Ancient Science and Metaphysics.

[cladking]

People have been asking for pictures for a log time and I've finally managed to do it!!!

This first one is the pyramid as ir was first built. After this stage the top of the pyramid

enplaced and they then finished the 4th step along with the cladding. They worked their

way all the way down in this manner.

]

The first thing was to build the "mehet weret" on the north side. This held the "upper eye

of horus" through which the water sprayed from below. The water was diverted into the

"mn-canal" with the use of "shm-sceptres". This took it to the "lake of the jackal" which was

the queens chamber and became smaller and smaller as the first step approached 70'. The

water traveled through a weir known as the "ba-sceptre" to the "i33.t-sceptre" that filled the

counterweight under the watchful eye of the "ferryman".

This is the "dnddndr-boat" or the head of the "ox of heaven" and the rope are his "sinews".

This drawing is actually obsolete and doesn't include newer information.

It should look a lot more like this;

The counterweight was the rear of the "bull of heaven" whose scientific name was "h3n-boat"

or henu boat. It looked like the dorsal carapice of a grasshopper from the side and was over-

seen by Isis.

I'll be happy to discuss the ample physical and metaphysical evidence for all this. The ancients

used a science founded upon observation and logic and language was the metaphysics. The science

has been found in the "words of the gods" which really should be translated as the "words of nature".

It won't be any problem to draw lots more pictures if anyone's having trouble seeing this.

[taniwha]

I am confused.

Are you offering a riddle as the explanation for pyramid construction?

[Crabby Kitten]

This is cool.

[cladking]

I am confused.

Are you offering a riddle as the explanation for pyramid construction?

No. I don't believe it's a riddle any longer.

It was the "natural phenomena" (we mistranslate as "gods") which built the great pyramids. Atum

was the first natural phenomenon which was a cold water geyser which erupted at zep tepi which

was a mythological time to the ancients. Atum erupted from the ben ben on the primeval mound

which were both the mineral accumulation in the water.

Horus was the "natural phenomenon" of the "land of rainbows" and atum erupted through

his eye and sprayed into the air creating the phenomena up upward (shu) and downward

(tefnut). It was shu and tefnut who did much of the construction of the pyramid by affecting

the stones (upward) and the water in the counterweight (downward).

Ancient people were animals and used an animal language. They were highly scientific

using observation and logic. It was their natural language which was the metaphysics of

their science. We don't understand that language and mistake if for religion because the

formatting and the way it expresses meaning is wholly alien to the way we speak.

The language changed about 2000 BC because the ancient metaphysics became overly

complicated. This change is vaguely remembered as the story of the Tower of Babel. The

new language speakers didn't understand the ancient language and the two aren't really

translatable one to another so all of this has been forgotten.

Edited November 23, 2013 by cladking

[taniwha]

The ancient language of ancestors had power that unlocked 'natural' or 'godly' energy? Used to manipulate matter and construct pyramids? Have I misunderstood?

[cormac mac airt]

~SNIP~

Ancient people were animals and used an animal language. They were highly scientific

using observation and logic. It was their natural language which was the metaphysics of

their science. We don't understand that language and mistake if for religion because the

formatting and the way it expresses meaning is wholly alien to the way we speak.

The language changed about 2000 BC because the ancient metaphysics became overly

complicated. This change is vaguely remembered as the story of the Tower of Babel. The

new language speakers didn't understand the ancient language and the two aren't really

translatable one to another so all of this has been forgotten.

Which goes against the evidence as anatomically modern humans (AMH) go back to c.200,000 BP. And behaviourly modern humans go back to c.100,000 BP. Both of which pre-date your story of ancient people being animals and using an animal language. And since the texts of Merrer, found at Wadi al-Jarf and dating to c.2550 BC, can be read and understood then we know that the language didn't change in any significant way. Prior to that we could also read and understand many of the inscriptions on tomb walls, contemporary to the time of Khufu. They also show that the language didn't change in the way you claim it did. Your mention of the Tower of Babel is also meaningless as the structure that's predominantly associated with the story, the Etemenanki Ziggurat, post-dates your 2000 BC claim.

cormac

[cladking]

The ancient language of ancestors had power that unlocked 'natural' or 'godly' energy? Used to manipulate matter and construct pyramids? Have I misunderstood?

You've got it about right from the ancient perspective but all wrong from our perspective.

Our science uses an artificial means of learning about reality which is euclidean geometry

and the definitions associated with it and the physical world. We use observation and ex-

periment to learn how nature works. It's a perfectly valid means and it provides us great

creature comfort because experiment can often be transferred almost directly to technology

and new tools and equipment. It is a highly effect metaphysics from the standpoint of tech-

nology and rapidity of learning. Consumer demand drives this growth even faster as sellers

try to keep up.

