Soft "Science" and Evidence of Your Own Eyes.

[cladking]

The most obvious signs of how the pyramids were built is also the most widely overlooked. These are the numerous horizontal lines left by stones being sequentiually quarried and laid down on the pyramid creating horizontal banding and the vertcal lines that mark the routes of stones straight up the side of the pyramid. When the device is in place lifting stones the position where stones arrive on the individiual course can't be filled with stone or it would interfere with lifting. This creates the visible vertical lines by haviong unmatching stones straight up the side where the lifter had been.

 

 

 

There are no (almost none) sloped lines to suggest ramps but there are vertical and horizontal lines everywhere which people can't see because we see only what we expect.

[studiot]

 

so all I have said

 

In all honesty I think you have said a great deal more ( though you were not the only one).

 

This thread could have been cut in half and half again and be much more scientifically useful as a result.

 

I have already acknowledged that I am almost totally ignorant of the linguistic background here so cannot comment on that aspect.

 

Is it more important to arrive at the truth (as equal to a thesis that fits all known facts) or to demolish some one else's ideas?

[cladking]

Strange, can you prove your alternatives

 

and

 

can you say that you are offering cladking a fair hearing?

 

Cladking has contradicted himself many times in this thread, but he has also made many valid points that merit consideration and surely the truth is the nobody knows what actually happened and there remain many unanswered questions.

 

If someone misapplies the quadratic equations formula we do not lay into him but try to get him to use the formula correctly to arrive at the appropriate answer.

So it should be with more nebulous thoughts.

 

Looking around at the other threads currently available I see a number of really crackpot subjects plus some that have nothing to do with science.

Surely we all wish to promote subjects worthy of discussion?

 

 

I should let this pass, I know.

 

But, if you see a contradiction it's probably caused by my trying to force a perspective by using sentence structure. Some people will see a contradiction rather than a perspective.

 

This is one of the greatest weaknessesof modern language; perspective is never defined and is merely assumed. The ancient language defined perspective in every sentence. And it was always redefined when the perspective changed. This is one of the key properties of the language which masks it from us.

 

I'll be happy to explain any apparent contradictions (I'd try anyway ).

 

There are only a couple of new concepts in this whole thread and most of it is things that are well worn in my thinking. I'd have noticed contraditions in the theory.

And that the word for "ramp" did exist.

 

Saying the word "ramp" existed does not make it true. That the word "ramp" is unattested isn't even challenged by Egyptologists. Indeed, this is one of the primary sticking points that cause then consternation. They have long defended their beliefs by saying that alternative ideas do not fit the cultural context and they got away with this because ver few people wanted to try to learn about the actual culture as to what's actually known. To try to study this everyone simply plunged into Egyptological writings and it was like they were taken over by a pod from the Invasion of the Body Snatchers. They'd emerge from years of study believing in "cultural context".

 

My education was completely different because I didn't accept any of it so I went straight to the actual writing and translation of the actual writing. Guess what?!? There isn't any. There is virtually nothing at alland the tiny bit that exists is translated and interpreted in terms of later Egyptian beliefs that have nothing to do with the builders. The little bit of writing that exists is exactly what I say and it supports my interpretation and not Egyptological's.

 

Even the PT are anachronistic if you want to be technical about it. This work's earliest version dates to a century after great pyramid building. The word "ramp" appears but is in reference to a walkway rather than a tool.

 

That the word "ramp" is unattested isn't necessarily damning to orthodox beliefs because almost every single other word is also unattested because almost no writing survives. I repeat this unattestation so much not because it's important to disprove ramps but because it is important to understanding he entiure Egyptological paradigm hinges on thin air. There is no "cultural context" except the construct that has been created by the assumption that what applied to later people also applied to the builders.

 

It doesn't matter if you repeat the word "ramp" existed or not. Frankly I have no doubt the builders had a word for ramp and it was the same word used 1000 years later but this isn't the point; the point is the word "ramp" is unattested from the great pyramid building age and you can't prove it is. I've read virtually every single word they wrote and there sure aren't many of them. The bulk appear a single word or phrase at a time and sentences are fewand far between. One that comes to mind is "Nefermaat is he who makes his gods in words that can not be erased". I believe this is a mistranslation but is essentially accurate. I believe that Egyptology misunderstands the meaning of it. Like all Egyptian writing it has no meaning in English because (did I mention) the ancient language can't be directly translated. It is this inability to translate that assured the writing wouldn't survive and erased the actual "cultural context".

What alternatives? I know little or nothing about pyramid construction so all I have said about that is that there does appear to be evidence of ramps but that no one insists that this is the one and only answer.

 

 

 

In the last few years the "they mustta used ramps" has moved to the background a lot but it certainly still exists. Almost any source that pre-dates the debunkment will use the phrase in one form or another more than once. There used to be one short article that used it 14 times! Now it is couched in more "reasonable" terms but they still say hjust about the same thing "they mustta used ramps to build most of the pyramid". This is from the newest wiki;

 

"Most Egyptologists acknowledge that ramps are the most tenable of the methods to raise the blocks, yet they acknowledge that it is an incomplete method that must be supplemented by another device."

 

They're getting closer but ramps are still debunked and this phraseology doesn't recognize the fact either.

