Soft "Science" and Evidence of Your Own Eyes.

[studiot]

 

studiot, on 29 Sept 2014 - 6:10 PM, said:

So why would you expect 'local' sand at this location?

 

 

 

I wouldn't necessarily "expect" any sand at all to appear. That it does strongly suggests they either needed it for some function or that it was a byproduct of a natural process. It certainly seems that most functions that can be served by sand can be served by just about any sand so why would they haul sand from a far away desert to their own desert?

 

This isn't to say that it mustta come up with the water merely that the gravimetric scan suggests this sand might extend all the way to the entrance as would be predicted by my theory.

 

My theory is far more extensive than I usually let on especially among scientists. This is because it is derived from what Egyptologists believe is a book of magic. The ancient language could be highly expressive and many words were virtually sentences. Some concepts would have been almost impossible to express at all and even simple concepts could talke several sentences. By the same token some sentences could express a great deal of information and paint whole pictures. They aparently called G1 "the sandbank of horrible face bringing water" and this isn't even the ancient language but a confusion of it. There are numerous clues in the PT about what chemicals are in the 1% impurities; Copper sulfate, calcium carbonate, sodium hydroxide, sodium decahydrate, salt, sodium bicarbonate, copper hydroxide, siderite, "silicone" etc, etc... It should be a whole cocktail of chemicals that are implied or derived from what the builders actually said.

 

I can't prove this because the tests won't get done. The reality is there but like "amun" it can't be seen. The Egyptians couldn't see it because it was hard to see, we can't see it because we refuse to look.

 

 

 

Once again you are making things so difficult for yourself.

 

I asked a simple question, seeking a simple answer. There was no trick question involved.

 

Here is an earlier version of the same question.

 

 

Limestone, so why is it suprising that they had to import sand if they need it?

Sand does not come from limestone

 

I am no expert on the subject of the pyramids, but have been involved in the building of many difficult structures myself and I can see that you have expended much effort researching this subject.

It would, however, be nice if you would pay some attention to the lifetime of experience I am offerenig (for free) to perhaps further your subject.

 

Several times we have arrived at a simple consensus where it is apparent that you and I are using technical terms differently.

It would be helpful, to say the least, if we could do this more efficiently.

 

Here is another practical and sensible question that could have been asked by the captain to the supply vessel crossing the Nile with the blocks.

 

I've got yer blocks across the river guv, but the site is 5 miles inland. How do we get them there?

Edited September 29, 2014 by studiot

[cladking]

 

 

Once again you are making things so difficult for yourself.

 

I asked a simple question, seeking a simple answer. There was no trick question involved.

 

Here is an earlier version of the same question.

 

 

I am no expert on the subject of the pyramids, but have been involved in the building of many difficult structures myself and I can see that you have expended much effort researching this subject.

It would, however, be nice if you would pay some attention to the lifetime of experience I am offerenig (for free) to perhaps further your subject.

 

Several times we have arrived at a simple consensus where it is apparent that you and I are using technical terms differently.

It would be helpful, to say the least, if we could do this more efficiently.

 

Here is another practical and sensible question that could have been asked by the captain to the supply vessel crossing the Nile with the blocks.

 

I've got yer blocks across the river guv, but the site is 5 miles inland. How do we get them there?

 

I'm not even really sure if you consider your question answered or not. Communication is always difficult and often fails but it's more apparent and more common with me. I think intuitively almost exclusively. I see what's between the lines but it's contingent on my literal unstanding of each term.

 

I'll assume a question exists and address the words associated with a question mark.

 

The Nile, a tributary, or a canal connected to the Nile probably existed at every great pyramid site. There was apparently a tiny port for each pyramid right at the water's edge so called the "valley temple". For each great pyramid this port was connected by a causeway right up to the mason's shop on the east side. This causeway was very elaborate, composed of tura limestone and at some point was coverd with walls and a ceiling. Information about these is sketchy and all are in total ruin, apparently. They are no more than about half a mile in lenght.

 

http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=29.977702&lon=31.137373&z=17&m=bs

 

Some people believe they used water operated vehicles called funiculars to unload the ships and bring the stone up the causeway. I'm not yet entirely convinced but I do believce they used some method that employed the weight of water to lift the stone up the 4.6 degree causeways. That they seem to use this angle which matches the kinetic friction of cu on cu seems to support their contention. Nothing is established here but all of my best hypotheses on this subject are thrown out the window because Herodotus said these causeways were still intact in 400 BC and all my best hypotheses use the causeway largely as a marshalling area for the tura limestone casing that wasn't applied in large quantity until the last three years of construction.

