Granite is the "prestige stone" for the tomb. We've had endless discussions about how hard it is to cut and shape granite. Did you forget those?
In other words your saying the only reason they used granite was because it was hard to work with and more precious. Thus only for the King and Queens chamber and some shafts.
An you skipped right over the two most important words I wrote on granite: "random orientation". If you fill the trunk of your electric car with fresh, unpackaged AA batteries will it make it go? Why not?
Sorry as we have been talking about two different issues relating to orientation (orientation of stones magnetic moments and the resonating oscillations in crystals in granite I think. Is that correct. Just making sure.
Unpacked AA batteries won't make the electric car go. For one they are unpacked and two they are the wrong batteries,
Don't assume things. That's bad methodology. Plus you are now correlating the piezoelectric properties of crystals in quartz with some other property of the whole pyramid.
Why is that wrong. If research shows some effect for the pyramid itself as far as its location and shape on a global scale. Then shows some potential effects from the specific shape and material of the interior.
Then why not assume there may be more to discover that may support there being some purposely created situation that was creating the effects. It seems a reasonable assumption if your open to that possibility. But not if your not.
Giza was close to the capital of Memphis, on a branch of the Nile, and had convenient access to stone materials.
Thanks for the geography lesson.
I have heard many a scientist say something silly. Sometimes when I am in the room.
Hum, have they ever heard yourself say something silly.
You changed my meaning by leaving out the "almost" before "certainly is not". That is dishonest Steve. There is a reason we use qualifying terms like "almost".
Ok fair enough, and not intentional. I will peg it back to "almost certainly is not". What does that even mean. 30 minutes to midnight or 3 seconds lol. Its still an extreme claim which demands extreme evidence.
What do you say to others including scientists that disagree. Is this a case of how one sees the evidence.
But, to answer you question, there is no evidence that the Egyptians or any pre-modern people had the technologies that you imply.
But is this not exactly what I just mentioned above. Thats its really a case of how one sees the evidence and is open to all possibilities. Rather than restricting things to the orthodoxy or assumed narrative because its the assumed narrative. Your actually doing the same.
Once again what do you say to those who disagree and say there is evidence and then show people and they dismiss it without evidence themselves. What if people disagree that you have shown evidence that they are wrong in the first place. What then. I guess thats when the name calling starts.
The left no records of knowledge of EM waves or anything of the sort. You are dwelling in the Hancock ancient technology cult, whether you realize it or not.
No I am doing my own investigation. If I was a Podcast like Hancock then it would be the most self defeating podcast to exist and won't last long on the air lol. When do you see any podcast supporting an idea only invite skeptics lol.
As for records being left. This is a silly arguement as there is no evidence left for a lot of what the Egyptians done. As far as instructions or reliefs showing how the pyramid was built or the blocks were cut and pounded there is nothing.
But I think there is some evidence if we look. Like the "Dendera light". This is a good example of the orthodoxy which claims its some sort of religious symbol and others who see it as some sort of ancient tech. Theres lots of little hints that point to some sort of experimentation or process going on besides religion or decorations.
it's called "inspiration", Steve. Inspirations need not contain the thing they inspire, lest we think beautiful women contain songs and poems.
Ah this is a good example of the different kinds of knowledge. Inspiration itself is not from a material process. It is something beyond that allows us to be inspired about something. But its more than that. Whatever inspires also comes from something beyond. Otherwise it could not inspire.
Beautiful women and things inspire beautiful songs because of the knowledge and experience of beauty itself. Which cannot be known by material science.
The architects of the pyramids built a large stack of stone in a shape that was pleasing to the eye, grandiose in scale, and stable. (Though their greatest achievements were, as is often the case with grand projects, in logistics, not design.)
Thats one way of looking at it. Mechanical rather than organic or spiritual.
I refer you to
@sjastro 's posts on the limestone blocks. (And we know how to make tight joins with simple tools. It is done all over the world.)
So your saying that they pounded, chiseled and ground ect the shaping and very find joins.
Now I know if I disagree and start going over the signatures which obviously show that something beyond this orthodox method was involved. Rather I think this time I will turn it around and ask for evidence for the orthodox method. Explain the signatures with orthodox methods and the evidence that supports this.
You confuse "not the fantasy sold to you by Hancock acolytes"
I actually have not watched Hancocks stuff apart from a segment. Like I said I am not into aliens or Atlantis ect. Lets say I am equivelant to the average believer in some form of alternative knowledge that may seem advanced. As opposed to Hancock level believers who would be like Creationists or ID fanatics.
So I fall into a very wide ranging group which I would say would be the majority of people. If you count say religious belief and other new age ideas. Or like belief in the soul and afterlife. As though there is something beyond that we can know now but will continue after death.
This is a very common belief and its a matter of how open a person is to something beyond or an alternative way of knowing the world and reality. I mean even science is heading this way.
and not impressive. Quit claiming actual Egyptian accomplishments came from some other source and you won't get the reactions you get.
Quit assuming I am Hancock lol. Quit assuming everything said is Hancock, Hancock, Atlantis, aliens, Hancock, Atlantis ect. You have brought this in more than an conspiracy theorist. Your creating a conspiracy by continually injecting this into what I am saying. I have never mentioned Hancock or Atlantis or any conspiracy.
I don't know what this ramble is about, and I don't feel like scrolling up 6 pages to find out what you were responding to.
I do. You confuse the finger you have pointed at us with the three pointing back at you. It is you "ancient tech" bros who denigrate the capabilities of the ancients by recasting it as "lost technology" from a lost civilization.
I am simply applying the same logic and standards I am being subjected to. It is only fair. Do you think if there were even numbers on each side that this would make a difference.
What if I was on a thread that was the other way around. Where there were several 'believers' lol and one skeptic who thought it was all conspiracy. How would that pan out.
The reality is I think the majority of people would hold a similar belief to myself and be open to such alternative knowledge. So is this microcosom of a thread really a true representation of peoples beliefs. I wonder.
In some ways in the end the thread has really proved the OP. That its not just about science or the evidence. But how you see the evidence. What it represents and how it can be explained in certain terms.
Thats not science itself but philosophy. Epistemics about what counts as knowledge and how it is obtained.
