapolations of current theory are correct.

I believe you are confusing a process to learn about "rabbits" with rabbits themselves and then illegitimately extrapolating the knowledge gained to apply to all life. In reality there is no such thing as "a rabbit". There aren't ten rabbits in the entire world because each rabbit is different. You can slice and dice one of them for dinner or study but it will still be an individual (even in stew). Even in symbiotic relationships all life is individual and each individual is different. Since there's no such thing as "a rabbit" it is impossible to dissect them or to study them except through observation and established theory; rabbits are mammals, for example. Most of them hop. It is here, in observation, that current hypotheses are seen as being highly questionable. From the perspective of lab and the concept that "a rabbit" exists many extrapolations are possible and obvious. If rabbit populations decrease then obviously some genes are likely or certain to become extinct. This obviously is decreased diversity by defnition. But the fact remains that there is no such thing as "a rabbit" and that each rabbit in the world has its own distinct genes. Every individual is already diverse enough for its own needs or it will soon die whether its otherwise fit or not. There simply is no such thing as an "average rabbit". There are norms and parameters of construction and behavior but there is no individual that is representative of "a rabbit". If "a rabbit" actually existed we could somday create the prototypical rabbit and then predict its every behavior. Obviously we will never be able to predict behavior except in the grossest sense (rabbiyts taste better with onionms). This means there's also no such thing as "rabbit populations". This is simply a short hand method we use to communicate the concept that the total number of individual rabbits always fluctuates. These are terms we use to fascilitate communication and to better develop and understand the processes used to understand nature: they simply are not representative of nature (rabbit) itself. It's this disconnect between reality and our study of it that results in observation being contrary to "theory". We extrapolate our understanding of chemistry, physics, zoology etc to apply to something that doesn't even exist except as a model for communication and understanding. The reality is that we can see how things like "natural selection" or breeding simply trumps survival of the fittest. We can see that there are numerous "missing links" caused by the lack of not rabbits but rather the individual proto rabbits. All life is individual just as all fossils and the lack of fossil record simply "proves" that individual was among a group that was very much less numerous than its ancestors and that it is much different that its ancestors because this is the very way nature imposes diversity; by first removing it among groups of individuals largely by means of eradicating much less than simply random genes (among individuals). I'm sure your expertise here exceeds mine by a wide margin but this is irrelevant because my visceral knowldge and my experience with evolution among short lived species combined with logic might be more reflective of the reality than a means to study reality that might be applied illegitimately; biology/ evotutionary theory/ etc. Basic science says theory must fit observation. There must be a reason for the disconnect between theory and observation and this post is my hypothesis for the existence of this disconnect.

Perhaps I'm not stating my contention clearly. I'm saying that each individual in genetically diverse and not only does each individual carry the genes which represent himself and his species but many more that aren't expressed. Of course much of this coding is common to all individuals and of course when there are fewer individuals rare genes might and will disappear. I'm suggesting that diversity, both individual and species, is usually irrelevant to the ability of an individual to survive. It is only through survival the individual can affect the gene pool. And at the same time the probability of the individual to survive is usually based on behaviors and the specific genes that lead to these behaviors rather than the degree to which "he" is fit. Among the survivors you'll see fitness sometimes played a role but typically it will appear to be primarily luck of the draw. It's in the off spring of the survivors where you see the changes. You say that even random numbers show a severe crippling diversity but I don't believe this because every individual has countless millions of genes. Many of these genes are simply irrelevant to the ability of an individual to survive almost any bottleneck. Green eyes might matter to individual humans even in such critical areas as mate selection but how many extinction events have given prefential treatment to green eyes? Survivors will make do with brown eyed or blues eyed mates anyway. But these survivors which are just as diverse as any other members of their species get selected based on any of the craziest parameters thrown at them by mother nature. It can simply be anything at all from geography, elevation, handedness, or foot size. It might seem that genes play no role in whether a certain individual is saved by being under the surface of the water but in fact even though it's an individual with free will, some individuals are far more likely to be diving than others and this can be related directly or indirectly to the individual genes. Indeed, it will be directly or indirectly related and these individuals which have the same diversity as other members of their species will breed true. Whatever gene directly or indirectly led them to be under the water will express itself in their offspring and the local species will have changed. Increased diversity doesn't arise until these, normally very similar, off spring interbreed with others of the species that didn't undergo the extinction. This is evolution. It is driven by population "change" and diversity is created at a later time by this same change. Just as it has been said "all politics is locaL", the same is true of evolution. Evolution simply doesn't occur to species, it occurs to individuals and it occurs suddenly. "Extinction" is an ongoing process because individuals grow old and die or are eaten. Local regions have populations that increase or decrease at least by one with every birth and every death. Very few of these population changes are important to evolution unless there is a mutation that is beneficial to an individual. These will change the species iff they breed true. Slower rabbits have a higher chance of being eaten but "unlucky" rabbits have the highest chance. If you examine the detail of this "bad luck" you'll see a glacial extinction event that is driving change even while the real driver of change, polulation decrease, isn't at work. Even after countless millions of years a rabbit still can't ourrun a cheetah so "survival of the fittest" is hardly the answer while the reality is at hand and unseen.

