|
Descartes's Guide to Solving Pyramid Construction and other Mysteries
by Jim Solley
Elizabeth
City, NC
Deception and rules of investigation to avoid becoming trapped by it are
discussed.
Huge numbers of articles have been written about the pyramids, so
why yet another? The answer is twofold. One is that an unusual approach is taken
herein in that an attempt is made to prove both what is the solution and what is
not the solution. Two is that it's rich in evidence. Therefore, the reader has
an opportunity to judge evidence and to reach a personally satisfying decision
whether for or against it.
Acknowledgment: CHRIST
JESUS – HIS help was essential.
Information was released to the public on December 1, 2006 that the final steps
(independent validation and peer review) needed to prove a theory for pyramid
construction had been completed. Scientists have provided the technical data and
the physical evidence, but not all Egyptologists have accepted it. This article
explains why they should and why it took so long to solve the mystery.
There is a general class of problems known as inverted logic problems. Inverted
logic means that everything that appears to be true about such a problem
actually is false, and everything that appears to be false about it actually is
true. For example, there was a time when the world appeared to be flat, and
round appeared to be false. Virtually everyone has encountered and solved these
problems before. The following scenario describes one that many have solved, and
you may be among them.
Perhaps at some time you were out driving and decided to take an unfamiliar
scenic route to your destination. Somewhere along the way you happened upon an
unmarked T intersection where you were uncertain whether to turn right or left.
You gave it your best guess, made a turn, and ventured forth into what was
obscure and unknown. There were optional turns and side streets along the way,
but they wouldn't matter if you'd guessed incorrectly at the T intersection.
None of them would carry you to your destination as long as they didn't take you
in the opposite direction. After driving for what seemed like a reasonable time
you hadn't arrived at your destination. You started having an intuitive feeling
that you might have chosen the wrong direction at the T intersection. The longer
you drove, the stronger the feeling became. Once you felt confident that you
should've arrived, you stopped, turned around, and returned to the T
intersection which was the earliest place in the journey where you were
uncertain. You continued past it in the opposite direction from your original
choice and eventually arrived at your destination. If you hadn't turned around,
then you would've traveled further and further away from your destination. By
turning around you easily solved a problem that otherwise would've been
impossible to solve.
The driving problem was easy because you knew that there were two directions at
the T intersection and that only one was correct. While these problems are easy
when it's known that there are two directions, they become some of the most
difficult problems when the model that points to the correct direction is
supported with invisible and insensible evidence. For example, imagine that when
you came to the T intersection that turning right was correct, but no right turn
could be seen. All that was visible or sensible within human limitations was the
left turn. In that case, it would appear that left is correct and that right is
nonsense and false.
When the evidence that points to the correct direction is invisible, inverted
logic problems deceive us into believing that the wrong direction is the only
possible direction, so we travel in the wrong direction for enormous amounts of
time until someone has that intuitive feeling that perhaps we're going in the
wrong direction, turns around, goes back to the beginning of uncertainty,
investigates the other direction, finds irrefutable overwhelming physical
evidence that proves that the other direction is correct, and reaches the
destination.
While it's always been possible for anyone to correctly guess the other
direction that should be investigated at the pyramids without the need for
advanced education, it was impossible to prove that the other direction is
correct because there remained a catch. If the evidence is invisible, then
technology that's capable of detecting it is needed. If that technology is
unavailable, then the mystery remains even though there may be people like
Edward
Leedskalnin who've guessed the correct solution. There was a legitimate
excuse for not solving the mystery until the essential technology became
available and an owner of the correct theory who was skilled in using that
technology acquired a doctoral degree in Egyptology. These conditions were met
approximately three decades ago. Thus, today there is no scientific reason that
prevents the mystery from being solved.
Like the driving problem, the prime clue that should trigger an awareness that
deception may be present is when people who are known to be competent haven't
arrived at the destination after an amount of time has elapsed in which they
reasonably could be expected to have arrived. If they're competent, then they've
overlooked nothing that can be seen. It's the right turn that they can't see
that might be preventing them from arriving.
