Great Pyramid not built by Khufu?

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Math is language. Only we need to do is find on which math language Egyptian spoke,imho.

Edited September 27, 2012 by the L

[kmt_sesh]

Let me ask this; If orthodoxy won't allow them any knowledge that isn't demonstrated by

a few simple tools that survive isn't that the same as saying they were ignorant of almost

everything except how to hit something with a stone or how to measure with a ruler or plum

bob? If we don't understand the writing so chalk it up to religious mumbo jumbo is this not

exactly the same thing as calling them superstitious?

...

You're falling prey to the modern attitude that "superstitious" is pejorative and must be taken as a negative label. That might be the modern take, but it is not valid in a proper historical study. All the word means is a belief in the supernatural affecting one's life. That's it. Nothing negative need be drawn from that. If you believe it has to be negative, then by extension you're also denigrating all Catholics and Protestants and Jews and Muslims and Hindus and everyone else who adheres to a doctrine of religious faith.

If you honestly believe the ancient Egyptians did not believe that the supernatural affected and influenced their lives, then you truly don't possess even a basic understanding of ancient Egypt. And you of course could not defend such a statement for even a moment.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Clad,

Im amazed too what stoneage people can do. But Aztecs and Maya where also stone age people.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

I double-checked the figures for the number of vessels found below the Step Pyramid, and around 40,000 is correct. That's a hell of a lot of vessels! My source was Miroslav Verner's The Pyramids, one of the best books on the subject of Egyptian pyramids, in my opinion. Verner explains that the vessels found below the Step Pyramid came in a wide variety of materials including alabaster, diorite, limestone, and slate (2001: 120).

Granite and diorite vases are great mystery to me. I believe that they melt them or that they were not done by Egyptians at all. Last is most likely imo.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Im beting that golden ratio will fit great in China Pyramids too.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Im not expert in drawing but I tried briefly. I noticed that lenght "b" is twice "a". cca. I wonder what accurate messures will conclude.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Same thing here.

[questionmark]

Let me ask this; If orthodoxy won't allow them any knowledge that isn't demonstrated by

a few simple tools that survive isn't that the same as saying they were ignorant of almost

everything except how to hit something with a stone or how to measure with a ruler or plum

bob? If we don't understand the writing so chalk it up to religious mumbo jumbo is this not

exactly the same thing as calling them superstitious? If you are defining them as ignorant

and superstitious based on the "fact" that they only left spells and incantations and knew

only the most rudimentary tools then it's you calling them bumpkins based on an assumption

that the people never changed. It's based on the assumption that every tool they ever used

must be represented in a museum or it didn't exist.

Yet this is obviously and patently untrue. There was a huge metal shop at Giza and they

sure weren't just making chisels. Yet almost no meatal of any sort has ever been associated

with Giza. There was a bronze hook in the lower chamber southern airshaft and a piece of

"good steel" blasted out by Vyse but that's it. There's mention of molten lead in the culture

applied to the box of Osiris. Are we really supposed to believe that a huge metal shop did

nothing over the centuries other than make chisels, a hook, a single piece of steel, and melted

a little lead. I need a job there. Most people would never do anything at all during their en-

tire careers. Yet, the bodies show signs of heavy work!

None of it adds up and orthodox believers can claim it does forever and it still isn't going to

add up. Orthodoxy is wrong across the board. They are wrong about everything because

they tried to append the evidence to assumptions that are false. The people didn't need to

told not to walk in corpse drippings. They were not ignorant and superstitious. It is apparent

that they had a science that was based on observation rather than experiment. It was derived

from deduction rather than technology. It was confirmed by observation rather than experi-

ment. If nature, if the Gods, agreed with the observation then it became a part of the lang-

uage and the change was Thot who ruled over human progress and his consort who actually

added it to the language (the words of the Gods).

I'm not the one suggesting they were primitive, superstitious, and ignorant. I'm not the one sug-

gesting they needed to be told not to walk in corpse dripping; it would be Egyptology doing this.

