cladking

I read your whole post. I think you're wrong about the "tree of life" but I have an open mind about all of it (even the tree of life).

I find it fascinating that Newton studied the Great Pyramid ostensibly to find the diameter of the earth for his theory of gravitation but it's hardly noted that he apparently learned Syriac so he could translate the Emerald Tablets of Hermes. I believe if his translation were better he would have even discovered one of his laws of motion in this source! Translation of Issac Newton c. 1680. 8) It ascends from ye earth to ye heaven again it desends to ye earth and receives ye force of things superior inferior. A proper translation based on the literal meaning of the Pyramid Texts (12th century Latin); 8) With great capacity it ascends from earth to heaven. Again it descends to earth, and takes back the power of the above and the below. This concerns the storage of kinetic energy as potential energy and its release. http://www.the-book-of-thoth.com/content-157.html The ancients knew much more about such things than Newton. It's difficult to know how this ancient knowledge was preserved but the Emerald Tablets have been traced back no further than the Caliphate Al Mamuum who perhaps not coincidentally, was the first person to break into the Great Pyramid. There is speculation he removed the granite lid of the so called sarcophagus. Perhaps it was engraved here and he had a means to translate it though there's no good evidence anyone could translate ancient Egyptian much earlier. Even Horapollo (four centuries earlier) in the 5th century AD was completely unable to translate.

Generally it's taken for granite that the statues quo are founded on bedrock. 1130a. When thou sayest, "statues", in respect to these stones, 1130b. which are like fledglings of swallows under the river-bank;

I'll bill ya' both.

I can't find the link to post the actual strip any longer but my favorite Calvin and Hobbes was 8-28-'92 Calvin; Know what I pray for? Hobbes; What? Calvin: The strenght to change what I can, the inability to accept what I can't, and the incapacity to tell the difference. Hobbes; You should live an interesting life. Calvin: Oh, I already do. This is an anthem of all windmill tilters.

Did you view the videos? Essentially noting ever changes with the MO of Egyptologists. They argue against all other evidence with the same techniques and strategies. They suggest they have all the answers and that other ways to put the evidence together don't fit the "cultural context" of the peoples who built the pyramids. This would be fine if they had the answers or knew the cultural context but they know neither. All their "evidence" is a sort of "sample error" because it comes out of tombs. Something is known about how the Egyptians died and intended to spend eternity but far less is known about how they lived and how they accomplished their greatest feats. Of course even their greatest feats are right before our eyes but Egyptologists can't see it and it's not relevant to "ancient aliens".They also don't know anything about "cultural context" because Egyptology doesn't understand the only single book that survives from the era. One book = no understanding. They believe it is incantations and religious mumbo jumbo. It is impossible to understand a culture through abracadabra and gobblety gook. It is a non sequitur. Meanwhile the physical evidence does not fit their contention in the film that there is a "complete picture". The unfinished pyramids that display ramps are tiny little things where it really doesn't matter ho the stones were lifted. Egyptology slaps down arguments one at a time but in every single case it's not with logic and evidence but with tactics and interpretations that were founded on assumptions. The basis of their understanding is four erroneous assumptions; that the great pyramids were tombs dragged up ramps by changeless and superstitious bumpkins. Egyptologists need the ancients to be changeless because otherwise they couldn't legitimately ascribe the traits and beliefs of later people to them and then suddenly all "cultural context" evaporates and all that's left is the physical evidence. And here is where everything changes. The physical evidence is far more consistent with aliens than it is with ramps. The only way ramps can arise at all is to assume that ramps are the only possible way because evidence for them is exceedingly weak. The word "ramp" isn't even attested in the great pyramid building age. How's that for cultural context. The surviving book does refer to boats that fly but not ramps to drag stones. You're right of course that you didn't mention that it must have been ramps. But this is where it always comes to when people desire to be "scientific". We have today as part of our own cultural context the romantic notion of men struggling on ramps to cooperate to accomplish the impossible while uniting a people and leaving a wonder for all times. I have no problem with this picture except that there were no men struggling on ramps and that it's far more likely men helped aliens build it. I believe that it's far more insulting to suppose the only possible means to build was with the least efficient and barbaric "possible" means. Why waste 100,000 lifetimes to build a tomb for the dead god (as Egyptology claims) when a fifth of that could just pull the stones up the sides? Egyptology got off on the wrong foot and needs to revisit the evidence. The ancients have been insulted long enough (not that there's anything wrong with that).

I couldn't disagree more. The assertion that the ancients were so superstitious and incapable that they could only have used ramps is the greatest insult ever heeped on a people. It's also unevidenced, debunked, and flies in the face of common sense.