 

Virtua;lly none of the ramp proposals can even accomplish the basic evidence such as the fact the casing stone won't support ramps asa they are usually described and most ramping methods would require that casing be applied from the top down which is impossible. Indeed, these proposals were so weak when I started that most didn't even include a means for the poor stone draggers to get back down. All of these proposals arestill highly ephemeral. As soon as you point out a fatal flaw they correct it with a different fatal flaw or a complete redesign. I describe these as "escheresque" because they change as soon as you object.

 

 

Very very few of the proposals are even possible but they are all debunked. It's ironic that there are several good possible means devised in the last several years but it's too late now. None of these are well evidenced but a couple are lightly evidenced.

 

The question is how were the stones lifted and the answer is right before our eyes but we don't see it. All the evidence that has been cast off as red herrings or was assumed to be "religious" in nature is how they built the pyramids. They used science which we mistake as religion and "metaphysics" we mistake as magic. "Words" in ancient Egypt really were powerful because they contained all human knowledge and science. They were the "words of the gods" (words of science).

 

Science learns and science can create but superstition can not. Egyptologists are behaving superstitiously by not appying science.

[studiot]

 

In the last few years the "they mustta used ramps" has moved to the background a lot but it certainly still exists. Almost any source that pre-dates the debunkment will use the phrase in one form or another more than once. There used to be one short article that used it 14 times! Now it is couched in more "reasonable" terms but they still say hjust about the same thing "they mustta used ramps to build most of the pyramid". This is from the newest wiki;

 

"Most Egyptologists acknowledge that ramps are the most tenable of the methods to raise the blocks, yet they acknowledge that it is an incomplete method that must be supplemented by another device."

 

They're getting closer but ramps are still debunked and this phraseology doesn't recognize the fact either.

 

Virtua;lly none of the ramp proposals can even accomplish the basic evidence such as the fact the casing stone won't support ramps asa they are usually described and most ramping methods would require that casing be applied from the top down which is impossible. Indeed, these proposals were so weak when I started that most didn't even include a means for the poor stone draggers to get back down. All of these proposals arestill highly ephemeral. As soon as you point out a fatal flaw they correct it with a different fatal flaw or a complete redesign. I describe these as "escheresque" because they change as soon as you object.

 

 

 

Very very few of the proposals are even possible but they are all debunked. It's ironic that there are several good possible means devised in the last several years but it's too late now. None of these are well evidenced but a couple are lightly evidenced.

 

The question is how were the stones lifted and the answer is right before our eyes but we don't see it. All the evidence that has been cast off as red herrings or was assumed to be "religious" in nature is how they built the pyramids. They used science which we mistake as religion and "metaphysics" we mistake as magic. "Words" in ancient Egypt really were powerful because they contained all human knowledge and science. They were the "words of the gods" (words of science).

 

Science learns and science can create but superstition can not. Egyptologists are behaving superstitiously by not appying science.

 

 

 

'Light blue touch paper and retire immediately'

 

This is the problem, n'est pas?

This whole tirade that pours out when someone mentions the word 'ramp'.

 

If you will listen, I will relate the story given by Professor Harvey following his visit to China to study their bridge building program.

 

It concerns the building of a (modern) bridge by the local Womens's Institute, entirely by manual labour (ie no modern mechanised plant).

 

The bridge is a viaduct crossing the flood plain of one of China's major rivers and is several kilometers long.

Edited September 30, 2014 by studiot

[cladking]

 

 

This whole tirade that pours out when someone mentions the word 'ramp'.

 

 

 

 

I'm actually more famous (infamous) for this than about anything else. But I did come by it naturally. Everytime the subject comes up everyone already knows the answer and I'm berated with it. Most people can't get past my absolute rejection of the subject based on logic and evidence to even look at my proposal. Egyptologists talked to me the first year or two but since then I'm a sort of pariah and I seriously doubt this theory has ever been seriously considered even for a moment. In many real ways our estimation of ancient people defines who and what we are and no ancient people are considered better understyood than the Egyptians. This makes it far more difficult for Egyptologists to take me seriously even when I point out real problems and errors in the methodology. I don't see these errors because I'm smarter than they are (far from it) I see them because the ancient language tells me where to look. Common sense says you measure and test everything you can anyway. It used to be they'd talk to me and I could use the information to fix and adjust my theory to the new facts, so they just quit talking to me. Fortunately there are still some amateurs who'll engage me.

 

But a lot of people simply won't accept or are unaware of the debunkment so they keep using the concept as a weapon. It's not the word itself I find so disturbing as it is the power it has over peoples' minds. It's the concept that my ancestors were so primitive that they could only have used brutish means to create. But worst of all it's the concept that if you're superstitious enough and religious enough, and primitive enough then you can do anything even if it's otherwise impossible. I find these concepts personally insulting so I often take off on a rant.

 

I suppose I interrupted your post. Sorry.

This isn't much of a picture but it shows the man made limestone "pavement" was built before the pyramid;

 

 

You'll see the casing stones are actually resting on this pavement hence the pyramid was built afterward.

 

You'll have to take my word on this since the software won't allow it.

Consider this a picture of the casing stone on the north side of G1 sitting on flat pavement stones.

