Ancient Reality

[Audie]

Chaos makes a good cover story for pseudoscience and obsession.

huh?

 

[cladking]

And this amazing feat has been vetted by whom?


Let's see it!

It's not so an amazing feat. Simply stated we see what we believe. Once you believe the "right" thing it is very easy to see.



There's a great deal of illogic in the interpretation of the data and in our estimation of the ancients. These non-sequiturs are inconsistent with nature and the physical evidence.



I'm not sure which question you consider inadequately addressed. There is a huge amount of data that supports my theory and I often say it ALL does but, of course, this isn't strictly true because what the king had for breakfast is normally irrelevant to how the pyramid was built. But my theory is certainly able to include far more of the physical evidence than orthodoxy which can't even fond the word ramp anywhere.



Historical accounts say that the stones moved to the pyramid 300' at a time after a priest attached a piece of paper to them. This is inconsistent with ramps. Indeed, there are no historical accounts until more recent times that involve ramps. Herodotus' description almost precisely matches the usage of counterweights. (they were shaped like the dorsal carapace of a grasshopper and composed of "short pieces of wood".) They were built in "battlements" (steps) and the lifting devices could be moved between them. The evidence they were built in steps is pervasive in the physical evidence and historical accounts. The builders referred to “battlements” in the Pyramid Texts and historical accounts say they were built in “mounds”. Herodotus says machines were moved from one step to another.



The culture has no word for "ramps" as applied to lifting objects. There is no such record for the use of this term. While they, no doubt, physically used ramps to lift objects the lack of the word is glaring omission. There is no "god of ramps" and not a single drawing of a ramp from the great pyramid building age. The word "ramp" simply isn't even attested until centuries after the great pyramids were all built.



Far more importantly is there is no overseer of ramp builders, ramp architects, or ramp dismantlers buried anywhere in Egypt. There are no overseers of basket makers, no overseers of harness makers or salve makers. There is not even a single stone dragger or his overseer in evidence. The pyramid town had equal numbers of men and women and was a tiny fraction of the size that would be required to drag stones and build ramps. The town is hardly large enough to supply such a large army with water and supplies far less do all the work themselves. It is little larger than a couple soccer fields. Indeed the builders' town was a mere 600' by 900'. By today's standards this would accommodate only about 1000 people in an office building. People need far more space where they live. Only about 40% of the population was men so there wouldn't even be nearly enough labor to supply food and water to the thousands necessary to build ramps and drag stones up them. You say ancient people didn't mind being cramped up. Modern sanitation and processes are more efficient than they were in 2750 BC but let's say they were willing to be jammed in cheek to jewel. This only increases occupancy to about 3500 men which is still grossly insufficient. With so many people in close contact disease would spread like wildfire. Since there were storage and production facilities in the town as well it's highly improbable that there were numbers even approaching these levels.



Logic says that on a gargantuan project that a highly efficient means must be used. Ramps not only are hugely inefficient due to the high friction and high cost of building and dismantling ramps but also because the weight of the team dragging stones to the pyramid top is simply wasted as they walk back down on already constricted and overused ramps. Getting the manpower necessary to build this requires massive ramps because 55 HP being done by men at extraordinarily low efficiency requires vast numbers of men. They couldn't even see the pyramid to build it under the amount of ramping that would be needed to project so much power. Logic says it would be far easier to just drag stones up the side from the top. Friction is reduced to almost nothing since the route of the stones can be greased. The men don't have to lift their own weight and can pull much more effectively from a level surface. The concept that they must have used ramps is absurd when there are numerous better evidenced and easier means.



Maintaining this level of efficient power with muscles alone would require massive ramps and a means for the workers to get back down. Then there is the impossibility of cladding the structure with any possibly evidenced ramping system. Anything that required cladding stones as they went would leave nothing for ramps to adhere to and any other means would require the ramps to be rebuilt to apply the cladding.

