Ancient Reality

[YoursTrue]

Who knows why he need to invent these fantasies?

@cladking is still claiming that pyramids weren’t tombs for the pharaohs and other members of the families.

In the Old Kingdom period (3rd to 6th dynasties). Some of these pyramids have chambers containing sarcophagi and coffins, and some even have bodies (mummies) and even when the bodies are missing (eg in Khufu’s Great Pyramid), some others have pieces of mummy or evidence of cloths that were used to wrap the bodies were left behind.

Although by New Kingdom period (18th to 20th dynasties), pharaohs have stopped building pyramids, they still use sarcophagi and coffins, and they still wrapped bodies for mummification. Sarcophagi were still used in Hellenistic and Roman times.

There was a more recent discovery of another pyramid (2008) in Saqqara, located not far from pyramid of the 5th dynasty pharaoh Unas. Although there are no hieroglyphs to identify who’s pyramid belonged to, but other evidence pointed to Sesheset, who was the mother of the 6th dynasty pharaoh Teti.

What they have found in this pyramid was a chamber containing a sarcophagus, as well as a body wrapped in linen.

A mummified body was also found in pyramid of Merenre I, but in Unas’ pyramid, only a few body parts were found with sarcophagus, with rest of Unas’ body missing.

Unas, Teti, Pepi I, Merenre and Pepi II, all have pyramids of their own, all five of them have not only sarcophagi, they also have Pyramid Texts inscribed on the chamber walls.

Some passages of the Pyramid Texts even include descriptions of what to do with the bodies.

I don’t see how cladking can continue to deny these pyramids serveing as tombs, where there are sarcophagi found in most pyramids, sometimes it included coffins, and sometimes bodies wrapped in cloths.

OK, you may think this is silly, but seems to me that things really got moving when the electric lightbult, and cars were built (invented). The Egyptians, though, were expert builders.

 

[gnostic]

The Egyptians, though, were expert builders.

No one deny that, but how they build them, are still mystery and still being debated, today, as well as the contemporary structures by the Sumerians.

But the true pyramid shape, like those in Giza, didn’t originate during Khufu’s reign, because the first true pyramid was located in Dahshur, constructed during reign of Sneferu, Khufu’s father.

Sneferu started the 4th dynasty during the Old Kingdom period.

Sneferu’s architect was experimenting the design of pyramid, by adding casing stones for smooth-sided pyramid.

Earlier pyramids from the 3rd dynasty, starting with Djoser, the founder of the 3rd dynasty, by Djoser’s architect, Imhotep. The design and shape of Djoser’s pyramid is known today as the step pyramid, were the most popular form in the 3rd dynasty. These pyramids used no casing stones to give smoother surfaces to the exterior.

The Step Pyramid of Djoser is located in Saqqara.

So true pyramid design evolved from the step pyramid design, but it most probable that the step pyramids evolved mastabas.

The mastaba design rectangular in shape from plan view, but from elevation the sides have slight slope. The roof or mastaba top is flat. So from distance, it look simply looked like bench or table.

Imhotep’s innovation was like stacking successive smaller mastabas on top of each other. So there were like 6-tier mastabas.

Mastabas were more common found during the 1st and 2nd dynasties of the Early Dynastic period, but mastabas were still being used and built during the 3rd dynasty by other kings, because the mastabas are less expensive to build than the step pyramids or true pyramids.

My points are that over centuries, the construction of tombs have evolved. The Great Pyramid of Khufu is the largest, but it isn’t the oldest.

 

[YoursTrue]

No one deny that, but how they build them, are still mystery and still being debated, today, as well as the contemporary structures by the Sumerians.

But the true pyramid shape, like those in Giza, didn’t originate during Khufu’s reign, because the first true pyramid was located in Dahshur, constructed during reign of Sneferu, Khufu’s father.

Sneferu started the 4th dynasty during the Old Kingdom period.

Sneferu’s architect was experimenting the design of pyramid, by adding casing stones for smooth-sided pyramid.

Earlier pyramids from the 3rd dynasty, starting with Djoser, the founder of the 3rd dynasty, by Djoser’s architect, Imhotep. The design and shape of Djoser’s pyramid is known today as the step pyramid, were the most popular form in the 3rd dynasty. These pyramids used no casing stones to give smoother surfaces to the exterior.

View attachment 55850

The Step Pyramid of Djoser is located in Saqqara.