 

 

This has many implications. Even if you assume the pyramid was built almost immediately after the pavement youmust question why they would build this and then bury it under mountains of ramps. Why would they contain a volume or create a space which could hold water and is known to have contained water at some point and then buried it under ramps? It simply makes no sense to lower and improve the ground around the pyramid and then bury it. It is doing th work multiple times especially if they had to rebuild the ramps to install the cladding stones. This is most highly illogical and inefficient use of their time and manpower. How could they lift 6 1/2 million tons to 150' if they are using nonsensical and illogical techniques? They lowered the ground because they needed water to flow freely around the pyramid.

People don't appreciate the sophistication of the builders. They reset broken bones and performed at least some brain surgery which the patient survived.

 

The pyramid is eight sided and since it's perfectly aligned N/ S it would flash on the autumnal and vernal equinoxes at sunset.

 

 

 

The ancients said the pyramid swallowed its own shadow though this might be an expression in the new langauge.

[studiot]

Ok I get the picture you are not interested in anything anyone else has to say.

 

 

This has many implications. Even if you assume the pyramid was built almost immediately after the pavement youmust question why they would build this and then bury it under mountains of ramps. Why would they contain a volume or create a space which could hold water and is known to have contained water at some point and then buried it under ramps? It simply makes no sense to lower and improve the ground around the pyramid and then bury it. It is doing th work multiple times especially if they had to rebuild the ramps to install the cladding stones. This is most highly illogical and inefficient use of their time and manpower. How could they lift 6 1/2 million tons to 150' if they are using nonsensical and illogical techniques? They lowered the ground because they needed water to flow freely around the pyramid.

 

Yes your conclusion is possible.

 

But there are others, and as someone who has considerably more construction experience I offered you the story of Smeaton's Tower.

It contains the Civil Engineering theory for alternative reasons, which I would think are linked to the reason the pyramids have stood for so long.

 

Did you look it out?

 

 

People don't appreciate the sophistication of the builders. They reset broken bones and performed at least some brain surgery which the patient survived.

 

Again there are potential alternative explanations.

 

since it's perfectly aligned N/ S

 

 

I don't doubt some of the observable detail in what you say but your statements are given to hyperbole and sometimes lead to into the realms of mumbo jumbo that 'pyramidology' is so famous for.

 

Do you have any idea of the true implications if your statement 'perfectly aligned N/S' ?

 

The ancient Egyptians knew nothing of magnetic compasses and the magnetic poles.

But they had clear night skies and mapped some stars, including Polaris.

 

Here is the variation of North over a 5 year period, due to the Earth's 'wobble' about its axis (source Bomford's Geodesy)

How much do you think it has varied over a 5000 year period?

 

 

 

 

 

So yes, but all means put forward ideas, but be prepared to test them against practical observations and other credible alternatives.

We can then re-examine your claim that the artificial limestone 'pavement' was meant for water collection is the only credible explanation.

 

That is the way to take a few more steps along the road to truth.

Edited October 1, 2014 by studiot

[Strange]

 

People don't appreciate the sophistication of the builders. They reset broken bones and performed at least some brain surgery which the patient survived.

 

As these facts and the sophisticated astronomy, mathematics and engineering skills are well known, it would seem to contradict your claim that "people don't appreciate the sophistication of the builders". Their sophistication is well understood.

 

After all, they developed the writing system that is the ancestor of almost all scripts in use today (including this one).

[cladking]

Ok I get the picture you are not interested in anything anyone else has to say.

 

 

Yes your conclusion is possible.

 

But there are others, and as someone who has considerably more construction experience I offered you the story of Smeaton's Tower.

It contains the Civil Engineering theory for alternative reasons, which I would think are linked to the reason the pyramids have stood for so long.

 

Did you look it out?

 

 

Again there are potential alternative explanations.

 

 

I don't doubt some of the observable detail in what you say but your statements are given to hyperbole and sometimes lead to into the realms of mumbo jumbo that 'pyramidology' is so famous for.

 

Do you have any idea of the true implications if your statement 'perfectly aligned N/S' ?

 

The ancient Egyptians knew nothing of magnetic compasses and the magnetic poles.

But they had clear night skies and mapped some stars, including Polaris.

 

Here is the variation of North over a 5 year period, due to the Earth's 'wobble' about its axis (source Bomford's Geodesy)

How much do you think it has varied over a 5000 year period?

 

 

 

 

polaris1.jpg

 

So yes, but all means put forward ideas, but be prepared to test them against practical observations and other credible alternatives.

We can then re-examine your claim that the artificial limestone 'pavement' was meant for water collection is the only credible explanation.

 

That is the way to take a few more steps along the road to truth.

 

 

You apparently recognize our primary differences are style and semantics rather than any necessary fundamental difference in understanding of facts and science. This is a great basis for discussion!

 

I had mistakingly assumed you were going to relate the story of Smeaton's Tower. I haven't looked it up but will do so before returning to this thread at my earliest opportunity.

[studiot]

The story of Smeaton's Tower is fascinating in its own right, but its relevance here is that, like the pyramids and masonry arch bridges, it is a gravity compression structure.

 

The Tower was built as a lighthouse on a rock in the English Channel. Smeaton's Tower replaced a couple of previous structures that had not withstood the rigours of the marine environment.

It was a masonry structure where all the blocks had to be meticulously fitted together to provide the strength against the battering waves, using their combined weight.

It was conceived as being 'grafted onto the native rock' and every block was cut to fit the shape of the supporting natural rock.

Because it was built so well it did withstand the conditions, until it was dismantled and rebuilt as a tourist attraction in Plymouth.