Perhaps I'm misunderstang something here but I believe the author is looking at the logic wrong. "Species" don't have any genes at all, far less variety. Only individuals have genes and all the variety exists between individuals. Certainly some bottlenecks will necessarily affect indiduals that don't have specific genes and hence reduce diversity but I believe most of these bottlenecks are not selective of things so gross as genes. They will tend to affect behavior, or knowledge, or things that can't be quantified like chance or the ability to detect unknown dangers. Extinction drivers can be virtually anything and are often unidentifiable even in real time. Minor changes in habitat can have sudden and devastating effects on species. If you periodically flood a roomfull of flies with intense infrared or microwave radiation that kills those oin direct line with the source then the only survivors will be those on the undersides of objects or in the shade. These individuals will tend to have as much diversity as the population as a whole did but they will be fundamentally different and their off spring can be virtually a different species. If the off spring reintegrate with normal flies the resultant will be increased variability. You can actually see this process at work with species that have short life spans. The speed of change is dependent on whether the extinction factor affects every individual or only those that have specific characteristics. If only the fast flies, survive or those with the briefest time to become airbourne, or the most energetic then you will see something like "survival of the fittest". I seriously doubt that many bottleneck causes are of this nature. An area doesn't suddenly become overrun with cheetahs so only the fastest rabbits survive. Rather the stresses are often specific and usually more widespread and robust. Being "fit" or even "smart" simply won't save many individuals except in specific instances and so long as the stresses remain his genes and life remain in danger. Every animal seeks to survive and when most die it's because their genes simply aren't up to the new task as defined by mother nature. Hence mother nature herself is selecting new specimens for a new sprecies that can survive. Mother nature doesn't select for genes or the survivors would tend to be random from the population rather than sharing one or combination of specific traits that allowed them survival. Certainly a significant decrease in population might severely reduce diversity in that locality. But, if the forces that reduce population were wholly random (it never is), then individuals will still be as diverse as they were before the decline. There will be fewer so scarcer genes might disappear but there will still be "one of each type" as it were. The forces causing the decline aren't random and don't affect each individual the same. Traits will serve to protect or destroy some individuals. These individuals will usually be nearly as diverse but, more importantly, whatever trait saved them will tend to breed true no matter how subtlely it is expressed. The new population won't be more diverse, they will be different. When this "new species" interbreeds with populations that were not subjected to the stress their offspring will have increased diversity and a better chance of surviving the same or similar insult. "Survival of the fittest" simply doesn't apply. Individuals which are fit may have no better chance of survival than those which prefer to nap in the early afternoon or prefer fish to fowl. Strenght, speed, intelligence, fine eyesight etc are of value to the individual in mate selection and chances of survival under normal conditions but in most bottlenecks this is going to be less true. Bottlenecks can result from a single source or a multitude and they'll affect each member of a species individually.

