Soft "Science" and Evidence of Your Own Eyes.

[studiot]

 

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.

 

Setting aside the building of the pyramids for the moment.

 

Do you honestly believe that the Ancient Egyptians had no ramps whatsover anywhere at all?

[cladking]

 

 

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

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

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

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

 

 

How many people live in the Gobi or Death Valley?

 

The deserts to the west of Egypt were nearly wholly irrelevant to the Egyptian people. By the time the great pyramids were completed there had been no migration for centuries from the west and the desert was too dry to support much life. Again I would remind you that rivers didn't flow through these deserts. The Nile was the only river in a desert and it wasn't called this even if they did bridge parts of it.

 

The question isn't whether or not people traveled in deserts but whether there was a need for a boat or anything else to build a bridge in the deserts around ancient Egypt.

 

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.

 

 

The word ramp is unattested in Egypt during the great pyramid building age. This is a fact.

 

That linguistics is a science is a matter of opinion at best. A scientist doesn't use science to eat his dinner nor can he conduct an experiment or observe the way words were used in the great pyramid building age. Did I mention not one single book survives. How can a scientist compare words when there is no writing, not even the word "ramp"?

 

 

 

Do you honestly believe that the Ancient Egyptians had no ramps whatsover anywhere at all?

 

Of course they had ramps and some survive. Most look like they were walkways and when the word was finally used for the first time 200 years after the great pyramids were built it was in reference to a walkway. There are actually "ramps" in evidence that look like they could have been used to lift stones but NONE of these exist on a great pyramid. It is a virtual certainty they had at least one word for ramps and quite possibly two. But this isn't the point. It is Egyptologists who tell you this is all a done deal. They say "ramps" are the only thing that fits the "cultural context" and that the builders were highly superstitious and banded together in their belief their king was a "god" to build the pyramid "tomb". There's no basis for any of this. There's no physical evidence ramps were used. There's no physical evidence the pyramids were tombs. There's no predictive ability of understanding the only writing that survives as superstitious gobbledty gook. This means there is no cultural context. As proof there's no cultural context of any sort just consider the word "ramp" isn't even attested.

 

Egyptology is a construct. They are completely wrong and proof is visible with the naked eye.

Look at the picture above and see the horizontal and vertical lines that are artefacts of the way these were built.

[Strange]

How many people live in the Gobi or Death Valley?

 

How is that relevant? You claimed that no one lives or travels in "the desert". Given the subject of the thread, I assumed that you meant the Sahara. I could have found references to people living in and travelling through all sorts of deserts but I focussed on the one you are talking about.

 

Once again a load of waffle and bluster, rather than admit you were wrong. This behaviour is just silly.

 

But as you ask...

 

The population density [of the Gobi Desert] is small—fewer than three persons per square mile (one per square km)

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/236545/Gobi/47956/Plant-life#toc47958

(Which is obviously not "nobody").

 

Death Valley is home to the Timbisha tribe of Native Americans

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

 

The deserts to the west of Egypt were nearly wholly irrelevant to the Egyptian people.

 

And all this waffle is irrelevant to refuting your claim that no one lives there or travels across it.

 

The question isn't whether or not people traveled in deserts

 

Er, it is exactly that. Because you said that they don't because of "common sense".

 

I am just trying to help you learn that every random "fact" that pops in to your head is not automatically true because you thought of it.

 

That linguistics is a science is a matter of opinion at best.

 

Of course it isn't. It uses the scientific method. That makes it a science.

 

A scientist doesn't use science to eat his dinner

 

What is that supposed to mean?

 

How can a scientist compare words when there is no writing, not even the word "ramp"?

 

I would suggest a course in historical linguistics. Unfortunately, it would destroy all your fantasies about the way language works. (You know what they say about people not accepting new ideas...)

[cladking]

Here's another picture of the horizontal and vertical lines;

 

 

How is that relevant? You claimed that no one lives or travels in "the desert". Given the subject of the thread, I assumed that you meant the Sahara. I could have found references to people living in and travelling through all sorts of deserts but I focussed on the one you are talking about.

 

Once again a load of waffle and bluster, rather than admit you were wrong. This behaviour is just silly.

 

But as you ask...

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/236545/Gobi/47956/Plant-life#toc47958

(Which is obviously not "nobody").

 

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

 

 

And all this waffle is irrelevant to refuting your claim that no one lives there or travels across it.

 

 

Er, it is exactly that. Because you said that they don't because of "common sense".

 

 

I presume you are aware that virtually every single ancient Egyptian lived in the Nile Valley. There were a few living in the various oases NEAR the Nile Valley but there wasn't extensive trade nor was there extensive trade with the "Libyans" to the west. There simply was no need to be constructing many bridges in the desert and then talking about it in the PYRAMID TEXTS.

