The Gods Are Mad

[Analogue Boy]

.... Or, it’s a barge with a pile of sand in it. Which would explaing the shovels stowed on the back.

‘Gods of Sands and Water’ and all that.

 

[stu neville]

..or a large pile of water. Heaped up with those water-shovels to which you refer.

Just to be sure we agree on the terms I'm saying consensus opinion is irrelevant..

..despite saying in the very next paragraph:

..I don't think we have any consensus reality at this time and this is part of the problem.

In the next post we then get this:

My theory is easily tested and might be provable without further testing.

How does that work then?

 

[mummyknave]

.... Or, it’s a barge with a pile of sand in it. Which would explaing the shovels stowed on the back.

‘Gods of Sands and Water’ and all that.

I have seen some Egyptological discussion about this. Apparently we merely know these aren't normal parts of boats despite looking like rudders or something.

I've toyed with a few ideas and my best guess has a very low confidence level. Perhaps they were mops used to dry the inside of the tarred boat before slapping on patches of new hot tar as the workers rode the henu boat back up for another load. This actually makes sense and is very lightly evidenced. They had a type of belaying loop called the "tie of isis" so they could swap these boats out very rapidly but they'd be loathe to do so since each would behave slightly differently and it would require three or four minute interruption. They mopped the spot on the way back up the pyramid, slapped on hot tar, and hung the mops on the moving boat to dry in the dry desert air. ...it wasn't only the king dried by the great isis.

 

[mummyknave]

..or a large pile of water. Heaped up with those water-shovels to which you refer.

..despite saying in the very next paragraph:

In the next post we then get this:

How does that work then?

"Consensus" is human perception of reality and forms the basis of what many believe.

Even if I am proven correct today the "proof" will merely be a perception of reality rather than reality itself. State of the art would gradually evolve from "we are descended from stone dragging stinky footed bumpkins" to "we are stinky footed bumpkins who descended from wise and intelligent scientists".

Perceptions can never achieve reality but merely approach it. Our models are merely estimations of reality because our knowledge is too extensive to model reality directly like other life forms.

All models are held by individuals not by consensus.

 

[stu neville]

...which is precisely what I pointed out to.you two days ago - although somehow it seems rather longer - when I said:

Reality - and by extension the entire Universe - are subjective in the extreme, in that they are that which you perceive them to be. However, for any society of any kind to function, you need consensus reality - ie that upon which all of you involved agree is the objective truth or nature of something.

What we can all agree upon is that the Pyramids were actually built, and we know where and when they were built. The 'how' remains moot, and as such all theories have a degree of validity (albeit with varying degrees of likelihood) until one is found which satisfies the consensus.

Please, please pick a line and stick to it. It'll make it all so much easier for the rest of us.

 

[mummyknave]

...which is precisely what I pointed out to.you two days ago - although somehow it seems rather longer - when I said:

Please, please pick a line and stick to it. It'll make it all so much easier for the rest of us.

Reality - and by extension the entire Universe - are subjective in the extreme, in that they are that which you perceive them to be.

Herein lies the problem. There are different "types" of reality and I must use all these types plus all the dictionary definitions of "reality" in order to communicate. There are only so many words.

We each have our own reality in which we live composed of what we believe and individually experience. There is "consensus reality" which is the laws of nature and/ or the laws of God.

But usually when I use the term "reality" I am referring to neither of these. I'm talking about what the ancients named 'amun'. This is reality which is hidden and which we can merely glimpse. It is what actually exists independently of the observer. It is the world in which animals live and die. It is the actual way the pyramids were built. If we could go back in time and see them building "reality" would be what we saw whether we actually saw it or not and whether we understood what we saw or not. Reality is that the sky is overhead and this reality doesn't change even if you observe it from the moon or from six feet underground.

"Reality" is immutable and always unfolding based on previous events which were caused by equally impossible odds.
I always hope the reader deconstructs my sentences in accordance with my intent but I have no control and many individuals seem to rarely take my meaning. I appear to them to continually contradict myself. Part of the problem as well is that I don't think like most people and I am no great writer. The concepts I'm trying to get across are outside of most peoples' experience. Then, of course, there's the fact that if I'm right then most of what we know isn't really correct except from specific perspectives. Egyptologists have been saying there was no technology more complex than ramps for more than a century and we've "known" for many centuries that ancient people were highly superstitious.

