Jump to content

cladking

Senior Members
  • Posts

    977
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    physics

Recent Profile Visitors

12318 profile views

cladking's Achievements

Protist

Protist (7/13)

-110

Reputation

  1. We must use science to untangle the illogic of language. Experiment provides glimpses of reality which we extrapolate. When we remember we also interpolate these glimpses. Logic is logic and science is science and they are both a part of reality.
  2. It appears the precision involved with the ancient vases has been confirmed; They have good provenance. Petrie himself said stones were fitted on the pyramid with "optical precision". The evidence of our own eyes says our interpretations of the ancient societies and what they left is all wrong.
  3. Here I am referring to the horizontal section from the queens chamber to the chevrons above the entrance of the great Pyramid. I believe this entire length has sand in the walls in some places with most of it near the exterior. Today they've announced I was right all along that there is at least a 30' section of passage that was previously unknown through here. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-36351-0 There's also a picture taken from a boroscope inserted at the chevrons;
  4. What's missing is that words like "think", "believe", "ramp", and all abstractions didn't even exist in Ancient Language. They had a mere handful of words and they were almost all nouns. The language breaks Zipf's Law because they not only didn't think like Egyptologists they didn't think at all just like "all" non-human species. I didn't say this simply because I thought that saying they didn't think like Egyptologists would suffice and it is not my intent to take this thread off topic. We can't imagine a metaphysical, digital, and representative language used by people who each thought exactly alike and didn't even experience "thought" at all. And since we can't my showing it it can and does exist will probably do very little good. I believe I answered your question very comprehensively in the last post but have elaborated only little here because I'd like to keep this as clos4e as I can to pictures and things that can be seen. There are a virtually infinite number of tests that this can and has already appeared. Hence the thread. "Funiculars" make numerous specific predictions beyond what has already been delineated. For example if chemical testing were done there would likely be several places that it is seen. Protected areas on the north side should have copper hydroxide deposits cause by the chemical interaction of copper sulfate, sodium decahydrate, sodium chloride, and calcium carbonate as described in ancient literature. There is probably still significant CO2 dissolved in the water at the bottom of the Osiris Shaft. There are numerous other ways this can show up. Ultraviolet imaging will probably show returns under the chevrons on the north side. The infrared imaging already showed most of the results I predicted but more extensive study will show many more. Microscopic stratigraphy done inside the great pyramids will show none were used as a tombs and other data will appear. There has already been vaterite found in the walls of the horizontal passage but i can't show a picture if this!!! There will be sand all through the walls here and it is the cause of many of the high density regions. All the testing needs to be done. And then all the anomalies will need follow up. Most of the work needed is the technical stuff that has never been done but there is also more mundane things like excavating the cave at the "Tomb of the Birds", and eventually clearing out the massive fissure just to the north of G1 in which Vyse failed to get all the way. There are barometric readings that need to be undertaken in the great pyramids and especially the Bent Pyramid. By this means the cause of anomalous air movements can be discovered. I have little doubt we'd quickly find caves open to the atmosphere under them. Many of these tests would probably provide new pictures for this thread.
  5. Principally we are missing the simple fact that ancient Egyptians didn't think anything at all like Egyptologists. Egyptologists insist on parsing what they believe are incantations in order to understand them. The reality is there are no incantations and they only seem to be because Egyptologists can't understand the writing that can not be parsed because it is like bird's song, computer code, or a mathematical equation. The meaning disappears when it is parsed in any way at all. Because they wholly misapprehend the people they misapprehend the artefacts and everything else about the culture and the physical evidence. Because the tests have never been done we are missing the reality of how pyramids were built. Were the truth known that it was built with linear funiculars it would be be far easier to see this in the ruins and in the cultural context which said "Osiris tows the earth by means of balance and that it is "downward" that provides the motive force to build". They virtually used these exact words but it is invisible to anyone who believes ancient people couldn't even manipulate a wheel and appealed to many gods in every sentence. You can't parse any sentence correctly if you don't know the referents and this goes many times over for Ancient Language which was literal and could not be parsed. It meant only exactly what it said but Egyptologists assumed from the very beginning that it was incantation.