This is wholly dissimilar to the ancient metaphysics. Remember that when complicated

language first arose it replaced some sort of very very basic animal language. The people

simply became capable of expanding on the existing language and did so. But this language

was distinct from modern language in every way other than vocabulary. It used the same

words but they were ordered differently and many of them are mistranslated today because

we aren't aware that meaning was expressed differently. As this language developed they

learned a lot about nature by observation. Of course they noticed some observations weren't

repeatable so they had to develop rules about the confirmation of existing theory by the means

of further observation. We call this philosophy but in many real ways this wasn't truly philosophy

at all because it was the basis of science and because of the way language developed. All

scientific learning was added to language. This affected grammar, philosophy and all aspects

of total human knowledge (thot). They broke nature into parts for study exactly as we break

it into optics, mechanics, cosmology, etc. But they called their parts names like atum (geyser),

nehebkau (hydraulic cycle), Kehbehwet (water pressure), or shu (inertia). Each natural phenom-

non was assigned human characteristics based on its nature. Human measurements were ex-

trapolated to nature. Man was thought of as an animal and his characteristics became the basis

of their language.

In other words their understanding of nature was language and this language was by definition

the metaphysics of their science. They said the "gods" built the pyramids and they were exactly

and completely correct. The proper word isn't "god" but "neter" which meant something like "nat-

ural phenomenon". It was shu (upward)(inertia) who literally lifted the stones to build the pyramid. He

accomplished this by means of tefnut (downward)(weight) who pulled down the counterweight.

This language became extraordinarily complex as human knowledge advanced and it got very

difficult for the average man to speak properly. The language was simply reorginized into the

exact same system we use today. The old language has always been misunderstood and mis-

interpreted because its rules are very obscure to modern language speakers. The human race

had 40,000 years of scientific advancement until 2000 BC and since we've gone through one dark

ages after another. We've had 400 years of modern science and this is what has made cracking

the ancient language possible.

[cormac mac airt]

Remember that when complicated language first arose it replaced some sort of very very basic animal language.

Which is entirely irrelevant to the timeframe in question, namely the 26th century BC. And the language itself was already developing by 3100 BC, some 500 years prior. As to your pronouncements on how the language developed, since you've never actually shown an understanding of the language in question nor of the culture behind it then there's no reason to take your claims seriously.

cormac

[cladking]

Which goes against the evidence as anatomically modern humans (AMH) go back to c.200,000 BP. And behaviourly modern humans go back to c.100,000 BP. Both of which pre-date your story of ancient people being animals and using an animal language. And since the texts of Merrer, found at Wadi al-Jarf and dating to c.2550 BC, can be read and understood then we know that the language didn't change in any significant way. Prior to that we could also read and understand many of the inscriptions on tomb walls, contemporary to the time of Khufu. They also show that the language didn't change in the way you claim it did. Your mention of the Tower of Babel is also meaningless as the structure that's predominantly associated with the story, the Etemenanki Ziggurat, post-dates your 2000 BC claim.

I don't claim to know anything about anthropology. It's not really important to how they

built the pyramids whether it took 40,000 years to develop the science or 100,000. I can

always be wrong about any given "fact" whatsoever.

I believe anything that appears to make sebnse fronm before 2000 BC is due to the fact

that translators are trying to understand it and do the best they can in putting it into ev-

eryday language or because they are just lists, or because naratives are a little affected

by language change than most writing or a combination of these. Once we know how

the ancient language worked we'll probably need to go back and revisit all of these trans-

lations.

The Tower of Babel story appears to be a transalation of the event from the ancient lan-

guage into the modern "confused language". As such it may well be part allegory or

taken out of its proper context. I believe that almost all people from ancient times were

known primarily by their city of origin so it's entirely possible that it was the designer of

the tower or the new language who was from Babel rather than the tower itself. I always

suggest 2000 BC because this is when a few things that look like modern language begin

appearing but even the ancient language appears to have used some of our phraseology

as a sort of determinative. The change is described as being very sudden in the story

and this seems logical that it would catch on very quickly but it might have been far more

gradual to those who lived through it or through part of it. I'm not married to the story but

it does appear that at some time the language did, in fact, change and ancient science

was lost nearly in its entirety. The metaphysics was preserved as well as it could be as

religion and the technology survived being passed down father to son but the science itself

was lost.

