cladking

Consciousness and will must be considered as axioms. The alternative for the human race is extinction. Consciousness and free will are also experienced and become visceral knowledge.

I don't agree with Mr Chomsky on several particulars but do tend to agree with his conclusion(s). It's great to see him looking so healthy especially since until recently I had thought he died back in the 1960's. I strongly disagree with your extrapolation of the point, or perhaps, primarily with the definitions. Yes, new ideas in "science" in most cases need to be brought to the attention of scientists. Even if the new idea changes the axioms or definitions they are best analyzed by scientists rather than people in chat rooms. But, much of what we call "science" now days has very little rlationship to empirical data or experimentation. It has little to do with the scientific method and is more a construct based on assumption as viewed (ideally) through a scientific perspective. Certainly almost all archaeology concerning times from before 2000 BC falls under these parameters. There is a virtual vacuum of evidence so things that are known from later times are projected back to fill the void. There are endless assumptions that since later people were superstitious than the more ancient ones were as well. This applies to a greater or lesser extent to ALL of the "soft" sciences. They are necessarily founded on beliefs and assumptions and if any of these are challenged then the current practitioners are not even capable of rendering an opinion. An expert simply can't competently render an opinion on an idea outside of his axioms and assumptions. Strange ideas are forever cropping up in these quasi-scientific areanas and can last almost indefinitely with much of the reason being that outsiders don't realize how much is based on opinion and assumption. Experts are no idiots and have reasons for what they believe and most can "talk a good game". They can cite endless books of endless opinion to support their own opinion but they are still opinions based on a construct. You can't even get a new idea in front of them for peer review because it will be tossed out as nonsense. If your mind is made up then new evidence and new ideas are simply confusing. In my case I've contacted numerous real scientists for opinions on various subjects by eMail and by posts in forums. All of them have been answered with the lone exception of a question on a seldom used message board. It was a highly esoteric question and was probably seen by fewer than a dozen people. No Egyptologist has ever responded to one of my eMails and few of my posts are answered unless the responder believes the answer is detrimental to my theory. Actually, I believe some of the most important things to human beings are really questions that must be addressed by the soft "sciences" and that message boards and the internet might be the ONLY way to get them considered. I believe we don't even understand the nature of humanity and that this is much of the confusion. It's why people think planes can't take off from a moving surface or things fall faster than 32' /s/s. I might also point out that a significant amount of the real scientific opinion that has been given to me has been utter rubbish. They frequently contain factual errors that a student would note. This is the real scientists mind you. I don't want to be specific because I greatly value scientists who answer eMail even when they make errors. Everyone's a specialist and if you ask a question that doesn't fall squarely within the specialty there will be errors oftimes. Even when they fall within the specialty if it's a seldom studied phenomenon or only indirectly related to their current work it might be misunderstood or unknown. Most people are so wrapped up in their own expertise (which can be considerable) that they just don't notice. I can only imagine how much worse it is in the "sortta sciences" (and they won't even respond).

I'm sure we all know people whose greatest insights are along the line of remembering to breathe or which way to turn the steering wheel to go left. But even these people can come up with a pearl on rare occasion. It seems almost everyone has at least some minor competence in some area. Correct. There is some correlation of people with high status, great wealth or "intelligence" with arrogance but this doesn't mean that any of these cause arrogance. A priest might be holier than thou and a pauper wealthier than his neighbors but arrogance is always an attitude and way of dealing with other people. It isn't ever justified. One can be rich and evil or powerful and even stupider than average. Arrogance is simply a personality defect that almost all individuals are nearly equally "justified" in adopting. Few people have difficulty grasping my meaning. There is a problem with all communication because everyone deconstructs what he hears. Each person always takes away a different meaning than the intended one. The primary problem people have with what I say is they don't take it literally. Few people express themselves literally especially among those who use a lot of tautologies and absolute statements. I never "dumb it down" but do use more complicated phraseology on a science site than a bar. I didn't mean to imply such a thing (I don't intend to imply anything most of the time). "Intelligence" is exceedingly complicated and is composed of hundreds or thousands of attributes which each are interconnected. How can there be more than one norm? Every human is an individual animal and none can be any more "chosen" than a beaver or a termite. Our circumstances vary but not our nature. A genius can plow into another car while an idiot can come up with some improvement on some machine. The rich can be wiped out and the powerful fall from grace. Even a fool can win the lottery. I seriously doubt I'm truly relevant in a thread about genius or arrogance. The confusion individually and collectively is mostly language.

Einstein was most assuredly not arrogant. There's very little in this thread with which I agree. People are really stupid (at least in comparison to the typical self assesssment). All people have moments of great clarity and insight. We all have the ability to learn a great number of facts and hold them though accessing them tends to be far more difficult. Some individuals can string together lots of moments of clarity and can do it very quickly much of the time but this doesn't change their nature, they merely are called "geniuses". What we mistake for intelligence is mostly the ease of language use and learning. It is language, the very basis of most thought, which confuses us into believing we are intelligent. It is technology, the result of language, which we use as confirmation of our intelligence. It is the lack of a language we can comprehend that lead us to believe animals not only aren't intelligent but aren't even conscious. Arrogance has nothing to do with intelligence, strenght, wealth or any human attribute but is based on the belief that the individual self is better or more important than others. It is the belief that an individual is more important than other others individually and collectively. It is the belief that our needs and concerns must be kowtowed to regardless of other peoples' needs. It is very rarely based on any legitimate measure but is a personality defect. It is never appropriate.

True, except this doesn't work in all individuals. It's not my contention that the consciousness we experience is distinct from the rest of the body but quite the contrary; the mind and consciousness is the entire body. the relationship of this consciousness to the other consciousnesses in the body and the neurons of which they are primarily composed is exceedingly complex because of the interplay between all these parts and consciousnesses. Just because we aren't aware of a ganglion doesn't mean it isn't a part of our consciousness or that it lacks its own. Where we aren't conscious of such things there might still be a two way flow of information through the medula which can allow the mirror trick to work.Perhaps it works only if the sufferer can belief he's seeing the missing limb. The ganglia might respond by shutting down pain signals. The nervous systems are quite complex and not well understood. It's possible too that there is some other trigger. Pain perception is very poorly understood.

