cladking

Thank you for the response. I provide fact after fact to support my contentions and usually support them logically and explain how they "tie together" into an interpretation. I can expand on any of it and have in many cases. But somehow people think that just repeating orthodox beliefs and how they came to believe it is a counterargument. It often seems like people are thinking they can refer me to the dictionary so I can put their argument together for them. ...Or are making the argument; many Egyptian words exist on the Rosetta Stone > Egyptologists understand the Rosetta Stone > there can be no error in our belief the ancient language is understandable despite the fact it's believed to be incantation. There's a great deal of illogic in the interpretation of the data and in our estimation of the ancients. These non-sequiturs are inconsistent with nature and the physical evidence. I'm not sure which question you consider inadequately addressed. There is a huge amount of data that supports my theory and I often say it ALL does but, of course, this isn't strictly true because what the king had for breakfast is normally irrelevant to how the pyramid was built. But my theory is certainly able to include far more of the physical evidence than orthodoxy which can't even fond the word ramp anywhere. Historical accounts say that the stones moved to the pyramid 300' at a time after a priest attached a piece of paper to them. This is inconsistent with ramps. Indeed, there are no historical accounts until more recent times that involve ramps. Herodotus' description almost precisely matches the usage of counterweights. (they were shaped like the dorsal carapace of a grasshopper and composed of "short pieces of wood".) They were built in "battlements" (steps) and the lifting devices could be moved between them. The evidence they were built in steps is pervasive in the physical evidence and historical accounts. The builders referred to “battlements” in the Pyramid Texts and historical accounts say they were built in “mounds”. Herodotus says machines were moved from one step to another. The culture has no word for "ramps" as applied to lifting objects. There is no such record for the use of this term. While they, no doubt, physically used ramps to lift objects the lack of the word is glaring omission. There is no "god of ramps" and not a single drawing of a ramp from the great pyramid building age. The word "ramp" simply isn't even attested until centuries after the great pyramids were all built. Far more importantly is there is no overseer of ramp builders, ramp architects, or ramp dismantlers buried anywhere in Egypt. There are no overseers of basket makers, no overseers of harness makers or salve makers. There is not even a single stone dragger or his overseer in evidence. The pyramid town had equal numbers of men and women and was a tiny fraction of the size that would be required to drag stones and build ramps. The town is hardly large enough to supply such a large army with water and supplies far less do all the work themselves. It is little larger than a couple soccer fields. Indeed the builders' town was a mere 600' by 900'. By today's standards this would accommodate only about 1000 people in an office building. People need far more space where they live. Only about 40% of the population was men so there wouldn't even be nearly enough labor to supply food and water to the thousands necessary to build ramps and drag stones up them. You say ancient people didn't mind being cramped up. Modern sanitation and processes are more efficient than they were in 2750 BC but let's say they were willing to be jammed in cheek to jewel. This only increases occupancy to about 3500 men which is still grossly insufficient. With so many people in close contact disease would spread like wildfire. Since there were storage and production facilities in the town as well it's highly improbable that there were numbers even approaching these levels. Logic says that on a gargantuan project that a highly efficient means must be used. Ramps not only are hugely inefficient due to the high friction and high cost of building and dismantling ramps but also because the weight of the team dragging stones to the pyramid top is simply wasted as they walk back down on already constricted and overused ramps. Getting the manpower necessary to build this requires massive ramps because 55 HP being done by men at extraordinarily low efficiency requires vast numbers of men. They couldn't even see the pyramid to build it under the amount of ramping that would be needed to project so much power. Logic says it would be far easier to just drag stones up the side from the top. Friction is reduced to almost nothing since the route of the stones can be greased. The men don't have to lift their own weight and can pull much more effectively from a level surface. The concept that they must have used ramps is absurd when there are numerous better evidenced and easier means. Maintaining this level of efficient power with muscles alone would require massive ramps and a means for the workers to get back down. Then there is the impossibility of cladding the structure with any possibly evidenced ramping system. Anything that required cladding stones as they went would leave nothing for ramps to adhere to and any other means would require the ramps to be rebuilt to apply the cladding. Then comes the physical evidence which just puts a nail into the heart of the ramp ideas. Perhaps most glaringly is the utter lack of any evidence whatsoever for ramps on the pyramid. This wouldn’t be such a glaring void if not for the existence of numerous vertical lines visible in the pyramids. These lines tend to appear in pairs with one on opposite sides. This is consistent with counterweight operations where one line marks the counterweight and the opposite the route of the stones. It is most highly inconsistent with any ramping ideas. Simply stated ramps wouldn’t leave such lines no matter how they were configured except for ones that can be ruled out by logic such as integral ramps. The grooves on the Great Pyramid are also these routes of the stones that the builders called the “ladders of the Gods”. 　 　 Simply stated you can see the routes of the stones right up the middles and in two places above the boat museum. You can also see that these pyramids are five step (battlement) pyramids on some pictures but especially in the gravimetric scan half way down the page here; H. D. Bui I have a truly beautiful depiction of these five steps drawn on the scan but can't get permission to use it. But this is still conclusive proof that it's a five step pyramid which is more than adequate to debunk ramps. They would not have used steps unless it was necessary and the only reason steps might be necessary is that they could lift the stones only 81' 3" at a time. Each of the great pyramids were five step pyramids. There is simply no reason to build these as step pyramids unless the height of each step defined the height they were able to lift stones. In order to lift stones to the top they must have needed to be relayed the greatest distance they could lift. Of course this could be as simple as the length of the ropes by which they lifted them up the side. No matter the actual reason it simply isn’t consistent with ramps. It is highly consistent with counterweights and using water for ballast since the geyser sprayed 80’ and this is the height of the steps. It might be consistent with locks that lifted 81' 3" at a time or any water or ballast lifting system limited by natural laws or infrastructure/ materiel concerns. It is not consistent with ramps. Ramps can’t explain the various infrastructure all around and within the pyramid. They are inconsistent with the history, culture, logic, physical evidence, and the evidence left by the actual on-site builders. Ramps are not consistent with the fact that the great pyramids get progressively larger. Each of the great pyramid grows substantially with G1 having required 45 times as much lifting as Djoser’s Pyramid (the first great pyramid). There is no property of ramps that can be tweaked and improved upon until their efficiency increases 45 fold. To state it another way; it is apparent that whatever means used could be improved upon and this is not consistent with ramps. Perhaps the greatest inconsistency is the cultural evidence right on site. In the pyramid builders cemetery is the “Overseer of the Boats of Neith”. This would be the loader on the south side in all probability but it could have nothing to do with ramps. There are canal overseers, overseers of metal shops, director of draftsmen, inspector of craftsmen, controller of a boat crew, controller of the side of the pyramid, inspector of metal workers and a host of other jobs that reflect a sophisticated and intelligent culture. Most tellingly is that there is a “Weigher/ Reckoner”. This job would be critical on a device that was said to be sensitive enough to tell the difference in weight of a “heavy heart” from a feather. They found a standard weight in the queens “air siphon” and a hook. In point of fact there simply isn’t anything consistent with ramps. While the evidence isn’t deep it is very broad that stones were lifted from above making the vertical lines on the great pyramids and are simply sufficient to say ramps are debunked. While ramps are debunked what we do have is evidence that water was used everywhere. The great pyramid are built right on top of water collection devices and surrounded by a cofferdam. There's one pretty obvious lock lying along the route which the western cliff face counterweight appears to have dragged stones. There is water erosion in canals leading away from the pyramid base. We need to do the science to determine the exact means by which the water was used to build. Of course you can reinterpret every single point in this and claim that ramps were used but people not beholden to orthodoxy seem to consider this case virtually air tight. There simply is no evidence that ramps were used to lift stones on the great pyramids which is concurrent wirth the era in which they were built. They did not use ramps and the belief that ramps are the only thing they could have used is not evidence and it is insulting to the builders and to those who use logic. The question even more than how the pyramids were built is why won't Egyptologists allow real scientists to get in and gather the data that would answer the question.

