Jupiter and the Eye of Horus

[JohnB]

The test will be in JohnB's ability to focus in on heliacal rising and setting (and the laying down of a celestial grid) as the very essence of ancient Egyptian Cosmology. And to answer whether he agrees or denies that Sothis is associated with Orion and heliacal rising and setting - and is not the morning star - Occult leanings remove the ability to focus on details

 

Considering that this statement immediately follows a post in which I state;

Go back and read it again. At no time did I in any way equate or confuse Sothis with the Morning Star. I pointed out that in translations of a certain passage in the Pyramid Texts it says of Unas that his sister is Sothis and his Mother the Duat. How you make Sister=Mother I fail to understand.

 

If "occult leanings" remove the ability to focus, then I can only wonder what removes the ability to read and comprehend english.

 

Your rather strange comparison of Utterance 572 only demonstrates that you actually have no idea about the process of translation of these old texts. You are currently claiming some sort of authority and ideas based on texts that you admit you cannot read. I suggest you learn to read heiroglyphs if you wish to further your ideas and give some weight to your arguments.

 

Anyway, back to the translation process. I'll use pronounciations from here as examples.

 

We start with the writing on the wall or payrii.

 

Step 1 is to transcribe the writing to our notes. We can't normally take the wall with us, so we copy down the glyphs.

 

Step 2 is to rearrange the glyphs so that they read left to right rather than right to left as some do. It doesn't really matter, but it makes the finished translation easier to read and you will have to reverse at some point, might as well be now.

 

Step 3 is to transliterate the glyphs. This is simply assigning the phonetics to each glyph. This is done directly for each glyph and you finish up with sentences that look like this: "b3kt nb niwt pr"

 

Step 4 is to "flesh them out" a bit. Ever wondered why there are so many "E"s in texts and names? We add "E"s as vowels where we can, but other letters can be used as well. So the sentence becomes: "b3ket neb niwut per" I've added 3 "E"s and 1 "U".

 

Step 5 is to give the meanings for each glyph/word. So the sentence is now : (female servant) (Lord, Master) (Town, village, city), (Temple, Palace).

 

Step 6 is to put them together considering the context. We know the sentence concerns a woman who lived in a village and there was no palace nearby, (Because of where it was found) so we now have: (female servant) (Master) (Village) (Temple).

 

Step 7 is to finish the translation by putting it together as: ""N" was the female servant of the Master of the Village Temple". We could also say that she was a "Handmaiden in the Village Temple" roughly correct but not as accurate.

 

The relevence to Utterance 572 and incidentally why I prefer the Mercer type of translation, is this. Mercers translation stops at Step 6 with the literal meaning of each glyph or passage whereas Faulkner goes on to poetically fill out the narrative.

 

So,

1474a. They put their arms under him.

1474b. They made a ladder for N., that he might ascend to heaven on it.

1474c. The double doors of heaven are open for N.; the double doors of s?d.w are open for him.

 

becomes

they § 1474 place their hands under you, they make a ladder for you that you may ascend on it to the sky,

 

One could also rather prosaically put it as:

"They put their arms out so as to make a ladder for you to ascend unto heaven, where the double doors of the sky will open before you" (JohnB 2010)

 

The only reality we have is the original inscription. All translations are effected by the opinions and poetic leanings of the translator. This is why the process of translation must have so many steps to be accepted as sound. You must show all steps in the translation to demonstrate that your own poetic leanings only enter at the final stage. Mercer avoids this by stopping at the Step before the poetic interpretation.

 

I'll add that Step 6 is possibly the most important because context changes with time. A small town which worshipped Thoth in the early period may have become a great city in the late period dedicated to Bast. So knowing when the writing is from is vital to tell you whether you are discussing a small town or large city and which God. Research can also change context. We might translate a text based on the idea of a small town only to have later excavations reveal the town was larger and more important than originally thought and so the context of every translation changes with this new knowledge.

 

gf) You'll note that I answered Where are they missing from? in my original statement

 

Riddles and Puzzles have characteristic preludes - so when I saw Recite four times repeated 14 times I suspected they were a prelude. That proved correct - but it took almost a year to solve them because they take you on a merry chase though the Pyramid Texts

So does this mean that you found 14 passages in the Faulkner translation that start "Repeat 4 times" and these passages are not in other "Pyramid Texts"? That if you were to quote the lines I would find them missing in Mercer? Either way, I say again.

