Ancient Reality

[cladking]

Nothing much has changed really but there is some new info.

Dozens of new passages and chambers may well have been found in the great Pyramid. As I've pointed out many times some are necessary to support my theory but most of these have no effect one way or the other.

Synthetic Aperture Radar Doppler Tomography Reveals Details of Undiscovered High-Resolution Internal Structure of the Great Pyramid of Giza

A problem with synthetic aperture radar (SAR) is that due to the poor penetrating action of electromagnetic waves inside solid bodies, the capability to observe inside distributed targets is precluded. Under these conditions, imaging action is provided only on the surface of distributed targets...

www.mdpi.com

Right now there seems at least some reason not to accept these new scans. I have some doubts about the theory behind them so I might be a little less accepting than others. For the main part; right or wrong they have little impact on any of the theories of building but they are slightly supportive of mine.

I'm giving up hope that Egyptology will ever get off the dime and do something... ...anything at all. This is going to be solved without them as I predicted in 2008.

 

[cladking]

Apropos of nothing in particular it is interesting to me that the actual builders of the great pyramids described the hydraulic cycle: Evaporation > rain > evaporation...

1140c. (he [N]is dried) by the wind of the great Isis, together with (which) the great Isis dried (him) like Horus.
1141a. Let him come, he is pure,
...
1146a. N. is the pouring down of rain; he came forth as the coming into being of water;
1146b. for he is the Nḥb-kȝ.w-serpent with the many coils;

"Neh-k3w" is the "natural phenomenon of the hydraulic cycle" and is represented by a snake because a snake fills a basket similarly to how water or heavy gas fills a bowl. Everything always had to make perfect sense because that's what every human ever did. Today it is very very different. Instead of one reality based on what is known there is a different reality for every individual that fits what he believes. We make sense in terms of what we believe but the pyramid builders and every single consciousness on earth makes sense in terms of reality; what is known.

This is really very simple to understand.

There is no ancient religion and there were no ancient Gods. There was just a different way to communicate based not on beliefs but on reality as determined by science. Today some believe in science and some in God. Others try to understand the meaning of science or the meaning of religion.

 

[cladking]

.

1140c. (he [N] is dried) by the wind of the great Isis, together with (which) the great Isis dried (him) like Horus.
1141a. Let him come, he is pure,
...
1146a. N. is the pouring down of rain; he came forth as the coming into being of water;
1146b. for he is the Nḥb-kȝ.w-serpent with the many coils;

"Neh-k3w" is the "natural phenomenon of the hydraulic cycle" and is represented by a snake because a snake fills a basket similarly to how water or heavy gas fills a bowl. Everything always had to make perfect sense because that's what every human ever did.

"N" is a difficult concept. The symbol itself was invented by the first English translator as a symbol for the subject of every utterance which was one dead king or another. But when the king dies the people used his name to represent all things. The dead king literally became a star in the north that never set in the northern hemisphere and he became the pyramid. To our thinking the star and pyramid were mnemonics by which they remembered the specific dead king.

The only writing we have is a silly little book of rituals where in most instances the dead king, "N" is the source of the water which was used to make that dead king's pyramid.

"Isis" as the movement required to build the pyramid creates a wind which dries things around it. "Isis" was part of the simple device that lifted the stones.

It just astounds me that Egyptologists can't see any of this. They are fully invested in ancient people as ignorant and superstitious bumpkins and have spent 205 years showing it. Champollion and Darwin intended no evil but their errors led to it anyway. If Thomas Young (a real scientist) had more time to work out the language this would never have happened. Darwin would never happened. Freud would never have happened. All of history would be very different. But Champollion was first with a sufficient translation for the Rosetta Stone and that was that. All the dominoes fell.

 

[cladking]

Others try to understand the meaning of science or the meaning of religion.

Most of the former are scientists and/ or metaphysicians.

Most of the latter are theologians or philosophers.

 

[cladking]

All the dominoes fell.

They fell on the weak, Jews, Gypsies, the less fit. They fell on all of Europe and especially Germany. They fell of Nanking, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

They fell on the dreams of eight generations of people all over the globe and they are still falling.