I do not claim to be an expert in anything other than the literal meaning of the PT and how that meaning relates to the evidence. Egyptologists have extensive expertise in a range of different things related to the great pyramid builders. I believe all of their expertise is irrelevant to the points I make. The specific pot types made in 2400 BC simply don't matter to my arguments. The labels and other extensive knowledge of things unrelated to pyramid building and what the people believed is relevant to many things but is not relevant to pyramid building. Most people are highly misled by Egyptologists. Egyptologists continually intimate that they have a mountain of evidence for their conjectures but this simply is not true. Just keep remembering that the ord "ramp" isn't even attested from the great pyramid building age and there is absolutely no direct evidence of any sort that the great pyramids were built as tombs. They believe the presense of "sarcophagi" and the absense of grave goods prove they were tombs but the former are just stone boxes (for which they refuse to do forensic examination) and the absense of evidence can't prove that evidence once existed. This is the point; there is no record before 2000 BC. There is no original fixed point because the first comprehensible writing doesn't appear until later Perhaps it would be a learning experience for me if you attacked the evidence or logic. A negative rep is just a new kind of irrelevancy to the argument. If something is "unscientific" then why not say in what way it's unscientific? No! Obviously the words can be read. I said the origin of the simplest symbols is unknown. The Rosetta Stone is irrelevant because the language was well known before any extensive writing from the great pyramid building age was discovered. People don't care about the evidence. Petrie HimSelf said that there were water eroded canals leading away from G1; This information was so surprising to him that he hid it in a 92 word sentence. But new researchers outside of Egyptology are finding evidence for water everywhere when they look at the great pyramids. I fear we just lost a very important one today to an early death. Apparently Chris Jordan has died. His primary interest started with the Cambodian artefacts and usage of solar power but like many others he found that this knowledge was widespread and applied to other places such as Egypt just as I've found weirs on top of the Acapana Pyramid in the new world and a water collection device at Machu Pichu. This is a simple concept that water was of critical importance to ancient people and the sun was available nearly everywhere. RIP, friend.

There are many types of optical illusions dependent on how you define the term. The only thing that applies to all of them is they fool the eye of at least some observers some of the time.