Then comes the physical evidence which just puts a nail into the heart of the ramp ideas. Perhaps most glaringly is the utter lack of any evidence whatsoever for ramps on the pyramid. This wouldn’t be such a glaring void if not for the existence of numerous vertical lines visible in the pyramids. These lines tend to appear in pairs with one on opposite sides. This is consistent with counterweight operations where one line marks the counterweight and the opposite the route of the stones. It is most highly inconsistent with any ramping ideas. Simply stated ramps wouldn’t leave such lines no matter how they were configured except for ones that can be ruled out by logic such as integral ramps. The grooves on the Great Pyramid are also these routes of the stones that the builders called the “ladders of the Gods”.













Simply stated you can see the routes of the stones right up the middles and in two places above the boat museum. You can also see that these pyramids are five step (battlement) pyramids on some pictures but especially in the gravimetric scan half way down the page here;



H. D. Bui



I have a truly beautiful depiction of these five steps drawn on the scan but can't get permission to use it. But this is still conclusive proof that it's a five step pyramid which is more than adequate to debunk ramps. They would not have used steps unless it was necessary and the only reason steps might be necessary is that they could lift the stones only 81' 3" at a time.



Each of the great pyramids were five step pyramids. There is simply no reason to build these as step pyramids unless the height of each step defined the height they were able to lift stones. In order to lift stones to the top they must have needed to be relayed the greatest distance they could lift. Of course this could be as simple as the length of the ropes by which they lifted them up the side. No matter the actual reason it simply isn’t consistent with ramps. It is highly consistent with counterweights and using water for ballast since the geyser sprayed 80’ and this is the height of the steps. It might be consistent with locks that lifted 81' 3" at a time or any water or ballast lifting system limited by natural laws or infrastructure/ materiel concerns. It is not consistent with ramps.



Ramps can’t explain the various infrastructure all around and within the pyramid. They are inconsistent with the history, culture, logic, physical evidence, and the evidence left by the actual on-site builders. Ramps are not consistent with the fact that the great pyramids get progressively larger. Each of the great pyramid grows substantially with G1 having required 45 times as much lifting as Djoser’s Pyramid (the first great pyramid). There is no property of ramps that can be tweaked and improved upon until their efficiency increases 45 fold. To state it another way; it is apparent that whatever means used could be improved upon and this is not consistent with ramps.



Perhaps the greatest inconsistency is the cultural evidence right on site. In the pyramid builders cemetery is the “Overseer of the Boats of Neith”. This would be the loader on the south side in all probability but it could have nothing to do with ramps. There are canal overseers, overseers of metal shops, director of draftsmen, inspector of craftsmen, controller of a boat crew, controller of the side of the pyramid, inspector of metal workers and a host of other jobs that reflect a sophisticated and intelligent culture. Most tellingly is that there is a “Weigher/ Reckoner”. This job would be critical on a device that was said to be sensitive enough to tell the difference in weight of a “heavy heart” from a feather. They found a standard weight in the queens “air siphon” and a hook.



In point of fact there simply isn’t anything consistent with ramps. While the evidence isn’t deep it is very broad that stones were lifted from above making the vertical lines on the great pyramids and are simply sufficient to say ramps are debunked.

While ramps are debunked what we do have is evidence that water was used everywhere. The great pyramid are built right on top of water collection devices and surrounded by a cofferdam. There's one pretty obvious lock lying along the route which the western cliff face counterweight appears to have dragged stones. There is water erosion in canals leading away from the pyramid base.

We need to do the science to determine the exact means by which the water was used to build.



Of course you can reinterpret every single point in this and claim that ramps were used but people not beholden to orthodoxy seem to consider this case virtually air tight. There simply is no evidence that ramps were used to lift stones on the great pyramids which is concurrent with the era in which they were built. They did not use ramps and the belief that ramps are the only thing they could have used is not evidence and it is insulting to the builders and to those who use logic.



The question even more than how the pyramids were built is why won't Egyptologists allow real scientists to get in and gather the data that would answer the question.