 

Incidentally and quite relevantly the Libyan desert does get mentioned in the PT. The Egyptians called the desert adjacent to the valley where the great pyramids were built the "Libyan Desert". They called the desert adjacent to the Nile Valley on the other side the "Eastern Desert".

 

455b. filled with thy splendour, come forth from the horizon,

455c. after thou hast taken possession of the white crown in the water-springs, great and mighty, which are in the south of Libya,

 

Just note there the author believes there are water springs great and mightly in the dersert!!! Such a great and mighty water spring might certainly have a crown at the top where the water changes direction and falls.

 

Come to think of it in the bright desert sunlight water spraying uplike this WOULD have a pretty spectacular rainbow.

 

1455a. for N. is a star, the light-scatterer of the sky.

 

1004b. the double doors of heaven are open for thee; the double doors of the bows are open for thee.

 

1018c. Thy dismembered limbs are collected, thou who hast might over the Bows.

 

801b. the ways, of the Bows, which lead up to Horus, are made firm for thee;

 

Of course newer translations call these "sky arcs", but then, this sounds a lot like a rainbow as well. Of course semantics never did mean anything at all and we can just choose to ignore what the builders actually said because Egyptologists believe it meant something else.

 

Believe it or not using water to build pyramids actually did survive the confusion of the language;

 

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

 

Isn't that remarkable!!! No one ever noticed because they can't see the rainbow or a corrolary to Newton's third law of motion in it. How ironic the Sir Isaac Newton studied the Great Pyramid to investigate his laws of motion and even translated some of this and never saw a rainbow! He never found the solution to his question either even though, I believe, it's written on and in the pyramid.

 

It might not be relevant (maybe it is) that the angle of the pyramid is the color red in the secondary rainbow and the arris angle is the color red in the primary rainbow. Maybe the rainbows are just imaginary sky arcs like Egytology believes but;

 

1680b. the apertures of the (heavenly) windows are open for thee;

1680c. broad are thy steps of light;

 

Light scatterer of the sky, and "orders the lights above" would almost make a scientist think they are trying to tell us something.

 

I don't know what words it would take for them to have said that could make a modern person change his perspective enough to see. There is even an oblique reference to a rainbow made by the fire-pan in the upper eye of horus but anyone who can't read plain English can't possibly see the oblque reference.

 

Why don't people see this? Even if I'm wrong about everything these are still references to rainbows. You can't see what you don't expect. All anyone can see is a ramp everywhere thy look. They see stumble footed knuckel dragging troglodytes but we're all better now. So when the troglodytes say steps of light, ordered lights, light scattering bubbles, or sky arcs, all we can see is superstitious nonsense.

[studiot]

 

Studiot

 

Setting aside the building of the pyramids for the moment.

 

 

Do you honestly believe that the Ancient Egyptians had no ramps whatsover anywhere at all?

 

 

Cladking

Of course they had ramps and some survive. Most look like they were walkways and when the word was finally used for the first time 200 years after the great pyramids were built it was in reference to a walkway. There are actually "ramps" in evidence that look like they could have been used to lift stones but NONE of these exist on a great pyramid. It is a virtual certainty they had at least one word for ramps and quite possibly two. But this isn't the point. It is Egyptologists who tell you this is all a done deal. They say "ramps" are the only thing that fits the "cultural context" and that the builders were highly superstitious and banded together in their belief their king was a "god" to build the pyramid "tomb". There's no basis for any of this. There's no physical evidence ramps were used. There's no physical evidence the pyramids were tombs. There's no predictive ability of understanding the only writing that survives as superstitious gobbledty gook. This means there is no cultural context. As proof there's no cultural context of any sort just consider the word "ramp" isn't even attested.

 

Egyptology is a construct. They are completely wrong and proof is visible with the naked eye.

 

Look at the picture above and see the horizontal and vertical lines that are artefacts of the way these were built.

 

 

This is a prime example of why folks find discourse with you so difficult.

 

Why did you totally ignore the fact that I specificlly excluded the pyramids from my question?

Edited October 8, 2014 by studiot

[Strange]

 

Of course they had ramps and some survive. Most look like they were walkways and when the word was finally used for the first time 200 years after the great pyramids were built it was in reference to a walkway.

 

How did they talk about these ramps and other slopes for the thousands of years of prehistory if they didn't have a word for them?

 

"Hey, I'm just going to walk up this, er, you know, thingy ... "

[cladking]

 

This is a prime example of why folks find discourse with you so difficult.

 

Why did you totally ignore the fact that I specificlly excluded the pyramids from my question?

