• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Ancient Reality

cladking

Well-Known Member
"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.


Everything every human experiences depends upon his perspective and beliefs.

We are simply blind to the fact that modern confused language imparts not only a specific perspective (from no time and infinite distance) but it also imparts a laundry list of beliefs.

Ancient people didn't know that logic was the metaphysics of their science. They thought reality naturally played out as it did and that human observation naturally made it possible to understand. They didn't even have words for "logical" or "illogical" because neither can exist in nature from their perspective. They actually said that "human progress has no mother", that there is no feminine causation of humans progress. They simply were blind to a logic that drove their observation because it was innate to the digital mind.

1271a. If Thot comes in this his evil coming;
1271b. do not open to him thine arms; that which is said to him is his name of "thou hast no mother."

This stuff is all so easy but people can't believe because they don't want to believe. Despite the fact that it can be seen in the Bible and all the ancient writing and that it underlies science they simply choose not to see it.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Everything every human experiences depends upon his perspective and beliefs.

We are simply blind to the fact that modern confused language imparts not only a specific perspective (from no time and infinite distance) but it also imparts a laundry list of beliefs.

Ancient people didn't know that logic was the metaphysics of their science. They thought reality naturally played out as it did and that human observation naturally made it possible to understand. They didn't even have words for "logical" or "illogical" because neither can exist in nature from their perspective. They actually said that "human progress has no mother", that there is no feminine causation of humans progress. They simply were blind to a logic that drove their observation because it was innate to the digital mind.

1271a. If Thot comes in this his evil coming;
1271b. do not open to him thine arms; that which is said to him is his name of "thou hast no mother."

This stuff is all so easy but people can't believe because they don't want to believe. Despite the fact that it can be seen in the Bible and all the ancient writing and that it underlies science they simply choose not to see it.

So many who go the "they are crazy except me" route.

I do feel for you.

Putting you on ig now.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Well, different philosophies have different metaphysical assumptions.

I'm talking about the first definition of "metaphysics":"the underpinnings of science"

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.

I strongly agree.

I've long championed for a 7th step to the scientific method; Metaphysical Implications but instead the soft sciences have added one straight out of Look and See Science; Peer Review. Peers are irrelevant. Beliefs are irrelevant whether they are individual or unanimous. Look and See Science is going to be our damnation because reality doesn't conform to our digital brains using analog language. Reality can't be seen by observation, only by experiment.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
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.

It's interesting that despite ramps being debunked nobody seems to even notice. Most people just shrug and say that they must have used some other primitive, savage, stinky footed process. They simply don't care that there are thousands of facts that suggest they used linear funiculars and described it. They even drew pictures of it but all of these are from many centuries later so are "artist's conceptions" rather than literal drawings.

skr3.JPG


That's the pyramid in the foreground. There are many other details like the ribbing on the outside as here;

300px-Barque-photo2-sesostris3.jpg


These contain water so the "boat" must have the ribbing on the outside.

It's far past time to apply human knowledge and science to determining the characteristics of the pyramids so we can reverse engineer them.

Petrie is spinning in his grave at the state of Egyptology today.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
It's interesting that despite ramps being debunked nobody seems to even notice.
What is funny, that no one here, but you who has been saying the ancient Egyptians were using ramps. You even claim that I have been advocating the ramps being used, even when I made it clear that I am neutral on the subject. So it is nothing more than a bloody strawman. And you are a bloody troll.

Most people just shrug and say that they must have used some other primitive, savage, stinky footed process.

And here we go again.

No one have claimed that the Egyptians were nothing more than “primitive, savage, stinky footed”. You are again making another false claim, because you were the only who have been using those words. It is just more strawman. You are a bloody troll.

How about actually addressing people’s questions or viewpoints, instead of making up things that people didn’t write about, Troll.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
So many who go the "they are crazy except me" route.

I do feel for you.
I don’t.

I don’t feel anything for cladking except increasing contempt for the frequent strawman he keeps using, the more I reply his posts.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm talking about the first definition of "metaphysics":"the underpinnings of science"

WHICH metaphysics? There is more than one. Different philosophers see the underpinnings of science to be different things.

And, to be fair, most scientists ignore the metaphysics completely. They do so because it is largely irrleevant to doing science and often hinders it.



I strongly agree.

Good. This is how standard, ordinary 'Look and See' science is done.

I've long championed for a 7th step to the scientific method; Metaphysical Implications but instead the soft sciences have added one straight out of Look and See Science; Peer Review. Peers are irrelevant. Beliefs are irrelevant whether they are individual or unanimous. Look and See Science is going to be our damnation because reality doesn't conform to our digital brains using analog language. Reality can't be seen by observation, only by experiment.

Experiment is only controlled observation. So you are wrong there.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I don’t.