Egyptologists are competent, and since ancient men all around the globe solved
the problem hundreds to thousands of years ago, an amount of time has elapsed in
which Egyptologists reasonably could be expected to have solved it. The clue for
deception is present. What's necessary to determine the other direction that
should be investigated is to invert the model that they're using starting at the
earliest point of uncertainty. First, determine what they expect to find but
haven't, then look for the inverse because that's what's invisible to them. No
one can see what's behind them unless they have a mirror or they turn around.
The word not can be used to determine the inverse. If there is widespread
expectation that the world is flat but no one can prove it, then the inverse to
investigate is not flat. If left is the only turn that's visible, but it doesn't
carry you to your destination, then the inverse to investigate is not left. Even
if this method turns up nothing, and there's no guarantee that it will, then
knowledge is gained that it's not an inverted logic problem with invisible
evidence, and that ugly possibility can be eliminated.
Circa 1627 French scientist, mathematician, and philosopher René Descartes wrote
a set of 21 rules for conducting a proper investigation. He believed that the
road to knowledge begins with doubt---not confidence. He refused to believe
anything that was based upon guessing. The following paragraphs describe the
result of beginning the investigation of pyramid construction with complete
confidence in a guess.
The most inefficient of all theories proposed for pyramid construction is the
current orthodoxy that's owned by modern Egyptologists. Many well educated and
highly intelligent people including other archaeologists and scientists have
crunched its numbers and found it to be unacceptably inefficient and complex,
else there'd be no explanation for the many theories that oppose it. It's clear
that those who are dissatisfied want a simpler and more efficient way to build
pyramids, and they know how to get one because most opposing theories clearly
are simpler and more efficient for ancient man to use.
An inverse relation exists between weight and efficient pyramid construction.
More weight equals less efficient construction; less weight equals more
efficient construction. The only means by which a theory for pyramid
construction can be simpler and more efficient for ancient man to use than
current orthodoxy is if it employs weight reduction, and this is intuitively
certain as virtually every opposing theory (aliens, Merlin, anti-gravity,
magnetics, levitation, energy grids, and many others) employs some means of
reducing the weight that ancient man had to manage during construction. Many
reputable non Egyptologists perceive by intuition that weight reduction was
essential to pyramid construction, but Egyptologists don't perceive it.
“As regards any subject we propose to investigate, we must inquire not what
other people have thought, or what we ourselves conjecture, but what we can
clearly and manifestly perceive by intuition or deduce with curtains. For there
is no other way of acquiring knowledge.”
---First paragraph of
Rule III,
Rules For The Direction of The Mind ---René Descartes
“But in fact, even if all writers were honest and plain; even if they never
passed off matters of doubt upon us as if they were truths, but set forth
everything in good faith; nevertheless, since there is hardly anything that one
of them says but someone else asserts the contrary, we should be continually
uncertain which side to believe. It would be no good to count heads, and then
follow the opinion that has most authorities for it; for if the question that
arises is a difficult one, it is more credible that the truth of the matter may
have been discovered by few men than by many. But even if all agreed together,
it would not be enough to have their teachings. For we shall never be
mathematicians, say, even if we retain in memory all the proofs others have
given, unless we ourselves have the mental aptitude of solving any given
problem; we shall never be philosophers, if we have read all the arguments of
Plato and Aristotle but cannot form a solid judgment on matters set before us;
this sort of learning would appear historical rather than scientific. Further,
this Rule counsels us against ever mixing up any conjectures with our judgments
as to the truth of things. It is of no small importance to observe this; for the
chief reason why in the common philosophy there is nothing to be found whose
certitude is so apparent as to be beyond controversy is that those who practice
it have not begun by contenting themselves with the recognition of what is clear
and certain, but have ventured on the further assertion of what was obscure and
unknown and was arrived at only through probable conjectures. These assertions
they have later on themselves gradually come to hold with complete confidence,
and have mixed them up indiscriminately with evident truths; and the final
result was their inability to draw any conclusion that did not seem to depend on
some such proposition, and consequently to draw any that was not uncertain.”
---Third paragraph of
Rule III,
Rules For The Direction of The Mind ---René
Descartes
Rule III tells us that we should investigate only that which is intuitively
certain or that which is certain based upon deduction from evidence. It says
that people lie and make mistakes which are lies that are made in good faith,
and it says that evidence doesn't lie. Therefore, we should believe evidence,
not people, and that includes ourselves. It describes what to expect if this
rule is broken.