It is impressive and I share your desire to see more. It's patently obvious people misunderstand consciousness. Here we are all sharing almost exactly the same premises as everyone else but we can't agree on much of anything. No one seems able to comprehend that there are multiple modes of consciousness possible for people or that we are a product of our time and place. The deep divisions in beliefs despite the sharing of premises seems natural to us just as genocide seems natural if all our friends and neighbors are doing it (or victims of it). I once had opportunity to try to learn to do the impossible. There was a ledge deep inside a wooden structure that was about 2/3rds the width of wider lenght of a nine volt battery. My objective was to toss a battery up onto this ledge so that it would stay. It required many dozens of attempts to merely determine the best theory for accomplishing the feat. it had to reverse its spin after the first collision and then hit the ledge nearly flat and bounce off the back wall to stick. Several thousand attempts resulted in a few near misses but no successes. "I" finally got it about the 4000th attempt. Each success came closer and closer until I actually got three out of four attempts to stay and lost interest. Most people attribute this to "muscle memory" but this is nonsense. My learning stopped when I figured out how to do it very early on. The fact is each successful attempt was not identical. My position and the initial position of the hand and arm varied somewhat. "Muscle memory" could not account for this apparently learned behavior. Just as an amputee who suffers the worst possible pain "in" his missing limb is not remembering old pain. It's far more likely that the ganglia in the human body are each conscious and each capable of learning. A dinosaur is believed to have had a brain in its tail as well and this is a similar situation. The medula simply screens out all these consciousnesses to prevent us from being overwhelmed with "trivia". Your leg is very self aware and is also aware of your thoughts. Primarily it only sees the thoughts related to plans that affect it. If you think "I'm hungry" your ganglia are very unlikely to be privy to it but when you think "I'll stand and walk to the food" they are listening and preparing. We think in words primarily but we also think in "pictures" a little when it concerns activities. Some activities are also instinctive which probably means that ganglia are acting on their own in anticipation of signals. There are various disease processes that can make one more in tune with these consciuousnesses and it might be possible to do it through will or to simply be brought up aware of them. How anyone can look at nature and believe only humans are conscious eludes me. How anyone can not know anything that will happen next week and believe humans are omniscient is beyond me. How can anyone read a 120 year old encyclopedia and believe humans are even intelligent? We are all stumbling blindly into the future with the beliefs that we athletes with 20 : 20 vision.

"Genius" is greatly overrated. Intelligence itself is overrated. Arrogance is always misplaced because anyone can show sparks of genius, knowledge, or greatness. Most people who are arrogant are just putting on airs and putting off people.

Thanks for your time. It is very appreciated. The links you provide seem to deny the likelyhood of nummulites being consistently oriented in any specific way other than in bedding planes. I was presuming that most of these died in deep water and settled to the bottom in their most aerodynamic orientation; dorsal side down. Apparently this is not normally the case and these are transported to shallower water before assuming their final orientation. Following the links did lead me to another clue and I'll add anything here if it pans out.

As an exercise in making sense of the question let me say you are mixing several different "realities". There is the reality we are taught of our place and time which is the best understanding of educated people in that place and time. This reality is probably rather capricious and erroneous in most places and at most times. This is usually the basis for most individuals' understanding to the degree they can learn and accept it. There is each individual's reality which is the sum total of his experience and learning. There is an overriding reality that is unknowable and (at least in theory) we're all trying to make sense of it. One of the things in many peoples' reality today is that this overriding reality is not only knowable but mechanistic and known. I believe this is just superstition though. One doesn't have to accept any reality exists. It's entirely within the realm of reason that we are dreams, computer programs, or some strange hiccough but pursuing the understanding of such realities has always led only to failure and in the more distant past most such theorists would end up as dinner for a sabre-toothed tiger. There are countless possibilities that reality isn't as we percieve it but I would stay far away from all odf them unless you have some means of cracking them or some solid evidence to lead to the search for more. That way lay monsters. ...And some really first rate science fiction. It seems to me that nature is sufficiently enigmatic and humans perverse to keep one busy studying the reality that is apparent forever.

At the risk of belaboring a point, here is something I just found written by E A Wallis Budge in 1911 in an introduction to one of his translations; "The Egyptian texts, whether the originals be written in hieroglyphic or hieratic characters, are here printed in hieroglyphic type, and are arranged with English translations, page for page. They are printed as they are written in the original documents, i.e., the words are not divided. The beginner will find the practice of dividing the words for himself most useful in acquiring facility of reading and understanding the language. The translations are as literal as can reasonably be expected, and, as a whole, I believe that they mean what the original writers intended to say. In the case of passages where the text is corrupt, and readings are mixed, or where very rare words occur, or where words are omitted, the renderings given claim to be nothing more than suggestions as to their meanings. It must be remembered that the exact meanings of many Egyptian words have still to be p. vii ascertained, and that the ancient Egyptian scribes were as much puzzled as we are by some of the texts which they copied, and that owing to carelessness, ignorance, or weariness, or all three, they made blunders which the modern student is unable to correct." I believe that he's translating material that was translated by older translators after 2000 BC. If the original source material were still available it would be just as incomprehensible and enigmatic as the Pyramid Texts which is essentially the only surviving writing from before 2000 BC (with the previously mentioned exceptions). The ancient translators simply would have made the same errors as we do today. This material is basically understandable in terms of a literal understanding. For instance they describe the cow that channeled the celestial waters from the perspective of the pyramid top. http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/leg/index.htm Egyptologists write entire books about their interpretations of the PT so comparing their various ideas is extremely difficult. Suffice to say even the translation of the PT has evolved so much in the last sixty years that it's literally unrecognizable in many areas. That is English translations from today don't even appear to translate the same thing as English translations from 1952. There just isn't a lot of agreement on much of anything and the general understanding of the "religion" continues to evolve. Budge, himself, who was once considered among the best Egyptologists is now excommunicated and never cited. This has happened to a lesser degree to other great Egyptologists. All of the historians are discounted.

I'm guessing that nummulites usually fossilize dorsal side down. Is this correct? I've found a line in the PT that suggests the stones in the great pyramids were usually inverted so am seeking to falsify the concept. I've been looking at this for some time as it seems likely that the concepts have been with us a very long time and might even be the origin of "heads" and "tails" for coins. Greek boys used to tar one side of these fossils to play games with them. They make up a significant percentage of the weight of G1.