  6. Then you have the results of testing that I've stated categorically has never been done!!! I didn't say that Egyptology is a 'conspiracy", I said they have never done great amounts of testing from chemical to microscopic and they've done no systematic testing except for stratigraphic work since the t9ime of Petrie 125 years ago. There is probably no conspiracy, and I certainly don't believe one exists, there is merely the professional belief that the answers are already known so testing is superfluous. Before the infrared testing showed that there are all sorts of structures inside G1 the Egyptological position said that the pyramid is too homogenous to show any kind of detail.
  7. Thank you. I should have thought of this. I'm not sure these capabilities would be transferrable to building vases however. I do not believe it was done this way. The evidence of your own eyes suggests it was built in five steps and stones were relayed one step at a time up the 72 degree step sides. Obviously one can argue the definition of "ramp" to include the 72 degree sides but the bottom line is that there was no team of stone draggers pulling them up and no teams of "ramp builders" as defined by modern beliefs. While I've delineated and pictured a great deal of evidence to show this is how it was built in this thread there is still a great deal more evidence which simply can't be pictured. Most of the necessary evidence exists in ruins but not all of it can be pictured. There is also a great deal of cultural context that supports this hypothesis including statements by the builders which state how it was built. I believe, because there is evidence, that almost no stone movement was made through muscles. They used motive forces most of which were falling counterweights full of water. I believe, again based on evidence much of which can be pictured, that the builders were a force of nature and masters of one moving piece machines. I've never really cared much for this hypothesis for numerous reasons. initially because it would be almost impossible to clad the structures and it should leave evidence in the stone work. But it also flies in the face of the simple fact that the pyramid was stepped. The wooden cradles would make the stones more easily moved on level ground but uphill would be little easier and downhill a nightmare. They are generally much too flimsy for most stones. Just as a 6' tall grasshopper couldn't even stand up there is a fundamental difference between a 50' pyramid ands a 500' pyramid. It's not only the amount of stone and the work to lift it because more work has to be concentrated in a smaller area. As ramps get longer there is not enough room to support the number of men who must work on them. I believe these questions will never be answered without the use of modern science. I believe they aren't using modern science because they believe the builders could have used nothing but ramps. "Beliefs" very much are the issue when it comes to the great pyramids and the application of science. The perfection. Nobody has come close to duplicating even the easiest of the vases. The evidence is the utter lack of evidence and published reports. It's almost impossible to do anything on the Giza Plateau because it will not be allowed. If you are willing to pay for it yourself AND entice a museum to return artefacts they might let you in but there's a five year wait. All technology that has been applied to the pyramid has been thrown at it to see hat sticks but very little has been done. This is why you can't find any data about the pyramid or any of the artefacts. When anomalies are found they are ignored. Caves "known" to not exist are simply locked up when their existence is proven. But far worse is that there is no clearing house to record the many changes and extensive damage that is still occurring. It is almost impossible to differentiate the original from modern changes. Holes that are likely infrastructural are often filled with concrete for to accommodate tourists. Holes are drilled everywhere in the search for gold and booty. Science applied systematically would measure everything and then it would investigate every anomaly. None of this has been done since Petrie left over a century ago. There would be stratigraphic microscopy and many other such results. When infrared photography which has been commercially available for more than a century was finally applied the results were so stunning they not only refused to allow publication but never followed up on the dramatic anomalies. Allowing an isolated test from time to time does not constitute "study", I believe. "Study" by definition must mean the usage of all applicable resources. It must mean all science and all human knowledge coming to bear. In reality not even the knowledge of a single individual has been brought to bear. I've long said an engineering intern could solve how the pyramids were built on his summer vacation. Egyptologists are linguists.