 

 

I simply tried to answer the question as comprehensively as possible. How was I supposed to descibe walkways at Giza from the great pyramid building age that Egyptologists call "ramps"? I couldn't ignore their existence and still be honest nor could I then ignore the existence of actual construction ramps at sites that were not great pyramids. You asked the question and I answered as accurately and comprehensively as I could.

 

If I simply said "yes, there were ramps" then we're right back to having to debunk ramps all over again. I'm not new at this. People have their brains wrapped around ramps and can't seem to untangle.

 

 

"They mustta used ramps" has been said countless millions of times.

 

How did they talk about these ramps and other slopes for the thousands of years of prehistory if they didn't have a word for them?

 

"Hey, I'm just going to walk up this, er, you know, thingy ... "

 

They would have had at least three words for "ramp" and, most probably, four. None of these is actually attested. One would be scientific and would be descriptive, one would be colloquial, and one vulgar. The scientific term was, no doubt, represented by a 30 degree triangle that looks like a ramp and probably derived from the words "surface changing vertically" and later became the heiroglyph for the word "ramp".

 

But this is guesswork. My guesswork and I don't know that it is true. This is simply the pattern of the language and there's no reason it should deviate for the concept of ramp. Perhaps they used separate words for a ramp used for dragging and one used as a walkway or even had words for ramps that go down and those that go up. Who knows? All that is known is that the word "ramp" is unattested from the great pyramid building age. It is unattested apparently because it wasn't a very important word and because most all words from this time are unattested. No books survive. There is no cultural context except what's in the mind of Egyptologists. Egyptologists take ideas from later times and extrapolate them to include the great pyramid builders because they believe nothing ever changed.

 

Something did change and all of their extrapolations are illegitimate and anachronistic. Their beliefs are non sequitur and founded on assumption. The word "ramp" isn't attested. My beliefs about the word are merely beliefs just as Egyptological beliefs about the word are merely beliefs. Beliefs don't mean anything and you can't build a theory or a pyramid out of beliefs. Egyptology has nothing but beliefs and I have all the evidence and the ability of the theoiry to make accurate predictions. This suggests my beliefs just might carry a lot more weight than Egyptological beliefs. God knows no ramp ever carried any weight.

[studiot]

I think I've made my point and we needn't discuss ramps further.

 

Equally I'm tired of Egyptologist bashing.

 

So after 132 posts, can we limit discussion to the mechanics of the interestesing proposition you have put forward that some form of cable haulage using counterweighted water buckets to haul stones up and perhaps into place?

 

How was movement controlled?

Particularly of the buckets to prevent water slopping out - a potential disaster for such a system.

 

Do you have any idea about impulsive forces in cables used in this manner and the sort of cables that would be needed to carry these loads?

Edited October 8, 2014 by studiot

[cladking]

I think I've made my point and we needn't discuss ramps further.

 

Equally I'm tired of Egyptologist bashing.

 

So after 132 posts, can we limit discussion to the mechanics of the interestesing proposition you have put forward that some form of cable haulage using counterweighted water buckets to haul stones up and perhaps into place?

 

How was movement controlled?

Particularly of the buckets to prevent water slopping out - a potential disaster for such a system.

 

Do you have any idea about impulsive forces in cables used in this manner and the sort of cables that would be needed to carry these loads?

 

 

There is extensive evidence for most of this but mostly it exists in the words of the builders. There is the physical evidence already provided. There is some more physical evidence (supportive physical evidence) not yet mentioned but implied by the builders.

 

Let me get back to it. This is the sort of stuff I prefer to talk about rather than words and beliefs. All the facts simply support a different way to view all the evidence. All the facts suggest our ancestors were primitive scientists rather than superstious bumpkins.

[studiot]

Using writings and pictures from that time as 'evidence' is fraught with difficulty.

I understand there were many pictures of men and animals with wings and men with animal heads.

 

But that does not mean I condemn them as unenlightened superstitious savages. Just that I am cautious about attempting to interpret their relics.

 

Now a thought to me occurs in relation to the water trough around and perhaps under the pyramids.

 

You have repeatedly mentioned how horizontal the coursing is, and I have observed how stable the structure has been over the last 5000 years or so.

 

So how did they achieve horizontal?

 

I know that the Romans used (and chronicled) water levels and were able to build their aqueducts to a sophistication unavailable to the Egyptians.

 

Well perhaps the water troughing was a primitve precursor of the Roman water level, to enable the horizontal to be established over such a large area.

The pyramid site area is substantial after all.

 

In a way they did better than some have managed in modern times and I could tell you a story of this I have personal experience of.

Edited October 8, 2014 by studiot

[imatfaal]

The word "ramp" isn't attested.

 

What do you mean by this? It isn't common usage. You have stated it on multiple occasions. Can I just check that you are asserting that the word did not exist - or merely that the word is not used in extant texts? Would a use in the Pyramid Texts count?