Trying to get these ideas disseminated is about equivalent to trying to push water uphill. In everyone's reality humans are intelligent and until modern times nobody knew much of anything at all. In everyone's reality communication is effective and virtually perfect and any idea can be framed in such a way as to dovetail with reality and each of our beliefs. If doesn't fit our beliefs we have trouble even understanding it and it's virtually impossible to accept it.

There is nothing at all fantastic about my theory. The reality is it fits the experiments conducted in the last centuries better than any other theory. It merely forces a reinterpretation of many things we take as gospel. It certainly forces us to reinterpret the physical evidence that is currently interpreted as saying ancient people were primitive and superstitious and it's all easily proven because the theory makes predictions about the nature of the physical evidence. If they run the tests the results probably will be in agreement with all other tests already done and with my theory.

 

[Analogue Boy]

Trying to get these ideas disseminated is about equivalent to trying to push water uphill.

That’s another advantage of using sand. A team of men can move it uphill.

But my main problem in taking your ideas seriously (whatever they are) lies in communication.
I think I pretty succinctly proposed a barge filled with sand and shovels actually depicted on the boat. This makes logical sense and I didn’t need a thousand words to explain it.

Whether it’s right is another matter but I haven’t confused the issue with slippery notions that I don’t understand my own theory, no-one else can never understand it as there is no such thing as intelligence or reality and when I say anything, I’m not saying what I mean because communication doesn’t work.... apparently.

And then go on contradict the above statement.

 

[stu neville]

Herein lies the problem. There are different "types" of reality and I must use all these types plus all the dictionary definitions of "reality" in order to communicate. There are only so many words.

We each have our own reality in which we live composed of what we believe and individually experience. There is "consensus reality" which is the laws of nature and/ or the laws of God.

Yes. It was actually me who pointed this out to you in the first place. Apart from the "God" bit.

I always hope the reader deconstructs my sentences in accordance with my intent but I have no control and many individuals seem to rarely take my meaning

BECAUSE WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE ON ABOUT. And, by your own admission, nor do you.

 

[mummyknave]

That’s another advantage of using sand. A team of men can move it uphill.

Moving sand uphill is like WORK, man!!!

In order to lift the pyramid it required its weight times its height times 1/4, foot pounds of work. This is an astounding amount of work. Using sand instead of dragging stones straight up the side INCREASES the total work. Mosy people simply don't realize that mechanical advantage always increases the total work. Yes, sand is easy to manage than stone but it's the total amount of work which is the problem here. Simply stated it's probably impossible to get enough men onto this little site to do the total amount of work to lift the pyramid and increasing that amount of work with mechanical advantage is unlikely to be the solution.

Yes, they couldda used sand and, yes, this might be the solution to the whole puzzle. But bear in mind it was the PT that allowed me to determine stones were pulled straight up and the PT that allowed me to see the step pyramid in the gravimetric scan. The PT says they used water from a source named "atum". The physical evidence is consistent with using water so why should I switch to using "sand" as ballast at this late date?

The simple fact is the means to build has been solved and "proven" and I can't even get Egyptologists to care. It has been shown that stones were pulled straight up the sides of five step pyramids one step at a time yet egyptology is ignoring the facts. It doesn't matter yet if they used water, sand, or manpower standing on the steps that fact is stones were pulled straight up the sides and Egyptology still is stuck on "they mustta used ramps".

I have difficulty believing the principle ballast used to lift stones was sand when the builders said it was water.

But my main problem in taking your ideas seriously (whatever they are) lies in communication.
I think I pretty succinctly proposed a barge filled with sand and shovels actually depicted on the boat. This makes logical sense and I didn’t need a thousand words to explain it.

I've been at this a while and I know in advance where the stumbling blocks for people are.