 

You ask why the builders of the pyramids needed to level the site and construct a strong and stable support platform for the pyramid.

Well perhaps they found this easier than Smeaton's solution of cutting blocks to fit the local topography.

 

Whichever the pyramids obviously have a sound and stable foundation, or they would not have stood so long. Gravity compression structures do not take kindly to differential movements of the foundations.

 

But then, perhaps they killed two birds with one stone (forgive the pun) and created a water catchment basin as well.

 

Every block in the pyramids was transported many many times as far horizontally as vertically.

This was no mean undertaking and I did not realise you were discounting this part of the journey.

 

Yes the builders may have had lifting apparatus that lifted the blocks vertically. But I doubt they had apparatus that could lift and translate the blocks as well.

 

It would also have been a lot easier if you had translated whatever word it was to bucket not boat since you are suggesting that the lifiting was performed via counterweight, filled with water.

To a modern engineer the term hydraulic lifting implies the use of water pressure not its weight.

 

Finally you ask (apparently rhetorically) why would someone clear a site and then leave it?

 

Well I can point so several such instances within a mile or two here, where sites have been cleared and left for some years.

The intention is obviously to one day develop these sites.

So all you are describing is readily understood in practical constructiuon terms.

But that does not mean you do not have a point.

It just shows that ancient and modern builders were not as far apart as is sometimes thought.

Which rather strengthens my observation that termporary works are generally removed at the end of construction so you will never be able to deduce what was used from what remains.

Edited October 1, 2014 by studiot

[cladking]

Thanks for the story. It does sound vaguely familiar.

Every block in the pyramids was transported many many times as far horizontally as vertically.

This was no mean undertaking and I did not realise you were discounting this part of the journey.

 

 

Transporting stones on level surface could have been extremely easy. Well greased skids or water transport would require very little power to move stones. Indeed, the granite simply flowed with the Nile current all the way from Aswan. The total lateral movement of this tonnage was nearly as great as the total pyramid yet required "no" effort at all. In the real world the Egyptians certainly needed to apply power to move core blocks horizontally. I believe these were almost ALL moved with 20 ton counterweights falling down a 40 degree cliff face. Such a drop only pulled stones 300' at a time as ancient reports say but 100 tons at a time would be moved 300' closer.

 

But no matter how they were moved it's simply not difficult to move stones on level ground. One nearly needs to overcome friction and there's no danger of them slipping back if the friction is too low.

 

Yes the builders may have had lifting apparatus that lifted the blocks vertically. But I doubt they had apparatus that could lift and translate the blocks as well.

 

 

It appears they built the pyramids as five steps because they had to be built as five steps. They needed the step tops to work. These steps were as important to construction as the stones of which they were built. This simply implies they used the easiest possible means to build; they pulled the stones straight up the seventy degree step sides. With so much room to work they could even have used a brutish means like using teams of men to drag them up the side. This would be far more efficient and far easier than dragging stones on surfaces invented by Egyptologists and which are nowhere evidenced. That they didn't use a brutish means is simply beside the point that all the evidence says they pulled all the stone straight up the side.

 

It would also have been a lot easier if you had translated whatever word it was to bucket not boat since you are suggesting that the lifiting was performed via counterweight, filled with water.

 

 

This is Egyptology's translation and it's almost certainly apt. They simply called it "henu boat" which probably meant "counterweight which employed water". The sled which held the stone was the "dndndr-boat" which meant something like "boat which is lifted by water". Curiously the scientific concept that described this latter boat was "nephthys" which translates as "house basket" which is very apt as well since this is a feminine concept and is the basket which lifts material on the "house" (pyramid). Nephthys was also known as "the Lady of Builders" since she was instrumental in building. "Isis" was the scientific concept which was the counterweight and the location that osiris became "seker" who was he who "towed the earth by means of balance". Isis means "stone seat".

 

To the ancients everything was in balance (maat) and it was ma'at by which seker towed the earth. It was balance or vector sum total of water pressure pushing up on floating objects that kept them up. It was the "seven arrows of sekhmet" (seven power vectors) which lifted the stone. Everything existed in pairs because there were two sexes and all of reality was anthropomorphized. Of course it would be equally legitimate to simply say the nature gave humans natural attributes and humans simply named nature.

 

To a modern engineer the term hydraulic lifting implies the use of water pressure not its weight.

 

 

I often use the term to refer to water or using the pressure or weight of water to work. The ancients referred to "kebehwet" which is more similar to your definition as "she" was expressed in "inches (fingers) of water". However unlike your definition kebehwet was assumed to be measured from the height of heaven or the top of the first step. Kebehwet was the pressure of the water at the bottom of the weir which transferred water to the counterweight.

 

Finally you ask (apparently rhetorically) why would someone clear a site and then leave it?

 

 

I think I was probably referring to the north side of G2 where they excavated down through stone before building the pyramid. I believe this was necessary to have water flow on all four sides of the pyramid. It would be madness to excavate this stone and then build ramps on it twice. It's triple the work and would lead to ramps built on it being less strong. They had to level the base but there's no known reason they'd have to level around the base.

It just shows that ancient and modern builders were not as far apart as is sometimes thought.

Which rather strengthens my observation that termporary works are generally removed at the end of construction so you will never be able to deduce what was used from what remains.

