posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 05:43 PM
I really appreciate how we can disagree in a civil manner, I have a hard time dealing with that here. Thanks alot.
Now back to the lecture at hand...
Grand navies does not make a civilization great in a militirstic sense. I would like to introduce to you an excerpt, from one of my fav songs((I
think it applies)
no idea is original,/ theres is nothing new under the sun/, its never what you do but how its done/
They were not the first archers, chariot riders, or anything like that. But they did it very different from anyone else. They didnt march like
everyone else! The pharoah was in front which is rare, slaying hundreds and walking away unmarked. They used braided leather for vest, a technique
that was taught from more southern tribes that is like none other on the planet. Nothing can penetrate it and the one 'they' or 'we' found, the
pattern couldnt be duplicated. They could also navigate in a remarkable way. King Tut was known for being a great general. From my understanding he
never lost a battle. There are even (your favorite)heiroglyphs of battles of him being a full grown man. Scholars are confused because they know
when he died, yet these are his heiros..? I personally never understood that one. When you were 13 or even younger could you have led thousands upon
thousands of noble warriors home from a victorious battle? IDK..? Him and Ramesess ....
If one really wants to measure how 'great' they were lets converse about their everyday social life. It seems we(america) our obsessed with them.
Even how they rule (minus our other influences) even with the obelisk in our capitol. We our one of the greatest nations ever like kemet/egypt and it
is not a coincidence that we have all of these kemetic/egyptian symbols everywhere in our history.
The greeks arent known for having this grand navy but they did have this technology that allowed them to "pour fire" and "reach out with fire" and
they used it on ships. They didnt have grand navies, but that would make them superior in my eyes, because noone used those methods.
As for chemistry, break the word down in its entirety. Chem-Kem, chemistry or alchemistry both derives from the old anciet Kemetic way of life. Is
this the one you disagreed with. You disagree with it because it doesnt support "your" personal view, but it supports "The View" and the
out-of-placeness that they represent.
In the history of science, the etymology of the word chemistry is a debatable issue. It is agreed that the word “alchemy” is a European one,
derived from Arabic, but the origin of the root word, chem, is uncertain. Words similar to it have been found in most ancient languages, with
different meanings, but conceivably somehow related to alchemy. In fact, the Persians, Greeks, Chinese, and Indians usually referred to what
Westerners call alchemy as “The Art,” or by terms denoting change or transmutation. Most historians, however, agree that the ancient Egyptians
were the first chemists. French chemist Antoine Fourcroy, for example, in his 1782 Leçons élémentaires d’histoire naturelle et de chemie, divides
the early history of chemistry into four epochs: Egypt, the Arabs, alchemy, and the pharmaceutical chemistry begun by Paracelsus.
The majority of authors agreed that the word "chemistry" has an Egyptian origin, based on the ancient Egyptian word kēme (chem), which stands for
earth.    In short, most agree that alchemy was born in ancient Egypt, where the word “Khem” was used in reference to the fertility of
the flood plains around the Nile.[