They used counterweights filled with water from a carbonated aquifer. I can say any of this in very few words and people just think I'm kidding or delirious. There was a single metaphysical language that failed in an event known as the "Tower of Babel'. You might be surprised how succinct I can be but people just can't believe despite the mountain of evidence that supports everything I say.

Whether it’s right is another matter but I haven’t confused the issue with slippery notions that I don’t understand my own theory, no-one else can never understand it as there is no such thing as intelligence or reality and when I say anything, I’m not saying what I mean because communication doesn’t work.... apparently.

And then go on contradict the above statement.

Unlike everyone else I can be wrong about literally anything at all.

Egyptologists know everything for a fact but I might be wrong despite the fact the evidence supports me, my theory makes good prediction, and it explains human history and the nature of humanity. Egyptology can't be wrong and as they've said countless times the ancients had no technology other than ramp technology. Whereas it just seems to stand to reason that they'd make five step pyramids with ramps.

The gods are mad.

 

[mummyknave]

Yes. It was actually me who pointed this out to you in the first place. Apart from the "God" bit.

BECAUSE WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE ON ABOUT. And, by your own admission, nor do you.

I'm trying to communicate here.

I shouldn't worry about making misstatements of fact since no one else does. I'm trying to force the reader to deconstruct my sentences so they make sense since this is my intended meaning. It's just the way I've always talked. If I say "reality is a bitch" I don't mean that we are all a female dog or that some of us are in some way a female dog. I merely mean that reality can bite us on the ass if we are careless. If I say we each have our own reality I don't mean that the pyramids were built with ramps if we have a doctorate but by aliens if we live in that kind of world.

I'm contending that the physical evidence and logic agree the pyramids were built with linear funiculars. If they really were then reality is a bitch and much different than any of us believe.

 

[Patrick30]

Gods no mad, just crazy!

 

[Coal]

I'm trying to communicate here.

You're not succeeding.

 

[mummyknave]

You're not succeeding.

OK, let me try another tack.

There is obvious, widespread, and extensive physical evidence as well as logic and an agreement with historical accounts that the great pyramids were built with the usage of linear funiculars. Despite the fact that I have shown how and why this evidence was misinterpreted, and have debunked every single assumption that created that misinterpretation the theory is being dismissed because it was generated by a nobody.

People simply don't want to believe this reality because it removes us from the crown of creation. They not only don't want to believe that we aren't at the crown of creation they don't want to believe that someone with no credentials and no training can "show up" a century of Egyptology and cast all human knowledge in a new light. People don't want to believe both science and human cognition have more in common with a parlour trick than with omniscience.

 

[Coal]

OK, let me try another tack.

There is obvious, widespread, and extensive physical evidence as well as logic and an agreement with historical accounts that the great pyramids were built with the usage of linear funiculars.

You have show there is some small overlap between the current evidence and theory and you own theory. You give no credibility to evidence that contradicts your theory.

Despite the fact that I have shown how and why this evidence was misinterpreted, and have debunked every single assumption that created that misinterpretation the theory is being dismissed because it was generated by a nobody.

Respectfully, the issue is not that you are in your own words a 'nobody'. The issue is that you have not provided a solid empirically reasonable chain of events or even a credible one. You contradict yourself and talk in riddles.

People simply don't want to believe this reality because it removes us from the crown of creation. They not only don't want to believe that we aren't at the crown of creation they don't want to believe that someone with no credentials and no training can "show up" a century of Egyptology and cast all human knowledge in a new light. People don't want to believe both science and human cognition have more in common with a parlour trick than with omniscience.

OK. In science, any science, it's up to the proposer to make their case and provide evidence or reasoning or an underlying mechanism of some type, to back up the claim.

You've made a proposal. You've not made your case. There are some very bright folk here on the forum, a good few smarter than I, and if they don't 'get' your argument, never mind me, then you've failed to make your case. It's down to you to do so convincingly.

If you're right you've made an astounding discovery and it will pay you to go to college/uni, take a history/archaeology degree, learn to write and present a solid well-researched case, using sound principles and then take the world of Egyptology by storm.

How about it? Up for that?

 

[mummyknave]

YYou give no credibility to evidence that contradicts your theory.
theory.

There is no contradictory evidence to my knowledge.

