Egyptian energy SOLVED?!?

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Bob-a-builder, Jun 14, 2019.

  1. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    gravity & DENSITY
    Pressure & Mass ... ?

    you cant equate a balloon lifting a dvd to the density mass lift requirement of marble/stone

    it is like saying a cricket the size of a sports stadium would be able to jump really high.
    it wouldn't
    there are a few fundamental principals of science involved.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Wrong again: YOU made the initial claim therefore it's up to you to support that claim.
    But you can't provide evidence nor can you refute the point Dave (I think it was) about the weight distribution from lifting a corner.
    This has not been disputed.
    And now you're back to ignoring the fact that once pressure has been applied there is no more glow/ spark/ whatever.
    And still wrong.
    I didn't say it was.
    As a hovercraft yes. AS a pan lid, no.
    One more time. With the pan the pressure has to build up from nothing: once the pressure becomes sufficient to lift the lid AT ALL then it does and thereby reduces, letting the lid fall again,
    With the balloon (and sort of with the hovercraft) the pressure required already exists when the experiment starts - thus causing massive venting. The two situations are not comparable.
    And THAT is NOT lifting like a hovercraft (which is what you claimed).
    The initial release of internal pressure will be along an edge. Meaning that the edges will get more wear than the corners. (Which, according to the photos, is not the case with the sarcophagus lids).
    According to your (unsupported) claim anyway.
    According to your (unsupported) claim anyway.
    Please provide the quotes where this has been done.
    I doubt you'd be capable of recognising intelligence.
    Says the guy who has trouble with spelling, grammar, syntax, punctuation and word definitions... (and can't even copy a word already written down).
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 71 years old Valued Senior Member

    Sits oh so quiet in the sand box and hopes not to be noticed

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    DaveC426913 and Dywyddyr like this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

  8. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Eh? That's what I've just told you in my previous post.

    But I'm starting to lose interest in all this. It seems clear that you have, like most cranks, an unshakeable idée fixe that is impervious to scientific reasoning. You haven't even let go of this idiotic notion about piezoelectricity, let alone all this pressure nonsense.

    1) You DO NOT need pressure to brew beer.

    2) Static pressure alone CANNOT be a source of energy.

    (P.S. A picture of an aubergine is not evidence that the Egyptians had cathode ray tubes

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    sideshowbob likes this.
  9. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Bob needs to know more about the subject before theorizing, which is what all amateur scientists would do, as admirable as his curiosity is. Speculating from a position of ignorance is worthy of all the ridicule it gets.

    Ancient beer wasn't carbonated, and sparks at the time could be far more easily generating by striking a flint. Yes, the Egyptians were a sophisticated and knowledgeable culture, but they were also driven primarily by religious ideas of the afterlife. It is this context that the tombs should be considered.
    DaveC426913 likes this.
  10. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Something not covered already re your piezoelectricity notion - won't happen at all given constituent quartz, feldspar, mica, and minor other constituent crystals are randomly oriented in a massive granite block. But piezoelectricity requires specific crystal orientations wrt applied stress to work at all. So overall cancellation means not even the chance of an appreciable net transitory voltage from a shock load. Sparks sometimes seen in the dark when rocks strike together is typically the result of triboelectricity (rubbing of surfaces) and/or fracture where fresh cleavage surfaces are generated. Piezoelectricity may be a significant extra contribution in the case of quartz rock, but you want it for randomly oriented polycrystalline granite.
  11. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    I think Bob is off-track and what we are really dealing with here is the Cult of the Aubergine:-

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Michael 345 likes this.
  12. Bob-a-builder Registered Senior Member

    Okay. I got sidetracked by a few here who could not grasp how pressure would affect a lid. That is a physics question so people can discuss there. I will not speak more of simple physics concerning the action of steam on a pot lid

    However. It seems like some here do not have much clue about how crystals work (or a few other topics).

    In answer to your question here. Maybe I should say "Your claim" that ancients would not conduct electricity without wires.


    Actually; you were speaking of the Baghdad Battery so I do not wish to place words in your mouth (although many here will jump at the chance).

    One of the main topics here is piezoelectricity from granite.

    I feel like linking half a dozen child videos on the topic as one person asked for proof that crystals were used to light gas barbecues.

    It's not a well know power source but there are train stations that power their gates (Like subway entrance) with people walking these days. (google it - I'm not finding peer reviewed articles on a topic none of you seem interested in anyways)

    But granite can conduct electricity when moist and in this topic we were discussing a quartz granite box that is filled with moisture.

    Here is a video where you can see moist granite conducting electricity.

    This is just science many here are oblivious to. Granite's ability to create and conduct electricity is not in question.

    The only question is whether they had something to power. Obviously; I already know you will link a zuchini or whatever.

