No he is not wrong because you say so - you have to publish a paper that clearly outlines that their theory is wrong - you cannot just state your opinion and expect it to be believed. Will you publish that? NOPE
And the only et als I can quote are long dead physicists and philosophers. Just as I don't need to prove that 2 + 2 = 4 or that it's hard to drag 6 1/2 million tons up ramps, I also don't need to prove the sky is blue or that the language breaks Zipf's Law. I don't need to prove what the builders said nor that the entire Pyramids Texts is both translated and interpreted only in terms of the "book of the dead". These are all simple observations of reality and I can't observe reality for you. All I can do is ask you to respond to the argument instead of semantics and the constant repetition of Egyptological beliefs.
I've told you that I believe that Egyptologists are wrong about everything. Being wrong is the reason they didn't notice the language breaks Zipf's Law and that the gravimetric scan virtually PROVES stones were pulled straight up just as described in the Pyramid Texts and the cultural context and supported by the physical evidence. If these things are real then it certainly follows that they had a device called the "fire-pan" colloquially and the "mks-sceptre" when used as the subject of a sentence. It's likely that had such a device existed this object is exactly it.
Essentially your attitude is that anyone not building on existing theory is wrong. The problem here is that no existing "theory" exists. The basis of Egyptology is that changeless and superstitious people dragged tombs up ramps but all these assumptions are wrong. They were not changeless. They were not superstitious, they did not build pyramids as tombs, and they most assuredly did not drag stones. These are false assumptions so everything every et al believes is irrelevant to my theory. If I am correct them everything every et al believes is also irrelevant to reality. Egyptology as it applies to the great pyramid building age may be irrelevant. It's not my job to prove it. It's their job to prove their theories!! I am one man, not an entire field of study. You simply choose to ignore my hypotheses because they don't obey the assumptions that underlie Egyptology. Just like all theories that don't adhere to the status quo you find mine upsetting. The fact is all human knowledge was outside the status quo when it first arose.