Egyptologists can't investigate the weight-reduction model because they don't
perceive it, and the irrefutable physical evidence from which they could deduce
any necessary conclusions is invisible. Thus, there's nothing that they can
investigate except their own conjecture. Inverted logic combined with invisible
physical evidence has deceived them and put them in a trap that they're unaware
that they're in. There's no escape unless other scientists who have intuition
that perceives the weight-reduction model and the invisible evidence that proves
it extricate them. Those other scientists are the owner and co-owners of the
recently proved theory.
The only thing that offers the slightest hint to Egyptologists that there might
be a problem with current orthodoxy is that many reputable non Egyptologists
disapprove of it. Since there's disagreement within their own ranks, however,
it's not much of a clue. Besides, Egyptologists know that if they're to solve
the pyramid construction mystery, then they must remain focused on the pyramids,
and they're right. Most non Egyptologists who've correctly perceived the weight
reduction model have been forced by the deception to lose their focus. They're
off investigating things such as aliens or anti-gravity. Egyptologists simply
dismiss those theories as wild and ignore everyone but themselves. But they
failed to notice that hidden among the many theories in the
weight-reduction-model group is one that kept its focus on the pyramids, and
it's fully supported with invisible physical evidence. Thus, it's impossible for
Egyptologists to solve the mystery because they're unaware that their
non-weight-reduction model of current orthodoxy is the wrong model.
“If in the series of subjects to be examined we come to a subject of which our
intellect cannot gain a good enough intuition, we must stop there; and we must
not examine the other matters that follow, but must refrain from futile toil.”
---Rule
VIII,
Rules For The Direction of The Mind ---René Descartes
“We ought to turn our entire attention upon the smallest and easiest points, and
dwell on them a long time, until we get accustomed to behold the truth by
distinct and clear intuition.”
---Rule
IX,
Rules For The Direction of The Mind ---René Descartes
The following paragraphs describe the futile toil that results from
Egyptologists not having good enough intuition about pyramid construction and
not stopping there until they behold the weight reduction model by distinct and
clear intuition.
Egyptologists claim that construction began when the huge stones were quarried
and carved with copper chisels. They've deduced copper chisels from the evidence
that huge stones are present in the pyramids. This seems reasonable, but the
problem is that there's no evidence of copper chisels. Millions of stones were
used in pyramid construction, but not one copper chisel has ever been found.
Thus, copper chisels are uncertain. Egyptologists commit to this uncertain path
anyway. If they've guessed incorrectly here, then as soon as that step is taken
they immediately are traveling in the wrong direction and already have become
lost. Everything that follows will be wrong, and they won't find any evidence
that supports this path. Until evidence can be found that proves that copper
chisels were used, then copper chisels remains uncertain and anything that's
based upon using them is an unprovable hypothesis.
Rule III says that if Egyptologists ventured on the further
assertion of what is obscure and unknown that they wouldn't be able
to draw any conclusion that wasn't uncertain because one uncertain
proposition depends upon another. Evidence that current orthodoxy is
built upon uncertainty is
this article that shows that the number of men estimated to have
been needed to build the Great Pyramid ranges from 2,000 to 360,000.
There are theories that the stones were dragged from the quarry on
sleds or on stone balls. Other theories claim that the stones were
placed in boats and floated to the construction site instead of
being dragged. Egyptologists aren't 100 percent certain how the ramp
was built that they claim was used to lift the stones to the higher
tiers because they have three different theories for that. That
statement is made in a television program entitled,
Engineering an Empire: Egypt. More recently, claims have been
made that
ramps have been disproved, and new theories have emerged to
replace them.
To summarize, Egyptologists have no evidence that proves that the stones were
quarried with copper chisels. They have none that proves how the stones were
transported (dragged on sleds or stone balls, or floated). They have none that
proves how many men were needed. And they have none that proves how the huge
stones were lifted whether with a ramp or any other method. These represent most
of the major construction requirements, and with no evidence whatever to support
any of this, they can draw no conclusion that isn't uncertain just as Rule III
predicted.