This is because the reality is there can be only one reality and that reality is a set of events and processes affected by everything in the cosmos and this set of reality unfolds in logical ways over time. It doesn't matter if one person approves of genocide and another not; reality is what it is and it is affected by our beliefs because beliefs underlie our actions.

 

[cladking]

They fell on the weak, Jews, Gypsies, the less fit. They fell on all of Europe and especially Germany. They fell of Nanking, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Modern man has an infinite ability to believe anything at all. If we believe some people are less fit then it makes sense to eliminate them.

Steal their property, bomb them, or hack off their arms and legs to save the cost of a bullet;

Rwandan genocide - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sitting around singing Kumbaya is not the solution. The only possible solution is to make our beliefs better fit reality. Nature doesn't create less fit rabbits to feed the foxes or less fit foxes so the fittest rabbits can get away. Ancient reality was a microcosm of the same reality that exists in the brains of rabbits and foxes. It was a human reality founded not in assumptions and beliefs but in reality. Their science was simple but it could not deviate from reality. A spider doesn't weave an abstract thread without something to interfere with its consciousness and the fittest rabbit will never be seen chasing an old lame fox.

We are confused reality never is.

 

[cladking]

This just keeps going and going.

Ancient reality as depicted by Egyptology as people having been made strong through ignorance and superstition was nonsense the first time it was said and it still is.

 

[cladking]

I hesitate to bring this back since no amount of proof seems to be sufficient and because the entire "update" here is simply to show that the precision is not a fluke. I already knew it was not a fluke because this precision had already been reported the last time science was used at Giza by Flinders Petrie back in the 1800's. Egyptologists have simply been looking the other way and have failed to measure this precision with 21st century apparatus just as they fail to systematically apply any other modern technology and knowledge to any artefacts from that era.

New findings have been working against our beliefs for over a century and nobody even seems to notice.

 

[cladking]

A couple of new things here;

First is that Egyptology now recognizes something I've known for years; All of the so called "Valley Temples" which each great pyramid has lines up along the edge of an ancient arm of the Nile River.

The discovery of the Ahramat Nile Branch: a hidden ancient waterway of the pyramid chain of Egypt

researchers.mq.edu.au

This is of critical importance since it describes the routes of casing stones and supplies up a long "ramp" straight to the very bottom of the pyramid. Since it is the bottom it strongly suggests there were no ramps to take stones up the side of the structure. Instead the "valley temple" is in actuality a "port" and the "Mortuary Temple" is actually a mason's shop that the builders called "The Great Saw Palace" because it made some half a million cuts through Tura Limestone using pendulum saws powered by water. There was no "Holy Walkway" down to the port but just a sloped surface they called "The Ladder of Set" and we call "The Causeway" and was used as a funicular run.

Second is that interdisciplinary scientists have shown that the first great pyramid (Djosers at Saqqara) was part of an hydraulic system and agree with me that it was surrounded by water and a river ran through it.

On the possible use of hydraulic force to assist with building the step pyramid of saqqara

The Step Pyramid of Djoser in Saqqara, Egypt, is considered the oldest of the seven monumental pyramids built about 4,500 years ago. From transdisciplinary analysis, it was discovered that a hydraulic lift may have been used to build the pyramid. Based on our mapping of the nearby watersheds, we...

journals.plos.org

Now days evidence doesn't seem to affect reality but the fact remains that all evidence still points at an ancient reality based not on beliefs and doctrine but rather on knowledge and learning. In this ancient reality they built mnemonics of the deceased using linear funiculars and spoke a universal language.

I suppose we are more progressed today and know there are an infinite number of pyramids built with an infinite number of ramps and not one single pyramid built without any number of ramps whatsoever.

