Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ permalink
The key to the pyramids?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by stompk (U3561604) on Tuesday, 21st March 2006
Could the pyramids have been an anti-matter generator? I have explained my theory at
.
Comment are gladly welcomed. Thanks -
Message 2
Posted by stompk (U3561604) on Tuesday, 21st March 2006
Theoretically, if the pyramid was covered with polished white limestone, and the sun was directly above the pyramid, would the interior become completely absent of light, therefore creating a cavity of anti-light, possibly stopping time?
-
Message 3
Posted by yankee014 (U3352255) on Tuesday, 21st March 2006
You're mad! There's no secret to the pyramids. They are simply tombs and memorials to the pharaohs that built them. They wanted to be remebered forever and to be immortalized as gods so they built as grand a structure as possible. They were meant to inspire awe and fear for the power of the Egyptian kingdom. The pyramids have absolutely nothing to do with anti-matter or anything of the sort. But of course, you are entitled to your opinion.
-
Message 4
Posted by stompk (U3561604) on Tuesday, 21st March 2006
Why all the tombs in the valley of the kings then. Where were their pyramids. I believe the pyramids are older that the Egyptians. They were put there by a race long gone. The Egyptians simply used them as a tomb.
-
Message 5
Posted by yankee014 (U3352255) on Tuesday, 21st March 2006
The pyramids were built in the old kingdom by the pharoahs of Memphis. The Valley of the Kings was the royal burial site of the new kingdom.
-
Message 6
Posted by yankee014 (U3352255) on Tuesday, 21st March 2006
The Egyptian civilization began long before the construction of the first pyramid, over 5,000 years ago.
-
Message 7
Posted by stompk (U3561604) on Wednesday, 22nd March 2006
What made them stop building pyramids the? And why the lack of heiroglyphs? Why the pyramid geometry. And why on the 33 lat 33 long? Why is the Khufu pyramid the only one with indented sides? Your answer just brings up more questions.
-
Message 8
Posted by yankee014 (U3352255) on Wednesday, 22nd March 2006
You can come up with any far-out theory you want, but the fact of the matter is, the pyramids are one of the greatest engineering marvels in history and they were constructed by the Ancient Egyptians. There is plenty of evidence for this.
-
Message 9
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 22nd March 2006
Just some scientific flies in your theory's ointment...
The sun is never directly above the pyramid at the equinox or any other day. The furthest north this can ever happen is on the Tropic of Cancer, which although running through Egypt is many, many, many miles to the south.
Secondly - if you were looking for something really poor to contain sulphuric acid, then granite has to be pretty high on the list. Possibly only beaten by limestone, that other favourite pyramid building material.
Thirdly, the absence of light is simply that. An absence of something, it is not the presence of something else.
And, no, they weren't to generate anti-matter. How do I know? Well, I'll come clean. My mate Steve and I have built a time machine which we keep in his garage. Every other Sunday, we head back to 15,000BC with a JCB digger and have been painstakingly building pyramids as the world's greatest hoax. If you look carefully at the Great Pyramid, you'll notice it has 4 sides - the number of Steve's and my initials. The angle of the slope is 42 degrees - this is about as steep a slope that a JCB digger carrying a large stone can climb before the engine burns out. Why three pyramids in a row at Giza? Simple, 3's my lucky number. Also if you do the magic ratio of sides to height thing you get reasonably close to the number 3.14. Many people think this proves that the Egyptians knew about the number Pi, sadly it's a c*ck up in the original maths - we were aiming for 3 (my lucky number) and got it slightly wrong.
Go on. Prove me wrong. -
Message 10
Posted by stompk (U3561604) on Wednesday, 22nd March 2006
According to my research, the sun does travel directly over the Khufu pyramid. "Battery" building would have been lined with lead. Angle of sides of pyramid is 52 degrees. Pyramids are not in line, they are offset. Reason for this is so that the light reflected of Khufu is not obstructed. The reflected light would be reflected at 38 degrees, which would be bent because of the gravity of the earth, hence travelling around the planet and meeting together above the top of the pyramid, hence the all seeing eye. Next time you travel back, leave something in the kings chamber, so we may know you were there.
-
Message 11
Posted by yankee014 (U3352255) on Wednesday, 22nd March 2006
Battery building? Wtf? Perhaps for your research you should read some books on Egyptology. You may in time find that the Pyramids are not some secret anti-matter producing machine. They are in fact ordinary Egyptian/human structures with no secret intentions.
-
Message 12
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 22nd March 2006
Where are you getting your facts about the sun from? Unless there's a grand conspiracy of geographers in coalition with astronomers then the sun is only ever directly overhead if you're between the tropics of cancer and capricorn, which the Egyptian pyramids aren't. Otherwise it's slightly offset in a southerly direction.