[cladking]

 

What do you mean by this? It isn't common usage. You have stated it on multiple occasions. Can I just check that you are asserting that the word did not exist - or merely that the word is not used in extant texts? Would a use in the Pyramid Texts count?

 

So far as can be shown the word "ramp" was never used during the great pyramid building age. It does not survive inscribed on stone, inked on papyrus, painted on tombs, recopied from older material in the 18th century BC, Inscribed in ceramic, or in any venue at all of any type.

 

Whether or not a usage in the PT counts is open to discussion. If the term were used in a format like "Thot raises the king to heaven from a ramp" then I would be inclined to say this counts. Even though the PT date to centuries AFTER the great pyramid building age any usage consistent with the concept of lifting something by means of a ramp, I would say does count. It would count because this is the modern understanding of how things were raised in ancient Egypt. It would count because most of the PT was very ancient before our version exists so odds would be very good that the great pyramid builders also thought of lifting things on ramps was a commonplace occurance.

 

But if the word "ramp" is used by one translator or another to refer to something else then, no, I don't believe it would count. Ironically this was the very first word I searched in the PT back in '07 and it actually appears once in Mercer's translation;

 

1717a. A ramp is trodden for thee to the Dȝ.t to the place where Śȝḥ is.

1717b. The ox of heaven seizes thine arm;

 

In '07 I simply dismissed this as a "walkway" for imaginary beings. Now I believe it might actually kind of count but it is not in reference to men dragging a stone up a ramp. This concept is a modern one.

 

People don't realize how little writing actually survives from the great pyramid building age. Most of what survives is titles and one word sentences. Everything is translated to fit the beliefs of later people because it would otherwise be incomprehensible. Egyptologists recognize that the wording is different in the more ancient language and they say they can only "circumscribe" the meaning but anyone looking for words of science or clues to how they worked or believed will be disappointed by the translations if these translations are actually perfect. They do not make any sense in any language and the word "ramp" is unattested from the great pyramid building age.

[studiot]

 

This is the sort of stuff I prefer to talk about rather than words and beliefs.

 

I take this as an agreement with my post to which is was a response, so when are we going to get on with it?

[cladking]

 

I take this as an agreement with my post to which is was a response, so when are we going to get on with it?

 

 

Sorry.

 

I've just been dotting some t's and crossing some i's first.

 

At this late date you'd think I wouldn't be afraid of looking like a fool.

 

Soon.

 

Do you have any idea about impulsive forces in cables used in this manner and the sort of cables that would be needed to carry these loads?

 

It appears that the stones were almost all pulled straight up the step sides of the five step pyramids. These step sides were filled in last and then finished starting from the top down. Large swaths of the lower reaches were filled in before the entire thing was done in order to have places to put all the tura stone (they simply installed them), but it was completed from the top down. The step sides would have been about 71 degrees so most of the weight of the stone depended on the rope. Their ropes were limited to about 100' in lenght because of the way they were constructed but they could weave them together to make almost any thickness. Ropes up to about 4" actually survive from the era. They used many materials to make these ropes but the most likely at Giza were halfagrass and the lighter ropes in evidence here are of this material. I believe that to lift the 20 ton loads they needed rope nearly 5 1/2" thick. They had a device to change rope direction known as a "dm-sceptre" and these were probably made in an on-site metal shop out of copper or bronze. Most bronze of the time (~2700 BC) was accidental but these were remelted in furnaces so they could have melted bronze rather than copper. Reheating furnaces of the era were limited to about 200 lbs so whatever the dm-sceptre was composed of probably had no metal parts larger than this. I believe this was a pulley and the largest part was well less than the limitation. The wheel had been in existence for over a millineum when construction began and the pulley is simpler in concept so should have been well within their capabilities. The "dm-sceptre" is represented by a staff in the form of a sine curve which can certainly be considered consistent.

 

It appears they used slings (ropes with a loop on the end) and a device called the "tie of isis" to connect to the counterweight; the loop went through the top and wrapped around the arms.

 

 

#71 above.

 

They also used a kind of belaying loop to join stones together that we know as the "cartouche" and represented the king's ability to join the peoples. Stones were moved multiple times and relayed up the pyramid so quick connects and disconnects were critical.

 

Across the top of the pyramid they appear to have used a chain composed of copper links shaped something like a paperclip. These links are heiroglyphs F46 through F50;

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hieroglyphs/F

 

With F50 being a keeper and the others variable lenghts to attain proper positioning of the dndndr-boat (ascender) (lifting sled).