Egyptologists may argue that they have evidence in the form of ancient Egyptian
drawings that show teams of men dragging huge blocks of stone. That is evidence,
but for what? Unless it can be proved that those drawings specifically refer to
pyramid construction and to which specific pyramid(s) they refer, then it's a
hasty generalization and conjecture that they refer to pyramid construction.
There's no evidence whatever to support current orthodoxy or any of the many
variations of it. There couldn't be, else the whole of it wouldn't be in a
continuous state of flux, that is, except for copper chisels which is stable but
which has no evidence to support it.
“It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for
supposing it true.”
---Bertrand Russell
It takes only a single misstep to prevent a mystery from being solved which is
the reason that Descartes insisted that no uncertain steps be taken. Copper
chisels is the single misstep that prevents Egyptologists from solving the
mystery. They've explored all the side streets on the wrong path, but they
haven't explored the possibility that copper chisels is incorrect. It's probable
conjecture that they've gradually come to hold with complete confidence which is
the reason that it's stable.
Rule III states that it is of no small importance to never mix any conjecture
with our judgment as to the truth of things. Egyptologists only have conjecture.
If they're to hold current orthodoxy, then they're forced to mix conjecture with
their judgment as to the truth of things.
Egyptologists have broken Rule III, and that's enough to prove that current
orthodoxy is false. No one who breaks Rule III can acquire knowledge for there
is no way of acquiring it other than by keeping Rule III.
Current orthodoxy isn't the solution. It's inverse is.
“The method consists entirely in an orderly arrangement of the objects upon
which we must turn our mental vision in order to discover some truth. And we
shall be observing this method exactly if we reduce complex and obscure
propositions step by step to simpler ones, and then, by retracing our steps, try
to rise from intuition of all of the simplest ones to knowledge of all the
rest.”
---
Rule V,
Rules For The Direction of The Mind ---René Descartes
The sequence of events or orderly arrangement of objects in current orthodoxy is
quarrying followed by transporting followed by lifting followed by setting the
stones precisely in place.
Rule V tells us that we can recover even if we have made a misstep. The means to
recover is to turn around, and the means to turn around is to reduce complex and
obscure propositions step by step to simpler ones. The inverse of complex is
simple and of obscure is plain. By inverting current orthodoxy which is a
complex and obscure proposition and by following Rule V and the other rules, the
end result is a proposition that is plain and simple.
If the model of current orthodoxy is inverted, then the inverse of inefficient
and complex is not inefficient and not complex, of non weight reduction is not
non weight reduction, and of visible evidence is not visible evidence. The
inverse of quarrying huge stones with copper chisels is not quarrying not huge
stones with not copper chisels. Not huge stones means that pieces of limestone
or grains of sand were collected and reconstituted into huge stones. Pieces of
limestone or grains of sand don't need to be quarried with copper chisels and
dragged or floated long distances from a quarry by armies of men working in
synchronized teams. They can be gathered locally and carried by a few
individuals working asynchronously. The inverse of long distances is not long
distances (locally), and the inverse of armies is not armies (few). If the
pieces or grains can be carried which is not dragged and not floated, then they
can be lifted. If they can be lifted, then not ramp and not any other method for
lifting huge stones is needed. The building material can be passed up in buckets
tier by tier. Beginning with buckets of material and adding more material to
form a huge stone of the desired shape in situ is the inverse of beginning with
a huge block of stone and subtracting material from it to form a smaller huge
stone of the desired shape not in situ.
“If we are to understand a problem perfectly, we must free it from any
superfluous conceptions, reduce it to the simplest terms, and by a process of
enumeration, split it up into the smallest possible parts.”
---Rule
XIII,
Rules For The Direction of The Mind ---René Descartes
If the mystery to be solved had been how ancient man built a pocket watch, then
it wouldn't be enough to have all the gears and parts. It would be necessary to
split the problem into smaller parts to discover how the metal and all the parts
were manufactured. Rule XIII tells us that if we begin with huge stones in the
pyramids, then we haven't split the problem into the smallest possible parts.
There's a need to discover how the huge stones were manufactured (whether by
nature or by man, and if by man, then how). Evidence can be collected at the
molecular level to make that discovery.