I try to as great a degree as possible to stick to the actual facts and the direct implications of these facts. Any discussion of why these were built starts getting away from facts and toward speculation. This was the only site of fresh clean water near the population centers. Indeed, the population centers may have been produced by the water sources. Memphis (Saqara) was the capital back in the great pyramid building age and is the site of the first great pyramid. The PT suggests that there were many uses for the water from the site but lists only laundries, growing herbs, and building the pyramid. The first parts of construction was always a glass smooth and perfectly flat water collection device and a canal (causeway) down to the low lands (probably flooded at high nile). This water was likely used for all sorts of food processing and beer making in the so-called valley temple. The problem is that people aren't looking at this through the eyes of the builders. Most people see it through the kaliedascope called "egyptology". They imagine that the ancients were so primitive and superstitious that they could only build it through dragging stones up ramps. Nevermind that ramps are debunked. Nevermind that the word "ramp" isn't even attested until more than a century after the pyramids were built. They imagine that the effort required would only be expended if they were superstitious and believed the dead king could only ascend to heaven if they endangered their lives and threw away much of the prodiuctive capacity of a nation. Today we waste on such a massive scale so imagining the ancients wasting so much is easy. This is all wrong. There was little work building these beyond the quarrying. The pyramid built itself just as the primeval mound did. There would have been numerous observations that could be made only with a tall structure. Many of these would involve barometric pressure which would be useful in the determination of the atmosphere thickness and size of the earth. They would have felt their ears pop going up and sought explanations. It's also a virtual certainty that these things were used as clocks and even calenders. The ancients were keen observers and skilled at math which allowed them to invent time measurement by stellar observation. Not only is G1 oriented perfectly north and south but it has inleaning sides which causes the shadow of the setting sun to flash on the equinoxes. The shadows of the SE corners line up on the winter solstice. They no doubt had various gnomens (obelisks) spread around to tell the time of day and time of year. This is mentioned indirectly in the PT and the CT but both instances are somewhat fragmentary so I can't be absolutely certain of the meaning. 1679a. ------------------------------------- 1679b. ---------------- he rests alive in the West (or, he is satisfied in living in the West), 1679c. among the Followers of Rē‘, who make the way of twilight mount up. This is exactly the way they would describe the shadows lining up if they were speaking of this. These structures and the engineering required to build them are simply wondrous but to dismiss them as the products of barefoot bumpkins does them and us a tremendous dissservice. We deserve answers to basic questions. The builders stated in almost no uncertain terms that these structures were the steps by which the king ascended to heaven. They said that the king became the pyramid after he ascended. They said the king's mummy was burned on the incompleted pyramid and ascended as the smoke. The king was responsible for everything in life and in death he became all those things from justice (ma'at), to the pyramid (instrument of ascension), to the means by which he ascended (Seker, Atum, Osiris). Egyptologists find it very easy to sit in comfortable chairs and condemn ignorant savages to a lifetime of building ramps and dragging stones up them. This belief colors out perception so we don't see the facts like the gravimetric scan or lack of any evidence for ramps. We imagine that it must have been easy to drag about stones since that's how they mustta done it. In the real world, building the pyramids was "easy" but it was easy only because they did not use ramps. There's probably more math "encoded" in the pyramid. I personally haven't really looked for it because the easiest thing to solve is how it was built and Egyptology won't even seek to falsify ANY theory on this subject. Once some real data starts flowing in it should be fairly easy for people to make the other connections.

Most people don't realize just how thin the evidence is or how much of it has to be ignored to make the current paradigm seem reasonable. Many of the arguments against the paradigm are poorly made or based on nearly no evidence at all so there is a knee-jerk reaction to merely deal with any idea that doesn't fit the assumptions. One of the more dramatic pieces of evidence is that each of the great pyramids was built on top of a flat area surrounded by a dam which was waterproof. This is called a "religious device" by Egyptologists who claim it was necessary to religious expression. It appears to have been called "Ssmt.t" by the builders and is erroneously translated as "sacred apron". This concept doesn't apply to the device surrounding the pyramids and built even before the pyramid but is something else in Egyptology. At least one theory is that the sacred apron was worn by the gods. But the facts tell a different story. Not only is this "apron" necessary and "integral" to the operation of the pyramid and the ability to build it but there is physical evidence that it was actually used. "From this remarkable forking, it [p. 50] is evident that the trench cannot have been made with any ideas of sighting along it, or of its marking out a direction or azimuth; and, starting as it does, from the basalt pavement (or from any building which stood there), and running with a steady fall to the nearest point of the cliff edge, it seems exactly as if intended for a drain; the more so as there is plainly a good deal of water-weanng at a point where it falls sharply, at its enlargement." http://www.ronaldbirdsall.com/gizeh/petrie/c6.html This is the kind of thing you have to deal with when studying these structures. ]http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/4118/65616424.80/0_8e7fb_27e063ee_XXL.jpeg

Building great pyramids was simplicity itself. Of course they invented this process and improved on it over a 750 year period from about 3500 BC to 2750 BC. By the time the last great pyramids were built many bells and whistles had been invented to increase their efficiency and lifting capabilities. The basic concept was completed by Imhotep in the construction of the so-called "Djoser's Pyramid". Essentially they simply caught water spraying up from a geyser near the top of its trajectory and channeled it onto the pyramid top. Here it was funneled into a counterweight hanging over the side. This counterweight was attached to asled full of stones (on the ground) by a rope draped all the way over the pyramid. The counterweight filled and became heavy enough to lift the sled of stones. Over the centuries they invented many things to improve the efficiency and improve the reliability of the equipment. They built all these pyramids in five steps because they had to lift stones one step at a time. With G1 they built a high platform on the south side because the work involved in rigging and rerigging the huge numbers of stones still needed at the higher levels was onerous. With a platform at 81' 3" they could lift many of the stones 162' 6" at a time and greatly reduce rigging. They invented a handy device for loading the stones from a single point onto to the sled. This device worked by submerging floats in the water to push up on the sled. Each time they added a stone to the sled it would sink the height of a stone so they could easily just put another stone on top until it was loaded. They had various automatic signalling devices to let the workers know the water conditions. It appears that some water was lifted manually between 70' and 140' and even to 162.5' Lifting the heavier stones was not a particular ordeal simply because the counterweights could be used in tandem. I should add that the estimate of the amount of granite in G1 is probably grossly understated. It is apparent that they preferred granite for their canals and these would have been left where they lay inside the structure. The device that caught the water was dismantled and granite was likely used for the so-called king's chamber but most of it was turah limestone that was used for cladding. Once they lifted something it stayed lifted. Much of the infrastructure needed to build this was turah limestone so they could keep the quarry busy for 20 years instead of suddenly ramping production to astronomical levels. As the project wound down these structures were canibalized for stone. There were no "religious structures" and nothing was built for "religious reasons". This project was done "industrially" and very efficiently. This is what all the evidence suggests. Egyptologists append the facts to a failed paradigm. They present the tiny amount of real data available in terms consistent with their own beliefs that the ancients were stinky footed bumpkins who dragged tombs up ramps and never changed. These assumptions are simply wrong. It's absurd to believe they never ckhanged but without this assumption they can't even read the language. Ramps are utterly debunked as a means to have raised these stones. There's no evidence that the people were religious or believed in magic other than interpretation basesd on the belief the people never changed. The writing isn't understood so it is not legitimate to make conclusions about its authors. There is some physical evidence to suggest these were tombs but it's weak evidence and the builders distinctly, repeatedly, and coherently said they were not tombs. There is no solid evidence to contradict the builders. When any of these foundational assumptions is removed the entire paradigm collapses. So far they seem to want to deal with this by ignoring it. If the builders really meant what they said then there are profound implications. It will certainly change our opinion of the ancient Egyptians and their predecessors since this knowledge would have required a very long time to accrue. The Egyptians could not possibly have started from square one and there must have been many millinea of human progress.