I should have said that there's no question to reasonable people. 397a. N. is the bull of heaven, who (once) suffered want and decided (lit. gave in his heart) to live on the being of every god, 397b. who ate their entrails (?) when it came (to pass) that their belly was full of magic 397c. from the Isle of Flame. 398a. N. is equipped, he who has incorporated his spirits. Translators by definition are people who try to put the sense of one language into another. This translator believes the author of this passage believes that a dead king lives on the essence of non-existent beings by eating their magic laden entrails. What part of the translator's belief doesn't include a superstitious person? Sorry, but no matter how you parse egyptological belief it can still be summed up as people used to believe in magic and gods but we're all better now, Now we use science to analyze ancient superstitions because we know so many things given to us by science. We may not know what a cartouche or even an ankh is but we have science so some day we will. They are wrong across the board and if they did just a little bit of simple science they would know they are wrong too. They continually make claims that lack evidential support and no one seems to mind in the least because everyone seems to know ancient people were highly superstitious, squished their toes in corpse drippings, and could only have built tombs by dragging them up ramps. When you know the answers evidence and logic are irrelevant.

It is apparent the cartouche is used to identify kings. I just happen to know that there are other theories that dispute even this but I do agree at this time the symbol identifies a king. The question is why did they use this symbol and how did it originate. The symbol means "unite" as a glyph so the king is a "uniter". You're in good company but there isn't a lot of evidence aliens did it. There's a famous guy with funny hair that seems to believe not saying aliens did it supports the idea that aliens did it. I don't watch the show but I heartell.

The fact that "falsework" is missing is mere interpretation and assumption. I believe almost all of this falsework is still there right before our eyes but Egyptologists believe it all had religious functions rather than construction functions. The causeway supported funiculared used to off load cargo. The huge bifurcated hole just east of G1 was an hydraulic leveling device called the "min". The "sacred pyramid enclosure" was the water catchment device. The "mortuary temple" was the "Great Saw Palace". It goes on and on but the infrastructure to build sits right before our eyes and there were no superstitious bumpkins. It's impossible to build a pyramid with superstition and magic. What we believe is evidence of superstition is actually a science that became too complex for words; literally. What we believe are religious artefacts are the means the ancient science devised to build. In the future this will be obvious to everyone. But it will require study, proof, and a new perspective.

There are four basic and erroneous assumptions made by Egyptologists as it concerns the great pyramid builders; that they were stinky footed bumpkins who dragged tombs up ramps and never chnged. There are numerous other assumptions as well but so far as I know they are either correct nor irrelevant to this discussion. That these assumptions exist is beyond question. They translate the entire culture as being about magic and gods. This is superstition by defintion. Egyptologists don't use the words "superstitious bumpkins" but it doesn't change the fact that they are being described mgic believing gods fearing misanthropes whose only known means to lift a tomb is dragging it up ramp. Here is the most dramatic example of calling them stinky footed bumpkins; 722c. Thy foot shall not pass over, thy step shall not stride through, 722d. thou shalt not tread upon the (corpse)-secretion of Osiris. p. 140 723a. Thou shalt tiptoe heaven like Śȝḥ (the toe-star); thy soul shall be pointed like Sothis (the pointed-star). Here they interpret this passage to tell a "god" not to walk through corpse drippings unless he tiptoes through it! This is in effect the Egyptological belief about these people. Elsewhere it says the corpse dripping drippings smell good. Rather thn question their beliefs about the meaning of these seemingly enigmatic words that just try to wrap their heads around a belief that these were noble people whose gods squished their toes in rotten meat. If the Egyptological interpretations are correct then these people were exceedingly superstitious. Their superstitions were so complex that 150 years of intensive study by Egyptologists has failed to even idenify any specific superstitions. Every concept as Egyptologists understand them is contradicted by the same people who wrote the words that mention any superstition. No one has a problem with this so it seems apparent they must not understand my words. These concepts must lie outside of peoples' comprehension. I have tried the tactic of showing pictures before but this will be the first time on a science site. Egyptologists have to believe in the changlessness of the great pyramid builders because nothing of the culture is comprehensible except thin slices of data that positively says ramps couldn't have been used. From these thin slices that contradict their beliefs and extrensive incomprehensible gobbledty gook (the PT) they have concluded that the pyramids were tombs. Nevermind that the PT specifically state the pyramids were not tombs and tht the kings were cremated. Later Egyptians had perfectly comprehensible beliefs which were superstitious so later beliefs are projected back onto the builders. This is done in myriad ways but the most common is to simply assign the same word meanings to ancient writing that were used in much later times. If Rennenutet was an imaginary conscious entity who controlled the ability of people to breath and recover from illness in 1500 BC then "she" must be the same "renennutet" who existed in the PT even though there is no reason of any sort to believe this. Common concepts fropm later eras are always contradicted somewhere in the PT and no one sees that the PT does have a coherent meaning. Much of this is beside the point that Egyptologists are describing people who believed magic actually worked and imaginary forces and consciousness were effective in the real world!!! ...That reality was bent by the will of many gods and all manner of magic so complex that 27 different magic wands were needed and we canb't deduce the function or origin of any of them!!!!!!!!! Ancient people are being described as sun addled bumpkins and you can use any terminology you wish but this is the fact. They had no science and used trial and error in a framework of magic and superstition. This is illogical but people speaking modern lnguage can't see it from our perspective. The word "ramp" simply isn't attested fro m the great pyramid building age because the word was so inconsequential it was never written down anywhere that it survived. This is the simple fact. The fact that later Egyptians are known to have the word is irrelevant to this argument. No, it didn't. It's not that there aren't facts that can't be construed as evidence for ramps but the fact of the matter is there is no evidence that any stone was ever lifted on any great pyramid using ramps. You can't find evidence to contradict this because there is none. If you read the articles suggesting ramps carefully they always say that the builders must have used ramps. They always say that the configuration is unknown and sometimes admit ramps are insufficient to the evidence but the evidence for ramps is that these Godless pagans with no science and nothing but a king who was god had no other means than to use ramps. This is DISPROVEN. They had other means and these are in evidence at "every" great pyramid. ALL of the evidence points to water as the means to build. Just ignore the evidence provided and list irrelevancies. Why no comment on the pictures that show how it was built? This is extensive evidence and data and you simply choose not to see it and maintain "it mustta been ramps". This is the literal meaning of your word here and the implications. There is even better evidence that they used water but here you are stuck on "they mustta used ramps". This means you can't possibly see anything that doesn't involve ramps. If you look at this picture you can see the excavation done on the west and north side of G2.