See, in the world there are two types of postulates: Those you can demonstrate, which are also called facts and those you cannot, which we also call fantasy.

Science works with facts and occasionally tries to fill in the gaps with fantasy and calls that theory. And when there are conflicting theories it accept the one with the least buts and suppositions as most likely because that is how, as a rule, it pans out when the facts to fill the gap are found.

Now, there is another way to work this, instead of with a fact we start wit a supposition and there were we have a lack of fantasy we put in some facts. That is how the fringe works. And if there are conflicting fringe theories the one whose proponent screams loudest or sells most books becomes accepted as "fact".

Science is not always right, but to this day I have yet to find a fringe theory that had the slightest semblance of verosimility. And that is why I rather stay with the demonstrable instead of UFOs, Atlaenteans, Nibblers or farting Osirises.

And a very verbose, but contentless three page essay will not change that.

[Harte]

Do you think that is possible? That it come naturally...if so how come that some civilization didnt following golden ratio when built? Or is golden ratio hidden in their structures waiting to be discovered?

I thought that this was your claim.

I don't think this. I told you how they arrived at the golden rectangle.

Harte

[Harte]

Granite and diorite vases are great mystery to me. I believe that they melt them or that they were not done by Egyptians at all. Last is most likely imo.

What is even more likely is that you need to do a little research on this subject, and others.

If you think you can melt diorite or granite, and it will remain diorite or granite after it cools, then you need to investigate how diorite forms and how basalt forms.

You should also be aware that that Hammurabi's Code (heard of it?) is inscribed on a flat, highly polished, diorite slab.

Harte

[Big Bad Voodoo]

I thought that this was your claim.

I don't think this. I told you how they arrived at the golden rectangle.

Harte

What do you think how Dali and Leonardo got it?

Also what do you think about post 206 and 207?

Is Notre Dame built following golden ratio on purpose?

Edited September 28, 2012 by the L

[Harte]

What do you think how Dali and Leonardo got it?

They both knew of it already, as did anyone that was interested.

Also what do you think about post 206 and 207?

I think that, if someone doesn't know which direction is north at Giza, then their measurements should probably also be suspect.

Is Notre Dame built following golden ratio on purpose?

I don't know enough about that cathedral to say. But it wouldn't surprise me because of what I already mentioned about the persistence of the rectangle through each subdivision, representing immortality.

Harte

[Big Bad Voodoo]

I think that, if someone doesn't know which direction is north at Giza, then their measurements should probably also be suspect.

Those are Chinese pyramids.

Why are we drawn to golden ratio? We like it. We like paintings which got it. We love architecture.

Edited September 28, 2012 by the L

[Hugo Stiglitz]

I Think that the guy who made the corral house in florida used the same process that whoever built the pyramids did.

[cladking]

You're falling prey to the modern attitude that "superstitious" is pejorative and must be taken as a negative label. That might be the modern take, but it is not valid in a proper historical study. All the word means is a belief in the supernatural affecting one's life. That's it. Nothing negative need be drawn from that. If you believe it has to be negative, then by extension you're also denigrating all Catholics and Protestants and Jews and Muslims and Hindus and everyone else who adheres to a doctrine of religious faith.

If you honestly believe the ancient Egyptians did not believe that the supernatural affected and influenced their lives, then you truly don't possess even a basic understanding of ancient Egypt. And you of course could not defend such a statement for even a moment.

I believe it's you falling prey to the modern perspective that anything you want to believe

is as good as anything else. I believe ancient people would find this perspective to be highly

offensive and extremely dangerous. This isn't to say there's anything wrong with being a Christian

or anything else until such time as you drive a bus loaded with kids in front of a train so the little

angels can get to heaven sooner or you burn people at the stake for not agreeing with you. People

are naturally superstoitious and naturally social. We see what we expect to see so our beliefs are

always being confirmed and we seek the company of others. An aware person will see plenty of

evidence that some higher power must be at work so all these things taken together makes relig-

ion quite natural.

