Advanced mathematics encrypted in Stone-Age and ancient 'artwork' [Archive] - Page 2

Hokulele

8th May 2008, 08:36 PM

Let's take a look at the numbers.

As things stand today, I can get some absolutely right, and some not with varying degree of accuracy. Scaled to real size of Giza (the maximum NS distance between the pyramid edges), the Menkaure's base and position are faultless. The reconstructed base is an inch shorter than in the plan given by Petrie.

Reconstruction is off. Strike one.

So this base than has 0 fault on the south, 1 inch in the north, 1.2 inches in the west, and 2.25 inches in the east.

One number right, 3 wrong. Strike two.

The same plan will fit in the NE corner of the Great Pyramid (in Petrie's plan) exactly, but the sides will be more than six inches shorter.

Another one wrong. Strike three.

However, one great plus of my algorithm is that it also gets you one diagonal of the Second Pyramid exactly right, because the difference to Petrie's plan is 0.58 inch.

One right, one wrong. Strike four. (We must be playing cricket now.)

That's a whole lot of things right for a simple geometrical procedure with emphasis on the Golden Section.

Two right, five wrong. Since you said yourself you are scaling something up in the CAD system, once again, it would impossible to get all of teh numbers wrong. Not impressed.

How so? I specified exactly how my layout matches Petrie's plan, where it can be considered exact, and where it's lacking. If you can point me to a better reconstruction from a clean slate than mine, please do so.

And here you are admitting it doesn't match up.

I think that you should agree that the reconstruction of the third pyramid in the layout is indeed exact. So is one diagonal of the second pyramid. The Great Pyramid in the same reconstruction will be precisely positioned by its N.E. corner, but its sides will be over six inches shorter. Its center will fall three inches from Petrie's plan. The second pyramid's center will be five inches off. All these results are sufficiently close to the plan considering the scale of Giza to be considered right on.

One diagonal correct, both center and all sides wrong. Still not impressed.

The reconstruction is a simple procedure, and gives the best results, so far. That is despite the fact that the reconstruction is not yet complete, because it doesn't give the size of the second pyramid. There is one Golden Section idea, which takes this size to within 22 inches overlap by the original, not close enough for me, although I see reconstructions out there being out by whole cubits and still suggesting that they reflect the original plan by the ancient Egyptians. In comparison, my reconstruction is so close to reality, an idea suggests itself that the original Egyptian plan was the same, as my reconstruction.

Way off. Now I am even less impressed.

Jiri

8th May 2008, 08:46 PM

So wollery wins

Roos arise, court dismissed.

wollery

8th May 2008, 08:47 PM

One right, one wrong. Strike four. (We must be playing cricket now.)There are no strikes in cricket, those would be dot balls, or wickets, or wides, or no balls, depending on which side you were referring to.

And always remember, there's no point to cricket, but there is a silly point. ;)

Jiri

8th May 2008, 09:56 PM

Wollery, you have an amusing way of counting. A discrepancy of an inch out of 4,153.6 inches is negligible indeed. It is a plus for me, hombre, not for you. It is not nice trying to rustle points.
A difference of over six inches for the big pyramid is also within the tolerance limit, other than yours&comp. Between the initial exact concept, and eventual reconstruction intervenes construction, and Petrie's measurements. Plus time, of course. Yet, Petrie's plan, and my reconstruction are virtually identical. Highly indicative of ancient pre-existence of my reconstruction.
Then there is also the fact that you would expect the Egyptians to treat Giza as sacred grounds. Therefore, the architecture reflects the fact. The golden section is suitable for sacred architecture. That's why Golden Section dominates my reconstruction. Nothing else works.

Hokulele

8th May 2008, 10:05 PM

A discrepancy of an inch out of 4,153.6 inches is negligible indeed.

This one sentence proves perfectly that you have no idea at all what are the roles of precision and accuracy in design/construction.

wollery

8th May 2008, 10:06 PM

JonnyFive

9th May 2008, 06:42 AM

Oh, don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that your basic thesis is wrong. The Ancient Egyptians may well have planned all of Giza to a golden ratio plan, I have no idea. What I'm saying is that your method of exploring this thesis sucks. It doesn't stand scrutiny. At best it's pure speculation.

This.

There are a lot of issues with your constructions, many of which stem from the sources you've been using. The same problem was present in your analysis of various carvings using low-res scans of worn, eroded figures. By the way, since a lot of people mention precision vs. accuracy, let me explain simply.

In mathematical analysis, the accuracy is the amount of correctness to an approximation. Basically, the closer your approximation is to the actual answer, the more accurate it is.

