How much did ancient humans know and understand?

[Ophiolite]

Cavemen would have had an excellent estimation of the shape and size of the earth by direct observation. They would simply see that the horizon dips down on both sides over water. One can get a good feel for the size of the planet by this alone. Then to refine the estimate the distance measured from a height would show how much of this height was hidden behind the horizon. No doubt they used an estimate equivalent to about 16' for each five miles. They could confirm their theory by observation of the shape of the earth on the moon during an eclipse.

Certainly the could do this, but what evidence do you have that they did do this?

 

 

 

Certainly all the nearby bodies in the heavens (including Venus) are round.

But only the moon and the sun have a sufficient angular diameter to appear round.

 

 

The distance to the moon can be estimated by the relative heights of the tides once they deduced (or discovered) that the pull of an object (tefnut) is decreased by the inverse of the square of the distance.

1. What would lead them to such a discovery?

2. What evidence do you have that they made such a discovery?

3. What do you mean by 'the relative heights of the tides'? Relative to what?

4. Are you not aware that tidal height is controlled much more by local geography than anything else?

 

 

They would probably have some comprehension of the nature of the atmosphere because they knew they needed air and that air had constituent parts.

They would be aware that the air could contain moisture, since rain fell, but how would they know that it was composed of a mixture of gases and - yes - what evidence do you have that such was the case?

 

 

Even the depth of the atmosphere can be estimated by the varying air pressure.

By what means were they able to detect variations in air pressure?

What evidence do you have that this was the case?

 

 

It's apparent ancient man sun gazed to affect his pineal gland and quite possibly observed sunspots.

On what basis is this apparent. i.e. what is your evidence.

 

 

It would be noticed that the aurora boreaolis would peak a few days after such events and this "speed" was likely mistaken for the speed of light.

You appear to misunderstand the connection between sunspots (phenomenon that last for many weeks) and coronal mass ejections which create the aurora (and last for a few hours). do you want to take the opportunity to correct that misunderstanding?

 

 

It is simply not logical to use the fact we don't understand something as evidence those who produced it were superstitious and backward and this goes many times over when it was they who gave us the pyramids and civilization itself.

 

Your repetition of this strawman is becoming tedious. No serious scholar of history or the development of science and technology considers Egyptian civilisation backward in the perjorative sense you imply.

 

Overall your assertions amount to unfounded opinion lacking almost totally in any supporting evidence. Do you intend to provide any?

[cladking]

 

Your repetition of this strawman is becoming tedious. No serious scholar of history or the development of science and technology considers Egyptian civilisation backward in the perjorative sense you imply.

 

 

This isn't my argument at all. This is the Egyptological perspective. This is essentially the viewpoint of western civilization as well as most of the world today. My argument is that this perspective is demonstrably wrong and patently illogical.

 

To deny that this is the Egyptological viewpoint is to subscribe to their political correctness which holds scientific achievement in a society equally to superstition and primitiveness. No, it's not my contention that one is inherently wrong or one is inherently right. It is my conrtention that one leads to life and one leads to death. It is superstition that kills and it kills individually and collectively. I don't know if there's something wrong with Egyptians having been superstitious or not and it's irrelevant to any of my arguments. The Egyptians were who they were and nothing an Egyptologist nor I say can possibly have any effect whatsoever.

 

Nor is it my contention that "science" as we know it has led to any "truth" or complete understanding. It is my opinion that science as we usually practice it and understand it today has obscured more issues and more truth than it has disclosed. I believe that "technology" has become mistaken for knowledge and science has more in common with religion in most minds than with truth. This also is irrelevant to any of my arguments.

 

There's simply no question that Egyptology paints these people as backward and superstitious. They hold up the Pyramid Texts which they admit they can't understand and that they translate it improperly anyway and call it prima facie evidence that the great pyramid builders were hamstrung by religion, believed in magic, and were willing to risk their own lives and the lives of their families in order to construct a 6 1/2 million ton tomb for a dead king who never died. Were this not sufficient they also say that they were so backward and primitive the only possible means they could devise to lift stones was to build a ramp! It's irrelevant that the only evidence for any of this comes from thousands of years later because this is still how they define the great pyramid builders; in terms of later people and later evidence. This isn't open to question but is established fact. They even translate lines from the PT to suggest that their gods needed to be told to not walk in the corpse drippings of a dead god who was born a mummy but lived forever!!! How much more primitive and backward can a people actually be to believe or write such nonsensical tripe?

 

722c. Thy foot shall not pass over, thy step shall not stride through,

722d. thou shalt not tread upon the (corpse)-secretion of Osiris.

723a. Thou shalt tiptoe heaven like Śȝḥ (the toe-star); thy soul shall be pointed like Sothis (the pointed-star).

 

Rather than question the possibility that they are misunderstanding the material, they simply accept that these people were beholden to stinky gods who walked in the secretions of corpses. None were immune to such treatment;

 

1272a. If Isis comes in this her evil coming;

1272b. do not open to her thine arms; that which is said to her is her name (of) "wide of ḥwȝ-t (evil-smelling)."

 

In other words they say that logic didn't matter to the Egyptians and that they'd endanger the lives of their loved ones to do things for stinky gods who walked in corpse dripping after being born dead but this OK because there's nothing wrong with that.

 

Well, I should break this to them more gently but there really is something wrong with that. No, this isn't necessarily a value judgement since these are unpopular now days but what's wrong with it is that such twisted and convoluted thinking can't lead to a perfect pyramid but only to confusion.

 

They started with the assumption that the people were superstitious and this is the foundation on which Egyptology rests. This assumption is obviously in error because it is inconsistent with the facts, has no predictive capability, and is inconsistent with human nature.

 

Certainly the could do this, but what evidence do you have that they did do this?

 

They would be aware that the air could contain moisture, since rain fell, but how would they know that it was composed of a mixture of gases and - yes - what evidence do you have that such was the case?

 

All of these things can be learned from observation and then confirmed by further observation. I specifically mentioned one means of confirming the size of the earth by how much things appear to dip below the horizon due to distance. This is hardly rocket science and there's no reason to believe cavemen were stupid. Bees describe to the community the distance and direction to food so why would man with a complicated language not be able to do the same? Obviously they had sort of measures for both long and short distances so they could communicate. To claim otherwise is to suggest that language and human intelligence didn't exist because they were cavemen. Initially these concepts would have been "primitive" such as "a day's walk" to describe long distances and they would observe that in a day's walk a mountain receded the width of a river below the horizon. We might see this as highly primitive and believe it doesn't represent real knowledge but we are wrong. We believe this because we misapprend the nature of knowledge itself. The caveman could use all his knowledge simultaneously because he understood both the metaphysics and the individual facts themselves. He'd know things like a smoke signal or a reflection from a distant base camp would be affected by various condition including the curvature of the earth. People now simply don't and can't think in such terms.

 

As far as tides showing the distance to the moon all they needed was the concept of gravity (tefnut) and its diminuation over distance. The highest tide is always on the side facing the moon and the second highest tide is on the side away from the moon. The difference in height of these two tides gives an estimate to the moon in all locations on earth (though some can be a little confounding to to the movement of the water). The high tide in Egypt was 4" if memory serves.

 

If cavemen had tried to use shamanism and superstition to understand their world we wouldn't be here because they'd have succombed to faster predators, disease, poisons, and the myriad dangers waiting in a world that lacked highways and hospitals. Logically each tribe, band, group, or gang that tried to live by magic would wither and die and the world would naturally be polpulated by those that used observation and common sense to understand and manipulate their world. Logically this is just a form of survival of the fittest which works even better for social animals like humans. It was cavemen and pre-civilized people who invented agriculture and gave rise to the cities. Cities did not rise like termite mounds because mans' needs are so much more complex and diverse.

 

My fields of expertise lie far outside of solar phenomena and the size of Venus. There are other possibilities for ways to discover the speed of light but I think they would all require fast communication which could not have existed until 8000 years ago. As a child Ibelieve I could see Venus' disc when it was aligned with the sun properly. I included it parenthetically just to help direct readers to see that there is a great deal of observation and shortcuts to obtaining knowledge. If Venus behaved as a planet and appeared as a disc it would suggest each of the planets were discs despite the inability to see it. Who was it, Yogi Berra who said that there's a lot you can see if you just look. I would say that there is much more you can see if you observe.