Well, I could more readily agree if you said "all" people are superstitious but we're in close agreement. Apparently I don't. I don't see the connection between religious books and ritual. Certainly vocabulary, ritual, and icons are associated with religion but this doesn't make the Bible or any of its books "ritual". Meanwhile every single word in the PT appear to plainly be ritual and not one single incantation or prayer is involved. Egyptologists have totally misapprehended the only writing that survives from ancient times. This means they have most probably misunderstood the people who wrote them and their beliefs. It is apparent these people were scientific and used science to accomplish their feats rather than magic or religion. Shouldn't this be considered the logical viewpoint? If they said they added natron to geysers to make them erupt then why should we assume they are casting spells or praying rather than using simple observation? 1024a. His name lives on account of natron-offerings and he is divine. 765a. To say: O Osiris N., take to thyself this thy libation, which is offered to thee by Horus, 765b. in thy name of "He who is come from the cataract"; take to thyself thy natron that thou mayest be divine. "Cataract" is a poor translation and should be "cool watery region". 765c. Thy mother Nut has made thee to be as a god to thine enemy (or, in spite of thee), in thy name of "God." 766a. Take to thyself the efflux which goes forth from thee. The "efflux" is "I3.t-wt.t" which is CO2 (risings begetter) ... 767a. Ḥr-rnp.wi recognizes thee, for thou art made young again, ill this thy name of "Fresh water." This is "fresh water" that arises with CO2 when natron (sodium decahydrate) is added to it. The evidence is simply overwhelming in light of the fact that the Pyramid Texts in internally consistent and makes accurate predictions about things that exist at Giza and have existed in the past. Egyptology has simply been inventing ever more ways to say "they mustta used ramps" for over a century now. This is an absurdity and is counterevidenced. Ramps are debunked and Egyptology has buried their heads in the sand. There are several ways the pyramids could have been built and the PT is in agreement with one of them. Until there is pressure on them to do real science they will continue to stonewall and hold the sites hostage. On one hand we have "they mustta used ramps" and on the other is the evidence. The evidence says our ancestors were highly sophisticated and were not very superstitious. It suggests that it is we who are superstitious.

I believe you're assuming that modern people and modern beliefs constitute the pinnacle of human existence. We are hardly infalible and omniscient while most men lead lives of quiet desperation. We waste more resources than we use and seek ever more ways to destroy ourselves. But this is really beside the point since the point is much more that there are probably many ways to deal with nature and form societies. That we believe the ancients were superstitious doesn't affect them. These people lived and died long before we formed an opinion of them and their work. To show just how wrong our opinion of these people really is let me show some more evidence that the only work that survives is actually a book of ritual rather than magic and incantation as Egyptologists imagine. This is "spell #29" which is actually the Coffin Texts which is a "part" of the PT; "Be silent, be silent O men! Hearken, Hearken O men! Hear it, this great word..." Sometimes I'm just astounded trhat words such as these can be misinterpreted. But it doesn't end here. There are also numerous instructions to the "priest/ scientist" that are read to the crowds. Literally hundreds of these exist but I'll just show a few to make the point; 23b. To say four times, when thou goest forth justified: Libation; two pellets of natron. 51b. Osiris N., take to thyself the eye of Horus, which is united with him. Nhnm-oil. 87d. To say four times: For N., a lifting up of the offering, four times. Two baskets of npȝ.t. These all read as rituals once they are actually understood. There are no spells and no magic. There is no religion except in the minds of those who try to read these as prose. The ancients said exactly what they believed in; 1944a. + 2 (Nt. 777). The time of inundation comes, the wȝg-festival comes, to the uplands, it comes as Osiris. The w3g-festival was held in the specific uplands called Giza (Rosteau). The inundation came at the beginning of pyramid building season and it tossed on the Giza Plateau; 1553b. They tremble who see the inundation (when) it tosses; 1554a. (but) the marshes laugh; the shores are become green; 1554b. the divine offerings descend; the face of men brightens; the heart of the gods rejoices. The inundation is violently tossed into the air and then descends. This stuff just isn't that complicated. That the ancient people studied nature shows exactly how they managed to invent agriculture and cities. People just aren't that smart and wouldn't have stumbled into such complexity. The nature of the language shows how the meaning was lost and still eludes Egyptologists even when you tie it up with a bow (or sky arc if you prefer) and give it to them. Everything we think we know about ancient times is probably mostly all wrong.

Of course Egyptologists think the ancients were superstitious. They won't say they think they were stinky footed bumpkins but they interpret teir words in ways that only stinky footed bumpkins would have expressed them. They won't say the ancients were superstitious and moribound with religious beliefs but they will say everything they said andf did was related to incantation and religion. Everything at Giza is said to have religious significance. Essentially they describe a duck in exquisite detail and then pronounce it a beautiful swan. The ancient people were exactly like us except they spoke and thought differently. Egyptologists project their own beliefs and their own thoughts onto the builders.

