ProtoQuant.com

II. Arguments

Some of the following arguments have already a mathematical background in this page, some are waiting for it. We are presenting them here and now only because we think the time is ripe, more specifically that Harvey’s thesis needs to be amplified. Perhaps not along his own steps, but this is an entirely different story. The following show why or why not, according to our opinion.

     Arguments of the Physics, Geometry and Theory of Materials lead us to the idea of three basic elements for the constitution of everything in the Universe surrounding us: Matter, Space and a third element through the intermediary of which these first ones act upon each other. For the lack of a better term, and meaning no offense for some orthodox academic views, we call this third element Ether, for it has all the qualities that this old support of light was supposed to have. Mathematically the description of this element is formally identical to that of classical electromagnetic field in the Maxwell’s acceptance. The interaction between Matter and Space takes place dynamically at the limit between the two. This concept has no clarification in the present page as yet. Arguments of isotropy and theory of irreversible deformation of materials show that the Ether can be intensified and stored in Matter formations having distinct geometrical shape and physical structure. The concept of physical structure has also no clarification yet in this page. All we can say for now is that the releasing of the possible stored energy involves changing of the equilibrium between Matter and Space with the end result of ageing of the Matter up to a stable state where it has lost all the stored energy.

     Regardless of physical nature of a piece of matter that might meet the requirements of a technological storage of energy, its geometrical shape is precisely a regular octahedron, or a geometrical shape having a relation with this solid shape. As it is highly conceivable that this process of storage can be accomplished by a society evolved enough in order to understand the details of interaction Space-Matter, and because the pyramids are half octahedra and are in existence for ages here on Earth, it seems only natural to accept the past existence of such a society that used them as geometrical forms in order to harness and store the Ether for useful social purposes. If that society is Atlantean or of any other origin is of no consequence here, and there is no harm in accepting Harvey’s thesis that it is indeed Atlantean. It is a good alternative for historical and linguistic researches. The characteristics of the enterprise show this society too advanced indeed to justify such primitive concept as “Nuclear Energy”. But by the very same token, for such a society “Elementary Particle Forces” might not even conceptually exist, to say nothing about “Egypto-Atlantean Bomb”. Here we are at variance with Harvey. Speaking of Atlantis, if something catastrophic once happened, it should make us proud and give us hope: they were human just like us! As old Plato once said, they perished when their “divine portion began to fade away” and “human nature got the upper hand”! For, it is to be conceived that such devices harnessing the Space energy cannot be used for the benefit of a few, but for the common task of the society as a whole. This simple truth has been forgotten and the tragic event has ensued as a consequence. Our social task should be to regain the primeval “divine nature”!

     The only problem with this interpretation is that the actual pyramids don’t appear to have the right dimensions. Well, as it turns out, this is not a problem at all, for the Matter is not frozen in time. It evolves, and if we consider that the evolution has the appearance of a creep-like process, we have the order of magnitude of the ages as reported by Harvey in his page www.pyramidtexts.com But this implies the fact that the evolution is an indifferent one, in the sense that between Space and Matter there is no interaction, and this is where the ways of Harvey and ours part. For if a pyramid evolves, Harvey accepts that the evolution is determined by its dead weight. However, if the evolution is an indifferent one, we think that it is a consequence of the dynamics of background and this dynamics is the reflection of a certain kind cosmological evolution within the actual academic wisdom. One of the intriguing cosmological theses, which can well be taken as a reflection of the interaction between Space and Matter, is the continuous creation of matter, making the Earth – the essential octahedron – grow. This will determine a variation of geometry of every solid structure dwelling on Earth, including the pyramids, and this is the principle we are using in dating the pyramids. According to this principle, we are compelled to use the linear dimensions of the pyramids rather than the angle of the faces used by Harvey, for this last metric is submitted to a larger estimation uncertainty than the lengths. Consequently some of our estimates differ from Harvey’s, in some cases being even reversed.

Pages: 1 2 3 4