 

 

If they had used ramps they would have been removed but the absense of ramps hardly proves they "mustta used ramps" as is so often said. Even after removing ramps there would likely be physical evidence surviving. There would probably be massive bases for ramps which point toward the pyramid and up toward the higher reaches f the pyramids. There would be evidene for ramps all through the culture. With hundreds of thousands of men who toiled their entire lives away on one pyramid or another there would be a "god of ramps" or a "god of not falling off ramps". There would be dozens of "overseers of stone draggers" and many other titles associated with a primitive and brutish society but nothing of this sort exists at all. They've simply been pounding square pegs into round holes. Ramps don't fit and the builders described what actually does fit in a language that can't even be translated into English.

Edited October 3, 2014 by cladking

[studiot]

I'm gald you have managed to convince yourself, since some of your arguments have a plausibility.

 

But, and I don't care who does the translating, a boat is not and never has been a container of water.

Unfortunately such a basic blunder can only cast a shadow over other statements of translation.

 

But if you are going to achieve any credence with the modern engineering community, you need to speak to them in a language they will understand, and further not try to tell them that it is easy to move multi-tonne objects hundreds or even thousands of metres basically horizontally but generally uphill.

[cladking]

I'm gald you have managed to convince yourself, since some of your arguments have a plausibility.

 

But, and I don't care who does the translating, a boat is not and never has been a container of water.

Unfortunately such a basic blunder can only cast a shadow over other statements of translation.

 

 

 

I've convinced myself of nothing. There are some things I take on faith, or as we modern people say "axiomatically" such as that reality exists essentially as we percieve it. I believe there is a very high probability that the Great Pyramid exists and a nearly as high of one that it is "old". I believe there is an 80% probability that it was built with the use of water and a 65% probability that this water came from CO2 geysers. It is quite obviuous ramps had nothing to do with it and they are debunked but there is still a slim possibility that they did actually use ramps. That they could only have used ramps is disproven to the degree science can disprove anything.

 

You are mistaken about the nature of both modern and ancient language and the modern definition of "boat". 1957 Chevys don't float (long) on water and are often called "boats" because of the way they handle. A large bucket used for mixing concrete is called a "mortar boat". A long thin dish is called a "gravy boat". No doubt there are many others.

 

Some things about language did not change. One of these is most vocabulary but another is the way things get named. And we still use scientific, colloquial, and vulgar words for things but they no longer convey the intended meaning. If anyone could just look at the ancient language and understand it then it wouldn't have become lost.

 

502b. The double doors of heaven are locked; the way goes over the flames under that which the gods create,

503a. which allows each Horus to glide through, in which N. will glide through, in this flame under that which the gods create.

503b. They make a way for N., that N. may pass by it. N. is a Horus.

 

Every single person who read this before me saw superstitious gobbledty gook. But when you solve each term by context you'll find horus is stone and each stone glides over the way which is under the natural processes creating the pyramid. There's a great deal of information in most lines because the ancient language required knowledge to write and to understand. Modern language requires almost no knowledge and most statements about nature are literally false when made in modern language. You couldn't even make a false statement about nature in the ancient language without breaking multiple rules and turning your sentence into gobbledty gook.

 

Modern language merely requires learning a few grammatical rules and no one will notice they don't understand you usually if you follow these rules. But in ancient or modern language you can modify most nouns to apply to something specific like a row boat or an oar boat. There's a world of difference between these boats even though a single letter ("a" or "w") separates them. One is 35,000 tons and carries oar and the other is little bigger than enough to carry a rower.

 

The question isn't now and never has been what the Pyramid Texts means to Egyptologists, the question is what did it mean to the author!

[Endy0816]

They would need some means of getting the water higher than the height to which they desired to move the blocks to.

 

A geyser would be a very very slow method. Honestly I could see a suggestion of pumps or aqueducts as being far more plausible.

 

 

Honestly, considering they obtained the wood for the boats and mortar, I can't see why they wouldn't have employed it as necessary in combination with sledges and lubrication. Maybe even use a simple carved stone pulley(fixed to ground) in the process. Would allow you to utilize gravity instead of fighting against it and make the work safer as well.

[cladking]

They would need some means of getting the water higher than the height to which they desired to move the blocks to.

 

 

This isn't really necessary.

 

So long as they could transfer the forces through ropes they could drop the water from any altitude and lift the weight between any two other altitudes. Two things here though. For the main part they apparently dropped most loads from the height of the first step and lifted loads one step at a time. This was Imhotep's genius; when they got to the height of the geyser, the height of the mastaba, he simply shortened the ropes and built another step on top of it.

 

Secondly is that they used various means to minimize the amount of hooking that was necessary to relay stones up one step at a time and apparently one of these means on G1 was to lift water to 320' for use in making some direct lifts.

 

A geyser would be a very very slow method. Honestly I could see a suggestion of pumps or aqueducts as being far more plausible.

 

 

It would depend on its output. There's lots of writing in the PT about various means to increase output. It appears they also relifted some of this water to increase lifting and decrease hooking.

 

The total amount of water might be somewhat lower than you expect. This system would have been extremely efficient and 50% easily achievable. Since the water was at 80' and the cliff face at 200' they got some 280' of lifting for caught water. This is nearly double th average height of stone that had a density of 2.7 so they needed only about 1.4 times the volume of the pyramid over the 20 years or a mere 7% of the pyramid's volume annually.