But it's still a mild form of superstition. Believing that you talk to your dead uncle Fred every night

or that you can conjure up a potion that makes you invisible is probably going to be a more serious

form of superstition. Believing that superstitions can make you or anyone else stronger is another

serious affliction and type of superstition. Certainly there exists a sort of "placebo effect" in everything

and this can contribute to successful outcomes but only where such outcomes were already really de-

termined. Believing you can make the touchdown dramatically affects the odds relative to believing

it is impossible.

Superstition is always detrimental in the real world though can be determinative of successful out-

comes in spefic instances or for individuals. Some people who might otherwise run amuk might be

productive citizens with a belief or a religion. Some people can't handle the truth and the truth is

we're all stumbling blindly in the dark. If holding onto a crucifix or a book of magic helps you "see"

then who am I to say you're wrong. For all I know God really is a Christian or a Muslim so it's not

my function to steer people away from anything other than superstition and murder.

But the ancients aren't only painted as being highly religious and moribund by such beliefs but they

are also said to have believed in magic, spells, incantations, and potions. They are said to be ignor-

ant of basic math and to have had no assets, infrastructure, tools, or economy that can't be found

in a museum today. In other words they are said to have endless superstitious beliefs, have nothing

but religious artefacts and to be ignorant of basic math. This is rather surprising in light of the fact

they somehow managed to invent the calender and build the Great Pyramid but the facts remain the

same; they were highgly superstitious and quite ignorant. Other than their ability to utilize brute force

to accomplish their goals they were like babes in arms. How they invented agriculture and cities as

babes I don't know.

People today believe we know almost everything there is to know. This is one of the most dangerous

superstitions ever held by the human race. We adulterate our food with all manner of chemical and

biological processes and agents because we know they can't hurt us. We change our enviroment

without ever even considering unintended consequences and don't even have a process to look for

them after the fact. Science has taught us everything but there isn't even a discipline for understand-

ing science. Ofcourse much of this isn't really relevant to the discussion except to the degree that

people don't seek answers any longer after they have been provided. Egyptology tells everyone that

the great pyramids were tombs dragged up ramps by a changeless and superstitious people so most

of us walk away believing the mystery is solved.

It is not solved because one man can't build a pyramid. This is the most absurd widely held supersti-

tion ever on the face of the earth. Bar none. One man can't commission a great pyramid either. In

order to build a great pyramid they had to figure out how. This required at least hundreds of people

over many centuries and many thousands of skilled workers. We can't know how many unskilled

workers because we don't know how they did it. In other words this was a pyramid building society.

It was the society that both built the pyramids and installed the king. But none of this says the people

were superstitious and logically superstition could have been no benefit to the builders. The belief that

they were religious and superstitious is interpretation of very sparse evidence. That the pyramids

were tombs at all is interpretation. The concept that the people never changed is the lynchpin of

Egyptological thought but is inconsistent with the translations of the Pyramid Texts, but more impor-

tantly it is highly illogical to claim something never changed if you have no start point.

Funny thing is, there would be no problem with taking the ancients as being superstitious except for

one thing; they were apparently far less superstitious than we are. We know everything but they couldn't

even say the sun was round for fear of being wrong. We won't hesitate to say it's a sphere because

we know everything. We know it can't be other dimensional or some sort of projection because we

know everything. We know its mass, gravity, composition, temperature and everything else. There

will never be anything new learned that can change everything. It can't be hurtling through space at

the speed of light along with all the galaxies because we would know.

The most dangerous superstition is probably that superstion is OK and the second most dangerous is

the belief that we know everything. I believe that the pyramid builders would cringe at the notion that

superstition is dandy and laugh at the idea they were superstitious. Of course they'd laugh if it weren't

against their "religion" to laugh at such an accusation (which it probably was).

[cladking]

,

Im amazed too what stoneage people can do. But Aztecs and Maya where also stone age people.

Indeed. But it's likely that all the megalithic "projects" were completed using brains rather than brawn.

They all used a motive force.