All the evidence is right there before our eyes and we are misinterpreting it because it flies in the face of our beliefs. Pyramids were built with linear funiculars and powered by a carbonated aquifer. There were no ramps so there is no evidence for ramps. A great deal of evidence points to this reality but I'm only showing there were no ramps in this particular post.

 

[sooda]

It's not so an amazing feat. Simply stated we see what we believe. Once you believe the "right" thing it is very easy to see.



There's a great deal of illogic in the interpretation of the data and in our estimation of the ancients. These non-sequiturs are inconsistent with nature and the physical evidence.



I'm not sure which question you consider inadequately addressed. There is a huge amount of data that supports my theory and I often say it ALL does but, of course, this isn't strictly true because what the king had for breakfast is normally irrelevant to how the pyramid was built. But my theory is certainly able to include far more of the physical evidence than orthodoxy which can't even fond the word ramp anywhere.



Historical accounts say that the stones moved to the pyramid 300' at a time after a priest attached a piece of paper to them. This is inconsistent with ramps. Indeed, there are no historical accounts until more recent times that involve ramps. Herodotus' description almost precisely matches the usage of counterweights. (they were shaped like the dorsal carapace of a grasshopper and composed of "short pieces of wood".) They were built in "battlements" (steps) and the lifting devices could be moved between them. The evidence they were built in steps is pervasive in the physical evidence and historical accounts. The builders referred to “battlements” in the Pyramid Texts and historical accounts say they were built in “mounds”. Herodotus says machines were moved from one step to another.



The culture has no word for "ramps" as applied to lifting objects. There is no such record for the use of this term. While they, no doubt, physically used ramps to lift objects the lack of the word is glaring omission. There is no "god of ramps" and not a single drawing of a ramp from the great pyramid building age. The word "ramp" simply isn't even attested until centuries after the great pyramids were all built.



Far more importantly is there is no overseer of ramp builders, ramp architects, or ramp dismantlers buried anywhere in Egypt. There are no overseers of basket makers, no overseers of harness makers or salve makers. There is not even a single stone dragger or his overseer in evidence. The pyramid town had equal numbers of men and women and was a tiny fraction of the size that would be required to drag stones and build ramps. The town is hardly large enough to supply such a large army with water and supplies far less do all the work themselves. It is little larger than a couple soccer fields. Indeed the builders' town was a mere 600' by 900'. By today's standards this would accommodate only about 1000 people in an office building. People need far more space where they live. Only about 40% of the population was men so there wouldn't even be nearly enough labor to supply food and water to the thousands necessary to build ramps and drag stones up them. You say ancient people didn't mind being cramped up. Modern sanitation and processes are more efficient than they were in 2750 BC but let's say they were willing to be jammed in cheek to jewel. This only increases occupancy to about 3500 men which is still grossly insufficient. With so many people in close contact disease would spread like wildfire. Since there were storage and production facilities in the town as well it's highly improbable that there were numbers even approaching these levels.



Logic says that on a gargantuan project that a highly efficient means must be used. Ramps not only are hugely inefficient due to the high friction and high cost of building and dismantling ramps but also because the weight of the team dragging stones to the pyramid top is simply wasted as they walk back down on already constricted and overused ramps. Getting the manpower necessary to build this requires massive ramps because 55 HP being done by men at extraordinarily low efficiency requires vast numbers of men. They couldn't even see the pyramid to build it under the amount of ramping that would be needed to project so much power. Logic says it would be far easier to just drag stones up the side from the top. Friction is reduced to almost nothing since the route of the stones can be greased. The men don't have to lift their own weight and can pull much more effectively from a level surface. The concept that they must have used ramps is absurd when there are numerous better evidenced and easier means.



Maintaining this level of efficient power with muscles alone would require massive ramps and a means for the workers to get back down. Then there is the impossibility of cladding the structure with any possibly evidenced ramping system. Anything that required cladding stones as they went would leave nothing for ramps to adhere to and any other means would require the ramps to be rebuilt to apply the cladding.