Yes! Exactly. This is one of several theories that is actually evidenced but the powers that be are afraid of the facts so they don't go out there and try to solve how it was actually built. People just assume that Egyptology is a science because they purport to be. The evidence is clear that the stones could be lifted only 81' 3" at a time and due to the masssive amount of work to build these structures they required a highly efficient method. This resulted in having to build these in large 81' 3" steps and then filling in the steps to make the structure smooth. They needed the steps to work as they passed stones up one step at a time as evidenced by the gravimetric scan. http://hdbui.blogspot.com/ They can't give up ramps because they know it's the first step to my theory being proved correct. They used counterweights full of water to lift the stones.

There's significantly more evidence aliens built the pyramids than there is that earthlings did it with ramps. The belief in ramps is an assumed conclusion; they could only have used ramps herefore they must have used ramps. It is from this that the evidence for ramps exists. It doesn't exist in the real world. People are married to ramps and see them everywhere but can't see the evidence for aliens. I believe it was neither aliens nor ramps.

Despite my penchant for making absolute statements I did consider not using the word "every". But I'm thinking that even theories based on experiment or experiment founded on math required an hypothesis at some point that was new and would be considered controversial to some if not downright crackpot. I think "every" is an exaggeration only to the degree the terms must be understood to make it true. Many advances have been the result of serendipity, accident,or some odd (accidental) observation. Man doesn't progress so much through science as through understanding and knowledge born of that science. But such knowledge and observation are not necessarily the result of science but can arise from experience (true knowledge) and, I believe, a different kind of metaphysics than we use today. I believe that metaphysics can be accumulated from observation and logic alone. My crackpot idea is that this is how man used to progress. Wherever the truth actually lies on this continuum the fact remains that we are naturally inclined to dismiss new ideas far too readily. Even the greatest scientists presented with new ideas have tended to initially scoff. Of course the vast majority of new ideas are wrong so we all feel safe as "skeptics". We'll usually be on the right side no matter how reasonble a new idea seems if we simply reject it. It seems scientific progress has been slowing in recent times caused by the unwillingness of researchers to propose more radical ideas and the hesitancy of institutions to fund such research. There's even more problem with a lack of new experiments to test theory and hypothesis. This leaves us primarily math and logic to test and generate hypothesis which is similar to the ancient science (I believe). There are no simple answers to the problems possibly but this should at least leave us opportunity to explore the numerous new ideas and crackpot theoiries that have arisen over the last half century or more. Even my own might point a way out of this since it has ramifications for "Ai". But, then, I don't want to derail the thread so much as voice some frustration that is right on topic.

There's another problem faces by we crackpots and that is threads get butchered and the evidence goes waltzing off to other forums just because people can't imagine that archaeologists can misinterpret evidence. People can't imagine that archaeologists would concoct a paradigm founded on assumptions and defend the assumptions with the assumed conclusion. While science and metaphysics are generally misunderstood even by scientists most people can't imagine a "science" so founded on misinterpretation and 19th century guesses as Egyptology. This isn't to say I've given up on bringing the facts to other scientists as that I'm reweighing the strategy. It's really rather surprising that people are so generally ignorant of metaphysics and that few can even imagine a different metaphysics, different math, or a different etiolgy for knowledge. Most people misunderstand the nature of knowledge itself. Far worse and more destructive to progress now and through history is that most people overestimate their own knowledge and most grossly overestimate the aggregate knowlege of the human race. Few people realize that every advancement in history (after 2000 BC) has started off as a crackpot idea.

I doubt that it is either. I have to believe that beuaty is simply a resonance between ourselves and nature. When a musical score touches an emotion or a woman of exceptional beauty is seen we simply are resonating with it. This accounts for the fact that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and why people who hate being up early are less likely to appreciate a beautiful sunrise. Animals see beauty and not only will resonate with it but try to relate and even communicate sometimes. Beauty is inherent in all things though it sometimes hides behind many layers of ugliness.

Systems based on language can't work because of the nature of modern language. Things expressed in modern language can be deconstructed and truth can not be taken apart and examined. The only true statements possible with our language must be rigidly defined and the truth still disappears to the degree it can be deconstructed. Ancient language was metaphysical and truth could be stated in it. Sunspots showed observers that it was the same sun that came up each day and this concept that all things have an origin was known as "Khepri". The language was a natural language that arose around man's need to understand nature. The laws of nature were its grammar and its sounds were its words. Expression became too complex and it failed. Trying to understand nature in the absense of metaphysics is impossible. This is reality and this is why we ponder such inanities as whether a falling tree makes a sound or if there's a cat in the box. We are trying to understand reality in the absense of anything to tie us to it. It would make more sense to simply append "assuming we aren't a dream" to every statement than to question the nature of reality, assuming we aren't dreaming. Nature is infinitely complicated but each of its processes are impossibly simple. This leaves prediction an impossibility but understanding a "simple" matter of identifying each of its processes using one or more metaphysics. Neither math nor logic can ever reflect reality. And this goes double when the logic is expressed in modern language.