There's a big difference between translators being able to "circumscribe" the meaning of the language and understanding it. I couldn't understand it if they hadn't already done all the work. There's a big difference between reading the heiroglyphs and knowing what the symbols mean. For instance I've identified the origin and meaning of several heiroglyphs based on knowledge of what the builders actually meant. Some of these it's surprising that Egyptologists didn't deduce them since there was ample evidence even without understanding. For instance the "cartouche" in which the king's name was written originated with a device that was used to attach stones together which was a type of belaying loop. But their ignorance hardly stops with many of the "letters" of the language but extends to every single one of the 27 different sceptres that exist in the literature (mostly Pyramid Texts). I can identify the origin and function of most of them and they know neither the origin nor function of all of them. This situation exists because they don't understand the ancient language. They circumscribe the meaning but don't recognize that it is formatted differently so everything lies outside of their experience. The ancient language breaks down if you try to analyze it because it is a metaphysical language. I'd best get back to facts and pictures since any discussion of the PT lies outside everyone's experience. For the reasons mentioned!!! The "ramps" point at the bottom of the pyramid. Also because they removed "ramps" (natural ground) even before construction began. I can't post a picture of it right now but the entire north and west sides of the second pyramid at Giza was extensively excavated far below bedrock even before the first stone went in. This was necessary because water had to be able to flow all around the pyramid before they could lift the first stone. That water flowed around it is established throughout the physical record but let's save this.

This may appear to many to be an irrelevancy but it isn't. You are suggesting that logic implies that the means to build things can disappear virtually overnight. It is a very valid point however it may not be at all relevant to great pyramid building. I have addressed this issue and the logic related to it and the evidence extensively and will be happy to go through it again here. This is one of the concepts I turn against those who cite irrelevancies as argument; the lack of ramp evidence proves they used ramps just as lack of evidence for tombs proves they were tombs. For right now let me just say that bridges built with modern materials and engineering and great pyramids built with stone and ancient materials are fundamentally different in nature. Of course the techniques used to build a bridge are likely to not be apparent after completion. But how do ancient people lift 6 1/2 million tons of stone some 160' and leave no evidence. Indeed, the only thing which appears it might be evidence is "ramps" leading to the base of the pyramids. If this is actually evidence then logically they must have had a different means to get stones up onto the pyramid or the "ramps" wouldn't lead to the base but to some point above the base. I'd be happy to discuss this further of course. The subject will come back because it appears a few times in the debunkment of ramps. This is one of the primary reasons 19th century scientists leaped to the wrong conclusions.

It might not seem possible but how they built the pyramid isn't even about simple facts, logic, and the evidence of our own eyes because all the facts, all the evidence, and even what we see that applies to the reality that is the pyramids lies outside of our experience. All of our "connected knowledge", our language, and the perspective of several centuries of science says that ancient people were sun addled bumpkins who were so incapable and powerless they required magic and religion to band together and drag stones up ramps. This is all confusion born of a confused language and the perspective forced on people who use this language for thought. There is a mantra among Egyptologists that goes "they mustta used ramps"... ...well... ...while loomking at the pictures in this thread just keep repeating to yourself one simple irrevokable fact; "the word ramp isn't even attested from that time". These are bold claims stated in bold terms because the concepts suggested by these claims overturn most of the human thought that arose centuries ago and still persist. Humans are not what we think and reality is not directly percievable from our perspective. We see it through a kaleidoscope of language.

