Newton - The Last Of The Magicians

[cladking]

I'm always amazed that people with no education and training in a specific field somehow believe they know more than people who have spent lifetimes actually learning.

I'm always amazed that people who know nothing at all about a subject take the pronouncements of the experts in that subject as gospel. This eases the strain on the individual to learn anything at all and it reinforces my estimation of modern man as Homo Omnisciencis. Few people realize that Egyptologists are linguists without real training in science. They do not realize that they not only define what the pyramids are but they do so without ever having performed fundamental testing on the nature of the pyramids!!! They can't provide details about any physical aspects of the great pyramids because they haven't been tested by scientists! Their understanding is derived chiefly from what they themselves call a "book of incantation". They interpret this magic to mean the exact opposite of what it actually and literally says. No, Newton wouldn't have seen this book of magic that has been interpreted and translated so badly but he'd have certainly seen second and third hand interpretation of Ancient Language that appears everywhere including the Bible. There is simply no reason he couldn't have reached the conclusion that ancient people understood gravity and investigated the pyramid and alchemy for this reason. Many people even today with our blind adherence to the status quo often suspect we must be wrong about the distant past. Our theories in psychology, anthropology, Egyptology, etc etc etc are illogical and don't hang together. Human progress has quite obviously not been linear even during recorded history so why should it be linear before. Indeed, why should human history begin more than a millineum after the invention of writing?

Newton "knew" we had it all wrong and hoped he could deduce ancient knowledge. But it was a dead end for him because he lacked the science and knowledge (as well as the original resource material) to understand the language. He lacked google. He never considered the possibility that ancient people didn't think in one dimension like he did. They didn't think like we do so they had no words for thought. For most practical purposes they didn't think at all. Without the experience of "thinking" they needed no words to describe it or its effects. Egyptologists, being linguists, should have seen this but they failed. They failed because they were too busy doing the heavy lifting of translation and then they were just too tired, or too preoccupied to ever read their own translations which are literally coherent and literally accurate. They are literally the intended literal meaning of the authors!!!

I'm not suggesting every field and every theory is in error or is always in error. I'm suggesting that as a species we are studying the trees and have no insights into the forest. I'm suggesting that everything is dependent on context and perspective. I'm suggesting that we have so many mysteries because we have so many premises that are WRONG. They have never been tested because they are fundamental to our thought and even to the very basis of science itself. Language has always been fundamental to thought but we can't see it because our brains are programmed in language.

We don't have time to become proficient in every field and examine its premises and methodology. It would take a hundred thousand lifetimes now days. Newton "wasted" more than a decade in trying, back when it was far easier. Ironically his attempts did help me a little, though.

 

[ecco]

/E: Although I didn't look at Amazon.

I did...

 

[ecco]

I'm always amazed that people who know nothing at all about a subject take the pronouncements of the experts in that subject as gospel.

We don't have time to become proficient in every field and examine its premises and methodology.

How do you reconcile these two assertions?

You acknowledge that we can't learn the intricate details of complex subjects ourselves, yet you criticize us for accepting the findings of those who have learned the intricate details of complex subjects.

On the other hand, you criticize people who have done research and say that they are wrong because their findings do not agree with your beliefs.

 

[cladking]

How do you reconcile these two assertions?

You acknowledge that we can't learn the intricate details of complex subjects ourselves, yet you criticize us for accepting the findings of those who have learned the intricate details of complex subjects.

On the other hand, you criticize people who have done research and say that they are wrong because their findings do not agree with your beliefs.

No. I said it would take a hundred thousand lifetimes to learn the intricacies of every specialty.

But it's quite apparent that there are errors in the areas in which I'm familiar. Most of these errors are the result of bad assumptions, bad methodology, and bad definitions. When I first got involved in studying the pyramids in 2006 I knew nothing about Egyptology but I certainly knew there were errors in it just like everywhere else. I simply didn't know what those errors were at that time. Now I do know what they are and how they made them. I had thought Egyptologists were scientists but the reality is that they are linguists. Linguists have no interest in pyramids beyond trying to understand the superstitions that led the builders to construct them. They are looking for gold, beliefs, and more text to parse. They dust off pot shards and devine bones.