    Anyways. You suggest they did not have wires. You would almost suspect that these ancients did not have copper.

    Copper Tools is your ENTIRE SHPEEL. If I asked how they built this granite box you would argue "They use copper hammers and chisels" or maybe not. But that is the Egyptology viewpoint.

    I can provide a link if you would like proof that copper can conduct electricity (see I can mock also).

    SIMPLIFIED: COPPER CONDUCTS ELECTRICITY. So when you say they did not have wires back then are you just being presumptuous or do you know for a fact they never had wire?

    Now granite. Granite is very conductive when moist.. and of course we are talking about a yeast mixture (in this thread) which might contain water (ask a chemist maybe).

    Here is a video with a graphic demonstration but the effect is well know and discussed.

    SIMPLIFIED: STONE CONDUCTS ELECTRICITY (some types of stone) when they have had access to moisture.

    NOTE: Exchemist: You had said "By the way, it seems we know how the Egyptians brewed their beer and it certainly did NOT require 70 ton stone pressure vessels. :"

    Agreed. They would not require thousands of pounds of pressure to brew beer.

    HOWEVER: Are you not suggesting they shipped in finally polished granite boxes and moved them into into a kilometer long tunnel carved from the earth directly underneath a pyramid for the purpose of burying a bull. (academia reasoning).

    I still say they make more sense as lemonade containers than for bull burials.

    See "Occams Razor"

    It seems static pressure can cause continuous current, but I will discuss that with people who understand this topic more (not in this forum).

    NOTE: This is a child video to help some here who cannot grasp topic. (Note: This video does not concern static pressure)

    Last edited: Jun 16, 2019
  13. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Incorrect, it's not "some people" it's just you.
    That would be a relief since you've amply demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about.
    No, it's just - again - you that doesn't understand.
    ... which just happens to be three orders of the magnitude smaller than that of a single crystal of quartz.
    Well not by you, at least.
    And that moisture happens to be only inside the sarcophagus in your scenario.
    So how does it transfer the charge?

    But you haven't produced any valid argument for anyone but you to think that.

    Using what?

    In other words you CLAIM to have something that (possibly) supports your contentions but you aren't going to post in case we show that you are - as usual - talking out of your hat.
  14. exchemist Valued Senior Member


    Rock generally conducts electricity extremely poorly and igneous rocks, such as granite, particularly so. See Fig 2 in the attached link:

    In Egyptian archaeology nothing remotely resembling an electric wire (i.e. a flexible conductor protected by a flexible insulating sheath) has ever been found, nor has any means of generating electricity, nor anything that might be a device powered by electricity. So we are as certain as we can be that electricity was not a feature of ancient Egyptian technology.
  15. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    The use of the word "other" without any qualification indicates that they are to be considered as equally valid.
    There was no such indication in your post.
    But I admit it: we're despicable people who read what you wrote, take it at face value and then respond to it as if what you wrote was what you actually meant.

    You've already been given a definition that shows that "other" means "alternative" and not "ridiculous".
    No indication of ridicule whatsoever.
    Correct: the unqualified use of "other" leads readers to assume that the other "theories" are equally credible. The fault is entirely yours for not writing clearly.
    According to you anyway.
    And it's been pointed out that even with those "relief valves" the damage is to the corners. Ergo those "relief valves" are not relief valves.
    And I gave a possible use for them.
    And you were wrong.
    Not possible.
    If there's any venting then the pressure will not rise.
    For someone who persistently claims he's misquoted you do manage to do it a fair bit yourself.
    I didn't claim that. Go back and read what was written.
    You're wrong and it's been explained to you why you're wrong. But you don't take any notice of anything except your own mistaken beliefs.
    That's correct: you've always been wrong.
    And neither have you ridiculed them - you simply noted that they were other "explanations".
    But your "method" would not do so.
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2019
  16. sculptor Valued Senior Member

  17. Bob-a-builder Registered Senior Member


    So we are as certain as we can be that electricity was not....

    This is in alternative theory section. That standardized thinking would apply to any alternative theory.

    It makes more sense as a container to cool lemonade than as a bull coffin.

    "History is a set of lies agreed upon" - Napoleon

    This topic is the first part of this video. It is not something others are not seriously considering (except here obviously).

    I am sure I am the first here to suggest this. I doubt I will be the last.

    Choose your side carefully as the evidence (Occams Razor) is a lot... (I think the second half of this video is far fetched the first half makes a lot of sense).

    With youtube inventors science is moving at a quicker pace. Understandings are growing. You lot need to keep up or die off.

    This is from ANCIENT ARCHITECTS CHANNEL if any actually are keen on this topic.

    Last edited: Jun 16, 2019
  18. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Ah, now I understand.
    YOUR meaning of "alternate theory" is "ignore all we know about science and just make shit up to suit".