You're right about 52 degrees for the slope, a typing error on my behalf.
Light being bent by the Earth's gravity? Well it is bent in a very, very tiny way, but nowhere near enough to curve round the earth. You can test this yourself. Go and stand somewhere flat and look into the distance. You'll see the horizon. If light was curved by the same curvature as the earth (as it needs to be in your theory), then you'd be able to see over the horizon until things became too small to focus.
The pyramids are as close to being in line as we could manage. Due to the geography of the site we had to move Pyramid Ginger* (or Manakaure's pyramid as the Egyptologists have incorrectly named it)slightly south and also make it smaller than planned. Though I think Steve and I did a good job on pyramids Stripe and Spot*.
*We named them after Steve's cats.
On your point about leaving something: We did leave one of Steve's cats (mummified) in the Great Pyramid, but it must have been moved by someone between then and now. We like to think the Ancient Egyptians found it and that's why they venerated cats. -
Message 13
Posted by stompk (U3561604) on Wednesday, 22nd March 2006
Some of my info comes from
and other sights.
Sorry about your cat.
Yankee. Even the Egyptologists admit that there are unsolved mysteries about the pyramids, and that nobody can agree on the age or the builders of them. But keep your mind closed, if it behooves you. I prefer to think outside the box though, and I keep that right close to my heart. But thanks anyways for you informative and thoughtful posts. -
Message 14
Posted by yankee014 (U3352255) on Wednesday, 22nd March 2006
I think outside the box and keep my sanity at the same time. Although you're theory is interesting, you think so far outside the box that it's ludacris. Sometimes it's necessary to think inside the box when you know you're right. We know the builders of the pyramids were Egytian, and we have the age narrowed down within a few hundred years. I don't know what Egyptology books you're reading, but I'd get some new ones if I were you.
-
Message 15
Posted by fairlace (U2945279) on Wednesday, 22nd March 2006
Where are you getting your facts about the sun from? Unless there's a grand conspiracy of geographers in coalition with astronomers then the sun is only ever directly overhead if you're between the tropics of cancer and capricorn, which the Egyptian pyramids aren't. Otherwise it's slightly offset in a southerly direction.
You're right about 52 degrees for the slope, a typing error on my behalf.
Light being bent by the Earth's gravity? Well it is bent in a very, very tiny way, but nowhere near enough to curve round the earth. You can test this yourself. Go and stand somewhere flat and look into the distance. You'll see the horizon. If light was curved by the same curvature as the earth (as it needs to be in your theory), then you'd be able to see over the horizon until things became too small to focus.
The pyramids are as close to being in line as we could manage. Due to the geography of the site we had to move Pyramid Ginger* (or Manakaure's pyramid as the Egyptologists have incorrectly named it)slightly south and also make it smaller than planned. Though I think Steve and I did a good job on pyramids Stripe and Spot*.
*We named them after Steve's cats.
On your point about leaving something: We did leave one of Steve's cats (mummified) in the Great Pyramid, but it must have been moved by someone between then and now. We like to think the Ancient Egyptians found it and that's why they venerated cats. Β
Having looked at the date and found we are still in March,I had a chuckle. I am glad Steve's cat has been elevated to a position of veneration. Says a lot for Wisca's finest.
But somehow a pyramid called Spot does not quite live up to the cat's status.
Now I am thinking maybe the theories could take over from the tedious Grail 'Templar sagas which keep coming along after the infamous de vinci code. -
Message 16
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Thursday, 23rd March 2006
Having looked at the date and found we are still in March,I had a chuckle. I am glad Steve's cat has been elevated to a position of veneration. Says a lot for Wisca's finest.
But somehow a pyramid called Spot does not quite live up to the cat's status.
Now I am thinking maybe the theories could take over from the tedious Grail 'Templar sagas which keep coming along after the infamous de vinci code.Β
If only I'd thought to wait 9 days before replying.
I love "conspiracy" theories. They're always wildly inventive and clearly beloved by their "discoverers". Since there are so many Egypt ones I thought "why shouldn't I make one up too". I reckon my claim is possible and despite the complete lack of evidence to back it up has just as much validity as many of the things found on the web. And it's just as difficult to disprove.
The Egypt ones are particularly good because the numbers always look so plausible. Though when you look closely, the measurements aren't actually as perfect as made out. the alignments aren't perfect, the pyramid bases aren't proper squares. They are very impressively close for ancient peoples making a monument, but I expect any self-respecting aliens who've mastered space travel to be a bit more accurate. I particularly like the perimeter/half-height ratio claimed as Pi. The ratio is pretty damned close when you work it out using the present day height, but that's with a bit missing (the capstone), when you calculate using the original height, then it's close to 3.12 which, frankly could just as easily be representative of the number os Steve's cats. -
Message 17
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 24th March 2006
First let me clarify that up to now I do not challenge directly and fully the traditional theory that wants Egyptians to have built the pyramids in the old kingdom - around 2500 years. After all we can see that there are pyramids older than Cheops like Khufu who seem to be an intermediate stage, thus there was an evolution of design that lasted for centuries, it makes some sense.