 

[cladking]

This new study doesn't come right out and say it but they apparently don't agree with the Egyptological certainty that these mustta been tombs either;

"Moreover, a second question accentuates the enigma: the Pharaohs who built these pyramids are missing. Until now, neither written record nor physical evidence reports the discovery of one of the IIIrd and IVth Dynasties’ Pharaohs. Old Kingdom’s ‘big’ pyramids’ rooms were allegedly plundered [13–15] during the millennia that followed the construction of the pyramids, leaving little evidence behind [12]. The IIIrd and IVth Dynasties’ rooms present little or no funerary attributes, such as those observed in other high-dignitary figures’ tombs contemporary to the period [16, 17], with no King’s remains found inside. In addition, the walls of the pyramids’ chambers do not exhibit any hieroglyphs, paintings, engravings, or drawings, which would allow us to qualify them as funerary with certainty. Despite this lack of evidence, many authors [18] still support that these rooms can be attributed to Pharaohs’ burials mainly based on royal cartouches or Kings’ names found elsewhere within the pyramid or nearby temples."

There is simply no direct evidence of any sort that any great pyramid was intended or used as a tomb. Indeed all of the evidence that supports Egyptological opinion about the pyramids and how they mustta been built is strictly circumstantial and apparently misinterpreted at that. There is ample direct and indirect evidence that these were mnemonics built with funiculars by an entirely different species than ours; a species that looked like us but that thought, acted, and lived differently.

All scientific evidence from the last two centuries argue against Egyptological opinion and common sense shows Egyptological methodology is illogical, non sequitur, and flawed through sample bias and false premises. Data are not being gathered that relates to their assumptions. They see no point in looking for ramps they know existed and were then removed. They see no point looking for evidence of burials since they checked every corner for coffins. They see no point in looking at the physical evidence when they have all the answers. So they study the pyramids with their backs to them much like Edgar Cayce or any other mystic.

 

[cladking]

These are all things I've said before;

Loading…

egyptianpulley.com

• What are the major advantages of the Egyptian Pulley?
  The pullers are positioned on top of the pyramid-in-construction, on a flat, stable surface. The Egyptian Pulley provides for efficient redirection of the pull rope and application of a concentrated (pull) force. The Egyptian Pulley's rope groove protects the rope as it is being redirected by preventing rope slippage (and related abrasion) and rope distortion, thereby maintaining integrity of the rope's "twist" structure (and examination of ancient Egyptian rope reveals it to be relatively fragile compared to modern, machine-made manila rope). As such, the Egyptian Pulley operates just like a conventional pulley but, for the same sheave diameter, is much stronger because the Egyptian Pulley has no (conventional) axle (under a bending load), i.e., essentially all loading in an Egyptian Pulley is compressive (confirmed by finite element analysis). Of course, for the same size, the Egyptian Pulley is much heavier, but this is an advantage for the application proposed, by providing stability. Also, the design of the Egyptian Pulley makes it easier to mount to a foundation than a conventional pulley.
• Could the rate of one stone block lifted every five minutes been achieved?
  Yes. Analysis shows that sixty five pullers positioned on top of the pyramid-in-construction could have easily pulled a 5,000 pound stone (on a wood sled) up the side of the pyramid-in-construction. For example, with teams of pullers using six Egyptian Pulleys, allowing 30 minutes total to lift one stone per Pulley, six stone blocks could have been lifted in 30 minutes -- averaging one block every five minutes. The pull itself would have been done quickly, less than a minute, without stopping -- to avoid static friction and loss of momentum. As soon as a stone lift was initiated another stone could be readied for the next lift; therefore, the total lift time for each stone was essentially only the time required for the lift and the unloading.
  
  Also, multiple lift points around the base of the pyramid during construction would have eliminated stone "traffic jams" -- compared to single avenue lift schemes such as a single ramp. As required, Pulleys could have been quickly repositioned as the the two Pulley components weigh only about 80 pounds each.
  
  Further, such an arrangement of multiple pulleys provides inherent redundancy in the event of a single Pulley or rope failure.
• Was there enough room on top of the pyramid-in-construction for the number of pullers needed to meet the rate of stone lifting (one stone every three minutes)?
  Yes. With 65 pullers manning two Egyptian Pulleys (there would be time to man two Pulleys between each pull as the next stone is being prepared), only 195 pullers would be required to man six Pulleys. For example, at 250 foot height (and 133,225 sq. ft. top surface area), 195 pullers would occupy less than 5% of top surface area (assuming 20 sq. ft. per puller). Only at greater than 300 feet height does linear distance (for a straight line rope pull) on top even start to become an issue, but this is at about the same height the weight of stones is known to decrease. Is this simply a coincidence?
  