 

If I missed something please let me know. It's never intentional.

 

I love input. I especially like input from people with great knowledge and/ or great experience. As always opening up a dialog can be difficult.

[Strange]

There used to be one language spoken everywhere and carried there by humans. Then the very basis of communication changed after the great pyramids were built masking our human past. The ancient language can't be directly translated into any modern human language because they are based on different formatting which is incompatible.

 

I missed this before as it was tacked on as an apparent non-sequitur.

 

You seem to be describing some sort of literal Tower of Babel story. Is that correct?

 

Are you claiming that there was one language throughout the world? And that at some point people started speaking a different language? And, presumably, not just a different language but multiple different languages?

 

What do you mean by "based on different formatting"? Do you mean grammar?

 

And what caused this event? And over what period of time did this change take place?

 

And how did the hundreds of new languages spring into being with apparent historical relationships? (This is the same problem that creationists face - why the family tree if they were all created de novo?

[studiot]

 

Some people believe they used water operated vehicles called funiculars to unload the ships and bring the stone up the causeway

 

I hope you don't subscribe to this nonsense.

 

Dragging stones off the ship is at least as bad as dragging them on.

 

This is another question I asked earlier, but received no response to.

 

Captain

 

"Ere, guv, ye capsize my ship 'n all, an 'twill cost ee dear"

Edited September 29, 2014 by studiot

[cladking]

 

I missed this before as it was tacked on as an apparent non-sequitur.

 

You seem to be describing some sort of literal Tower of Babel story. Is that correct?

 

Are you claiming that there was one language throughout the world? And that at some point people started speaking a different language? And, presumably, not just a different language but multiple different languages?

 

What do you mean by "based on different formatting"? Do you mean grammar?

 

And what caused this event? And over what period of time did this change take place?

 

And how did the hundreds of new languages spring into being with apparent historical relationships? (This is the same problem that creationists face - why the family tree if they were all created de novo?

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with creationism and is only tangentally and incidentally related to "religion".

 

To describe the difference in formatting is easy enough but people don't seem to readily grasp it. In all modern languages which originally appeared (perhaps by edict) about 2000 BC words acquire their definition through context. The meaning of the sentence is expressed directly. In the single ancient language which arose from a simple animal language as a result of mutation each word had a fixed meaning. But every concept or object had multiple words for which it was a referent. These words were scientific, colloquial, or vulger and their order and place in the sentence determined the meaning. Ideas weren't communicated directly but were compared to ideas already in existence so meaning was indirect. The ancient language was also metaphysical because new knowledge was incorporated right into the language and the language was internally consistent logically. As a metaphysical language it was the very basis of an ancient science based on observation and logic (language) rather than observation and experiment. To understand the language was to understand all human knowledge and this was the inherent flaw; the invention of writing caused human knowledge to explode. Language became much more complex with even little improvements in knowledge.

 

The language became so complex that it failed. Since people think in language and modern language has a vasly different perspective this can't be readily seen. It is vaguely remembered in ancient Sumerian writing related to the tower of babel which may or may not be the basis of the Bible story. The Bible version appears to be a confused translation of the way the change would be described in the ancient language. Since the two languages are incompatable and the newer language is "confused" it can't be stated with certainty exactly what the Bible story is. I could decode it for you but prefer to distance myself from what people might understand as religious precepts here. There are several other portions of the Bible that appear to be confused translations of ancient writing. Religion itself may be a confusion of ancient applied science or what we call "philosophy".

 

The new languages simply appeared almost overnight as each dialect of the ancient language solved communication deficiencies in different ways. Then since there was no longer any science to tie the languages together (therewas no longer science at all) these languages quickly splintered and divided in many different direction based on users and geography.

 

The change isn't obvious to linguists because the vocabulary underwent very little change, especially at first. The ancient language needed very few words just as a computer program requires very few words since meaning is in context rather than in the words. The vocabulary was insufficient to express meaning in the new languages so many new words arose to mitigate confusion.

 

We are left with languages in which we think but can't see that we think in them and which defines a perspective from which some things (especially human things) are very difficult to see. This perspective colors all of our thinking and perception. We simply tend to elevate beliefs to the status of reality and are blind to contradictory evidence because we see only what we know about already.

