Ancient Reality

[cladking]

Ok so there is no such thing as a carbonated aquifer, and you
agree that you made it up.

How do you now this? "Carbonated" and "aquifer" are just words. There is known to be two aquifers under here and there is no known reason either or both couldn't have been carbonated. You are simply assuming that cold water geysers couldn't have existed here and there is no logic of factual evidence to say this. There could even be a third unknown carbonated water source.

Your belief that there was no "carbonated aquifer" doesn't change the fact that the pyramid builders said there was and left evidence consistent with the existence of one.

They called this water "nun" which is oft translated as "the waters of the abyss".

2147a. Those who are in Nun come to thee; mankind (the blessed dead (?)) circulate for thee;

A CO2 geyser is unusual, So asteroid impacts, kimberlite
large gold nuggets and several other things. So?

Vaterite is a very unusual compound as well. It is produced by CO2 geysers and is found in the walls of the horizontal passage in G1.

There is a property of pyramids you may have ovrrlooked
in your quest, the power to make people crazy.

Victims are everywhere. You may want to be csreful.

Indeed!!!

Take your own advise because there are tens of thousands of people who know for a fact that Egyptologists are wrong because they keep spouting nonsense like "superstition made the builders capable and strong". Many individuals have engineering experience and know it's impossible for stinky footed bumpkins to have dragged 6 1/2 million tons up ramps. Many people can see right through Egyptological nonsense.

I myself often say that it's far easier to believe aliens built the pyramids than the people described by Egyptology with the knowledge and tools described by Egyptology. I would say there's less than a 1% chance aliens built the pyramids (this is a hard number to nail down however) but the chances that the Egyptians used ramps and then left the evidence that exists is even lower. The builders did not use muscle power to build these because there's no evidence for it. Sure there's evidence the builders worked very hard but there were far too few builders to have been dragging stones.

Egyptological theory is untested and unexamined nonsense that reeks of Look and See Science. Egyptologists are linguists and they never even noticed the language breaks Zipf's Law. They aren't even good linguists!

 

[Audie]

How do you now this? "Carbonated" and "aquifer" are just words. There is known to be two aquifers under here and there is no known reason either or both couldn't have been carbonated. You are simply assuming that cold water geysers couldn't have existed here and there is no logic of factual evidence to say this. There could even be a third unknown carbonated water source.

Your belief that there was no "carbonated aquifer" doesn't change the fact that the pyramid builders said there was and left evidence consistent with the existence of one.

They called this water "nun" which is oft translated as "the waters of the abyss".

2147a. Those who are in Nun come to thee; mankind (the blessed dead (?)) circulate for thee;



Vaterite is a very unusual compound as well. It is produced by CO2 geysers and is found in the walls of the horizontal passage in G1.



Indeed!!!

Take your own advise because there are tens of thousands of people who know for a fact that Egyptologists are wrong because they keep spouting nonsense like "superstition made the builders capable and strong". Many individuals have engineering experience and know it's impossible for stinky footed bumpkins to have dragged 6 1/2 million tons up ramps. Many people can see right through Egyptological nonsense.

I myself often say that it's far easier to believe aliens built the pyramids than the people described by Egyptology with the knowledge and tools described by Egyptology. I would say there's less than a 1% chance aliens built the pyramids (this is a hard number to nail down however) but the chances that the Egyptians used ramps and then left the evidence that exists is even lower. The builders did not use muscle power to build these because there's no evidence for it. Sure there's evidence the builders worked very hard but there were far too few builders to have been dragging stones.

Egyptological theory is untested and unexamined nonsense that reeks of Look and See Science. Egyptologists are linguists and they never even noticed the language breaks Zipf's Law. They aren't even good linguists!

So you admitted you made it up and now its
takes-backs

At a quick further glance I see you making up
nonsense about me now. What could you do to
further advance your credibility as the guy who...
but never mind

Go forth to whatever awaits, I wont take
part.

