Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 6 votes

Ancient Science and Metaphysics.

pyramid construction

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
1500 replies to this topic

#16    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 23 November 2013 - 10:45 PM

View Postcladking, on 23 November 2013 - 10:38 PM, said:

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

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#17    taniwha

taniwha

    Hi. If im an idiot, then im an idiot for truth.

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,910 posts
  • Joined:25 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 November 2013 - 10:47 PM

View Postcladking, on 23 November 2013 - 10:29 PM, said:

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?

" Where does yesterday go to? Where does tomorrow come from? Is not the universe the proginetor of space and time? "
                                                                        **Time-machine Universe**
                                                            http://www.unexplain...howtopic=286269

#18    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 23 November 2013 - 10:54 PM

View Posttaniwha, on 23 November 2013 - 10:47 PM, said:

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. :rolleyes:

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#19    taniwha

taniwha

    Hi. If im an idiot, then im an idiot for truth.

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,910 posts
  • Joined:25 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 November 2013 - 10:57 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 23 November 2013 - 10:54 PM, said:

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. :rolleyes:

cormac

So the mystery still remains?

" Where does yesterday go to? Where does tomorrow come from? Is not the universe the proginetor of space and time? "
                                                                        **Time-machine Universe**
                                                            http://www.unexplain...howtopic=286269

#20    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 23 November 2013 - 11:03 PM

View Posttaniwha, on 23 November 2013 - 10:57 PM, said:

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

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#21    taniwha

taniwha

    Hi. If im an idiot, then im an idiot for truth.

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,910 posts
  • Joined:25 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 November 2013 - 11:15 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 23 November 2013 - 11:03 PM, said:

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 :unsure2:

" Where does yesterday go to? Where does tomorrow come from? Is not the universe the proginetor of space and time? "
                                                                        **Time-machine Universe**
                                                            http://www.unexplain...howtopic=286269

#22    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 23 November 2013 - 11:29 PM

View Posttaniwha, on 23 November 2013 - 11:15 PM, said:

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 :unsure2:

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 by cormac mac airt, 23 November 2013 - 11:30 PM.

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#23    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,498 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 23 November 2013 - 11:32 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 23 November 2013 - 10:14 PM, said:

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....?text=t.1.8.2.4#

Quote

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.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#24    taniwha

taniwha

    Hi. If im an idiot, then im an idiot for truth.

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,910 posts
  • Joined:25 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 November 2013 - 11:34 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 23 November 2013 - 11:29 PM, said:

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.

" Where does yesterday go to? Where does tomorrow come from? Is not the universe the proginetor of space and time? "
                                                                        **Time-machine Universe**
                                                            http://www.unexplain...howtopic=286269

#25    docyabut2

docyabut2

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,375 posts
  • Joined:12 Aug 2011

Posted 23 November 2013 - 11:37 PM

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 by docyabut2, 23 November 2013 - 11:44 PM.


#26    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 23 November 2013 - 11:38 PM

View Postcladking, on 23 November 2013 - 11:32 PM, said:


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....?text=t.1.8.2.4#



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

Misleading people again aren't you. Linguists have suggested that "parts" of the PT predate Unas. They don't say nor do you know specifically which parts and by how long exactly.

Mesopotamian linguistics already know that the Sumerian language was used for Administrative/religious purposes well after the Sumerians, as a people, ceased to exist. So another one of your arguments is meaningless.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#27    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,498 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 23 November 2013 - 11:38 PM

View Posttaniwha, on 23 November 2013 - 10:47 PM, said:

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?

Yes.  Exactly.

There is extensive physical, cultural, historical, and metaphysical evidence that this
is exactly how the pyramids were built. If the pyramids really were built by harnessing
the power of geysers then it follows that I really do "understand" the ancient language
meaning and that the language  did change.  The alternatives are that Egyptologists
don't even recognize the truth when it bites them or that Egyptologists are engaging in
an enormous conspiracy to hide the truth.  I simply refuse to believe they are stupid
and conspiracies of this magnitude are very highly improbable.

On this basis the language must have changed and in all probability the story of the
Tower of Babel is probably founded on an actual event.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#28    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,498 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 23 November 2013 - 11:45 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 23 November 2013 - 11:29 PM, said:

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.


Again you are intentionally misrepresenting the theory.

The Pyramid Texts are what they would have called "The Rituals of Ascension".  They are obviously
rituals and this is one of the most surprising errors made by orthodox thought.  One of these even begins,
"listen up men".  All of them include an instruction to the scientist (priest) who reads them and many in-
clude various other instructions.

They are not only obviously older than Unas but Egyptologists believe they are older than Unas.  You
can't have your facts one way when you use themn and another when someone else uses them. Even
if Egyptoilogy didn't already believe these are older than Unas I can show it through context. They speak
of times when the water flowed at Giza, Saqqara, etc.  They say it specifically.  

You also know full well that the water stopped befor Unas even though the PT did not.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#29    taniwha

taniwha

    Hi. If im an idiot, then im an idiot for truth.

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,910 posts
  • Joined:25 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 November 2013 - 11:48 PM

View Postcladking, on 23 November 2013 - 11:38 PM, said:

Yes.  Exactly.

There is extensive physical, cultural, historical, and metaphysical evidence that this
is exactly how the pyramids were built. If the pyramids really were built by harnessing
the power of geysers then it follows that I really do "understand" the ancient language
meaning and that the language  did change.  The alternatives are that Egyptologists
don't even recognize the truth when it bites them or that Egyptologists are engaging in
an enormous conspiracy to hide the truth.  I simply refuse to believe they are stupid
and conspiracies of this magnitude are very highly improbable.

On this basis the language must have changed and in all probability the story of the
Tower of Babel is probably founded on an actual event.

It would be impossible to say water was not used during pyramid construction.  How it was used is the mystery.  Apart from transportation and obviously drinking how was water manipulated in a constructive way?

" Where does yesterday go to? Where does tomorrow come from? Is not the universe the proginetor of space and time? "
                                                                        **Time-machine Universe**
                                                            http://www.unexplain...howtopic=286269

#30    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 23 November 2013 - 11:54 PM

View Postcladking, on 23 November 2013 - 11:45 PM, said:

Again you are intentionally misrepresenting the theory.

The Pyramid Texts are what they would have called "The Rituals of Ascension".  They are obviously
rituals and this is one of the most surprising errors made by orthodox thought.  One of these even begins,
"listen up men".  All of them include an instruction to the scientist (priest) who reads them and many in-
clude various other instructions.

They are not only obviously older than Unas but. Egyptologists believe they are older than Unas.  You
can't have your facts one way when you use themn and another when someone else uses them. Even
if Egyptoilogy didn't already believe these are older than Unas I can show it through context. They speak
of times when the water flowed at Giza, Saqqara, etc.  They say it specifically.  

You also know full well that the water stopped befor Unas even though the PT did not.

Calling a priest a scientist doesn't make him a scientist, not in any way relevant to the subject of pyramid construction that is.

Show me one Egyptologist that claims that the Pyramid Texts, in their totality, significantly predate Unas. I know you can't do it because that is not what Egyptologists claim.

BTW, you already know that evidence has shown that the Nile flowed up the the Giza Plateau in the 26th century BC, whereas you've never proven the existance of a cold-water anywhere in the vicinity.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus





Also tagged with pyramid construction

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users