  Also, by using a Pulley arrangement illustrated in Sketch 1 on the Multiple Pulleys Page the number pullers could have been reduced by 50%.
• Did the Old Kingdom Egyptians have strong, long rope?
  Yes. The ancient Egyptians were the first great rope makers. Coils of well-made, long rope were discovered at the site of the Great Pyramid (adjacent to the Great Pyramid, where Khufu’s ritual boat was discovered). Ancient Egyptian wall reliefs often depict the use of large ropes, including one showing 172 men using rope to pull a 58 ton stone statue on a wood sled. The Old Kingdom Egyptians understood rope rigging, including knotting and cinching rope under significant loads, for example, to temporarily hold heavy stones in position. They were expert in handling and moving huge stones using rope.
• Could the Old Kingdom Egyptians have fashioned granite, limestone and copper into high strength Egyptian Pulley rollers and cradles?
  Yes. These materials were common in Old Kingdom Egypt. They fabricated finely sculpted, polished objects (with shapes much more complex than cylinders) of limestone and granite. And, of course, they erected huge limestone and granite columns made of cylindrical segments. They knew how to make complex objects of copper by the "lost wax" (investment casting) process.
• Weren't the sides of the Great Pyramid too rough to pull the stones over?
  The surface of the Great Pyramid as it now exists is misleading. In fact, all the smooth, outer finish stones have been removed (scavenged over the years). Further, most Egyptologists believe those original finish stones were put into position as the Great Pyramid was being constructed, thereby providing a smooth surface over which to pull up the stone blocks (which likely would have been on wood sleds). Also, it possible that temporary wood “rails” could have been placed on the sides of the pyramid-in-construction, over which the stone blocks on wood sleds could have been pulled. Further, available lubricants (such as flax oil and rendered animal fat) would also have likely been used.
• How were the stone blocks unloaded at the top?
  Several techniques can be imagined, perhaps the simplest involves a temporary locking "key," holding the Pulley in (horizontal) position, which is removed as the stone/sled reaches the top edge. The stone/sled is then simply pulled over the edge and the Pulley transitions horizontally, in the direction the rope is pulled (see sketches on Photo and Sketches page).
• Near the top, during the last stage of construction, with relatively little surface area available, how could the Egyptians have lifted the stones using the Egyptian Pulley?
  By using an additional Egyptian Pulley at the directly opposite top edge, with the pull rope going both Pulleys, a "counterweight" (positioned directly below this additional Pulley, i.e., on the slope opposite the stone) could have been used to lift the stone. Workers could have brought relatively small stones (e.g., fifty pounds) to the top surface and loaded enough of these into an open box (attached to the pull rope) until a sufficiently heavy counterweight was achieved to pull the stone up the opposite slope. Or alternately workers themselves could have been the counterweight, by getting into the open box and, using their combined weights, lifting the stone. For example, to lift a 2,000 pound stone (smaller stones are known to be near the top), only about fifteen men, i.e., as counterweight, would have been needed. See Photo and Sketches page.
• What evidence is there that the Old Kingdom Egyptians actually designed, fabricated and used the Egyptian Pulley? Outside the King’s Chamber are the remnants of what Egyptologists believe was a kind of sophisticated pulley system used to lower granite slabs to foil tomb robbers. There is clearly a “cradle” (see Photo and Sketches Page, Photo 2) in which a cylindrical log rotated – directly supportive that the Old Kingdom Egyptians understood a simple cylinder and cradle pulley. Also, a 14 inch (axial length) "rope roll" (see Photo and Sketches Page, Sketch 5) with a center rope groove was found at the site of the Step (Djoser) Pyramid, which predated the Great Pyramid by more than 100 years. It is described and illustrated in a 1936 French text about the Great Pyramid (provided on the Photo and Sketches page section of this website). This rope roll looks very much like the Egyptian Pulley cylinder. Similar rope rolls, from the subsequent Middle Kingdom, are in the Petrie Museum Collection (London). But, to date, no one has searched (i.e., through simple observation) specifically for evidence of Egyptian Pulley components at Egyptian archaeological sites. People may have seen Pulley components but not recognized their function.
• There are much heavier stones than 5,000 pounds inside the Great Pyramid. Could the Egyptian Pulley been used to lift those stones?
  Yes, simply with the use of heavier ropes and more pullers. Also, see the Multiple Pulleys Page, which illustrates the use of Pulleys to achieve a 2:1 mechanical advantage.
• Could Egyptians Pulleys have been used for moving the Pyramid stones?
  Yes. See Sketch 3 on the "Multiple Pulleys" Page, illustrating an arrangement to reduce the number of pullers required by 50%. Also, simple Pulley arrangements could have been employed to pull very large stones into places otherwise inexplicable, such as the sarcophagi in the Serapeum of Saqqara.
• Were the Ancient Egyptians clever enough to have conceived of the Egyptian Pulley?
  Absolutely. They were as intelligent as humans today. And detailed study of the Great Pyramid only increases one’s amazement at their capabilities. In summary, the Egyptian Pulley would have been obvious to the Old Kingdom Egyptians in that they were superb stone sculptors and rope makers.

