The Building of the Pyramids

Actually given the fact that gravity and magnetism are yet to be fully understood the only solid grounds for dismissing Ghosts claim is the lack of actual evidence that can be tested, and of course this is all that is needed any way.

When they can fully describe the nature of magnetism that creates or moves those theoretical electrons then maybe they have reason not to be also dismissed on similar grounds. And when the nature of gravity is fully understood then it may be correct to cry foul......

However superficially most people will accept that most of whats been claimed
is pure fiction and rightly so until it is supported properly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

OK Phlogistician (phlogiston does not exist FYI)

some utter bull from this thread, by you and others:

1. The Egyptians did not know iron.

The Egyptians called iron 'the metal of heaven' or ba-en-pet, which is quite a feat for an unknown substance.

2. Scientists do not use lead-acid batteries.

Exit Galvani, Volta and quite a few others of renown.

3. We know exactly how the Great Pyramids were made:

They must refer to the smaller pyramids. The Great Pyramid is made up of around 2,300,000 blocks averaging 2.5 tonnes. Some of the highest blocks are around 70 tonnes. Khufu reigned for 40 years, so if I can suggest that it was built in those 40 years rather than your suggestion of 20-30, that would mean that they were laying 157 blocks per day. If we assume 12 working hours to a day, thats 13 blocks per hour - 1 every 4.5 minutes, continuously day in day out for 40 years.

So I say, whether he's correct or not, let's hear the man out, and if he says anything PROVABLY wrong, go for it.

Don't come with the standard 'it should have been predicted by Quantum Mechanics, and it isn't', or 'you probably BOUGHT your degree, if you're not lying outright about it.

YOU explain to me how electrons are the carriers of electricity, Phlogistician, and I'll see where you mess up, so I can falsify that, too.

Already looking forward to it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"The earth would be held in its present orbit by electromagnetic force alone if the entire mass of the sun were replaced by 1/1000 of a gram of pure electrons removed from the earth."

True or false, Phlogistician?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This would refer to the Hittite sword that was brought back in the reign of Ramseses II ca. 1300 BCE. It didn't come into common use in Egypt until the 8th or 9th century BCE.

The pyramids of the IVth Dynasty were built before the middle 3rd millenium! Surly you aren't suggesting that iron existed then, right?

I'll let Phlog & Quantum Q debate the finer details of physics with the guy, but beyond that, he's made plenty of 'provably wrong' statements. His citing of Ostrander and Schroeder (1970) as valid sources of information was indicative of his true lack of education. These are the authors that first reported that "pyramid power" could sharpen razor blades, keep food from spoiling, relieve headaches, etc. None of which has ever held up to scrutiny or testing.

Ghost hasn't made this specific claim (yet), but the authors he cites as authorities has. And it demonstrates his attitude toward science and evidence as being that of one who has never been formaly trained or educated in science, therefore, either his alleged degree is a fraud or he didn't earn it. Most likely the former.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, I dont. But these jokers do:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"The oldest iron artifacts, which are bits of smelted iron, have been dated at 3000 B.C. The Egyptians knew how to mine, refine and work iron."

From: British Columbia Institute of Technology

http://nobel.scas.bcit.ca/resource/ptable/fe.htm

Your other claims are too unsubstantiated (innuendo) to consider a proper answer, sorry. Let's try to stick to known facts and proper sources.

Also, if they built the pyramids like in The Ten Commandments, with blocks rolling on cedar logs, it would have taken the entire cedar production from the Lebanon for 200 years to build only the Great Pyramid alone, so that's probably not how it was done.

(Actually, there is an alternative theory that *does* allow for 'normal' building procedure, using *much* 'smarter' low-tech than previously assumed possible, but I'll let you discover that one yourself. It was proposed by a German engineer a few years back... see if you can dig it up..)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'll wait for Phlog et al to rebuff the rest of my ridiculous 'allegations' ...