 

They needed to load these sleds very quickly so they invented a device that kept the lifting sled at the proper altitude for loading that worked similarly to the way a plate dispenser in a restaurant works. Each time a stone was loaded on it at the loading station it would sink about the width of the stone and another could be put on very quickly. This device was called the "min" and its invention is recorded on the Palermo Stone as "the birth of min". It used the huge hole on the east side of G1 filled with water to provide bouyancy for the sled. As the sled sank it dispaced more water and allowed a stable level for loading.

 

 

 

This also served to reduce wear and tear on the equipment.

 

More pictures of the "whidden hole" (min) here; http://www.gizapower.com/Articles/door.html

 

They could inspect ropes and equipment for damage on a regular basis to prevent breakdowns. They used redundant systems so even the worst breakdowns would have limited impact on "production". Every tenth day was a "down day" used for maintenance. This way every day could be a good day of running on the mountain;

 

1555b. (is) in the mouth of those who run to them on the good day of running (while running is good).

1556a. "Set is guilty; Osiris is justified,"

1556b. (is) in the mouth of the gods, on the good day of the going upon the mountain.

1556a. "Set is guilty; Osiris is justified,"

 

 

Set (standing water from the geyser) is problematical; osiris (water in the geyser) is the solution.

By the by;

 

The min is simply enormous because it had to contain over 20 tons of water to compare to the weight of the dndndr-boat so it is visible in most satellite pictures;

 

http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=29.979105&lon=31.135509&z=19&m=bs

 

 

Note the vertical line in the pyramid pointed straight at it.

I think I might be proud to say that no brain cells and no intellence at all were used in the composition of this post. It is all well travelled ground. I could be clever (probably), but thank God, it wasn't necessary.

Edited October 9, 2014 by cladking

[Relative]

Soft science and see it with your own eyes, I tried seen things with my own eyes and my threads get closed , I have read a few of the opening posts, and no offence, you can not prove history before us, and guess work does not account for anything.

 

I gather from the original content and argument is something to do with pyramids and the industrial process they used at the time to build them, and I read something about ramps. So what would the ramps be made of to hold vast amounts of weight each day?

[studiot]

This is all interesting information and I will think about it before replying.

 

Meanwhile did you understadn what I meant about impulsive forces? , you didn't mention it.

 

And what did you make of my comment on levelling?

Do you understand the significance of correct alignment and fit and horizontality for the structural integrity and longevity of the building?

[cladking]

I seem to be getting even further behind here.

The PT suggests that the load and counterweight were kept in a sort of dynamic equilibrium by the time G1 was constructed.

 

1302a. To say: Back, thou lowing ox.

1302b. Thy head is in the hand of Horus; thy tail is in the hand of Isis;

1302c. the fingers of Atum are at thy horns.

 

The ox is the head of the bull of heaven (dndndr-boat) which is at the will (effects) of the gods of the load, counterweight, and (source of) ballast. It also is at the mercy of min which tends to force it up when below the pavement and allow it to come down when above. The "ferryman" who loaded the counterweight was in close contact with the loading platform by means of signals and would not allow the counterweight to fall until the dndndr-boat was fully loaded. Once it began falling it would tend to accelerate since the weight of the rope was being removed from the load side and added to the counterweight side. There were various means to brake it but only one is (lightly) evidenced.

Edited October 10, 2014 by cladking

[cladking]

There were various means to brake it but only one is (lightly) evidenced.

 

Perhaps I should ignore braking altogether because there are so many ways to accomplish it and it doesn't seem to appear in the PT except for a single clue; the dndndr-boat "flew up and alit" or "landed like a falcon". I believe this means that the force causing it to fly up was removed rather suddenly once its momentum was sufficient to assure it would land horizontally on top the pyramid at the unloading station. This unloading station was "between the two sceptres" or the two pulleys which changed rope direction on this side of th pyramid. Two pulleys were required to change the orientation (from "vertical" to horizontal) of the loaded sled.

 

I have to believe for the main part they used a curved path for the counterweight to stop the movement. As the counterweight became more horizontal the system would slow and then the water would be emptied out the top before the system being reset. But there is evidence weighted buckets might have been used in G1 to operate a brake. There are air shafts at various levels at steep angles between about 72' and 200' and there was a standard weight and a hook found in one as well as longitudinal marking inside the shaft. There is also a more enigmatic linbe in the pT that might suggest these shafts were used even after the ends were enclosed by the pyramid. This is not to say that this might have been the sole purpose of all of these shafts. It is quite apparent that they served multiple purposes during construction and possibly even after construction. They are far too complex to have served any one function. Use as brakes would explain one of their more enigmatic features; identical E/ W placement.

