Descartes's Guide to Solving Pyramid Construction and other Mysteries

Jim Solley
Elizabeth City, NC
email: slimebug at roadrunner dot com

Deception and rules of investigation to avoid becoming trapped by it are discussed.

Acknowledgment: CHRIST JESUS – HIS help was essential.

Preface

In order to avoid our subsequently falling into the same error, the Rule enumerates all the intellectual activities by means of which we can attain to knowledge of things without any fear of deception;”

---Opening phrases of the fourth paragraph of Rule III, Rules For The Direction of The Mind ---René Descartes

Every interested person has their favorite theory for pyramid construction, and I'm no exception. Mine is known as the geopolymer theory. If you haven't heard of it, geopolymers are an ancient form of concrete that have a modern high tech name. It's a theory that has only one thing in common with the current orthodoxy of Egyptology. Like current orthodoxy, it's a natural theory.

Many argue that alien and anti-gravity theories can't be proved because we don't presently have them, and it's impossible to prove that something was used if we don't have it. Owners of those theories argue that neither can they be disproved. Both arguments are valid. Because they can't be disproved, these kinds of theories must be given a rain check and fair and just consideration if the day comes when they can be proved. But as of today, only natural theories have any chance of being proved, and there are only two natural theories---current orthodoxy and geopolymers.

There is evidence that ancient concrete was being discussed among Egyptologists in the early 1930s as it's not a theory that's impossible to conceive. It's just a theory that until recently was impossible to prove. It was conceived in 1974 by Dr. Joseph Davidovits who was not an Egyptologist at that time. Presently, he is a multi-disciplined scientist and polyglot who holds degrees in Chemical Engineering and Egyptology. He formally presented his hypothesis to the second International Congress of Egyptologists in 1979 with the hope that he would receive permission to test samples of pyramid stone. Permission was denied. Despite this setback, Dr. Jean-Philippe Lauer gave him one of his samples. Dr. Davidovits had completed a number of tests on the Lauer sample by the mid '80s and proved that it indeed was a fragment of a geopolymer. The theory was rejected by Egyptologists on the grounds that the provenance of the sample was suspect.

In 2001, a small group of scientists set out to independently investigate the geopolymer theory, and their study concluded in late 2006. The work of these scientists included independent verification and validation and independent peer review. Their work confirmed that geopolymers were used to construct the top tiers of the Great Pyramid, and their evidence was published in a scientific journal. Egyptologists again rejected it on the grounds that the provenance of the samples are suspect as they gave no one permission to test samples.

There could be any number of reasons why Egyptologists would reject a theory that has passed so many rigorous scientific hurdles, but none of them can be related to doing science. If Egyptologists won't reject their own current orthodoxy and accept the geopolymer theory, and we can't force them, then one thing that can be done is to make a simple comparison between current orthodoxy and the geopolymer theory that will allow other scientists and laypersons to judge for themselves. This article has been written to provide such a comparison. Since the ongoing argument between Egyptologists and supporters of the geopolymer theory is limited to stones that have been tested, the comparison and discussion that follows is limited to those same stones that have been tested.

To avoid introducing personal bias, only well-established scientific principles, methods, and definitions are used as standards for the comparison. Each of these theories is held to the same set of standards to see how well it complies with them. With nothing of mine to cloud the picture, it's easy to see which theory meets the standards and which doesn't.

What isn't immediately apparent is that there is a relationship between current orthodoxy and geopolymers, and this relationship is the reason that they have virtually nothing in common. One is the inverse of the other. Whatever one does to build pyramids, the other does the opposite. One claims that the stones are natural. The other claims that they are man made. As these are the only two possibilities, one of these theories must be correct and the other must be false.

Geopolymers appear to the human eye to be an exact replica of natural stone. If there is no way even for experts on stone such as geologists to examine it with their eyes and be able to distinguish the difference, and if the stones truly are geopolymers, then we're being deceived, scientists and laypersons alike. We're missing information that is essential to solving the mystery and are being misled by our limited range of vision. High tech equipment and tests are the only means by which the physical evidence can be acquired that proves whether any arbitrary stone is or is not a geopolymer. This is a problem for the scientists who support the geopolymer theory. There is only one piece of physical evidence that proves whether any arbitrary stone is a geopolymer, and it's invisible.