    In which case my theory is that unicorns built those sarcophagi and that they are, in reality, space ships powered by aubergines.
    The supporting evidence for this is:
    A) The aubergine in the hieroglyphic, and,
    B) I'm working on being as batshit crazy as Bob.
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2019
    exchemist likes this.
  19. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 71 years old Valued Senior Member

    Don't think this lot has anything to keep up with

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  20. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    You have several times referred to Occam's Razor. (I prefer the spelling Ockham, it being the name of the Surrey village he came from.) I wonder if you understand what it means.

    Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitate, or its equivalent formulations, propose that an explanatory hypothesis should not include unnecessary elements, or more colloquially should be no more complicated than required to explain the observed facts.

    The observed facts are large stone chests located in underground chambers, somewhat like the sarcophagi found elsewhere in Egypt, which were used in burial rites (containing mummified remains).

    You seem to suggest that, rather than thinking these too may have been associated with burial rituals, they were generators for electric power, produced by a mechanism incapable of generating electric power (static pressure), transmitted by a mechanism that does not work (conducting rocks), and used for some mysterious purpose for which there is no archaeological evidence.

    So who is it that is introducing unnecessary extra features to the explanatory hypothesis?
    origin likes this.
  21. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 71 years old Valued Senior Member

    They didn't perchance have AA or AAA carved on them? with a + at one end and a - at the other?

    Could be a clue there

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  22. Bob-a-builder Registered Senior Member


    Someone had used the term "Occams Razor" in a previous comment and perhaps it was not you. Not if you spell it differently.
    So I was trying to use your own words back upon you. If it was not you then I was mistaken and apologize.

    No mummified remains were found at the Sarapeum. They found a few remnants of bull bones. Which is what you would suspect if they were using animal carcass fat to feed the yeast as proposed by hypothesis.

    Every box was found wide open also. People generally close coffins.

    They never found any kinds of bodies or art or decorations at any of these sites. Since they are labeled "sarcophagi" based ONLY upon academia profiling calling coffin shaped boxes whatever they imagined. Does not mean they had any supporting evidence.

    In short; there is no evidence they were used for burying anything. None. No bodies. No art. No treasure. No mummies. If you believe mummies were found then you are arguing on a topic you are vastly misinformed upon.

    You suggest elsewhere bodies have been found in "sarcophagi" (another name for coffin), but I'm sure coffins exist in your own city. This does not mean every box is automatically a coffin.

    No bodies have been found in any pyramids. No bodies have ever been found in these "Granite Boxes (sarcophagi)".

    You have no facts to support such claims.

    You only make the claim because you view people in the past inferior. Loosely based upon the christian ideals that mankind is only 5000 years old.

    You would know all of what I said above if you had watched the video. But ignorance is bliss I suppose.

    So. You are simply pushing unsubstantiated lies if you are suggesting a mummified remains have even been found in any pyramid or granite box within (like you just did).

    This Sarapeum also had 12 entrances. That sounds more like a workplace than a tomb. Why would sane people place 12 entrances into a tomb? It had large kilometer long hallways dug straight into the rock. I would think its common sense it had some other usage.

    But. Whatever helps you christian types believe we are the first and only. Screw the facts.. right.

    Maybe you are unaware that many advancements were known in the very first writings found in ancient Sumerian texts.

    They taught us writing, math (It seems they knew Pythagorean Theorem, etc). Why we have 60 minute hours, etc. They had astronomy, medicine, wheels, farming and more.

    From the earliest known civilization. (Sumeria). How could a small group of farmers reason out everything we do today. No. I think it is anyone who suggests they developed all that instantly is ignoring the facts.

    People say pyramids only exist because that is how a child would stack blocks but there are dozens of pyramids in Egypt cut from solid stone (no stacking required) is stove carving we would have trouble emulating today (Ellora Caves, etc)

    Yes. I get it. You all believe we are merely 5000 years old based upon your notions of Jesus and what your mommies said.

    It takes a little common sense to look at archeology. 100 years ago religions sponsored the Archeology and if findings did not conform with religions the findings were buried.

    This hypothesis will not be vanishing soon. I may soon drop it but thousands of researchers around the globe are looking at this. The video below is just a start of this obvious chemical generator..

    Last edited: Jun 17, 2019
  23. Bob-a-builder Registered Senior Member

    "the Egypt Exploration Fund, was established in Britain in 1891, and on the very first page of its Memorandum and Articles of Association, it is stated that the Fund's objective is to promote excavation work 'for the purpose of elucidating or illustrating the Old Testament narrative'. In short, this meant that if something was found which could be used to support the scriptural teaching, then the public would be informed. Anything which did not support the Church interpretation of the Bible was not destined to see the light in the public domain."

    So sad that you lot buy into the woo proposed by religions.

Share This Page