Why wouldn't they? When waters rise only the swimmers survive. Their off spring are preselected for the ability to swim. No matter what event or change occurs in a biological niche some individuals have a superior chance of survival and others do not. It usually won't have have anything to do with whether or not the individual is fit or fast. It has to do with the ability to survive and/ or adapt (individually) to the change. All life is individual but occurs in the context of species. A rabbit is a rabbit and even the fittest rabbit will make a good meal for a cheetah. I'm sure there are many animals with less variation than humans but this is due to their nature and relative lack of near extinction events or other forces that drive evolution (none of which is survival of the fittest). Even local populations suffer "population bottlenecks" and then the survivors breed with individuals which didn't suffer that bottleneck. If all members of a spcies are local then the lack of bottlenecks translates to less individual variation and a threat to the species by new changes or disease. Individuals which are able to leave a changing habitat have a much higher probability of surviving than those who don't. If you left Paris before the plague you improved your odds of survival. Actually it is. It is always ongoing even as populations increase because individuals vary and all life is individual. Even as a new threat kills some members, population can increase and the species is changing. Of course it is extremely gradual except when populations are significantly reduced. This should not be true. All survivors are still the members of the same species and most habitat changes will simply select individuals with a specific trait within that species. Obviously I'd agree that some extinction events can greatly reduce genetic diversity but this would not be the norm and never the norm so long as the event is local. There are other things that drive change in species. We can see the changes when there are large populations because there are more fossils. We don't see the "missing links" because there are few survivors. Humans and probably termites invented agriculture through a sort of artificial series of extinction events. Individuals which lacked the desired traits were simply excluded from reproducing. Individuals with undesirable traits were effectively subject to extinction. In nature this same process happens at the whim of what we call "chance" and it is driven by habitat change and near extinctions. If toad populations drop then racoon populations plummet with the survivors being individuals with the knowlege and experience required to find other food. These individuals are already distinct by nature such as, perhaps, a relative dislike for the taste of toads. Species naturally adapt to a wider array of foods, behaviors, and conditions. The individuals which survive are genetically different than those which don't and their off spring suddely manifest this difference since they get their genes from both parents. ...There are no missing links.

Where did you get such an idea and how does it explain the relative lack of variability in humans and the fact that change in species, according to the fossil record, are sudden? How does it explain the overlap of extensive DNA between oak trees and humans. The entire theory of evolution needs to be revisited in light of further evidence. You can bury me in links or deflect the questions by name calling and claiming it's off topic but I seriously doubt you can address them.

It is near extinctions that cause evolution and genetic differences. Humans are much more capable of changing their habitat by relocating than any other animal so humans will have much less genetic difference than other animals. Their ability to relocate is their adapability as well as the ability to adapt habitat to their own needs. "Near extinction" is a very very gradual process unless populations are reduced to extremely low numbers. Individual variation is a function of change which is driven by near extinctions.

"Survival of the fittest" simply doesn't explain the facts and the evidence. Of course "evolution" is real because all things change and they change in response to internal and external stimuli. But this doesn't mean giraffes got long necks gradually as food near the ground got increasingly scarce. There are four or five primary drivers of change in species dependent on whether or not you even count "survival of the fittest". Nature fills niches. if there's need for an animal that hops or runs faster then one will arise. The primary way that one arises is through near extinction events. When a species or local population of a species comes under threat because of habitat change or some other factor populations drop. The nature of the pressure (flood, lack of food, drought, disease, etc) causes individuals within the species to have a greater or lesser chance of survival so the individuals who survive are fundamentally different than those who perish. These survivors breed true and the species has changed. This also accounts for the vast individual differences within species because these survivors will mate with other populations that were not subjected to the specific stress. This is simply nature's way of assuring that there is lots of individual difference within species to improive their odds of surviving any change at all. Some mixture of genes will probably be suited to the new conditions; the new biological niche.

It sounds like you can't separate the argument from the arguer. You don't have to address the argument but then there it is whether you address it or not.

Almost all problems are caused by language. Beliefs arise largely through language and beliefs are the motivation for individual human actions. It is these actions which cause most problems. Philosopy has not been able to progress because of language difficulties; it's impossible to build on the work of others if you don't understand what they mean. We use words whose meaning varies in each application and to each listener. Problems in business arise the same way but tend to have practical explanations such as some individual is ignorant of an important fact (often caused by language) or has the wrong understanding. Everyone is own a different page.

I seriously doubt there is any other method to accurately level large areas using ancient means. I don't really know why it is believed to have been so accurately leveled but Petrie's numbers don't seem to support it. You're probably right that the leveling was at or below the first course. This would be a very important data point to ascertain how the pyramids were built. The pyramid is like the weather; everyone talks about it but no one does a thing about it. Orthodoxy is still reeling from ramps having been debunked and still unwilling to establish data points.

OK, I see what I did wrong. The earth doesn't really get to curving 16.65' until you get out near 5 miles. It's not a straight line function.

It's 440 cubits = ~1 2/3 '/ c+ = 760' X 1.4 = 10,600' diagonal The earth curves 16' / 5 mi so .2mi = ~16' X (1/ 25) or about a curve of 8" across the diagonal. If this curve can be shown in the pavement then it is very strong support for geysers. The diagonal is not visible and there is probably a hill on it so it will have to be checked on the sides. I believe these are all visible so it should be easy enough. Just logging the path of a cell phone using its GPS along the side at pavement level should be sufficient. No rant!