I don’t feel anything for cladking except increasing contempt for the frequent strawman he keeps using, the more I reply his posts.

Respect for ideas / argument,, zero.
But I'd not want to be in such a
state, and am sorry that he is.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
WHICH metaphysics? There is more than one. Different philosophers see the underpinnings of science to be different things.

And, to be fair, most scientists ignore the metaphysics completely. They do so because it is largely irrleevant to doing science and often hinders it.





Good. This is how standard, ordinary 'Look and See' science is done.



Experiment is only controlled observation. So you are wrong there.


Euclidean geometry, trigonometry, calculus, boolean geometry, scientific method, infinity, experimental results...

All we have with which to observe anything are our five senses. But we need to observe well crafted experiment to keep real science tied to reality.

Of course one can change definitions and axioms for every experiment but meaning is only relevant within that metaphysics.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Euclidean geometry, trigonometry, calculus, boolean geometry, scientific method, infinity, experimental results...

All we have with which to observe anything are our five senses. But we need to observe well crafted experiment to keep real science tied to reality.

Of course one can change definitions and axioms for every experiment but meaning is only relevant within that metaphysics.

Again, you didn't answer which version of metaphysics you want to use. What you gave is a few areas of math and a general statement of how science works. Metaphysics claims to give a reason why the scientific method should work.

Most metaphysics is irrelevant to doing actual science. That's mostly because philosophers are confused, imho.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
What is funny, that no one here, but you who has been saying the ancient Egyptians were using ramps.

Take a look at my avatar.

It's MC Escher and represents the contorted, twisted, and confused ramp systems Egyptologists invent when you challenge their assumption on how they work. Indeed, if you challenge them long enough and point out that water can't flow up hill then they'll suddenly change to cranes or pry bars to lift the stones up. If you continue they'll morph all the way back round to ramps. I've been around and around with them many times and this is why I went to the trouble to show ramps couldn't be used; it breaks the circle. Of course a week later it's right back to "they mustta used ramps".

Every single thing that Egyptologists propose has two things in common; it is savage and requires heavy work by large numbers of men who are nowhere in evidence, and it is very highly primitive by their definitions. ie- the means they believe the pyramids were built required no technology and no intelligence. This isn't my fault. Everyone who googles the question gets wiki pages full of ramps despite the fact ramps are debunked and Egyptological beliefs are founded on thin air just like ramps.

It really doesn't matter what you believe or what I believe. What matters is that "peer review" now defines Egyptology because it's part of the scientific method and THEY believe in ramps. What matters is the builders said exactly how they built it but people believe in ramps and this is a veritable mountain to be overcome.

Ramps are debunked so the question is how were they built and why does Egyptology refuse to discuss how they were built or even to gather evidence and do testing.

In the ideal world the only question is "how were they built", but we live in one where reality is determined by vote and Egyptologists have voted to turn their backs on learning the answer.

Why do you believe the debunkment or reason to post it is personal?
 
Last edited:

cladking

Well-Known Member
Again, you didn't answer which version of metaphysics you want to use. What you gave is a few areas of math and a general statement of how science works. Metaphysics claims to give a reason why the scientific method should work.

Most metaphysics is irrelevant to doing actual science. That's mostly because philosophers are confused, imho.

I am using the definition of "metaphysics" that is nearly synonymous with "epistemology" and related to "ontology". I am using the definition of "the basis of science" because no other word means "basis of science". (Funk and Wagnalls 1952). "Science" here means "the study of reality".

Some users of the word mean it more or less broadly such as the book "The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science" uses the term more broadly than I and includes such concepts as where ideas originated and how they arose. I believe most of this more accurately falls under the heading (definition) of "history" but to each his own.

Obviously you are using the term differently than I am because without understanding things like definitions and experiment design we don't really know experimental results.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Respect for ideas / argument,, zero.

I have a great deal of respect for peoples' ideas and steal them freely. The only thing that matters in my world are ideas and I've stolen well crafted ones that required no tweaking and even boneheaded ideas that needed extensive remodeling before use.

Usually if I ignore one of your ideas it's because I don't feel it's relevant to the point at hand. But I certainly consider all of them that I can understand.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Maybe in light of the concept of "peer review" I should change "Look and See Science" to "Reality by Committee".

ALL WORDS ARE JUST A SHORT HAND WAY TO COMMUNICATE IN OUR LANGUAGE and "Look and See Science" is apparently being misinterpreted. I am not standing in the way of "observation". Scientific observation underlies both ancient and modern science. Modern science (its metaphysics) is "Observation > Experiment" and ancient science was "Observation > Logic". These are fundamentally different tools that naturally discover a single reality using two distinctly different metaphysics. As such the reality discovered is discovered in a unique way and is seen in a unique way. They are the exact same reality from different perspectives. It's not apparent but any "science" at all would show the same reality as the results will never be contradictory.

