This is simply fascinating;

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/14/20/5231

The authors suggest that the function of the pyramid was related to hydraulics.  

All advancement in the study of the pyramids is now outside Egyptology which still won't release the infrared results from 2015. 

 

I have some question about the validity of all these results but I'm quite confident at least some of it is fully legitimate and accurate.   I'm still digesting it.  

(b Interferometric fringes of Khnum-Khufu

I seriously doubt we'll understand the pyramids until we give up the notion that its builders were superstitious.  

Edited February 8, 20251 yr by cladking

Thank you for posting this update, +1

Just now, cladking said:

This is simply fascinating;

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/14/20/5231

I note that right at the beginning the authors acknowledge difficulties with solid-penetrating radar and later introduce ulltrasonic tomography.

 

I too have had better reliability and accuracy. looking into solids with ultrasonics than with radar

On 2/8/2025 at 5:02 PM, studiot said:

Thank you for posting this update, +1

I note that right at the beginning the authors acknowledge difficulties with solid-penetrating radar and later introduce ulltrasonic tomography.

 

I too have had better reliability and accuracy. looking into solids with ultrasonics than with radar

I should understand this study and its results better than I do.  I didn't realize when I posted it that it is essentially the same study done a couple years back that I didn't post here because I found the results to be suspicious, but more importantly, because the results neither support Egyptological theory nor mine.  Indeed, the passages can be taken as internal ramps better supporting their concepts than mine.   I no longer have access to the original so can't compare them but the only change may be that more math is shown.  

There will be more and more of this sort of testing and remote sensing with ever better equipment, analysis, and expertise whether Egyptology cooperates or not.  There are more theoretical means of imaging these that haven't been invented and developed yet.   I have little doubt the answers will be forthcoming within a few years.   

Tomography is a highly mathematical subject that takes a great deal of postgraduate level understanding.

On 2/15/2025 at 4:45 PM, studiot said:

Tomography is a highly mathematical subject that takes a great deal of postgraduate level understanding.

Thanks.  I was never very good at math beyond the calculus and I've lost a lot of it.   

This is very long and might not be worth the time but it has several new points that are quite interesting.  Apparently there are mathematical  relationships between the various characteristics.  Some of these could be contrived but they make an interesting argument and imply a lot of mathematical knowledge of the makers.  Second and of more interest to me they found titanium and/ or a titanium alloy in the track of the tube drill that was apparently used to hollow them.  

There's growing interest here just as there is growing interest in all the other facts that have been dismissed by Egyptologists for many years.   Events are unfolding ever faster as I predicted.  This year might be a watershed year in the determination of how the pyramids were built.  A lot more people and a lot more scientists from many disciplines are beginning to look at these subjects.  In the past only Egyptology had any financial backing and they had extensive funding.   

5 hours ago, cladking said:

Thanks.  I was never very good at math beyond the calculus and I've lost a lot of it.   

This is very long and might not be worth the time but it has several new points that are quite interesting.  Apparently there are mathematical  relationships between the various characteristics.

There is a lot to consider when you investigate the geometry, structure and composition of something using radiation of some sort, including sound or other mechanical waves or pulses.

The maths to understand principles of this is not too difficult.
It is the extraction of the detailed numbers that requires thye sophisticated stuff, correctly applied.

For instance you need to decide whether you are going to use transmitted, refracted or reflected rays.
If using direct transmission as with X rays you need access to both sides of the object / material.
This can be a major difficulty.

Single side access can be accomplished using reflected rays.

The wavelength determines the size of feature, void or discontinuity you can determine.

We can discuss this further if you wish.

 

On 2/28/2025 at 6:32 AM, studiot said:

We can discuss this further if you wish.

Come to think of it, even if I don't get much out of an explanation perhaps others will.  

 

This is so long I hesitate to post it but anyone interested in the various perspectives related to the vases might want to look at parts of the first half.  Matt Beall is very articulate.   

These vases are exceedingly common and the Egyptological viewpoint that they are all fakes doesn't seem to hold water.  

Many (thousands) of reproductions are sold but they sell for low prices and many pieces have been in private collections for many decades.  There are obvious differences between rough originals, rough reproductions, and the ones from private collections.  It has always been up to Egyptology to prove their hypotheses but they simply don't address any such issues.  They do not study the artefacts and when anomalies are found by outside scientists they brush them off.  