Perhaps I could add that learning to understand the ancient language was far easier for me than learning to cite the ways in which it is different. One can think in Egyptian or in English but both at once is not so easy. Just as translation isn't direct, seeing the differences in how meaning is expressed isn't direct. I'm working largely from translations that are highly flawed since the translator can't see the original meaning and it is expressed inour "confused" language. Perhaps part of the reason I discovered this at all is that I've always tweaked definitions of the words in which I think to make thought easier and more fluid. This is a sort of metaphysical thought so it meshed well with the metaphysical language. Add in the fact that I pick up clues about what people are thinking from how concepts are expressed and it's pretty natural that I rediscovered the language.

 

Of course I'm still a little concerned other people aren't picking up on this but once it's proven that water was used to build the pyramid everything will quickly fall into place.

 

I hope you don't subscribe to this nonsense.

 

Dragging stones off the ship is at least as bad as dragging them on.

 

This is another question I asked earlier, but received no response to.

 

Captain

 

"Ere, guv, ye capsize my ship 'n all, an 'twill cost ee dear"

 

I don't know. I don't have a strong opinion. Obviously the entire ship would have to be stabilized before attempting to drag a 70 ton stone off of it.

 

Personally I believe everything was done very highly highly efficiently or the pyramids couldn't exist at all. They appear to tell a story about improvements in man-made techniques and processes. The actual words used were scientific and scientific words are mistaken as "gods". They spoke the words of science. They had no religion, no magic, and almost no beliefs at all. "Thot"was human progress and his feminine conterpart was "seshat" which was writing. Before writing seshat was probably just oral tradition. It's a shame the language didn't fail before writing or we might not have lost our history in addition to our science.

[studiot]

 

once it's proven that water was used to build the pyramid

 

You have said a lot about language, but I have found what you mean by the above statement very difficult to divine, and I think that also applies to others.

 

This, I fear, has lead to much confusion and unwarranted recrimination.

 

We must keep working away at communication.

[Strange]

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with creationism and is only tangentally and incidentally related to "religion".

 

I didn't say it did. It seems your ability to understand language is as limited as your ability to use it effectively.

 

There are so many serious problems with this hypothesis, it is hard to know where to start. We can skip over the total lack of evidence, the mountain of contradictory evidence and your apparent ignorance of historical linguistics...

 

The new languages simply appeared almost overnight as each dialect of the ancient language solved communication deficiencies in different ways. Then since there was no longer any science to tie the languages together (therewas no longer science at all) these languages quickly splintered and divided in many different direction based on users and geography.

 

And that is a fatal objection. If you start off with a single language that fragments (especially one with a small vocabulary, as you claim) then you will end up with a group of obviously related languages. This is seen repeatedly. For example, we see this with Latin splitting into the modern Romance languages (a process that started during the time of the Empire). We see it in the Afro-Asiatic languages (of which Egyptian was a member). We see it in the Sino-Tibetan and Dravidian languages. We see it in all language families.

 

What we don't see, ever, is a language splitting into totally unrelated languages. And yet this is what you propose.

 

If all the languages on Earth sprang from a common ancestor, then why are they split into unrelated families.

 

The rest of the idea is just too stupid to comment on. (But I am sure you will blame that opinion on "modern language" rather than it being the judgement of someone who has studied linguistics.)

[cladking]

 

You have said a lot about language, but I have found what you mean by the above statement very difficult to divine, and I think that also applies to others.

 

This, I fear, has lead to much confusion and unwarranted recrimination.

 

We must keep working away at communication.

 

I could never in a million years have rediscovered how the great pyramids were built from the physical evidence alone. Little survives and it has been changed by men and time. This was the most heavily disturbed site on the face of the planet even before the Great Pyramid was built. Even geologically it is remarkable in its numerous virtually unique features. Trying to separate relevant data from irrelevant when information is so sketchy is beyond most humans and far beyond me. The important parts of the jigsaw are missing or changed. Seeing the patterns is not possible for me. There was a lot of serendipity here.

 

But I found the key in the ancient writing. This is what told me where to look and this is how I solved it and found all the information is relevant. Some is simply less important.

 

It would seem that if the theory is proven correct it will lend great credence to the means I used to develop it also being correct. The ancient "mustta" really been using a metaphysical language if I'm right, so we need to retranslate their words to reflect what the authors actually meant.