 

Honestly, considering they obtained the wood for the boats and mortar, I can't see why they wouldn't have employed it as necessary in combination with sledges and lubrication. Maybe even use a simple carved stone pulley(fixed to ground) in the process. Would allow you to utilize gravity instead of fighting against it and make the work safer as well.

 

 

Building ramps is hard work and using them a million times harder. Why not sit in the shade drinking "water like wine" instead of slaving away dragging tombs?

[Endy0816]

Ramps would not have been that hard to work with. All you would need to do is walk down using a basic pulley to translate the force. Set it up in stages so you minimize the risk of a runaway block injuring/killing people. Could have been made functionally similar to a modern conveyor belt.

 

 

In strictly geological terms can you provide evidence for geysers with the needed output?

 

Also if they lifted the water again, then we are back to using muscle power. They could have filled buckets with sand just as well as water for that matter.

 

If it was any distance then you are also talking about aqueducts to move the water along and we would see evidence of them as well especially since there is more than the one construction site to consider.

 

Side note: We really can't rely on personal interpretations of ancient text. Humans are terrible about seeing what they want to see.

Edited October 4, 2014 by Endy0816

[cladking]

 

 

Side note: We really can't rely on personal interpretations of ancient text. Humans are terrible about seeing what they want to see.

 

Yes. Indeed! I believe confirmation bias to a large extent has its basis in language and nowhere is it more pronouned and obvious. People deconstruct everything we read or hear and it's never exactly the same as what the author intended. But when reading something so enigmatic as ancient writings or "gobbledty gook" one has to be suspicious of any sense at all which is made of it. No one should believe I'm right because I say I'm right but I'm surprised the physical evidence which I found only because I understand this "gobblety gook" doesn't give everyone pause. All these characteristics I claim are part and parcel of pyramid building still exist even if I'm wrong about the meaning I found in their words. The words of the builders ryhme with the physical evidence and reality itself. Physical evidence is the very means man has always used to determine reality and it's in agreement with their words as I understand them. Since this understanding preceded finding the evidence it ould certainly seem to follow both that the evidence is relevant to building and that my understanding of their words is relevant to th intended meaning.

 

Don't forget I didn't use hocus pocus or some sort of divination to determine this meaning but simply learned the meaning of the terms from context. This is a perfectly legitimate means to learn the meaning of word. Indeed, using this technique is the only means to discover what a word means to the author since many words are used improperly by some people. I might add as an aside that Egyptologists believe there are numerous grammatical errors that were inscribed in stone and comprised this work. When solving it by this technique every single one of thse errors disappear. In other words my interpretation is a better fit than theirs.

 

Ramps would not have been that hard to work with. All you would need to do is walk down using a basic pulley to translate the force. Set it up in stages so you minimize the risk of a runaway block injuring/killing people. Could have been made functionally similar to a modern conveyor belt.

 

In strictly geological terms can you provide evidence for geysers with the needed output?

 

 

I can compute how much water they'd need.

 

I was pretty naive when I started this and contacted geologists for technical advice etc. They all told me there was no such thing as CO2 geysers and I moved on. The fact is there are such processes today and some exist in limestone.

 

I would point your attention to a picture of what is in a very real way a CO2 geyser earlier in this thread. It is on site and still growing. Egyptologists simply ignore it because it isn't consistent with ramps.

 

Also if they lifted the water again, then we are back to using muscle power. They could have filled buckets with sand just as well as water for that matter.

 

 

If they relifted water their system of lifting stone was still highly efficient and tamed the scope of the job down to a human scale. Relifting water itself would also be very efficient. (It appears they used 28 men and 14 spell men to generate about 5 HP of effective work.) The evidence they actually lifted water is reasonably good but hardly conclusive.

 

If it was any distance then you are also talking about aqueducts to move the water along and we would see evidence of them as well especially since there is more than the one construction site to consider.

 

 

There are canals in evidence today that were used to transport the water on the sites. Some of the best evidence for water handling survives at Djoser's Pyramid, the first great pyramid.

[studiot]

 

You are mistaken about the nature of both modern and ancient language and the modern definition of "boat".

 

The Ancient Egyptians has wells.

 

What did they use to haul water out in?

 

And where in the English Language has anyone ever written that they hauled water out of a well in a boat?

[cladking]

 

The Ancient Egyptians has wells.

 

What did they use to haul water out in?

 

And where in the English Language has anyone ever written that they hauled water out of a well in a boat?

 

 

Even if someone doesn't believe I'm right about the existence of an ancient language that had a different way to express meaning it's still not productive to discuss semantics (ancient nor modern language). It doesn't matter what word the pyramid builders used for "bucket" and like almost every most words in their vocabulary in is unattested.

 

The water they used to build was never "hauled out of a well", I believe. It was caught at 81' 3" as it came up through an opening in a specially built structure (mehet weret cow) through an opening (upper eye of horus) at that altitude. This structure evolved a great deal over the centuries according to the Pyramid Texts. Initially it was simply a platform at altitude designed to catch the water.

 

They may well have used a series of "shadufs" in the grand gallery that employed counterweighted buckets to lift water between 70' and 140' but the testing to prove this hasn't been done. Very little f any sort of testing has ever been done because it is simply assumed that they used ramps to build. Perhaps now that ramps are debunked they'll do some real science but I'm not holding my breath.