Precision, on the other hand, refers to the level of correctness that can be expected to be expressed by an approximation. The distinction is kind of nuanced (and if English is not your first language or you lack a mathematical background, it may sound like the two concepts are the same), but you can think of precision as being a sort of boundary of how accurate a given approximation can be.

So, if you have a method that approximates a value to within +/- 0.5, and one that does it to within +/- 0.005, then the second method is more precise. You can be more sure that your approximation is accurate with the second method. However, with either method you can't be sure of the level of accuracy beyond the level of precision.

When it comes to graphical analysis, this is important because your choice of source may limit your precision - limit your ability to make accurate estimates to within a certain amount. For example, if you have a source image with very fuzzy lines, or where the scale is very big but the image resolution is low, you can't say that you have a high level of precision, because you can't be sure that your approximations are, in fact, accurate.

If you want to be fair in your analysis, you need to account for the potential error due to lack of precision. From what I've read of your graphical plots, you don't do this. You use some really low-res source images, and you don't ever say "well, it could be within this range." Rather, you choose to assume it is a certain value.

Do you see the problem here?

Also, please learn to use the quote feature on this message board. It is not difficult and would make your posts much easier to read.

Jiri

9th May 2008, 01:55 PM

The reconstruction deals with exact ideas above all. The architects planned Giza according to exact ideas, and the builders built Giza with great precision in adhering to those ideas, and specifications, so that the result accurately reflects the underlying exact ideas.

Quoting myself from an earlier post, because the quote shows a basic understanding of what you expound on. Not that your words are wasted, mind you.
Right now, I am a little busy, plus, I found another simplification, which makes things even better, and more interesting. Funny thing again, ideas of others seem to integrate with my concept and the Giza plan more accurately than into their own.

wollery

9th May 2008, 11:40 PM

Jiri, the bottom line is that your idea is unprovable.

You could reconstruct Giza with extreme accuracy and precision, and show that it fits into a golden ratio scheme, and you will still have proven nothing. Except that it's possible to fit it into a golden ratio scheme. It doesn't prove that that was how the Egyptians planned it, let alone that they even knew about the golden ratio.

And this is your biggest problem. What you are doing is, ultimately, a waste of time. The only way to prove that the Egyptians knew about the golden ratio, or that they used it in the planning of Giza, is to find a contemporary account that says that that's what they did. An architect's plan with a notation that says, "Here's where we use the golden ratio". An historian or scribe noting that they measured out distances from one pyramid to the next, carefully noting diagonals as they did it would be a start, but not proof.

There is no proof that you idea is correct. None. And no amount of reproducing floor plans on your part will change that, even if your floor plans were 100% accurate, which they aren't, it would still be mere speculation.

jimbob

10th May 2008, 07:41 AM

Jiri, I understand your frustration at the hostile reception to your ideas. It's well-established that some members here are shills for Big Maths and Big Sanity.

Johnny Five, Wollery and Hokulele are shills for "Big Sanity"....

Those three are especially prominent on this page...
Nominated

jsfisher

10th May 2008, 09:33 AM

...An architect's plan with a notation that says, "Here's where we use the golden ratio"...

The total lack of such evidence is compelling. The only (I repeat, only) credible conclusion is that it must have been the result of aliens. Yep, aliens. Aliens with a chief spokesman who looked incredibly like Edward G. Robinson. They encrypted the advanced Mathematics into the ancient artwork. Sort of an inside joke, I guess, but it just goes to show yet again, the Jews did it.

Fortunately, Charleton somebody or other led them away from Egypt before they could cause too much more mischief.

Jiri

11th May 2008, 05:52 PM

Can't delete duplicate message.. So, I use this space to put some perspective on how big the biggest miss in my reconstruction is. Make a map of Giza according to Petrie, so it is nine meters tall. The biggest fault presently in the reconstruction is 3.94 inches. That is about one nine-thousandth of the total 35,713 inches for the S.N. distance between the outside pyramid edges. So, on our map on the wall, which is nine meters tall, this fault would become one millimeter. I'll let you decide if this is close, or not.

Jiri

11th May 2008, 06:07 PM

Nice uncompromising statement Wollery! So, you declare circumstantial evidence worthless. But, is circumstantial evidence worthless? Certainly not, because even if it cannot be considered perfect proof, it carries enough weight to cast doubt on, and invalidate any conclusions to the contrary. Whether proof or not, the fact is that the Golden Section clock-work is inherent in the Giza arrangement. It is true. In combination with other data on design characteristics we have of Egyptian architecture, circumstantial evidence may become so overbearing that the only rational conclusion will be that Egyptians had knowledge of the Golden Section, and used it in sacred architecture.

jsfisher

11th May 2008, 06:15 PM

Nice uncompromising statement Wollery! So, you declare circumstantial evidence worthless. But, is circumstantial evidence worthless?