Then comes the physical evidence which just puts a nail into the heart of the ramp ideas. Perhaps most glaringly is the utter lack of any evidence whatsoever for ramps on the pyramid. This wouldn’t be such a glaring void if not for the existence of numerous vertical lines visible in the pyramids. These lines tend to appear in pairs with one on opposite sides. This is consistent with counterweight operations where one line marks the counterweight and the opposite the route of the stones. It is most highly inconsistent with any ramping ideas. Simply stated ramps wouldn’t leave such lines no matter how they were configured except for ones that can be ruled out by logic such as integral ramps. The grooves on the Great Pyramid are also these routes of the stones that the builders called the “ladders of the Gods”.













Simply stated you can see the routes of the stones right up the middles and in two places above the boat museum. You can also see that these pyramids are five step (battlement) pyramids on some pictures but especially in the gravimetric scan half way down the page here;



H. D. Bui



I have a truly beautiful depiction of these five steps drawn on the scan but can't get permission to use it. But this is still conclusive proof that it's a five step pyramid which is more than adequate to debunk ramps. They would not have used steps unless it was necessary and the only reason steps might be necessary is that they could lift the stones only 81' 3" at a time.



Each of the great pyramids were five step pyramids. There is simply no reason to build these as step pyramids unless the height of each step defined the height they were able to lift stones. In order to lift stones to the top they must have needed to be relayed the greatest distance they could lift. Of course this could be as simple as the length of the ropes by which they lifted them up the side. No matter the actual reason it simply isn’t consistent with ramps. It is highly consistent with counterweights and using water for ballast since the geyser sprayed 80’ and this is the height of the steps. It might be consistent with locks that lifted 81' 3" at a time or any water or ballast lifting system limited by natural laws or infrastructure/ materiel concerns. It is not consistent with ramps.



Ramps can’t explain the various infrastructure all around and within the pyramid. They are inconsistent with the history, culture, logic, physical evidence, and the evidence left by the actual on-site builders. Ramps are not consistent with the fact that the great pyramids get progressively larger. Each of the great pyramid grows substantially with G1 having required 45 times as much lifting as Djoser’s Pyramid (the first great pyramid). There is no property of ramps that can be tweaked and improved upon until their efficiency increases 45 fold. To state it another way; it is apparent that whatever means used could be improved upon and this is not consistent with ramps.



Perhaps the greatest inconsistency is the cultural evidence right on site. In the pyramid builders cemetery is the “Overseer of the Boats of Neith”. This would be the loader on the south side in all probability but it could have nothing to do with ramps. There are canal overseers, overseers of metal shops, director of draftsmen, inspector of craftsmen, controller of a boat crew, controller of the side of the pyramid, inspector of metal workers and a host of other jobs that reflect a sophisticated and intelligent culture. Most tellingly is that there is a “Weigher/ Reckoner”. This job would be critical on a device that was said to be sensitive enough to tell the difference in weight of a “heavy heart” from a feather. They found a standard weight in the queens “air siphon” and a hook.



In point of fact there simply isn’t anything consistent with ramps. While the evidence isn’t deep it is very broad that stones were lifted from above making the vertical lines on the great pyramids and are simply sufficient to say ramps are debunked.

While ramps are debunked what we do have is evidence that water was used everywhere. The great pyramid are built right on top of water collection devices and surrounded by a cofferdam. There's one pretty obvious lock lying along the route which the western cliff face counterweight appears to have dragged stones. There is water erosion in canals leading away from the pyramid base.

We need to do the science to determine the exact means by which the water was used to build.



Of course you can reinterpret every single point in this and claim that ramps were used but people not beholden to orthodoxy seem to consider this case virtually air tight. There simply is no evidence that ramps were used to lift stones on the great pyramids which is concurrent with the era in which they were built. They did not use ramps and the belief that ramps are the only thing they could have used is not evidence and it is insulting to the builders and to those who use logic.



The question even more than how the pyramids were built is why won't Egyptologists allow real scientists to get in and gather the data that would answer the question.