 

Quote the lines!

 

You keep making claims but aren't even willing to say where these "missing lines" are missing from. Time to be blunt.

 

Put up or shut up. This is a science forum, not a place for you to make random claims.

[gentleman-farmer]

The test will be in JohnB's ability to focus in on heliacal rising and setting (and the laying down of a celestial grid) as the essence of ancient Egyptian Cosmology.

 

heliacal rising and setting and the laying down of a celestial grid

 

That it was possible to identify and solve the 14 Recite four times riddles is testament to the fact that Dr. R. O. Faulkner's 1969 translation is both complete and accurate

 

That JohnB didn't even know they were there -- does not say much for his 1952 Internet version -

 

gf

/

Edited July 23, 2010 by gentleman-farmer

[JohnB]

The test will be in JohnB's ability to focus in on heliacal rising and setting (and the laying down of a celestial grid) as the essence of ancient Egyptian Cosmology.

No mate it isn't.

 

I've been extremely patient and polite for 7 pages now while you spout rubbish.

 

Here is the test.

 

The test is whether you can name the lines or admit that you are full of bullshit.

 

Can you pass the test?

[Ophiolite]

Ophiolite - perhaps on your say so NASA should give up on the lunar laser ranging program

I really must protest. You are being deliberately obtuse. The alternative is even less complementary.

 

I am not denying that the angular momenta of the Earth and the Moon are linked. Indeed, I am declaring it loudly, firmly and with total conviction. I have stated as much in previous posts. I have agreed, indeed I insist, that certain changes in angular momentum of the Earth are associated with changes in the angular momentum of the moon. The relationship exists because of the tidal influences of one upon the other. Tides are the mechanism by which angular momentum is transfered from the Earth to the moon.

 

This relationship is well documented and understood. The NASA laser ranging program has allowed measurement of the changes in lunar orbital distance that result from the transfer of angular momentum. The values are consistent with, as I understand it, the values predicted by theory. There is no perceived need to add a further mechanism for generating what we see.

 

There is no change of angular momentum due to earthquakes. The change in the length of the day is caused by a redistribution of mass. , The net effect over time is zero. It doesn't matter whether there are one, or one hundred million earthquakes in a year, the net change of day length is zero. The point is that the change of day length because of earthquakes is not due to a change in angular momentum - it is due to the conservation of angular momentum by the Earth. You say you taught college physics for thirty years, yet apparently have a poorer understanding of simple mechanics than a mathematically illiterate geologist.

 

I am ill equipped to assess your expertise in ancient Egyptian texts, but if it is as deficient as your grasp of physics then I respectfully decline to accept your proposition on the eye of Horus.

 

P.S. Perhaps we can bring our intellect into play and recognize that if one factor that slows the earth and causes an exchange with the moon shows that any factor that slows the earth will cause an exchange with the moon.

That isn't science, that's superstition. Edited July 23, 2010 by Ophiolite

[gentleman-farmer]

Ophiolite

I really must protest. You are being deliberately obtuse.

 

gf) No! Not obtuse (just unwilling to accept something I know to be wrong) and surprised that since I first suggested that the angular momentum exchange was a matter of course there has been a cavalcade of responses telling me how wrong that was - including yourself.

 

Ophiolite

4. There is no mechanism (nor any need) to transfer angular momentum changes resulting from earthquakes to the moon.

 

Klaynos writing

Still waiting on that reference about earthquakes on earth causing the moon to recede, and the mechanism that causes it.

 

It wasn't until I posted

The conservation of angular momentum in Earth–Moon system results in the transfer of angular momentum from Earth to Moon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum

 

that folk here began softening their objections

 

 

The truth remains that tidal influences are so minuscule as to have no influence what so ever. The moon's gravity is 1/6 that of the earth's. You could sit the moon on the beach and it couldn't pick up a grain of sand - and moving it 240,000 miles away isn't going to help a bit

 

and googleing objections won't change the relative strengths of the gravitational fields nor their influence

 

When we change focus from tides to orbital forces - then our earth sciences will gain credibility.