However having read theories that doubt chronologies much more recent (like the famous on the ancient "middle ages" of 1200 - 800 B.C.) then I see it more reasonable to cast doubt about the 2500 dating. Radioactive chronology has been proved to be inherently accurate and is used only as an indication along with other evidence... unfortunately that happened so often that myself as an engineer may say that in the end archaiologists are dating in some cases arbitrarily. In that context I cannot blame those who cast doubt on the chronological position of the great pyramid or other monuments.
You want other examples? Even for later dates like the eruption of Thera that was initially dated around 1500 (Myceneans to have invaded around 1450) have been challenged (Danish geologists from Greenland that found ash possibly related to this volcano that dates around 1660 BC.), then there are others (geologists, who probably do not care at all about archaiology!!!) that move this date by geological measurements between 1850 and 1750!!! The answer of archaiologists to all that? None! They are mostly anxious that any serious change will pressure them review all the... Egyptian chronology and that is a serious task, ehehehe!
I am not here to say that all these large numbers of scientists that studied such subjects are incapable or something. However having one of my best friends within the circle of Egyptologists I am here to inform you how things are going on in the field and how archaiologists are being lost in the trivial details (each item found has to be necessarily of 'ritualistic', 'spiritualistic' 'tomb-istic', 'religious-istic', importance) and lose the whole picture (these were men like you and me), and how "professors" are anxious to impose their "established" views and make those mouths that talk to shut up (after all all those who study egyptology they can only seek a job in... universities isn't it? Otherwise they become at best excellent tourist guides or as usually work for your local Macdonalts thus their possibly 'heretic' views will not be taken seriously (not to mention that they will not have the money to support a long arduous cross-field research. -
Message 18
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 24th March 2006
Now let me say my points:
Far from the issue "when the pyramids were built" the only thing that is near-certain for me is that considerablty progressed civilisations existed but on a local scale well before 5,000 B.C.(i would say some 4-5 millenia at leas). In our mythologies around the world it is so common to read about amazing stuff such as automations, flying objects even robots that it becomes really boring. If archaiologists are here to say to us that these are the imagination of people then that is really not very convincing for me... did not see many people in the middle ages or up to 18th AD century imagine metal robots on wheels listening to orders and doing tasks... well Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔr did and I am not saying that he saw one, but a very long time before him somewhere some society was advanced enough to imagine the feasibility of something like that (even if it had not managed to make it). Accidentally Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔr imagined of other things like ship autopilots...not to mention Alkinoos palace that bares no resemblance even to the high Minoan standards. Really I am bored to go up to native american mythologies or the famous Mahabharata (someone else more educated than me please take the speech here) - just take the example of Atlantis, a myth that clearly speaks about the Caribean and the Americas - so blatantly explicit but then the likes of Marinatos spoke about... Thera and Crete (did not see yet the connection!) and well Marinatos is forgiven since he wrote that in 1939 but then still they speak about such... it is the least ridiculous, as much as UFOlogies!!!
Now back to out key issue: "when pyramids were built".
As an engineer the radioactive chronology of pyramids is of little importance. Initial measurements have shown also dates as back as 10.000 B.C. but then that did not suit archaiologists so they kept those indicating 3,000. Of course archailogists will naturally be based on other elements to approach the most convincing date but then... how? Is comparing chronologies of mobile objects such as entombing ceremonial objects along with the mummies or the curved hieroglyphics convincing? That is to say if today Mubarak (who is a real pharao in Egypt!!! - no offense just kidding) wants to be entombed in a pyramid and some 3000 years after our time future archaiologists find the pyramid and findinside Mubarak in an Armani suit, and know that Armani cloth maker lived in the late 20th early 21th century ... using the very same logic they will date the pyramid around 2000 A.D.!!!! I am not saying that I prove anythign with that... all I am saying is that it is more than natural that if the pyramid was built in 10,000 B.C. it would have been continuously visited - not to mentioned continuously restored inside out (adding subtracting materials whenever possible, writtings on it etc.) that actually most elements will indicate much later dates, not to mention that one fire lit once instantly makes it some 50 years younger in radiochronology tests!!! Make your count of the fires lit in and on the pyramids all those millenia.
In any case I will mostly wait for answers from other fields first (geology, physics etc.) and then compare them to what archaiologists have to say and not follow the usual 'concurrent' way that archaiologists try. -
Message 19
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Friday, 24th March 2006
Nick, get in line, the archaeologists are also waiting with baited breath for what the geologists and physicists have to say.