[cladking]

See, in the world there are two types of postulates: Those you can demonstrate, which are also called facts and those you cannot, which we also call fantasy.

Science works with facts and occasionally tries to fill in the gaps with fantasy and calls that theory. And when there are conflicting theories it accept the one with the least buts and suppositions as most likely because that is how, as a rule, it pans out when the facts to fill the gap are found.

Now, there is another way to work this, instead of with a fact we start wit a supposition and there were we have a lack of fantasy we put in some facts. That is how the fringe works. And if there are conflicting fringe theories the one whose proponent screams loudest or sells most books becomes accepted as "fact".

Science is not always right, but to this day I have yet to find a fringe theory that had the slightest semblance of verosimility. And that is why I rather stay with the demonstrable instead of UFOs, Atlaenteans, Nibblers or farting Osirises.

And a very verbose, but contentless three page essay will not change that.

I could quibble with your terminolgy but I'm in general agreement so won't.

But you are greatly mistaken about a couple things. Your implication that Egyptology is a science

is chief among them. Perhaps the nuts and bolts of Egyptology can legitimately be called science

but the assumptions upon which they are appending the facts are not in the least scientific. It is as

illogical as is possible to say that the Egyptians never changed when the start point is unknown. It

is illogic of the highest order to take the one thing known about the great pyramid builders and define

them by it after pronouncing it gobblety gook. When Petrie proposed a straight ramp to build the

tomb of Khufu this was low level science because the facts of the time were consistent with this and

it was completely logical. It was an assumption but it was assumption based on all the known evi-

dence. Today it is not logical because it doesn't fit any of the evidence since Petrie's time.

There is no science being done because Hawass thought no one who wasn't an Egyptologist could

possibly contribute to what's known about ancient Egypt and since then the country has been in

chaos. We don't know if anything will ever change and whether or not Egyptology can dig its head

out of the 19th century.

You might call the other theories "fringe" but it will be the fringe theories that prove to be closer to

the real truth than orthodoxy.

[+DieChecker]

I believe it's you falling prey to the modern perspective that anything you want to believe is as good as anything else.

This should be always referenced back on Cladking. This indicates he MUST be as wrong as anyone else.

Pot meet Kettle.

Egyptology tells everyone that the great pyramids were tombs dragged up ramps by a changeless and superstitious people so most of us walk away believing the mystery is solved.

And why not, if the preponderance of evidence indicates it is true? Why should a handful of strange artifacts of unknown usage require the toss out of hundreds of years of understanding?

The Orthodox method of pyramid building has shown that it fits all the metrics. The construction method works within the timeframe indicated and was possible using the materials, technology and personnel of the time.

It is not solved because one man can't build a pyramid. This is the most absurd widely held superstition ever on the face of the earth. Bar none. One man can't commission a great pyramid either. In order to build a great pyramid they had to figure out how. This required at least hundreds of people over many centuries and many thousands of skilled workers. We can't know how many unskilled workers because we don't know how they did it. In other words this was a pyramid building society. It was the society that both built the pyramids and installed the king.

Huh? I thought the progression from small tomb pile of stones to mastaba to pyramid was well understood and that the various problems that were discovered during various constructions were also noted... such as building on anything but solid stone, building with mud bricks, building with too high an angle....

The building of the Great Pyramids at Giza was not born from a vacuum.

But none of this says the people were superstitious and logically superstition could have been no benefit to the builders. The belief that they were religious and superstitious is interpretation of very sparse evidence. That the pyramids were tombs at all is interpretation.

Maybe because evidence of every other civilization shows human minds worked the same. Every early civilization also had a very strong reglious quality to it. Point out an early civilization that did not??

The most obvious answer is usually the right one. You are looking for Zebras when the world is shown to be full of Horses.

[+DieChecker]

But you are greatly mistaken about a couple things. Your implication that Egyptology is a science

is chief among them. Perhaps the nuts and bolts of Egyptology can legitimately be called science

but the assumptions upon which they are appending the facts are not in the least scientific.