 

gf

/

[Klaynos]

 

The truth remains that tidal influences are so minuscule as to have no influence what so ever. The moon's gravity is 1/6 that of the earth's. You could sit the moon on the beach and it couldn't pick up a grain of sand - and moving it 240,000 miles away isn't going to help a bit

 

Re-read your own sources instead of cherry picking the bits of them you like the looks of. In fact, do some general reading on what causes the tides.

[Ophiolite]

enough is enough. I expect to be censured by the mods for this post. So be it. There is only so much stupidity I can tolerate. You have exceeded the quota.

It wasn't until I posted

link about angular momentum transfer between Earth and moon by tidal forces

that folk here began softening their objections

Crap. The objections from the outset were to your nonsense that earthquakes were responsible for the lengthening of the day and the increase in the moons orbital distance.

 

You have also failed to even address the point that changes in the Earth's day due to earthquakes can be positive or negative. This has been pointed out to you by more than one person on more than one occassion, yet you continue to ignore it. Why? At first I thought it was because you were afraid to answer. I now suspect that you don't even understand why this is an issue. Prove me wrong. Deliver a cogent response wherein you address that point in meaningful way.

 

You invite us to consider orbital forces instead of tidal forces raised by gravity. You think - I laugh at this - that the moon is incapable of lifting a single grain of sand. Tell me, oh great one, what is it that makes you right and one hundred thousand physicists wrong? If you have such incredible insight why have you not communicated this through a publication in Nature or Science? Is the peer review process a conspiracy against innovative thinking of your sort.

 

You don't understand geology. You don't understand egyptology. You don't understand physics. I look forward to your contribution in the biology forum: why multi-celled eukaryotes were the first life form on the planet, from which prokaryotes devolved.

 

 

Grrrh!

[gentleman-farmer]

Ophiolite

Crap. The objections from the outset were to your nonsense that earthquakes were responsible for the lengthening of the day and the increase in the moons orbital distance.

 

gf) You do know I posted some research conducted by NASA that shows a direct correlation between earthquake and lengthening of the day (see my post no. 32) - we can use our intellect (that's what distinguishes us from lower orders) and extrapolate from just tides causing a slowing of the earth - to include any cause that would result in earth's rotation to slow

 

if you think NASA was fooling around following is a list of those attending the seminar where they announced that earthquake changes the length of day - it reads like who's who in research) see my entry on post 32

 

The List comes from pages 129 - 133 - reference given on my post 32)

 

National Science Foundation

U.K. Department of the Environment

National Center for Atmospheric Research

National Meteorological Center

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

U.S. Department of Energy

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

U.S. General Accounting Office

EPA

-- Princeton University

-- University of Arizona

-- University of California San Diego

-- Columbia University

-- Oregon State University

-- Colorado State University

-- University of Wisconsin - Madison

-- University of Washington

-- University of Maryland

-- Massachusetts Institute of Technology

[Klaynos]

it was shown that that evidence can be either positive or negative changes, to the rotational time of the earth, it was explained why this occurred without any kind of new coupling to the moon required, it was also pointed out that for a significant change in the rotational time (by significant I really mean measurable, we're not even talking seconds here) you need an earthquake that only occurs a few times a century. Repeating the same mistakes does not stop them from being wrong.

[Ophiolite]

 

gf) You do know I posted some research conducted by NASA that shows a direct correlation between earthquake and lengthening of the day

For the umpteenth time, no one is denying that large earthquakes can change the length of the day. This can be an increase or a decrease. Are you claiming that earthquakes only increase the length of the day?

 

Next: the primary objection is to your claim that this lengthening of the day simultaneously causes the moon to recede. That is wrong. You are conflating and confusing two separate things.

1: Earthquakes can change the length of the day (+ve or -ve). No change in the Earth's angular momentum.

2: Tides increase the length of the day. Earth's angular momentum increases.

 

On a side topic it has pointed out already, IIRC, that quoting lists of researchers or research institutes in support of your arguments is a logical fallacy: argument from authority. What matters are the facts, not who does or does not support them.

