Chris Jordan wrote:

> that is excellent, can I quote those citing yourself? Clearly
> it is perfect textual support to the model I sent. I can see
> the meaning very clearly from the mechanic.

I like your modeling of the means used and believe some of it will stand the trst of time and deeper scrutiny. I had to completely jetison my build scheme in the light of new evidence though the general outline, I believe, is essentially proven at this point; they lifted stones 81' 3" at a time using the weight of water. The physical and cultural evidence is overwhelming at this poit that this is how most of the stone was lifted and the pyramid built. Perhaps, to state the situation more precisely, while the evidence is not deep it is very very broad that this is how it was done, ramps are utterly debunked and they mustta used water.

I steal ideas and concepts freely from everyone and everyone is welcome to do the same with mine.

> I do not think you will draw out the types you want, they have
> all withdrawn into the net temples of self agreement. They will
> never thank you for these interpretations, as you point out the
> whole has been built on something that never existed in the
> first place :)

They have no choice. A new paradigm will arise around them and they'll look increasingly foolish with each passing day. People will remember for much longer how they react to the truth than in what ways they were wrong. Ultimately most of the credit truly goes to the hard work of countless Egyptologists and other professionals who found the data and got it out so it could be seen again. Without all their hard work all I'd have is a gut feeling. Without the genius of the ancients there would be nothing for people today to misinterpret and no pyramids to properly interpret.

> No hint in those texs as to when the water dried up. I would
> hvae thought it would be connected to the transition of Osiris
> from watery qualities to tombish qualities.

When the water dried up the phenomenon of the tossing water (atum) and his ka (the ben ben) simply no longer existed. But atum was the very foundation of much of their "science" and they didn't want to scrap it and rearrange how they spoke of it. Remember science was language and language was science. We misinterpret this concept as writing being the words of the gods. In order to write atum out of the language they would have to overhaul all of language because he came too early. To get around a language change they invented osiris (effectively "the phenomenon of a dead geyser) to take atum's place.

This change to insert osiris and delete atum came before our first copy of the Pyramid Texts was written. There were numerous earlier versions written with no "osiris" and where this name appears in our version there was "atum" instead. Our copy is during a period that this transition was well underway.

> you are not equating the Atum with the primeval mound or the
> first geyser?

It's never exact in real life and this goes many times over here because it was impossible to make an untrue statement in ancient Egyptian. The rules of grammar simply didn't allow statements that weren't reflective of the understanding of nature.

The primeval mound was the calcium carbonate that accreted at the site of the geyser. There were several interesting compounds, elements, and particulates in it as well. Most of it was the compounds that came out of solution after it fell (tefnut) to the ground. This material accreted and became higher and higher over time. (the earth is high under the sky by means of thine arms tefnut). The ben ben was a conically shaped "stone" right on top of the primeval mound. As the water is leaving the ground it is heavily laden with compounds that fall out of solution very rapidly as the CO2 is emitted. This causes an accumulation right around the vent of the geyser. The Egyptians referred to it once as "the sandbank of horrible face bringing water". This is a very apt description stated in modern language.

The word for geyser was "duat" but they used words differently. When we say "geyser" we mean just the water spraying up. They meant the whole ball of wax including the water in the caves under Giza, the spray, the mound, the ben ben, the falling water, and the water accumulated on the ground (set). For practical purposes the best way to think of atum is as the phenomenon of the geyser. Atum separated the sky from the earth at zep tepi which was the first time humans observed this event. By erupting the sky was defined by the place the phenomenon of upward took the water and where downward brought it. It's not likely the science actually started in this way but it's the origin of the Egyptian ennead.

Modern people have to change their thinking a little bity to wrap their heads around this. It's perfectly comprehensible in modern terms but it is highly inelegant.

> Are you sure the
> arms are not the shafts from each of the chambers?

These phenomena of nature are somewhat equivalent to variables in an equation. But all the phenomena are given human characteristics. A human uses an arm to do action at a distance so everywhere a "phenomenon of nature" acts at a distance it does so through its arms. For instance nut (the phenomenon of the sky) acts to protect the geyser (atum) through her arms which are the holes and caves through which water flows. A cave is an arm of the sky which embraces the earth and protects atum by not allowing anything to fill it. The arms of serket (phenomenon of air for respiration) are the air shafts in G1.

Of course there are numerous ways the phenomena interact and communicate. It is these interactions, more than anything, that define any science.