I suspect this is actually a curved line because it fits the contour of the earth. If they used water to level it then it has to be curved to fit this contour. Indeed, this is one of the very simple tests that can be done to establish building techniques but nothing is being done. There's been near silence for a long time. No one cares that we aren't establishing facts because they already know the pyramids were build by bumpkins with ramps. It's very difficult for me to not launch into tirades. Some of these things might be determinable by any visitor with a cell phone but still the data aren't available. They probably used stellar references to get the line true N/ S. I'd guess E/ W were either derived from this by getting the diagonals the same or they used the sunrise on the equinox. That the earth was curved was very ancient knowledge to them.

The fact that they refuse to do the science that would answer the basic questions is citation enough. It's easy enough to find plenty of allusions to how all other theories are wrong because they don't agree with the "cultural context". This context is derived from Egyptological beliefs and interpretations. Of course no other theory fits their "cultural context". Some people fault my methodolgy because it includes the hypothesis that the PT makes perfect sense. But this hypothesis is checked at every point by the laws of nature and the physical evidence and it is supported by its ability to make predictions. These words were written in stone and the literal meaning does not agree with their interpretation. They simply choose to understand them in terms of highly superstitious people rather than primitive scientists. People often ask me not to fault Egyptologists but they will not use modern science to unlock the mysteries and persist in simply abhorant methodology. They have repudiated not only the ancient science that still lives carved in stone but modern science as well. I do not fault what Egyptology has done or the truths they have uncovered. I fault their refusal to employ modern science. It's easier for them to simply say "cultural context" each time someone points out an anomaly than it is to gather data that would actually establish a few points about the people and their culture. They are stuck in a rut looking for ramps that never existed.

Some of the earlier pyramids were not built on bedrock and were damaged. The Bent Pyramid while in generally good shape is partially built on sand and it's believed that it moved during construction causing the bulders to lighten the design by changing the angle inward about 1/ 3 of the intended height. It appears that they shaped a small rise under G1 to accept the stones which comprise it. There are quite possibly a couple other structures under here per weak evidence and the Pyramid Texts but certainly the edges were leveled and then paved with limestone before construction. There is a strange situation at the grotto which is elevated some 22' from the pavement. A tortuous and rough tunnel is cut below it that connects all the way down near the subterranian chamber. Above is several courses of pyramid stones that were laid and then later cut through to form a rough passage. Above that are about fifteen courses of built passage. More interesting is that where this long passage cuts through a natural feature which is a small void there is a "silo" to form the passage. A hole in the side of the silo provides access to the void. The Great Pyramid is very stable and would probably be in perfect condition today if not for devasting earthquakes that damaged the casing stone and exposed the core. Indeed, it's greatest weakness is a huge fissure just to the north that parallels the north side and is about 10' away. It extends from about the middle of the structure and extends nearly to the NE corner which is very near the cliff face. Indeed, it's something of a wonder to most people that the builders would even site the structure here since it looks like the whole cliff face could collapse taking much of the pyramid with it. Modern engineers estimate that the cliff could actually withstand about five times the loading the pyramid places on it which is the same margin of error used in many such applications today. This fissure is as much as 70' deep and was cleared to the depth a 12 year old boy could reach in the 19th century. I believe it contained the well for the geyser 35' east of the N/ S centerline but don't know where the boy dug. I'd guess it was in the deepest part but the configuration apparently isn't recorded. There was probably some minor movement inside the pyramid during construction. It appears that a granite beam cracked above the king's chamber and the builders dabbed some plaster on the crack to observe its movement. There are other more minor such movements but they probably occured after construction, or at least, it can't be determined. Several intrusive tunnels have been dug with the most damage done to the north kings air shaft which someone tried to expand to get in. There's another tunnel toward the queens chamber south air shaft and one leading out of the "niche' in the queens chamber. Of course Vyse blasted a massive hole in the north side looking for another entrance and the entrance used today was cut by the Caliphate Al Mamuum in the 9th century. There is a void of missing stones on the NE corner about 2/ 3 of the way up which Pierre Houdin believes is evidence of internal ramps. There was reportedly an attempt to tear it down centuries ago which might account for it missing its top. It's rather indestructible considering what it's been through. Most of it has never been properly examined or forensically analyzed.