The "current body of accumulated study" contains no evidence whatsoever related to how the pyramids were built or what they were for. Essentially "the current body of accumulated study" is an analysis of the scant evidence with the assumptions that the pyramids were tombs dragged up ramps by superstiutious and changeless people. The accumiulated study has no meaning outside of these assumptions. Don't get me wrong there is extensive expertise in the analysisof pot shards and in how bodies are arranged in their graves. This is real expertise and I don't pretend to have any of it. While I'd love to share it the fact is that it is not in any way relevent to how the pyramids were built nor is it relevent in any way to what I believe the authors' intent was in writing the PT. The assumptions are merely a framework to which they attach their knowledge and expertise but each of these assumptions is wrong. The actual evidence is there for anyone to look at. There's not much but it is what I've built my theory on. There simply is no hard evidence on which to base a theory. It's ironic but looking at the evidence from the perspective of the builders meaning what they said can be a sort of "hard evidence" and it agrees with the physical evidence. I think if/ when the geysers are proven people will say it was obvious all along. Everything ties in and constitutes a sort of hard evidence. If you think about it, why shouldn't the only work that survives from the great pyramid building age that was actually found in the area of the great pyramids have hints about what the people thought and how they built pyramids? The PT simply says that to build the king you need a cool effervescent column of water and to tie the boiats together. You need to build a ladder to heaven. This ladder is visible in the gravimetric scan. The only thing I find surprising is that people can't seem to consider the words of the builders might be meant literally. Yes, it's true that my misunderstanding could lead me to believe that the correct understanding is only correct in a left handed sort of way. We are both using the exact same evidence and the exact same words to make our "conclusions". But I pointed this out largely to show that we are using the exact same evidence. It's not that Efgyptology is necessarily wrong but that they are necessarily wrong if each of their assumptions are not correct. The pyramid must be a tomb dragged up ramps by superstitious and changeless people for them to be correct. But I've debunked ramps and can show beyond doubt that the assumption they are changeless is an absurdity. I can't prove the great pyramids weren't tombs but I can show where the builders said repeatedly and coherently that they were not tombs. I can point out that there is no good quality evidence that they were tombs. An empty stone box is the best piece they have and it was reported empty by the first person known to be inside. It's impossible to show the builders were superstitious if their words are not understood. Without the assumptions they can't show they were superstitious. Where Egyptologists need all the assumptions to be correct the fact is one is absurd, a second is debunked and the other two are dependent on interpretation. It's dependent on an interpretation that has failed to make any accurate predictions for 150 years. Meanwhile a slightly different interpretation that must be correct in at least a left handed sort of way answers all the questions and successfully makes numerous accurate predictions. It is consistent with the literal meaning of the builders' words because the theoiry is built largely around the builders' words. These are all strong implications that the new interpretation is the correct one and that the new interpretation makes accurate predictions is virtual proof. No!!! Absolutely not. I do not use any orthodox opinion to try to determine the meaning of the words. I use the orthodox opinion as a sort of roadsign for whgere to look. I've not lost sight of the fact that the experts are the ones with the real expertise. My sole expertise is the literal meaning of the PT which pales in significance to the amount of knowledge wrapped up in translation and interpretation as held by the real experts. But it should be remembered that their opinions are still wrong. Most of their knowledge is still correct but their opinions are simply wrong. If I take your meaning, then yes, it seems like I've merely been able to interpret the PT into another form that no one else understands. But there's a huge difference here because understanding this work has allowed me to determine how they built the pyramid and given me a great deal of insight into how they thought. Much of the problem here is that the work is sorely in need of retranslation. I could publish it in a form that would be more recognizable by simple reinterpretation but the words are translated in terms of author intent. The very definition of "translation" is to put something in another language in terms of author intend so any reinterpretation I did would be putting the cart before the horse. It's seems apparent that there is a little fundamental problem even with the translation of words. I've barely scratched the surface and it will take decades of intensive study by many people to make much sense of all this. It has profound implications across the board. It deserves a lot more effort to reconstruct human history than one person working with google. Meanwhile Egyptology simply won't do even the most basic science and there seems no clamor to get them to do so. Thje status quo is so deeply entrenched that no change is even possible. They won't do science because they are apparently afraid of the results and meanwhile they hold these sites hostage and won't let anyone do any science.

Before launching into this I need to make a few things clear. First and foremost I know very little orthodox Egyptology. There are several reasons for this but chief among them is that virtually no evidence exists from the era of great pyramid building. Yes, there are known familial relationships and pot shards. There are orientations of the dead and a great deal of information about mummies. If it was in a tomb or a grave then a lot is known but otherwise the relevent and important information simply doesn't exist. Another reason and this one may be primary, is that I intentionally avoided learing any of Egyptological interpretation until only two years ago because I was aware from the very beginning that ALL of their interpretation is wrong. Some of it is as seductive as a pod from Invasion of the Body Snathchers so I avoided it altogether. I have studied it for the last two years and find their work to often be correct in a left handed sort of way. I believe I can exclude all of their opinion which is the only reason I'm consulting it now. It has been helpful in solving some of the more arcane and esoteric concepts. It's apparent that there is some writing that must exist of which I am unaware or that some concepts from later eras are relevant to the great pyramid building age or both. This has not been a significant source for the solution of the language however: it is simply welcome help. The PT is not comprehensible in its current form. The first time I read it I scratched my head a lot. Phrases and sentences make perfect sense but they simply don't tie together. Even the sentences as they stand are generally contradicted elsewhere. There is simpy no coherent meaning in modern language. Egyptologists express this by saying the book is mere incantation and magic. They say that these are spellsand prayers that were necessary to get the kinfg into heaven but they can't tell you what prayer was needed in what place or how an incantation worked or what any individualsceptre was for. There are 27 sceptres in the PT and the function nor origin of even a single one is known. There are countless icons and these are unknown as well. Even the most basic concepts like the eye of horus is wholly opaque to Egyptological understanding. They don't appreciate how opaque it is because they don't mind havinfg the meaning change from one usage to the next. The ancients wrote an incomprehensible book of incantation so why shouldn't the meaning of even the most basic terms change from instance to instance. They simply accept these dancing meanings as par for the course; http://www.academia.edu/3071019/The_symbolism_of_the_Eye_of_Horus_in_the_Pyramid_Texts Like most Egyptological work, this one is probably good quality but it confirms that they expect nothing to make sense without analysis and then they expect that thing to be contradicted and not partr of a coherent whole. ""Although we can approach its grammar in an orderly fashion (...) we are often puzzled and even frustrated by the continual appearance of exceptions to the rules." This was written by Allen who is generally assumed to be the best translator alive. I have little reason to doubt this other than his work has simply revolutionized the older standards like Sethe or Mercer. It's impossible that the new translations are right if the old ones are. This change is a continuing process; http://eegyptology.blogspot.com/2012/02/shmakov-critical-analysis-of-allens.html Van Den Dungen http://maat.sofiatopia.org/wenis.htm Furthermore, despite major grammatical discoveries, Egyptian writing is ambiguous qua grammatical form. Some of its defects can not be overcome and so a "consensus omnium" among all sign-interpreters is unlikely. The notion of "semantic circumscription" was derived from this quote by Gardiner : "If the uncertainty involved in such tenuous distinctions awake despondency in the minds of some students, to them I would reply that our translations, though very liable to error in detail, nevertheless at the worst give a roughly adequate idea of what the ancient author intended ; we may not grasp his exact thought, indeed at times we may go seriously astray, but at least we shall have circumscribed the area within which his meaning lay, and with that achievement we must rest content." I believe the difficulty would be to find two Egytologists who agree about much of anything except that the pyramids were tombs dragged up ramps by superstitious people who never changed. This is why the PT are only understood in terms of a book of magic that wouldn't exist for 1250 years. I believe that the fact a coherent meaning exists almost proves that this meaning was the intended meaning. If so then there was a change in the language and we are misapprehending the ancient people. The PT is no book of magic but it is a book of ritual; Utterance 618. 1746a. To say: Now be still, men, hear -------------------- Indeed. it is so obviously a book of ritual that this has been one of the few areas that I seem to be making some inroads. These were rituals read to the crowds at the various ascension ceremonies for the dead king (N). As such a coherent meaning begins to appear that answers all the basic questions and many specific questions such as the nature of the sceptres and icons. But it also suggests that the Egyptians had a distinct way of speaking where meaning existed in context. It suggests a different mode of consciousness and a very sophisticated science. This actually all makes perfect sense once you can accept it since no primitive bumpkin could ever have dragged stones up ramps to make a tomb for a king who lived eternally. The very nature of the great pyramids argue against the concept that they were built without science or through trial and error. We simply don't see it because we never looked where we needed to look.