They're great at what they do but they've put the cart before the horse and are now stuck in the 19th century and 19th century understandings. They have plenty of expertise in pots and bones and later eras but they know nothing about the pyramids or their builders. They never even noticed that the the language they parse has no words for taxonomies, "beliefs", or "thought" so how could they possibly notice that it breaks known law, is inconsistent with our beliefs, and that it loses its meaning when it is parsed? I'm not suggesting they are stupid or ignorant, merely that every single one of their assumptions is incorrect and they are wrong across the board due to flawed methodology that emphasizes parsing of texts and translating in terms of later language. I'm, suggesting they are insulated from criticism and physical reality by layers of peers and et als (dead peers). Egyptology is consensus and they are each and all wrong.Newton understood people used to be more capable and able and, no doubt, this is at least partially the result of observing the pyramids. Their existence is incompatible with the belief that people used to be superstitious but we're all better now. Exactly the opposite is the reality. They were fine, we are stinky footed bumpkins being led around by belief, confusion, and bad assumptions.

 

[ecco]

They're great at what they do but they've put the cart before the horse

When I first got involved in studying the pyramids in 2006 I knew nothing about Egyptology but I certainly knew there were errors in it just like everywhere else.

You knew nothing. You knew there were errors.

So you went to school and got a Bachelor's and a Master's Degree in Egyptology. That's great. Congratulations.

 

[Native]

My physics is a bit rusty and I'm caught up in too many other projects any longer. I've got my hands full and when I have a free moment I'm trying to understand ancient math and reinvent ancient science. It's not so complex I need much physics, I believe.

More accurately, I studied physics back in the '60's and '70's and never got beyond calculus anyway so I probably wouldn't understand much modern stuff.

Regarding understanding the overall cosmos, don´t worry too much about the math.

Listen to this comforting video - "
When Mind Games Masquerade as Physics"

Even moderen scientists don´t understand "the modern stuff"

 

[cladking]

Regarding understanding the overall cosmos, don´t worry too much about the math.

Listen to this comforting video - "
When Mind Games Masquerade as Physics"

Even moderen scientists don´t understand "the modern stuff"

Physics is stuck in the 1920's and may well have taken a bad turn to get there. There are several possibilities for the problem but even the most casual observer must be concerned that some cosmologists suggest that there are an infinite number of pyramids built with an infinite number of ramps. I suspect the cause of the impasse has more to do with Einstein than Newton.

 

[cladking]

You knew nothing. You knew there were errors.

So you went to school and got a Bachelor's and a Master's Degree in Egyptology. That's great. Congratulations.

I merely studied what was known fact about the builders and their creations.

I had hardly an outline of a theory when I started but lots of experience moving lots of weight. Early on someone told me I'd never understand the builders until I understood the Pyramid Texts so I began studying this collation of rituals that were read to the crowds at the kings' ascension ceremonies. Of course, early on I didn't know what they were other than a collection of words that appeared to make no real sense at all.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/index.htm

The more I read it the more word meanings began to emerge. The human brain seeks patterns and meaning in everything and this is why we must use experiment to understand nature; we will see patterns that don't exist and meaning that isn't there if we just go with appearances. We see what we believe instead of reality. Even knowing this, I still knew that all people always makes sense in terms of their premises. I knew that if I could understand why they chose specific words I could deduce their premises. As time went on more and more meaning emerged and this meaning could be used as context to extract more meaning. Eventually it became possible to begin constructing models of the grammar and making deductions about what it was really like to be an Egyptian. This was always checked by reality itself because everything had to be consistent with all the physical evidence. It had to be consistent with logic and math. Early on it became apparent that it was also consistent with what we call "the laws of nature" and the actual literal meaning of the words. This is hardly apparent to the modern eye. They'd say "bring me the boat that flies up and alights" and the modern minds twists and contorts this simple literal command into nonsense and religious mumbo jumbo. We have no choice we just do it because every word in a sentence must be assigned a meaning as we hear it. It's what we do and how we communicate: we parse words.