(although I suggest they REALLY reread what he wrote, first. In any formal debate they'd find they are on very, very thin ice indeed, since his claims may be a bit iffy, but his 'basic reasoning' surprisingly sound, and there ARE quite a few things amiss with current theory...)

 

Leedskalning was Reading a book when he made his doscovery, could 7129 / 6105195 be an ISBN or old cataloguing system number?
Know what? Eleven Numbers in his riddle, Eleven letters in his surname

 

And yet iron doesn't have a utilitarian presence in the Egyptian archaeological record until around 800 BCE (some suggest as late as 600 BCE). Indeed, Egypt remains behind the rest of the world in its use of iron. In the Eastern Mediterranean, ferrous metals were being used regularly by between 1200 and 1000 BCE. Experimentation with smelting and working with iron is certainly traceable back to as early as 3000 BCE, but the difficulties that cultures had in effectively working with and making it an economically viable alternative to copper and bronze were great enough to suppress the technology until around the first millennium BCE. (Åaström, 1998; Waldbaum, 1980).

You mean like my claim that the so-called "batteries" were not even found in Egypt but in Mesopotamia?; or that they were dated to at least after 250 CE?; or that experimental archaeological work on these artifacts has demonstrated that they couldn't produce enough viable current to utilize for even the smallest applications?

Sure, there's evidence that they imported wood from the Levant, but there's also evidence through palynology that trees existed during the Dynastic periods that would have sufficed. The Nile Valley is quite fertile, after all.

There's the theory of agglomerated limestone suggested by Professor Joseph Davidovits, but he's French to my knowledge. That's an interesting theory. I'm sure you're not speaking of Rudolf Gantenbrink, whose rudimentary methodology motivated him to over-interpreted the architectural details they encountered. His robot was cool, though.

References

Åaström, Paul (1998). Continuity or Discontinuity: Indigenous and Foreign Elements in Cyprus around 1200 BCE. Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE. Eds. Seymour Gitin, Amihai Mazar and Ephraim Stern. Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society, pp 80-86.

Waldbaum, Jane C. (1980) “The First Archaeological Appearance of Iron.” The Coming of the Age of Iron, ed. Theodore A. Wertime and James D. Mulhy. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, pp 70-74.

 

quantum quack
From what I read you are declaring that electromagnetic fields can not propagate in a vacuum which of course according to current thinking is untrue. the radio signal sent back to earth from the moon is an example of wave propagation in a vacuum.

As far as I know there is nothing in the electromagnetic spectrum, from radio waves to gamma rays, that has ever been used to explain what is flowing in a cathode ray tube. It cannot be any kind of electromagnetic radiation, because electromagnetic radiation does not bend in a magnetic field, the way that science says that electrons are supposed to do, at right angles to the magnetic field. A TV tube, is a large cathode ray tube, with a chemically coated screen that is supposed to light up as what is coming off the cathode hits it. There are magnetic fields from electro-magnetics used to make this cathode ray go back and forth to paint a moving tv picture. Those magnetic fields would not have that effect on a cathode ray, if it was any kind of electromagnetic radiation, from radio, to gamma. So, what is flowing in that cathode cannot be electromagnetic radiation.

 

phlogitician
Ghost, it's plain you just don't understand physics! You don't think electrons flow fast enough in a piece of wire for electrons to explain current. Well, it's not just about speed, but volume!

Q How many electrons flow past a point in a wire if just 1A of current is flowing?

A One Coulomb. That's 6.24x10^18

That's a lot of electrons. So a percentage can be liberated, accelerated, and form a cathode ray. A cathode ray isn't a bolt of lightning, there isn't much charge flowing in one. Some, targets need to be earthed to prevent static buildup repelling more incoming electrons, but it's not much. If you understood _any_ real physics, you'd know this.

There is an analogy used in science about electricity:
Voltage is compared to the pressure difference that forces water to flow.
Amperage or current is compared to the ammount of water that is flowing.
This comparison is used to help people understand electricity.