They are well known and obvious truths. I don't understand how Egyptology can possibly just continue to ignore the obvious established facts that I had mostly learned within a few hours after I solved pyramid construction as an inspiration and intuition in 2006. I've proven all these things and laid everything and all the evidence out but Egyptology refers to me as "other unscientific theories on the net". It is obvious great pyramids were laid out along the Nile River and stones went from the port to the mason's shop at the base of the pyramid. All the evidence is there in plain sight but is ignored because it is not consistent with Egyptological "theory" that the people were so ignorant and superstitious they could only have used ramps.

Even history agrees since Horapollo said water sprayed from the ground and Arab legend says stones flew to the pyramid 300' at a time. Even drawing pictures for them is ignored whether I do it or the builders themselves did.

Perhaps the biggest reason Egyptology is dragging their collective stinky feet is that the builders literally described the means by which these were built and Egyptologists missed it. Instead they interpreted the rituals in which they described construction as incantation and magic because this fit their assumptions.

 

[cladking]

Egyptologists belittle and denigrate real scientists but more and more engineers and other individuals in the hard sciences like physics and chemistry are abandoning Egyptological beliefs about what mustta been true. Soon enough even archaeologists and anthropologists will no longer support an Egyptology that won't even do testing or distribute data that real scientists have gathered.

With all the work going on to decipher ancient languages I'd wager given a few decades even linguists will depart. How could Egyptology have translated so much material and never notice the lack of any abstractions, a vocabulary with almost no words, and syntax that always breaks Zipf''s Law? They call themselves linguists who study the pyramids with their backs to them.

 

[cladking]

and never notice the lack of any abstractions

My mind works in a rather odd way that makes me appear to be thicker than a brick or the largest stones in the pyramid. Most peoples minds are geared to generate relevant facts while my models are geared to generate the big picture. I have to arrive at this a bit and piece at a time but the big picture is my windmill. I once made a thread discussing the types of words that don't appear in Ancient Language. This is a very extensive list. Anyone else would quickly have seen that these words all share a common denominator; they are abstractions. So I defined "abstraction" through the back door by naming everything that is abstract.

Egyptologists have long intimated that they know so much about ancient Egypt and pyramid construction because they have invented a "cultural context" that they use to exclude anything that doesn't fit their own assumptions. What's humorous about this "cultural context" is that the word "ramp" is unattested!!! They actually believe Egyptians lived and died on ramps dragging tombs for their betters but never actually used the word "ramp" in a setting that has survived!!!! There was no "God of Ramps" and no "Ramp Builders". All the names and titles of the workers are known but words like drag and ramp or even sled maker are not even attested. What is attested are things like "Boat Operator", "Overseer of the Side of the Pyramid", "Overseer of the Metal Shop, "Overseer of Canals", "Overseer of Necklace Stringers", "Director of Workers", "Inspector of Craftsmen", "Director of Workers", and even the work gangs were named according to parts of a boat.