Thanks again. Obviously with low light levels as from an oil lamp you'll need to worry about reflected light and I hadn't thought of this. It is very important that this be factored in. I suspect this oil was used because it burns pretty brightly. I believe one of these lamps was found in the Tomb of Sabu from 3200 BC and is misinterpreted as a "tri-lobed bowl". A lot of the information I need is exceedingly difficult to find on the net. Some might not really exist and would need to be duplicated.

Thanks, but as near as I can tell this is just a primer on the nature of rainbows. I could have missed a section on rainbows generated by flames but skimmed it pretty closely. I assume by your linking this that you believe a rainbow would be visible because all the conditions are met? Do you have any experience with this? I consider a correct answer to be extremely important and lack the resources to duplicate the experiment. It's hardly life or death that the answer is correct but I need an unambiguous educated opinion because I don't trust my opinion on the subject (even though I could answer the questions posed).

Tough question here. I believe an ancient source claims that under ideal conditions, mist and otherwise total darkness, that rainbows can be seen refracted from burning willow tree oil. The best I can determine this oil would provide a full stectum, but I have doubt it would be sufficiently bright to see a rainbow. The flame would have been about 20' from the mist probably. Am I wrong? Does anyone have any experience with this or know the equations? There is some chance it was a different type of oil but the only identifiable alternatives are olive oil or castor oil. The lamp had about a 2" diameter wick and probably small amounts of water with fuel flow.

The problem isn't hypocracy. The problem is superstition. We adopt beliefs and then we become them. If you adopt superstitious beliefs like there are lots of God watching over you that you can entreat to intervene on your behalf, or there is a single God known by you pastor, or there is no god because Steven Hawking thinks there is no God then you will become that belief. You will see confirmation of your belief everywhere you look and you'll not even be able to see things that deny it. You will make decisions based on that belief. If you believe science has all the answers then you might become cold and calculating. If you believe in technology then hedonism may be in your future. A true scientist doesn't have "beliefs". He seeks data and understanding. We can never achieve it but this is what future generations are for; to gain the understanding that we can't. This is what life is for; to make the world a better place for the future and have some fun in the process. There's no point in a future if we nor they can experience joy. There's no point in technology if we can't experience rest from our work (and joy). The only thing that should be considered intolerable (other than crimes against nature) is forcing beliefs onto others. But then, this really is a crime against nature. I don't believe Christians tend to be worse than other beliefs mostly. All superstition is harmful though some less so than others. The US has always been puritanical but this seems to transcend mere religion and reflects peoples' belief that everyone needs to be "good".

Everybody has to define things and have axioms at the root. Soft "sciences" also have many axioms that have more in common with assumptions. ...Apparent "religious" behaviors (probably ritual); burying the dead, jewelry wearing, ornament and icon, etc. Earliers "humans" appear to have been more like clever animals. They might have passed down most learning by example and communicated with grunts and gestures. Real knowledge is visceral and even animals can pass down complex behavior like stone flaking, fire making, or nest building. I've seen various. I don't know but the authors whom I most trust tend to suggest a later time period. This later time period also seems to better fit my theories since I believe human advancement was linear up until 2000 BC. We all have horrid conversational skills because of the nature of language. We spend far too little time understanding (sharing) definitions. We tend to have our minds made up long before we discuss anything so argument and fact tend to be irrelevant. Ask yourself this; do you believe you are intelligent. Many of the things people say imply this belief. Most people believe they are far smarter than animals. I believe most people really are smarter than most animals but that all modern humans grossly overestimate human intelligence and underestimate animal intelligence significantly. Almost every single thing people will cite in support of human intelligence has more to do with habit and language. Thought is mostly just habit once we reach adulthood and often becomes increasingly inflexible with age. We have experience (visceral knowledge) with things like swimming upstream or moving into an opposing force so we mistakingly think a plane couldn't take off from a conveyor belt. We are constantly making misstatements of fact. We have the belief that everything is known by someone or other. We tend to see that squirrels are more likely to get hit by a car than drive one and assume this is indicative of relative intelligence. People simply don't understand animals but think we can use human constructs and human language in such ways as to apply to nature or nature's other creatures. It's not legitimate and it doesn't illuminate anything. I realize this is somewhat off-topic but it does relate to peoples' belief in a sub-conscious indirectly. Most people aren't even willing to admit animals are conscious at all but believe humans are so brimming with the good things of life that we have ids and superegos that are just dying to get out and expresss themselves. Such beliefs are not founded on science and neither is our belief in animal intelligence or lack of it.