The Pyramid Texts implies that their version of The Handbook Of Chemistry and Physics

which they called "The book of Thot" (book of human knowledge) was preserved under

the northwest corner of G1 and is being protected by the missing (second) Sphinx known

as "Mafdet". In other words there is a chance that the ancient science can be found. This

is not of critical importance, perhaps, because with modern science and computers it pro-

bably won't take more than half a century to redevelop the science from scratch.

[cladking]

Which is entirely irrelevant to the timeframe in question, namely the 26th century BC. And the language itself was already developing by 3100 BC, some 500 years prior. As to your pronouncements on how the language developed, since you've never actually shown an understanding of the language in question nor of the culture behind it then there's no reason to take your claims seriously.

These are just words. Words have no meaning outside their referents and their validity. People

who share the beliefs that cause these words don't know basic things like how the pyramids were

built and don't even know the way heat is absorbed and emitted from any great pyramid. Beliefs

have failed to explain any of the mysteries.

While I could be wrong the fact remains that much of what the builders actually said makes per-

fect sense and does answer the questions like how exactly the pyramid was built by boat opera-

tors, weigher reckoners, canal operators, and overseers of the metal shop. Their words explain

how a handful of men, women, and children can assist the gods to make the "instrument of ascen-

sion" on which the king arose to become the horizon.

1405a. To say: The earth is high under the sky by (means of) thine arms, Tefnut.

It is downward that makes the earth high.

If these are just words than there can be no explanation for why they are consistent, coherent, and

logical. It is very illogical to believe that religious incantation and magic might somehow just happen

to make perfect sense. It is not logical to believe in debunked ramps when the gravimetric scan

shows beyond reasonable doubt that the stones were pulled up one step at a time. It is not logical

to just assume a theory which has been unable to make the simplest predictions must be right.

[taniwha]

You've got it about right from the ancient perspective but all wrong from our perspective.

In other words their understanding of nature was language and this language was by definition

the metaphysics of their science. They said the "gods" built the pyramids and they were exactly

and completely correct. The proper word isn't "god" but "neter" which meant something like "nat-

ural phenomenon". It was shu (upward)(inertia) who literally lifted the stones to build the pyramid. He

accomplished this by means of tefnut (downward)(weight) who pulled down the counterweight.

So the pyramids were constructed by entirely 'natural' means, or perhaps from our modern viewpoint 'supernatural' means. 'Neter' which were harnessed through the power of incantation by the ancients in their ancient tongue? I hope Im keeping up.

[cormac mac airt]

The Tower of Babel story appears to be a transalation of the event from the ancient lan-

guage into the modern "confused language".

Wrong, the Tower of Babel story is a religious based story of an alleged event that happened in Sumer/Mesopotamia and has nothing to do with the Egyptian language. The Sumerian language of which predates Egyptian by about 100 years, meaning c.3200 BC. Linguists can read and understand it and the regions other languages/dialects such as Akkadian, Babylonian, etc. As far as Babylon itself is concerned, since it's relevant to the story, it didn't exist as a significant place until after 2000 BC. So you're being anachronistic, even with that. And the Babylonian language itself is a variant of Akkadian, so once again there was not "sudden change".

The Pyramid Texts, particularly the earliest of which is found in the tomb of Unas, are specifically addressed to Unas. So not only are you being anachronistic in your attempt to reinterpret it as referring to the construction of the GP but you are also fabricating what or to whom it's in reference to when it specifically states said intent.

cormac

[cormac mac airt]

While I could be wrong the fact remains that much of what the builders actually said...

While it's obvious to pretty much anyone other than you the people from the time of Unas were not the same exact people who built the Great Pyramids. Nor are the religious texts inscribed in Unas' tomb addressed to a time that was c.150 years in the past. They were specifically relevant to the time and addressed to Unas. Which means you're still reinterpreting them as being something they're not.

cormac

[cladking]

So the pyramids were constructed by entirely 'natural' means, or perhaps from our modern viewpoint 'supernatural' means. 'Neter' which were harnessed through the power of incantation by the ancients in their ancient tongue? I hope Im keeping up.

No, but that's OK since this is not a simple concept.

What I'm trying to say is that they used a different science and that science had a different vocabulary.

The ancients understood gravity nearly the same way we do but from a different perspective. To them

things fell and this was called "tefnut"; everything that went shu must come tefnut. Or everything that

goes up must come down. They defined tefnut as the effect on something. This is very very similar to

modern scientific definition of "weight". "Weight" is the force between an object and the thing attracting

it. They understood force as what we translate as "arrows". These are like "vectors" in a vector equa-

tion and it was "sekhmet" who had seven arrows which did the work.