What people are calling contradictory is generally just other interpretations of the same evidence. The evidence has never really been in dispute.

Respectfully, the issue is not that you are in your own words a 'nobody'. The issue is that you have not provided a solid empirically reasonable chain of events or even a credible one. You contradict yourself and talk in riddles.

I don't believe it's true that I haven't provided solid empirical chain of evidence and logic.

There have been millions of books written and they are all wrong. I can't address the errors and set right what is wrong in millions of books in a single post. All I can do is provide the logical framework that shows how to identify these errors and their underlying assumptions. The problem is one of epistemology and metaphysics and the language that interferes with us differentiating knowledge from belief. The problem is one of perspective where people believe in the laws of God and nature where no such laws exist. The problem is the confusion that arose at Babel.

OK. In science, any science, it's up to the proposer to make their case and provide evidence or reasoning or an underlying mechanism of some type, to back up the claim.

You've made a proposal. You've not made your case. There are some very bright folk here on the forum, a good few smarter than I, and if they don't 'get' your argument, never mind me, then you've failed to make your case. It's down to you to do so convincingly.

All I can do is lay out the physical evidence and logic that shows the pyramids were built using linear funiculars.
I am constrained by a status quo at Giza that is afraid of the pyramid and hasn't methodically employed science and human knowledge to their understanding in more than a century. I am constrained by what they have deigned to look for. Remember infrared technology is a century old AND THEY HAVE NEVER PUBLISHED INFRARED PHOTOS OF ANY GREAT PYRAMID!!!!!

But ALL THE EVIDENCE AND LOGIC shows stones were pulled straight up the sides of five step pyramids and the actual pyramid builders said that they used water filled counterweights to pull the stones up the side. Indeed, it's the very words of the builders by which I made this rediscovery. It was coming to understand what they said that enabled me to reverse engineer the Great Pyramid.

If you're right you've made an astounding discovery and it will pay you to go to college/uni, take a history/archaeology degree, learn to write and present a solid well-researched case, using sound principles and then take the world of Egyptology by storm.

How about it? Up for that?

If I were up to all that I'd first travel to Giza and might be able to prove it just by looking around.
Believe it or not there's actually an accumulation of material in the Sphinx Temple that would likely be best called a "ben ben stone on the primeval mound" since we have no words for it.

"The bizarre red, white, and yellow mineral encrustations here are puzzling, and I cannot explain them. I looked at them as closely as I could, and the more closely I looked the more puzzled I became. They seem to be bubbling up from something, with layers of encrustation being successively deposited on top of earlier layers. Perhaps the ‘efflux of Osiris’ is leaking upwards!"

http://www.egyptiandawn.com/chapter7.html

 

[mummyknave]

How about it? Up for that?

If I were up for any of this there would be a hundred things I'd do first.

There is an entrance to the Mafdet under the NE corner that is some distance outside of Zahi's Wall. There is also some ancient knowledge I've already deduced that could have profound implications on any individual.

It is impossible to get a degree in Egyptology unless you believe that the great pyramids were tombs dragged up ramps by changeless and superstitious bumpkins circa 2470 BC. I don't believe any of these things and it's impossible to affect Egyptologists unless you have a degree in Egyptology. Scientists are the most holier than thou of all people and Egyptologists are the holiest than thou of all scientists.

This is the reality.

 

[mummyknave]

Respectfully, the issue is not that you are in your own words a 'nobody'. The issue is that you have not provided a solid empirically reasonable chain of events or even a credible one. You contradict yourself and talk in riddles.

I've already hinted at most of the physical evidence but I'd be happy to lay it out in a "short" post if anyone is interested.

I could go on all day with the evidence and logic but while it all agrees people seem to want to cherry pick it and always come up with ramps. They simply dismiss almost all of the physical evidence and ignore the logic. A simple sloped walkway has become proof that they mustta used ramps since it was the only technology that Egyptians could master.

The illogic of the paradigm is mountainous.

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

I freely admit I can be wrong about everything. I believe there is only about a 75% chance that I am generally correct but, there will still be errors even if I'm proven right today. When I started I ONLY believed they "mustta used water" to build and the odds they used water was 40%. Everything else is a product of years of research and deduction to reverse engineer the pyramids and solve the PT simultaneously.