Perhaps a better question, Jiri, is how would you protect against confirmation bias?

wollery

11th May 2008, 06:52 PM

Jiri

11th May 2008, 09:13 PM

Perhaps a better question, Jiri, is how would you protect against confirmation bias?

Thanks for asking, but no need to protect against my powerful confirmation bias, because it has been amply satisfied by all this confirmation I've been getting.
I've had so much confirmation lately that I decided to spare you of some, knowing it is an irritant to you.

jsfisher

12th May 2008, 05:31 AM

JonnyFive

12th May 2008, 05:48 AM

Thanks for asking, but no need to protect against my powerful confirmation bias, because it has been amply satisfied by all this confirmation I've been getting.
I've had so much confirmation lately that I decided to spare you of some, knowing it is an irritant to you.

Do you know what confirmation bias is? If you're serious about any of the stuff your doing rather than, pardon the expression, simply blowing smoke up our asses, then you really need to do more to outline how you're ensuring that your methods are objective. For one thing, you should really consider improving the quality of your source data. There are a bunch of other things you could do as well, but that would be a start.

Anyhow, you don't need to be so flippant towards the people responding to you. Jsfisher has been polite to you and has accomodated you to a great degree - I don't see why you have say things like that to him (unless you genuinely misunderstand what confirmation bias is, in which case I apologize).

And, as wollery said, ultimately you aren't really proving your hypothesis, even with the best data and the most meticulous methodology. At best all you could prove was that, if the Egyptians wanted to plan their pyramids according to a golden ratio scheme of some kind, that they succeeded.

If you want to prove their intent, you'll need to do some research into the records available from the time. Learning to read hieroglyphics would be a good start, rather than diddling around with geometry.

Jiri

12th May 2008, 07:16 PM

..you really need to do more to outline how you're ensuring that your methods are objective. For one thing, you should really consider improving the quality of your source data.

Holey Schmoe, Jonny, please, don't tell me that you don't know that I have simply fed Petrie's measurements into a CAD drawing. You can't do better than that unless you get a project under way, whereby Giza gets remeasured to the best of today's capabilities. Petrie's measurements have been repeatedly confirmed as solid. The point is that even best effort at remeasurement will introduce rather insignificant changes. But why am I telling you this? You knew it anyway. Still you said the above, which then strikes me as highly disingenuous.

Anyhow, you don't need to be so flippant towards the people responding to you. Jsfisher has been polite to you and has accomodated you to a great degree - I don't see why you have say things like that to him (unless you genuinely misunderstand what confirmation bias is, in which case I apologize).

JSF is a polite man, and so am I. He hasn't said anything more concrete than 'Aliens did it' this far. I didn't get offended, did I? I could have become Alienated, and retort that JSF and some other participants in this discussion know a certain mathematical tidbit, specifically, how to construct a regular pentagram using only thirteen geometrical steps, which it is quite impossible to learn from existing sources. It is a fact that the only source on the Internet today for this method is a prehistoric monkey - the Nazca monkey. It has taught me, and I taught it to you, while refining my method by also learning from JSF's technique. The moral is that learning any mathematics from a monkey is as noteworthy as learning it from an Alien.
JSF has since said that there are other methods of how to do the same in as many steps. Where are they? No one here was able to produce any. Anyway, no offense, JSF.
,
No, I don't misunderstand the confirmation bias concept. Perhaps, you don't understand that what I am doing is unavoidable. I have to look for confirmation. Without confirmation, there would be no point in carrying on. The issue is something else, it is in the quality of confirmation. Here is why I meant no offense, when I mentioned that there is indeed a lot of stuff, which serves to confirm my concept.
What is my concept? It is exploration within the framework of the Pyramid Square. It is this concept, which enables one to make observations of regularities, which encourage the hypothesis of a Grand Plan of Giza derived by an exact method starting from a clean slate.
There is only one thing, which may defend the concept - success! In this case, success is evident from the exactitude, with which even ideas of others integrate into the concept. Those ideas had until then existed as mere inexactitudes. Success is also evident from the accuracy of the final result, whereby your scaled up plan of Giza is superimposed over the existing plan of Giza. Do the two correspond significantly? Check the report, I say they do.
If your CAD drawing produces spectacular exactitudes, are you supposed to not notice those as a positive? There is one such exactitude, which serves as strong confirmation for the concept, but is missing in my report, because I only discovered it today:
As soon as you complete the first stage of reconstruction by inserting the two initial golden rectangles into the Pyramid Square, you can learn that Petrie's overall width between the pyramids at 45 degrees (counterclockwise) equals the distance from the top side of your rectangles to the horizontal axis of the Second Pyramid. How close is this?
0.94383844.. of an inch. Petrie would say that it is where it's supposed to be, considering his own fault tolerance limit. So, what about it? Is finding and citing a fact like this just excercising one's confirmation bias, or is it something more? Well, whatever it is, it is spectacularly precise.