Yes. Even though there were different words for each thing the repetition across the language was extensive so they simply didn't need a large number of words. Then this small vocabulary largely survived the change in language intact. The new languages required a much larger vocabulary so thousands of new words were invented. The skill of the translators just astounds me. How they managed to get the gist of what was being said when they understood none of the intended meaning is rather remarkable. Of course I could, even now, be wrong about the meaning and until some theory is falsified there is a chance that some other process or even confirmation bias underlies the apparent meaning. What I find more amazing than their ability to translate is their ability to interpret this all in terms that are actually consistent with the words themselves. By this I mean that they've interpreted the meaning of "gods" and the like from the writing and these interpretations almost always are essentially correct in a left handed sort of way. For instance they describe the Mehet Weret Cow as the celestial cow that channels the waters that make the king!!! In reality the mehet weret is the structure that recieves and channels the waters that build the pyramid which is the king. They are essentially correct except that they believe it exists as a concept only rather than a 50,000 ton concretization of the "natural phenomenon of snatching things from the air" (khenti-irty) by means of two eyes. Of course some of the reason they got so close to the reality is that they already knew the understanding of Egyptians from centuries later and they and Egyptologists simply misunderstood the ancient language in the exact same way. The ancient Egyptians who lived after the language changed had some advantages in that they had more ancient writings consider. None of this exists today and the Pyramid Texts themselves were only found in the 1870's. Much of the way we understand the world and ourselves are still derived from the way the ancients invented it. Some of it is confused. We are so vastly different. As the language becomes better understood we'll see there are more commonalities than true differences and it's largely just the way we think that is different. Human concerns are really very much the same they've ever been. I believe we will become just a little more like them. The Pyramid Texts do have a sort of poetic aspect to them. But to the ancients rhyming was more about meaning than sounds. What e mistake for puns is largely just their attempt to shove four pounds of meaning in three pounds of words. I never said that no one lived in the desert or traveled across it. I said there was almost no trade between the Egyptians and the desert dwellers far to the west in the great pyramid building age. Of course there were routes traveled by donkeys and caravans and even Khufu traveled well into the western desert in search of "mefat". I said they did not use any boats to build a bridge in the desert. Indeed, it's most improbable that there were any bridges in the desert at all. This could all be said in fewer words but then you'd still believe that the Pyramid Texts saying a boat was needed by bridge girders in the desert made perfect sense. It makes no more sense than anything else the PT say. If you solve it by context and always assume it makes perfect sense then you'll end up with understanding this as using a counterweight to build the pyramid. Egyptologists refute all sorts of claims by reference to "cultural context". This is a fact. It's also a fact that no such context actually exists. It is a construct. I would suggest you study metaphysics. Linguistics may have "scientific" aspects to it but it is not a true science except by the broadest definition of the term. I do speak with these people but they can neither confirm nor deny this theory. If I'm right, aren't they going to need to rewrite any books about "historical linguistics" from before 2000 BC? Do you believe that everything that will ever be known is known today? Is all that's left us is to fill in some blanks and cross the T's?

Great question. The shape of the henu boat pretty much precluded any water splashing out. It was a long undulating tube that was at a 70 degree angle to the horizontal. It was normally filled several feet from the top so the only problem with water movement woul be to stop it from causing structural damage to the "boat". The sides, bottom, and lowest parts could be made quite strong quite easily. Only the top was very susceptible to damage. Baffles along the bottom would reduce forces to the top. I suspect these were very actively maintained by a small crew of men who would climb in and make repairs even as it was being lifted back to position. Most repairs were just to apply pitch and small patches to nurse them along until they were swapped out for a total rebuild every few weeks. These could be changed very quickly and they'd normally have a spare on hand. None of this last is really evidenced except that the "tie of isis" was a quick disconnect on the henu boat which was overseen by isis and is based largely on deduction. The boat itself appears to have been built of cypress framing and pine. The PT says little about the henu boat beyond how it appears from the side and the bottom and how it's loaded. It does suggest there was a means to dump water from the bottom but I believe this was used for emergency only. There are dozens of references to this device but they are from a perspective that imparts no information about its nature. Isis and nephthys are the phenomena of the two boats tied together and are referred to as the "harmonious phenomena (fem)". "Seker" is the water from the geyser once it enters into isis which gives rise to horus the stone (horus the younger). Of seker it was said that he towed the earth by means of balance. Seker then becomes the "wdn.t-offerring" when discharged onto the plowed earth. This is the whole point of the ancient language; perspective was everything. They never really said much but what they said was truth because the language was metaphysical in nature and the perspective always defined.