[gentleman-farmer]

Klaynos

do some general reading on what causes the tides

.

 

gf) Does that mean you think I haven't?

 

I've got a better idea why don't you take a look at NOAA's website and read about tides They have changed their position - When you go there use your edit/find function and type in tractive force if you read in sufficient detail you'll find they no longer believe in direct lunar gravitational attraction as the cause - course that means I've already read it

 

http://www.co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/restles3.html

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I've got a better idea why don't you take a look at NOAA's website and read about tides They have changed their position - When you go there use your edit/find function and type in tractive force if you read in sufficient detail you'll find they no longer believe in direct lunar gravitational attraction as the cause - course that means I've already read it

 

http://www.co-ops.no...v/restles3.html

Ah. I see you're thinking of this bit:

 

The tide raising force of the moon, is, therefore, entirely insufficient to "lift" the waters of the earth physically against this far greater pull of earth's gravity. Instead, the tides are produced by that component of the tide-raising force of the moon which acts to draw the waters of the earth horizontally over its surface toward the sublunar and antipodal points. Since the horizontal component is not opposes in any way to gravity and can, therefore, act to draw particles of water freely over the earth's surface, it becomes the effective force in generating tides.

 

In other words, the moon's gravity is what causes tides. But it doesn't life water straight up; it pulls the water sideways through the oceans toward it, in the parts of the planet not directly facing the moon. In those areas, the Moon's gravitation is perpendicular to the Earth's, so they do not oppose each other at all.

 

Hey! Another case where your source doesn't support your arguments at all.

[Klaynos]

All I can do is echo the comments made by the good Cap'n...

[gentleman-farmer]

Thank you Cap'n you've earned your stripes

 

Cap'n quoting NOAA

 

 

The tide raising force of the moon, is, therefore, entirely insufficient to "lift" the waters of the earth physically against this far greater pull of earth's gravity. Instead, the tides are produced by that component of the tide-raising force of the moon which acts to draw the waters of the earth horizontally over its surface toward the sublunar and antipodal points. Since the horizontal component is not opposes in any way to gravity and can, therefore, act to draw particles of water freely over the earth's surface, it becomes the effective force in generating tides.

 

So that we don't lose sight of things here is my original statement

 

The truth remains that tidal influences are so minuscule as to have no influence what so ever. The moon's gravity is 1/6 that of the earth's. You could sit the moon on the beach and it couldn't pick up a grain of sand - and moving it 240,000 miles away isn't going to help a bit

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I love it when your quotes contradict you.

 

Since the horizontal component is not opposes in any way to gravity and can, therefore, act to draw particles of water freely over the earth's surface, it becomes the effective force in generating tides.

 

Gravity! It works!

[Klaynos]

That wasn't your original point. But it also makes little sense.

 

 

 

The truth remains that tidal influences are so minuscule as to have no influence what so ever.

 

Influence on what? The moon? You've already stated that it does. Or at least your sources have.

 

The moon's gravity is 1/6 that of the earth's.

 

You need to be a bit more careful in how you word things, are you referring to the surface gravity?

 

You could sit the moon on the beach and it couldn't pick up a grain of sand - and moving it 240,000 miles away isn't going to help a bit

 

If anything this is damaging your argument that earthquakes change the earths rotation due to a directly interaction with the moon. An interaction which you decline to specify and just post a wp page on angular momentum, when it was shown that as you get a change in the moment of inertia due to an earthquake that you get a rotational frequency change with NO change in angular momentum. This can be positive or negative, another point you have failed to address. You're just repeating yourself, and misrepresenting other peoples work. This thread has been full of you cherry picking evidence and quotes and ignoring anything that contradicts your point of view even if the contradiction is from something you yourself have cited.

[gentleman-farmer]

Klaynos

If anything this is damaging your argument that earthquakes change the earths rotation due to a directly interaction with the moon.