-
Message 20
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 25th March 2006
Lolbeeble I get in line and to tell you the truth I am in the back rows to watch out how the first will utilise the informations that might be provided.
-
Message 21
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Saturday, 25th March 2006
Hi all
I think we can dismiss the idea that the Pyramids were anti-matter chambers. We wouldnt all be here I guess if they were as the first human to enter them would have destroyed the entire building if not the world..
They appear to have evolved around the same time as the megalithic cultures of Europe. Why people of this time needed to build gargantuan structures is a mystery but it may just be related to the awe,mystery and power to the uneducated masses who viewed them. Much the same as the awe inspiring Roman constructions.
Pyramid building in Egypt died out at the end of the New Kingdom. This is understandable. It takes a huge cultural,organisational and social structure to facilitate the building of such massive places. When the Hyksos destroyed Egypt at the end of the New Kingdom and ruled for centuries, ignoring the old structures and allowing sand coverage and decay, eventually the knowledge of how to build them on such a scale would have died out in Egypt.
When the Egyptians regained control of their country the knowledge was no longer there. They did learn to build on a massive scale again probably with help from other peoples but the importance and meaning of why a Pyramid was needed was lost and so never repeated. We dont even know today what this meaning and importance was beyond the obvious tomb theory.
Pyramids did however continue to be built further south in Nubia (there are more Pyramids there than in Egypt)but on a much smaller scale and indeed the last one was built aound the 4th C AD. It is more than likely that fleeing Middle Kingdom Egyptian refugees would have ended up in Nubia and so influenced the practice there. These were indeed tombs(although the burial was underneath, not in the Pyramid). This does not mean though that the original concept may have been just a tomb only that it later became associated with burial. -
Message 22
Posted by stompk (U3561604) on Saturday, 25th March 2006
In the bible, when Moses cast down the staff and it turns into a snake, the Pharoh casts his down and it turns into a staff too. This tells me that the Egyptians possessed some form of what we would consider supernatural powers. If you review some of the pictograms, there are some fascinating examples that give plausability to my theory. And clay pots with electolytes have been found in the pyramids. But I don't believe the Egyptian has the knowledge of the Atlantians. And that is who I feel built the pyramids. The set-up inside the pyramid that Ray Brown describes using a spherical crystal on a stand is depicted exactly on at least one of the Egyptian columns. Although I can remember exactly where I saw it. I believe the Egyptian found the set up, but maybe didn't understand the full use. So they would have wanted to bury the King in it because it was a mystery to them too. But I do believe the Egyptian knew how to harness electricity, hence the sine wave in nearly all heiroglyphics. Some think this symbol stands for water, but I dis-agree. And they figured out solar energy. There is an interesting heiroglyph in the Kings chamber of Khufu. It's to the left of the cartouche of his name. It's a triangle with two lines projected from it to a vanishing point. I believe this is a picture of the solar theory. Anyways, thanks Nik for your insightful input.
-
Message 23
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Saturday, 25th March 2006
stevenksvensson
So - do u think we should stick with 4-4-2 in the world cup using beckham on the right, cole on the left and Lampard and gerrard as a fluid middle 2 OR should Carrick be the holding midfielder with Gerrard OR lampard as the point of a diamond formation ?? -
Message 24
Posted by yankee014 (U3352255) on Saturday, 25th March 2006
Dude, whatever you're smoking, I want some.
-
Message 25
Posted by yankee014 (U3352255) on Saturday, 25th March 2006
And what does soccer have to do with the bloody pyramids?
-
Message 26
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Saturday, 25th March 2006
hi yankee014
And what does soccer have to do with the bloody pyramids?Β
from what i have been reading about anti space matter and white ceramic tiles - quite a lot -
Message 27
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Saturday, 25th March 2006
yankee014
and dont u even dare to pretend you are taking all this seriously -
Message 28
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Monday, 27th March 2006
In the bible, when Moses cast down the staff and it turns into a snake, the Pharoh casts his down and it turns into a staff too. This tells me that the Egyptians possessed some form of what we would consider supernatural powers. If you review some of the pictograms, there are some fascinating examples that give plausability to my theory. And clay pots with electolytes have been found in the pyramids. But I don't believe the Egyptian has the knowledge of the Atlantians. And that is who I feel built the pyramids. The set-up inside the pyramid that Ray Brown describes using a spherical crystal on a stand is depicted exactly on at least one of the Egyptian columns. Although I can remember exactly where I saw it. I believe the Egyptian found the set up, but maybe didn't understand the full use. So they would have wanted to bury the King in it because it was a mystery to them too. But I do believe the Egyptian knew how to harness electricity, hence the sine wave in nearly all heiroglyphics. Some think this symbol stands for water, but I dis-agree. And they figured out solar energy. There is an interesting heiroglyph in the Kings chamber of Khufu. It's to the left of the cartouche of his name. It's a triangle with two lines projected from it to a vanishing point. I believe this is a picture of the solar theory. Anyways, thanks Nik for your insightful input.Β
The Bible story about Moses tells me that he wrote down a ripping yarn. Why should it be considered evidence of anything? The Aztecs have plenty of stories about the world ending if the gods weren't fed enough human hearts, does that make it so? It has been written that the world is flat and carried on the back of four elephants standing on the back of a giant turtle. Is this also so? I've seen heiroglyphs that
Do you have a source for the claims about clay pots and electrolysis for ancient Egypt? I thought such things had been found in Mesopotamia, so I'd be interested to see how far spread they were. But to link these with the water heiroglyph is odd. Batteries produce direct current - only alternating current produces a sine wave as the induction into the circuit builds up to a maximum and reduces and reverses over time. In a battery the electrons flow one way only (determined by the potential of the electrode materials).