Egyptologists naturally got it all wrong. Later Egyptians knew their ancestors were wise but their language couldn't be translated because all modern languages are parsed and Ancient Language could not be. It requires a broad array of scientific knowledge to understand a language that is naturally metaphysical and structured around physical law and understanding. Google is necessary for almost any living person to solve this. It took me many tens of thousands of searches to get where I am with the language.

If I'm right about this there is an implication that many things we take for granted as self evident that have never been scientifically defined and tested are wrong. There is a significant probability that these lie at the heart of the problems in physics and all the sciences. Relativity and Newtonian physics are likely apples and oranges. If there are no two identical things in the universe then even mathematics doesn't necessarily apply to all things in reality. Merely "logic" applies to all things. Newton was right but he had no means to see that there are no such things as "laws of nature" and no means to acquire the knowledge of the pyramid builders.

 

[cladking]

You knew nothing. You knew there were errors.

I knew there were errors.

I did not know I'd be able to find even one of them.



I hardly imagined Egyptology could be wrong across the board as it applies to the great pyramids and their builders!

 

[ecco]

I merely studied what was known fact about the builders and their creations.
...
The more I read it the more word meanings began to emerge. Eventually it became possible to begin constructing models of the grammar and making deductions about what it was really like to be an Egyptian.
...
Egyptologists naturally got it all wrong.
...
It took me many tens of thousands of searches to get where I am with the language.

So, by yourself, you studied hieroglyphics to the point that you can read them more accurately then trained professionals. That is indeed commendable.

 

[ecco]

If I'm right about this there is an implication that many things we take for granted as self evident that have never been scientifically defined and tested are wrong.

Such as?

There is a significant probability that these lie at the heart of the problems in physics and all the sciences.

What are these "problems in physics and all the sciences"?

 

[cladking]

I studied the writing sufficiently to understand author intent. As I stated, I began with the assumption that all people always make sense in terms of their premises. Our job is to deduce their premises. This is what I have done with Pyramid Texts, its translations, and some of the glyphs. I linked it twice already.

I stated a few of the problems with physics and there's no point in moving forward until you address those.

One of the problems with science is it's founded on erroneous assumptions if I am correct. For instance "I think therefore I am" is semantical nonsense. Humans aren't even "intelligent"
as we define the term. We misapprehend the nature of reality, life, and our own humanity. We do not understand the nature of even one language and there are at least two distinct types of languages. Without understanding modern languages it's impossible to see how Newton arrived at the conclusion that ancient people were not stinky footed bumpkins. It's impossible to see why he studied ancient languages and alchemy. Had he been successful at these endeavors the world would be absolutely different today but he was unable to get us off the 3500 year detour the race was currently taking and is still.

 

[cladking]

Have you studied the cultural Stories of Creation and Comparative Mythology and Religion? Are you an expert in these matters?

I've had a lot of exposure to various myths and creation stories over the last 12 years but am in no sense an expert.

My belief is that most of these stories derive from ancient science and are confusions of it. Ancient Language was untranslatable but there was a great deal of it up until about 500 BC and many people tried. The myths (most of them) spring from these attempts at understanding ancient science. There are a few that can even be traced back right to the Pyramid Texts.

 

[Native]

@cladking,
Sorry for being absent for a while.

I suspect the cause of the impasse has more to do with Einstein than Newton.

I think they both have. Newton with his gravity model which lkead to all kinds of "dark this and that" and Einstein with his "curved space-time" and his math of "dark holes" and other fantasy ideas.

Egyptologists naturally got it all wrong. Later Egyptians knew their ancestors were wise but their language couldn't be translated because all modern languages are parsed and Ancient Language could not be. It requires a broad array of scientific knowledge to understand a language that is naturally metaphysical and structured around physical law and understanding. Google is necessary for almost any living person to solve this. It took me many tens of thousands of searches to get where I am with the language.

I agree in this.

Native said: ↑
Have you studied the cultural Stories of Creation and Comparative Mythology and Religion? Are you an expert in these matters?

I've had a lot of exposure to various myths and creation stories over the last 12 years but am in no sense an expert.