..ultimately you aren't really proving your hypothesis, even with the best data and the most meticulous methodology. At best all you could prove was that, if the Egyptians wanted to plan their pyramids according to a golden ratio scheme of some kind, that they succeeded.

That is good enough for me. Anyway, here is a diagram for the stuff I mentioned above. It shows also one other interesting instance of exactitude. If you do Vesica Pisces with a circle expressing the 45 degree width of the pyramids starting from the Third Pyramid's diagonal then the third and fourth circles intersect just 0.31 inch from the diagonal 'd' of the Second pyramid.
Note both the above described phenomena involve the width between the pyramids, a show of consistency. Or is it confirmation bias? By the way, the main idea of the diagram is that the central axis of the 45 degree width between the pyramids is also one of the second Pyramid's diagonals. This is a well known idea among explorers. How well does it work in my reconstruction? It works to a a half of an inch..

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/155774828f49ab8a17.gif

wollery

12th May 2008, 09:01 PM

Anyway, here is a diagram for the stuff I mentioned above. It shows also one other interesting instance of exactitude. If you do Vesica Pisces with a circle expressing the 45 degree width of the pyramids starting from the Third Pyramid's diagonal then the third and fourth circles intersect just 0.31 inch from the diagonal 'd' of the Second pyramid.
Note both the above described phenomena involve the width between the pyramids, a show of consistency. Or is it confirmation bias? By the way, the main idea of the diagram is that the central axis of the 45 degree width between the pyramids is also one of the second Pyramid's diagonals. This is a well known idea among explorers. How well does it work in my reconstruction? It works to a a half of an inch..

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/155774828f49ab8a17.gif

Okay, I seem to remember doing something similar with one of your previous drawings, but here we go again.

The 1st and 3rd circles are not at the same spacing as the 2nd and 4th circles, which renders the "accuracy" of the diagonal agreement between the pyramid and the intersection of the 3rd and 4th circles rather moot.

None of the rectangles have the golden ratio, although two are close to 1 decimal place.

Jiri

12th May 2008, 11:17 PM

You are relying on low-res bitmap images. In the CAD drawing everything works exactly as I said it does. You have a perfectly good opportunity to make the same CAD drawing from Petrie's specs, and then see for yourself. If I say that some distance is 0.36408664.. then in your reproduction this reading should be exactly the same, if you follow my instructions. That's all I can do for you.

Hokulele

12th May 2008, 11:22 PM

45 degrees is not a width measurement.

ETA: Unless you are claiming the Egyptians were using transits.

Reality Check

12th May 2008, 11:48 PM

Jiri, I note that the pyramids have square bases. This means that the bases consist of 2 right angled triangles. Thus the ancient Egyptians were not only aware of Pythagoras's Theorem centuries before his birth but also built the pyramids to demonstrate it (not as tombs). This is much, much, much more important than the golden ratio claim. :D

Jiri

13th May 2008, 09:11 AM

Must be another member - a shill for Big Maths and Big Sanity.. and Big Words.

Jiri

13th May 2008, 09:31 AM

I thought that I made a neat discovery regarding an engraving from the tomb of Hesire, but yesterday I came across the below info on a guy named Khesi-Ra
. It seems the Russians had beaten me to the find by many years. Ah well, at least I lend them some confirmation. Too bad so many scientists want you to buy their book to learn what it is they discovered.

http://www.fenkefeng.org/essaysm18004.html

Early in the 20th century in Saqqara (Egypt), archaeologists opened the crypt, in which the Egyptian architect Khesi-Ra (Khesira) was buried. The wood boards-panels covered by a magnificent thread were extracted from the crypt alongside with different material assets. In total there were 11 boards in the crypt; among them only 5 boards were preserved; the remaining panels were completely destroyed by moisture in the crypt.