 

[gnostic]

This is Look and See Science that stood the test of time since Champollion but I have shown it is in error. It is exactly the cause of the detour.

But you are misunderstanding and misrepresenting science altogether.

Science doesn’t mean, knowing everything, NOW AND FOREVER.

Scientists can only present explanation and some means of predictions and testings (eg evidences, experiments, measurements, etc).

It needs evidences for anything to be true, or false, and the evidences will either show that hypothesis or theory is probable or improbable.

Although science does use logic and maths (proof), maths and logic alone don’t make the hypotheses or theories to be true; only evidences can verified and validated these explanations.

If the maths and evidences don’t meet, then the maths is wrong.

The thing about science, is that they can be changed, corrected or modified, but any changes made must be verified and tested.

For millennia, the current knowledge in astronomy, was that the Earth was fixed and stationary, while the sun, moon, planets and stars moved in the sky, because from the perspective of the observer, that’s what it look like. Hence, for centuries and millennia, the geocentric model of planetary motion, was true and science, which was covered in details by the famous Greek astronomer, Claudius Ptolemy.

Everyone, including the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox, we’re convinced that Ptolemy’s geocentric model was true.

The earliest astronomer to postulate the heliocentric model, was 3rd century BCE Hellenistic Aristarchus of Samos, where the planets including the Earth were the one moving around the Sun, in opposition to the geocentric model.

Due to the popularity, the geocentric model won out, the heliocentric model was ignored by most astronomers, even though it was right, because Aristarchus was never able to test his predictions.

About a millennium and a half later, Nicolaus Copernicus brought heliocentric model back to light, but it wasn’t until Galileo with his improved telescope was able to confirm Copernicus’ hypothesis. It was further tested, verified and validated by Kepler and Newton.

Ptolemy used the look and see approach, but he was ultimately wrong, while Aristarchus was right.

But even with the telescopes, these early telescopes weren’t powerful enough to give us all the right answers.

Every astronomers since Galileo but “before” Edwin Hubble thought the entire universe was the Solar System plus the Milky Way; they thought Andromeda, Triangulum, Virgo A, and others newly discovered objects were nebulae, not galaxies. They all thought the Milky Way was the only galaxy.

They were right, until Hubble’s discovery in 1919, with the largest telescope at that time. He was the recognized that these misidentified nebulae were actually galaxies. And there were lot more galaxies than just the Milky Way.

The discovery changed the history of astronomy, as well as debunking a whole lot of ancient astronomy (including from ancient Egypt and Babylon), because the Universe is a lot larger than anyone and everyone, pre-1919, have imagined.

That one of the reasons why physical cosmology also required update and change.

Your topic on Ancient Reality (and ancient science) is wrong on so many fronts. You are still living in the dark ages, still thinking Egyptian cosmology to be the correct one, only demonstrated your ignorance and biased.

The ancient Egyptians and Ptolemy did apply the look and see approach, but they were wrong, and so are you.

 

[cladking]

They were right, until Hubble’s discovery in 1919, with the largest telescope at that time. He was the recognized that these misidentified nebulae were actually galaxies. And there were lot more galaxies than just the Milky Way.

The discovery changed the history of astronomy, as well as debunking a whole lot of ancient astronomy (including from ancient Egypt and Babylon), because the Universe is a lot larger than anyone and everyone, pre-1919, have imagined.

That one of the reasons why physical cosmology also required update and change.

Your topic on Ancient Reality (and ancient science) is wrong on so many fronts. You are still living in the dark ages, still thinking Egyptian cosmology to be the correct one, only demonstrated your ignorance and biased.

The ancient Egyptians and Ptolemy did apply the look and see approach, but they were wrong, and so are you.

So many modern beliefs are strange. They aren't necessarily wrong in all cases but they are certainly strange. The idea that there exist different realities or that reality changes is strange. The idea that reality behaves "laws" is strange and a holdover from early religious beliefs. The idea that reality and math are same manifestations of the exact same thing is strange. The idea that we know everything until it's proven otherwise is perhaps the strangest of all.