Let's take cases here though. When I started I "knew" the pyramids were tombs. This is what I was taught in school and I had no reason to doubt it. But over the years I found the builders said the pyramids are mnemonic devices, time capsules, and places of industry (canning, drying food, laundry, and cutting stone). They also specifically said exactly where the tomb of the king is and it's not the pyramid. I no longer believe the pyramids were tombs. Specifically I estimate the odds they were tombs at only about 20% and I doubt "tombs" would have been the chief function.

Meanwhile all Egyptologists believed they were tombs 12 years ago and all Egyptologists are just as certain they were tombs today. Each Egyptologist estimates the odds they were tombs at 100%. They'll say "expert opinion is they were tombs" but the fact is they consider no other possibilities. There are no books suggesting they were seed vaults or alien communication devices.

All Egyptologists also believe ancient people were highly superstitious and believed in hundreds of imaginary consciousnesses that controlled man's fate. None would ever suggest or has ever suggested that the people were atheists or scientists. They can't even consider any new or existing evidence outside the parameters of changeless and highly superstitious people dragging tombs up ramps. Even if they aren't 100% sure they may as well be because these are their beliefs and these are the terms in which they understand not only the pyramids builders but themselves; Egyptologists are descendants of superstitious versions of themselves who dragged tombs up ramps. This is their world view and it's very similar to the world view of all people because this is what we are all taught.

Confirmation bias is what we all do all the time.

But if you weigh the characteristics of certainty against the characteristics of my theory then you must conclude that the paradigm is far more likely to be the result of confirmation bias. This is not only because of their certainty but their inability to make prediction or even to explain current events. I predicted the thermal anomaly and spent years trying to get them to test for it. I can explain a cistern in Khentkawes Town that can only be filled with running water.

I can explain most of the "mysteries" of how they lived and why they built pyramids in terms of physical evidence, logic, and common sense. I can explain why the evidence doesn't match the paradigm and show the discontinuity that erased the first 40,000 years of human history. I can even recreate some of that history (with somewhat low confidence level) and I can recreate a small part of ancient science as well as a tiny part of its metaphysics with very high confidence levels (~30%). I can explain not only the sceptres and icons but why Egyptologists can't.

Yes, my work does seem to include details impossible to know but this is because once you understand things like "3b3h" is the height the water sprays and "3b3h.t" is the cubits of water pressure (the pressure of a column of water at the top of the spray) then details emerge. Pyramids are all five steps and the top of the spray is 1/6 the height of the pyramid. The rest is simple math. The epigomenal days occured starting on June 20.
Every bit of this stuff is remarkably simple and could have been done by a sixth grader. It's not the complexity that makes it seem impossible to be real, it's the simple fact that it flies in the face of everything we believe about almost everything. It's hard for people to accept a nobody could make such earth shking rediscoveries so they are waiting for the professionals to agree, disagree, or disprove it. But the professionals refuse to talk about it and it took me 9 years just to shame them into using ancient infrared technology to examine the pyramid and THEY STILL REFUSE TO RELEASE THE RESULTS AFTER THREE YEARS!!!

While they have been saying the same things for two centuries I continue to make progress every day. By progress, I simply mean there are more and more tie-ins to reality and the existing theory. There is more internal consistency found on a regular basis. There are countless ways to prove or disprove my theory and some are so extraordinarily simple that it's hard to imagine they haven't run the tests. The theory makes very specific predictions about a great number of easily tested things like the constituent chemicals and contaminants in the Osiris Shaft water. I can't imagine how it's possible that anyone who calls himself a "scientist" would not want to know what's in this water.

But here we are anyway. We don't even know the infrared spectra of the great pyramids despite this being century old technology. It seems obvious that they haven't employed technology and knowledge to the pyramid BECAUSE they already know all the answers and knowing all the answers is consistent with confirmation bias and assuming the conclusion.