All the evidence is right there before our eyes and we are misinterpreting it because it flies in the face of our beliefs. Pyramids were built with linear funiculars and powered by a carbonated aquifer. There were no ramps so there is no evidence for ramps. A great deal of evidence points to this reality but I'm only showing there were no ramps in this particular post.

Where are these Egyptian geysers?

The wedge is the simplest tool known to man.. What is the Egyptian word for wedge?

 

[cladking]

Good thing you - the great Arbiter of ALL TRUTH, is here on this internet forum to set the whole world straight!

Amazing, isn't it, how you and only you know the realities of how the pyramids were built, hieroglyphics, ancient history and language, genetics, evolutionary biology, etc.

Truly fantastic...

Thank you for noticing.

But the reality is I merely have a different perspective for almost everything. Just because it hangs together doesn't prove anything at all. To accept any of this without experimental evidence would be Look and See Science. I could be wrong about almost everything but people would still believe it after Look and See Science published it in textbooks.

It requires real effort and real experiment to establish this as fact. Right now it's merely a series of hypotheses from the perspective of modern science and it is theory from the perspective of ancient science. As theory ancient science would give it three names, a scientific, a colloquial, and a vulgar. They might be something like "ma'at", "truth", and "balance" and indeed, they are. When theory is added to the metaphysical language they called it "thot" or "human progress".

 

[cladking]

This sentence alone is enough to lead me to disregard anything you say.

Nobody can read ancient Egyptian if I am correct.
Egyptology is a branch of linguistics whose job is to understand ancient Egyptian.
If I am right then no Egyptologist understands a single sentence in the PT.
I can understand Ancient Language as well as any 3 1/2 year old ancient Egyptian could. (Nobody can read AL, they either understand it or they do not because it can't be parsed)

It follows I am the closest thing to a real Egyptologist that exists (sorry as that might be).

This is simple logic, not hubris.

I don't even believe "intelligence" exists and I needed none to solve this. And no brain cells gave their lives to do it.

 

[sooda]

Nobody can read ancient Egyptian if I am correct.
Egyptology is a branch of linguistics whose job is to understand ancient Egyptian.
If I am right then no Egyptologist understands a single sentence in the PT.
I can understand Ancient Language as well as any 3 1/2 year old ancient Egyptian could. (Nobody can read AL, they either understand it or they do not because it can't be parsed)

It follows I am the closest thing to a real Egyptologist that exists (sorry as that might be).

This is simple logic, not hubris.

I don't even believe "intelligence" exists and I needed none to solve this. And no brain cells gave their lives to do it.

Written records of the ancient Egyptian language have been dated from about 3200 BC. Egyptian is part of the Afro-Asiatic group of languages and is related to Berber and Semitic (languages such as Arabic, Amharic, Tigrinya and Hebrew). The language survived until the 5th century AD in the form of Demotic and until the Middle Ages in the form of Coptic. Thus it had a lifespan of over four millennia. Egyptian is one of the oldest recorded languages known. The national language of modern day Egypt

 

[Polymath257]

Nobody can read ancient Egyptian if I am correct.
Egyptology is a branch of linguistics whose job is to understand ancient Egyptian.
If I am right then no Egyptologist understands a single sentence in the PT.
I can understand Ancient Language as well as any 3 1/2 year old ancient Egyptian could. (Nobody can read AL, they either understand it or they do not because it can't be parsed)

It follows I am the closest thing to a real Egyptologist that exists (sorry as that might be).

This is simple logic, not hubris.

I don't even believe "intelligence" exists and I needed none to solve this. And no brain cells gave their lives to do it.

Key words: "If I am correct".

Given all you have written, that seems very unlikely. Why should we even believe there was an 'ancient language' of the form you claim? why should we believe you know how to ready stuff others cannot? Has any of your material been peer-reviewed?

 

[cladking]

The wedge is the simplest tool known to man.. What is the Egyptian word for wedge?