Now, comparing the idea of water flow, for current, to what is happening with a cathode ray tube. You have a flow of electrons in the wire comparable to the speed that a snail crawls, (electron drift velocity). And you have a flow in the cathode ray that is approaching the speed of light. (It is at least much faster than lightning.)
Comparing this to the flow of water in a hose. The hose part is wider than the nozzle so the water flowing in the hose is moving at a slower speed than what is coming out of the nozzle.
To get a difference in flow speed from a snail crawling to a speed approaching the speed of light, you might need a hose as wide as the Earth's diameter and a nozzle hole as large as a quarter. You don't have that kind of a difference in width with a wire and a cathode. And actually the cathode is usually wider than the wire.
I looked up cathode ray tube on the metacrawler search engine. It showed a chemically coated tube to light up the ray itself. The ray was wider than the wire supplying the cathode.
I repeat, electrons moving at the rate of a snail crawling, in the wire, cannot supply enough electrons to the cathode to support a ray of particles traveling at near the speed of light in a cathode ray. There is something flowing much faster than electrons in the wire to supply the very fast cathode ray flow.

 

Nah. He was a simple man. 7129 is an harmonic number.

The result of the calculation gives you a shell number for Holmium (Stockholm in Latin), which has 'curious magnetic properties', if you care to look it up.

and is found in monazite sands, close to ... coral reefs. I'll let you work out the rest...

I think that Mr. Leedskalnin was a bit of a weirdo, but indeed onto something...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

[1] Think priests. Think secretive. Same as the Babylonian priests with their voice-activated springlocks etc and their batteries. Think they did not know how to keep a secret?

Try googling for the nitty gritty details of a nuclear warhead right now, if you catch my drift.

[2] No, it was a very simple idea proposed by a German engineer, consisting of two (open) wooden wheels (with copper 'tires'), that would easily snap-fit over a block, so you could roll it with only a few people. Those guys had the RO-RO system pegged down 5000 years ago... just pile a large amount of sand next to a pyramid and keep 'm coming...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

OK, the part you don't understand about this experiment becomes clear. Electrons do no 'leak' from a wire, and become a beam, squirting from the wire.

First, the cathode is heated, so the electrons in the wire are given more energy, and are more able to move about the lattice they flow through. Second, they are attracted by an anode, which has a hole in it, and this accelerates them. Some pass through the hole in the anode, and strike the target, producing a visible dot.

 

So they had seen iron, captured it from foreigners, traded it, perhaps even learned how to make it. They didn't use it much though did they? Egyptian museums are full of gold, silver, 'electrum', copper and bronze artefacts, but not iron.

Out of context quote! What I said, was that a physicist, peforming a cutting edge, revolutionary experiment, would not use a _car battery_! I stated that a pseud lashing up an experiment in his backyard was fairly likely to use one, and that real physicists these days prefer stabilised power supplies!

So the smaller pyramids at Saqqara you accept were made using manpower alone, but anything bigger requires the introduction of some unknown, lost and powerful method?

So, are you saying that it was impossible using manpower alone, and that they levitated these blocks as claimed by our pseudo scientists nutter? If they posessed such technology, how come they manually mined the stone with COPPER tools, and didn't laser it out of the rocks with a collimated beam of 'pole magnets' ;-)!? If they levitated so many blocks, how come the surrounding area isn't littered with canoptic jar batteries? You did some maths anout the number of trees required to move the stones, care to do the same for levitating stones using battery power?

He's said plenty that's proveably wrong already! 'pole magnets' are a lovely idea, but haven't been found, and there's nothing predicting their existence. The guys at CERN and Fermilab aren't looking for them, are they?

How about I link to a reputable source that explains it? I'm not a teacher, and not a scientist anymore, although I do remember a fair amount of what I was taught. Get your chum to link to a similar reputable source proving 'pole magnets' why don't you? After all, he's making the claims that overturn physics as we know it. Physics that can be demonstrated reliably in the lab. Physics experiments that I've performed myself, and know to be true.