It's better to think of this as simply a different vocabulary since there was nothing really "supernatural".

Their science just used different terms though in many cases these terms are extremely similar to modern

scientific terms. Work, power, time, weight, and inertia are the terms most similar to our own. But other

terms like "pressure" were somewhat different. We measure barometric pressure about the same "inches

of water" where they measured it in "fingers of water" but this was the only way they knew to measure

pressure.

Perhaps my phraseology is part of the reason people aren't following my arguments but it's difficult to

put these two disparate systems into words which are logical and comprehensible. English itself is a

little problem since it is a confused language but to state things precisely and accurately from the ancient

language gets a little tricky.

It might be best if I just say it's a vocabulary difference even though this is not precisely true.

[cladking]

While it's obvious to pretty much anyone other than you the people from the time of Unas were not the same exact people who built the Great Pyramids. Nor are the religious texts inscribed in Unas' tomb addressed to a time that was c.150 years in the past. They were specifically relevant to the time and addressed to Unas. Which means you're still reinterpreting them as being something they're not.

Yes!!! This is exactly much of the reason the translators didn't understand the PT the first time

they found it. If they had a hundred year older version when the water still flowed they'd have

probably have caught on right away. But the PT changed over the years up until our version

arose and atum was written out and osiris put in his place. This greatly complicated the ability

to see that osiris was effectively a dead geyser.

This is seen all through the PT that osiris simply usurps atum's place. It's the change in the PT

that masked the original meaning; the intent of the original authors. The original authors always

meant the water that came through the eye of horus when they spoke of the inundation and usually

meant the bubbles in the water when they spoe of "imperishable stars". The "winding watercourse"

was always the canals in the sky and on the land used to build pyramids. Later Egyptians gradu-

ally lost sight and lost understanding of the ancient texts which were not translatable. They knew

their ancestors were wise and sophisticated but didn't understand the ancient writing.

[cormac mac airt]

Yes!!! This is exactly much of the reason the translators didn't understand the PT the first time

they found it. If they had a hundred year older version when the water still flowed they'd have

probably have caught on right away. But the PT changed over the years up until our version

arose and atum was written out and osiris put in his place. This greatly complicated the ability

to see that osiris was effectively a dead geyser.

This is seen all through the PT that osiris simply usurps atum's place. It's the change in the PT

that masked the original meaning; the intent of the original authors. The original authors always

meant the water that came through the eye of horus when they spoke of the inundation and usually

meant the bubbles in the water when they spoe of "imperishable stars". The "winding watercourse"

was always the canals in the sky and on the land used to build pyramids. Later Egyptians gradu-

ally lost sight and lost understanding of the ancient texts which were not translatable. They knew

their ancestors were wise and sophisticated but didn't understand the ancient writing.

Sorry, but making it up as you go along and reinterpreting what people wrote 150 years after the fact doesn't make it true. It does however put your relevancy to AE culture in the same boat, pun intended, as Erich von Daniken and Zechariah Sitchin.

cormac

[taniwha]

No, but that's OK since this is not a simple concept.

What I'm trying to say is that they used a different science and that science had a different vocabulary.

The ancients understood gravity nearly the same way we do but from a different perspective. To them

things fell and this was called "tefnut"; everything that went shu must come tefnut. Or everything that

goes up must come down. They defined tefnut as the effect on something. This is very very similar to

modern scientific definition of "weight". "Weight" is the force between an object and the thing attracting

it. They understood force as what we translate as "arrows". These are like "vectors" in a vector equa-

tion and it was "sekhmet" who had seven arrows which did the work.

It's better to think of this as simply a different vocabulary since there was nothing really "supernatural".

Their science just used different terms though in many cases these terms are extremely similar to modern

scientific terms. Work, power, time, weight, and inertia are the terms most similar to our own. But other

terms like "pressure" were somewhat different. We measure barometric pressure about the same "inches

of water" where they measured it in "fingers of water" but this was the only way they knew to measure

pressure.

Perhaps my phraseology is part of the reason people aren't following my arguments but it's difficult to

put these two disparate systems into words which are logical and comprehensible. English itself is a

little problem since it is a confused language but to state things precisely and accurately from the ancient

language gets a little tricky.

It might be best if I just say it's a vocabulary difference even though this is not precisely true.

Thanks for cleaning that up. The pyramids were man made but able to be constructed by obviously scientific principles which no one can dispute. How they were constructed them till now has simply been a misinterpretation in translation?

[cormac mac airt]

Thanks for cleaning that up. The pyramids were man made but able to be constructed by obviously scientific principles which no one can dispute. How they were constructed them till now has simply been a misinterpretation in translation?