If the evidence is invisible and Egyptologists can discredit it with logic, which is all they have since none of them have tested the stones to confirm that they're natural, then they can continue to reject geopolymers and keep their current orthodoxy. The problem for Egyptologists is that they must discredit physical evidence, and physical evidence can't be discredited with logic.

Each side has a problem. Egyptologists have attempted to solve theirs by showing disrespect for the scientists who support the geopolymer theory. All of the scientists involved with geopolymers have had distinguished careers, yet Egyptologists resort to using a fallacious form of reasoning known as ad hominem attacks that attack the scientists rather than their theory.

This link shows one example of an ad hominem attack. Example two is the article found at the bottom of this web page. In example three, in a statement found roughly fifteen paragraphs from the bottom of this web page, give or take a couple, it's reported that Dr. Zahi Hawass, leader of the Egyptologists, thinks that the geopolymer theory is just plain stupid.

The tactics being used by Egyptologists to defend current orthodoxy against geopolymers are described in Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit available at this link. If his kit is applied to current orthodoxy, then it can be seen that Egyptologists are arguing from authority, using ad hominem attacks, suppressing evidence by denying permission for testing, ignoring Occam's Razor (the principle of parsimony), failing to provide a means to test current orthodoxy, appealing to ignorance by claiming that there is no evidence, and using Straw Man wherein Dr. Hawass has stereotyped the geopolymer theory as being really silly, a publicity stunt, and just plain stupid. If current orthodoxy won't stand up to scrutiny on its own and must be defended by using these tactics, then this is a strong indication that it's baloney.

The geopolymer theory follows the methods of and conforms to principles of science described in the works of highly respected philosophers and scientists of the past such as William of Ockham (the principle of parsimony), Francis Bacon (the scientific method), and René Descartes (Rules For The Direction of The Mind). These principles are well tested and have been used for hundreds of years. They are the standards that are used for comparison within this article.

In addition to the above standards, another standard, a definition of proof is needed. It's essential to have a good understanding of proof if we are to know whether the conditions required by proof have been met. A definition of it is provided following this preface, and that is followed by the body of the article.

All textual extracts from Descartes's Rules are from translations.

Proof defined

Many scientists believe that no scientific theory can ever be proved to 100 percent certainty regardless that we have 100 percent confidence and 100 percent belief in many of them. This makes sense because science is forever evolving. A scientific theory should be modified or replaced if new evidence is discovered that requires it, and there's no means to know what new evidence might be discovered in the future that would require such a change to any arbitrary theory. For example, Newton's Laws of Motion held until technology advanced and it was discovered that there are problems with them at the quantum level. If no scientific theory can ever be proved to 100 percent certainty, then proof must not require that degree of certainty. In fact, it doesn't. A scientific theory is considered proved only in the sense that currently available evidence that supports it suggests that it's extremely likely to be true, and currently available evidence that opposes all competing theories suggests that all of them are extremely unlikely to be true. Thus, proof is a probability-based variable.

Each individual has his or her own copy of the variable and assigns his or her own estimate of value to it. The value assigned varies from individual to individual as it depends upon the evidence that's presented and the individual's ability to judge it. Strong evidence is easier to judge than weak, and some individuals are more practiced and have better skills at judging evidence than others. These are the reasons that juries in a court of law often are not in unanimous agreement even though each member of the jury has exactly the same evidence to judge as the other members.

The mind should . . . reject or receive proportionably to the preponderancy of the greater grounds of probability.

---John Locke

The above quote states that the mind should---not that the mind must. Thus, everyone is free to believe whatever they wish regardless of probability. Proof is a probability-based variable, but anyone can reject a theory for reasons unrelated to probability. If proof isn't 100 percent certain and any theory can be rejected for any reason, then it's unreasonable to expect unanimous agreement among great numbers of people regardless of the strength of the proof. For example, today there still does not exist unanimous agreement about the shape of the world. The object of developing a proof is to produce a strong case for a theory such that a critical mass of judges should be able to objectively evaluate and receive it due to the preponderance of its greater grounds of probability.