It's surprising people discount the philosophical construct of connected knowledge (visceral knowledge). It didn't even take two hours in the middle of the night for someone to quote wiki about how the pyramid was really built rather than addressing the physical evidence which lies outside of peoples' experience and knowledge. As I said I have a lot of experience arguing this and I know from this experience that people aren't so much looking at the evidence as they are looking at what they believe and what they already know/ It simply isn't seen that this is outside of their knowledge just like all of the physical, cultural, and historical evidence is outside of their knowledge. This may all seem snide to you but it is experience. Egyptology is science > science is always factual > Egyptology is factual. I'm left to argue with God. I debunked ramps. I have proven that ramps are not the only means the pyramids could have been built by identifying a much simpler and far more efficient way they could have been built. Indeed, I've identified several means that don't require men dragging stones up ramps. More importantly than these identifications of simpler or easier means is that these simpler and easier means are actually well evidenced rather than contingent on the 19th century concept that they "mustta used ramps". If this sounds snide it's only because experience tells me this evidence will not be addressed and I will be met with different irrelevancies and a refusal to look at the actual evidence. Wiki may be a wonderful tool and resource but it is just pop-science phrased in terms anyone can understand. It is not a virtual modern day Bible as most people seem to think. There is no one piece of evidence that proves that Egyptologists are wrong. More accurately, Egyptologists won't test or examine any piece of evidence that could only prove they are wrong and haven't even been willing to test evidence that would prove they are right since 1987. It would seem this is because they fear they are wrong. The conclusive proof that ramps aren't the only means to build is a well eidenced means to build that uses simpler technology than unevidenced and contradicted ramps. This other means is right in front of our eyes but we can't see it; It appears all of the great pyramids were built as step pyramids. This is very "obviously" because it was far easier to stand on top of the pyramid and drag stones straight up the side than it was to build ramps and drag entire teams (and their living quarters) up them. Look at the picture here but remember the copyright holder of the picture misinterprets it so it might be best not to even confuse the issue with his misunderstanding. This thread is about the evidence of your own eyes and not about anyone's interpretation anyway. I can go on endlessly citing facts and presenting pictures and all Egyptologists can do is speculate about what shape the escheresque ramps mustta taken. http://hdbui.blogspot.com/ I'd be happy to discuss this evidence and how it shows it's a five step pyramid and the logic that says they had to build steps because they needed a spot from which to work and the step tops provided this spot. In the meantime let's just agree that it is disproven that they had to use ramps. This concept that they had to use ramps is really the only "evidence" that they did use ramps so the ramp "theory" has been dealt a fatal blow. Additionally I can debunk the contention that ramps were used based on the physical evidence and logic. The physical evidence simply excludes ramps. Logic excludes ramps. No pyramid builder "believed" ramps were used to build great pyramids. This belief exists only among Egyptologists and those who believe modern perspectives.

I watched the video and didn't know what to expect to see since they didn't state the rules (two teams, two balls, no mixing). While still trying to determine the pattern (rules) I lost count and saw the gorilla immediately mistaking it as the distraction. I thought the gorilla was a distraction to hide something more fundamental. I then had to watch it twice to see him stop and gorilla it up in mid movie. We each see our own movie but reality is far harder to apprehend than what we see or think we see. We not only see what we expect but we see what we attend to and it must be within our experience, knowledge, and expectations. "Optical illusions" are simply things outside our expectations. With enough experience most can be overcome in most observations. As a rule I believe animals are not so prone to such things because many of them arise from knowledge and language. Animals are more dependent on all of their senses rather than vision alone. Animals attend to things that are important to them just as we do and getting them to count ball passes would prove difficult. We look at the world and see our experience and knowledge and much of this is an artefact of language and is the perspective of language. Perhaps you could say that "animal instinct" is action predicted by the lack of this knowledge and perspective but I prefer not to think of it in these terms because it will complicate other knowledge. Evidence is always required but people need to remember that "evidence" is very much a product of experience and, in the hard sciences, experiment. Without understanding the reality there can be wide interpretations of "evidence". The soft sciences have made strides in modern times to explain human behavior and observations but the fact is most of the terms aren't even well defined yet. There are no experiments per se and terms are poorly defined. What evidence can exist at all that points to only a single conclusion is this enviroment?

No... ..."scientific observation" is complex. This is why it should be taught from a young age. Perhaps you should consider asking questions about specific sentences if you don't understand. If you won't address the evidence then ask what the evidence is. Why keep on with irrelevancies and semantics? Perhaps you can start addressing some points in this thread; http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85760-soft-science-and-evidence-of-your-own-eyes/ I prefer to talk about the evidence presented and evidence counter to what is presented rather than semantics and your estimation of what the evidence is. Usually at this point someone will tell me exactly how the ancients were able to use ramps while wholly ignoring the fact they are disproven and debunked. Rather than attact the debunkment or exploore the evidence they tell me about magic and how the king was a god. People can't see what they don't expect but I have a great deal of "connected knowledge" of exactly how the thread will go. I have experience and I know what people do when their cherished beliefs are denied. They get out their references and tell me what the reality is rather than talk about the evidence and this is what happens every time a "crackpot" theory arises. Evidence and logic no longer hold sway when we already know the truth. Scientific precepts are powerless in the face of belief. Communication breaks down when people can't see. Watch and see.