So true pyramid design evolved from the step pyramid design, but it most probable that the step pyramids evolved mastabas.

The mastaba design rectangular in shape from plan view, but from elevation the sides have slight slope. The roof or mastaba top is flat. So from distance, it look simply looked like bench or table.

View attachment 55849

Imhotep’s innovation was like stacking successive smaller mastabas on top of each other. So there were like 6-tier mastabas.

Mastabas were more common found during the 1st and 2nd dynasties of the Early Dynastic period, but mastabas were still being used and built during the 3rd dynasty by other kings, because the mastabas are less expensive to build than the step pyramids or true pyramids.

My points are that over centuries, the construction of tombs have evolved. The Great Pyramid of Khufu is the largest, but it isn’t the oldest.

And my point is that humans, unlike birds, must be taught how to build such edifices.

 

[tas8831]

And my point is that humans, unlike birds, must be taught how to build such edifices.

So birds are the Chosen.

 

[cladking]

OK, you may think this is silly, but seems to me that things really got moving when the electric lightbult, and cars were built (invented). The Egyptians, though, were expert builders.

I think it was really the industrial revolution sparked by the bessemer furnace that launched the modern age. It not only made infrastructure possible but caused an explosion in all types of instrumentation that led to new knowledge and understanding. People tend to think of all such progress as being the result of intelligence but in point of fact every advance and every thought is merely an elaboration or refinement of what came before. Progress is incremental and almost always consists of tiny little steps that originated in individuals, not in committees or Peers. It's arguable whether any group ever made our lives better but certainly no group has even invented anything or come up with a new idea.

While these things should be patently obvious to us, ancient people each saw the truth to this. While we can identify the chain of thought that led us to an idea there was no chain of thought that led homo sapiens to a new idea. They would have experienced more as a chain of observation and creating one from zero (what we call "adding 2 plus two").

We can't experience ancient reality or even know what it was like without modelling it. We can't think like ancient people and they didn't even had the word "think". This is why they literally said "he acted the second moment after perception". Between the first and second moment is when we "think" but they never once even thought about thinking. To look at this another way acting the second moment after perception is tantamount to saying "he did not act instinctively" in our language. Which in our language translates to "he thought about it". But THEY DIDN'T experience thought at all so they described the process the best they could by simply observing the gap between perception and action.

Of course Egyptologists have no reading comprehension skills so they missed everything. They were so busy turning the Ancient Language into the oldest version of the "book of the dead" they wouldn't have seen it if it bit them on the nose.

We can hardly understand our own reality because we "think" too much and don't see reality but rather our own beliefs. Ancient people and all other life forms can see nothing except reality because they have no beliefs and no abstractions. Why is this so hard to see even after the numerous ways I've shown it including a world wide language going back tens of thousands of years. In other words cavemen had a written language but so few words it doesn't look like a language to us because we need 100,000 words to communicate at all. And every word will be parsed differently by every single observer.

 

[cladking]

In other words cavemen had a written language but so few words it doesn't look like a language to us because we need 100,000 words to communicate at all.

With so few words there was little call to bother to invent media to write. They did all over the world but just like papyrus it was all highly perishable and relied chiefly on mnemonics to understand. The point being "writing" was of almost no utility so they didn't bother to invent it. Just as these symbols represented nature their words were exactly the same thing. It was the advent of modern language which caused a need to read and write because modern language changes its meaning each time it is relayed. They needed the original meaning to be as fixed as was possible so writing accomplished this goal. The same written message needed to be shown to multiple modern language speakers.

Each of these modern languages drifted and changed rapidly unlike Ancient Language that was fixed, stable, and set in stone for 40,000 years. The various mutually intelligible dialects of AL became Proto-Indo- European. Modern languages are still recovering from their early years when there were far too few words to express meaning abstractly in such a way each listener would take a similar meaning.

The concept of a digital, metaphysical, and representative language is very difficult for modern people to grok. We not only don't and can't talk that way we can't even think that way and if we did then we wouldn't experience thought at all.

 

[gnostic]

With so few words there was little call to bother to invent media to write. They did all over the world but just like papyrus it was all highly perishable and relied chiefly on mnemonics to understand. The point being "writing" was of almost no utility so they didn't bother to invent it. Just as these symbols represented nature their words were exactly the same thing.

Again, you still are making things up.

There are no indications of what you say, there being a single language, this Ancient Language fantasy of yours, not unless you can translate these symbols from these regions around the world.