Deal with “degrees of belief”, which can be conveniently characterized by probabilities. It is important to avoid assigning probability P=0 (complete disbelief) or P=1 (complete certainty) to any proposition since, if you adopt either of these values, that value can never be changed no matter how much evidence you subsequently receive.

---Peter Sturrock, Professor of Space Science at Stanford University in California

Dr. Sturrock has stated that it's important to remain open minded toward new evidence that is subsequently received in the future and to adjust the value assigned to our variable as necessitated by that new evidence.

The estimate of probability assigned to a hypothesis is extremely high and the estimate of probability assigned to all opposing hypotheses is extremely low when all steps of the following pattern have been completed as this pattern defines proof.

          1. A hypothesis must be conceived.

          2. Evidence must be available to support it.

          3. All opposing hypotheses must be excluded.

          4. It must be demonstrated.

The need for step 1 is self evident. The need for the remaining steps is explained with examples. To reduce verbiage, step numbers are referenced in the examples. A helpful acronym is HEED (Hypothesis, Evidence, Exclusion, Demonstration).

Steps 2, 3 , and 4 all represent evidence, but each step represents a different kind that has a specific purpose.

Evidence is anything that increases the estimate of probability for a hypothesis. Physical evidence is evidence that's detectable by our five classical senses of sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell with or without assistance from technology that's designed to extend the range of our senses (i.e., telescopes, microscopes). If physical evidence that's been detected by technology conflicts with the same physical evidence that's been detected without use of technology, to resolve the conflict the physical evidence that's been detected with technology takes precedence and is to be trusted. For example, if our eyes and sense of touch tell us that our arm is only sprained, but an x-ray reveals a hairline fracture, then the x-ray extends our range of sight, presents missing evidence, and is to be trusted over our unassisted sight and touch.

Example 1
A hypothesis is conceived that a modern overhead crane was used to construct the pyramids. It can be demonstrated, and it would exclude all opposing hypotheses because it would've been simpler and more efficient for ancient man to use it if he had it. In other words, if we knew that it was a fact that ancient man had a modern overhead crane, then most of us would judge that there is an extremely high probability that he used it to build the pyramids, and we would exclude all other hypotheses as being extremely unlikely. The reason is that Occam's Razor recognizes that if people have a choice of methods, they tend to choose the method that's easiest. Thus, there is a higher probability associated with the easiest method available, and the modern overhead crane would be far easier than manual labor. As of today this hypothesis has completed steps 1 and 4, and it would automatically complete step 3 if step 2 could be completed with physical evidence. Completing step 2 is all that remains for this hypothesis to be proved, but no physical evidence has ever been found that shows that ancient man had a modern overhead crane. Since it's impossible for anyone to use anything that they don't have, physical evidence must be found that proves that ancient man had the crane. Currently step 2 is incomplete, and the hypothesis remains unproved. But remaining unproved isn't the same as being disproved.

It would've been simpler and more efficient for ancient man to use a modern overhead crane, but this hypothesis has the plurality (an implied obstacle that must be overcome by ancient man for the theory to be viable) that he must construct it before he can use it, and that plurality has additional pluralities associated with it. Constructing a usable modern overhead crane requires substantial infrastructure such as oil rigs, refineries, steel mills, machine shops, many other modern technologies, and modern technical expertise. He must have all of this to build a usable modern crane. When the huge numbers of difficult or impossible pluralities of infrastructure are added, the modern-overhead-crane hypothesis instantly becomes so complex that it's no longer easy for ancient man. Everyone knows that logically it's a lie based upon probability, and no one pursues it.

Logic offers a reasonable explanation and an extremely low estimate of probability that this hypothesis is true, but logic can't offer a 100 percent guarantee that physical evidence doesn't exist and just hasn't been found. Nothing can offer that guarantee, so this hypothesis remains open to being proved if step 2 is ever completed with physical evidence.

Example 2
Long ago it was hypothesized that the world is flat. Supporting evidence was that it was logical that ever steeper slopes would be encountered during travel if the world was round, and soon we'd slip off. No one had ever encountered such slopes. With no opposing hypotheses, steps 1, 2, and 3 were complete, but it would've been necessary to find the physical evidence of an edge to complete step 4. No edge was ever found, step 4 was never completed, and flat remained unproved. Virtually everyone had been deceived by missing evidence about gravity.