There's one reality and that reality was axiomatic to the pyramid builders. It's the exact same reality that is based on the exact same logic today. In their reality they were well aware that the sun was in the center of the solar system and was just one of many stars. They needed this knowledge to create the calendar and the pyramid that was both a clock and a calendar.

My method is hardly "Look and See Science". I confess that much of it has morphed into ancient science but that's because Egyptology REFUSES to gather the data that would allow more modern analysis. You have no respect for ancient science despite not knowing its characteristics and metaphysics. Suffice to say that one of the chief means of creating theory was "prophesy". Prediction is why nature endows its creatures with consciousness and it's why the stinky footed bumpkins of the 12th century bothered to invent modern science. A hypothesis that makes good prophesy is a "theory" in ancient science. My theory is perfectly solid ancient theory and it's well supported in the physical evidence and logic. More importantly it explains the evidence and makes good prediction.

Meanwhile Egyptology is linguists who refuse to test their beliefs and failed to notice they can make no prediction, can't explain evidence, and is based on best guesses instead of tested science.

 

[cladking]

So you admitted you made it up and now its
takes-backs

At a quick further glance I see you making up
nonsense about me now. What could you do to
further advance your credibility as the guy who...
but never mind.

I have no clue what any of this means.

 

[gnostic]

So many modern beliefs are strange. They aren't necessarily wrong in all cases but they are certainly strange. The idea that there exist different realities or that reality changes is strange.

What is even stranger that many people are still clinging to prehistoric, ancient and medieval superstitions of gods, spirits and religions in this day and age.

And you are clinging to the god concept, mixing it with new age constructs and the pseudoscience and pseudoarchaeology of Graham Hancock’s conspiracy theories.

You talk of look and see approach, but you should know that such approach, are not always, don’t always have the right answers, so it should allow leeway for changes to any theory, hypothesis or model, but only if they are backed by evidences.

I love history, but I really don’t give a damn if the Egyptians used ramps or not, to build the pyramids. I have never advocated the use of ramps, so all I see is you using and(ad nauseam) repeatedly use the bloody strawman of the bloody ramps.

The only things that I did cover about the pyramid building was their designs have changed from the 3rd dynasty to that of the 4th dynasty, from step pyramid design to true pyramid design. That’s all. I said nothing about ramp.

Why do you keep using “ramp” arguments when i wasn’t supporting it? Are blind that you can’t read and understand that I have been neutral regarding to your stupid ramp strawman?

Either ways, the use of ramps have nothing to do with science, and nothing to do with cosmology of today.

 

[cladking]

I continually present facts and logic to support what I say and you just brush it all off and state your beliefs. You say you "love" history and ignore that the AL breaks Zipf's Law. You say I believe in conspiracies but can't say in what conspiracy I believe. I say they HAVE ADDED PEER REVIEW TO THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD and I am appalled and you just ignore it. You apparently support soup of the day science froim one day to the next when you apparently believe reality changes. You say I have belief in a Creator and then you say that universe obeys laws but you don't say who created these laws. God? Peers?

You say "ramps" are a strawman but the fact is the state of the art in Egyptology is that moribund, changeless, and stinky footed bumpkins dragged tombs up ramps. These are facts and you are ignoring them or calling them strawmen. ALL of the physical evidence and logic agree with me and I can make prediction where you CAN NOT. Reality is real and it always has been. You can dismiss it and my arguments but if you continue there is no point in my engaging your opinions.

You talk of look and see approach, but you should know that such approach, are not always, don’t always have the right answers, so it should allow leeway for changes to any theory, hypothesis or model, but only if they are backed by evidences.

If I knew what this meant I'm sure I'd be appalled. Look and See Science is NECESSARILY WRONG. It is not science at all nor is peer review. This doesn't mean peers are always wrong or what ias apparent can't be real but it's NOT SCIENCE.