The counterweight was shaped like the exoskeleton of a grasshopper. It was built on a heavy sled and made of "short pieces of wood" inside of timber framing. There would have been some baffles on the sled side of the device but none on the the sides away from the sled since water movement would damage the framing. The variable thickness would help to isolate the water into compartments. The primary tool to keep the water from sloshing and causing damage was simply assuring the sled had a nice smooth drop and a smooth course along the side of the pyramid. Total weight of the equipment was kept as low as possible but with such heavy loads it wouldn't introduce a lot of inefficiency to increase structural on the counterweight. There is wording in the PT that strongly suggests that there was a bladder on the dndndr-boat that could be filled to reset the equipment after each lift. This is an artist's conception of the henu boat (counterweight) from many centuries later after the loss of the language made understanding impossible. You can see he's conflated aspects of both the henu boat and the dndndr boat. though on the front is a depiction of the courses (not steps) of the pyramid. The stones were said to fly like the fledglings of swallows by the builders; 1130a. When thou sayest, "statues", in respect to these stones, 1130b. which are like fledglings of swallows under the river-bank; Young swallows hug the contours of the ground and fly like they're being pulled through the air. The oryx on the front of the boat symbolizes the builoders boast that they can build with a bare minimum of water since this desert grazing animal can survive weeks on the dew and can smell rain from 50 miles away. The bull's head opposite is symbolic of the "Bull of Heaven". The stone in the boat is the ben ben which is also the deposit from the geyser which is being extended to heaven. The falcon is horus who is the "natural phenomenon of the Land of Rainbows". It's all built on a sled and there are ankhs standing in djeds below. The ankh is the geysers, the water source, and in a desert water is life and this is the meaning of the ankh as a glyph. It stands in the djed because the djed is the control device that directs the water to the upper eye of horus so they can build the pyramid. It would no doubt be quite impossible to figure out the ancient knowledge and science by extrapolation of the beliefs and superstitions which replaced them. There's just not only the change in language preventing it but the entirely different perspective. If you don't know what the henu boat is you could never figure it out. Of course, nothing survives from the great pyramid building age so this stops you in the other direction. There were probably only two ways to solve this and one was my way of solving the PT through context and the other would be to find physical evidence for geysers. The former required the internet and the latter would be difficult because most of the physical evidence is underneath great pyramids.

Perhaps I should ignore braking altogether because there are so many ways to accomplish it and it doesn't seem to appear in the PT except for a single clue; the dndndr-boat "flew up and alit" or "landed like a falcon". I believe this means that the force causing it to fly up was removed rather suddenly once its momentum was sufficient to assure it would land horizontally on top the pyramid at the unloading station. This unloading station was "between the two sceptres" or the two pulleys which changed rope direction on this side of th pyramid. Two pulleys were required to change the orientation (from "vertical" to horizontal) of the loaded sled. I have to believe for the main part they used a curved path for the counterweight to stop the movement. As the counterweight became more horizontal the system would slow and then the water would be emptied out the top before the system being reset. But there is evidence weighted buckets might have been used in G1 to operate a brake. There are air shafts at various levels at steep angles between about 72' and 200' and there was a standard weight and a hook found in one as well as longitudinal marking inside the shaft. There is also a more enigmatic linbe in the pT that might suggest these shafts were used even after the ends were enclosed by the pyramid. This is not to say that this might have been the sole purpose of all of these shafts. It is quite apparent that they served multiple purposes during construction and possibly even after construction. They are far too complex to have served any one function. Use as brakes would explain one of their more enigmatic features; identical E/ W placement. I doubt braking was much of a problem though once one of these heavy systems got moving it did have to be controlled enough to keep it from running away. The primary concerns were to be certain the load didn't stop short of the loading platform which could destroy a system or cause injuries and to not overshoot the unloading platform by too much. Everything required close communication and a very attentive "ferryman". Loads were carefully estimated in advance by the "Weigher/ Reckoner" and the ferryman knew the size of the stones being loaded. He adjusted the flow of water into the counterweight through a funnel called the I33.t-sceptre through use of a weir known as a "ba-sceptre". After the last stone was loaded he recieved a signal allowing him to fill the counterweight until it fell. All of the jobs were very prestigious and this was one of the most sought after of them all. You simply sat in the shade sipping cool Perrier and lifted thousands of stones per day while dreaming up new and better ways to build ever larger pyramids. If you thought up enough improvements you were promoted to "anubis priest" or "prophet" or even higher. Of course a great deal of what I've done here is mere guesswork. But don't lose sight of the fact that at every single stage of deduction and logic I am tied to the actual physical evidence as disclosed by what the actual builders of the pyramids said. If I get too far away from the "reality" then physical evidence will steer me back. The key here is that the PT are not the superstitious gobbledty gook they are believed to be. They are not the "bible" of a highly superstitious people but rather they are just the rituals that were used at the numerous ceremonies that were held when they said goodbye to their king. The ancients would have known them as the "Rituals of Ascension". The king ascended to heaven in exactly the same way the stones literally ascended to heaven meaning many deductions are possible. Don't worry too much about people not listening to you because this is the nature of people and the nature of the language you use to get them to listen. Complex ideas require perseverance to communicate. Good luck.