Somewhere along the line people came to believe the conjectures of archaeologists. Probably this was caused by the fact that everyone calls themselves a "scientist" and we all know that experiment can't be done in the historical contexts. Since experiment isn't possible then some won't even do simple testing. You might be surprised to learn that the concept ramps must have been used to build the Great Pyramid has been disproven and simpler more efficient means are in evidence. Indeed, the use of ramps at all for building great pyramids has been debunked. It appears they used water filled counterweights and funiculars on the causeways instead. There is extensive physical evidence and, I believe, there is extensive cultural and historical evidence to support it. So far in 150 years Egyptology has failed to identify any of the symbols of the ancient Egyptians from the simplest to the most complex. Almost no writing of any sort exists and they don't understand it. They have been scrambling for a couple years since ramps were debunked to try to reestablish the concept but so far the efforts are amusing at best. One of the ancient concepts was the ben ben stone which sat on the primeval mound. Despite the fact that not only the chemical composition of this can easily be deduced but I can point them to one that exists now. It exists and is growing in the Sphinx Temple below the Great Pyramid today; It's a little hard to see if you don't know what it is because that's the nature of the perspective imparted by language. http://www.egyptiandawn.info/chapter7.html

It wouldn't even be possible to agree on a definition of "communicate". People use words differently. In a sense you can't really teach anyone anything and can only lead them to learn. There is no harder thing for people to learn than to think for themselves. You saw my definition for "observation". Do you really want an explanation for how observation should be employed by individuals and for individuals working in groups? it gets far more complicated and my guess is you haven't even tried to digest "observation" yet. You might be surprised to learn some people like the way I write! There's no accounting for taste. The thing that's unusual is to find an individual who both likes the way I write and has an interest in what I write but such people do exist.

No. Everyone has his own unique definition for every word and no one seems to notice. They don't even notice when they start talking about two different subjects. Most people don't even notice that no word has a meaning at all until it's used in context and context can modify word meaning by implying various connotations as well as the listeners' estimation of the definitional characteristics. Language doesn't really work well for communication so it may as well work as smoothly as possible for thought. Usually it's not really so much "changing" a definition as it is selecting the most appropriate word and building a construct of it with a single definition. I guess I've always "thought like an Egyptian" and never knew it. Like all of reality, it is far more complex than a single word. "Observation" is the ability to see root causes using knowledge gained from language and gathered by your senses in the light of previous experience. If one tries to teach it most students will learn. This is a problem in this country; it's not being taught. You can't understand word meanings from context without making an attempt. My words are so alien because I don't think like you do. But reality, which is what we're all trying to study, exists outside of the way people think for 4000 years. The words you or I choose to describe reality are simply irrelevant to how nature works. Nature has hew own laws and we seek them and then we seek to share observations and experimental reults through language. I don't share your perspective and I am doing the best I know how to both use your perspective to communicate and to help you see my perspective. This is the nature of modern language. Dick: Okay then what happened tom what did you do after you fell in there (a vat of chocalate) Tom: I yelled fire [singing] Tom: I yelled fire when I fell into the chocolate, I yelled fire when I fell into the chocolate Dick: Tom why did you yell fire when you fell into the chocolate All: Laly do dum lally do dum day [talking] Tom: Well Dick: Now I want you to think about it, it must have been a very traumatic experience Tom: Oh its just a horrible experience I had chocolate all over me I was summing around Dick: What possessed you to yell fire when you in this vat of liquid, chocolate, there was no fire. you where in the chocolate and you yelled fire thats pretty ridicules if you ask me Tom: It certainly is [singing] Tom: I just yelled fire when I fell into the chocolate Dick: Tom why did you yell fire when you fell into the chocolate Tom: Why I yelled fire because no one would save me if I yelled CHOCOLATE!! http://www.lyricszoo.com/the-smothers-brothers/chocolate/ Reality exists outside of our experience. We try to decode reality through observation. When it is done methodically (metaphysically) through experiment and experimental results it is called (modern) science. We see these results through the experience of thought driven by langauage. Language provides a perspective from which we see what we know and can't see what we don't know.