There was also "Controller of a Boat Crew" and "Overseer of Masons". How is it possible in this day and age that people don't care about facts, evidence, common sense, and the obvious? Pyramid building wasn't about blood sweat and tears. Nor was it about dust and bloodied mud from dust. It was not savage or barbaric and was not done for superstitious reasons by those who blindly accepted the words of Gods or Peers. They sat in the shade drinking cool effervescent water like wine as the gods built the pyramid and then they said so and even drew pictures

How ironic that they even describe washing their eyes, ears, and yes, even their feet in their primitive soap and soda water as is still done today. Today we stinky footed bumpkins denigrate people who were expert at keeping their nose clean (as well as eyes, ears, and feet).

788a. To make a libation. To say: Thy water belongs to thee; thine abundance belongs to thee;
788b. the efflux goes forth from the god, the secretion which comes out of Osiris,
788c. so that thy hands may be washed, so that thine ears may be open.

"Libation" was solved to be a mixture of water and natron (sodium decahydrate often used as a base for soap).

 

[River Sea]

My mind works in a rather odd way that makes me appear to be thicker than a brick or the largest stones in the pyramid. Most peoples minds are geared to generate relevant facts while my models are geared to generate the big picture. I have to arrive at this a bit and piece at a time but the big picture is my windmill. I once made a thread discussing the types of words that don't appear in Ancient Language. This is a very extensive list. Anyone else would quickly have seen that these words all share a common denominator; they are abstractions. So I defined "abstraction" through the back door by naming everything that is abstract.

Egyptologists have long intimated that they know so much about ancient Egypt and pyramid construction because they have invented a "cultural context" that they use to exclude anything that doesn't fit their own assumptions. What's humorous about this "cultural context" is that the word "ramp" is unattested!!! They actually believe Egyptians lived and died on ramps dragging tombs for their betters but never actually used the word "ramp" in a setting that has survived!!!! There was no "God of Ramps" and no "Ramp Builders". All the names and titles of the workers are known but words like drag and ramp or even sled maker are not even attested. What is attested are things like "Boat Operator", "Overseer of the Side of the Pyramid", "Overseer of the Metal Shop, "Overseer of Canals", "Overseer of Necklace Stringers", "Director of Workers", "Inspector of Craftsmen", "Director of Workers", and even the work gangs were named according to parts of a boat.

There was also "Controller of a Boat Crew" and "Overseer of Masons". How is it possible in this day and age that people don't care about facts, evidence, common sense, and the obvious? Pyramid building wasn't about blood sweat and tears. Nor was it about dust and bloodied mud from dust. It was not savage or barbaric and was not done for superstitious reasons by those who blindly accepted the words of Gods or Peers. They sat in the shade drinking cool effervescent water like wine as the gods built the pyramid and then they said so and even drew pictures

How ironic that they even describe washing their eyes, ears, and yes, even their feet in their primitive soap and soda water as is still done today. Today we stinky footed bumpkins denigrate people who were expert at keeping their nose clean (as well as eyes, ears, and feet).

788a. To make a libation. To say: Thy water belongs to thee; thine abundance belongs to thee;
788b. the efflux goes forth from the god, the secretion which comes out of Osiris,
788c. so that thy hands may be washed, so that thine ears may be open.

"Libation" was solved to be a mixture of water and natron (sodium decahydrate often used as a base for soap).

I once made a thread discussing the types of words that don't appear in Ancient Language. This is a very extensive list. Anyone else would quickly have seen that these words all share a common denominator; they are abstractions. So I defined "abstraction" through the back door by naming everything that is abstract.

@Bharat Jhunjhunwala @GoodAttention @Tamino

What words in either Tamil, Sanskrit, Ancient Egyptians, or any other languages do you know that don't appear in Ancient Language, and any of these words share a common denominator; they are abstractions that @cladking mentioned?