Did you read the post? Better yet, did you read what the ancient people actually said? Did you read, "I have swamped the fire, I have lightened the darkness among those who come with offerings when ma'at is brought to him who crosses the waterway."? Do you believe that ancient people were so stupid that they thought swamping a fire would lighten the darkness? When you solve "Ma'at" by context you find that it is the "phenomenon of balance" (fem). Osiris tows the earth by means of maat. If you want to hear "made up" ask an Egyptologist what these words mean. I wager you can't find two of them who agree with one another. Ask him how he knows the ancients were superstitious if they don't understand any of their words. All you'll get is references to Egyptologists and not one fact. What you see above is fact gathered by original research and deduction. What the builders said they meant. It is we who are the superstitious bumpkins and not our distant ancestors. #294 The shape of the swallow is given to me by the flaming one, mistress of the isles who ascends in the flame which is on the battlements of the sky. I'm sure you missed this too. "Battlement" is the exact same word that Herodotus used to describe how they built the pyramids; in steps, and lifting stones one step at a time. There was actually another usage of the term with the fire-pan but I deleted it because people don't like more than one line at a time; 1778a. N: is the great falcon, who is upon the battlements (or, cornice blocks) of the house of "him of the hidden name," ... 1779b. his neck is like that of the mistress of the nbi-flame; There were no ramps and the concept is an absurdity.

Of course I've made it all up just as Alexander Graham Bell made up the telephone, Sir Isaac Newton made up the calculus, or Imhotep made up shorter ropes so he could stack mastabas. The biggest difference is where they invented new things I've merely rediscovered what once existed. It was the result of reverse engineering the pyramids and not deconstructing the words of the builders. When you try to analyze the words of the builders they all come off as gobblety gook and nonsense obviously written by stinky footed bumpkins but when you take the words at face value and solve them by context they are internally consistent and consistent with the physical evidence. I know far more about the fire-pan than I've let on as history virtually revolves around it in a sense. It was only important to building the mastabas and great pyramids but it became increasingly famous and important as time went by. Much of the reason is that its nature was confused but, for now, let's just look at some more of the evidence. Sekhmet was the phenomenon of the power of water at altitude. Sekhmet manifested as the water spraying through the upper eye of horus where the fire-pan sat. Here are a few of her names; Empowerer Sparkling One (remember the floating willow tree oil) Lady Of The Magic Lamp Lady Of The Waters Of Life Ruler Of The Chamber Of Flames Sekhmet, Who Rouseth The People Flaming One Awakener (remember those with ready hands stand to make an offering to the dead king) Inspirer of Men She was the "Lady of the Magic Lamp" who rouseth the people; 558a. To say: Bdš.t comes; the fire-pan burns. 558b. Those with (ready) hands stand to give an offering to N. If the fire-pan didn't burn right before sunrise there was no water and the men went back to bed. The fire-pan would go out if it weren't swamped! (Coffin Texts) #1094 I have swamped the fire, I have lightened the darkness among those who come with offerings when ma'at is brought to him who crosses the waterway. #283 ...there is a flame for N when he goes up from the horizon. #294 The shape of the swallow is given to me by the flaming one, mistress of the isles who ascends in the flame which is on the battlements of the sky. The shape of the swallow can't be seen except by the auspices of the "Mistress of the Swimming Flame": 1779b. his neck is like that of the mistress of the nbi-flame; Without the swimming flame you can't even see the person next to you; 26. O Sekhmet, at whose setting the darkness appears, in such a way that if someone nods his head (lit., makes a nod of the head) to his neighbor, they will not see one another! The nbht-sceptre sits near the fire-pan in the mn-canal and signals water flow by day by shaking brightly painted boards, while the "mks-sceptre" signals by night; 134c. (thy) mkś-sceptre and thy nḥb.t-sceptre in thy hand, commanding those of secret places. The fire-pan sat in Anubis' chest. Anubis was the phenomenon of direction of pyramid building operations from the pyramid top. His daughter was the phenomenon of water pressure over the weir that retained the willow tree-oil. The height of the water over 81' 3" was directly proportiuonal to water pressure. There was a ceremony to get out the fire-pan at the beginning of pyramid building season; 1961b. he has seen the preparation of the feast, and the preparation of the fire-pan, This device was extremely fragile and it's impossibler to have used it as a bowl. It required careful packing away at the end of the season; 2118b. at the (feast of the) month, at the (feast of the) half month, at the (feast of) covering the fire-pan, at the (feast of) Thot, at the wȝg-feast, It just keeps going because this is the nature of real science. Real science makes predictions but saying they mustta used ramps because they mussta been superstitious and changeless is just words. These particular words have no predictive value whatsoever so we have no answers and only questions. They won't do the basic science that could prove they are right because they know they're wrong. I could go on for hours about the fire-pan and this is just a tiny piece ofall the proof that our ancestors did know paleontology and many other things. They would have written (and did write) numerous books about numerous such subjects but by mere quirk of fate all that actually survives is what they would consider a silly little book of ritual which we misinterpret as magic and incantation. They had an important scientific work that would have been something like the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics but it's lost. It was called the "Book of Thot" which means the the book of the phenomenon of human progress. The PT hints that a surviving copy might exist and there is some physical evidence to support this but instead they are destroying the artefacts and still looking for treasure. People really should mind. Good!!! I must be doing something right.