I may be defining this term a little differently than you. To me "observation" is much more than looking and seeing. This is the meaning in essense and once a child learns about "parallax" a great deal of the subject matter is complete. But all of these terms "looking", seeing", "observing" etc have a great deal more involved than simply reading a thermometer correctly. Unless you know something about optical illusions, interference patterns, and a vast host of other phenomena that can affect observation then you might improperly gather data or see experimental results. "Observation" includes much more than merely the eyeball and even the eyeball isn't a point in space or two points in space but rather two spherical and integrated light gathering instruments that are part of a system for seeing. This system includes two distinct regions of the brain which process the information. What is seen from a moving eye is different than what's seen from a fixed one. What's seen from the front of the lens differs from what's seen from the side. Vision is just one of the senses and observation includes all the senses. Proper observation is a lifelong learning process that is easily not seen because most of it happens outside our consideration. I believe that to a very real extent even visual accuity is learned behavior. A hawk has better vision than a man and can see a mouse from a great altitude because of this visual acuity. But, I doubt that the hawk really sees the mouse at all in the sense we think of it. The hawk sees a distinct form about the size of a mouse doing what a mouse might do so it swoops in and finds it is usually a mouse. A hawk couldn't "see" even a much larger object from the same distance because he hasn't "trained" himself to see it. A person can train himself intentionally or inadvertantly to see things that others can't. It is an artefact of this connected knowledge. No, a man can't see better than a hawk but he can probably see a few specific things better than a hawk sometimes. Obviously critical thinking is of paramount importance to a scienist but this is the sort of thing that is difficult to teach. I think it goes lmost ithout saying that an attempt should be made to force all students in this direction and those who fail at it will naturally gravitate away from science. "Necessary observation" is really a scalar question to me. All easily performed observations that might produce results should be made. "Observation" is also a sort of habit and even looking will have observational overtones. Observation lies at the root of all science and at, before, and after every single step. Knowledge is tweaked based on observation. Knowldge is organized and terms defined based on observation. Of course, parts of this sound absurd to some people; imagine changing definitions to organize knowledge! People don't recognize that utterances are deconstructed by each individual anyway and language is also a tool for thought. Using a better definition can fascilitate thought. How are we to communicate if everyong has a different definition? This is exactly the question I keep asking and is the subject of the thread. We all do a good enough job of thinking in language but we don't seem to communicate because everyone has different beliefs, different definitions, and different perspectives and we never seem to notice. New ideas just get kicked back and forth with little or no understanding by all parties involved. This could be very good news. A lot depends on specifics. It could put the UK at the forefront of science in a generation or two. "Metaphysics" defines the nature of scientific knowledge. It defines the meaning. It has limited value in progress probably but without knowing what you know and how you know it you are much more likely to misapply it. I would consider this a subset of metaphysical implications and best addressed by economists. Of course there's no reason that it can't be included. Generalism should become a specialty in itself and general implications can head the subset.

For very many years, since long before any rediscovery I may or may not have made, I have strongly advocated for more teaching of metaphysics at younger ages and with far more emphasis all through school. I have long been a proponent of teaching proper scientific observation at very young ages. I believe much more history of science should be taught from middle school on. Perhaps "metaphysical implications" should be added as a final step in the scientific process. Perhaps it should include phrasing of the experimental results in terms most people can understand it and in terms a child might understand it. This is not to turn people into scientific droids but rather to allow them to understand the nature of science and knowledge. We live in a highly techological world and most people misunderstand the nature of technology and science. It's to help everybody to integrate their knowledge which might allow them to better see outside their own narrow specialties. The trash collector will more easily see what the purpose and means of garbage collecting is all about and this might make him a better trash collector.

I seriously doubt I've ever said that I know in my bones that confused language is impeding science. I remember specifically stating that I hadn't much thought about the impact of modern language on progress in experimental science. At that time I did note that it must surely affect it directly since scientists think anbd communicate in language. I also suggested that the impact on science would necessarily be less important than in other fields because science uses a scientific language for much of their commnication (and some thought) and that scientific language is less susceptible to miscommunication. Remember I also specifically stated that I believe the reason that fields like philosophy and applied science don't progress is that they have done a much less good job of developing their own language; they use modern language to a large extent.

I can't help but feel most of the difference of opinion here is more related to semantics than it is to epistemology. I don't think it really matters so much how you know what you know as it does how well you know it. You think I'm talking about people who know the moon is green cheese but I'm talking about knowing how to row a boat. I'm presuming the bones are part of a sane individual using logic, science, and facts as the basis of his perspective and undertanding. This is a very minor point to me anyway. It is not intended to demean scientific knowledge or those who have it. It is not intended as an insult to those who organize or use their faculties in such a way as to not understand the point. I am hardly the first to make this observation and it has been made by many people since even before 2000 BC and as recently as the 20th century. It should be noted that some scientists do agree with the concept. It is primarily a philosophical concept much more than a scientific one. I doubt those before me were attempting to be insulting either. It appears to be derived from thought about the nature of the interplay of thought and action in the individual. Perhaps if it were reworded it could ring more true but I don't intend to try. I'll try to avoid use of the phrase here and will instead use something like "connected knowledge" since this seems more acceptable.

I strongly believe that if the science were done at Giza I'd be proven at least mostly correct. I know in my bones what the result of a simple thread will be. I've done it many times before from every angle on a mutitude of sites. Frankly I wish people would question me more and the more expertise they have the better. I doubt there is anything important about how they built the Great Pyramid. What's important is why it's not being studied.