“In order to complete our knowledge we must scrutinize all the several points
pertinent to our aim, in a continuous and uninterrupted movement of thought, And
comprise them all in an adequate and orderly enumeration.”
---First paragraph of
Rule VII,
Rules For The Direction of The Mind ---René
Descartes
Rule VII states that when we try to rise from intuition of the simpler
propositions to knowledge of all the rest as described in Rule V that we should
do so in a continuous and uninterrupted movement of thought and comprise them
all in an adequate and orderly enumeration. If the invisible physical evidence
proves that the smallest part of pyramid construction is pieces of limestone or
grains of sand, then we can rise from intuition of this simpler proposition in a
continuous and uninterrupted movement of thought to know to certainty that the
building material was gathered locally and carried by individuals to the
construction site, and if it was carried, then it was lifted to the top tiers,
and if it was lifted, then it was set precisely in place.
Unlike current orthodoxy where there's no means even to test how many men were
needed to build the Great Pyramid, this is a theory that can be tested to
determine if it's true or false provided that those doing the testing have
access to the pyramids, are skilled in the use of x-ray powder diffraction
spectrometers and/or scanning and transmission electron microscopes, and have an
intimate understanding of chemistry and/or materials science. That's something
that not Egyptologists do.
The proved theory is known as the geopolymer theory. Information about it can be
found by visiting the websites of
Professor Joseph Davidovits who is the original owner and of
Professor Michel Barsoum who is one of the two scientists
who validated it. Professor Barsoum could have found evidence that proves that
the theory is false. It wasn't his theory, so he didn't care which it was. His
goal was to settle the matter. He became a co-owner along with Dr. Giles Hug,
his colleague, only after they discovered invisible physical evidence that
proves that it's true. Professor Guy Demortier performed the peer review. It
wasn't his theory either. In fact, he was a skeptic who didn't believe it for
over a decade, but now he's a co-owner. The only reason for him to change his
mind is that he no longer is a skeptic. He believes the physical evidence, not
his own conjecture.
This link to a description of Good Science found on the catchpenny.org web site
describes The Scientific Method. The penultimate paragraph of that web page
reads:
“The scientific method is a process by which we systematically advance our
understanding of the world. True scientists adhere strictly to this method. It
is considered to be the foundation of all branches of science; in fact, a result
can only be called 'scientific' if it has been subjected to the standards of the
scientific method. Both the power and the limitations of science are the result
of the rigorous attention to this method.”
The geopolymer theory is the only theory that keeps Descartes's Rules, that has
physical evidence to support every claim it makes, and that's been subjected to
and passed the standards of the scientific method. Therefore, for those parts of
the pyramids that have been tested and where the test results were positive for
geopolymers, then that must be the conclusion. If at some future date a test
produces negative results for geopolymers, then a new theory will be needed for
that part of the pyramid for which the test was conducted.
If we're to know how the pyramids and other megaliths were constructed, then the
scientists who own and co-own the geopolymer theory are the scientists who can
determine whether any arbitrary megalith was or wasn't constructed with
geopolymers. The evidence they collect that's been peer reviewed should be
believed. To disbelieve it is nonsense.
Descartes Rules.
Copyright by
Jim Solley
All rights reserved.
Reprinted with permission.
Source:
Website of Jim Solley
Contact Author
Email: slimebug at roadrunner dot com. - Please add the word 'megaliths' to the subject line to
authorize your email to pass through my spam blocker.
Editor's PS
Note about concrete
In construction, concrete is a composite building material made
from the combination of aggregate and cement binder.
The most common form of concrete consists of Portland cement,
mineral aggregates (generally gravel and sand) and water. Contrary
to common belief, concrete does not solidify from drying after
mixing and placement. Instead, the cement hydrates, gluing the other
components together and eventually creating a stone-like material.
When used in the generic sense, this is the material referred to by
the term concrete. Concrete is used to make pavements, building
structures, foundations, motorways/roads, overpasses, parking
structures, brick/block walls and bases for gates, fences and poles.
Concrete is used more than any other man-made material on the
planet, with water being the only substance on Earth we utilize
more. An old name for concrete is liquid stone.
Source:
Wikipedia
|