It doesn't matter what the simplest tool is. Even pondering the question is a technique employed for Look and See Science. What matters is what was used and this requires reverse engineering and an understanding of cultural context. It wouldn't be necessary to understand cultural context if not for the fact that Egyptologists are linguists, not scientists, and they refuse to go out and gather the evidence necessary to reverse engineer the pyramids. I don't understand why they were ever put in charge of human history or engineering questions but this is the situation.

In MY OPINION the balance is the simplest tool. "Tool" is a word and like all words in our language it has no fixed meaning just as "balance" has no fixed meaning. It's simply not true that there are five simple machines except from the perspective of modern language.

The reality is the Egyptians used "balance" for everything and it is even the colloquial for of their representation for "truth". A standard weight was found in the Great Pyramid showing they weighed things with balance. A "balance" can be considered a sort of lever if you want but I don't. "Balance" was the means they used to build pyramids and is exceedingly simple (even a caveman could do it). It is simpler in concept than all the "simple tools" or "simple machines".

There were almost no words at all in Ancient language and people have to get used to this simple fact. This is why the language breaks Zipf's Law. But even more important to the following is the ONLY writing that survives is a silly little book of rituals that Egyptologists mistake for incantation. These rituals simply never needed their word that represented a "wedge" so it doesn't appear. The word existed but I (and no one else) know(s) what it was.

Where are these Egyptian geysers?

They are everywhere in the Land of Rainbows from the Fayuum to Giza. The one for G1 was 10' north of the pyramid and 35' east of the centerline. Most of the evidence for them was carted off or is buried under the pyramids. The evidence that survives is most in the cultural context because Egypotologists won't apply modern science systematically to learn how the pyramids were built. They had words for them and the scientific one was "d3t" (duat) with a verb form "3gb". They were described as effervescent columns of cool water that off gassed CO2.

If there were any rocket surgery or brain science needed to understand any of this then I couldn't have done it. It was simply solving pieces of a puzzle one at a time.

 

[Polymath257]

Even pondering the question is a technique employed for Look and See Science.

As far as I can see, 'Look and See science' is the same as science. What do *you* see as being the distinction here?

 

[sooda]

It doesn't matter what the simplest tool is. Even pondering the question is a technique employed for Look and See Science. What matters is what was used and this requires reverse engineering and an understanding of cultural context. It wouldn't be necessary to understand cultural context if not for the fact that Egyptologists are linguists, not scientists, and they refuse to go out and gather the evidence necessary to reverse engineer the pyramids. I don't understand why they were ever put in charge of human history or engineering questions but this is the situation.

In MY OPINION the balance is the simplest tool. "Tool" is a word and like all words in our language it has no fixed meaning just as "balance" has no fixed meaning. It's simply not true that there are five simple machines except from the perspective of modern language.

The reality is the Egyptians used "balance" for everything and it is even the colloquial for of their representation for "truth". A standard weight was found in the Great Pyramid showing they weighed things with balance. A "balance" can be considered a sort of lever if you want but I don't. "Balance" was the means they used to build pyramids and is exceedingly simple (even a caveman could do it). It is simpler in concept than all the "simple tools" or "simple machines".

There were almost no words at all in Ancient language and people have to get used to this simple fact. This is why the language breaks Zipf's Law. But even more important to the following is the ONLY writing that survives is a silly little book of rituals that Egyptologists mistake for incantation. These rituals simply never needed their word that represented a "wedge" so it doesn't appear. The word existed but I (and no one else) know(s) what it was.



They are everywhere in the Land of Rainbows from the Fayuum to Giza. The one for G1 was 10' north of the pyramid and 35' east of the centerline. Most of the evidence for them was carted off or is buried under the pyramids. The evidence that survives is most in the cultural context because Egypotologists won't apply modern science systematically to learn how the pyramids were built. They had words for them and the scientific one was "d3t" (duat) with a verb form "3gb". They were described as effervescent columns of cool water that off gassed CO2.