My belief is that most of these stories derive from ancient science and are confusions of it. Ancient Language was untranslatable but there was a great deal of it up until about 500 BC and many people tried. The myths (most of them) spring from these attempts at understanding ancient science. There are a few that can even be traced back right to the Pyramid Texts.

With your knowledge of Egyptian texts, do you have an opinion of the validity of their Stories of Creation and whether this can have a modern interpretation which can confirm (or correct) the standing scientific ideas and Cosmological Models?

 

[cladking]

@cladking,


I think they both have. Newton with his gravity model which lkead to all kinds of "dark this and that" and Einstein with his "curved space-time" and his math of "dark holes" and other fantasy ideas.

I'm beginning to believe that it's possible no science can provide a "proper" understanding of reality. Perhaps more accurately it will require multiple sciences that consider reality from different perspectives to create an entire picture. I certainly don't know but Newtonian physics has numerous shortfalls. Until we understand how constants are generated I can't believe we can say we understand.

With your knowledge of Egyptian texts, do you have an opinion of the validity of their Stories of Creation and whether this can have a modern interpretation which can confirm (or correct) the standing scientific ideas and Cosmological Models?

There are several problems here. I understand their meaning but these are just the rituals read to the crowds at the kings' ascension ceremonies. As such they are not "scientific" but rather they are merely written in a scientific language. It is apparent to me and ancient people that it is consciousness that underlies all life and evolution. This is also apparent to animals and other life forms. While it wasn't apparent to the Egyptians that the logic of language gave rise to ancient science it is rather obvious from the perspective of this modern language speaker. Ancient Language was a product of the binary brain and was as logical as the wiring of the brain. It arose naturally and is the tool nature provides its creatures to communicate, largely for the purpose of reproduction but in proto-humans it also gave rise to other cooperation. A mutation that tied the speech center to higher brain functions allowed complex language and began the human "race" 40,000 years ago. Knowledge was passed down through the generations allowing individuals to "stand on the shoulders of giants".

But ancient science is difficult to deduce from these rituals. I have made some progress but without understanding their math it is quite difficult to make a lot of inroads into their cosmology. They had a good grasp of mechanics but it looks a little alien to us. They had no taxonomies and no definitions. Words each had a single fixed meaning and there were three words for each thing. The "category" of word determined whether it was the subject, operation, or meaning of a sentence. Since the science was observation > logic and used language as its metaphysics their premises had to be simple. These included that time is eternal, all things are what they appear (until theory changed), and cause precedes effect. From these simple axioms a different way to see reality unfolds. Since time was axiomatically eternal it is probable that their cosmology was dependent on this unprovable assumption.

Personally I'm much more willing to accept time as being axiomatic than space. Euclidean geometry might be part of the problem with seeing the "big picture". I like a lot of the "time", "light", and "electromagnetic" hypotheses for understanding reality. But the problem may well be that some things virtually disappear when viewed from the "wrong" angle. This doesn't make any perspective "wrong" but it can cause it to bog down in the 1920's.

 

[Native]

I'm beginning to believe that it's possible no science can provide a "proper" understanding of reality. Perhaps more accurately it will require multiple sciences that consider reality from different perspectives to create an entire picture. I certainly don't know but Newtonian physics has numerous shortfalls. Until we understand how constants are generated I can't believe we can say we understand.

I agree totally in this.

There are several problems here. I understand their meaning but these are just the rituals read to the crowds at the kings' ascension ceremonies.

In my opinion the texts are not just rituals, but real cosmological informations. I think scholars just are having huge problems interpreting ancient myths because the scholars can´t connect the myths and teksts to real cosmological objects and motions. Take for instants the myth of goddesses Nut alias Hathor, who represents the Milky Way where this goddess is as symbol of the formation of everything in the Milky Way as illustrated here.

But ancient science is difficult to deduce from these rituals. I have made some progress but without understanding their math it is quite difficult to make a lot of inroads into their cosmology.

Do you have any links or papers to your works?

 

[ecco]

I studied the writing sufficiently to understand author intent. As I stated, I began with the assumption that all people always make sense in terms of their premises. Our job is to deduce their premises. This is what I have done with Pyramid Texts, its translations, and some of the glyphs. I linked it twice already.