I don't understand why you so glibbly dismiss the likelihood that the wave heiroglyph symbolizes water. Egyptian civilization was built almost entirely on the regular flooding of the river Nile. Water was of utmost importance to these people. If the sine wave reflects electricity, and not water, then where is the water heiroglyph? This is a fundamental question. Are you really suggesting that a culture which literally lived and died by water wouldn't have a heiroglyph to represent it? -
Message 29
Posted by stompk (U3561604) on Monday, 27th March 2006
As a master electrician, I fully understand the sine wave. The form of the sine wave is created by the generator that produce it. The wave of the Egyptian's is more like a frequency, like those produce by light. The energy they captured, I believe, was produced by light, therefore there devices were different. There is so much in Egyptian writing that hasn't even come close to being interpreted. If we always blindly accept what has been written, and don't continue to question interpretation of the mysteries of earth, then what do we do. Simply go to work and pay taxes. Boring and uninspiring. There are several pictures with boats on water, and the water is obviously drawn with vertical "squiggles". A pond or lake seems to be the same, except bordered in a rectangle. And the symbol of Djed? You can't tell me this doesn't look like some form of transformer with cooling fins. And then there is the symbol of the triangle with and smaller triangle inside. This looks like a fire (pyr) inside (amid) a triangular structure (pyramid) to me. As for the story of Moses, believe what you want. Is there truth to it? Only if you believe. But there is another forum for religious debate. I started this thread to get educated input to what I think is a fascinating mystery. Why would the Egyptians go through so much trouble to align the pyramids true north and build them with such interesting tolerances and geometry just for a place to bury their dead? What did they know about death that we don't? These are the questions that drove me to look at them from a "different" point of view.
-
Message 30
Posted by stompk (U3561604) on Monday, 27th March 2006
As for the clay pots, this is a quote I found.
"In 1970s, German Egyptologist, Arne Eggebrecht built a replica of the Baghdad battery and filled it with freshly pressed grape juice, as he speculated the ancients might have done. The replica generated 0.87V. He used current from the battery to electroplate a silver statuette with gold. This experiment proved that electric batteries were used some 1,800 years before their modern invention by Alessandro Volta in 1799. It also seems that the use of similar batteries can be safely placed into ancient Egypt, where several objects with traces of electroplated precious metals have been found at different locations. There are several anomalous finds from other regions, which suggests use of electricity on a grander scale." -
Message 31
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Monday, 27th March 2006
Dunno Nick, you're fairly knowledgeable on the resistivity of varoius materials and such like, have you considered volunterring your own expertise?
-
Message 32
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Monday, 27th March 2006
As for the clay pots, this is a quote I found.
"In 1970s, German Egyptologist, Arne Eggebrecht built a replica of the Baghdad battery and filled it with freshly pressed grape juice, as he speculated the ancients might have done. The replica generated 0.87V. He used current from the battery to electroplate a silver statuette with gold. This experiment proved that electric batteries were used some 1,800 years before their modern invention by Alessandro Volta in 1799. It also seems that the use of similar batteries can be safely placed into ancient Egypt, where several objects with traces of electroplated precious metals have been found at different locations. There are several anomalous finds from other regions, which suggests use of electricity on a grander scale." Β
0.87 Volts, well I'm impressed. How many amps generated?
How long did it take this Eggebrecht to electroplate a silver stauette with gold and why did he think this may have impressed the ancient Egyptians? What solution of gold salts did he use to electroplate this staue and what evidence does he have that the Egyptians knew of these gold salts?
Are you sure these "objects with traces of electroplated precious metals have been found at different locations" are genuine finds?
I'm merely asking instead of going to work and paying my taxes.
Cheers AA. -
Message 33
Posted by AthenaB (U3616404) on Monday, 27th March 2006
I must say I had quite a chuckle at your initial suggestion of the pyramids having a function related to anti-matter..