I seem to be getting even further behind here. The PT suggests that the load and counterweight were kept in a sort of dynamic equilibrium by the time G1 was constructed. 1302a. To say: Back, thou lowing ox. 1302b. Thy head is in the hand of Horus; thy tail is in the hand of Isis; 1302c. the fingers of Atum are at thy horns. The ox is the head of the bull of heaven (dndndr-boat) which is at the will (effects) of the gods of the load, counterweight, and (source of) ballast. It also is at the mercy of min which tends to force it up when below the pavement and allow it to come down when above. The "ferryman" who loaded the counterweight was in close contact with the loading platform by means of signals and would not allow the counterweight to fall until the dndndr-boat was fully loaded. Once it began falling it would tend to accelerate since the weight of the rope was being removed from the load side and added to the counterweight side. There were various means to brake it but only one is (lightly) evidenced.

Sorry. I've just been dotting some t's and crossing some i's first. At this late date you'd think I wouldn't be afraid of looking like a fool. Soon. It appears that the stones were almost all pulled straight up the step sides of the five step pyramids. These step sides were filled in last and then finished starting from the top down. Large swaths of the lower reaches were filled in before the entire thing was done in order to have places to put all the tura stone (they simply installed them), but it was completed from the top down. The step sides would have been about 71 degrees so most of the weight of the stone depended on the rope. Their ropes were limited to about 100' in lenght because of the way they were constructed but they could weave them together to make almost any thickness. Ropes up to about 4" actually survive from the era. They used many materials to make these ropes but the most likely at Giza were halfagrass and the lighter ropes in evidence here are of this material. I believe that to lift the 20 ton loads they needed rope nearly 5 1/2" thick. They had a device to change rope direction known as a "dm-sceptre" and these were probably made in an on-site metal shop out of copper or bronze. Most bronze of the time (~2700 BC) was accidental but these were remelted in furnaces so they could have melted bronze rather than copper. Reheating furnaces of the era were limited to about 200 lbs so whatever the dm-sceptre was composed of probably had no metal parts larger than this. I believe this was a pulley and the largest part was well less than the limitation. The wheel had been in existence for over a millineum when construction began and the pulley is simpler in concept so should have been well within their capabilities. The "dm-sceptre" is represented by a staff in the form of a sine curve which can certainly be considered consistent. It appears they used slings (ropes with a loop on the end) and a device called the "tie of isis" to connect to the counterweight; the loop went through the top and wrapped around the arms. #71 above. They also used a kind of belaying loop to join stones together that we know as the "cartouche" and represented the king's ability to join the peoples. Stones were moved multiple times and relayed up the pyramid so quick connects and disconnects were critical. Across the top of the pyramid they appear to have used a chain composed of copper links shaped something like a paperclip. These links are heiroglyphs F46 through F50; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hieroglyphs/F With F50 being a keeper and the others variable lenghts to attain proper positioning of the dndndr-boat (ascender) (lifting sled). They needed to load these sleds very quickly so they invented a device that kept the lifting sled at the proper altitude for loading that worked similarly to the way a plate dispenser in a restaurant works. Each time a stone was loaded on it at the loading station it would sink about the width of the stone and another could be put on very quickly. This device was called the "min" and its invention is recorded on the Palermo Stone as "the birth of min". It used the huge hole on the east side of G1 filled with water to provide bouyancy for the sled. As the sled sank it dispaced more water and allowed a stable level for loading. This also served to reduce wear and tear on the equipment. More pictures of the "whidden hole" (min) here; http://www.gizapower.com/Articles/door.html They could inspect ropes and equipment for damage on a regular basis to prevent breakdowns. They used redundant systems so even the worst breakdowns would have limited impact on "production". Every tenth day was a "down day" used for maintenance. This way every day could be a good day of running on the mountain; 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. Set (standing water from the geyser) is problematical; osiris (water in the geyser) is the solution. By the by; The min is simply enormous because it had to contain over 20 tons of water to compare to the weight of the dndndr-boat so it is visible in most satellite pictures; http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=29.979105&lon=31.135509&z=19&m=bs Note the vertical line in the pyramid pointed straight at it. I think I might be proud to say that no brain cells and no intellence at all were used in the composition of this post. It is all well travelled ground. I could be clever (probably), but thank God, it wasn't necessary.