Please address my post. Any part of it at all. I simply don't care about your opinion unless you back it up with fact and logic.

Oh, and your observations about pyramids is just a reflection of Look and See Science AND it is wrong because all the great pyramids are stepped. They HAD TO BE STEPPED because they needed them. They were built by pulling stones straight up the sides one step at a time from the step tops. Much "science" now days is not really science at all but the opinion of experts who refuse science, who refuse logic, and who refuse to consider physical evidence. Their pecking order among peers is the only thing that counts.

 

[Audie]

I have no clue what any of this means.

Right.
You sure dont have much to say unless you make
something up, do you?

 

[cladking]

Right.
You sure dont have much to say unless you make
something up, do you?

Language has always been a wondrous thing. We experience "making up" sentences much more than the ancients did. Just as entire books can leap into our minds this is how most utterances sprang into existence for the ancients. They "arose like lilies from the water". I have no idea what part of "carbonated aquifer" troubles you or makes me an "inventor". They are merely words spoken by someone who doesn't know everything.

Let me tell you a story. Years ago when I started this project I tried to include as many outsiders as possible. This was in part because I don't know everything and because I wanted more people to have a vested interest in the results. I contacted three well known and highly knowledgeable "peers" in the field of geology to pick their brains on the subject of CO2 geysers at Giza. I have some respect for the field of geology because even though it might not be a "true" science there is lots of measurement and lots of knowns like chemistry. Yet the first two I contacted told me there was no such thing as CO2 geysers and all three gave me other poor advice.

Don't get me wrong, I've had lots of help and Egyptology did most of the heavy lifting of translation. I didn't invent any new science in order to reverse engineer the pyramid. I've made no discoveries here just the mother of all rediscoveries. The fact that the way I organize my knowledge is similar to how the ancients did it might just be "how" I did it.

We are each influenced by our environment but we make many decisions in life. One of mine was to concentrate on intuition because I knew that the important questions that affect each of us can't be answered by reason or science. They sure as hell will NEVER be answered by Look and See Science.

 

[cladking]

The only things that I did cover about the pyramid building was their designs have changed from the 3rd dynasty to that of the 4th dynasty, from step pyramid design to true pyramid design. That’s all. I said nothing about ramp.

I'm not unsympathetic to people who argue with me on many of these subjects. Peoples' knowledge is built up around beliefs and models and is organized around them. Then I come around and reject many of these assumptions and wholly reorganize the models. Add in a little bit of what many consider loose usage of the language and it seems like I'm pulling things from thin air while rejecting everything you "know".

Much of what looks like "reality" to people is really more semantical in nature than concrete. Modern language users organize thoughts in taxonomies so pointing out that the Step Pyramid looks different than the other great pyramids seems like a legitimate argument that there was a natural progression in pyramid building from mastabas to G1 and that they mustta all been tombs. This perspective is littered with assumptions. These assumptions become more exposed when it is noted that the great pyramids were the first built and the later pyramids are just tiny little piles of rubble that are known to have been tombs. They are more exposed when viewed in light of the physical evidence which says they were not tombs and all known pyramids were constructed by means of "steps". The assumptions are exposed when it is shown that the very first pyramid was a great pyramid and consisted of a five step pyramid added right on top of a mastaba. It is quite apparent that they invented a means of building higher and it is apparent that this means was "steps". It will require actual science to prove this but Egyptologists refuse to perform science. If they ever do there will be a five year lead time and they might never release the results because they've already stated categorically that any data not supporting Look and See Science will never see the light of day because they don't want to "confuse the public".

The state of the art is based not on logic and evidence but on assumptions derived from language and appearances. I reject most of the models and beliefs that are popular and this applies especially in the field of pyramid construction and the nature of Ancient language. Perhaps, I'm being too hard on you but unless you present facts and logic I can expose or you comment on the specifics of my posts it's difficult to find common ground for a good argument. I'd be happy to comment on your perspective but please consider mine.