[studiot]

Well we will have to agree to differ on this aspect, since I believe in calling a spade a spade.

Edited October 6, 2014 by studiot

[cladking]

Well we will have to agree to differ on this aspect, since I believe in calling a spade a spade.

 

Truth to tell I'm not sure what you want to disagree about. Certainly not semantics!

 

The Egyptians were highly dependent on the Nile River and its flood and saw things in terms of "boats" because this was what they knew. They had the most advanced boat building in the world at the time the pyramids were built. They called just about everything a boat, even the pyramid itself was the "boat of re";

 

1209a. whilst thou was a soul appearing in the bow of thy boat of 770 cubits (long),

1209b. which the gods of Buto constructed for thee, which the eastern gods shaped for thee.

 

Obviously it was impossible even for the Egyptians to build any kind of boat whatsoever over 1,000 feet long so this can't possibly be in reference to an actual "boat" as you use the term. However it is the exact measure of the pyramid enclosure around G2;

 

They used the term "boat" extensively and the individual who loaded the dndndr-boat was known as the "Overseer of the boats of Neith". It wasn't only the counterweight called a boat (henu-boat) but the pyramid and the lifting sled as well;

 

445d. It is our brother who is bringing this (boat) for these bridge-girderers (?) of the desert.

 

This states they needed a boat to build a bridge in the desert. Need I even point out that people didn't live or travel in the desert and there was no water to bridge in a desert anyway? This bridge was the means by which the king ascended o heaven; the pyramid and the pyramid wasbuilt in the desert. Even if there were any doubt about this it is stated in another line that specifically states it was in fact Giza where they needed the boat;

 

445b. bring this (boat) to N. N. is Seker of R-Śtȝ.w.

 

R-St3.w is "Rosteau" which is the ancient name for Giza and meant "Mouth of Caves".

 

This stuff isn't rocket science but people aren't even trying to get it. They are comfortable with superstitious bumpkins dragging stones.

 

I'm not certain what to make of this yet but I believe it's a variable counterweight;

 

 

The support structure is on the outside so it's built to support weight on the inside.

People won't believe the evidence of their own eyes because Egyptologists claim to have all the answers.

 

Just keep thinking; The word "ramp" isn't even attested from the great pyramid building age. This is the fact.

[Strange]

 

They used the term "boat" extensively and the individual who loaded the dndndr-boat was known as the "Overseer of the boats of Neith". It wasn't only the counterweight called a boat (henu-boat) but the pyramid and the lifting sled as well;

 

Then maybe "boat" is not the appropriate English translation. It is not as if there is a one-to-one mapping between words. Translators have to choose the word(s) that best express the meaning, not just pick a single definition for all cases.

 

 

Need I even point out that people didn't live or travel in the desert

 

I would like to see some evidence to support that claim. Sounds like another of your made-up "factoids".

 

 

Egyptologists claim to have all the answers.

 

Citation needed.

 

 

The word "ramp" isn't even attested from the great pyramid building age.

 

The fact it isn't attested doesn't mean it didn't exist. From historical linguistics (which is a science, rather than your Tower of Babel fantasy) the existence of unattested forms can be determined with some certainty.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Strange

[studiot]

We can, however agree that, as you said, translation is very difficult because it has to be not only from their language to ours, but their culture to ours.

 

For my part I would have caught on much more quickly if the translation had been vessel instead of boat.

 

We clearly have a greater range of words available and it is the skill of the translator to get the meaning across by selecting the appropriate modern word or phrase rather than disgorging the dictionary.

 

Translating poetry is even more difficult.

 

[cladking]

We can, however agree that, as you said, translation is very difficult because it has to be not only from their language to ours, but their culture to ours.

 

For my part I would have caught on much more quickly if the translation had been vessel instead of boat.

 

We clearly have a greater range of words available and it is the skill of the translator to get the meaning across by selecting the appropriate modern word or phrase rather than disgorging the dictionary.

 

Translating poetry is even more difficult.

 

 

I see.

 

But this is exactly the problem and exactly the reason that Egyptology never "got it" even though it's written in plain English. I often say it's like scholars spent 150 years learning to translate heiroglyphs and then never bothering to read their own translation. The writing just isn't that alien to ours. There are reasons they didn't get it like that this older writing wasn't found until decades after they understood later writing and much of this later writing was derived from the actual texts they found. They naturally believed the older texts meant the same thing and instead this caused them to misunderstand the old text in the exact same way the writers of the later texts misunderstood it. They tried to hammer the meaning of the Pyramid Texts into the "book of the dead" despite them having nothing at all in common except that the writers of the book of the dead were trying to translate the Pyramid Texts. It's rather supremely ironic.

 

There's no doubt that the Pyramid Texts aren't understood and even the translators say that they can only "circumscribe" the meaning. Scholars write massive tomes about the meaning of even the simplest terms from the PT because the referent is ephemeral when you try to understand the work as modern language. One time "eye of horus" means one thing and another it obviously means something entirely different. Rather than trying to simply "read" the PT they are trying to understand the many origins of every single term in it. This is a language that disappears when it's taken apart so there was never any chance they might understand it unless they went back and started from square one as I did. Add in the fact that no one could do this with any kind of specialized knowledge whatsoever and that google was required and the only surprise is it took almost a quarter century since the internet and computers. This is probably reflective of the fact that people tend to trust "scientists" and can't see that much of what we believe is actually a construct.