In most satellite photos taken in the morning you can clearly see the ruins of the devise used to load and lift the stones for G1. It's the little black hole near the center of this photo;

Its depth of ~17' defines the length of the "dndndr-boat" which was the part of the linear funicular that lifted the stone.

The little grey area is the remains of "The Great Saw Palace" to the left in the first picture, where stones delivered to the valley port (Called "Ro She Khufu) were cut for use as cladding and then whisked up the side.

This loading device for the linear funicular (Bull of Heaven) allowed stones to be loaded at the same elevation on the ground; the dndndr boat sank into the water as more stones were loaded. This loading device was called the "min".

My AI refers to this device when I used the following prompt;

The top of the ocean is very heavy and pushes down proportionally on the bottom that pushes up at the vessel. So long as it remains a vessel defined as something lighter than the water it displaces it will float. In an aircraft carrier shaped bowl with the vessel in it the water in it still pushes up proportional to its depth.
Ancient people thought funny.
There was nothing wrong with it but it looks like nonsense to the children of babel. Every ancient person understood physics and some of our finest physicists think an airplane can't take off from a conveyor belt.

Response from Copilot-

[All AI generated content removed]

It mentioned that this same thing applied to the min and how they understood its nature.

Ancient people weren't smarter than we are but they saw the world in terms of procedural logic which is the basis of reality and consciousness itself where we see our beliefs and models.

This is about a different way to think. We use abstractions and think categorically but they used the natural procedural logic encoded in every individual's DNA.

I know this is weird to people but all the evidence is there right in front of our eyes and we don't see it because nothing fits our definitions and categories. Our species (homo circularis rationatio) is the odd man out in all of nature. All of life and all of reality operate according to the dictates of procedural logic while we see what we believe.

Stones were shipped across the river, pulled up the causeway, cut in the mason's shop and then pulled straight up the sides of the five step pyramid.

Our language is symbolic, analog, and abstract. Theirs was representative and binary like a computer code. They thought in terms of this language or perhaps more accurately their language was a reflection of the way they thought so physics was natural to them.

Water displaced by the min was used for work in the local quarry just to the south. The rest of the water was mostly used in cliff face funiculars to pull stones up from the quarry. This is what the the the thermal anomalies show;

These are the locations that water entered the pyramids or where passages existed for workers to enter or leave,

We can believe our eyes or the proclamations that "they mustta used ramps".

Edited May 2May 2 by cladking

5 minutes ago, cladking said:

Response from Copilot

Moderator Note

From rule 2.13 (emphasis added)

AI-generated content must be clearly marked. Failing to do so will be considered to be plagiarism and posting in bad faith. In other words, you can’t use a chatbot to generate content that we expect a human to have made.

Since LLMs do not generally check for veracity, AI content can only be discussed in Speculations. It can’t be used to support an argument in discussions. 

Here's evidence for your own eyes;

https://onedrive.live.com/?qt=allmyphotos&photosData=%2Fshare%2F80527656FBEA4575%21s7a54ba34619b4b0383e1fd5dbdfd00ab%3Fithint%3Dphoto%26e%3Dstn2LE%26migratedtospo%3Dtrue&cid=80527656FBEA4575&id=80527656FBEA4575%21s7a54ba34619b4b0383e1fd5dbdfd00ab&redeem=aHR0cHM6Ly8xZHJ2Lm1zL2kvYy84MDUyNzY1NmZiZWE0NTc1L0lRQTB1bFI2bTJFRFM0UGhfVjI5X1FDckFjUzBBOF90QjFXOU1YNWhIaUFOQWJrP2U9c3RuMkxF&v=photos

It is this page copy and pasted;

https://sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/pyt53.htm

Into this;

https://frequencydistributioncalculator.com/

It clearly shows that Ancient Language in which the Pyramid Texts was written does not obey Zipf's Law. It apparently generating two straight lines as a sort of interference pattern caused by using symbolic thought to translate procedural logic. It's more complex than this and is likely also related to what might be described as "centering words" which were used to anchor what Egyptologists call "determinatives" (words that imply perspective).

All known language obey Zipf's Law except for procedural logic/ procedural language like pheromone trails, mathematics, and computer code. This makes the language in which these were written to be ritual, not magic: procedure, not religion; logic, not superstition.