 

[gnostic]

My method is hardly "Look and See Science". I confess that much of it has morphed into ancient science but that's because Egyptology REFUSES to gather the data that would allow more modern analysis. You have no respect for ancient science despite not knowing its characteristics and metaphysics.

I admired ancient civilizations and cultures, and their achievements, but “science” did appear until the natural philosophy of the Ancient Greek philosophers.

Although the ancient Egyptians have rudimentary understanding of astronomy and other areas, there are no texts (before the Hellenistic period) that EXPLAIN their knowledge in details.

You are forgetting science don’t just involve doing and seeing, but explaining what they are seeing and how they work.

It was only after Alexander the Great’s death, that the Greeks introduced natural philosophy to the Egyptians. Without the explanation, then it isn’t really science.

Some past knowledge that were thought to be valid and true, ended up being outdated and untrue.

Why do I need to give credits when I know the Egyptians were wrong about something. It is absurd, to give credit that Egyptians knew more about the Milky Way than modern astronomers, when clearly it is the opposite.

I'm not unsympathetic to people who argue with me on many of these subjects. Peoples' knowledge is built up around beliefs and models and is organized around them.

All I presented about the pyramids were it designs (step vs true pyramids), not how it built, so I had no interest in discussing this bloody ramp you kept bringing up.

It wasn’t my belief that Egyptians used ramps, but you kept using the ramp again and again, as if I brought it up. That’s attacking the strawman.

You are supposedly a truth seeker, and yet you dishonest tactic on me.

You are the one who keeps bringing up ramps, not me. And quite frankly I am really fed up with you using your stupid ramp strawman.

Stop it. Just stop it.

 

[Audie]

I admired ancient civilizations and cultures, and their achievements, but “science” did appear until the natural philosophy of the Ancient Greek philosophers.

Although the ancient Egyptians have rudimentary understanding of astronomy and other areas, there are no texts (before the Hellenistic period) that EXPLAIN their knowledge in details.

You are forgetting science don’t just involve doing and seeing, but explaining what they are seeing and how they work.

It was only after Alexander the Great’s death, that the Greeks introduced natural philosophy to the Egyptians. Without the explanation, then it isn’t really science.

Some past knowledge that were thought to be valid and true, ended up being outdated and untrue.

Why do I need to give credits when I know the Egyptians were wrong about something. It is absurd, to give credit that Egyptians knew more about the Milky Way than modern astronomers, when clearly it is the opposite.



All I presented about the pyramids were it designs (step vs true pyramids), not how it built, so I had no interest in discussing this bloody ramp you kept bringing up.

It wasn’t my belief that Egyptians used ramps, but you kept using the ramp again and again, as if I brought it up. That’s attacking the strawman.

You are supposedly a truth seeker, and yet you dishonest tactic on me.

You are the one who keeps bringing up ramps, not me. And quite frankly I am really fed up with you using your stupid ramp strawman.

Stop it. Just stop it.

I stopped.
He wont till you do.

 

[sooda]

How do you now this? "Carbonated" and "aquifer" are just words. There is known to be two aquifers under here and there is no known reason either or both couldn't have been carbonated. You are simply assuming that cold water geysers couldn't have existed here and there is no logic of factual evidence to say this. There could even be a third unknown carbonated water source.

Your belief that there was no "carbonated aquifer" doesn't change the fact that the pyramid builders said there was and left evidence consistent with the existence of one.

They called this water "nun" which is oft translated as "the waters of the abyss".

2147a. Those who are in Nun come to thee; mankind (the blessed dead (?)) circulate for thee;



Vaterite is a very unusual compound as well. It is produced by CO2 geysers and is found in the walls of the horizontal passage in G1.



Indeed!!!

Take your own advise because there are tens of thousands of people who know for a fact that Egyptologists are wrong because they keep spouting nonsense like "superstition made the builders capable and strong". Many individuals have engineering experience and know it's impossible for stinky footed bumpkins to have dragged 6 1/2 million tons up ramps. Many people can see right through Egyptological nonsense.