So far as can be shown the word "ramp" was never used during the great pyramid building age. It does not survive inscribed on stone, inked on papyrus, painted on tombs, recopied from older material in the 18th century BC, Inscribed in ceramic, or in any venue at all of any type. Whether or not a usage in the PT counts is open to discussion. If the term were used in a format like "Thot raises the king to heaven from a ramp" then I would be inclined to say this counts. Even though the PT date to centuries AFTER the great pyramid building age any usage consistent with the concept of lifting something by means of a ramp, I would say does count. It would count because this is the modern understanding of how things were raised in ancient Egypt. It would count because most of the PT was very ancient before our version exists so odds would be very good that the great pyramid builders also thought of lifting things on ramps was a commonplace occurance. But if the word "ramp" is used by one translator or another to refer to something else then, no, I don't believe it would count. Ironically this was the very first word I searched in the PT back in '07 and it actually appears once in Mercer's translation; 1717a. A ramp is trodden for thee to the Dȝ.t to the place where Śȝḥ is. 1717b. The ox of heaven seizes thine arm; In '07 I simply dismissed this as a "walkway" for imaginary beings. Now I believe it might actually kind of count but it is not in reference to men dragging a stone up a ramp. This concept is a modern one. People don't realize how little writing actually survives from the great pyramid building age. Most of what survives is titles and one word sentences. Everything is translated to fit the beliefs of later people because it would otherwise be incomprehensible. Egyptologists recognize that the wording is different in the more ancient language and they say they can only "circumscribe" the meaning but anyone looking for words of science or clues to how they worked or believed will be disappointed by the translations if these translations are actually perfect. They do not make any sense in any language and the word "ramp" is unattested from the great pyramid building age.

There is extensive evidence for most of this but mostly it exists in the words of the builders. There is the physical evidence already provided. There is some more physical evidence (supportive physical evidence) not yet mentioned but implied by the builders. Let me get back to it. This is the sort of stuff I prefer to talk about rather than words and beliefs. All the facts simply support a different way to view all the evidence. All the facts suggest our ancestors were primitive scientists rather than superstious bumpkins.

I simply tried to answer the question as comprehensively as possible. How was I supposed to descibe walkways at Giza from the great pyramid building age that Egyptologists call "ramps"? I couldn't ignore their existence and still be honest nor could I then ignore the existence of actual construction ramps at sites that were not great pyramids. You asked the question and I answered as accurately and comprehensively as I could. If I simply said "yes, there were ramps" then we're right back to having to debunk ramps all over again. I'm not new at this. People have their brains wrapped around ramps and can't seem to untangle. "They mustta used ramps" has been said countless millions of times. They would have had at least three words for "ramp" and, most probably, four. None of these is actually attested. One would be scientific and would be descriptive, one would be colloquial, and one vulgar. The scientific term was, no doubt, represented by a 30 degree triangle that looks like a ramp and probably derived from the words "surface changing vertically" and later became the heiroglyph for the word "ramp". But this is guesswork. My guesswork and I don't know that it is true. This is simply the pattern of the language and there's no reason it should deviate for the concept of ramp. Perhaps they used separate words for a ramp used for dragging and one used as a walkway or even had words for ramps that go down and those that go up. Who knows? All that is known is that the word "ramp" is unattested from the great pyramid building age. It is unattested apparently because it wasn't a very important word and because most all words from this time are unattested. No books survive. There is no cultural context except what's in the mind of Egyptologists. Egyptologists take ideas from later times and extrapolate them to include the great pyramid builders because they believe nothing ever changed. Something did change and all of their extrapolations are illegitimate and anachronistic. Their beliefs are non sequitur and founded on assumption. The word "ramp" isn't attested. My beliefs about the word are merely beliefs just as Egyptological beliefs about the word are merely beliefs. Beliefs don't mean anything and you can't build a theory or a pyramid out of beliefs. Egyptology has nothing but beliefs and I have all the evidence and the ability of the theoiry to make accurate predictions. This suggests my beliefs just might carry a lot more weight than Egyptological beliefs. God knows no ramp ever carried any weight.