Not quite. Cladking reinterprets, based on no actual knowledge of Ancient Egyptian religion or language, the Pyramid Texts from 150 years after the time of Unas as being a construction manual for the Great Pyramid. It's pretty much along the lines of someone reinterpreting the Bible as a construction manual for the Empire State Building.

cormac

[taniwha]

Not quite. Cladking reinterprets, based on no actual knowledge of Ancient Egyptian religion or language, the Pyramid Texts from 150 years after the time of Unas as being a construction manual for the Great Pyramid. It's pretty much along the lines of someone reinterpreting the Bible as a construction manual for the Empire State Building.

cormac

So the mystery still remains?

[cormac mac airt]

So the mystery still remains?

As far as how exactly the GP was built, yes. Orthodoxy says ramps were used to start with and some variation thereof "may" have been used all the way to the top. Cladking's assertion is that the Ancient Egyptians never used ramps to build any part of the GP, it actually took an unevidenced cold-water geyser on the Giza Plateau to do it. So basically his answer to what Orthodoxy says is "Nuh uh".

cormac

[taniwha]

As far as how exactly the GP was built, yes. Orthodoxy says ramps were used to start with and some variation thereof "may" have been used all the way to the top. Cladking's assertion is that the Ancient Egyptians never used ramps to build any part of the GP, it actually took an unevidenced cold-water geyser on the Giza Plateau to do it. So basically his answer to what Orthodoxy says is "Nuh uh".

cormac

Is he not saying the geyser is in actuality 'recorded' in ancient text and therefore a reality at the time of construction? Im still no closer to the truth am I

[cormac mac airt]

Is he not saying the geyser is in actuality 'recorded' in ancient text and therefore a reality at the time of construction? Im still no closer to the truth am I

Yeah, if he's allowed to twist what the texts say to say what he wants them to. And hypothetically speaking, even "IF" they were a construction manual they would only be relevant to the time of Unas since that's to whom they're addressed. Which is just as ignorant since there is no cold-water geyser anywhere near the Tomb of Unas either.

cormac

Edited November 23, 2013 by cormac mac airt

[cladking]

Wrong, the Tower of Babel story is a religious based story of an alleged event that happened in Sumer/Mesopotamia and has nothing to do with the Egyptian language. The Sumerian language of which predates Egyptian by about 100 years, meaning c.3200 BC. Linguists can read and understand it and the regions other languages/dialects such as Akkadian, Babylonian, etc. As far as Babylon itself is concerned, since it's relevant to the story, it didn't exist as a significant place until after 2000 BC. So you're being anachronistic, even with that. And the Babylonian language itself is a variant of Akkadian, so once again there was not "sudden change".

I don't know.

I do know some of the pre-2000 BC Sumerian writing can be interpreted differently. It's

entirely possible that some things were written in a more formal language that looks like

religion to us and some things in a more colloquial language that has more latitude of ex-

pression. This will require scholars to decide and take at least a few minutes of their time

to figure out. If I'm right it could require decades or longer to make sense of the fragments

which survive.

None of the Sumerian texts are of sufficient lenght to solve the same way I did the Pyramid

Texts. Words have to be used numerous times before a meaning emerges because they

appear in a virtual vacuum of meaning. If you don't know an English word you can pick up

on the meaning pretty quickly because you understand the words around it and the various

things it might mean. But when you're trying to solve something everyone believes is gob-

bledty gook there are very few clues.

One of these days if I have time I would like to try to solve the Sumerian writing but the big-

gest obstacle at this time is that my only source for these writings doesn't list a date for them

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.8.2.4#

The Pyramid Texts, particularly the earliest of which is found in the tomb of Unas, are specifically addressed to Unas. So not only are you being anachronistic in your attempt to reinterpret it as referring to the construction of the GP but you are also fabricating what or to whom it's in reference to when it specifically states said intent.

You know full well the PT are older than Unas. I don't understand why you continually

make this point.

[taniwha]

Yeah, if he's allowed to twist what the texts say to say what he wants them to. And hypothetically speaking, even "IF" they were a construction manual they would only be relevant to the time of Unas since that's to whom they're addressed. Which is just as ignorant since there is no cold-water geyser anywhere near the Tomb of Unas either.

cormac

Ok then I guess geyser powered machines arent an option in this instance, thanks.

[docyabut2]

There is the evolution of the pyramid

http://www.touregypt...idevolution.htm

and before that sites of tiny little round stones found in africa built into a like pyramid form

and before that

Blombos Cave

http://www.bradshawf...t_art/index.php

Edited November 23, 2013 by docyabut2