I myself often say that it's far easier to believe aliens built the pyramids than the people described by Egyptology with the knowledge and tools described by Egyptology. I would say there's less than a 1% chance aliens built the pyramids (this is a hard number to nail down however) but the chances that the Egyptians used ramps and then left the evidence that exists is even lower. The builders did not use muscle power to build these because there's no evidence for it. Sure there's evidence the builders worked very hard but there were far too few builders to have been dragging stones.

Egyptological theory is untested and unexamined nonsense that reeks of Look and See Science. Egyptologists are linguists and they never even noticed the language breaks Zipf's Law. They aren't even good linguists!

Carbonated rocks have nothing to do with carbonated water.

 

[Audie]

Carbonated rocks have nothing to do with carbonated water.

We lost him somewhere in the hallucinations about
carbonated aquifers, geysers and pyramids.

Carbonated water is an ok term.

"Hard water" is water with lotsa calcium and
mannesium carbonates, divers others depending.

Limestone makes for good aquifers, and is
typically the source for, yes, calcium carbonate
dissolved in the aquifer.

It just is not called a carbonated aquifer. Could
have been, but isnt.

 

[cladking]

I admired ancient civilizations and cultures, and their achievements, but “science” did appear until the natural philosophy of the Ancient Greek philosophers.

You just keep doing the exact same thing. You ignore my argument, the facts, the logic, and my interpretation while gainsaying everything I said and presenting your beliefs that just happen to coincide with the status quo.

The ancient Greeks HAD NO SCIENCE. It was just Look and SEE Science like most science in the last century. It is nonsense! Science is experiment' not looking.

You don't know what you are admiring because it is not established fact that the great pyramids were tombs dragged up ramps by changeless stinky footed bumpkins. It doesn't matter what you are admiring because if Egyptology is wrong then these people NEVER EVEN EXISTED. You are admiring artefacts not societies or collections of individuals.

Although the ancient Egyptians have rudimentary understanding of astronomy and other areas, there are no texts (before the Hellenistic period) that EXPLAIN their knowledge in details.

SO?!!!

We can see what they knew. And what they knew is far greater than that for which they are credited.

You are forgetting science don’t just involve doing and seeing, but explaining what they are seeing and how they work.

LOOK AND SEE SCIENCE IS NOT SCIENCE AT ALL. It is modern NONSENSE generated to support the status quo and modern beliefs.

It was only after Alexander the Great’s death, that the Greeks introduced natural philosophy to the Egyptians. Without the explanation, then it isn’t really science.

Natural philosophy is NOT SCIENCE. But the ancients had to have REAL SCIENCE (NOT EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE) in order to invent agriculture and cities.

Some past knowledge that were thought to be valid and true, ended up being outdated and untrue.

All science is always open to revision. Look and See Science isn't open to revision until it's no longer politically expedient BUT IT IS NOT SCIENCE.

Why do I need to give credits when I know the Egyptians were wrong about something. It is absurd, to give credit that Egyptians knew more about the Milky Way than modern astronomers, when clearly it is the opposite.

I never said their understanding of the Milky Way was more extensive than ours. I said they understood the nature of the solar system and our galaxy.

All I presented about the pyramids were it designs (step vs true pyramids), not how it built, so I had no interest in discussing this bloody ramp you kept bringing up.

ALL PYRAMIDS ARE STEPPED. There are "great pyramids" and tiny little piles of rubble that were also probably all stepped but they are piles of rubble (tiny piles) so it's difficult to tell.

There is no such thing as a "true pyramid" and this is just a term invented by Egyptologists to hide the fact that the great pyramids are older than the tiny piles of rubble.

It wasn’t my belief that Egyptians used ramps, but you kept using the ramp again and again, as if I brought it up. That’s attacking the strawman.

