> First of all you have to show the data on this
> analysis you performed and how you performed it.
> Look below. There is an instance of "Shu" in PT40.
> Mercer did not translate it as such. Would this
> fall though your sieve for example?.
Yes. In most instances it would and it did here. Unless any translator other than Allen shows it I'll probably miss it. I haven't read your post about "semza-shu" yet so I may have more comment.
> How do you
> establish what to expect from such an analysis.
Zipf's Law has specific demands but I also would expect common sense. For instance a language that didn't include colors would suggest its users didn't experience "color".
> you look for words of "superstition" as you call
> them in the Bible or Koran to see if you find them
Good catch! Yes, I have and they are severely underrepresented in the Bible. But they do exist.
> It is not apparent that the language is so
> different. There are features which connect it
> with other languages. All of these statements you
> are making are either wrong or questionable. Have
> you ever published your Zipf Law application to
> the Pyramid Texts?
There's nothing to publish. It is merely observation that the words in the PT repeat over and over so very few different words are used and those that are do not occur logarithmically.
> There was a word for ramp, I showed it to you.
I know there was a word. It is not attested (or the least wasn't attested until "Rosteau" was retranslated)and it is this lack of attestation which is problematical to Egyptological assumptions.
> There are remnants of ramps at Giza today. I gave
> you photos.
And I showed you exactly how they were used. Remember all the "ramps" found either point away from the pyramids, point at the base, or are too flimsy for safely hauling stone. Most are mere walkways.
Near the center of this photo is the "ramp" you photographed. It was used by the eastern cliff face counterweight to pull stones from the Sphinx Quarry.
None of the pictures or ruins of "ramps" can account for the existence of the pyramids and the lack of evidence they were used to build them.
> What you call illogical is based on
> your personal ideas. Why would it be illogical to
> describe the Gods as animals when you can look up
> at the sky and see shapes which remind you of
> them? For a good review of this check Belmonte,
> Antonio Juan with Jose Lull in In Search of Cosmic
> Order, chapter 6 2009.
Yes, In every real way it is based on my personal "ideas". But I'm saying the ancients had no "ideas" of the type you mean. They had no models of reality. I can model their reality and from that perspective such beliefs as are always described are illogical. When your existence is based on the same logic as mathematics you simply have no business and no language to invent beliefs.
Logically if you had one tribe that operated on science and another that operated on belief we could expect only one to survive. By the same token of what use are abstraction and belief to animals?
We are assuming ancient people were just like us despite the fact their language was so different.
> They are the annual records of the
> kings of Egypt and each entry highlights something
> the king did and the height of the Nile in that
The numbers are far too variable and low to reflect flood heights. I believe the numbers represent the amount of water that arose in the 45 acre Saqqara Enclosure. Each year they'd get between 10 and a few hundred acre feet of water which they used to build and for canning, human consumption, industrial processes, and irrigation.
> For example, you should run a Zipf scan on
> all the words in the annals and see if you get the
> same pattern as in the Pyramid Texts. That way you
> get a sense of the internal variation between the
The words from other sources closely mirror those in the PT and "few" new words appear.
> There is a ramp in the quarry next to the Great
> Pyramid. Ramps were used. What you are questioning
> is if ramps were used to build the pyramid and I
> still think that for at least the first few levels
> a ramp could have been used for the larger blocks
> in the lower courses.
I don't doubt "ramps" were used. Almost every inch of lift for every stone was on a "ramp".
I can't say that though because everyone already knows "they mustta used ramps". Everybody knows teams of stinky footed bumpkins strapped on a stone and ambled up ramps. No!
Stones were pulled on sloped surfaces by counterweights. They were pulled straight up the sides of the pyramids from the tops of the steps. No team of men ever dragged a single stone to make a great pyramid.
> Later, when the courses thin
> out (see Petrie Plate), other methods could have
> been used, including the machines Herodotus wrote
This is highly improbable because it's not supported by any evidence and because almost all of the evidence counters it.
> But neither have ramps up to
> a certain level. Again, there is physical proof
> that ramps were used to haul stone in Old Kingdom
I can't prove there weren't any ramps anywhere. All I can do is show where the evidence leads and that this evidence excludes ramps. The evidence is quite thin because Egyptologists who control Giza refuse to use modern science to gather more data that would show EXACTLY how they were built.
Perhaps there were ramps up to the 10th or 12th level and men dragged stones up them. This is hardly impossible and such a ramp would be so shallow that it wouldn't even be highly inefficient. But let me ask you this; If they used a better means of lifting the stones at the top that each required stupendous effort then why wouldn't they do this at the base as well? You can't solve how the pyramids were built with the current level of knowledge without looking at all of the evidence. You can't solve how they were built speculating about how any given part was built.
> Were they also used, at least to some
> extent, to build the pyramids? That's the
I have no doubt that ramps existed in ancient Egypt and men dragged things up them. I seriously doubt there is any proof that this was true however. Egyptologists see ramps everywhere even where they are contraindicated.
> That isn't proof such a phenomenon was part of a
> stone-lifting method. For starters: What about
> Bent and Red Pyramids. Are there remnants of such
> geysers there? Meydum? I know I am not the first
> to ask you this.
I would assume every great pyramid had a CO2 geyser.
Indeed, I would speculate that virtually all the megalithic projects involved the use of water and the massive one involves pressurized water that was harnessed to do the work. There are several ways that water can have a positive pressure at ground level.
> I am still waiting for you to demonstrate how you
> get from the original text via German and English
> to that interpretation using your chosen context.
> Let's not even focus on what you don't think the
> Pyramid Texts are. HOw are they what you are
> saying. This is what this is all about. My purpose
> isn't to persuade you to abandon your theory at
> all. I have said this several times. My purpose is
> for you to formulate your theory in a way someone
> else besides you can follow and come to the same
> interpretation as you without you coaching them.
> If you can do that, Mission Accomplished. We can
> all move on and you will have a better theory to
> present. Isn't that in your own interest?
I am saying that the fact the PT are logically consistent, coherent, and consistent with the laws of nature when taken literally is an artefact of their nature. It is an artefact of ancient science and the natural logic of reality and the ancient brain.