The gods are mad. We are stinky footed bumpkins. Everything we learned in school about everything is wrong or is only right in a left handed sort of way. What we were taught is only correct from some perspectives. The only thing any of us really know is what's in our guts and bones. Real knowledge is experiential.

We are the result of confused language we acquired at the "tower of babel".

Have you tried modelling your theory on a small scale? It wouldn't take too much effort to build a modest little step pyramid from say house bricks and use something like plastic toy train rails for the funicular track.
I would be interested to see how you propose the water-based counter balance mechanism would function, as I'm struggling to visualise the practicalities of that.

 

[Coal]

If I were up for any of this there would be a hundred things I'd do first.

There is an entrance to the Mafdet under the NE corner that is some distance outside of Zahi's Wall. There is also some ancient knowledge I've already deduced that could have profound implications on any individual.

It is impossible to get a degree in Egyptology unless you believe that the great pyramids were tombs dragged up ramps by changeless and superstitious bumpkins circa 2470 BC. I don't believe any of these things and it's impossible to affect Egyptologists unless you have a degree in Egyptology. Scientists are the most holier than thou of all people and Egyptologists are the holiest than thou of all scientists.

This is the reality.

A simple 'no' would have been fine.

 

[mummyknave]

A simple 'no' would have been fine.

What you suggested would take eight years and would be simply impossible even for a young man. It is impossible for me on many levels and not the least of which is that I don't believe what Egyptologists believer. It's impossible to get a degree on this basis along. Then it really should be mentioned that I don't think like Egyptologists either so learning what they know is likely impossible for me. I don't think in taxonomies and et als. I'm not "smart" enough to learn Egyptology even if I believed it.

 

[Analogue Boy]

It is impossible to get a degree in Egyptology unless you believe that the great pyramids were tombs dragged up ramps by changeless and superstitious bumpkins circa 2470 BC. I don't believe any of these things and it's impossible to affect Egyptologists unless you have a degree in Egyptology. Scientists are the most holier than thou of all people and Egyptologists are the holiest than thou of all scientists.

This is the reality.

Hmmmmm. I reckon there’s plenty of priests out there making a living without necessarily believing the whole miracles and transubstantiation thing.
It’s probably possible to get a degree in Egyptology without believing, if, like media studies, you have your fingers crossed behind your back for a couple of years.

Oh and priests are more holier than thou, not scientists surely?

 

[mummyknave]

Have you tried modelling your theory on a small scale?

I once took a couple minutes out of a conversation to rig up the device with a piece of thread. Of course it worked.

It wouldn't take too much effort to build a modest little step pyramid from say house bricks and use something like plastic toy train rails for the funicular track.

All you need is to drape a rope across a building and tie it to a brick on the ground level. On the other side tie the same rope to a bucket at the level of the eves.

Stand below with a garden hose and fill the bucket until it falls down and lifts the brick.

I would be interested to see how you propose the water-based counter balance mechanism would function, as I'm struggling to visualise the practicalities of that.

I can post some drawings but they aren't much clearer than the description above.

There's a simple reason drawings don't help; you can't get all the relevant information in a drawing from any perspective. The Egyptians had this exact same issue. This is why they drew pyramid building only in the scientific perspective. Their "colloquial perspective" that looks much like ours simply wasn't up to the task. This is why there is no data or anything to suggest that the Egyptians even built the pyramids. When they said their culture built the pyramids they said it in ways we misinterpret; "tefnut raised the earth high under the sky by means of her arms" or "osiris in his name of seker towed the earth by means of balance".[/QUOTE]

 

[mummyknave]

Hmmmmm. I reckon there’s plenty of priests out there making a living without necessarily believing the whole miracles and transubstantiation thing.
It’s probably possible to get a degree in Egyptology without believing, if, like media studies, you have your fingers crossed behind your back for a couple of years.

Oh and priests are more holier than thou, not scientists surely?

Priests can cite only scripture while scientists can cite natural law as determined by experiment. Scientists can't be wrong about anything or any prediction but priests freely admit they are only human. Of course scientists don't dream of being a saint someday.

Not every scientist is holier than thou; only those who don't understand metaphysics and epistemology: Only those who believe "skeptic" means everyone else is wrong.