I thought it was a part of science to fit an idea (Such as the construction method of the Great Pyramids) to the available evidence? Clearly that is what Egyptology does. It fits the evidence into the ideas that fit that evidence best.

That is one of the very cores of Science.

[questionmark]

I could quibble with your terminolgy but I'm in general agreement so won't.

But you are greatly mistaken about a couple things. Your implication that Egyptology is a science

is chief among them. Perhaps the nuts and bolts of Egyptology can legitimately be called science

but the assumptions upon which they are appending the facts are not in the least scientific. It is as

illogical as is possible to say that the Egyptians never changed when the start point is unknown. It

is illogic of the highest order to take the one thing known about the great pyramid builders and define

them by it after pronouncing it gobblety gook. When Petrie proposed a straight ramp to build the

tomb of Khufu this was low level science because the facts of the time were consistent with this and

it was completely logical. It was an assumption but it was assumption based on all the known evi-

dence. Today it is not logical because it doesn't fit any of the evidence since Petrie's time.

There is no science being done because Hawass thought no one who wasn't an Egyptologist could

possibly contribute to what's known about ancient Egypt and since then the country has been in

chaos. We don't know if anything will ever change and whether or not Egyptology can dig its head

out of the 19th century.

You might call the other theories "fringe" but it will be the fringe theories that prove to be closer to

the real truth than orthodoxy.

give me a good example of recent Egyptology (We are not talking 1920 here) that is not "scientific".

[cladking]

give me a good example of recent Egyptology (We are not talking 1920 here) that is not "scientific".

There are countless ways that they are unscientific. Check your calender. This is 2012

and they still haven't done simple testing to see how G1 absorbs or transmits heat.

[questionmark]

There are countless ways that they are unscientific. Check your calender. This is 2012

and they still haven't done simple testing to see how G1 absorbs or transmits heat.

And that would change any Egyptology postulate because of...?

[cladking]

And that would change any Egyptology postulate because of...?

Noone knows until the work is done.

But science is first and foremost about observation. "Observation" doesn't mean you just look

at something at jump to conclusions about how it came about and why it exists. "Observation"

is almost more a state of mind where you try to size up things is accurately as possible and a

part of this means you measure it.

Anyone can jump to conclusions and say something like the earth us flat because a quick glance

says it looks fairly flat but if you want to be able to actually do things like make pyramids you need

actual knowledge and this is only gained through science and observation. Man didn't domesticate

animals, build large cities or go to the moon by jumping to conclusions or not even making basic ob-

servation. Imhotep was "Chief of Observers" but Petrie is dead.

[questionmark]

Noone knows until the work is done.

But science is first and foremost about observation. "Observation" doesn't mean you just look

at something at jump to conclusions about how it came about and why it exists. "Observation"

is almost more a state of mind where you try to size up things is accurately as possible and a

part of this means you measure it.

Anyone can jump to conclusions and say something like the earth us flat because a quick glance

says it looks fairly flat but if you want to be able to actually do things like make pyramids you need

actual knowledge and this is only gained through science and observation. Man didn't domesticate

animals, build large cities or go to the moon by jumping to conclusions or not even making basic ob-

servation. Imhotep was "Chief of Observers" but Petrie is dead.

Well, the fringe has not brought any study about the radioactive decay in mosquito corpses within the great pyramid either, so its 2012 and I still don't get the relevance.

Edited September 29, 2012 by questionmark

[cladking]

Well, the fringe has not brought any study about the radioactive decay in mosquito corpses within the great pyramid either, so its 2012 and I still don't get the relevance.

Really!?!

It's actually pretty simple. Infrared will show the way heat is conducted through the pyramid

which will reveal innner structures and patterns. Science is supposed to investigate anomalies.

It is through the observance of anomalies that most valid hypotheses arise. It is the study of

things that are unknown by which most things are learned. A caveman knew this but modern

people superstitiously believe we already know everything and learning about anomalies or learn-

ing new facts would only confuse us.