I've mentioned numerous parameters. I've also mentioned that there are hundreds of (measureable) parameters. What is intelligence in one person isn't exactly the same thing as in another. The simplest definition might be "the ability to manipulate knowledge" but this would leave some very highly intelligent people scoring very low on a test. In the concrete world simple answers are elusive.

Almost every idiot learns language. This probably applies to animals as well but we don't know because we don't know the meaning, nature, or significance of any animal language. If language implied intelligence then the cleverest and most complicated language users should certainly be able to figure out every language We don't. It isn't. And your assumptions are all wrong. Humans suddenly started showing signs of the behaviors we associate with being human about 50,000 years ago. Logically this would seem to indicate something changed. Logically if this change was the ability to pass down skills and knowledge then this would imply a sudden acquisition of language. We can rule out the possibility they found a McGuffy reader from the future or another planet and this leaves the most plausible explanation to be the sudden acquisition of the ability to use language and this implies a mutation of some sort. This is derived from the evidence and logic. It virtually seems self evident. The suggestion that you can measure or understand anyone's intelligence without a clear understanding of the way uses and processes knowledge is tantamount to saying it is legitimate to make a human construct for measuring that individual's ability to comprehend nature and manipulate knowledge. Essentially you are saying that words are sufficient to not only understand an animal's mind but to gauge its ability to learn. You can't because any such construct will be based on our understanding. Yes, you can make numerous general statements about differences that are almost positively true like a whale's ability to think spatially and know its depth under the water's surface is better than a rabbit's or most peoples' . But what have you really learned after doing the exhaustive study to prove such things? No matter what you find it will be only true to the degree the definitions are true and these definitions will be words that apply primarily to humans and not to the real world. It will be a construct with man as the pinnacle of creation. It can not apply to any animal at all unless we understand that metaphysics. The construct will end up being nothing more than words which rates animal ability to think like humans. In any real world terms it will be meaningless. I believe our efforts would be more likely rewarded in trying to understand animals and there is some progress in this dirwection over the past few decades. It might have been more educational to start with the simplest animals but at least there's a start.

You're assuming that there is only one way to think and gain knowledge. The very fact that each species is different and we can communicate with none of them precludes such an assumption. We don't understand the behaviors probably except in human terms. A goose that "grieves" over its mate might not be experiencing the same things a human does and it might not involve "emotions" per se. How are we supppoesd to ask it if we can'ty understand what it means to be a goose, much less a goose that has lost its mate. Why do people assume everything is so simple and everything can be measured when simple opbservation shows this is never the case. If we can't measure or define intelligence in humans then doing it in animals is like trying to calculate how how "cheery" the day is. I don't believe "intelligence" exists within the brain. The brain can't even exist outside the body. I do not agree with any of your premises stated or implied here. In order to communicate we need terms that have referents in the real world. We need scaling reflextive of the real world. Intelligence must be defined such that those who behave in ways that are more adaptive or more productive in specific situations scoer higher than those who don't or can't. This involves a very wide range of abilities and acuities. What applies well to one individual will not apply quite so well to another due to the wide interpretations of behaviors and the incredibly complex array of behaviors that are possible. No human standard can possibly apply to other species. Human standrads far and away come closer to being able to measure dog intelligence but we can't factor in many aspects of canine "beliefs" that will grossly skew the results and make them look less "intelligent" than they are. Most of us can see dogs are intelligent though they are not very intelligent in comparison to wolves.

If you'll look more closely at the post you'll see it is jumbled. I can not repair this. I will not respond further to this thread unless it is repaired by any means..

I do not believe I can repair this thread so am abandoning it. I regret not being able to respond to several interesting and valid points here. Much of the problem is the post attributed to Ringer above. If the post (and this one) could be repaired or deleted perhaps the thread could be salvaged but otherwise I'd just as soon see it go in the cornfield.

In order to understand animal intelligence we have to know how the species and the specific individual organizes knowledge. We'd have to know how it understands its knowledge and acquires that knowledge. Intelligence is the alacrity with which we manipulate knowledge and the organization and acquisition of knowledge is metaphysics. To understand an animal we would have to know what it means to be that animal, and that individual, though this second part is much "easier". I might be a little scarce for a while.

This is assumption. Logically it is observation and logic that are most suited to life rather than fear and superstition. Hatred is even more life defying than superstition.