Fine! So what do you admire about the culture? Was it their ability to hide the means used to build pyramids?

You are supposedly a truth seeker, and yet you dishonest tactic on me.

I'm not new at this. If you actually started addressing what I say then very soon you'd talk about the great effort it was to build the pyramids.

You are the one who keeps bringing up ramps, not me. And quite frankly I am really fed up with you using your stupid ramp strawman.

Why not address what I actually say instead of accusing me of conspiracy beliefs and supporting speculative ideas and beliefs? Why not tell us how you think they were built?

I've got lots and lots of evidence and logic but you refuse to address my points. How can you not be the least bit curious about how I can make accurate predictions? How can you not be curious that my theory explains most of the evidence and answers the mysteries? Are you so married to your beliefs in the status quo that you'd rather be wrong than risk losing them?


I'm NEVER GOING TO SUGGEST A CONSPIRACY as you've accused me but you will eventually slip up and disclose that you believe some savage and brutal means of building pyramids was used. I keep talking about ramps not because I think you necessarily believe in them but because this is what EGYPTOLOGISTS BELIEVE.

If you just gainsay all this again I'll probably not respond at all. I want to talk about logic and the physical evidence because it ALL SUPPORTS MY THEORY. I can show all of Egyptology is wrong and I'll be happy to talk about it and how they went wrong as well.

 

[cladking]

We lost him somewhere in the hallucinations about
carbonated aquifers, geysers and pyramids.

Carbonated water is an ok term.

"Hard water" is water with lotsa calcium and
mannesium carbonates, divers others depending.

Limestone makes for good aquifers, and is
typically the source for, yes, calcium carbonate
dissolved in the aquifer.

It just is not called a carbonated aquifer. Could
have been, but isnt.

I don't argue semantics.

If I did I'd suggest you would call Lake Kivu a lake of carbonated water or a "lake of compound rich H2O and CO2 in solution" rather than simply a "carbonated lake".

To each his own.

 

[Thief]

A response to this statement in another thread wouldn't be appropriate there.

You keep getting hung up in semantics. Semantics is one of the chief ways we use to create our circular arguments and some use it to demolish other arguments. But semantics isn't real, it's just words. Words are chiefly for communication when we aren't thinking so we should all try to follow the other guys thinking more andf the words less. If I say there is no elephant in the xxxxx and no species like the elephant in it either then there are countless ways I can "PROVE" it. For instance if I can show the entire xxxxx and no elephant is visible then we can categorically state there's no elephant. It has been proven there's no elephant in the xxxxx when the "xxxxx" is defined as a teacup. I said the word "belief" does not exist in ancient literature and none of the synonyms for "belief" exist in ancient literature.

You can start here;

site:sacred-texts.com utterance belief

Simply put this in any search engine you'll get no hits in the Pyramid Texts.

This is because The Pyramid Texts is not about death and superstious nonsense as is widely believed today. The Pyramid Texts are actually just a silly little book of rituals read at the kings' ascension ceremonies during pyramid building season. The PT is about life and its celebration even as the king is being transformed into a mnemonic to be remembered in heaven and earth. The king lives eternally as the pyramid and his history and all human history is recorded in the stars.

Count the words in the PT. They are about life.

There was no religion of any sort. Simple logic will tell you man couldn't survive on an untamed planet using superstition and magic. People no longer care about logic; they care about semantics because they don't have to think about semantics but they would have to think if they understood opposing arguments.

and at some time it was believed.....there are only four elements
earth water wind and fire

prior to the discovery otherwise.....saying otherwise might be difficult

when did the prior belief die?

 

[cladking]

and at some time it was believed.....there are only four elements
earth water wind and fire

prior to the discovery otherwise.....saying otherwise might be difficult

when did the prior belief die?

...Yes, it was believed. There was no basis in science, no basis in nature, no basis in experiment, and no basis in reality. It was a belief.