 

There are some staggering implications here beyond simply what it means to be human or how we communicate or even what science is. The words contain their knowledge and I'm only citing that knowledge related to pyramid building. If the work is retranslated a great deal more ancient knowledge will emerge.

What we don't see, ever, is a language splitting into totally unrelated languages. And yet this is what you propose.

 

The rest of the idea is just too stupid to comment on. (But I am sure you will blame that opinion on "modern language" rather than it being the judgement of someone who has studied linguistics.)

 

 

You are basing your statements on your understanding of what language is.

 

The ancient language is outside your experience.

 

The ancient language was metaphysical so communication required scientific understanding. Modern language simply makes statements and the statements are deconstructed by the listener.

 

When language changes from one type to another who's to make predictions about how the change will proceed? Add in the fact the vocabulary barely changed at first and it can become invisible to anyone not looking at it from the proper perspective. This isn't strictly about language at all but about the way people think and once thought. How do you propose to see something outside the way you think? You can't even see language from where you think because modern people thought themselves into existence "I think therefore I am" doesn't give any credit at all to your parents or those who taught you language so you could think.

 

Ancient people would have said "I am therefore I think" if their idea survived the confusion in language. They took reality as a given where we take our virtual omniscience and ability to think ourselves into existence as a given. Ya' can't get there from here and ya' can't see what I mean from your thinking. You would have to change several basic premises. This is why it might be best to just stick with the evidence of your own eyes rather than anyone's beliefs or perspectives. Let's try to stick with the facts as much as possible though I do like to talk about these differences in language and the implications so I'd be happy to engage you so long as we stick to logic and facts.

 

And, yes, I am well aware that linguists don't believe there was a different kind of language but then humans are supposed to be smarter than animals and we have an easier time teaching them English than learning even the simplest languages;

 

http://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/researcher-decodes-praire-dog-language-discovers-theyve-been-calling-people-fat.html

 

This seems to imply that all animal languages are metaphysical just as the first complex human language was. This seems to imply that there really was a "tower of babel" when all ancient science and history were lost. It would explain how humans invented agriculture and cities and completely forgot our entire history from before 2000 BC.

 

It doesn't matter if this all seems so strange because it all fits a pattern and we live in a single world (probably) where the the pyramids were built with water. Some implications will be resisted but over time the facts will win out. One of these facts is that we speak what our ancestors described as "confused language". When I'm around this is never in dispute.

Edited September 29, 2014 by cladking

[Strange]

You are basing your statements on your understanding of what language is.

 

The ancient language is outside your experience.

 

Sorry, this doesn't wash. This is a typical argument used by crackpots: "you are rejecting my theory based on existing science, but this is new science".

 

Basically, this is begging the question: "my theory is correct, therefore your objections are invalid, therefore my theory is correct".

 

I think I will put you on ignore before I tell you what I really think, and regret it.

[studiot]

 

Even geologically it is remarkable in its numerous virtually unique features.

 

I would be interested in some information about this.

[cladking]

 

I would be interested in some information about this.

 

I'm not sure where to start.

 

I suppose starting in more recent geological times is best since if you go back too far data is more speculative. People should remember that things here are unlike other places ancient people were more cognizant of things like the river flowing north and flooding in the summer. This is caused by rain patterns far away in Ethiopia and central Africa. These monsoon like rains come in the summer. They are related to sunspot activity and peak with sunspots which probably accounts for the close solar observations in ancient times (and maybe why we think they were sun addled). The drainage basin for the Nile once extended all the way to the Congo but only a mere 15,000 years ago a volcanic mountain range rose and cut off a large part of it forming Lake Kivu which is one of only three carbonated lakes in the world. It also contains vast amounts of methane and could be a ticking time bomb. CO2 often accumulates in low lying areas in this region and kills insects, animal, and people (especially children since they are shorter). The PT advises people to tiptoe.

 

The Nile lies along the Great African Rift which is a transform plate boundary and will in the near future cause the entire Horn of Africa to take off at high speed. This process is already beginning. It appears the Nile once flowed into the Fayuum Depression only some 30 miles south of Giza. How this is possible isn't clear but geologists believe simple evaporation might account for seasonal flow into it. I'm skeptical. The river suddenly changes its course aboiut every hundred years and sevewral major tributaries have disappeared. A river called the Ur Nile probably flowed west to east just north of Giza and may have flowed even as recently as when the pyramids were built. At the Ur Nile Headwaters Libya has created what's known as the Great Manmade River Project which is pumping ancient water from deep underground and is transforming the desert.