If there were any rocket surgery or brain science needed to understand any of this then I couldn't have done it. It was simply solving pieces of a puzzle one at a time.

What kind of engineer are you? You've never been to Egypt, have you?

1. Duat - Wikipedia
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duat
   Duat (Ancient Egyptian: dwꜣt, Egyptological pronunciation "do-aht", Coptic: ⲧⲏ, also appearing as Tuat, Tuaut or Akert, Amenthes, Amenti, or Neter-khertet) is the realm of the dead in ancient Egyptian mythology.It has been represented in hieroglyphs as a star-in-circle: ㇽ.The god Osiris was believed to be the lord of the underworld since he personified rebirth and life after death ...
   
   
2. Duat – Archaeology of Ancient Egypt
   anthropology.msu.edu/anp455-fs14/2014/10/28/duat
   Oct 28, 2014 · In ancient Egyptian mythology, the Duat is the underworld or the realm of the dead. It is the home of the god Osiris, Anubis, Thoth, Horus, Hathor, and Ma’at, and many grotesque spirits controlled by them.
   

 

[cladking]

Key words: "If I am correct".

Yes!!! I often say that it's odd that I'm the only one that might be entirely wrong. Everyone else is pretty certain of everything.

I know I might be wrong because I know modern humans have language that makes life itself a big circular argument. I am not at all exempt from seeing what I believe.

Meanwhile all Egyptologists believe that the great pyramids were tombs dragged up ramps by changeless, moribund, and highly superstitious bumpkins. This is despite the fact I've proven each of these assumptions wrong or exceedingly poor methodology. Peer review is irrelevant because reality is not established by vote. In this case it's even more irrelevant because peers in Egyptology refuse to consider ANY argument that doesn't accept any of the assumptions. I accept none of them.

Why should we even believe there was an 'ancient language' of the form you claim?

In my opinion the best reason is that they literally said how they built the pyramids and what they were for and these literal words are consistent with the evidence and with what you call "physical law".

 

[sooda]

As far as I can see, 'Look and See science' is the same as science. What do *you* see as being the distinction here?

List of Egyptologists - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Egyptologists
This is a partial list of Egyptologists.An Egyptologist is any archaeologist, historian, linguist, or art historian who specializes in Egyptology, the scientific study of Ancient Egypt and its antiquities. Demotists are Egyptologists who specialize in the study of the Demotic language and field of Demotic Studies. Although a practitioner of the disciplined study of Ancient Egypt and Egyptian ...

 

[sooda]

Egyptology is the study of ancient Egyptian history, language, literature, religion, architecture and art from the 5th millennium BC until the end of its native religious practices in the 4th century AD. A practitioner of the discipline is an "Egyptologist". In Europe, particularly on the Continent, Egyptology is primarily regarded as being a philological discipline, while in North America it is often regarded as a branch of archaeology.

 

[cladking]

As far as I can see, 'Look and See science' is the same as science. What do *you* see as being the distinction here?

Real science is consistent with metaphysics. Real science is based on experiment.

Now days too many people think that if you understand modern science then you can glean new knowledge by just putting two and two together. This is false. It is false for myriad of reasons but one of the big ones is we aren't seeing what's really there but our beliefs born of language and free will. Some things we take for granted or that obvious have never really been justified by experiment or properly defined so experiment can be designed. From our perspective many things are virtually invisible so aren't seen at all.

Even proper experiment can be misinterpreted sometimes. No two scientists have exactly the same model of anything at all leading them to different predictions and explanations of events. It's not a case of either doing the math wrong. It's simply that reality is so complex and, of course, reality is always chaotic.

 

[cladking]

Egyptology is the study of ancient Egyptian...religion...

And herein lies the problem.

As I've already proven there was no Egyptian religion.

How can Egyptologists be so wrong and how did they never even notice there were no words for "belief" or "thought" and the language breaks Zipf's Law? I answer this question in almost every single post. It's because all modern people can only see what they believe. We can't see what is really there.