Egyptologists have long intimated that they know so much about ancient Egypt and pyramid construction because they have invented a "cultural context"

Did this also happen elsewhere, where too about cultural context?

word "ramp" is unattested!!! They actually believe Egyptians lived and died on ramps dragging tombs for their betters but never actually used the word "ramp"

No word ramp.

Your thoughts about this @Bharat Jhunjhunwala @GoodAttention @Tamino

 

[cladking]

What words in either Tamil, Sanskrit, Ancient Egyptians, or any other languages do you know that don't appear in Ancient Language, and any of these words share a common denominator; they are abstractions that @cladking mentioned?

I should mention that I am defining "abstraction" like ancient people would have. By this I mean that some words we take as being abstract are real and palpable if you don't have any beliefs and don't even have a word for "belief". "Love" for example is something that comes from the amygdala and is as real as a heart attack if you don't have any beliefs. It washes over a person like a tsunami and guides his actions as surely as the knowledge that a lion is at the door.

It should also be noted that translators add some abstractions to Sumerian because they can't really translate it. The same applies to the Egyptian but to a much lesser extent.

While there are no abstractions in the universal ancient language this knowledge is much more useful as an axiom when you're trying to decipher author intent.

There is apparently very very little Sumerian that survives in Ancient Language. Almost all Ancient Language that survives was inscribed in stone in 5th dynasty Egyptian Tombs.

 

[cladking]

Did this also happen elsewhere, where too about cultural context?

Not much.

The problem is that writing was invented chiefly to record the pidgin languages that were formatted like modern languages rather than to record the universal Ancient Language. What was written in Ancient Language was studied exhaustively until about 500BC when none survived. But it could not be translated so every attempt to record it looks like gobbledty gook. It looks like fables and myths and Bible stories. It looks like religious and magical mumbo jumbo or the ramblings of alchemists.

The only place other than Egypt any survives in in Sumerian but this writing is highly fragmented. But worse than fragmentation is that it is just bits and pieces and in order to solve it with my technique of the determination of word meanings in context you need something akin to a corpus. Indian writing is newer though obviously rooted earlier nothing survives in AL.

Modern languages borrowed the exact same vocabulary as Ancient Language but many new words were invented albeit surprisingly few abstractions.

This is a key point that Egyptologists neglected to note just how few words existed in AL and the fact most all words were nouns. They also failed to note that the writing breaks Zipf's Law as well as other linguistic law and has no precedents. They missed every important characteristic of the language because they solved it by translating it in terms of the "book of the dead" which was from 1000 years later.

 

[cladking]

No word ramp.

Incredible isn't it!!!? They have invented a context derived solely from the book of the dead and its vocabulary and then ascribed ignorance and superstition to the writers of the earlier words.

The list of words in this "context" that don't appear would constitute a pretty complete modern dictionary. The same few words just repeat over and over and over in the PT and there is virtually no other writing whatsoever. Egyptology started with a bunch of erroneous assumptions and then set out to support them never noticing that they could not be supported.

Ancient reality looked very very different to the people who were there. These people thought differently and rather than see what they believed they could see only what they understood. m For most intents and purposes they were a different species and would seem somewhat like animals or a bees nest to us. I believe we would seem like sleepwalkers to them.

All reality is far stranger than we or the pyramid builders could imagine.

 

[cladking]

@Bharat Jhunjhunwala @GoodAttention @Tamino

What words in either Tamil, Sanskrit, Ancient Egyptians, or any other languages do you know that don't appear in Ancient Language, and any of these words share a common denominator; they are abstractions that @cladking mentioned?



Did this also happen elsewhere, where too about cultural context?



No word ramp.

Your thoughts about this @Bharat Jhunjhunwala @GoodAttention @Tamino

Thanks for your interest.

I often feel progress is being made on all of these fronts and more and more scientists are noting the propensity of Egyptologists et al to see only what they believe,. Several studies that fly in the face of Egyptological beliefs have made note of this in the last several years. ...other unscientific theories on the net my aunt fanny.

 

[River Sea]

A couple of new things here;

First is that Egyptology now recognizes something I've known for years; All of the so called "Valley Temples" which each great pyramid has lines up along the edge of an ancient arm of the Nile River.