This is certain not science, another fantasy of yours, the Ancient Science, which you believe to be metaphysics, where you believe both Ancient Language and Ancient Science existed since 40,000 years ago.

But it is funny how that you insisted repeatedly in the past, that the only real science are experimental, not observations or this stupid “look and see”, and yet metaphysics, past and present, are just all talk, no experiments.

But that understandable, because you don’t have any understanding that all evidence are observations, including experiments that are performed in the labs.

And you blindly have double-standard with regarding what you considered to be “true sciences”, where evidence are experiments and not observations, and yet you have ignored that there have been NO EXPERIMENTS and there are NO LABORATORIES prior 2000 BCE (your proposed date for the Tower of Babel, where you believe only true science and true language).

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How can we not know about Ancient Language and Ancient Science, yet there is a person making all sorts of claims that require they KNOW this alleged Ancient Language and Ancient Science. This is just ridiculous nonsense.

There is no evidence for Ancient Language and Ancient Science as they are described here.

While look and see is what science does, what is being claimed here is not science. It is Make Up and Pretend Reality.

 

[cladking]

How can we not know about Ancient Language and Ancient Science, yet there is a person making all sorts of claims that require they KNOW this alleged Ancient Language and Ancient Science.

The reason we don't know is exceedingly simple; it is too far outside our experience and beliefs. If we want to communicate with animals we have to teach them English. Until very recently we didn't even know they all had languages at all. Their languages share the same characteristics the ours once did. Then it would never occur to us that there was another way to format language so instead of figuring out what it meant we compared it to later misunderstanding like the "book of the dead". We believe ancient people were highly superstitious so it never occurred to us to look for any other meaning. Even where the ancients described exactly what the pyramids were for and how they were built using literal descriptions we wrote it off as metaphor.

Then there's the number one reason linguists all missed it; it is based on real science. No, not our modern science, but a different type of science that employed the logic of the wiring of the brain expressed as metaphysical language. It's impossible to understand AL unless you understand science and have some passing familiarity with metaphysics; how science works. This is how I solved it when everyone else missed it. Yes, I'm a nexialist (of sorts) giving me a leg up but my real strength that cracked this wide open is that I was armed with a search engine. No not the pile of crap soft ware they call a search engine today but those that existed back in 2006 (the old days) when search engines all worked and weren't organs of madison avenue and "scientific" doctrine. It was quite easy to solve terms in context and this provided more data to solve more terms in context. Having the pyramid to reverse engineer simultaneously made it even easier.

I can't really understand Ancient Language any better than ANY Egyptologist. But, I can model the meaning and make deductions about things like how they thought and the nature of the language. There's nothing like understanding the meaning of a language to aid in knowing about the people and their culture.

I didn't succeed because I was smarter or had better reading comprehension. I didn't succeed where Egyptology failed because I read more books or knew more dusty tired facts. None of these things are true. I succeeded because all homo omnisciencis make only circular arguments and I just happened to go into this with the more correct assumptions. All the training and knowledge in the world won't stop anyone from proving his assumptions. You could even say it was my near perfect ignorance that allowed me to solve this.

Now that all the evidence agrees with me and my predictions have all been borne out it's high time Egyptology applies modern science to the great pyramids and stop studying them with their backs turned. It hasn't worked in two centuries and it is never going to. They want to find blue prints for the pyramids but they already did and don't recognize them because Egyptologists don't think like pyramid builders. Indeed, Egyptologists never even noticed pyramid builders had no word for "think"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nobody can know the nose in front of his face until someone tells him what it is and what it's for. Peers are not gods who create or report on reality. They are mere mortals with opinions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The reason we don't know is exceedingly simple; it is too far outside our experience and beliefs. If we want to communicate with animals we have to teach them English. Until very recently we didn't even know they all had languages at all. Their languages share the same characteristics the ours once did. Then it would never occur to us that there was another way to format language so instead of figuring out what it meant we compared it to later misunderstanding like the "book of the dead". We believe ancient people were highly superstitious so it never occurred to us to look for any other meaning. Even where the ancients described exactly what the pyramids were for and how they were built using literal descriptions we wrote it off as metaphor.