 

I believe in twenty years it will be the common assumption that the ancients must have been scientists. But then, I expect this new assumption to start yielding actualm evidence pretty quickly because this is the nature of proper theor; it makes predictions. This is the nature of being human; it's far easier to see what you're looking for than what you aren't.

 

Let me turn your question around on you; what evidence do you have that the ancients were so ignorant. Does the lack of books and nuclear reactors necessarily mean that the people of the day weren't scientists?

Edited January 24, 2013 by cladking

[manderson]

I can't copy and paste or even quote a previous message for some reason.

 

Manderson said; "I see no divergence in language.".

 

This is the crux of the problem. Egyptology had deciphered the language with good accuracy before the 1870's when the Pyramid Texts was found. Virtually no writing of any sort from before 2000 BC existed up to this point. The little that survived and was found was less well translated, comprised primarily lists and single words like labels, and was not understood grammatically. Words were recognized but meaning was unknown. Certainly they had a more than adequate understanding of the later writing which existed in copious writings and even comprised a few intact manuscripts. This writing can be enigmatic but the meaning usually seems clear and is not entirely dissimilar to how we express ourselves. It's simply archaeic and foreign to most readers.

 

Unfortunately the one thing that survived from before 2000 BC was the one thing that just mostly coincidentally survived right across 2000 BC. The Pyramid Texts is merely the ritual that was read aloud to the crowds at the ascension ceremony of the king and it was maintained right across the change in the language and updated to new language eventually becoming the book of the dead. These later works are religious, magical, and "superstitious" in nature. Their meaning is pretty clear and these incantations are primarily the spells the king needs to get him to an afterlife in the elysium fields.

 

When Egtptology found the PT they were very obviously an older version of this work so there was the immediate assumption that they are exacly the same thing. Nothing could be further from the truth. The one thing everyone should realize is that translations of the later work are comprehensible but translations of the Pyramid Texts are just gobblety gook. Rather than investigating the possibility that meaning was expressed differently or there was a different meaning there was a tendency to simply take the lack of any coherent meaning as prima facie evidence that the pyramid builders were backward and superstitious. Indeed, since there is no other evidence that defines the builders Egyptology has simply projected the beliefs of later people to the pyramid building age and used this assumption that nothing changed as justification for interpreting and translating the Pyramid Texts as being identical to later works. Most of what survives from ancient Egypt even to later times has come out of tombs and pyramids because these were built up on "the horizon" in the desert where materials are more likely to survive. This massive sampling error has given them a very warped and wholly inaccurate picture of not only the oldest Egyptians but those after the language change as well. This leaves Egyptology with virtually no evidence at all and nothing to work with other than a mistranslation and misinterpretation of the PT and a few assumptions that seem certain but are in actuality wholly unevidenced. The assumption that the builders were so primitive that the only possible means to lift stones was to drag them up ramps is the most easily disproved and the one that most led them astray. The means they used is obvious yet it wasn't seen before now (or at least it wasn't published); the stones were pulled up the pyramid one step (81' 3") at a time. This is the description of Herodotus as well as a few other ancient sources such as Manetho who implied the ancients believed water shot up out of the ground.

 

The point is Egyptology excludes much of the real evidence as being irrelevant or a manifestation of religion. When the shackles of the assumptions are removed there is actually sigificant amounts of evidence that is relevant. For instance the great pyramids are built on water collection devices! The ancients called these the place of Set or "Ssm.t" (sacred aprons) and they were necessary to collect the water that was channeled through canals to where the counterweights operated. This is all fully consistent with the titles of the men and women who built the pyramids. There wasn't a huge city full of stone draggers and ramp builders nursing their aching backs but a tiny little village full of men, women, and children who operated boats, canals, and weighed the material before being lifted.

 

This is what the Pyramid Texts is actually describing in very "plain" language. This is how I've been able to find so much evidence for the means that was actually used; there are clues and descriptions throughout the PT. The problem is the interpretation of the PT as nonsense underlies much of the study of the ancients. People want to understand them and there's not much other than the PT. If I'm right (I am) then every single thing that people now believe about the PT is wrong. They don't want to deal with it. They don't want to try to test the theory because they apparently are afraid it's correct. There are countless easy ways to test this including a simple $200 chemical analysis of carbonated water that still exists under the ground today! They aren't testing their theories either and I've already debunked the possibility that ramps were used. Remember the Egyptological viewpoint isn't that ramps were used or that such evidence exists (it doesn't) the belief is that the ancients had no other means to lift stones. The word "ramp" isn't even attested anywhere until after the end of great pyramid building.

 

Egyptology (as it applies to great pyramids and their builders) is a construct founded on four incorrect assumptions;

-that the pyramids were tombs

-that they had to have been built by ramps

-that language and the people never changed

-that the people were superstitious

 

This doesn't mean that a great deal of genius hasn't gone into learning to understand these people and it's not at all unusual that Egyptology is quite right in a left handed sort of way. It's a wonder they learned so much with so little evidence and incorrect assumptions.

 

They are still wrong and this is of critical importance at least to our understanding of the past.

 

I can't copy and paste or even quote a previous message for some reason.

 

Manderson said; "I see no divergence in language.".

 

This is the crux of the problem. Egyptology had deciphered the language with good accuracy before the 1870's when the Pyramid Texts was found. Virtually no writing of any sort from before 2000 BC existed up to this point. The little that survived and was found was less well translated, comprised primarily lists and single words like labels, and was not understood grammatically. Words were recognized but meaning was unknown. Certainly they had a more than adequate understanding of the later writing which existed in copious writings and even comprised a few intact manuscripts. This writing can be enigmatic but the meaning usually seems clear and is not entirely dissimilar to how we express ourselves. It's simply archaeic and foreign to most readers.

 

Unfortunately the one thing that survived from before 2000 BC was the one thing that just mostly coincidentally survived right across 2000 BC. The Pyramid Texts is merely the ritual that was read aloud to the crowds at the ascension ceremony of the king and it was maintained right across the change in the language and updated to new language eventually becoming the book of the dead. These later works are religious, magical, and "superstitious" in nature. Their meaning is pretty clear and these incantations are primarily the spells the king needs to get him to an afterlife in the elysium fields.

 

When Egtptology found the PT they were very obviously an older version of this work so there was the immediate assumption that they are exacly the same thing. Nothing could be further from the truth. The one thing everyone should realize is that translations of the later work are comprehensible but translations of the Pyramid Texts are just gobblety gook. Rather than investigating the possibility that meaning was expressed differently or there was a different meaning there was a tendency to simply take the lack of any coherent meaning as prima facie evidence that the pyramid builders were backward and superstitious. Indeed, since there is no other evidence that defines the builders Egyptology has simply projected the beliefs of later people to the pyramid building age and used this assumption that nothing changed as justification for interpreting and translating the Pyramid Texts as being identical to later works. Most of what survives from ancient Egypt even to later times has come out of tombs and pyramids because these were built up on "the horizon" in the desert where materials are more likely to survive. This massive sampling error has given them a very warped and wholly inaccurate picture of not only the oldest Egyptians but those after the language change as well. This leaves Egyptology with virtually no evidence at all and nothing to work with other than a mistranslation and misinterpretation of the PT and a few assumptions that seem certain but are in actuality wholly unevidenced. The assumption that the builders were so primitive that the only possible means to lift stones was to drag them up ramps is the most easily disproved and the one that most led them astray. The means they used is obvious yet it wasn't seen before now (or at least it wasn't published); the stones were pulled up the pyramid one step (81' 3") at a time. This is the description of Herodotus as well as a few other ancient sources such as Manetho who implied the ancients believed water shot up out of the ground.

 

The point is Egyptology excludes much of the real evidence as being irrelevant or a manifestation of religion. When the shackles of the assumptions are removed there is actually sigificant amounts of evidence that is relevant. For instance the great pyramids are built on water collection devices! The ancients called these the place of Set or "Ssm.t" (sacred aprons) and they were necessary to collect the water that was channeled through canals to where the counterweights operated. This is all fully consistent with the titles of the men and women who built the pyramids. There wasn't a huge city full of stone draggers and ramp builders nursing their aching backs but a tiny little village full of men, women, and children who operated boats, canals, and weighed the material before being lifted.

