cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There's more than one way to skin a cat and
> there's more
> than one way to arrive at truth.
Using bad methodology will rarely, if ever, help you arrive at the "truth". In fact, the reason for the methodology in the first place is to prevent the kind of pseudoscience you are attempting to pass off as "viable interpretation" of historical data.
> I started with
> the observation
> that it would be exceedingly difficult (even
> apparently impossible)
> to build the pyramid with primitive technology
> using the methos us-
> ually ascribed.
What parts are difficult?
> I formed the hypothesis that they
> must have had
> a technique to use natural forces to their
> advantage.
This is your second false assumption, based on nothing but your ignorance of the facts. Ignorance is not an acceptable foundation for a theory. You are herewith trying to assert that it is not only acceptable, but preferable to a fact-based set of assumptions.
Your work simply will never, ever satisfy the most meager of academic requirement.
> In this case,
> that they had water under pressure foe use in
> counterweights.
No, they didn't. You've imagined that they had it, and asserted that it's true... but that doesn't make it so.
> I then
> searched for evidence that this was impossible but
> instead found moun-
> tains of seemingly supporting evidence.
Of course you can find "evidence" that seemingly supports that. Nothing is impossible, CK. You must start with the probabilities, based on the evidence... not ask people to look at your far-fetched near-impossibilities and ask that they accept it until they DISprove your ideas.
Methodologically absurd.
>
> I never reall claimed this crackpot idea rises to
> the level of scien-
> tific theory.
As with your other post, you finally say something with which I agree...
> I do claim that with this amount of
> evidence that it
> makes sense to run some experiments.
No, it doesn't.
You need to look for physical/textual/cultural evidence. There isn't any.
Over and out.
> It seems
> that any idea that ex-
> plains so many of the known facts should get some
> serious attention.
Unless, of course, it doesn't have a single fact to support it.
Aliens using anti-gravity ray guns also "explain the facts". That doesn't make it real, either. However, your "cold water geysers" have exactly as much evidence going for them as the aliens, so I'm sure you can find somebody interested in reading your work.
Ciao.
Anthony
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.