Now they hide away in their ivory towers and refuse to release the data I fought so long to have gathered and try to ignore every fact I present. They are frantically trying to get the data to support their construct built on quicksand. They are sunk. I believe over time they will simply be replaced because they (as a group) can not adapt.

 

[Polymath257]

Real science is consistent with metaphysics. Real science is based on experiment.

Which metaphysics? Why is metaphysics correct?

Now days too many people think that if you understand modern science then you can glean new knowledge by just putting two and two together. This is false. It is false for myriad of reasons but one of the big ones is we aren't seeing what's really there but our beliefs born of language and free will. Some things we take for granted or that obvious have never really been justified by experiment or properly defined so experiment can be designed. From our perspective many things are virtually invisible so aren't seen at all.

Lots of glittering generalities here. Any specifics? What things do we take for granted? What things are virtually invisible?

And don't forget, science is well aware of many things that *are* invisible, like neutrinos, radio waves, etc.

Even proper experiment can be misinterpreted sometimes. No two scientists have exactly the same model of anything at all leading them to different predictions and explanations of events. It's not a case of either doing the math wrong. It's simply that reality is so complex and, of course, reality is always chaotic.

Sure. That's why we do *science*. We *test* the ideas we have against further observation. Those with differing ideas can propose experiments or observations to see which is wrong. That is what science *is*.

 

[Audie]

As far as I can see, 'Look and See science' is the same as science. What do *you* see as being the distinction here?

"Look and see" science is probably the same as
"study, really hard, for a long time"
where creations science, and divers other
pseudos come as "common sense" and,
of course, direct communication from the
almighty.

 

[sooda]

And herein lies the problem.

As I've already proven there was no Egyptian religion.

How can Egyptologists be so wrong and how did they never even notice there were no words for "belief" or "thought" and the language breaks Zipf's Law? I answer this question in almost every single post. It's because all modern people can only see what they believe. We can't see what is really there.

Now they hide away in their ivory towers and refuse to release the data I fought so long to have gathered and try to ignore every fact I present. They are frantically trying to get the data to support their construct built on quicksand. They are sunk. I believe over time they will simply be replaced because they (as a group) can not adapt.

How did you prove there was no Egyptian religion without ever setting foot in Egypt?

 

[cladking]

Which metaphysics? Why is metaphysics correct?

Metaphysics is correct by definition because is is the axioms and definitions that underlie science and ultimately the means we must use to interpret experiment.

Sure. That's why we do *science*. We *test* the ideas we have against further observation. Those with differing ideas can propose experiments or observations to see which is wrong. That is what science *is*.

I agree that this is perfectly good science. I call it "extrapolation" and "interpolation" and compare it to coloring in a picture created by experiment. Before we get out the crayons we should remember that experiment only provides the outline and there could be unseen detail within that changes the interpretation of experiment itself. What we color in isn't reality but it's much more like adding on to our mental models. With the firm foundation of experiment there's little danger of collapse but the walls and paint are still not supported by it directly.

 

[Polymath257]

Metaphysics is correct by definition because is is the axioms and definitions that underlie science and ultimately the means we must use to interpret experiment.

Well, different philosophies have different metaphysical assumptions. Which one do you advocate? How do you know it is correct?

I agree that this is perfectly good science. I call it "extrapolation" and "interpolation" and compare it to coloring in a picture created by experiment. Before we get out the crayons we should remember that experiment only provides the outline and there could be unseen detail within that changes the interpretation of experiment itself. What we color in isn't reality but it's much more like adding on to our mental models. With the firm foundation of experiment there's little danger of collapse but the walls and paint are still not supported by it directly.

And this is why we continue to test our ideas in as many new contexts as possible. The more testing that is done, the more confidence we have in the results.

But this is why metaphysics, which cannot be tested, should be regarded skeptically. It represents our underlying assumptions, but we should be aware those assumptions may be wrong. And, often, metaphysical assumptions *have* been shown wrong by actual observations contradicting them. The nature of causality, for example, is a physical issue, not a metaphysical one.