 

This is what the Pyramid Texts is actually describing in very "plain" language. This is how I've been able to find so much evidence for the means that was actually used; there are clues and descriptions throughout the PT. The problem is the interpretation of the PT as nonsense underlies much of the study of the ancients. People want to understand them and there's not much other than the PT. If I'm right (I am) then every single thing that people now believe about the PT is wrong. They don't want to deal with it. They don't want to try to test the theory because they apparently are afraid it's correct. There are countless easy ways to test this including a simple $200 chemical analysis of carbonated water that still exists under the ground today! They aren't testing their theories either and I've already debunked the possibility that ramps were used. Remember the Egyptological viewpoint isn't that ramps were used or that such evidence exists (it doesn't) the belief is that the ancients had no other means to lift stones. The word "ramp" isn't even attested anywhere until after the end of great pyramid building.

 

Egyptology (as it applies to great pyramids and their builders) is a construct founded on four incorrect assumptions;

-that the pyramids were tombs

-that they had to have been built by ramps

-that language and the people never changed

-that the people were superstitious

 

This doesn't mean that a great deal of genius hasn't gone into learning to understand these people and it's not at all unusual that Egyptology is quite right in a left handed sort of way. It's a wonder they learned so much with so little evidence and incorrect assumptions.

 

They are still wrong and this is of critical importance at least to our understanding of the past.

 

I can't copy and paste or even quote a previous message for some reason.

 

Manderson said; "I see no divergence in language.".

 

This is the crux of the problem. Egyptology had deciphered the language with good accuracy before the 1870's when the Pyramid Texts was found. Virtually no writing of any sort from before 2000 BC existed up to this point. The little that survived and was found was less well translated, comprised primarily lists and single words like labels, and was not understood grammatically. Words were recognized but meaning was unknown. Certainly they had a more than adequate understanding of the later writing which existed in copious writings and even comprised a few intact manuscripts. This writing can be enigmatic but the meaning usually seems clear and is not entirely dissimilar to how we express ourselves. It's simply archaeic and foreign to most readers.

 

Unfortunately the one thing that survived from before 2000 BC was the one thing that just mostly coincidentally survived right across 2000 BC. The Pyramid Texts is merely the ritual that was read aloud to the crowds at the ascension ceremony of the king and it was maintained right across the change in the language and updated to new language eventually becoming the book of the dead. These later works are religious, magical, and "superstitious" in nature. Their meaning is pretty clear and these incantations are primarily the spells the king needs to get him to an afterlife in the elysium fields.

 

When Egtptology found the PT they were very obviously an older version of this work so there was the immediate assumption that they are exacly the same thing. Nothing could be further from the truth. The one thing everyone should realize is that translations of the later work are comprehensible but translations of the Pyramid Texts are just gobblety gook. Rather than investigating the possibility that meaning was expressed differently or there was a different meaning there was a tendency to simply take the lack of any coherent meaning as prima facie evidence that the pyramid builders were backward and superstitious. Indeed, since there is no other evidence that defines the builders Egyptology has simply projected the beliefs of later people to the pyramid building age and used this assumption that nothing changed as justification for interpreting and translating the Pyramid Texts as being identical to later works. Most of what survives from ancient Egypt even to later times has come out of tombs and pyramids because these were built up on "the horizon" in the desert where materials are more likely to survive. This massive sampling error has given them a very warped and wholly inaccurate picture of not only the oldest Egyptians but those after the language change as well. This leaves Egyptology with virtually no evidence at all and nothing to work with other than a mistranslation and misinterpretation of the PT and a few assumptions that seem certain but are in actuality wholly unevidenced. The assumption that the builders were so primitive that the only possible means to lift stones was to drag them up ramps is the most easily disproved and the one that most led them astray. The means they used is obvious yet it wasn't seen before now (or at least it wasn't published); the stones were pulled up the pyramid one step (81' 3") at a time. This is the description of Herodotus as well as a few other ancient sources such as Manetho who implied the ancients believed water shot up out of the ground.

 

The point is Egyptology excludes much of the real evidence as being irrelevant or a manifestation of religion. When the shackles of the assumptions are removed there is actually sigificant amounts of evidence that is relevant. For instance the great pyramids are built on water collection devices! The ancients called these the place of Set or "Ssm.t" (sacred aprons) and they were necessary to collect the water that was channeled through canals to where the counterweights operated. This is all fully consistent with the titles of the men and women who built the pyramids. There wasn't a huge city full of stone draggers and ramp builders nursing their aching backs but a tiny little village full of men, women, and children who operated boats, canals, and weighed the material before being lifted.

 

This is what the Pyramid Texts is actually describing in very "plain" language. This is how I've been able to find so much evidence for the means that was actually used; there are clues and descriptions throughout the PT. The problem is the interpretation of the PT as nonsense underlies much of the study of the ancients. People want to understand them and there's not much other than the PT. If I'm right (I am) then every single thing that people now believe about the PT is wrong. They don't want to deal with it. They don't want to try to test the theory because they apparently are afraid it's correct. There are countless easy ways to test this including a simple $200 chemical analysis of carbonated water that still exists under the ground today! They aren't testing their theories either and I've already debunked the possibility that ramps were used. Remember the Egyptological viewpoint isn't that ramps were used or that such evidence exists (it doesn't) the belief is that the ancients had no other means to lift stones. The word "ramp" isn't even attested anywhere until after the end of great pyramid building.

 

Egyptology (as it applies to great pyramids and their builders) is a construct founded on four incorrect assumptions;

-that the pyramids were tombs

-that they had to have been built by ramps

-that language and the people never changed

-that the people were superstitious

 

This doesn't mean that a great deal of genius hasn't gone into learning to understand these people and it's not at all unusual that Egyptology is quite right in a left handed sort of way. It's a wonder they learned so much with so little evidence and incorrect assumptions.

 

They are still wrong and this is of critical importance at least to our understanding of the past.

 

CLADKING: first i must say you are incredibly generous and that you'd share so much valued knowledge on a public forum to people who for the most part will not grasp the bulk of your thought. initially i was inclined to dismiss what u had to say about babel/language change, but because of the sense in the rest of your ideas i would be foolish not to listen and attempt to follow ur thinking. i admit to a kneejerk rejection of Bible-ism, notwithstanding knowing great truths can be filter therefrom. i see very few (if any) flaws in the portions of your reasoning that i follow. I do agree Herodotus describe the method of building the pyramids.

 

i am convinced the methodology was that of using locked canals similar to the Panama Canal and the methodology is something we could easily replicate if desired. how the stones were quarried, i don't know: do you have any ideas on how this might have been done? (where does freeMASONry fit into this? if at all?). why are u sharing so rich information on a forum such as this where clearly no one has much real interest, aptitude or inclination to understand? Why are u so passionate about this area? What caused u to investigate this area? And most imortantly "Who are you?"

 

And given ur clear understand of certain affairs, what do u believe is the reason the assinine explanations of egyptian technology is peddled to the world. clearly our world today has enough intelligent people to know u can't build what was the worlds tallest structure for thousands of years by using ramps? why so much lies about egypt? why feed the general population so much disinformation? the strategy on egpyt is akin to military misinformation stratgey used to manipulate public opinion and sow support for invasions/wars? or can it be that the 'experts' really are as stupid as they seem? who is behind the information controll and why? I know ignorance is key to controlling people...from taliban to cia to islamic mullahs. controll people by becoming the pilot of their minds and u controll all else. controll is exercise by evil. as in the presence of light darkness ceases to be: so it is clearly fear.

 

What wisdom do u speculate the ancients had/practiced (pre-babel if u will) that has been lost? Or if not lost, is being hidden?

 

Sorry too many questions but u wrote so liberally and generously ur generosity elicited it.

 

Regards...

ps: i don't see eye to eye with u on babel/language lost. not to say i could not, but it is simply not something i have so far developed familiarity with or given thought to. i will review ur thoughts on this. what sources can u direct me to that in ur view are credible?.

 

CLADKING: "Virtually no writing of any sort from before 2000 BC existed up to this point."