These are hard concepts to communicate and God willing, I might be getting better at communicating them. Of course people who don't believe in reality are going to have a very hard time even starting to understand me or visualizing this other perspective. "Reality" is the sabre toothed tiger at the mouth of the cave and the only tool any animal had to avoid it is consciousness. Ancient people used a science based on this consciousness itself because they had a perfectly logical natural language to study nature. We lost this language so we must use experiment instead.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Take a look at my avatar.

It's MC Escher and represents the contorted, twisted, and confused ramp systems Egyptologists invent when you challenge their assumption on how they work. Indeed, if you challenge them long enough and point out that water can't flow up hill then they'll suddenly change to cranes or pry bars to lift the stones up. If you continue they'll morph all the way back round to ramps. I've been around and around with them many times and this is why I went to the trouble to show ramps couldn't be used; it breaks the circle. Of course a week later it's right back to "they mustta used ramps".

Every single thing that Egyptologists propose has two things in common; it is savage and requires heavy work by large numbers of men who are nowhere in evidence, and it is very highly primitive by their definitions. ie- the means they believe the pyramids were built required no technology and no intelligence. This isn't my fault. Everyone who googles the question gets wiki pages full of ramps despite the fact ramps are debunked and Egyptological believe are founded on thin air just like ramps.

It really doesn't matter what you believe or what I believe. What matters is that "peer review" now defines Egyptology because it's part of the scientific method and THEY believe in ramps. What matters is the builders said exactly how they built it but people believe in ramps and this is a veritable mountain to be overcome.

Ramps are debunked so the question is how were they built and why does Egyptology refuse to discuss how they were build or even to gather evidence and do testing.

In the ideal world the only question is "how were they built", but we live in one where reality is determined by vote and Egyptologists have voted to turn their backs on learning the answer.

Why do you believe the debunkment or reason to post it is personal?
I don’t give a bloody sh## if ramps were used or not.

You have directed this bloody strawman at me several times, even I though I have explained dozens of times, I am not interested in the building methods of the pyramids.

My interest in the pyramids are only two:
  1. the evolution of the mastaba design (1st & 2nd dynasties) to step pyramid design (3rd dynasty), then to true pyramid design (4th and later dynasties);
  2. and the contents of the Pyramid Texts.
Don’t you get it?

Me, talking about the design, don’t mean I want to discuss or debate over construction techniques.

You keep straying to the bloody ramp strawman.

Forget the ramps, because I have no interests in it. I am not pro-ramp and I am not anti-ramp; I am simply not interested in discussing ramps.

Can we move on, or are you going to irritate me some more with your stupid ramp accusations?

If you want this thread to move forward, then forget the ramps. Are you so slow that you cannot understand it?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Maybe in light of the concept of "peer review" I should change "Look and See Science" to "Reality by Committee".

ALL WORDS ARE JUST A SHORT HAND WAY TO COMMUNICATE IN OUR LANGUAGE and "Look and See Science" is apparently being misinterpreted. I am not standing in the way of "observation". Scientific observation underlies both ancient and modern science. Modern science (its metaphysics) is "Observation > Experiment" and ancient science was "Observation > Logic". These are fundamentally different tools that naturally discover a single reality using two distinctly different metaphysics. As such the reality discovered is discovered in a unique way and is seen in a unique way. They are the exact same reality from different perspectives. It's not apparent but any "science" at all would show the same reality as the results will never be contradictory.

These are hard concepts to communicate and God willing, I might be getting better at communicating them. Of course people who don't believe in reality are going to have a very hard time even starting to understand me or visualizing this other perspective. "Reality" is the sabre toothed tiger at the mouth of the cave and the only tool any animal had to avoid it is consciousness. Ancient people used a science based on this consciousness itself because they had a perfectly logical natural language to study nature. We lost this language so we must use experiment instead.
This is just more of your metaphysics and New Age sh##, which have nothing to do with ancient science.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Ancient reality is the very subject of this thread. People need to realize that no matter how or what ancient people thought about reality the laws of nature were exactly the same so any knowledge they had of the laws of nature was exactly the same as ours. We simply can't understand how they stated these laws of nature because they thought differently and we can't understand their language. They didn't believe in "laws" because they saw reality from a different perspective. Their logical language arose from a logical brain. They saw reality as being logical, or more accurately, as a reflection of their brains.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
This is just more of your metaphysics and New Age sh##, which have nothing to do with ancient science.

Remarkable!!!

My theory is composed of millions of ideas stolen from millions of sources (most of them classical or 20th century science) and you call it "new age".

You aren't even trying which is why your posts aren't relevant to mine and you think I'm pointing ramps at you. (I hope you aren't offended by that word again)
 
Top