 

I doubt braking was much of a problem though once one of these heavy systems got moving it did have to be controlled enough to keep it from running away. The primary concerns were to be certain the load didn't stop short of the loading platform which could destroy a system or cause injuries and to not overshoot the unloading platform by too much. Everything required close communication and a very attentive "ferryman". Loads were carefully estimated in advance by the "Weigher/ Reckoner" and the ferryman knew the size of the stones being loaded. He adjusted the flow of water into the counterweight through a funnel called the I33.t-sceptre through use of a weir known as a "ba-sceptre". After the last stone was loaded he recieved a signal allowing him to fill the counterweight until it fell. All of the jobs were very prestigious and this was one of the most sought after of them all. You simply sat in the shade sipping cool Perrier and lifted thousands of stones per day while dreaming up new and better ways to build ever larger pyramids. If you thought up enough improvements you were promoted to "anubis priest" or "prophet" or even higher.

... I have read a few of the opening posts, and no offence, you can not prove history before us, and guess work does not account for anything.

 

 

 

 

Of course a great deal of what I've done here is mere guesswork. But don't lose sight of the fact that at every single stage of deduction and logic I am tied to the actual physical evidence as disclosed by what the actual builders of the pyramids said. If I get too far away from the "reality" then physical evidence will steer me back. The key here is that the PT are not the superstitious gobbledty gook they are believed to be. They are not the "bible" of a highly superstitious people but rather they are just the rituals that were used at the numerous ceremonies that were held when they said goodbye to their king. The ancients would have known them as the "Rituals of Ascension". The king ascended to heaven in exactly the same way the stones literally ascended to heaven meaning many deductions are possible.

 

Don't worry too much about people not listening to you because this is the nature of people and the nature of the language you use to get them to listen. Complex ideas require perseverance to communicate. Good luck.

[studiot]

Thank you for all this information to digest.

 

I am still interested in the engineering mechanics of things, and you have not answered my question about impulsive forces, or water levelling.

 

Here is a question from a modern textbook on fluid mechanics, that might be of interest.

It is about hauling 'buckets' of water up inclined planes.

 

 

[cladking]

 

 

How was movement controlled?

Particularly of the buckets to prevent water slopping out - a potential disaster for such a system.

 

 

The counterweight was shaped like the exoskeleton of a grasshopper. It was built on a heavy sled and made of "short pieces of wood" inside of timber framing. There would have been some baffles on the sled side of the device but none on the the sides away from the sled since water movement would damage the framing. The variable thickness would help to isolate the water into compartments. The primary tool to keep the water from sloshing and causing damage was simply assuring the sled had a nice smooth drop and a smooth course along the side of the pyramid. Total weight of the equipment was kept as low as possible but with such heavy loads it wouldn't introduce a lot of inefficiency to increase structural on the counterweight.

 

There is wording in the PT that strongly suggests that there was a bladder on the dndndr-boat that could be filled to reset the equipment after each lift.

 

This is an artist's conception of the henu boat (counterweight) from many centuries later after the loss of the language made understanding impossible. You can see he's conflated aspects of both the henu boat and the dndndr boat. though on the front is a depiction of the courses (not steps) of the pyramid. The stones were said to fly like the fledglings of swallows by the builders;

 

1130a. When thou sayest, "statues", in respect to these stones,

1130b. which are like fledglings of swallows under the river-bank;

 

Young swallows hug the contours of the ground and fly like they're being pulled through the air.

 

The oryx on the front of the boat symbolizes the builoders boast that they can build with a bare minimum of water since this desert grazing animal can survive weeks on the dew and can smell rain from 50 miles away. The bull's head opposite is symbolic of the "Bull of Heaven". The stone in the boat is the ben ben which is also the deposit from the geyser which is being extended to heaven. The falcon is horus who is the "natural phenomenon of the Land of Rainbows". It's all built on a sled and there are ankhs standing in djeds below. The ankh is the geysers, the water source, and in a desert water is life and this is the meaning of the ankh as a glyph. It stands in the djed because the djed is the control device that directs the water to the upper eye of horus so they can build the pyramid.

 

It would no doubt be quite impossible to figure out the ancient knowledge and science by extrapolation of the beliefs and superstitions which replaced them. There's just not only the change in language preventing it but the entirely different perspective. If you don't know what the henu boat is you could never figure it out. Of course, nothing survives from the great pyramid building age so this stops you in the other direction. There were probably only two ways to solve this and one was my way of solving the PT through context and the other would be to find physical evidence for geysers. The former required the internet and the latter would be difficult because most of the physical evidence is underneath great pyramids.

[cladking]

Thank you for all this information to digest.

 

I am still interested in the engineering mechanics of things, and you have not answered my question about impulsive forces, or water levelling.

 

Here is a question from a modern textbook on fluid mechanics, that might be of interest.

It is about hauling 'buckets' of water up inclined planes.

 

bucket2.jpg

 

 

Great question.