 

I do not find that fact alarming. keep in mind "writing" per se is no holy grail prima facie evidence of civilization, neither are buildings. keep in mind the ancient world was primarily "oral" in their recording of history - much of this oral history i believe can still be found in many cultures, but our obsession with "writing" leads us to not see the elephant in front of our eyes. writing is actually far less effective way of preserving knowledge and bringing it forward across time to future generations. think of writing as saving information on a harddrive instead of memorizing the information and convey it from memory. if u lose or damage the harddrive the knowledge is lost or damaged. if u had it memorized (oral) you do not lose the knowledge unless u and other memorizers of the knowledge are killed (destroyed) by invaders, etc. so unlike u i do not currently place much weight on the fact that written languages did not litter the ancient world....instead i believe we would be well served to resume committing our knowledge to memory as the ancients did. i also believe we would be well served and far more would be disclosed to us if we take the time to learn the numerous oral histories still remaining of ancient societies and this could fill alot of gaps and reduce much speculation.

 

with ur wisdom, i am sure u can clearly see that the bias towards "written" language falls squarely in the realm of contemporary arrogance, baseless conceit, and ignorance of the ancients.

 

your concurring thoughts and/or rebuttles please....

 

It seems ironic that a concept that will be seen as obvious even with our highly limited current knowledge in fifty years is seen as speculative today. This post was an attempt to make the point that great cities and great pyramids didn't suddenly arise in a vacuum of knowledge and as a result of shamans, ignorance, and superstition. People needed real world knowledge to succeed far more in ancient times than they do today. Where it failed as a post it might succeed as a thread.

 

The fact is that much of modern science could be deduced from observation and logic alone. This is a far more tedious means to invent knowledge but it is the direction even modern science has been heading. We might be nearing the point at which experimental science hits a roadblock and it could be the same or similar problem the ancients faced. Why else switch to logic,math, and thought experiments unless there is a problem developing experiments?

 

I will defend this and expound on any point if anyone is interested. I'll also defend any points in my overall thesis which is a work much longer in process. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72011-epistemology-science-and-technology/

 

There is good reason to believe that the ancients were scientists. Imhotep had a title that could be translated as "Chief of Observers". Each of the pyramids employed a couple of "Prophets" whose job was to make predictions about best practices. All of the evidence for the builders of the great pyramids indicate these people were highly trained and sophisticated. They had good health care that even included brain surgery (a few appear to have survived). It is nothing but interpretation that paints any of the ancients as beinfg superstitious or religious. These are modern constructs founded on assumptions and some of these assumptions I've already debunked (such as ramps). I've already shown that the assumption that there was no change in the culture between the great pyramid building age and the middle dynasty is absurd, baseless, illogical, and incorrect in all likelyhood.

 

At some point in time there were highly primitive people but this probably disappeared almost immediately when language arose 40,000 years ago. Magic and religion couldn't protect people against predation and disaster but observation could and these observations were announced far and wide and passed down to children. All of history falls into place and makes perfect sense once it's realized that the language actually did change and the old science was utterly lost except for fragments of its metaphysics in modern religions. Cavefolk were far more interested in knowledge than charms and beliefs.

 

 

CLAD KING: "All of history falls into place and makes perfect sense once it's

realized that the language actually did change and the old science was

utterly lost except for fragments of its metaphysics in modern

religions."

 

Rather than piecemeal judge u on sectional internet posts it may be more useful to fully review ur ideas. have u published anything that outlines the body of your thought that i can review and better assess your view?

 

here you are talking about change in language which i find to be a sounder ground than speaking of absence of writing. now languages change and go extinct all the time and with that much knowledge does get lost, but much is also preserved in the new languages/dialects that evolve. greatest loss is in case of destroying (killing) usual via war and conquests. language loss as an explanatory model for loss of old science is certainly good grounds. but rather than focussing exclusively on what was lost and why (we gain little from that i believe), focus on what remains and allow that to lead u to discover/deduce/speculate as to what was/is. again study the ALIVE ancient societies of today, study their ORAL histories and i suspect this will open a massive door into the past u endeavor to examine. simply coming to the conclusion that the ancients were highly intelligent breaks contemporary stereotype, but otherwise disclose little about what they actually knew. best to also study ancients of today to gain real insights and reduce speculation (which by definition is bound to be wildly incorrect, albeit better than the ignorance we are now beset by).

[cladking]

CLADKING: first i must say you are incredibly generous and that you'd share so much valued knowledge on a public forum to people who for the most part will not grasp the bulk of your thought.

 

I can't thank you enough for the encouragement. I've gotten very very little.

 

I have no means to establish these facts on my own for reasons I'd rather not discuss. I have no options but to pursue this the way I have. I might have gone to the media but do not desire the attention. My primary interest is now, and has been to know how the pyramids were built. I've been distracted from determining the specific details for over a year now because there needs to be testing done and it isn't happening. This makes it more tactically important to interest other people in the subject.

 

 

i am convinced the methodology was that of using locked canals similar to the Panama Canal and the methodology is something we could easily replicate if desired. how the stones were quarried, i don't know: do you have any ideas on how this might have been done? (where does freeMASONry fit into this? if at all?).

 

 

I believe locks were used limitedly. I don't know much about quarrying but experts believe channels were pounded by shatteriung stones into rectangular shapes and then holes were drill horizontally under them and wooden wedges inserted into these holes. The wedges were soaked with water and their swelling broke the stone free. I have no particular problem with this and some evidence exists. However there is a great deal not known ant the PT refers to a force (set) which operates the "Great Saw Palace". There's apparently more that isn't known.

 

I believe masonry is derived from pyramid building and there is at least limited knowledge of this among masons. I get a great number of google hits for masons. There are too many to be coincidental. I've managed to google up most of the 33rd degree stuff and their rituals and some can be interpreted to relate to pyramid building. I don't know.

 

 

why are u sharing so rich information on a forum such as this where clearly no one has much real interest, aptitude or inclination to understand?

 

 

I'm here specifically to expose this to real scientists. Egyptologists are are very knowledgeable and intelligent but do not follow proper scientific procedures nor do scientific testing. Their results are correct to the degree the assummptions are correct but these assumptions are apparently all in error. They are no help to outsiders and do better counting angels that can dance on the head of a pin than gathering knowledge or discussing findings. They are hamstrung by assumption and tend to get angry when challenged.

 

 

Why are u so passionate about this area? What caused u to investigate this area? And most imortantly "Who are you?"

 

 

Interesting questions. I can't be entirely forthcoming.

 

I might be the last educated caveman or a reincarnation of a pyramid builder. No, not literally of course but I grew up naturally inclined to question everythinmg and was encouraged in this direction. Everything had to be checked. This is a poor way to learn specialties and I lacked the funding anyway so I became self taught. I invented a new field of study I call generalism but is known by a few as nexialism.

 

My passion is partly because I believe man is on the wrong path even before I found that we might be on a 4000 year detour. It's partly because I find sorts of "soul mates" among the Egyptians. They have been horribly maligned for many centuries. They have been ridiculed, laughed at, and had their graves desicrated since time immemorial. The major source of my passion is simple curiousity about how they built these. I know viscerally that ramps are an impossibility and that they quite probably had a motive force.

 

That the ancients are defined for political, religious, and racial reasons also sticks in my craw. They deserve to be understood for who and what they were and if I'm right then we can't even understand ourselves or the nature of humanity without understanding the Egyptians and by extension, cavemen.

 

I have to be much more circumspect on this last point but suffice to say that there are implications of this that will impact directly on me and many others alive today and time is of the essense.

 

 

And given ur clear understand of certain affairs, what do u believe is the reason the assinine explanations of egyptian technology is peddled to the world.

 

 

I'm not sure it's this apparent that they are wrong. I am sure they actually believe these people were as primitive as they claim. They point to the lack of artefacts in the museums as proof that there was no complicated technology. But right inside the Cairo Museum is what I believe we know as the "fire-pan"; a signalling device to alert builders to report to work;

 

 

This device sat in the nurse canal on the mehet weret cow and stayed burning so long as the water was violently rocked by the falling water. Its ability to float was maintained by the renennutet which channed CO2 from the eye of horus to beneath it. It was probably known as the "mks-sceptre" and with the nbht-sceptre which waved the "variegated feathers of the mehet weret cow" were the only two automatic signalling devices in operation. This device was probably the highest technology they possessed but it paled in importance and beauty to some of their simpler technology.

 

I believe Egyptology just took a wrong road 150 years ago based partly on racism but primarily on inertia and building on older beliefs.

 

 

 

clearly our world today has enough intelligent people to know u can't build what was the worlds tallest structure for thousands of years by using ramps? why so much lies about egypt? why feed the general population so much disinformation? the strategy on egpyt is akin to military misinformation stratgey used to manipulate public opinion and sow support for invasions/wars?