The discovery of the Ahramat Nile Branch: a hidden ancient waterway of the pyramid chain of Egypt

researchers.mq.edu.au

This is of critical importance since it describes the routes of casing stones and supplies up a long "ramp" straight to the very bottom of the pyramid. Since it is the bottom it strongly suggests there were no ramps to take stones up the side of the structure. Instead the "valley temple" is in actuality a "port" and the "Mortuary Temple" is actually a mason's shop that the builders called "The Great Saw Palace" because it made some half a million cuts through Tura Limestone using pendulum saws powered by water. There was no "Holy Walkway" down to the port but just a sloped surface they called "The Ladder of Set" and we call "The Causeway" and was used as a funicular run.

Second is that interdisciplinary scientists have shown that the first great pyramid (Djosers at Saqqara) was part of an hydraulic system and agree with me that it was surrounded by water and a river ran through it.

On the possible use of hydraulic force to assist with building the step pyramid of saqqara

The Step Pyramid of Djoser in Saqqara, Egypt, is considered the oldest of the seven monumental pyramids built about 4,500 years ago. From transdisciplinary analysis, it was discovered that a hydraulic lift may have been used to build the pyramid. Based on our mapping of the nearby watersheds, we...

journals.plos.org

Now days evidence doesn't seem to affect reality but the fact remains that all evidence still points at an ancient reality based not on beliefs and doctrine but rather on knowledge and learning. In this ancient reality they built mnemonics of the deceased using linear funiculars and spoke a universal language.

I suppose we are more progressed today and know there are an infinite number of pyramids built with an infinite number of ramps and not one single pyramid built without any number of ramps whatsoever.

Second is that interdisciplinary scientists have shown that the first great pyramid (Djosers at Saqqara) was part of an hydraulic system and agree with me that it was surrounded by water and a river ran through it.

@Bharat Jhunjhunwala you made sure to protect the Ganga river by making sure no hydropower dams

What about this that @cladking shares about the pyramid that is this similar to hydropower dams. Hydraulic system that the pyramid was part of - what all did this do to the river?

AI Overview
Learn more…Opens in new tab

According to recent research, the Step Pyramid of Djoser in Egypt is believed to have been constructed using a hydraulic system, similar to a hydropower dam, where a network of canals and channels likely channeled Nile River water to lift heavy stone blocks during construction, potentially altering the river's flow by diverting water to specific areas around the pyramid site to create a controlled "hydraulic lift.

@Bharat Jhunjhunwala you saved the ganga river from hydropower dams, but please look - Ancient Egypt was the river unhealthy or healthy? had a hydraulic system, similar to a hydropower dam using a pyramid. Maybe safer using a pyramid or would it be the same situation as hydropower dams?

What was this all about?

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

@Bharat Jhunjhunwala you made sure to protect the Ganga river by making sure no hydropower dams

What about this that @cladking shares about the pyramid that is this similar to hydropower dams. Hydraulic system that the pyramid was part of - what all did this do to the river?

AI Overview
Learn more…Opens in new tab

According to recent research, the Step Pyramid of Djoser in Egypt is believed to have been constructed using a hydraulic system, similar to a hydropower dam, where a network of canals and channels likely channeled Nile River water to lift heavy stone blocks during construction, potentially altering the river's flow by diverting water to specific areas around the pyramid site to create a controlled "hydraulic lift.

@Bharat Jhunjhunwala you saved the ganga river from hydropower dams, but please look - Ancient Egypt was the river unhealthy or healthy? had a hydraulic system, similar to a hydropower dam using a pyramid. Maybe safer using a pyramid or would it be the same situation as hydropower dams?

What was this all about?

Using the water of the Nile River to lift stones or to divert some of it into canals is acceptable. The basic environmental impact of dams arises when we dam the entire course of the river. My sense is that the technology at that time was not advanced enough to build a barrage across the river. Therefore, they may have diverted part of the river into a canal at the site, which does not create significant harm to the environment. If this is the case, then I don’t think I have any objections to the extraction of water.