 

[Analogue Boy]

Why is it I keep thinking of Eric Morecambe saying ‘I am playing the right notes, just not necessarily in the right order’.

 

[Analogue Boy]

Priests can cite only scripture while scientists can cite natural law as determined by experiment. Scientists can't be wrong about anything or any prediction but priests freely admit they are only human. Of course scientists don't dream of being a saint someday.

Not every scientist is holier than thou; only those who don't understand metaphysics and epistemology: Only those who believe "skeptic" means everyone else is wrong.

Wrong again. Priests can crack jokes, sing bawdy songs and read telephone directories out loud.
Some scientists are wrong about some things.
If you don’t mind me saying, you need to sort out your absolutes.

 

[mummyknave]

Wrong again. Priests can crack jokes, sing bawdy songs and read telephone directories out loud.
Some scientists are wrong about some things.
If you don’t mind me saying, you need to sort out your absolutes.

"Priests can cite only scripture while scientists can cite natural law as determined by experiment. Scientists can't be wrong about anything or any prediction but priests freely admit they are only human. Of course scientists don't dream of being a saint someday.
Not every scientist is holier than thou; only those who don't understand metaphysics and epistemology: Only those who believe "skeptic" means everyone else is wrong."

You misinterpreted my meaning. What a priest believes is in scripture but what a scientist believes is natural law.

You need to remember that I believe all beliefs are false or are true only from specific perspectives. Scientific and priestly beliefs are both always wrong but the scientist is the holiest than thou.

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

"All you need is to drape a rope across a building and tie it to a brick on the ground level. On the other side tie the same rope to a bucket at the level of the eves.

Stand below with a garden hose and fill the bucket until it falls down and lifts the brick. "

Thanks. Still struggling with the practicalities of this approach though. Wouldn't transporting say 2.5 tonnes of water up to the level of the pyramid 's "eaves" be just as problematical as simply hauling the blocks into place on rollers on earth ramparts?

 

[mummyknave]

"All you need is to drape a rope across a building and tie it to a brick on the ground level. On the other side tie the same rope to a bucket at the level of the eves.

Stand below with a garden hose and fill the bucket until it falls down and lifts the brick. "

Thanks. Still struggling with the practicalities of this approach though. Wouldn't transporting say 2.5 tonnes of water up to the level of the pyramid 's "eaves" be just as problematical as simply hauling the blocks into place on rollers on earth ramparts?

Since water could be passed up it would save 10 to 30% of the work as men no longer need to lift their own weight up the side. Since they no longer would need massive ramps to be built and then rebuilt it would save another 40% to 400% of the work compared to various ramp designs. There are countless other small savings but these are the two that leap to mind.

But there's one major savings of using carbonated water; it saves them all the work! Since the water sprays out of the ground and it caught at a level of 1/6 the heigth of the pyramid they merely need to build and maintain the equipment rather than to actually lift stones. In a desert with temperatures over 45 degrees and sunlight reflecting from surfaces all around you dragging stones would be deadly work. Traffic on ramps wouldn't move as one worker after another fell out from heat exhaustion. Instead there were no workers and the operators simply sat in the shade drinking Perrier as the equipment made the lifts or waiting for breakdown to go to work.

This was an ancient industrial site using ancient knowledge and primitive technology so obviously it required nearly 1000 men to keep the equipment running and another 3000 to quarry the stone. These men all rested comfortably with their wives and children in the builders village at the end of a hard day's work. They were not crammed in like sardines and they didn't sleep on the ramps in sandstorms because there were no ramps. There's another reason they didn't sleep on ramps and it's the exact same reason the builders village is so very far from the worksite and was built behind a massive high wall; during temperature inversions CO2 and hydrogen sulfide could pour down from the building site like water in the wadi and kill every living animal in its path. Men, women, and children all slept in the builders village except for a tiny skeleton crew that stayed up on top of the pyramid for security, work that could only be done at night, and to lift the day crew in the morning if they had water. The men slept in if the fire-pan didn't burn. There was no danger of poisonous gasses if it did burn. Only the water spraying up could make the fire-pan burn so it signaled not only that it was possible to work but that the site was safe.