Although no one can be sure, I like to think that most (if not all) religious texts have some element of truth in them. However, the example of Moses throwing down his stick, and it morphing into a snake is perhaps an example of a magic trick, rather than true science. There are similar magic tricks for producing live goldfish at the end of a fishing rod... and Egyptian cobras are rumoured to stiffen in a rod-like fashion when pressure is applied behind the head.
As for the pyramids being anything significantly greater than tombs, I would be doubtful, although the imaginitive part of me wishes otherwise (hey, I watch Stargate!). For example, re: your anti-matter suggestion, there would have to be a barrier/boundary between harnessed anti-matter and your normal 'matter'--no telling how this could be done, but I am certain that granite, limestone, or lead for that matter would suffice. And as mentioned previously, the lack of light does not equate to anti-matter or the lack of matter (consider an unlit sauna--the lights are off but the room is still filled with steam).
There are many other flaws (physics-related, that is) that I spot in your theories, and I wonder if you have ever studies physics? Not to say that there isn't a lot we humans still have to learn about the universe, but the existing knowledge is pretty sound and I think you would find that while your theories are interesting, they are not sound...
Best wishes,
AB -
Message 34
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Monday, 27th March 2006
As a master electrician, I fully understand the sine wave. The form of the sine wave is created by the generator that produce it. The wave of the Egyptian's is more like a frequency, like those produce by light. The energy they captured, I believe, was produced by light, therefore there devices were different.Β
Well, yes and no, unless you are claiming that the Egyptians stored this energy in the form of a battery, then I'm afraid my understanding of modern physics is much different to yours. There is so much in Egyptian writing that hasn't even come close to being interpreted. If we always blindly accept what has been written, and don't continue to question interpretation of the mysteries of earth, then what do we do. Simply go to work and pay taxes. Boring and uninspiring.Β
Okay, I think this is the first thing you've said I can agree with. There are several pictures with boats on water, and the water is obviously drawn with vertical "squiggles". A pond or lake seems to be the same, except bordered in a rectangle. And the symbol of Djed? You can't tell me this doesn't look like some form of transformer with cooling fins. And then there is the symbol of the triangle with and smaller triangle inside. This looks like a fire (pyr) inside (amid) a triangular structure (pyramid) to me. Β
And the pictures of animals I've seen in the caves of the Dordogne look like huge tentacled green monsters to me (although I was hungover and suffering from food poisoning at the time, so may not have been at my best. So, doesn't this mean by your logic that the earth was at some point visited by the Great Green Tentacles? As for the story of Moses, believe what you want. Is there truth to it? Only if you believe. But there is another forum for religious debate.Β
Yes there is (2nd thing I agree with you on). I started this thread to get educated input to what I think is a fascinating mystery. Why would the Egyptians go through so much trouble to align the pyramids true north and build them with such interesting tolerances and geometry just for a place to bury their dead? What did they know about death that we don't? These are the questions that drove me to look at them from a "different" point of view.Β
I think they knew exactly about as much about death as we do. Nothing until you've experienced it personally.
Cheers AA.
Aplogies, I know nothing much about the egyptians, but a bit of physics and a bit of interpreting historical sources. -
Message 35
Posted by yankee014 (U3352255) on Monday, 27th March 2006
If you knew how the Egytians reveared their pharoahs, you would understand why they would go to such great lengths to bury them. In Egypt, pharoahs were considered living gods. The tomb had to match the greatness of the pharoah. Pharoahs tried to out-do each other by making larger and more extravagent tombs for themselves. They wanted their names to last through the ages, and what better way than to build a pyramid.
-
Message 36
Posted by maraudingsaxon (U3567176) on Tuesday, 28th March 2006
Wow!!! I didn't know the pyramids could be such a hot topic or generate such a widely diverse range of views.
Pyramids were not a new feature when they first were built in the old kingdom period. They were an evolution of structures already in exsitence before 3000BC. Egyptian kings before 3000BC were building smaller single level multiple chambered tombs. (I wish I had the reference book at work.) Egyptian king lists start at around 3000BC. There is growing evidence to show there were at least one previous royal dynasty before 3000BC.
One of the reasons for the alignment of the pyramid with the stars is that the egyptians believed star groups represented their gods like Osiris.
Also pyramids are influenced by an earlier civilisation Mesopotamia. They built ziggurats(multi-layered temples)at least one thousand years before the first pyramid was built.
I think we can't believe a civilisation five thousand years ago could come up with buildings which so are incredibly advanced given their lack of machinery and tools. We have to atribute the pyramids to outside influences. Its almost to much to believe people living in huts could come up with them. -
Message 37
Posted by yankee014 (U3352255) on Tuesday, 28th March 2006
You are 100% correct. In fact, the Egyptian's earliest tomb structures were called mastabas. They were only 1 level high. Many Egyptologists beleive this is how Imhotep got his idea for the step pyramid. He simply stacked several mastabas on top of one another.