 

 

I think at this point it's mostly a matter of them talking themselves into it. Just this past summer they commissioned another study to determine the feasibility of ramps. They always just assume the exiostence of ramps and compute the effort but don't consider the ramps must have only a single shape. Their descriptions of ramps always comes up Escher-like because there is no systemthat would work and the evidence says there were no ramps.

 

 

or can it be that the 'experts' really are as stupid as they seem? who is behind the information controll and why? I know ignorance is key to controlling people...from taliban to cia to islamic mullahs. controll people by becoming the pilot of their minds and u controll all else. controll is exercise by evil. as in the presence of light darkness ceases to be: so it is clearly fear.

 

 

Truth to tell, I've always believed human intelligence is grossly over rated. It barely exists at all. Everything we do is primarily a manifestation of habit founded on beliefs developed by the learning made possible by language. Yes, there are flashes of true intelligence in people but there is in animals as well. We simply are creatures of habit. This was probably just as true before the languagfes wwere confused. The real difference, I believe, is ancient people knew they were ignorant and not intelligent but this knowledge was lost at the tower of babel.

 

 

Or if not lost, is being hidden?

 

 

It's not hidden. It's right out in the open everywhere we look. It's in the PT, Bible, Koran, and various ancient writings. We simply misinterpret it. This knowledge and the ability to get back to where we once were will have to wait until the science is done.

 

 

Sorry too many questions but u wrote so liberally and generously ur generosity elicited it.

 

There are some questions here I've never been asked. Thanks.

[cladking]

hhh

 

 

I once worked in a plant that mixed various ingredients to make a consumer product. It was all automated and the computer system was quite antiquated. When it was updated I had an opprtunity to make interfaces so operators could see and control each process. I designed the entire interface system and the software department installed everything. When it was complete they wrote up a brief synopsis for the operators so they would know specifically what changes were made and how to affect the operation. When I read this synopsis I didn't even know what I was reading. There were numerous key words that seemed to imply it was this subject but the words were all a jumbled mess with no coherent meaning. I read this thing over and over and then suddenly about the tenth time it all fell into place and made perfect sense. They had simply described in English what changes they had made in the computer code. The synopsis was equivalent to computer code translated to English.

 

This is what the Pyramid Texts appears to be. A sort of computer code or natural language translated to English by people who don't know that the language provides meaning in a different way.

 

I believe I understand vast stretches of this work nearly as well as the author. I often say that it means exactly what it says and this isn't far off but what it says isn't expressed quite like the way we express things.  I suppose it's possible that this is largely caused by translation errors but generally the translationsd appear sound judging by the meaning.  It seems that since no one else can understand it even with my explanations I'm running into a brick wall. Perhaps I've deluded myself but then how would I have all this information that no one else has? Perhaps everyone is even stupider than I am, but in my experience this is improbable since I tend to be pretty thick. Perhaps everyone is playing games but then I'm right back to being deluded. This pretty much leaves only the possibility that the language changed and other people can't understand it. If it's true the language changed and there exists a story that the entire language of the world changed then a workable theory exists. On investigation of this theory I've found several pieces of evidence that fit and support it and no inconsistencies. I don't know. I do know that if you plug the concept of "cool effervescent water that tosses" into pyramid building then all human history fits a logical pattern and there is a significant probability that someone from babel built a tower for scientific purposes that fell from natural causes and led directly or indirectly to a change in language from something like computer code to the deconstructable nonsense that we all know and love.

 

I'm not married to the concept but it's easier on me to consider it as the most viable explanation at the current time. Hence we have priests whoi were actually scientists and cavemen who were while not highly educated could outthink most people alive today on any scientific subject. At least the "world curves the width of a river each day's walk" is much more sensible than most things I hear people say.

Edited January 25, 2013 by cladking

[cladking]

language loss as an explanatory model for loss of old science is certainly good grounds. but rather than focussing exclusively on what was lost and why (we gain little from that i believe), focus on what remains and allow that to lead u to discover/deduce/speculate as to what was/is. again study the ALIVE ancient societies of today, study their ORAL histories and i suspect this will open a massive door into the past u endeavor to examine. simply coming to the conclusion that the ancients were highly intelligent breaks contemporary stereotype, but otherwise disclose little about what they actually knew. best to also study ancients of today to gain real insights and reduce speculation (which by definition is bound to be wildly incorrect, albeit better than the ignorance we are now beset by).

 

I'll keep this brief since the sofware is failing me here.

 

The Hebrew word for babel is "division". There are many ways in which loss of the ancient language caused division. Before the change there would have been numerous relatively isolated "societies" but they all shared the same language. When they did encounter outsiders the first thing they'd do is update each others language. Normally such updates would be insignificant unless the isolation had been very prolonged. After the change not only were most outsiders no longer understood at all but the new language fostered superstitions. There are probably no people alive today who hold onto more than small fragments of the ancient language and even less the way it was used. Certainly individual words survive (many are onomatopoeia) but vocabulary is nearly irrelevant to communication. I'm told there are some aspects of "computer code" that may survive in Hawaiian so, parhaps, this language evolved naturally away from the original natural language.

 

I don't believe that primitive societies today usually have much commonality with societies in the distant past. Obviously even the most primitive societies today have attributes and some advantages to the distant past and even to "western civilization". But they may be mostly irrelevant to trying to understand cavemen or the ancient Egyptians who were the "crown of creation" relative other peoples who spoke natural language.

[manderson]

I'll keep this brief since the sofware is failing me here.

 

The Hebrew word for babel is "division". There are many ways in which loss of the ancient language caused division. Before the change there would have been numerous relatively isolated "societies" but they all shared the same language. When they did encounter outsiders the first thing they'd do is update each others language. Normally such updates would be insignificant unless the isolation had been very prolonged. After the change not only were most outsiders no longer understood at all but the new language fostered superstitions. There are probably no people alive today who hold onto more than small fragments of the ancient language and even less the way it was used. Certainly individual words survive (many are onomatopoeia) but vocabulary is nearly irrelevant to communication. I'm told there are some aspects of "computer code" that may survive in Hawaiian so, parhaps, this language evolved naturally away from the original natural language.

 

I don't believe that primitive societies today usually have much commonality with societies in the distant past. Obviously even the most primitive societies today have attributes and some advantages to the distant past and even to "western civilization". But they may be mostly irrelevant to trying to understand cavemen or the ancient Egyptians who were the "crown of creation" relative other peoples who spoke natural language.

 

 

I'll keep this brief since the sofware is failing me here.

 

The Hebrew word for babel is "division". There are many ways in which loss of the ancient language caused division. Before the change there would have been numerous relatively isolated "societies" but they all shared the same language. When they did encounter outsiders the first thing they'd do is update each others language. Normally such updates would be insignificant unless the isolation had been very prolonged. After the change not only were most outsiders no longer understood at all but the new language fostered superstitions. There are probably no people alive today who hold onto more than small fragments of the ancient language and even less the way it was used. Certainly individual words survive (many are onomatopoeia) but vocabulary is nearly irrelevant to communication. I'm told there are some aspects of "computer code" that may survive in Hawaiian so, parhaps, this language evolved naturally away from the original natural language.

 

I don't believe that primitive societies today usually have much commonality with societies in the distant past. Obviously even the most primitive societies today have attributes and some advantages to the distant past and even to "western civilization". But they may be mostly irrelevant to trying to understand cavemen or the ancient Egyptians who were the "crown of creation" relative other peoples who spoke natural language.

 

 

 

CLADKING:

“I'm here specifically to expose this to real scientists.

Egyptologists are are very knowledgeable and intelligent but do not follow

proper scientific procedures nor do scientific testing.”

 

 

 

MADNERSON:

you are wasting your time and is disseminating your rich thought in a

way that expels your thought but leaves no legacy or lasting benefit to create

the sort of change your passion clearly desire. The anonymous ones here largely are not

classifiable as “real scientists” – they are bloggers and little else. It

best u are reaching some physics students and graduates on the margins of their

professions. In

short u are largely dealing with low level disciples. Egyptologists

for the most part are minions of those who fund their expeditions…u err by

expecting scientific standards of so called Egyptologists? They are

not scientist…they are archeologist specializing in Egypt? Why do u think a profession was created

specifically for Egypt? (where are the Romeologist?, Greeceologist? Etc).

