I think you might be one of those expert on everything types, it works really well with political garbage, but when you’re talking about historical studies of the Egyptian old kingdom that they base on modern calculations of physics using pictographs as a reference… Like it’s just sounds silly I guess.
You are arguing for a heterodox interpretation of labor based on pictures drawn by the ruling party that has potentially tens of thousands of people building a giant stone monument, when modern scientists JUST discovered a river they only JUST realized might be there.
Like you just really really need to be right about a field of study that’s had like 15 sea changes over the last couple hundred years. It’s odd!
Yeah, if that’s your take away I guess posting a pictograph and saying “nuh uh” being the crux of your argument on a body of study who’s modern history goes back to sprinkling mummy dust on your breakfast makes perfect sense.
I’m not even sure where you’ve developed that strawman from what the dude said, his original statement or his future back and forth with you. He said that the brute force argument isn’t the best one based on research like the water experimentation on dry sand. That doesn’t mean they didn’t use brute force in labor, just that it may have been supplemented by techniques we’re still investigating. He’s not saying they used magic.
Now we know they not only had a easy source of water, we know they had enough water to supplement the power of human labor. You just really wanted to argue so you focused on whatever points you could find disagreement.
The whole argument is based on you really wanting to be unequivocally right about your understanding of how something was built when the article you posted is about a literal groundbreaking discovery that may change our understanding of how it was built. Just seems silly on this one I guess.
Unlikely, yes. More likely an implementation of principles in ways we just don’t have reference for in documentation, we just discovered that Roman concrete was mixed hot with quick lime. This shit always seems crazy until we figure it out.
Although I don’t see anyone saying there were as low as 1,600 workers on the great pyramid. So you right to question that one.
Actually I bet this is where that number came from lol:
I think you might be one of those expert on everything types, it works really well with political garbage, but when you’re talking about historical studies of the Egyptian old kingdom that they base on modern calculations of physics using pictographs as a reference… Like it’s just sounds silly I guess.
You are arguing for a heterodox interpretation of labor based on pictures drawn by the ruling party that has potentially tens of thousands of people building a giant stone monument, when modern scientists JUST discovered a river they only JUST realized might be there.
Like you just really really need to be right about a field of study that’s had like 15 sea changes over the last couple hundred years. It’s odd!
So you didn’t actually look it up.
Yeah, if that’s your take away I guess posting a pictograph and saying “nuh uh” being the crux of your argument on a body of study who’s modern history goes back to sprinkling mummy dust on your breakfast makes perfect sense.
Keep up this good!
My takeaway was that the scientists he claim support this idea that they weren’t dragged do not say they weren’t dragged.
I’m not sure why you think “their claim about what those scientists said isn’t true” isn’t good enough…
I’m not even sure where you’ve developed that strawman from what the dude said, his original statement or his future back and forth with you. He said that the brute force argument isn’t the best one based on research like the water experimentation on dry sand. That doesn’t mean they didn’t use brute force in labor, just that it may have been supplemented by techniques we’re still investigating. He’s not saying they used magic.
Now we know they not only had a easy source of water, we know they had enough water to supplement the power of human labor. You just really wanted to argue so you focused on whatever points you could find disagreement.
The whole argument is based on you really wanting to be unequivocally right about your understanding of how something was built when the article you posted is about a literal groundbreaking discovery that may change our understanding of how it was built. Just seems silly on this one I guess.
No, just a simple machine that no one has ever discovered since.
Which is pretty close to magic.
Unlikely, yes. More likely an implementation of principles in ways we just don’t have reference for in documentation, we just discovered that Roman concrete was mixed hot with quick lime. This shit always seems crazy until we figure it out.
Although I don’t see anyone saying there were as low as 1,600 workers on the great pyramid. So you right to question that one.
Actually I bet this is where that number came from lol:
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna46485163