I believe a lot of the difficulty here is my own tentativeness and lack of certainty. I'm only 75% certain that the basis of all these beliefs is real but if it is real then it is a virtual certainty that there was an ancient science that progressed uninterrupted for 40,000 years and language was its metaphysics. Most of my research has gone toward trying to get inside the minds of the writers of the Pyramid Texts since this is the only thing that survives but I've spent significant effort in trying to figure out the precedents for later works. This means a lot of thinking about the Bible, Koran, holy books, and the various early Christian writings and hermetic texts. Much of this contains extensive fragments of ancient concepts. I believe the great 19th century scientists were closing in on making the some deductions that would lead them in this same direction but something went horribly wrong. Budge, GRS Mead, and several others appear to have had a more accurate understanding than later scholars. For instance there's a device that was used to signal the workers to report to work in the morning. It was colloquially known as the "fire-pan" and its scientific name was "mks-sceptre". It was a floating oil lamp that burned willow tree oil that was in a thin film on top of the water. It held 1.1 gallons of air under it to keep afloat but had a device called a "rennenutet" that funneled CO2 from the nearby upper eye of horus to replace the small amount of air that escaped up the wick with the oil. This lamp was shaped so that it could only be refueled by violent rocking caused by the water falling on top of the pyramid. This lamp just happens to be the origin of the word "God" in most modern languages! GRS Mead had this to say about some later writing that obviously came from this concept; Here's a translation that follows; invocation to the light 1. I invoke thee, O God, the living one, 2 who dost show forth thy splendour in the fire, thou unseen Father of the Light! Pour forth thy strength; awake thy daimon, and come down into this fire; inspire it with [thy] holy spirit; show me thy might, and let the house of the almighty God, which is within this light, be opened for me! Let there be light,— [thy] breadth-depth-length-height-ray; and let the Lord, the [God] within, shine forth! Simply stated the evidence that there was an ancient science is very very very broad. It just happens to be everywhere and the reason it's not seen is not so much that the light has gone out but that the language has changed. The conventional wisdom today is that ancient people were superstitious and sun addled. The conventional wisdom is wrong.

There's really quite a few statements about the pyramids and their nature as made by the actual builders. Egyptological assumptions are everywhere contradicted by these statements. 1249c. To say four times: N. mounts to heaven; 1559c. that N. may rest in heaven, as a mountain, as a support. Just as the column of water known as "Atum" defined the sky and the earth through eruption the dead king as the pyramid supports the sky. 1296a. (And) men will construct with their arms a stairway to thy throne. 990b. The earth shall rise under the feet of N.; Over and over the Pyramid Texts say that the pyramid is not a tomb and that it was built in "battlements" or as steps to heaven yet Egyptology persists in believing the builders were so primitive they could only have used ramps. The only evidence that can remotely apply to the builders is in the PT yet it isn't believed because it doesn't fit the assumptions. The physical evidence doesn't fit the assumptions either but rather than do the testing or performing the science they ignore any idea that doesn't fit their beliefs. Egyptology has more in common with a religion than a science as it applies to the great pyramids. It is based on four false assumptions which they refuse to try to falsify or investigate. I believe this is extremely important but the status quo is immovable. Egyptology is blocking science at Giza. They won't do it themselves nor let anyone else. They are destroying the artefacts and the cultural heritage while a little bit of non-destructive testing would positively answer the questions of how they were built and who built them. Each year they bury more evidence in concrete and tourist centers and drill more holes looking for loot they are sure is hidden away. Meanwhile the important discoveries lie inches away or in plain sight undisturbed. The paradigm has failed for 150 years but it is still sacrosanct. 1834a. The earth [produces] N.; he shall be chief of the gods who are in heaven,