-
Message 38
Posted by stompk (U3561604) on Friday, 31st March 2006
Some of my theory would hinge on the capstone. I haven't been able to find concrete evidence as to what it was made of. I've heard it might have been covered with electrum (silver/gold mix). Another theory would suggest a crystal. Does anybody know of any evidence of a hole extending from the top of the pyramid down to the kings chamber?
-
Message 39
Posted by yankee014 (U3352255) on Friday, 31st March 2006
There isn't any evidence suggesting that a hole exists from the top of the pyramid to the king's chamber. The pyramids appear to be farely solid most of the way through.
-
Message 40
Posted by snazzyangel (U3243081) on Friday, 31st March 2006
Every one has their own idea of a memorial. And every generation builds a different kind of one.
The lack of heiroglyphs could be because they have advanced over the years. And actually started to keep better records of what happened during the past. Making history better to understand.
Think of what others could learn about us because wee have the media and computers and how we write down our history. -
Message 41
Posted by stompk (U3561604) on Sunday, 2nd April 2006
Were the Egyptian pharohs that arrogant, building a mountain of a temple for their burial? Was Khufu's ego that big? I find it hard to believe that a people would follow a man so into himself that he would have his people building his burial site, the size of a mountain, using up valuable resources, simply for one man. And then don't build any statues of Khufu anywhere near his burial place. I think we need to rethink current accepted "theories" about the pyramids. I just doesn't fit. What do you think?
-
Message 42
Posted by yankee014 (U3352255) on Sunday, 2nd April 2006
You have to understand the significance of the title pharoah. The Egyptians thought of the pharoah as a living god. If the christian god came to you in human form and wanted you to build a pyramid for him would you do it? You have to look at it from the Egytians point of view. And pharoahs did have large egoes. Take Rameses the Great for example. He put images of himself all over Egypt and erected structures of enormous scale. It's not hard to understand why Khufu, Kefren, Djoser, and others would want their greatness to be represented by a monument as great and glorious as a pyramid.
-
Message 43
Posted by stompk (U3561604) on Sunday, 2nd April 2006
Khefre has a wall on the north and west side. From all the satellite pics, the point of the shadow follow the wall. Any thought on this. And there is also an incremental looking wall further to the west side. Is there a sun-dial type of tie there?
-
Message 44
Posted by thegoodbadugly (U2942713) on Wednesday, 5th April 2006
rameses built a great underground chamber if you can call it that,the reason why wasto bury his sons,nothing anti matter about it,all the rest of the pyramids were built for the same reason to bury the pharoe,saying what you have said is like saying that the first and second emperor of china built their tombs as giant microwave ovens,more nonsense about the pyramids,i was also told by a man that the pyramids were landing zones for spaceships,also nonsense,the sooner the better they find the tomb of imopeth the tomb builder the better.
ps i also have to aggree with the poster who said you were a loon and your wife was right to throw out bill for filling your head with nonsense. -
Message 45
Posted by yankee014 (U3352255) on Wednesday, 5th April 2006
That basically says it all.
-
Message 46
Posted by Tydehotep (U3701136) on Thursday, 6th April 2006
The pyramids were a phaze or "fashion" if you like in the ancient egyptian world. The pyramids were built in the Old kingdom which was followed by the first intermediate period, a time where choas ruled in egypt. Afterwards, in the middle kingdom, new fashions of tombs in saqqara and Heliopolis came about. If you were to read your history, you will find that pyramids were being built even at the end of the dynastic period, of course they are not so well known as Khufu's and Khafre's because that are no where as large or great. So in answer to your question, pyramids went out of fashion. Just like 19th century style terrace houses have gone out of fashion and are rarelky built these days.
-
Message 47
Posted by Justin (U1929626) on Friday, 7th April 2006
I think we can't believe a civilisation five thousand years ago could come up with buildings which so are incredibly advanced given their lack of machinery and tools. We have to atribute the pyramids to outside influences. Its almost to much to believe people living in huts could come up with them.Β
Why ever not? As humans became sedentary several thousand years prior to the commencement of pyramid building, and that ziggurats were in evidence a millennia before the Egyptian monumental architecture, I don't regard it as at all impossible. With up to 6-millennia of prior experience in city building (that's three time's as long as Chrsitian civilisation), starting with mudbrick homes, followed by prestige burial sites, temples, city walls and finally monuments of pyramid scale, it is hardly inconceivable that the people of the near neolithic and ancient prehistory would have developed the necessary skills. I suppose, however, it is esier to believe that it was the influence of "Stargate-esque" aliens that was responsible???!?!