It is certainly not because of a belief in ignorance of the ancients…it

is precisely because the OPPOSITE is know to be true. Most so called Egyptologists are minions who

help mine ancient knowledge so that contemporary people can appropriate it,

claim it as their own inventions/creations/discoveries…just as the so called

greek philosophers did after Alexander’s invasion…just as the French did after

napoleons invasion…just as the Masonic founding father of US did in making

Washington on the Potomac a copy of Luxor on the Nile… Ramp theory and all the other nonsense is

decoy…yes most mainstream ‘Egyptologists’

believe the decoy. Simply I FUND only Egyptologist

who believe in the version of story I wish to put out there. One’s who do not believe that story I do not

fund and make sure they do not have access to perform digs. Simple really.

 

 

 

 

 

CLADKING: “Their results are correct to

the degree the assummptions are correct but these assumptions are apparently

all in error...They are hamstrung by assumption and tend to get angry when

challenged.

 

 

 

MANDERSON: and u

think internet bloggers will be better just because the url has the word “science”

in it? I finance only the fools who will advance the

version of story I want out there. Simple

as that. I can guarantee u that u would

not get financing. Bloggers on this

site are so sequestered on their blog they lack basic awareness of matters all

over the mainstream media, yet alone truly thoughtful matters. Case in point one level intense criticism when

I posted about U.S.

military actively developing telepathy for military applications….this fact is

not exactly revolutionary or secret. I

google 2seconds and find an msnbc link on what close minds dismiss as nonsense: (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27162401/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/army-developing-synthetic-telepathy/#.UQMoVh2gaSA)

 

Why waste ur

time educating people who desire not to learn?

 

 

 

CLADKING:

“They have been horribly maligned for many centuries. They have

been ridiculed, laughed at, and had their graves desicrated since time

immemorial. The major source of my passion is simple curiousity about how

they built these. “

 

 

 

MANDERSON:

nothing mind bloggling here. Envy,

Admiration, Cognitive Dissonance – all combined with a desire to appropriate and take

credit for that which one envy and admire. Started with the Greece,

continued by the Rome, Arabs, French, Brits and founding

father of U.S..

 

 

 

CLADKING: “That the ancients are defined for

political, religious, and racial reasons also sticks in my craw. They

deserve to be understood for who and what they were and if I'm right then we

can't even understand ourselves or the nature of humanity without understanding

the Egyptians and by extension, cavemen. “

 

 

 

MANDERSON: You idealism is noble and admirable. But my friend it is called war. Egypt was attacked, for thousands

of years she defeated her envious attackers and infiltrators, but ultimately

lost one day. The story that frustrate

u is being written by the victors and their heirs. Don’t expect a glorious eulogy. The lies can be found in the same Bible u

respect. Story of exodus of Hebrews

(who were Hebrew speaking Egyptians not Ashkenazi khazars: http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/12/14/gbe.evs119.short?rss=1)

 

 

Personally I think there is a nexus

between the expelled Hebrews, the hyksos invaders and pharaoh akhenaten.

 

 

 

CLADKING: “I believe Egyptology just took a wrong road

150 years ago based partly on racism but primarily on inertia and building on

older beliefs.”

 

 

 

MANDERSON: It took wrong road when the last indigenous

pharaoh (Nectanebo) fled south to Napata (Nubia) after Persian

invasion (by Artaxerxes). Nail when in the coffin with death of

Cleopatra and her ally Julius Ceasar. We can weep all we want…the fact is that the

ignoramus won. Racism was necessary to preserve not just the

false theory

of racial supremacy but more importantly to resolve the cognitive dissonance

the facts of kemet posed to such theory, and most importantly revamping Egypt racially

was necessary to maintain public support for the rather profitable business of

the traffic in humans (ie atlantic slave trade). Inertia on older beliefs is true…for this

look no further than the Roman Catholic Church which appropriated Jesus’s

teachings (after 300yrs of banning it) as a tool to expand the empire,

genociding fellow Europeans, who in turn became converts and repeated the

genocidal process onto the natives of the Americas, carribean, Australia, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

CLADKING: “I can't thank you enough for the

encouragement. I've gotten very very little.”

 

 

 

MANDERSON: I do not

encouirage u. I speak truth….it is

hearing of the truth that encourages u. The fact

that blog disciples would criticize u underscore the fact that electing to

target bloggers is pissing ur

valuable know how onto poreless stones.

 

 

 

 

 

CLADKING:

“Truth to tell, I've always believed human intelligence is grossly over

rated. It barely exists at all. Everything we do is primarily a

manifestation of habit founded on beliefs developed by the learning made

possible by language. Yes, there are flashes of true intelligence in

people but there is in animals as well. We simply are creatures of habit.”

 

 

 

MANDERSON:

I agree and disagree. I disagree in that I know humans have

incredible capacity and know that this capacity is “underated” (not overrated). I

agree in that most are unaware of this capacity and for this reason never move

towards developing it. I agree we are creatures of habit, but disagree

this is indicative of low or overrated intelligence. HABIT

is simple natures automation mechanism.

The intelligent will intelligently exploit this fact by developing good

habits to AUTOMATE their intelligence (I call these the “CONSCIOUSLY COMPETENT”).

Most I admit have no conscious awareness and

their habits are developed without conscious intent and largely by external

forces: these I call UNCONSCIOUSLY

INCOMPETENT….most people are unconsciously incompetent, but that does not mean

they are of low intelligence…it simply means they have latent capacity.

 

 

 

 

 

CLADKING: It's not hidden. It's right out in the

open everywhere we look. It's in the PT, Bible, Koran, and various

ancient writings. We simply misinterpret it. This knowledge and the

ability to get back to where we once were will have to wait until the science is

done.

 

 

 

MANDERSON: u are

right. It is hidden in open sight. Obelisks

in rome, paris & so called Washington

monument stolen from Luxor

for the founding of these cities is another example.

 

 

 

 

 

CLADKING: “I don't believe that primitive societies

today usually have much commonality with societies in the distant

past…But they may be mostly irrelevant to trying to understand cavemen or the

ancient Egyptians who were the "crown of creation" relative other

peoples who spoke natural language.”

 

 

 

MANDERSON: Can’t say I agree. I

clearly respect ur

mind, but to say u can’t find out much from a crime scene by studying the

rubble is a view u may wish to re-examine.

 

If society today was to suffer

a nuclear holocaust or extinctive meteor impact should it following that studying

whats left over will be irrelevant to trying to understand the skyscrapers,

airplanes, electricity, etc that use to exist? You

best bet it would appear is to start by analyzing the remaining rubble.

 

 

 

 

 

NB: instead of expending ur fine intellect blogging

to poreless stones, why not publish a book (under pen name to maintain ur anonymity),

get ur ideas out to waaaaay more people who want it, and enjoy the bonus of

getting richer in the process?. Just a thought….

[michel123456]

Cavemen were in europe during ice age and before (10,000 - 35,000yrs ago) and had no high culture. they cannot be compared to egyptians who had the planets most advanced civilization whose knowledge diffused to greece, rome, then great britain and USA. US capital was designed as a copy of thebes/luxor. u are 100% right, ancient civilizations (egypt, china, india in particular) were very advance even compared to today. the idea of the atom came from the egyptian god ATUM. aristotle, socrates, plato, herodotus and many greek philosophers went to school in egypt. (...) t

ατομο means "indivisible" from ablative greek alpha α and τομο (τομη) meaning "section' or "cut'. It is something you cannot divide (an atom) it is also a person (an individual). more on Wiki here. The egyptian god Atum has nothing to do AFAIK.

 

Also I don't recall Aristotle or Socrates having traveled to egypt although there were contacts between the 2 civilizations for eons. Plato is thought to have been there.

[cladking]

I'll probably have more response later to Manderson's last post.

 

I can't help but believe people do care about how the pyramid was bult and the nature of the people who built it but they are married to the concept that our ancestors were primitive bumpkins who dragged females by the hair back to their caves. People seem to need something solid in their lives and for some it's the concept of a supreme being and for others it's the supremacy of human beings.

 

Perhaps for some people it's just to much to accept no matter how much evidence exists. It's easier to just believe that the ancients stumbled on the ability to build pyramid as they were out being superstitious bumpkins.