 

Whatever the case the fact is that my ability to debunk ramps and show how the pyramids were built stems from a different understanding of the PT. This seems to imply there really is anoither language we used to use and it's staring us in the face everytime we look at Giza;

 

Then maybe "boat" is not the appropriate English translation. It is not as if there is a one-to-one mapping between words. Translators have to choose the word(s) that best express the meaning, not just pick a single definition for all cases.

 

 

A rose by any other name...

 

The PT will be retranslated if I'm right but I'm not sure they'll take out the word "boat" because most of the time the writers used the Egyptian word for "boat" and merely appended a "prefix" to name a specific boat. Sometimes they added a descriptive term like "boat of re", or "two boats tied together" for the pyramid or the Bull of Heaven respectively.

 

I would like to see some evidence to support that claim. Sounds like another of your made-up "factoids".

 

 

This is very much simply common sense. I might add that there actually was one desert road that hugged the eastern edge of the desert above the valley but the nature of rains in the desert mostly precludes the possibility that any bridge would be needed. Rain washes off the desert very quickly and would tend to destroy any bridge. A traveler could simply wait until the water was gone.

 

And note too that the text says a BOAT was needed for the bridge girderers of the desert. This is not consistent with primitive bridge building.

 

Citation needed.

 

 

They claim to have a mountain of evidence to prove that ancient people were superstitious and changeless bumpkins who dragged tombs up ramps. The fact of the matter is that no cultural context exists because they don't even understand the one book that actually survives. They can't prove any great pyramid was a tomb. And they can't show that the people never changed if they don't understand what they were at the beginning.

 

It's impossible to create using supertsition and magic. Belief doesn't create. Science does.

 

The word "RAMP" isn't even attested. Egyptology is a construct.

 

The fact it isn't attested doesn't mean it didn't exist. From historical linguistics (which is a science, rather than your Tower of Babel fantasy) the existence of unattested forms can be determined with some certainty.

 

 

I can't find a linguist who will swear to much of anything at all from before 2000 BC.

 

Perhaps you can cite someone who can?

[Strange]

This is very much simply common sense.

 

Oh, good grief. And on a science forum.

 

You may not have noticed that common sense is frequently wrong. That is one of the reasons for the scientific method.

 

And in this case you are, once again, trivially wrong. Of course people live in deserts and of course people travel through them.

 

the Sahara (excluding the Nile valley) is estimated to contain only some 2.5 million inhabitants

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/516375/Sahara/37016/The-people

 

The Bedouin are a part of a predominantly desert-dwelling Arabian ethnic group ... the term "Bedouin" therefore means "those in bādiyah" or "those in the desert".

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

 

Trans-Saharan trade requires travel across the Sahara to reach sub-Saharan Africa from the North African coast, Europe, or the Levant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Saharan_trade

 

They claim to have a mountain of evidence to prove that ancient people were superstitious and changeless bumpkins

No this is your claim. I am impressed (not) by your ability to waffle on without addressing the point. As you are unable to provide a citation to support your claim, I will assume that there is no Egyptologist who claims to know everything.

 

 

I can't find a linguist who will swear to much of anything at all from before 2000 BC.

 

Again, good grief. Linguistics is a science. Of course they won't "swear" to it. You are setting ridiculous standards. However, they could, of course, provide you with a large pile of evidence for the existence of the words for ramp or slope in prehistory.

[cladking]

This is very much simply common sense. I might add that there actually was one desert road that hugged the eastern edge of the desert above the valley but the nature of rains in the desert mostly precludes the possibility that any bridge would be needed. Rain washes off the desert very quickly and would tend to destroy any bridge. A traveler could simply wait until the water was gone.

 

And note too that the text says a BOAT was needed for the bridge girderers of the desert. This is not consistent with primitive bridge building.

 

Oh, good grief. And on a science forum.

 

You may not have noticed that common sense is frequently wrong. That is one of the reasons for the scientific method.

 

And in this case you are, once again, trivially wrong. Of course people live in deserts and of course people travel through them.

 

 

When you quote me you might quote the entire response instead of picking and choosing the sentences that are easy to attack. This is just common sense as well. I don't play semantics but I sure notivce when other people do.

 

There is no scientific method in Egyptyology just as there were no bridges in the desert that required a boat to build. That you can't see this is understandable but just keep thinking the word "ramp" isn't even attested from the great pyramid building age.

 

Common sense still exists it just gets caught up in a lot of confusion. Common sense says ramps are debunked and no one ever built a bridge in a desert using a boat. The only reason the bridge came up was a semantical issue concerning the meaning of the word "boat" in English.

 

These are all irrelevancies and the only things that really matter is the physical evididence and what the builders actually said. Semantics confuse issues and distract attention from those issues. The fact is that the titles of the builders right on site are things like "Boat Operator", "Weigher/ Reckoner", "Overseer of Canals", "Overseer of the side of the Pyramid", "Overseer of Metal Shop", "Overseer of a Boat", etc, etc. There are no jobs associated with ramps or superstitious bumpkins and this is not semantics. You might claim that my understanding of the PT is mere semantics but then I can still point you to the fact ramps are debunked and to the evidence of your own eyes so long as you'll look.