As procedure it conveys information which I use to make prediction.

If you paste a Pyramid Text utterance into a Zipf calculator (last link above), you don’t get a Zipf curve instead you get two straight lines, which is the statistical signature of procedural language, not symbolic language.

This is a little different than every other post in this thread because it isn't a picture that shows the reality but it's really a video where it is claimed that there exists another mode of thinking required to understand Ancient Language. It's quite true this in mostly speculative but it is saying what Kramer said for months and I've been saying for years. It's the same thing, I believe. If you have the time and inclination that last ten or twelve minutes is better.

This mode of thinking I've described in detail but the best description is that it entails procedural logic and I believe it is how consciousness works. We humans today use a symbolic overlay on consciousness to communicate and to think. This overlay is made possible by the arcuate fasciculus and necessary by the sheer volume of human knowledge and the need of categories to simplify it. We can't even see the evidence of our own eyes when that evidence is outside the categories in which we think.

We literally can’t see what our own eyes are showing us when the evidence doesn’t fit the symbolic framework.

Edited Saturday at 08:36 PM1 day by cladking

Wait, pheromones are a language?

On 6/23/2026 at 6:38 PM, cladking said:

All known language obey Zipf's Law except for procedural logic/ procedural language like pheromone trails, mathematics, and computer code.

14 hours ago, TheVat said:

Wait, pheromones are a language?

Yes.

Human knowledge is very highly complex because only humans can pass knowledge from generation to generation through the auspices of complex language made possible by our very highly arcuate fasciculus. But most other species must communicate to live or at least to mate so language is pervasive in nature. All such natural languages are simple and can't be used to pass complex language from generation to generation but they are all also procedural languages with pheromone trails being among the simplest.

We are only just now beginning to learn a few of these language with Bee and Prairie Dog being the best understood right now. They are both more expressive than biologists 100 years ago could have guessed. They will most probably be found to break Zipf's Law and will be found to be procedural rather than symbolic. I believe this is how the pyramid builders thought and the writing makes no sense to us because we are forcing procedural framing into symbolic language. The writing is just rituals associated with building and using great pyramids expressed in procedural language.

I'm pursuing a few other leads now but might return to the a more comprehensive comparison of their language to Zipf's Law. I've known for 20 years that it breaks Zipf's Law I just didn't know what, why, or how.

28 minutes ago, cladking said:

Yes.

Human knowledge is very highly complex because only humans can pass knowledge from generation to generation through the auspices of complex language made possible by our very highly arcuate fasciculus. But most other species must communicate to live or at least to mate so language is pervasive in nature.

I asked because biologists tend to distinguish between language and calls.

Calls (vocal or chemical or gestural) communicate, yes, but I can see how it is that many question if this rises to the level of language. Calls are innate, fixed signals triggered by immediate environmental stimuli (like food or danger or announcing presence to rivals). In contrast, language is a flexible, rule-based system of arbitrary symbols. They don't just signal basic responses. We can combine discrete sounds to express abstract ideas, discuss the past or future or things far removed, and create entirely novel meanings. IOW, some say that just being procedural, and not symbolic, doesn't qualify as language. And I question that pyramid builders who could use written codes were being merely procedural. It has the earmarks of a symbol system. Are you suggesting that "staff eyeball bird woman man with arms held up Ankh snake wiggling" is to be taken literally?

Edited yesterday at 01:38 PM1 day by TheVat

6 hours ago, TheVat said:

Are you suggesting that "staff eyeball bird woman man with arms held up Ankh snake wiggling" is to be taken literally?

I don't have time to address this fully right now but in answer to your question, "yes", provisionally. Writing was apparently invented to bridge the gap between the state that spoke Ancient Language and much of the populous who were able to in decreasing numbers. Writing perverted the existing language because it also encoded sounds and even symbols when it was directed to the "illiterate". All these things had meaning procedurally but some procedures were "spelled out" in most written forms. Don't forget too that almost every single string of glyphs you see were written in symbolic/ categorical/ abstract language. Pretty much we should consider the Pyramid Texts as the sole surviving source of Ancient Language but it was rewritten extensively between 2750 BC when the great pyramids were apparently built and 2250 BC when they began appearing in the little piles of rubble often called "pyramids".

So when I say “literal,” I mean literal in the procedural sense: The glyphs describe operations, not metaphors.