 

There are two major aquifers under Giza with one being a series of basin aquifers that extents all the way to Lake Kivu and the other being the Libyan Aquifer. The former is believed to contain 400 times as much water as the Nile dumped into the sea before construction of the Aswan High Dam.

 

Further backin time the Mediteranian Sea was cut off from the oceans due to declining ocean levels. This caused the Nile to plunge 800' to the lower sea level and to carve a massive canyon all the way back to the first cataract. This may be the largest canyon ever on the planet (maybe). It was certainly huge. Since caves form from the acidic actiuon of decaying organic material near the water table and the water table at Giza went from 225' to -800' this allowed the formation of caves to great depth in the limestone. I don't know the thickness of the limestone here but the crust is among the thinnest on earth and only 20 KM deep. Three plate boundaries join at about the Sanai and earthquakes here can be massive though they are a little unusual considering. The damage to the G2 is apparently from the p-wave of such a quake in the 8th century.

 

 

I believe this shows how the pyramids were completed from the top down but it's hardly convincing. The cladding was almost certainly intentionally stripped as well to rebuild quake damaged Cairo. It's unclear where quake damage begins and ends.

 

There is carbonated water under the plateau even today as well as the percolating ben ben below the pyramid.

 

After the canyon was complete the sea filled in creating a fiorde and this was eventually filled by sediment washing down the river.

 

Ancient reports say water came up out of the ground and the PT specifically say that the inundation came to the uplands. It's not possible that water would come up in the river valley because it's all tightly packed sediment so along the river banks (on the horizon) is the only possibility. The ground has hardly moved apparently since the pyramids were built but the river has risen some 17' through deposition. It has also moved from the base of the pyramid to several miles away.

[studiot]

Thank you for that useful answer. +1

 

I had a quick shufty round Google and found a lot of mumbo jumbo.

 

However does that not make it typical Karst scenery? Every site on Earth can probably claim at least one unique selling point, but you offered the tantalising suggestion of numerous usp's.

 

and a nearby large river that moves about in its course over centuries? there are quite of few of those around too.

 

I'm not sure about the composition of the salts in the aquifer water, I would have to look further into those.

 

But I would be very suprised if a substantial limestone pavement of a venerable age measured in thousands of years did not contain fissures and caves.

Edited September 29, 2014 by studiot

[cladking]

Sorry, this doesn't wash. This is a typical argument used by crackpots: "you are rejecting my theory based on existing science, but this is new science".

 

 

It wouldn't matter if it were an argunent that was improperly applied because it's not what I'm saying.

 

Existing science is correct by definition at least within its metaphysics. There's nothing here that is outside of science.

 

Indeed, it's the only theory in history that respects two different sciences!!!!!

 

Basically, this is begging the question: "my theory is correct, therefore your objections are invalid, therefore my theory is correct".

 

 

There's nothing invalid about your objections. This is why I answered them.

Thank you for that useful answer. +1

 

I had a quick shufty round Google and found a lot of mumbo jumbo.

 

However does that not make it typical Karst scenery? Every site on Earth can probably claim at least one unique selling point, but you offered the tantalising suggestion of numerous usp's.

 

and a nearby large river that moves about in its course over centuries? there are quite of few of those around too.

 

I'm not sure about the composition of the salts in the aquifer water, I would have to look further into those.

 

 

 

 

Certainly some of these things are hardly unique. There is an enormous sinkhole just north of the Fayuum (in the "Land of Horus") whose Arab name translates as "The Anus (vulgar) of the World". This appears to be relatively recent judging from sand deposition and could be what stopped the water from spraying about 2600 BC. Getting information is impossible so this is speculative. Sand deposition in the area is about 1" annually but being north of an large irrigated area and lakes it would be much lower.

 

While fissures and other karst features are prevalent in limestone it is unique to have these features extending to such depth at a location with two aquifers under it.

[Strange]

There's nothing here that is outside of science.

 

Linguistics is a science. Linguistics contradicts your idea.

[cladking]

 

But I would be very suprised if a substantial limestone pavement of a venerable age measured in thousands of years did not contain fissures and caves.