 

 

gf) That statement isn't even close to being true - it isn't even in the same Universe. The truth is that Folk on this forum clamber to be the first to oppose anything said - in consequence few of you know what's up - or down (with the exception of the recent example set by Cap'n who actually went to the NOAA to learn the modern thinking)

 

 

the earthquake sequence goes like this : : All earthquake change the rate of earth's rotation this has the effect of changing the Length of Day, and causing forthwith an exchange of angular momentum with the moon which in turn broadens its orbit in accordance with the law of Conservation of Angular Momentum

 

So earthquake first - the slowing of earth's rate of rotation second (coincident with the changing of the length of day) and the exchange of angular momentum (with the moon broadening its orbit) third

 

Tidal effects are minuscule and may never change the LOD. Earthquake always does

 

gf

 

.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Is it possible for an earthquake to shorten the length of a day as well as increase it?

[Klaynos]

I don't think your conservation of angular momentum works there. Earthquakes change the rotation time because they to not change the angular momentum.

[gentleman-farmer]

Klaynos

Earthquakes change the rotation time because they to not change the angular momentum.

 

gf) Not in this Universe -

[insane_alien]

and again you prove you don't know your rotational physics.

 

earth quakes can cause the earths rotation to increase by the same way you can increase your rotation by spinning on a computer chair with your arms out and then drawing them in. using some weights or tins of food magnifies the event.

 

earthquakes are caused by the movement of mass. they can shift the mass either away, towards or parallel to the axis of rotation. if the mass is shifted towards the axis of rotation then the earth WILL speed up. this is basic newtonian physics. it doesn't require the moon, or any exchange of angular momentum with anything.

 

you say you were employed by nasa, you say you taught physics etc etc but we just don't see any evidence of that. none at all. more of a 2 second google.

Edited July 23, 2010 by insane_alien

[gentleman-farmer]

POST # 142

the earthquake sequence goes like this : : All earthquake change the rate of earth's rotation this has the effect of changing the Length of Day, and causing forthwith an exchange of angular momentum with the moon which in turn broadens its orbit in accordance with the law of Conservation of Angular Momentum

 

So earthquake first - the slowing of earth's rate of rotation second (coincident with the changing of the length of day) and the exchange of angular momentum (with the moon broadening its orbit) third

 

 

So earthquake first - the slowing of earth's rate of rotation second (coincident with the changing of the length of day) and the exchange of angular momentum (with the moon broadening its orbit) third

 

Klaynos POST 141

That wasn't your original point. But it also makes little sense.

 

gf) My original point POST # 39 paraphrasing In order for there to be an exchange of angular momentum the rotational speed of one must occur first - other wise there is nothing to exchange

 

This is how it works :: all earthquake change earth's rotational speed. When the speed decreases (and the day lengthens) - the moon accelerates and assumes a broader orbit.

 

Looks the same to me!!

[Klaynos]

POST # 142

 

Klaynos POST 141

 

gf) My original point POST # 39 paraphrasing In order for there to be an exchange of angular momentum the rotational speed of one must occur first - other wise there is nothing to exchange

 

This is how it works :: all earthquake change earth's rotational speed. When the speed decreases (and the day lengthens) - the moon accelerates and assumes a broader orbit.

 

Looks the same to me!!

 

 

Please review the previous posts. You will notice that there is no angular momentum change. This is because the moment of inertia of the earth changes and the rotational time changes to compensate. There is no angular momentum to give the join nor any mechanism to provide it.

[insane_alien]

you must be being deliberately obtuse.

 

and to expect ANYONE with even a basic knowledge of physics to accept what you just said as true beggars belief.]

 

why don't you start off by working on the assumption that we are not morons who have never seen a science book and get scared by by big words like 'rotation' or 'momentum'. because i can assure you, everybody responding to you is well versed in the things they bring up issues with, more so than you appear to be.

[JohnB]

The test is whether you can name the lines or admit that you are full of bullshit.

 

Can you pass the test?

 

So you've failed. At least we've got that out of the way.

 

I am ill equipped to assess your expertise in ancient Egyptian texts, but if it is as deficient as your grasp of physics then I respectfully decline to accept your proposition on the eye of Horus.

Unfortunately Ophiolite, his knowlege of physics is significantly higher than his knowledge of ancient texts.

 

I realise that g-f's constant repetition of pointless and incoherent statements has probably put this thread on watch, but I ask the mods not to lock it.

 

I'm only a Galileo and a Mum away from Bingo.