> Both equally valid and at the same time invalid.
> Both lacking in foundation.
You're extremely sharp and analytical so I fully understand why you say this. My method of solving word meanings by context seems opaque to those who need things quantified and the variables known.
But to me who thinks in terms of probabilities and experience there can be no sounder methodology. Simply stated no word in modern language has any meaning at all except what it means to the speaker. This meaning can only be deduced by how the speaker uses it in context. Each time the word is used more definitional and connotative properties become associated with it until the sum total of these properties emerges as the meaning. Since each word has multiple meanings it takes a lot of work to deduce all of them.
When I started solving the PT I didn't care about anything except deducing author intent. Much to my surprise this task was made far easier by the fact that every word had only a fixed single meaning. There were no shades of meaning. Using this process of solving through context and assuming it made sense I was very surprised to find that meaning wasn't expressed as we do. Our words are symbolic and ephemeral. Words change their meaning and different meanings of the same word are used and often metaphorically. But ancient words were solid as cement. They were representative and they were in agreement with the laws of nature. "Shu" embraced all things because shu was inertia.
I never introduced my conclusions into my research except to the degree I expected the words to make sense but that they did is likely reflective not of my "conclusion" but rather is reflective of author intent.
I could do a study and estimate the odds of any given word meaning what I say based on coincidence or as you might say "develop an r ^ 2 for the correspondence of the words with the laws of nature". But in the real world the clues to how to solve this are right in the PT. They clearly say we need to do infrared and ultraviolet imaging and then pursue the anomalies. We've finally after so many decades gotten the imaging but now it appears they're afraid to investigate the anomalies.
In the meantime I have debunked ramps and have debunked the methodology that generated them. I have shown the evidence clearly stacks up against the paradigm. I have shown that the pyramids were built one step at a time and stones were pulled straight up the side. I believe the methodology I used to show this by finding meaning in the ancient language virtually proves itself. The Great Pyramid built itself just as the builders said and my theory built itself with a sound methodology despite the poor translation ands seeming impossibility of solving "incantation". It works because there was no incantation, only a different kind of science than we use.
It just sounds like pretzel logic because most can't accept that we are so far wrong about things. They can't accept that an average Joe solved this where engineers, scholars, and real scientists have failed.
If I'm wrong then how is it that I can debunk ramps and lay low the current methodology without any response from Egyptologists? Why did Egyptologists request other Egyptologists to explain the thermal anomalies I predicted?
I believe in the future it will be common knowledge ramps were debunked in ~2010 and that it was obvious all along that they must have used linear funiculars to build great pyramids. People are funny this way.