It might seem that a large ball could be made, someone could walk on it until they fell off, and that would comprise physical evidence that the world can't be round because we can see that they fell off. But this isn't physical evidence because the ball isn't the world. It's a model of a potentially-round world, and a model represents logic. Physical evidence must be directly associated with the actual object being studied---not a model of the object. Logic is evidence, but physical evidence is stronger than logical evidence. Physical evidence takes precedence and should be trusted over any conflicting logical evidence.

Example 3
In the fifteenth century Christopher Columbus agreed with Aristotle's hypothesis that the world is round. Supporting evidence was that as ships sailed beyond the horizon and irrespective of their direction of travel, always the last thing visible was the tips of their sails. It was logical that this would be the case if the world was round, but because the ships were connected to the surface of the world, this observation represented physical evidence---not logical evidence. Flat and round are mutually exclusive. Demonstrating that the world is round automatically excluded flat. All steps were completed, and round was proved. Deception was overcome, and the not-flat model of our world was the inverse of the flat model that was perceived prior to Columbus making the discovery. We would need to wait for Sir Isaac Newton before we would learn that gravity prevents us from falling off of a round world, but we no longer were deceived into believing that the world is flat.

Example 4
At the pyramids, however, there are many hypotheses that can complete steps 1, 2, and 4. Automatic exclusion is impossible. In a case like this, the means to complete step 3 is to unbalance step 2. Analogous to a court of law, to increase the estimate of probability and prove the case the owner(s) of a hypothesis must present substantial amounts of high-quality evidence that overwhelm the evidence of all opposing hypotheses.

The scientists involved with geopolymers have provided the physical evidence that supports it, and they've provided substantial amounts of logical evidence, but still it remains rejected. If they are able to gather more physical evidence, it will be the same kind as all of the physical evidence is invisible and requires high tech equipment and tests to acquire it. A different kind of evidence would be useful, and that's where this article comes in.

Ordinarily, a theory is proved by finding enough high quality positive evidence to overwhelm all opposing theories. But virtually every attorney who's involved with proving a case knows that there's a technique known as a proof by elimination aka a proof by exclusion. In other words, there are two ways to prove a theory. Either provide enough evidence to prove that the proposed theory is the solution, or provide enough evidence to prove that no other proposed theory can be the solution. If it can be proved that no other theory can be the solution, then whatever remains, must be the solution. This technique of proof by exclusion was articulated by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in a single sentence.

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

---[The Sign of the Four] ---Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

The scientists involved with geopolymers have already supplied the overwhelming step-2 evidence that supports the theory. They've met the criteria of proof and have proved their case. But a little extra help from Descartes might remove any remaining doubt by relegating current orthodoxy to the waste bin of history.

If current orthodoxy is eliminated, then only two options remain. One is that a new theory that's based upon natural stone must be developed. It must have physical evidence to support it, and it must conform to scientific standards and principles as well as or better than geopolymers. If no new theory can meet these criteria, then the only reasonable remaining option based upon the preponderance of the greater grounds of probability is to judge the geopolymer theory proved.