 

The shape of the henu boat pretty much precluded any water splashing out. It was a long undulating tube that was at a 70 degree angle to the horizontal. It was normally filled several feet from the top so the only problem with water movement woul be to stop it from causing structural damage to the "boat". The sides, bottom, and lowest parts could be made quite strong quite easily. Only the top was very susceptible to damage. Baffles along the bottom would reduce forces to the top.

 

I suspect these were very actively maintained by a small crew of men who would climb in and make repairs even as it was being lifted back to position. Most repairs were just to apply pitch and small patches to nurse them along until they were swapped out for a total rebuild every few weeks. These could be changed very quickly and they'd normally have a spare on hand. None of this last is really evidenced except that the "tie of isis" was a quick disconnect on the henu boat which was overseen by isis and is based largely on deduction. The boat itself appears to have been built of cypress framing and pine. The PT says little about the henu boat beyond how it appears from the side and the bottom and how it's loaded. It does suggest there was a means to dump water from the bottom but I believe this was used for emergency only. There are dozens of references to this device but they are from a perspective that imparts no information about its nature. Isis and nephthys are the phenomena of the two boats tied together and are referred to as the "harmonious phenomena (fem)". "Seker" is the water from the geyser once it enters into isis which gives rise to horus the stone (horus the younger). Of seker it was said that he towed the earth by means of balance. Seker then becomes the "wdn.t-offerring" when discharged onto the plowed earth. This is the whole point of the ancient language; perspective was everything. They never really said much but what they said was truth because the language was metaphysical in nature and the perspective always defined.

[cladking]

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.

 

 

Yes. Even though there were different words for each thing the repetition across the language was extensive so they simply didn't need a large number of words. Then this small vocabulary largely survived the change in language intact. The new languages required a much larger vocabulary so thousands of new words were invented.

 

The skill of the translators just astounds me. How they managed to get the gist of what was being said when they understood none of the intended meaning is rather remarkable. Of course I could, even now, be wrong about the meaning and until some theory is falsified there is a chance that some other process or even confirmation bias underlies the apparent meaning.

 

What I find more amazing than their ability to translate is their ability to interpret this all in terms that are actually consistent with the words themselves. By this I mean that they've interpreted the meaning of "gods" and the like from the writing and these interpretations almost always are essentially correct in a left handed sort of way. For instance they describe the Mehet Weret Cow as the celestial cow that channels the waters that make the king!!! In reality the mehet weret is the structure that recieves and channels the waters that build the pyramid which is the king. They are essentially correct except that they believe it exists as a concept only rather than a 50,000 ton concretization of the "natural phenomenon of snatching things from the air" (khenti-irty) by means of two eyes. Of course some of the reason they got so close to the reality is that they already knew the understanding of Egyptians from centuries later and they and Egyptologists simply misunderstood the ancient language in the exact same way. The ancient Egyptians who lived after the language changed had some advantages in that they had more ancient writings consider. None of this exists today and the Pyramid Texts themselves were only found in the 1870's.

 

Much of the way we understand the world and ourselves are still derived from the way the ancients invented it. Some of it is confused.

 

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.

 

 

We are so vastly different. As the language becomes better understood we'll see there are more commonalities than true differences and it's largely just the way we think that is different. Human concerns are really very much the same they've ever been. I believe we will become just a little more like them.

 

Translating poetry is even more difficult.

 

 

The Pyramid Texts do have a sort of poetic aspect to them. But to the ancients rhyming was more about meaning than sounds. What e mistake for puns is largely just their attempt to shove four pounds of meaning in three pounds of words.

And all this waffle is irrelevant to refuting your claim that no one lives there or travels across it.

 

 

I never said that no one lived in the desert or traveled across it. I said there was almost no trade between the Egyptians and the desert dwellers far to the west in the great pyramid building age. Of course there were routes traveled by donkeys and caravans and even Khufu traveled well into the western desert in search of "mefat". I said they did not use any boats to build a bridge in the desert. Indeed, it's most improbable that there were any bridges in the desert at all.

 

This could all be said in fewer words but then you'd still believe that the Pyramid Texts saying a boat was needed by bridge girders in the desert made perfect sense. It makes no more sense than anything else the PT say. If you solve it by context and always assume it makes perfect sense then you'll end up with understanding this as using a counterweight to build the pyramid.

 

Er, it is exactly that. Because you said that they don't because of "common sense".

 

 

Egyptologists refute all sorts of claims by reference to "cultural context". This is a fact.

 

It's also a fact that no such context actually exists. It is a construct.

 

Of course it isn't. It uses the scientific method. That makes it a science.

 

 

I would suggest you study metaphysics. Linguistics may have "scientific" aspects to it but it is not a true science except by the broadest definition of the term. I do speak with these people but they can neither confirm nor deny this theory.