But there might have been some resemblance to reality because this belief MIGHT HAVE been derived from ancient science. Ancient science didn't come from belief because Ancient Language didn't even have a word for "belief" . Rather it was founded in theory derived from observation and the logic of the wiring of the human brain. This was the exact same logic that was quantified and turned into mathematics. It worked because Ancient Language was logical and metaphysical in nature. It was a digital expression of the digital brain. It was the very basis of human consciousness which is the tool given by nature to all her creatures to assure their survival. It is individual and all survival and all procreation is individual just as all thought and all consciousness is individual. We misapprehend the nature of life, thought, evolution and most everything else because we think in terms of beliefs, models, taxonomies, and ordinal math.

Ancient science had "elements" that were associated with the sun, moon, earth, and fire(?). Their chemistry was very weak because it was based principally on observation but I don't believe they thought things were composed of these elements so much as their properties originated from these elements. Their understanding of nature was quite good. Rather than building mental models of experiment they modeled reality itself in terms of human needs and characteristics. They had no thoughts and no beliefs and they understood reality in terms of their science. They were a force of nature rather than their own beliefs.

We can't understand the nature of the way animals think because they think in three dimensions in terms of their experience and knowledge. We think in a single dimension in terms of our beliefs. Our power comes not from "intelligence" as we perceive but rather from the accumulated knowledge of 40,000 years made possible by complex language. First there was natural language, Ancient Language, and then it failed and there were countless modern languages which are confused as proven by Chinese telephone. Only human languages are sufficiently complex (speech center is tied to higher brain functions) to accumulate substantial knowledge generationally.

 

[sooda]

How do you now this? "Carbonated" and "aquifer" are just words. There is known to be two aquifers under here and there is no known reason either or both couldn't have been carbonated. You are simply assuming that cold water geysers couldn't have existed here and there is no logic of factual evidence to say this. There could even be a third unknown carbonated water source.

Your belief that there was no "carbonated aquifer" doesn't change the fact that the pyramid builders said there was and left evidence consistent with the existence of one.

They called this water "nun" which is oft translated as "the waters of the abyss".

2147a. Those who are in Nun come to thee; mankind (the blessed dead (?)) circulate for thee;



Vaterite is a very unusual compound as well. It is produced by CO2 geysers and is found in the walls of the horizontal passage in G1.



Indeed!!!

Take your own advise because there are tens of thousands of people who know for a fact that Egyptologists are wrong because they keep spouting nonsense like "superstition made the builders capable and strong". Many individuals have engineering experience and know it's impossible for stinky footed bumpkins to have dragged 6 1/2 million tons up ramps. Many people can see right through Egyptological nonsense.

I myself often say that it's far easier to believe aliens built the pyramids than the people described by Egyptology with the knowledge and tools described by Egyptology. I would say there's less than a 1% chance aliens built the pyramids (this is a hard number to nail down however) but the chances that the Egyptians used ramps and then left the evidence that exists is even lower. The builders did not use muscle power to build these because there's no evidence for it. Sure there's evidence the builders worked very hard but there were far too few builders to have been dragging stones.

Egyptological theory is untested and unexamined nonsense that reeks of Look and See Science. Egyptologists are linguists and they never even noticed the language breaks Zipf's Law. They aren't even good linguists!

Quit while you're ahead. Like Kiwais only 400 years old.


Treacherous Waters: A Dangerous Treasure in Lake Kivu ...
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/treacherous-waters-a-dangerous-treasure-in...
Treacherous Waters A Dangerous Treasure in Lake Kivu. There is a wealth of methane trapped in a lake in the heart of Africa. Engineers hope to transform the gas from the depths of the lake into ...

 

[Thief]

Ancient science didn't come from belief because Ancient Language didn't even have a word for "belief" . Rather it was founded in theory derived from observation and the logic of the wiring of the human brain.

and you are sure of this?....how...

ancient people did not know the word.... belief
but they understood theory?

and we could include a classic scenario.....
eat of the fruit.....and you will not die
even though you have been told that you will