 

Certainly progress has been very poor but I have managed to change the terms by which people argue. The fact is there is a very significant probability that the pyramid was built with the use of water pressure and that the builders were scientific and thought in terms of science. If this is true then it will come to be seen that it is we who are the superstious stumblebums rather than they. I believe that it is critical we learn this because the world and what it means to be human are going to be revolutionized in this century and we have a far better chance of success if we understand the nature of humanity.

 

People are closing their eyes to the facts because they choose not to see. None of these concepts are new. There is nothing new under the sun. The only thing really new is that there really was a change in the language and even most bible thumpers find this difficult to accept.

 

Thanks Michel123456 for the info. It's quite interesting. Many people don't realize that "Atum" was the first god who created himself yet the god Nun (phenomenon of water) already existed at this time. Egyptologists simply dismiss all these inconsistencies as irrelevant. Neither Aristotle nor Socrates is believed to have traveled to Egypt. Sir Isaac Newton studied the pyramid seeking knowledge about gravity but didn't know it when he found it. "8) It ascends from ye earth to ye heaven again it desends to ye earth and receives ye force of things superior inferior.". How's that for irony? He simply didn't know what "it" is. Two modern languages and he got so close.

 

Sir Isaac Newton studied the pyramid seeking knowledge about gravity but didn't know it when he found it. "8) It ascends from ye earth to ye heaven again it desends to ye earth and receives ye force of things superior inferior.". How's that for irony? He simply didn't know what "it" is. Two modern languages and he got so close.

 

He just needed an apple to fall on his head.

 

http://www.the-book-of-thoth.com/content-157.html

 

the best translation of the concept of using water to build pyramids ins the 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.

 

Though I love the rainbow in the Chinese version;

 

8) It ascends from the earth to the heavens (and orders the lights above), then descends again to the earth; and in it is the power of the highest and the lowest

 

Modern languages fail at communication. The ancient ones did not.

[michel123456]

@ Cladking

I'd suggest not to use the word "cavemen" when speaking about ancient Egypt. It is very ennoying.

(...)
Modern languages fail at communication. The ancient ones did not.

I disagree.
You could start a thread on this.
---------------
I'll have to dig for an old thread about ancient constructions. You must know that the pyramids differ from each other, they do not have all the same structure.

here.

Edited January 27, 2013 by michel123456

[cladking]

I think what bothers me so much about Manderson's post is that it rubs against my beliefs. I don't want to believe no one cares how the pyramids were really built because my whole philosophy of life is that we are supposed to have as much fun as possible leaving the world a better place than we found it. There's good reason to leave the world a better place if people today and their offspring have no interest in observation and truth. I might as well dive into the deep end of hedonism and see how much pleasure can be had per unit time until I die.

 

This isn't to say he's wrong but that I can't accept it and it's been causing some dissonance. I'll try to address some specific points soon.

 

I'd suggest not to use the word "cavemen" when speaking about ancient Egypt. It is very ennoying.

 

 

You're reading much more into these terms than what I'm trying to impart here. By "caveman" I mean all people who preceded the written language. Many of these individuals were actually cavemen but many more were not. I believe as is the point of this very thread that all of these people including the cavemen tended to be both smarter and more knowledgeable than people today. I believe virtually all of them were far less superstitious than people today.

 

When I use the word "caveman" just think of a scientist with a funny way of expressing himself. It would sound primitive to us and a lot like computer code.

 

When I use the word "Egyptian" I am always referring to the great pyramid builders and those who lived after the invention of writing and before the collapse of "proper" language. Egyptians were much more knowledgeable than cavemen because before 2000 BC human progress (called "thot) was linear. Before language was confused every generation of people knew more than the preceding generation. When I use the word "Egyptian" I'm referring to what was, perhaps, the true crown of creation.

 

This isn't to say I hold modern people, modern language, or modern science in low esteem merely that few today understand or can incorporate our vast knowledge into their lives or use it for any practical purposes. Modern people are highly superstitious and this is a very serious problem.

 

 

I disagree.
You could start a thread on this.

 

 

I believe every thread on every site highlights the failure of communication. Yes, there are some great threads on many sites but even in the best you can usually spot two posters who are on different topics. Modern communication is almost never perfect. Generally oral communication is much worse. Even if speakers take the time to listen to each other (few do) anything written or spoken can be deconstructed; it means what the listener believes it means.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction

 

This problem is greatly exascerbated by an imperfect understanding of referents and idiosyncratic, improper, or non-standard usage of definitions.

 

The ancient language didn't work this way. You either took the meaning perfectly or you knew you couldn't understand it at all; like computer code.

 

 

 

I'll have to dig for an old thread about ancient constructions. You must know that the pyramids differ from each other, they do not have all the same structure.

here.

here.

@ Cladking

I'd suggest not to use the word "cavemen" when speaking about ancient Egypt. It is very ennoying.

I disagree.
You could start a thread on this.
---------------
I'll have to dig for an old thread about ancient constructions. You must know that the pyramids differ from each other, they do not have all the same structure.

here.

 

I can't comprehend the post in the link. When my mind works it's very literal.

 

Actually one of the things I've done is look at what all the pyramids have in common rather than their differences. One of these things is that they are "all" built on water collection devices. They have a "causeway" down to the valley which can transport water. They have boats buried around them. Their builders had titles like "weigher/ reckoner" and "overseer of the boats of neith" and there are no ramps in evidence at a single one of them. Each of them is five steps implying that these steps were necessary to the construction. There's no evidence of extensive human activity to build any of these. Memphis was nearly a mile away from S1 and the tiny little builders village at G1 was more than half a mile across a ravine (wadi). They are surrounded by water retention devices and canals. There are caves, caverns, and passages underneath them. They all exist in a tiny region on the west side of the Nile that is not so much larger than the largest cold water geyser fields. None of them are being seriously studied by the pseudo-scientists in charge. All but the first comes to a point.

 

Simply stated Egyptology has been debunked. Ramps have been debunked. That people don't recognize this is irrelevant. Human knowledge doesn't wait for any of us and isn't decided by vote. Until such tiome as actual science is done all we can say is "they mustta used geysers" because the "theory" (poor hypothesis) that they "mustta used ramps" has been shown to be the nonsense it is.

If anyone is interested there's a brand new book out that claims cold water geysers were used to build the pyramids. This is not my work and I have no financial interest whatsoever in it. I don't even agree with all the science in the book.

 

It is "The Great Pyramid Rainmaker" 2013 Christopher Jordan.

 

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/276831

 

I believe it's closer to the truth than any other book written on the subject.

[manderson]

CLADKING: I think what bothers me so much about Manderson's post is that it rubs against my beliefs. I don't want to believe no one cares how the pyramids were really built because my whole philosophy of life is that we are supposed to have as much fun as possible leaving the world a better place than we found it.

 

MANDERSON: You are a son of Thoth/Hermes (positivist)...it is people like u who make this world a better place. i did not say "no one cares", i merely said many on this forum are not the calibre of scientist you believe they are, will not understand and lack interest generally and are no more open-minded than the egyptologists your criticize. if you are posting for fun then u are in the right place; if u expect to make a difference in the world by posting here, u are wasting ur time (sorry for the honesty).

 

ANOTHER DISSONANT POINT: be cautious that your love for egypt does not slide into egyptocentrism (not any better than Greco-Romano-centrism). Like it is false to suggest Greece & Rome came out of nowhere...it is equally false to suggest Egypt came out of nowhere as a miracle civilization. Example: Don't forget the over 200 pyramids in Meroe Sudan (Kush) - more than in all of egypt. Don't forget the many pyramids in south america, as well as the very impressive Angkor Watt temple in Cambodia, etc. how about Mount Kailash Pyramid (Northern Tibet)? And the Pyramids of Mauritius? Etc? How about Olmec pyramids which have disappeared because of their distant antiquity and mud brick contruction? Does your theory hold for these other pyramids/structures which are not sitting on the bank of a river or on water collection devices? I am not saying your theory is wrong....i am not saying i hold the secrets...i am just pressing your thought envelope (without telling u what i think).