Then there's the number one reason linguists all missed it; it is based on real science. No, not our modern science, but a different type of science that employed the logic of the wiring of the brain expressed as metaphysical language. It's impossible to understand AL unless you understand science and have some passing familiarity with metaphysics; how science works. This is how I solved it when everyone else missed it. Yes, I'm a nexialist (of sorts) giving me a leg up but my real strength that cracked this wide open is that I was armed with a search engine. No not the pile of crap soft ware they call a search engine today but those that existed back in 2006 (the old days) when search engines all worked and weren't organs of madison avenue. It was quite easy to solve terms in context and this provided more data to solve more terms in context. Having the pyramid to reverse engineer simultaneously made it even easier.

I can't really understand Ancient Language any better than ANY Egyptologist. But, I can model the meaning and make deductions about things like how they thought and the nature of the language. There's nothing like understanding the meaning of a language to aid in knowing about the people and their culture.

I didn't succeed because I was smarter or had better reading comprehension. I didn't succeed where Egyptology failed because I read more books or knew more dusty tired facts. None of these things are true. I succeeded because all homo omnisciencis make only circular arguments and I just happened to go into this with the more correct assumptions. All the training and knowledge in the world won't stop anyone from proving his assumptions. You could even say it was my near perfect ignorance that allowed me to solve this.

Now that all the evidence agrees with me and my predictions have all been borne out it's high time Egyptology applies modern science to the great pyramids and stop studying them with their backs turned. It hasn't worked in two centuries and it is never going to. They want to find blue prints for the pyramids but they already did and don't recognize them because Egyptologists don't think like pyramid builders. Indeed, Egyptologists never even noticed pyramid builders had no word for "think"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nobody can know the nose in front of his face until someone tells him what it is and what it's for. Peers are not gods who create or report on reality. They are mere mortals with opinions.

So when is your peer reviewed paper being published?

 

[cladking]

So when is your peer reviewed paper being published?

Peers are not gods who create or report on reality. They are mere mortals with opinions.


Wow!!! You read all that in four minutes and have no questions or objections. I guess you agree with everything then and I'll never have to repeat any of it for you again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Peers are not gods who create or report on reality. They are mere mortals with opinions.


Wow!!! You read all that in four minutes and have no questions or objections. I guess you agree with everything then and I'll never have to repeat any of it for you again.

Yet they clearly know more than you do.

And no, I saw a wall of BS and ignored most of it. When you claim it is based upon "real science" and keep demonstrating that you do not have even a high school level of scientific literacy we know that what follows is going to be false. Should we try to go over what "real science" is again?

 

[cladking]

Yet they clearly know more than you do.

And no, I saw a wall of BS and ignored most of it. When you claim it is based upon "real science" and keep demonstrating that you do not have even a high school level of scientific literacy we know that what follows is going to be false. Should we try to go over what "real science" is again?

If you're going to ignore a post why respond to it... ...and so poorly?

You misunderstood a simple sentence;

"Then there's the number one reason linguists all missed it; it is based on real science." The referent for "it" was Ancient Language. What I said is irrelevant. The only relevant thing to this sentence is that AL was scientific. I'd elaborate but I'll be lucky if you read even these few lines.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you're going to ignore a post why respond to it... ...and so poorly?

You misunderstood a simple sentence;

"Then there's the number one reason linguists all missed it; it is based on real science." The referent for "it" was Ancient Language. What I said is irrelevant. The only relevant thing to this sentence is that AL was scientific. I'd elaborate but I'll be lucky if you read even these few lines.

What do you mean poorly? My response outshone your week post.

And I know you well enough and read enough to recognize it for what it was. Oh, and I understood your claim probably better than you did.

Here is your chance to show that I am wrong. Define "real science".

 

[cladking]

What do you mean poorly? My response outshone your week post.

I did not expect you to understand my post. I'm not really convinced you read the second one either.

Here is your chance to show that I am wrong. Define "real science".

With your short attention span I'll define "real science". "Ancient science" was "Observation > logic" and "modern science is "observation > experiment".

Without observation no science can exist. Without "experiment" "modern science" does not exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did not expect you to understand my post. I'm not really convinced you read the second one either.



With your short attention span I'll define "real science". "Ancient science" was "Observation > logic" and "modern science is "observation > experiment".

Without observation no science can exist. Without "experiment" "modern science" does not exist.

No, I understood it just fine. And so far you have supported my claim that you do not appear to be able to support it. That also supports my claim of understanding it.

You do not appear to know what "ancient science" was. Here is a hint, it did not really exist. And you definitely got modern science wrong.