  8. There are tens of thousands (if not more) of "Egyptian" earthenware, stone, and ceramic vases. Egyptology has great expertise in most of this material. But just as we fail to distinguish between the great pyramids which are huge and older and the tiny pyramids which are all in ruins there has been no differentiation between the older perfectly made vases and the later ones. I believe most if not all of these were found in a single spot dating back before the end of the great pyramid building age. I simply don't know how many were found and how many were mostly intact. The initial report said a "cache". I know of no reason to believe that other vases and art objects share such characteristics. There are certainly more of these older artefacts that defy ready explanations as to their manufacture or use but none are known to have been made to such exacting standards. As I've said many times, all the artefacts from the great pyramid building age should be subjected to systematic scientific testing. Only this one, to date, have been. Nothing has been scientifically examined systematically since Petrie at the end of the 19th century. We have far more knowledge and instrumentation than we did a century and a quarter ago. We have far more means to seek anomalies and so we can then study them to learn about the great pyramid builders and their lives. We can't see through the pyramids or see the characteristics of vases with our naked eyes. We must use science and it is not being done! The "Evidence of Your Own Eyes" does not extend into the ultraviolet or the specific gravity of ancient artefacts. We must use instrumentation and knowledge to peer into the unknown and unseeable.
  9. https://www.cnn.com/2015/11/10/africa/egypt-giza-pyramids-thermal-anomalies/index.html The tests were so surprising to Egyptologists even though I had predicted them exactly that the initial reaction was to publish them and ask all Egyptologists for hypotheses regarding the causation. Of course it quickly became more widely known that I had predicted them and there were no further stories released to the press. There were several leaks as they tried to communicate outside the press which were sufficient to show my theory was probably accurate. There were other goings on reported by visitors to he site including evidence that endoscopes were used and scientists were trying to devise a means to access this area. It was all rather comedic. But the scientists didn't stop in 2015 and continued to gather more evidence that almost certainly corresponds to my theories and predictions but this is not certain since Zahi Hawass has refused to allow publication of more data even to Egyptologist for fear it might "confuse" people!!! There are continuing leaks and they still conform to my predictions. They went looking for gold and spiral ramps and found neither and the failure to publish proves they found no ramps. I'm sure no one knows how they were made. But accessing these might be extremely difficult. IMS there are fewer than 100 of them and there are UN laws now that essentially put the onus of proof on the owner rather than the countries of origin. In other words if you own an ancient artefact you almost need to show a 4000 year trail of receipts to prove legal ownership. Many items now are traded outside the eyes of the press, the foreign governments, and their agents. There is a continual flow of objects out of the US especially from private collections. Museums are usually supportive of both the Egyptian government and Egyptology. I agree that it shouldn't be overly difficult to get at least a few vases and other objects to check but Egyptology still controls the sites in Egypt and simply refuse the systematic application of modern science to any of them. It's not so much "they" as it is Dr Zahi Hawass who still calls all the shots. No doubt he gets support from others, some of whom could be named. He seems to believe he is the final authority and nobody has contradicted him. Egyptology is highly insular.
  10. I've been campaigning for many years to get these vases tested right along with the great pyramids but it has always fallen on deaf ears. When some tests in 2015 showed exactly what i predicted they refused to release the results with the explanation that they didn't want to confuse the public. Where I predicted it they lacked even hypotheses or speculation as to its cause. This time an object was found outside their control and it is not explicable in terms of modern beliefs about stone pounders and brutish force. Read the comments!
  11. It is clearly seen in this picture of the top of the Great Pyramid that stones came up the bottom of the photo and were then spread from right to left starting on the far side. This is consistent with the usage of linear funiculars to lift the stones.
  12. Did you not see the chart showing the same symbols being used all over the world or the one showing Ancient Language breaks Zipf's Law. One of the reasons it breaks Zipf's Law is that there are very very very few words that were used. Most of the words were nouns and none of the words are necessarily abstraction. Indeed, there were also no words for "thought" or "belief" as well as no taxonomies!! Many languages are traced back to a single one called "Proto-Indo European" and I believe they all split even earlier than this and this is invisible because none of these languages were actually recorded and survived other than Sumerian and Egyptian. I believe the fact that all languages obey Zipf's Law and the Pyramid Texts do not is highly significant. It implies a different formatting or usage or a different way to think. I believe it is all of these. I really intend this thread to be "the evidence of your own eyes" so intend to try to avoid this specific subject to the degree possible.
  13. As I said I discount the report in its entirety. It is merely interesting that no part of such a detailed account contradicts any of my hypotheses at all. I find it humorous because I discount it. There are some strange things implied by my hypotheses but those not in agreement with known science AND with ancient science I dismiss in their entirety.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.