 

I'm aware of no limestone pavement in this area except the man made one surrounding the great pyramids. There probably is natural limestone pavement but the natural limestone at Giza is tipped approximately 30 degrees.

 

Linguistics is a science. Linguistics contradicts your idea.

 

I don't mean to insult anyone but linguistics is a soft science and this is about the evidence of your eyes.

 

Linguistics is a science. Linguistics contradicts your idea.

 

Perhaps there's a better response to this objection that is less likely to insult.

 

I've spoken to linguists a lot and they can't ake a cogent argument against irt because 2000 BC is so far back. However they don't accept it because there is some ancient Sumerian literature they believe is comprehensible. The writing isn't extensive enough to analyze using my technique but I suspect it isn't actually comprehensible but merely misunderstood in the same way more ancient (post-2000 BC) translators misunderstood it.

 

If I ever have the time I might try tackling it. I believe it was "enlil" who was the Sumerian "osiris" but it's been a while and Imerely started on it.

[studiot]

 

I'm aware of no limestone pavement in this area except the man made one surrounding the great pyramids. There probably is natural limestone pavement but the natural limestone at Giza is tipped approximately 30 degrees.

 

For a self professed linguist you have taken remarkably little notice when I have explained that I use some terms in their technical sense.

Limestone pavement is one of them. I have already posted a link to the geological definition.

 

 

While fissures and other karst features are prevalent in limestone it is unique to have these features extending to such depth at a location with two aquifers under it.

 

Several times in this thread I find that I see a post from yourown goodself and it is a response to someone else so I leave it.

But later (by chance) I find additional response to one of my questions appended, after I have posted.

 

Are you saying the aquifers are not limestone?

Do you have any data on the strata to back up this claim about the depth of the features?

There are some pretty substantial underground limestone features in other parts of the world.

[cladking]

 

 

Several times in this thread I find that I see a post from yourown goodself and it is a response to someone else so I leave it.

But later (by chance) I find additional response to one of my questions appended, after I have posted.

 

Are you saying the aquifers are not limestone?

Do you have any data on the strata to back up this claim about the depth of the features?

There are some pretty substantial underground limestone features in other parts of the world.

 

I am not a linguist.

 

The software automatically combines posts to prevent people from "post padding".

 

Geologists say there are two aquifers but I don't know the details of the depth of crust, aquifers, limestone, etc.

 

Any limestone to 800' depth will have fissures and caves because the water table has traversed all intervening points at least twice as the river dropped and then came back up.

"Edited" to add the confusion with "pavement" is arising because Egyptologists refer to the flat man made area around the pyramids as "pavement" and it is composed of limestone on limestone.

[cladking]

Moist of what I'm against isn't logic, facts, or science at all. What I'm up against is the perception that Egyptology is science and that science is infalible so we can just wait until it rebunks what everyone always knew; the pyramids were built with ramps.

 

But there are more facts I can show and more pictures I can post to lead logical people to the same tentative conclusion that I've reached.

 

One of the biggest failures of my theory has always been that it predicts... ...nay... ...it virtually demands that a "ramp" exist between the queens pyramids and the eastern cemetery. Extensive searching for evidence to confirm this turned up nothing. It demands a "ramp" here because it's known the queens pyramids and some of the eastern cemetery including the mastaba adjacent to G1c were in existence early in the construction of G1. There were no other routes for stones to be lifted from the quarry to the G1 causeway (primary supply "ramp"). I poured over photos and maps for years trying to find it and the best I could determine was that there was a long relatively even sloped surface. Even today I can't show that the slope was constant but this in't extremely important since constant slope isn't a strong requirement.

 

This is one of my best pictures with the ramp running up toward the middle of the picture to a point behind the Sphinx.

 

Con't...

[Strange]

I don't mean to insult anyone but linguistics is a soft science and this is about the evidence of your eyes.

 

Linguistics is not a very soft science. It relies heavily on data and mathematical analysis.

 

"The evidence of your eyes" is about the worst sort of evidence available.

 

I've spoken to linguists a lot and they can't ake a cogent argument against irt because 2000 BC is so far back

I think it is more likely because your ideas are "not even wrong" so they don't even know how to begin explaining that it is nonsense.

 

Imagine going to a car dealer and asking how many fairies are needed to make the engine go round. That is similar to what you are saying.