But you have not explained why you can read and understand hieroglyphics more accurately then trained professionals. Nevertheless, here is what you wrote and a link...

Of course, early on I didn't know what they were other than a collection of words that appeared to make no real sense at all.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/index.htm

The more I read it the more word meanings began to emerge.

But all you did was link to an article. You did not quote from it. You did not show that you understood any of it.

I stated a few of the problems with physics and there's no point in moving forward until you address those.

You stated there were problems...

There is a significant probability that these lie at the heart of the problems in physics and all the sciences.

I asked...

What are these "problems in physics and all the sciences"?

You have not specified any problems. All you have done is make self serving proniouncements...

One of the problems with science is it's founded on erroneous assumptions if I am correct.
...
For instance "I think therefore I am" is semantical nonsense.

It may well be semantical nonsense. But it comes from Philosophy, not from Science. Do you not understand the difference?

We do not understand the nature of even one language and there are at least two distinct types of languages.

Why should we accept that you can read and understand Egyptian hieroglyphics when you cannot differentiate between Philosophy and Science.

 

[cladking]

In my opinion the texts are not just rituals, but real cosmological informations. I think scholars just are having huge problems interpreting ancient myths because the scholars can´t connect the myths and teksts to real cosmological objects and motions. Take for instants the myth of goddesses Nut alias Hathor, who represents the Milky Way where this goddess is as symbol of the formation of everything in the Milky Way as illustrated here.

There is only the one single work that definitively exists in Ancient Language. There is some Sumerian writing that might be the same Ancient Language (different dialect) but it isn't extensive enough to solve so might be something else.

I believe the myths are based on real science but they are still interpretations of Ancient Language, but not the Pyramid Texts.

Do you have any links or papers to your works?

A lot of stuff I've never written up at all. I avoid highly speculative conclusions and prefer to only post stuff I have at least 50% confidence. I do have specific threads here and on other sites to which I can link.

Ancient Reality

I also have threads that discuss how to understand the Pyramid Texts and numerous threads regarding various aspects of implications, predictions, and methods for building pyramids. I have numerous posts about ancient science but they would be hard to find and not very interesting for you since conclusions are highly limited.

The math is a mess. Egyptologists believe they understand it but there are several mathematicians working on it who agree they don't understand it. I believe that it's a cardinal mathematics that uses what looks like fractions to us to denote concepts like "third of eight". I used to be a whiz at math and this was right in my wheelhouse but now I'm more comfortable with words. One of the axioms of ancient science is that no two identical things can exist. "Counting" made no sense to them. They didn't employ abstractions in math and not really even in language. Numbers and words were all representative rather than symbolic.

I solved the Pyramid Texts by deducing what individual words had to mean in order for sentences to make sense. As I solved words I plugged that meaning back into all known writing in order to solve more words. Now I know what most all of the translated words mean and most of the untranslated words.

 

[cladking]

But you have not explained why you can read and understand hieroglyphics more accurately then trained professionals. Nevertheless, here is what you wrote and a link...

"Trained professionals" don't understand the writing at all as proven by the fact they themselves claim all this writing is incantation.

You have not specified any problems. All you have done is make self serving proniouncements...

It's interesting you find my claim that there is no such thing as "intelligence" to be self serving. Did you think I was excluding myself?

It may well be semantical nonsense. But it comes from Philosophy, not from Science. Do you not understand the difference?

"Science" was invented around such claptrap. Definitions and beliefs are part of the metaphysics of modern science.

Ancient metaphysics was language itself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Trained professionals" don't understand the writing at all as proven by the fact they themselves claim all this writing is incantation.



It's interesting you find my claim that there is no such thing as "intelligence" to be self serving. Did you think I was excluding myself?



"Science" was invented around such claptrap. Definitions and beliefs are part of the metaphysics of modern science.

Ancient metaphysics was language itself.

Here is a simple test for you. Use the "ancient language" to make a boatload of gold. You will be rich beyond your wildest dreams. Then to prove you did it you could give those that opposed you just a taste of that wealth. Make sure it is enough so that they take you seriously, but not so much that they would be rich themselves. A couple of hundred thousand dollars should do the trick.