Dunno, maybe one HUGE 'pole magnet' would attract the stones in the Great Pyramids, and hold the earth in orbit, did you think about that as a solution? Or maybe some other unproveable? It seems odd, that you set a physics problem, when you are defending someone who denies the way physics works!
Which is it? Does physics as we currently understand it provide a solution to this problem (hence proving some validity in the model) or is it flawed?

I'll see if I can come up with an answer nonetheless. You get your chum to provide some numbers for his theoretical particles too. Dimensions would be a start, charge, mass, spin, are they made from quarks, or fundamental, what are their known interactions?

 

I'll answer your points one by one later tonight, but first I'd like to get this off my chest: I do not know Ghost from Adam, as the expression goes, and so he isn't my 'chum'. We are not in 'cahoots' in any form whatsoever.

Neither had I heard of Coral Castle or its builder before this thread. The only thing that brought me into this debate was your totally abrasive style of debating, if that's what you want to call it.

More like you've 'come for a bit of abuse', to quote a famous Monty Python sketch.

Frankly, I'd suggest councilling in your case, or a good lay.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So, you cannot falsify a single thing I've said, but prefer to resort to an ad hom?

Shows just how clever/educated you are!

btw, it's 'counselling' you illiterate retard. When you have what it takes, get back to me, until then, wallow in your own poo.

 

phlogistician
OK, the part you don't understand about this experiment becomes clear. Electrons do no 'leak' from a wire, and become a beam, squirting from the wire.

First, the cathode is heated, so the electrons in the wire are given more energy, and are more able to move about the lattice they flow through. Second, they are attracted by an anode, which has a hole in it, and this accelerates them. Some pass through the hole in the anode, and strike the target, producing a visible dot.

The part you don't understand, from the comparison with water flowing, the total volume (of whatever is flowing) must stay the same. A certain amount of volume per second must pass every point in the flow. (The same volume per second of water, moving slower in the wider hose, is the same volume per second of water coming out of the smaller nozzle hose, at a faster speed. The volume per second in a flow must be constant all along the flow.) The same is true for the electrons flowing in a wire to a cathode. The volume (or number of electrons) per second of electrons flowing in the wire must match the volume per second of what is coming off of the cathode.
If electrons are only flowing in the wire, at the speed of heat conduction, about as fast as a snail crawls, the wire cannot deliver enough volume per second of electrons to support the much faster cathode ray flow.

 

phlogistician

When something is wrong with a theory, sooner or later it will have a contradiction in it. The electron was invented as an electrical unit to explain what is coming off of a cathode in a cathode ray tube. Chemistry got a hold of the electron concept and defined the atom as a nucleus with electrons circling it. But, based on that idea, free electrons flowing in metal would need to bounce around atoms in a lattice, so they could only flow through a metal wire with a very slow drift velocity. So here you have a contradiction: If electrons do flow that slowly through wire, then they cannot account for the fast moving particles in a cathode ray anymore, because the wire cannot deliver electrons fast enough to the cathode. So, the description of the atom in chemistry now contradicts the reason why the electron was invented in the first place. Something is wrong with the theory.

 

It's called an ad hominem, FYI. Thanks for pointing out the typo. As I explained before, I was going to go through your offensive posts one by one, I just had to get some sleep after a purdy long haul at work.

If I would collect all typos from your posts in this thread [I especially liked 'magentic' - I thought only gays used that?], I wonder who would be called an illiterate, but frankly, since English is not my first language, I could care less.

My advice still stands btw. Your either have some anal fixation, judging from your poo-wallowing preferences, or are very much younger than you pretend to be, or both.

[Each number refers to the quoted material in my previous posting]

1. Iron rusts, in case you hadn't noticed. To the point it is nothing BUT rust. This was also noted in one of the previous postings you obviously didn't bother to read.