"Science" can't address this sort of question. Even the terms are not defined. After they are defined then someone would have to perform an experiment to find which is the more effective means to come up with new ideas; methodically or intuitively. Every researcher will use both of these methods on most problems being considered. Hypothesis formation tends to involve more intuition and analysis of experiment tends to involve a more methodical approach but each person is different and will strive for and reach solutions in his own way. Of course the rules of science and logic must be adhered to or he might end up on the spit of land. It may be centuries before this sort of question can even be defined scientifically. Of course the soft sciences are already making studies into it but the fact is some of the greatest scientists were (primarily) intuitive thinkers. There are many ways to skin a cat. There are infinite ways to view a cat. There is no "right" way to gain knowledge. Ideas are either reflective of reality and become established fact (knowledge) or they are not reflective of nature and will not become established. It is always the evidence and logic that make this determination whether in real science or in the softest sciences. Logically any theory that makes accurate predictions is almost positively correct in part. This is the nature of reality and nature. This is the reason ancient and modern sciences were invented to start with. People observed that patterns repeated. People saw that understanding the reasons for these cycles helped to be able to make predictions which improved peoples' lives. Modern science does the exact same thing in a different way. But the ultimate goal is still to understand nature; to make predictions that can make lives better or make money. In real ways hypothesis formation is a sort of prediction itself; one predicts that nature behaves in some way and an experiment can be designed to prove it. Untestable hypotheses are a dime a dozen until someone devises an experiment to test them. Some people are good at only specific parts of science and some at all parts of science. Each person is an individual and has his own way of working and thinking and the only thing we share is modern language. We share the fruits of language. We share the perspective of modern language. We think we think ourselves into existence because this is how it seems from our perspective. We think we are intelligent and we always understand other people and their concepts. Much of the problem is the extensive specialization now days. Even waste collectors specialize in trash or garbage. Each of us sees an increasingly narrow segment of nature making it harder to see anything that doesn't lie entirely within their narrow segment. This is exactly why things are so inefficient and waste is rampant.

I believe our difference in this case is mostly just perspective rather than real. Obviously a scientist has to be dispassionate about his knowledge and I suspect you're referring largely to this. Having a vested interest in something is different than having experience with it as I'm understanding the terms. There's also a difference between the way individuals work and think and I suspect this is our primary difference in this particular instance, and perhaps, suggests our differences in general are caused by a fundamental difference. Specifically some scientists do maintain a very dispassionate and mostly intellectual relationship with their knowledge. These are the "smart" scientists who crunch numbers, and methodically explore a phenomenon to find answers or help find hypothesis. They are usually very adept at strings of logic and can do things like operate modern equipment or do a little computer programming. I strongly suspect based on your statement that this applys to you. But there are types of scientists who are intuitive and try to skip the work and go straight to the answers. To these latter people experience in much more beneficial. "Consolidated" is a very apt word for what I'm talking about. How an idea arises or what process leads to it is far less important than whether it is right or not. Some methodology works best for various aspects of science. Whether knowledge is consolidated or not in an individual will be less important to some than others. But even the most methodical thinkers have probably consolidated the logic and techniques they apply to their work.

I don't understand. I think I could understand with more detail. I'm not quite as confident I could agree. If I get a little time later I'll try to find one of your threads. There are many ways to gain knowledge. One can extrapolate existing knowledge to know that pushing a wooden paddle backward through water would propel a floating object (like a boat) forward. One might already be aware of the existence of boats and oars and know how to operate them in "theory". If one has a sufficuiently solid understanding of the factors and how his body and muscles react to the kind of work required he might be able to jump in a boat and take off like an old salt. But far more likely people will need to experiment a little and try different things to steer and propel the boat for maximum distance and efficiency without getting too far from land or finding himself up the creek without a paddle. This experience is visceral knowledge. The greater the experience the better the rower is capable of predicting the needs of the job. The greater the experience the greater his ability to accurately predict things like duration and best routes. The better he can correlate the knowledge of rowing with the knowledge of other things such as how close he can get to the waterfall without risking going over. Knowledge is great. There i no knowledge that isn't great. But when it comes to one's ability to utilize, extrapolate, interpolate, and see interconnections between various aspects of knowledge, it is most easily done with things that are more integral to the knower. Some scientists can have visceral knowledge of complex ideas because he might see something like light bending around a star and know what he's looking at. Visceral knowledge is in most real ways simply experiential knowledge. But knowledge is knowledge and there are an infinbite number of ways to acquire knowledge. A bird might learn each time it pecks the blue light it gets food from a researcher and this is knowledge; it is visceral knowledge. An artist might discover each time he fails to wipe the paint off one side of the brush it will drip and make a mess. You can teach a 10 year old that four times eight is thirty two but until he understands the concepts of division and addition this type of knowledge is not visceral. Until he understands that this is just a number like 2 ^ 5 or 33 less one it's just rote memorization and his ability to apply the knowledge appropriately is limited. It's still true and it's still knowledge but it might never be useful except to get a question right on the quiz. A great deal of knowledge is certainly generated by the formal system of science. Science underlies moodern infrastructure and systems. Most of the ideas that invented these systems and inventions came from individuals with visceral knowledge of the various aspects of the existing systems and state of the art. Most of the invention of experiment which led to these systems was made by scientists who had a visceral knowledge of the paramters of the hypothesis and the capabilities of lab equipment, etc, etc. Any knowledge can be useful and can lead to ideas. But among those who think in modern language it is highly beneficial to have an experiential relationship with that knowledge in order to create something new; an idea. This may well have always been true but moreso now.

They are correlated with knowledge and especially the kind of knowledge we know forward and backward or visceral knowledge. It's what you know in your bones. I believe the change from a single metaphysical language to numerous modern languages occured about 2000 BC. Only a single language was affected by the change. There were dialects of this language but there were few words. These words often survived the collapse of the ancient language and are mistaken for distinct languages. The vocabulary was very little affected by the change, it's the way the words are put together to express meaning that changed.