Warwick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cladking Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Warwick Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > > it starts with pulling ones' boat up on the
> > > riverbank.
> >
> > It's impossible to pull them down onto the
> river
> > bank from the river. Your point is semantical.
>
> >
> > > at 50 Metres approx. 80% of the total volume
> is
> > in
> > > place.
> >
> > This is by definition of a pyramid. It is
> another
> > semantical argument.
>
>
> Both mentioned FACTS are SCIENTIFICLY FALSIFIABLE
> FACTS,
>
> you're saying my points are semantical is
>
> More unadulterated NONSENSE!!!!!
>
>
> You ARE an IDIOT!!!!!

Yes. And the top of a mountain is above the bottom of a mountain.

How is it possible to pull a boat from the river DOWN onto the riverbank?

And you're right that the bottom of a pyramid when sitting on any side is bigger than the top of the pyramid. So??? The top still is part of the pyramid BY DEFINITION. Your observation is largely valid but it has no relevance to to the actual means that was used to lift stones. It might be valuable to reverse engineer the pyramid but it has no other bearing.

It would be equivalent to me saying a stone at the top of the pyramid took hundreds of times more work to lift than one at the bottom. It is necessarily true but it has no point. By itself it can constitute only a semantical argument.