As for the pyramids being antimatter generators..... I'm quite flabberghasted. What anti-matter source was being mutually annihilated with what-other antimatter source. How did a structure such as the pyramid - made of pretty ordinary materials - contain the forces involved? A lining of soft lead (for which, incidentally there is no evidence) would hardly be sufficient to contain the reaction, would it? How was this power tapped and distributed? Where is the evidence of this power use elsewhere other than the pyramids? Without the ability to distribute they would surely just be large and very useless storage devices. How was the AM/M reaction maintained? Who maintained it? These are not questions requiring specific answers (please, I don't want to know) - they are matters of logic; i.e. the logical conclusion to them proves the immposibility of the notional theory.
Next you'll be telling us that the ziggurat's of Mesopotamia and the Temples of the Aztecs were in fact fusion reactors, which beamed energy back to motherships in orbit or some such tomfoolery. I can but wonder in dread what the explanation for Stonehenge is. -
Message 48
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 8th April 2006
Steve, I am not the one to start blaming you for coming up with these strange theories which are more or less Dainekenian (you should know who is Daineken!). And you know why? I have very often seen "official views of history" being so ridiculous and some wannabe official historians expressing such naive views or most often politically oriented ones so in the end Daineken - who only raised questions and logical ones and who never claimed to be authority unlike others - was the best of all!
Now, see it like that: a pyramid is a primitive type of building. Why? As simply as that: it is the most easy shape to built when you want to built a building of large height. And it is easy because it is very solid and stable and can withstand earthquakes and other catastrophies much more easily than a tall building with vertical walls. That is why it is a shape that was chosen by most ancient civilisations that wanted to make tall buildings. When later architecture advanced they went on for other shapes... Greeks had achieved the optimum, a type of building (the ancient temples) that was very competent against earthquakes - it is not accidental that most if not all Greek temples were destroyed by raids and vandalism (taking first the lead out of the marbles then breaking the marbles to be used elsewhere so in the next earthquake the rest was falling apart).
Now if Egyptian Pharaos wanted "fame after death" (and that was indeed strong in Egypt of those times) they would certainly go for a pyramidal shape that could withstand more than other shapes. Same thing tried to do the Indians in America. Starting from different continents and facing similar problems they ended up with similar solutions. It makes sense. Pyramids can be found anywhere in the world: small ones of unknown dates exist in Greece also, they existed in medieval France (along with the menirs), recently they found underwater ones in Japan etc.
I personally believe that progressed civilisations existed a bit before 10,000. But I would not go that far and proclaim that pyramids were anti-matter chambers. Oh no, not because I think like others, that "if we are not able yet to do that they should certainly not be able to do back then". Despite our overall amazing progress of the last 1000 years, I am pretty much sure that ancient cultures knew certain things we have yet not thought of! But I would not go out claiming that pyramids were anti-matter chambers.
However if you claim that pyramids were built for other reasons than for being tombs I could find your reasoning reasonable! Why, after all history is full of paradigms where magnificent buildings were later used for vastly different reasons. A nice example is the Horologion in Athens. Built during Roman times in the honour of Ktisias (if I am not wrong) the Alexandrian mechanic who designed it, it was a beautiful building with a complex hydraulic mechanism for very precise time measuring and had as well as a planetarium and such things. Quite a marvellous buildings that the Theodosian christians went down "from their caves" and destroyed its interior and later turned it in a church. Thus a 6th century AD christian would have known the building as a church. Fortunately we have writtings and descriptions of what was the Horologion before it becoming a church.
There is none to assure us 100% that the pyramid of Cheops was certainly built for that reason and only for that. Especially when there were rampant rumours in ancient Egypt that the pyramids were built by the kings before the cataclysm. Of course we are not to believe necessarily that - for example in Greece the walls of Tyrinth (built using huge stones) were described as the work of Titans later in antiquity.
I would advice you for the time being to stay to the even if it is not correct and look (read if you are reader, search if you are a researcher) for more evidence that would tear down the existing theories. To give you some hints, there are nowadays increasing the voices even within 'offical archaiologists/historians' that we have somehow misunderstood Egypt and who were really Egyptians and what they really did. -
Message 49
Posted by stompk (U3561604) on Sunday, 9th April 2006
Just a little inside info. The pyramids where built by God. He has had people build them all over the world, including Atlantis, which fell off into the ocean. The pyramids are a mystery for man to solve.
The granite blocks are put into place using granite ball bearings, so that the blocks can be moved on lateral axis, by people on each side. Once they are close, a grove is cut to guide the block into place. The pyramid shape had preservation power. That is why the Kings where put in them. That's all the inside info I have.
I'd have to Google Daineken to research who that is. -
Message 50
Posted by stompk (U3561604) on Sunday, 9th April 2006
Thank you for the excellent posts by the way.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.