 

ANALOGY: To be in awe ONLY of egypt's pyramids is akin to being in awe of the Burj Khalifa (world's tallest tower in Dubai), ignoring the fact that the first skycraper in the world was built in 1885 in Chicago
(the Home Insurance Building) and that it is America that provided the technology to the rest of the world. Which brings me to another trap ifind archeologist/researchers fall into: namely assuming it was impossible for knowledge of the technology to spread internationally in ancient times. i am not shocked that some of the oldest pyramids are found in Brazil because brazil is just across the water from south africa (see a globe)...likewise i am not shocked at the similar finding
of pyramids across the water in Mauritius (see link below). i think an important thing for us to all realize is that humans learn from each other, build upon the knowledge of each other, interact with each other, travel among each other, and interbreed with each other.

 

BABEL: now i am not terribly familiar with the concept of Babel, but i decided to look a bit into it and presume this is a reference to the ancient Babylonian Tower (ziggurat) that history says was destroyed by Alexander the Great (died 323BC - giving us a date for the end of the tower/ziggurat). Are u proposing that there was a single human language up until about 323BC or sometime during the life of the tower? Tower is said to have been built by Nimrod (son of Cush)...i have no approximate date for Nimrod life, but his father Cush is said to have been the founder of the City of Axum in Cush (ancient Ethiopia). History tells us Axum was founded about 400BC, therefore Tower of Babel had to be built AFTER that date. Now are you saying that between 400BC (when Nimrod's father lived and afterwhich Nimrod built Babel) and 323BC (when Alexander destroyed Babel) we had a single language?

 

DISSONANCE: Even if we assume Babel predates Cush and goes back 2,000yrs we still have a problem. According to recent findings the earliest writings (found so far) was by the Harrapa civilization in India dated approximately 5,500years ago....over 3,000years before the most generous dating for Babel/Nimord or Cush. What do you make of this information?

(see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/334517.stm).

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/02files/Pyramids_World.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/worlds-oldest-pyramids-are-discovered-1353095.html

http://www.gigalresearch.com/uk/pyramides-maurice.php

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/334517.stm

 

SORRY IF I give you too much headache...that's what we are here for: to push each other.

[Ringer]

 

You're reading much more into these terms than what I'm trying to impart here. By "caveman" I mean all people who preceded the written language. Many of these individuals were actually cavemen but many more were not. I believe as is the point of this very thread that all of these people including the cavemen tended to be both smarter and more knowledgeable than people today. I believe virtually all of them were far less superstitious than people today.

 

 

Superstition tends to be higher in those with less education. Seeing that there were probably not schools for education for education sake, it would be a pretty good assumption that pre-historic people were superstitious. Also, since most primitive medicine is not evidence based, by definition it is superstitious medicine. I doubt primitive people everywhere consistently used evidence based medicine, so by definition it would be superstition.

 

 

 

 

When I use the word "Egyptian" I am always referring to the great pyramid builders and those who lived after the invention of writing and before the collapse of "proper" language. Egyptians were much more knowledgeable than cavemen because before 2000 BC human progress (called "thot) was linear. Before language was confused every generation of people knew more than the preceding generation. When I use the word "Egyptian" I'm referring to what was, perhaps, the true crown of creation.

 

Proper language? What would that be? Proto-Indo-Europian? Proto-Semitic? Because they didn't speak that at the time. Language has never been a static thing, and any no language is more 'proper' than any other.

 

This isn't to say I hold modern people, modern language, or modern science in low esteem merely that few today understand or can incorporate our vast knowledge into their lives or use it for any practical purposes. Modern people are highly superstitious and this is a very serious problem.

 

Nor could ancient people, many lived in poverty other were somewhat well off and they lived with little to no interest in incorporating those things into their lives. Please cite some evidence that the amount of superstition in modern societies is more than non-modern societies.

 

I believe every thread on every site highlights the failure of communication. Yes, there are some great threads on many sites but even in the best you can usually spot two posters who are on different topics. Modern communication is almost never perfect. Generally oral communication is much worse. Even if speakers take the time to listen to each other (few do) anything written or spoken can be deconstructed; it means what the listener believes it means.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction

 

This problem is greatly exascerbated by an imperfect understanding of referents and idiosyncratic, improper, or non-standard usage of definitions.

 

The ancient language didn't work this way. You either took the meaning perfectly or you knew you couldn't understand it at all; like computer code.

 

WHAT?!?!?! Oh please have a reference for this, because I'd love to see it. Language wasn't, isn't, and never has been static.

 

>I can't comprehend the post in the link. When my mind works it's very literal.

 

Actually one of the things I've done is look at what all the pyramids have in common rather than their differences. One of these things is that they are "all" built on water collection devices. They have a "causeway" down to the valley which can transport water. They have boats buried around them. Their builders had titles like "weigher/ reckoner" and "overseer of the boats of neith" and there are no ramps in evidence at a single one of them. Each of them is five steps implying that these steps were necessary to the construction. There's no evidence of extensive human activity to build any of these. Memphis was nearly a mile away from S1 and the tiny little builders village at G1 was more than half a mile across a ravine (wadi). They are surrounded by water retention devices and canals. There are caves, caverns, and passages underneath them. They all exist in a tiny region on the west side of the Nile that is not so much larger than the largest cold water geyser fields. None of them are being seriously studied by the pseudo-scientists in charge. All but the first comes to a point.

 

So if nobody is looking at them, how did you find out about them? A quick google search for pyramid water pump turns up over a million hits. Looks like people are looking into it.

 

Simply stated Egyptology has been debunked. Ramps have been debunked. That people don't recognize this is irrelevant. Human knowledge doesn't wait for any of us and isn't decided by vote. Until such tiome as actual science is done all we can say is "they mustta used geysers" because the "theory" (poor hypothesis) that they "mustta used ramps" has been shown to be the nonsense it is.

 

You have committed a cardinal sin of science, do not use the word theory as anything but the best explanation of a phenomena with mounds of supporting evidence.

 

If anyone is interested there's a brand new book out that claims cold water geysers were used to build the pyramids. This is not my work and I have no financial interest whatsoever in it. I don't even agree with all the science in the book.

 

It is "The Great Pyramid Rainmaker" 2013 Christopher Jordan.

 

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/276831

 

I believe it's closer to the truth than any other book written on the subject.

 

 

So I don't have to read an entire book, why couldn't ramps be used and why do you believe geysers were used?

Edited January 28, 2013 by Ringer

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Three posts from a thread in philosophy have been merged into this thread - sorry if this makes the thread slightly more difficult to follow.

[cladking]

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.

Edited January 28, 2013 by cladking

[Ringer]

So instead of letting me know exactly what is wrong with my reply, and how it damaged the thread beyond repair, so it could be taken care of you want someone to delete my post so the points go away?

[cladking]

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..

[michel123456]

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..

yes. Ringer comments are hard to find.

 

I think he asked (between other)

 

 

So I don't have to read an entire book, why couldn't ramps be used and why do you believe geysers were used?

I will not answer in time & place for Cladking about geysers.

 

But there are indeed some points against the ramps. You can Google or wait for Cladking's answer.

 

A good point against ramps, seldom mentioned, is the Meidum pyramid that apparently collapsed during construction. There is no (external) ramp.

 

From wiki

 

Some^[who?] believe the pyramid to have collapsed not until the New Kingdom,

but there are a couple of facts contradicting this theory. The Meidum

Pyramid seems never to have been completed. Beginning with Sneferu

and to the 12th dynasty all pyramids had a valley temple, which is

missing at Meidum. The mortuary temple, which was found under the rubble

at the base of the pyramid, apparently never was finished. Walls were

only partly polished. Two Steles inside, usually bearing the names of

the pharaoh, are missing inscriptions. The burial chamber inside the

pyramid itself is uncompleted, with raw walls and wooden supports still

in place which are usually removed after construction. Affiliated

mastabas were never used or completed and none of the usual burials have

been found. Finally, the first examinations of the Meidum Pyramid found

everything below the surface of the rubble mound fully intact. Stones

from the outer cover were stolen only after they were exposed by the

excavations. This makes a catastophic collapse more probable, than a

gradual one. The collapse of this pyramid during the reign of Sneferu is

the likely reason for the change from the usual 52 to 43 degrees of his

second pyramid at Dahshur, the Bent Pyramid.^[1]

 

 

and there are still wooden supports in the unfinished burial chamber

 

see here http://www.youregypt.com/eguide/destinations/greatercairo/surroundings/meidum/image3.htm

and here

Edited January 29, 2013 by michel123456