Yes, and no. The water came out of the eye of horus because the eye of horus was any opening through which the geyser flowed. The ankh is a representation of the geyser and the eye is only a small part of it. No! Hermes was a god and there's no proof any religious based god ever existed much less that one wrote books. This isn't to deny the possibility of (G)od(s), merely to state none are factual in the sense we think of and no evidence exists of writing other than One using a finger to enscribe the ten commandments (weakly evidence). Hermes was born in a cave (like atum) and the name means column (like atum was a column of water). Yes. The Emerald Tablets appear to be written in our modern confused language but they appear to be a direct and good translation of something from the ancient language. As such the tablets describe building using water from a geyser. Go back and read it. It is higfhly improbable that the translator of this work understood its meaning which is why we don't understand its meaning. You can't easily translate between computer code and any modern language. Any attempt will result in flow charts and logic charts and be mostly incomprehensible to most people. This is why we don't understand any of the ancient writing that exists; it is not and can not be properly translated. A far better job can be done when the meaning is known. There is most probably no entrance on the south side. I'm not sure what the confusion is here but will try to research this when I have the time. It might be the source of Vyse's conviction that there was a southern entrance which led him to dynamite (probably nitroglycerin actually) a massive hole on the south side. There is one entrance implied in the PT that isn't known on the north side but there are only two known known entrances both on the north side and one being made by the Caliphate. There were also two tiny air shaft entrances that lead out and two others similar during construction that only reached the flat top. I believe there are poorly sealed canals leading nearly to the outside in several locations at 80 feet and 160 feet. Again, I don't believe any evidence exists that the ancient Egyptians thought this way. We have interpreted the PT in terms of the religions that didn't even exist when the PT was written. This is not legitimate research. More importantly though it has yielded no knowledge of the ancient beliefs and failed to make any predictions. It is quite apparently in error. All we have from two centuries of study of the pre-2000 BC Egyptians is endless mysteries and inconsistencies in the paradigm. Perhaps your words apply to later eras but they would have no meaning to earlier people. There are so many logical inconsistencies with time keeping I hardly know where to start. Of course there are only "hundreds" of time zones when viewed from a maritime perspective. Most countries have strict rules about time keeping in port and these can vary over short distances. There are areas that use daylight savings and some that don't. These can be mixed. The time zones are not all linear based on longitude. Perhaps, one of the weirdest phenomena associated with out definitions is the international date-line which causes one to gain or lose a day when crossing. No provision exists for adjusting this for rapid movement such as a high spewed conveyance or a person circling one of the poles (earth's axis). I really don't see any practical advantage to using our definitions. It seems somewhat akin to trying to define the earth as flat and making the math work out. A place can be on either side of a time zone so you don't know sunset or sunrise by knowing the time there. If we all used the same time then there would be less confusion and "local" time would come to mean its offset from greenwich time. If you're -6.5 hours then you'd know sunset and sunrise. Life revolves around the sun rather than local time which varies the sunset many hours over the course of the year. Of course there would still be latitude differences but these are estimatable. We would still need to define midnight as part of the day; either 0:00 or 24:00. It's remarkable that time definitions are as good as they are but then there's still the problem with the various calenders in use as well. I believe if we went to standard time there would be a lot less confusion all around. Perhaps people would pay more attention to accuracy as well. As is, it can be extremely difficult to determine the exact time anything happens and this especially applies when the event is half a world away. I'm not sure I see any benefit to current definitions other than to keep the terms AM and PM. These terms have little meaning when we change the clocks twice a year. I think most people would be more likely to know when noon and midnight actually occur on standards time.

You're either sandbagging a lot or you have a natural talent for this. You've got the thread ends and they just need to be tied together like fire and water making stars. ...Like Re' and the moon makes bubbles. Before I get back to all the new stuff in the thread let me just address these. Re' is not a god of the underworld. This is a confusion of the ancient language. There is no religion, there is no magic,and there is no underworld. It is Re' which adorns the ben ben with a rainbow. The ben ben is the life's work (ka) of Atum who is the natural phenomenon of the geyser. This word for "geyser" in it's scientific form was the "D3.t" which is misinterpreted as the "duat" in modern times. When Atum stood on the Giza Plateau as the "D3.t" he was not only the ben ben on the primeval mound but also the column of water offgassing CO2 and the water which built the ka of the king (tthe pyramid) as well as the Marsh of Offerings where the water collected (as the wdn.t-offerings). Meaning was expressed differently in Egyptian and they had a different "mode of consciousness". This is part of what is hiding the obvious meaning. The specific lines misinterpreted as saying that Re' is a god of the underworld are all through the PT. Essentially Re' is simply connected with everything that takes place outdoors during the day. 372c. he makes, the ka of N. clean in the lake of the Dȝ.t. 372d. He rubs down the flesh of the ka of N. and his own 372e. with that which is near Rē‘ in the horizon, that which he (Rē‘) took, The geyser was composed of several "natural phenomena" but when the CO2 level dropped below a critical point all that was left were dead "gods" and Nun (natural phenomenon of water of the abysss) under the ground. The term D3.t morphed into a new concept that meant dead gods under the ground after the water dried up, the language changed, and religion was invented to try to preserve the ancient knowledge. This new concept is the "duat". It is a modern word for a symbolic place. NONE of the definitions assigned by Egyptology apply to the language in which the PT was written. Sure, many of the verbs and like are highly similar in meaning but the words are used differently to express meaning. It is similar to computer code. Essentially in order to understand the ancient language you need to go through the PT line by line and word by word determining what words have to mean for the statements to be logical and express coherent meaning. The way Egyptologists do it simply doesn't work. In 150 years they've made no sense of it at all. There are 27 different sceptres and they don't know the origin or meaning of a single one of them but using the technique of solving for referents has yielded definitions for 15 of these so far. It has also solved the origin of several of the icons such as the symbol for "life" (the ankh) is the geyser. Water in the sunny desert is life. The PT seen in this light is answering such basic questions as how and why the pyramids were built but all Egyptology has is the assumptions that changeless bumpkins dragged tombs up ramps. These assumptions have no evidence in support. Our ancestors simply changed after they built the pyramids one step at a time and we are the bumpkins. The Caliphate Al Mamuum was likely the first modern person in the Great Pyramid in the 13th century AD. He foreced an "entry" below the main entrance on the north side. There is a significant probability that the upper reaches were accessible by means of the grotto and so-called escape tunnel but he made the hole to remove something rather than to get in. I mention this because the lid of the so-called sarcophagus is missing and the Emerald Tablets are traced to the Caliphate. The lid would not fit out without the new "entrance" even if the descending corridor was open which it likely was not. I do have a lot of doubt that the Caliphate had any means to translate any text that might have been on the lid. But we don't know what else was in the so-called king's chamber so there might have been an older translation of the lid into Syriac or some other ancient language. It appears he spoke a few languages. Whatever the case the Emerald Tablets of Hermes appear to be a fairly faithful translation of an ancient text written in the ancient language. They describe how to build using a geyser!! Indeed a corrolary of Newton's third law of motion is #8 on the tablets; The water ascends to heven and its energy is used in a counterweight to lift an equal quantity of stone. It's interesting Newton himself studied the pyramid looking for help with his law of gravitation. There's a curious inscription near the main entrance which might state this mathematically. Newton's translation of #8 is less good; Remarkably a couple even mention the rainbow!!! It orders the lights above!!!!!! Once you see it it all becomes rather cut and dried. It's not really so outlandish once you remember that things change and the evidence is all there. I still find I have a few superstitions left. Just recently I realized that I see the universe very mechanistically which is most probably in error especially in light of the newest science. The Egyptians saw the universe as a massive dance and until you can see this you can't understand several lines in the PT. It will be tempting to belittle the ancient science when we finally start trying to reinvent it but, I suspect, it holds some knowledge we've yet to discover and it will hold some important keys to the future. It will apply much more closely to humans than modern science. Of course, I've been wrong before. http://www.the-book-of-thoth.com/content-157.html