 

I would suggest a course in historical linguistics. Unfortunately, it would destroy all your fantasies about the way language works. (You know what they say about people not accepting new ideas...)

 

 

If I'm right, aren't they going to need to rewrite any books about "historical linguistics" from before 2000 BC?

 

Do you believe that everything that will ever be known is known today? Is all that's left us is to fill in some blanks and cross the T's?

[cladking]

 

 

And what did you make of my comment on levelling?

Do you understand the significance of correct alignment and fit and horizontality for the structural integrity and longevity of the building?

 

Some of the earlier pyramids were not built on bedrock and were damaged. The Bent Pyramid while in generally good shape is partially built on sand and it's believed that it moved during construction causing the bulders to lighten the design by changing the angle inward about 1/ 3 of the intended height. It appears that they shaped a small rise under G1 to accept the stones which comprise it. There are quite possibly a couple other structures under here per weak evidence and the Pyramid Texts but certainly the edges were leveled and then paved with limestone before construction. There is a strange situation at the grotto which is elevated some 22' from the pavement. A tortuous and rough tunnel is cut below it that connects all the way down near the subterranian chamber. Above is several courses of pyramid stones that were laid and then later cut through to form a rough passage. Above that are about fifteen courses of built passage. More interesting is that where this long passage cuts through a natural feature which is a small void there is a "silo" to form the passage. A hole in the side of the silo provides access to the void.

 

 

The Great Pyramid is very stable and would probably be in perfect condition today if not for devasting earthquakes that damaged the casing stone and exposed the core.

 

Indeed, it's greatest weakness is a huge fissure just to the north that parallels the north side and is about 10' away. It extends from about the middle of the structure and extends nearly to the NE corner which is very near the cliff face. Indeed, it's something of a wonder to most people that the builders would even site the structure here since it looks like the whole cliff face could collapse taking much of the pyramid with it. Modern engineers estimate that the cliff could actually withstand about five times the loading the pyramid places on it which is the same margin of error used in many such applications today. This fissure is as much as 70' deep and was cleared to the depth a 12 year old boy could reach in the 19th century. I believe it contained the well for the geyser 35' east of the N/ S centerline but don't know where the boy dug. I'd guess it was in the deepest part but the configuration apparently isn't recorded.

 

There was probably some minor movement inside the pyramid during construction. It appears that a granite beam cracked above the king's chamber and the builders dabbed some plaster on the crack to observe its movement. There are other more minor such movements but they probably occured after construction, or at least, it can't be determined. Several intrusive tunnels have been dug with the most damage done to the north kings air shaft which someone tried to expand to get in. There's another tunnel toward the queens chamber south air shaft and one leading out of the "niche' in the queens chamber. Of course Vyse blasted a massive hole in the north side looking for another entrance and the entrance used today was cut by the Caliphate Al Mamuum in the 9th century. There is a void of missing stones on the NE corner about 2/ 3 of the way up which Pierre Houdin believes is evidence of internal ramps.

 

There was reportedly an attempt to tear it down centuries ago which might account for it missing its top.

 

It's rather indestructible considering what it's been through. Most of it has never been properly examined or forensically analyzed.

[cladking]

Egyptologists claim to have all the answers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Citation needed.

 

 

 

 

 

The fact that they refuse to do the science that would answer the basic questions is citation enough. It's easy enough to find plenty of allusions to how all other theories are wrong because they don't agree with the "cultural context". This context is derived from Egyptological beliefs and interpretations. Of course no other theory fits their "cultural context".

 

Some people fault my methodolgy because it includes the hypothesis that the PT makes perfect sense. But this hypothesis is checked at every point by the laws of nature and the physical evidence and it is supported by its ability to make predictions. These words were written in stone and the literal meaning does not agree with their interpretation. They simply choose to understand them in terms of highly superstitious people rather than primitive scientists.

 

People often ask me not to fault Egyptologists but they will not use modern science to unlock the mysteries and persist in simply abhorant methodology. They have repudiated not only the ancient science that still lives carved in stone but modern science as well.

 

I do not fault what Egyptology has done or the truths they have uncovered. I fault their refusal to employ modern science. It's easier for them to simply say "cultural context" each time someone points out an anomaly than it is to gather data that would actually establish a few points about the people and their culture. They are stuck in a rut looking for ramps that never existed.

Edited October 20, 2014 by cladking

[studiot]

So my comments about foundations have some foundation basis in reality. (I was tempted to make a pun here )

 

Thank you for the information.

 

But my comment on levelling also referred to the survey techniques necessary to achieve a line, horizontal over a distance the size of a pyramid.

Edited October 20, 2014 by studiot