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?
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?
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..