If remainders are anything to go by, this culture will probably be called the 'toilet bowl' culture in a few thousand years, since that's about the most durable product made by this one. Glazed ceramics are here for a long, long time.

2. Out of context quote? It think you discovered one of those 'debating' tricks site, with your 'ad hom' and all that jazz. Snap out of it. As with your typo's, you are doing it yourself all the time, and JUMP at anything resembling it remotely, when done by others. My estimate of your true (or emotional) age just went down another notch or two.

So you are saying that if you are not using state-of-the-art equipment, you cannot be rightly called a scientist? That is too moronic to even merit an answer.

3. Nutter? And you cry foul when someone suggests you get some mood-controlling therapy? Just one example of your inability to review your own actions or words, 'chum'.

If you had taken the time to READ this thread, you would have seen I already suggested there are quite a few ways to explain certain impossibilities using smarter. low tech without resorting to levitation. I suggest you read back a bit in this thread.

4. Magnetic monopoles have been considered by respectable scientists since the sixties and seventies of the last century. Of late, they have gone out of fashion a bit, but that could change back again. That's fashion for you.
But I suggest looking up 'magnetic monopole', and you'll find thousands of respectable references. And yes, CERN *has* looked for them, and still does not rule it out completely, my young ignoramus...

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0031-9120/7/4/007/pev7i4p233.pdf

5. Not a scientist anymore? That's physically impossible. If you HAVE been a scientist at one point, you are afflicted for life. I take it you are confabulating. You sound more retarded than retired, at times (that's for the nutter bit, my dear 'fallow').

No, you explain how electricity is caused by movement of electrons IN YOUR OWN WORDS, preferably. I think that will show your lack of a real grasp on the matter.

And again, I really look forward at a chance to 'falsify' your attempt. But you seem so reluctant. Why? It's pretty straighforward, isn't it?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

6. FYI, that little tidbit about the sun and pure electrons is OFFICIAL theory, and has nothing to do with magnetic monopoles. It just goes to show you're not so familiar with conventional theory as you pretend to be.

---

Actually, I really wonder if you ever worked as a scientist at all, are over 16, ever got laid, or know more than to pounce at any suspicion of anyone committing a felony against a few concepts taken from that debating site our mutual friend Andre (the Venus-fan) recently pointed out. (While breaking every rule in the book yourself, naturally. But that's only human...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

Ad-hominem this, falsify that, straw man this, etc etc. Debating pour le debate, ONLY. Gets pretty boring quick, though. Not an original thought between borrowed phrases, sorry to say.

[had some bigger beef but I'll take that up with others]

 

So mercurio, you don't support this guy's magnetic monopole theory?

Do you think that +ve 'pole magnets' are positrons of protons? Ghost hasn't elaborated, maybe you can?

Maybe you can falsify what I've stated about cathode rays? About electron drift velocity, or the fact that a piece of wire can supply enough electrons to a cathode to make a ray? All points either denied or ignored by Ghost. If you're going to support him, do it, don't launch into an attack on me, but rather, actually debate, and debate the topic!

Maybe you'd like to answer the question about the number of batteries required to levitate all those stones, and as you state, ceramic being rather durable and not so biodegradable, we should see thousands of them, so you should be awash with evidence!

 

The electrons are traveling as particles with mass, which is why the cathode rays of electrons travel in a straight line, they're not being scattered by bumping into the particles of gas. Placing a magnet near the tube has predicted effects with the electron stream, such as attracting the stream or repelling it. To see the effect that experiments had on the cathod ray, a little gas was left to remain in the tube (so it wouldn't be a complete vacuum) that would be excited by the electron stream.

And you still maintain that you have a legitimate degree in physics?

 

I'm still waiting for a response to a few questions I asked Porfiry, until that time I will wait with posting on this forum, Floggy.

Hang in there, take a few deep breaths maybe, or abuse some other people if you get bored. I take it it won't take forever for P. to read his mail.

:m: