> Fundamentally how does an idea get from an
> imagination to physical reality.
The way it happens for you might not be the same as the way it happens for me, animals, or ancient Egyptians.
> Did you look at the drawings. can you see a
I see several patterns. This is what the human mind does is seek patterns. I can't say with certainty which, if any, are relevant.
> What simple rules?
I've listed five or six already and plan to shelve analysis for the nonce.
> Is that a fact.
I believe it is or wouldn't have said so.
> How can they be neither regular nor random.?
Nothing is truly regular nor random. Something can be neither. Backgammon is a game of luck but some experienced players can win much more often just by adapting their play to suit their dice. All of nature is always unfolding in ways that are neither random nor regular. If they seem regular then it is following a cycle or series of cycles and if it appears random is following an even such number of cycles. But nothing in nature can persist or is applicable on the small scale. It can not repeat indefinitely. Everything follows the forces which act upon it. Everything is determined by the nature of these forces. If the force is a simple set of rules about how to cut stone and stack it the result will reflect these rules as surely as the stone in the ground obeys a different set of rules.
> Not sure what you mean. All the complex stone
> faces inter fit perfectly.
That every plane meets another plane is simply indicative of one of the rules. It could be expressed as simply as "all surfaces are flat and leave no void" in modern language.
> Then who's intention was it? What would you like
> to call the designer? How about Eric?
The exact shape was nobody's intention.
> I'm not sure how you know what the purpose was.
I don't know with certainty.
What I "know" is the ancients didn't have enough science or knowledge to have such a complex design be required for a specific function. It follows it's not "designed" at all and required no blueprint.
> However.. So for that purpose he created a design
> that would fulfil his intended design function.
> He designed it.
I don't want to get into semantics. I'm merely suggesting that when he set the rules for building this he had no more idea of the finished product than the masons had. He merely had an idea about its characteristics and how to achieve them.
> Good Lord! That had never occurred to me. I'll get
> right onto it just as soon as I've finished all
> the drawings and I know for sure exactly what I'm
> looking at.
A highly complex function is extremely unlikely. There are very very few possibilities using stone as the medium. Stone doesn't do much except be heavy and sit where you leave it.
> Good luck with that. Stay away from complex
No need to warn me. I know my limitations.
Give me a shovel and I'm a good man on any project.
> It can in visual language, A blueprint. A drawing.
> That's why we have drawings. Drawings are good.
> Speak a thousand words an' all.
A picture is worth a thousand words but a blueprint can only answer specific questions that are relevant to that drawing. ...And not all of them. That's forty or fifty words tops though it can answer multiple questions from many enquirers.
The way I do the math the picture wins since if we had even one picture of atum or pyramid building we wouldn't need to ask all these stupid questions and hash this all out in a million different ways. A blueprint of the pyramid might or might not answer our questions.
> Sounds like a drawing to me . It can be passed
> around among a group of individuals each receiving
> the same input. Individual interpretation and
> memory is another matter. Always refer back to the
> drawing, drawings don't forget things.
I don't dispute drawings are required for modern building. But an electrician or steelworker doesn't need to refer to the blueprint when he already knows what the architect wanted.
> You can only take available routes, and if there's
> only one route you have to take it.
> Try taking many routes on a high tightrope.
> Without a safety net.
There's always the ladder you climbed up on. You can whip out your phone and call 911. If you can get the other end of the rope off you can climb down on it. ...Yell for a ladder. ...Make a belaying loop out of your clothes and shinny across. ...You can teach yourself to walk a tightrope. ...hang hand over hand. ...Hang your knees over and shimmy.
There's never a single route unless you're a lemming headed for the cliffs.
> What makes you assign the function of earthquake
Principally because these are concepts ancient science would have no problem with. They could understand it in terms of observational science and this appears to be its primary characteristic. It looks like a duck...
> Showing the stones in a blueprint will allow us to
> better understand the stones. Hard evidence
> doesn't get harder than a stone.
> Primary source.. Shaped Stone Insitu Blocks..
Let's not forget we can only see those stones that intersect the passage. This is like trying to deduce three dimensional shapes and the rules that caused them by a one dimensional observation. Those "key stones" carry a great deal of weight in my mind. They must have been... ...well... ...key.
To me this simply suggests tuning.
The thing is I can't know anything without data and Egyptology can't be bothered to accumulate data. They do it the old fashioned way like in the dark ages; just assume.
> The real question at this time is what was the
> nature of the concept communication device. AKA
> You say it was an ancient language, can't disagree
> with that, however the necessary minimum
> information contained within the communication,
> drawing or otherwise is anything but simple.
> Very, very complex. Not intuitive. Not whimsical.
> Not serendipity.
> Try the cheese experiment.
> First block's easy, you can be as free thinking
> and artistic as you like. World's your oyster.
> Now make a neighbouring block, following your
> simple rules, that abuts precisely with the first
> block on all planar and non planar faces providing
> a virtually seamless joint within the AP.
> When you've cracked that exercise we can move onto
> fifty ton blocks of limestone.
> My education and interest is in art and
> engineering. (Making Stuff). Some even say I'm an
> expert in making stuff.
> My expertise and interest is in making stuff.
I have no doubt at all you're good at what you do.
Me? I don't do much but I can hold all my knowledge at once like an ancient. It doesn't make me right by any means but it gives me a unique perspective. I had this unique perspective even before I discovered the ancient science that is eerily similar to my own science. Calling my perspective "unique" is very much an understatement now days.