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

Since water could be passed up it would save 10 to 30% of the work as men no longer need to lift their own weight up the side. Since they no longer would need massive ramps to be built and then rebuilt it would save another 40% to 400% of the work compared to various ramp designs. There are countless other small savings but these are the two that leap to mind.

But there's one major savings of using carbonated water; it saves them all the work! Since the water sprays out of the ground and it caught at a level of 1/6 the heigth of the pyramid they merely need to build and maintain the equipment rather than to actually lift stones. In a desert with temperatures over 45 degrees and sunlight reflecting from surfaces all around you dragging stones would be deadly work. Traffic on ramps wouldn't move as one worker after another fell out from heat exhaustion. Instead there were no workers and the operators simply sat in the shade drinking Perrier as the equipment made the lifts or waiting for breakdown to go to work.

This was an ancient industrial site using ancient knowledge and primitive technology so obviously it required nearly 1000 men to keep the equipment running and another 3000 to quarry the stone. These men all rested comfortably with their wives and children in the builders village at the end of a hard day's work. They were not crammed in like sardines and they didn't sleep on the ramps in sandstorms because there were no ramps. There's another reason they didn't sleep on ramps and it's the exact same reason the builders village is so very far from the worksite and was built behind a massive high wall; during temperature inversions CO2 and hydrogen sulfide could pour down from the building site like water in the wadi and kill every living animal in its path. Men, women, and children all slept in the builders village except for a tiny skeleton crew that stayed up on top of the pyramid for security, work that could only be done at night, and to lift the day crew in the morning if they had water. The men slept in if the fire-pan didn't burn. There was no danger of poisonous gasses if it did burn. Only the water spraying up could make the fire-pan burn so it signaled not only that it was possible to work but that the site was safe.

A fountain squinting Perrier 10s of metres up the sides of a pyramid is a great image, but not one I can readily accept.
If, and it's a very big IF, water was employed in some capacity as a counter-balance, wouldn't a series of shadoofs (or just possibly an early Archimedian screw, which apparently predated Archimedes) be more likely to elevate water?

 

[mummyknave]

A fountain squinting Perrier 10s of metres up the sides of a pyramid is a great image, but not one I can readily accept.
If, and it's a very big IF, water was employed in some capacity as a counter-balance, wouldn't a series of shadoofs (or just possibly an early Archimedian screw, which apparently predated Archimedes) be more likely to elevate water?

OK, but let's not lose sight of the fact that the question is what was actually used to build the pyramids and not what makes sense.

Certainly shadufs to lift the water could work and could have been used. The problem here is primarily evidential. There was no overseer of shaduf operators. Let's not forget too that all forms of mechanical advantage require additional work. The shadufs are easier than lifting 2 1`/2 ton stones but the total work is greater.

It simply appears that the builders described lifting the stones with water filled counterweights and the titles of all the builders is consistent with this. More importantly there is no contradictory physical evidence and the evidence that does exist supports a water based means as well as the description of their water source as an "effervescent column of cool water that off-gassed the same thing that caused bread and the foam on beer to rise". It was the gas that caused osiris to rise on the Giza Plateau. They called it the "spirits well equipped by reason of their mouths" which is a perfect description of CO2 from the perspective of ancient science. The scientific name of CO2 was "I3.t-wt.t" which probably meant "risings begetter". Modern translators translate this word differently each time it appears just as they do many other words like "g3b' (which meant "the violent inundation that causes abundance".

There is relatively little evidence of the geysers but this is to be expected since the accumulations were hauled off to museums and the pyramids were built atop them. But no one has looked either. There is a gash 80' deep just north of G1 where the mehet weret stood. There is foreign sand at least two of these sites. There is vaterite (a component of geyser solids) in the walls of the horizontal passage. There is a massive aquifer that passes directly under the great pyramids and there are warm springs in the vicinity. All known carbonated lakes are in Africa and one, Lake Kivu, sits in what was part of the Nile Drainage Basin as recently as 10,000 years ago. There are recent volcanoes near Egypt's southern border.

The builders certainly seemed to think that there were geysers.