Body of the article

Information was released to the public on December 1, 2006 indicating that the final steps (independent verification and validation and independent peer review) needed to prove the geopolymer theory for pyramid construction had been completed. Scientists have provided the technical data and the physical evidence, and it's been published in a scientific journal. But, the theory remains rejected. This article explains why it should be accepted 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 standing still at the center of the Universe, and the idea that it was moving through space at approximately 67,000 miles per hour on its way around the Sun appeared to be false. Virtually everyone has encountered and solved the non-deceptive variety of inverted logic problems. 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 couldn't just sit there and do nothing as that wouldn't take you to your destination, so 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. 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 at the outset 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 ten-year-old Alfonse Murghatti 1 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 legitimate excuse nor 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 of a potentially solvable problem 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 generally competent, and ancient men all around the globe solved the problem hundreds to thousands of years ago. It's potentially solvable, and 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 that's supported 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 an unverified guess regardless of its apparent soundness. The following paragraphs describe the result of beginning the investigation of pyramid construction with complete confidence in an unverified 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 laypersons, 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, transporter beams, levitation, energy grids, and many others) employs some means of reducing the weight that ancient man had to manage throughout all of the construction process. 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 chains of evidence (curtains). It says that people lie and make mistakes which are lies that are made in good faith, and it says that chains of evidence don't lie. Therefore, we should believe chains of 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 soon it will be shown that they have no chain of evidence from which they can deduce any necessary conclusions. 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 geopolymer 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 they must remain focused on the pyramids if they're to solve the pyramid construction mystery, and they're right about that. Most non Egyptologists who've correctly perceived the weight reduction model have been forced by the deception to lose their focus. They're investigating things such as aliens or anti-gravity. Egyptologists simply dismiss those theories as wild and ignore everyone but themselves. Hidden among the many theories in the weight-reduction-model group, however, is the geopolymer theory. It's intuitively certain, it reduces the weight that ancient man had to manage during construction, it kept its focus on the pyramids, and it's fully supported with invisible physical evidence that was acquired directly from the pyramids. Thus, it's impossible for Egyptologists to solve the mystery because they're unaware that their non-weight-reduction model of current orthodoxy is neither intuitively certain nor is it based upon chains of evidence. It's 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 evident truth that huge stones are present in the pyramids. This seems reasonable, but the problem is that there's no evidence of the existence 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, and red flags should be raised that this is suspicious. But none are raised, and Egyptologists commit to this uncertain path. 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, they remain uncertain and anything that's based upon using them is an unprovable hypothesis.

Rule III says that if Egyptologists guessed incorrectly and 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 contained in the article found at this link 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 claim 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 by Dr. Hawass 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 used. 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 an error in reasoning known as a hasty generalization to assume that they do. 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 along the wrong path, but they haven't explored the possibility that copper chisels is incorrect. It's the assertion based upon 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 keep 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 doesn't conform to Descartes's Rules, nor to the principle of parsimony when compared to the geopolymer theory, nor to the scientific method, and it doesn't meet the criteria established within the definition of proof. But the geopolymer theory conforms to all of these standards.

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 pyramid construction is quarrying followed by transporting followed by lifting followed by setting the stones precisely in place.

Rule V enables us to mentally visualize things that are invisible such that we might not be deceived by them, and it tells us that we can recover even if we've made a misstep. The means to recover is to turn around and go back to the earliest place in the construction sequence where we're uncertain which for pyramid construction is quarrying because of the uncertainty surrounding copper chisels. 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 the smallest possible parts and go to the beginning of the construction process to discover how the metal and all the parts were manufactured. With respect to the pyramids, Rule XIII tells us that if we begin with huge stones, 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 in personally manageable amounts of weight to the construction site, and if it was carried, then it was lifted to the top tiers in buckets, and if it was lifted in buckets, then it was poured precisely in place.

Unlike current orthodoxy where there's no means even to test how many men were needed to build the Great Pyramid, the geopolymer theory 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.

Information about the geopolymer theory 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 independently verified and 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 whether it was true or not. 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 chain of evidence---not his own conjecture.

This link to a description of Good Science found on the catchpenny.org web site offers a simple but adequate explanation of The Scientific Method. Notice that step 2 on that web page states that a truly scientific hypothesis must be testable. Current orthodoxy is untestable. Therefore, it's not a truly scientific hypothesis whereas the geopolymer theory is testable and has been tested. 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 all of Descartes's Rules, that conforms to the principle of parsimony, that has physical evidence to support every claim it makes (a chain of evidence), and that's been subjected to and passed the standards of the scientific method. It has a chain of evidence, it can be demonstrated, and current orthodoxy is excluded because it violates Descartes's Rule III. The inability to demonstrate aliens or anti-gravity theories exclude them from consideration at this time. If at some future date they are discovered, and if they can be demonstrated and physical evidence can be found that proves they were used to construct pyramids, then they will be reconsidered. Proof is about currently available evidence. Thus, geopolymers has completed all steps required for proof based upon currently available evidence.

For those parts of the pyramids that have been tested and where the test results were positive for geopolymers, the preponderance of the greater grounds of probability is with geopolymers. 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 such evidence is nonsense.

Descartes Rules.

1The chemistry described is not a joke but is reminiscent of the work of Dr. Vicky Whiffin, formerly of Murdock University in Perth, Australia with more recent work described in the PDF file found on this link.