 

Anyway, I actually came back to the thread to pass on an article I thought you might find interesting, on the relationship between "mind" and "heart", i.e. cognition and emotion, in Chinese:

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=14807

Edited September 30, 2014 by Strange

[cladking]

...con't

 

Half way between the queens pyramid and the back of the Sphinx you can even see a fragment of constructed ramp but this is probably a walkway added long after construction since it's flimsy like most of the so called ramps. Alternatively it could have been used to connect the easter cliff face counterweight to the main quarry late in the project. It will require a scientific examination to make most such determinations and to date no such work has been done because they already know that "they mustta used ramps".

 

But this predicted ramp stil lsn't established even by being mentioned in the historical record "stones flew a bowshot (300') at a time to the pyramid" or even by the water eroded canal and fill that marks the eastern CF couunterweight. Very recently I did find this;

 

http://www.egyptstudy.org/ostracon/vol17_1.pdf

 

At the top of the first page it specifically states that George Reisner discovered a "ramp" in exactly this place.

 

This "ramp" points in the wrong direction to take stones to G1 but it's perfect direction to take stones to be flipped by the so called trial passages for inspection and then hauled by sails in the boat pits for processing in the mason's shop before being lifted by the min (hydraulic lifter) and main counterweight to the pyramid top.

 

"The evidence of your eyes" is about the worst sort of evidence available.

 

!

 

Science is based on observation and experiment. Egyptology won't do the science and most observation is primarily dependent on the eyes.

 

If you reject both observation and experiment there is no science at all. There's just the politically correct belief of the day bought and paid for by the highest bidder.

 

You are mistaken.

 

Metaphysics has been lost in the educational shuffle.

[Strange]

Science is based on observation and experiment.

Indeed. Objective observation and measurement.

 

If you reject both observation and experiment there is no science at all.

I don't reject these at all. I can't imagine what gave you that idea.

 

However, eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. As has been demonstrated by scientific experiments. Anyone who suggests you should "believe your own eyes" is mistaken and ignorant of the facts.

[cladking]

 

cognition and emotion, in Chinese:

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=14807

 

 

Thank you for the article. I did glance over it.

 

This is a point that people lose sight of; there is no more difference between the heart and mind than between your brain and your bones. The human animal is complete and each part functions in unison for every single task whether it's emotion or a calculus problem. Some parts are more closely associated or can be percieved as being more closely associated than is generally believed especially in the west. Each part also has more autonomy than people realize and while this autonomy is limited that we don't percieve it doesn't mean that the part can't independently percieve our own reality.

 

The ancient Egyptians equated the heart and mind as well. They knew there was a difference in their heart and I know there's a difference in my bones. I percieve experience in my guts until it becomes "muscle memory" which I experience in my bones.

 

To each his own. The world is far more complicated than science has yet begun to find. And some of the soft science is just simply wrong.

 

I know you believe we have nothing in common but our primary differences are merely semantics and style.

[studiot]

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?

[cladking]

However, eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. As has been demonstrated by scientific experiments. Anyone who suggests you should "believe your own eyes" is mistaken and ignorant of the facts.

 

Part of "observation" is knowing there are such things as optical illusions and misobservation.

 

The Egyptians called the ability to make good observations "heka" and what we were seeking to see "amun".

 

The rules of ancient science are mistaken as magic (heka is translated as "magic"), and what science learned is mistaken for religion (amun is the "hidden god") .

 

These pictures I'm posting have all been confirmed by other pictures and the features to which I'm pointing are as real as a heart attack. You can believe your eyes in some cases. The ben ben hasn't been confirmed but the author and photographer have no axe to grind and it's very unlikely to be faked. He takes a lot of great pictures and many are things other people (Egyptologists) just skip right on by.

[Strange]

Strange, can you prove your alternatives

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. And that the word for "ramp" did exist. And a few other factual errors. I am not presenting any alternative.

 

As for the language issue. Yes, it could easily be shown (not proved) that cladking's theories are baseless. Just do a course in historical linguistics. (To draw an analogy with your comment about quadratic equations; if someone didn't believe the correct solution, the best suggestion is for them to study maths.)

 

My "alternative" in this respect is that Egyptian is clearly a member of the Afro-Asiatic family of languages that have origins going back long before the 2000BC "tower of babel" he proposes. I am not an expert in Afro-Asiatic languages so I would have to do a lot of research to put together a case demonstrating this and I don't see any point wasting my time on it.

 

(And nothing is "proved" in science.)