Strange

No you didn't. Your words are there for everyone to see. And of course, the origins of the symbols are irrelevant. (Although, as it is a pictographic system, the origins are pretty bloody obvious in most cases.) It is not irrelevant because it is concrete proof that your claims are untrue. It is rather sad the way you dismiss all contradictory evidence as irrelevant.

That about sums you up.

It isn't just that the cartouche identifies kings; THE NAMES CAN BE READ. So your claim that "So far in 150 years Egyptology has failed to identify any of the symbols" is, once again, shown to be wrong. I see you also ignored the Rosetta stone. Awkward when the evidence shows you are lying, isn't it.

I have studied the history of science. This included material on the mathematics and science of ancient Egypt. It seems that you are not the "expert" that you claim to be. The changes through the history of Egyption civilization are very well documented. It seems that you are not the "expert" that you claim to be. That is true of many people in the world today, and has always been true of large numbers of people. Citation needed. The fact that there is no documentary evidence from a particular period is not irrelevant (as any student of historical linguistics would know). It is highly relevant. All I need to do is do a bit of research and show that these words have cognates in other Afro-Asiatic languages and your argument collapses. But you know what, it isn't worth the effort. Only in your head. I have said no such thing. Please don't put words in my mouth.

The passage you quote does not appear to support that. Nowhere does it say that they had smelly feet, nor does it refer to them as bumpkins. I question it.

So you reject the physical evidence because it conflicts with your personal ideas. Please provide a reference to an academic source which describes the Egyptians as "sun addled bumpkins". You have been asked to support this claim before. Will you do it now? So I thought to myself, "surely, with all those hills, they must have had a word for 'slope'." So I checked an online dictionary. And of course they do (, sqd). And words for ramp (r stA / smA). Surely you must have realised by now that it is very easy for people to check that you are lying.

It wasn't the middle of the night here. And the reference I provided included physical evidence. That can't be true in my case because, as I said, I don't know anything about the subject. But a quick check of your claims shows them to be incorrect. Then it should be easy for you to provide the evidence requested. Intead of your usual evasiveness ("maybe if I waffle on for long enough people won't notice that I haven't answered the question." Have you considered a career in politics?) As so many of your statements are obviously false (if not deliberate lies) you will have to forgive me if I don't believe you. I'm not sure anyone claims they are the only means they could have been built. The Wikipedia article lists a number of possibilities. It could even have been a combination of methods. Nope. What about the physical evidence of ramps referred to earlier? What about the physical evidence of ramps referred to earlier? That is not "logic", it is an assertion/guess abut what people thought. Please provide some evidence to support this claim.

I wasn't aware it was ever proven in the first place. There, and always have been, multiple hypotheses. Many of them supported by calculations and computer modelling. This sort of blatant lie is why I refuse to discuss your "theory". What is the point of trying to discuss an idea with someone who makes up their own meanings for words and lies consistently. EDIT This is not a subject that I know anything about but a few seconds reading show that this is a lie as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_construction_techniques

That is a good point. Galaxies are not expanding and so, under the suggested coordinate transform, they would not be shrinking. What would be shrinking is the units we measure distance in. But again, only on a large scale (because expansion only occurs on the large scale).

It depends on what you mean by "position". I am proposing a thought experiment where the galaxies are fixed to the grid so if a galaxy is at the (xyz) position (3,4,5) on the grid, then it will still be at the same coordinates after you stretch the grid. However, because the grid is stretched, that galaxy will now be further away from the point (2,3,4). Therefore, from the point of view of the people in each galaxy, there relative position has changed. Yes, you can choose a different set of coordinates where that is true. In reality, it is more complex (you have to deal with the speed of light and other physical constants changing) and, for most people, less intuitive.

The relative motion of (distant) galaxies is not due to their motion through space. Consider a simple example of a 3D grid of points. If you put galaxies at fixed points within the grid and then allow the grid to expand, then those galaxies will all get further apart (at a rate proportional to how far apart they are) even though they do not change their position in the grid.

Actually, its not that simple (which is one reason we know that red shift is due to the expansion of space and not the Doppler effect, which would give different results. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808

Note that expansion is not measured by velocity, so this statement is meaningless. Expansion is a proportional increase in distance between two points. This is why the separation speed is proportional to distance. As a result there are inevitably points that are far enough apart that their speed of separation will be greater than c. We can see galaxies that are receding at more than the speed of light. Also worth noting that the light speed limit comes from the (special) theory of relativity while the expansion of the univers is described by the (general) theory of relativity. Therefore there cannot be any conflict.

Of course you can. All useful programming languages are Turing complete. 3D graphics in Javascript: http://ctho.org/toys/3d.html PCI driver in C: http://www.cs.fsu.edu/~baker/devices/lxr/source/2.6.25/ldd-examples/pci/pci_skel.c And, of course, C was developed with the main purpose of writing the Unix operating system.

Yes. Any programming language can be used to do any task. But some have features (or libraries, etc) that make certain types of tasks easier. I think people should learn several different types of programming language (procedural, declarative, functional, etc) and then learning any specific language is just syntax.

Different colours also focus at different distances, which can create the effect that they are at different depths. People vary in their sensitivity to this effect.

But he did imagine (and attempt to develop) a lot of things which were not commercially viable, impractical or downright impossible. And I think that is a part of the problem with the sort of people the OP was referring to. They have an idea, they think in general terms about how it could work and then assert it as fact without even some back of the enevelope math to test the idea. (And then they get all huffy when someone suggests it won't actually work.)

Hey, it could be worse! At least you are not being ignored.