One more chance, would you care to support your claims. Explain what "real science" is. Or would you like to try to learn what science is? How it is done. The processes used etc..

And watch the personal insults. Those are against the rules here. I have merely pointed out your failures. I have not attempted to insult you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, I understood it just fine. And so far you have supported my claim that you do not appear to be able to support it. That also supports my claim of understanding it.

You do not appear to know what "ancient science" was. Here is a hint, it did not really exist. And you definitely got modern science wrong.

One more chance, would you care to support your claims. Explain what "real science" is. Or would you like to try to learn what science is? How it is done. The processes used etc..

And watch the personal insults. Those are against the rules here. I have merely pointed out your failures. I have not attempted to insult you.

I find the claim that something exists that no one does or can understand, yet all sorts of claims are made about the unknowable, unverifiable, unsupported Ancient Language, Ancient Science and Ancient Reality.

It is around, but never found.

The irrational nature of making claims about something that is claimed not to be known or understood does not seem to register with all one of the ancient reality proponents.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Science is not just experiments. To say otherwise is a clear indication that the person saying it has very limited and very poor knowledge of science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, I understood it just fine. And so far you have supported my claim that you do not appear to be able to support it. That also supports my claim of understanding it.

You do not appear to know what "ancient science" was. Here is a hint, it did not really exist. And you definitely got modern science wrong.

One more chance, would you care to support your claims. Explain what "real science" is. Or would you like to try to learn what science is? How it is done. The processes used etc..

And watch the personal insults. Those are against the rules here. I have merely pointed out your failures. I have not attempted to insult you.

You and I can make up whatever we want about Ancient Language and Ancient Science. They aren't real and nothing is preventing us from playing around with that which is not real.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The reason we don't know is exceedingly simple; it is too far outside our experience and beliefs. If we want to communicate with animals we have to teach them English. Until very recently we didn't even know they all had languages at all. Their languages share the same characteristics the ours once did. Then it would never occur to us that there was another way to format language so instead of figuring out what it meant we compared it to later misunderstanding like the "book of the dead". We believe ancient people were highly superstitious so it never occurred to us to look for any other meaning. Even where the ancients described exactly what the pyramids were for and how they were built using literal descriptions we wrote it off as metaphor.

Then there's the number one reason linguists all missed it; it is based on real science. No, not our modern science, but a different type of science that employed the logic of the wiring of the brain expressed as metaphysical language. It's impossible to understand AL unless you understand science and have some passing familiarity with metaphysics; how science works. This is how I solved it when everyone else missed it. Yes, I'm a nexialist (of sorts) giving me a leg up but my real strength that cracked this wide open is that I was armed with a search engine. No not the pile of crap soft ware they call a search engine today but those that existed back in 2006 (the old days) when search engines all worked and weren't organs of madison avenue and "scientific" doctrine. It was quite easy to solve terms in context and this provided more data to solve more terms in context. Having the pyramid to reverse engineer simultaneously made it even easier.

I can't really understand Ancient Language any better than ANY Egyptologist. But, I can model the meaning and make deductions about things like how they thought and the nature of the language. There's nothing like understanding the meaning of a language to aid in knowing about the people and their culture.

I didn't succeed because I was smarter or had better reading comprehension. I didn't succeed where Egyptology failed because I read more books or knew more dusty tired facts. None of these things are true. I succeeded because all homo omnisciencis make only circular arguments and I just happened to go into this with the more correct assumptions. All the training and knowledge in the world won't stop anyone from proving his assumptions. You could even say it was my near perfect ignorance that allowed me to solve this.

Now that all the evidence agrees with me and my predictions have all been borne out it's high time Egyptology applies modern science to the great pyramids and stop studying them with their backs turned. It hasn't worked in two centuries and it is never going to. They want to find blue prints for the pyramids but they already did and don't recognize them because Egyptologists don't think like pyramid builders. Indeed, Egyptologists never even noticed pyramid builders had no word for "think"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nobody can know the nose in front of his face until someone tells him what it is and what it's for. Peers are not gods who create or report on reality. They are mere mortals with opinions.

This is just pure nonsense. You keep making claims about something as if you understand it. Then report that it isn't understood and can't be understood. Do you not get how ridiculous those claims are? Apparently not.

There is no such thing as Ancient Language.

There is no such thing as Ancient Science.

You make up this stuff and then make claims you cannot support.

There is no such thing as Homo omnisciencis. You made that up.