All preserved panels depict the architect Khesi-Ra who is surrounded by different figures having symbolical significance (Fig.9). For long time the assignment of Khesi-Ra’s panels was vague. At first the Egyptologists considered these panels as false doors. However, since the 60th years of the 20th century situation with the panels began to be elucidated. In the beginning of the 60th the Russian architect Shevelev paid his attention to the fact that the staffs the architect holds in his hands on one of the panels relate between themselves as 1:, that is, as the ratio of the small side and the diagonal of the rectangle with the side ratio of 1:2 ("two-adjacent square"). Just this observation became the initial point for research of the other Russian architect Shmelev who made careful geometrical analysis of Khesi-Ra’s panels and as a result came to the sensational discovery described in the brochure "Phenomenon of Ancient Egypt" (1993) [2].

.

Fig. 9. Khesi-Ra’s panel

After exploring Khesi-Ra’s panels Igor Shmelev made the following discovery: “But now, after the comprehensive and argued analysis by the method of proportions we get good causes to assert that Khesi-Ra’s panels are the harmony rules encoded in geometry language…. So, in our hands we have the concrete material evidence, which shows us by “plain text” the highest level of abstract thinking of the Ancient Egypt intellectuals. The artist who cut the panels with amazing accuracy, jeweler refinement and masterly ingenuity demonstrated the rule of the ‘Golden Section’ in its broadest range of variations. In outcome it was born the ‘GOLDEN SYMPHONY’ presented by the ensemble of the highly artistic works, which testifies not only ingenious talents of their creator, but also convincingly verifies that the author was let to the secret of harmony. This genius was of the ‘Golden Business Craftsman’ by the name of Khesi-Ra.”.

But who was Khesi-Ra? The ancient texts inform us that Khesi-Ra was "a Chief of Destius and a Chief of Boot, a Chief of doctors, a writer of the pharaoh, a priest of Gor, a main architect of the pharaoh, a Supreme Chief of South Tens, and a carver".

Analyzing the above listed Khesi-Ra’s regalia Shmelev pays special attention to the fact that Khesi-Ra was the priest of Gor. In the Ancient Egypt Gor was considered as the God of Harmony and therefore to be the priest of Gor meant to execute functions of the keeper of Harmony.

As follows from his name, Khesi-Ra had been elevated to the rank of the God of Ra (God of the Sun). Shmelev suggests that Khesi_Ra could get this high award for "development of aesthetic … principles in the canon system, which reflects the harmonic fundamentals of the Universe … The orientation on the harmonic principle discovered by the Ancient Egypt civilization was the path to unprecedented flowering of culture; this flowering falls into period of Zoser-pharaoh when the system of written signs was completely implemented. Therefore it is possible to assume that Zoser’s pyramid became the first experimental pyramid, which was followed by construction of the unified complex of the Great pyramids in Giza according to the program designed under Khesi-Ra supervision".

JonnyFive

13th May 2008, 09:51 AM

Must be another member - a shill for Big Maths and Big Sanity.. and Big Words.

"Big words?" :confused:

What in the world are you talking about?

Oh, as far as my questions about your source material go, I was talking about your other image analysis problems as well - the ones where you used low-res bitmaps of the original pictures. If you had access to higher resolution source data, then why didn't you post that instead? (note: I am not talking about the Giza pyramids specifically)

Do you have some way of verifying Petrie's measurements? Could you provide us with a breakdown of the data used to construct the plot in tabular form, or something else to allow us to follow the data construction? What about the Nazca Monkey? Did you have access to GPS data or something similarly precise to construct the CAD plot from. You keep mentioning that you're using CAD like it's an automatic pass on accuracy and precision, but the same issues still present themselves and you've done little to address those issues.

Also, what does the rough nature of the approximations say to you?

Still, you're doing nothing to support the idea that this had any kind of deeper meaning. You were making claims about higher math being encoded in carvings and all kinds of stuff, but that all seems to have faded away in favor of the stuff about golden ratio plots and the Giza pyramids. I am genuinely interested in knowing if you were able to come up with anything more than some numerical ratio constructions.

What about things that are actually applicable to higher math? Also, what happened to all the various carvings and what-not you were analyzing before? I looked back at the first post in this thread, which reminded me of how you failed to deal with precision issues at all in your analysis. Bad form, even with a CAD program to make sure you made your lines nice and straight.

Why do you keep trying to imply I'm being disingenuous, anyway? Would you be willing to take my word that I'm not?

Jiri

13th May 2008, 01:19 PM

What happened to all the various carvings and what-not you were analyzing before? - Nothing, it didn't fade away, the report is on my website. You can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink as the proverb goes.
As far as resolution goes for the one La Marche image I analyzed, the resolution is sufficiently adequate for the type of preliminary study I did (scanning and reproduction on my computer.) It can be blown up quite a lot before the pixels start jumping out at you. Of course, the subsequent gif images suffer from their own limitations, but that is a problem of
presentation, and not of the analysis itself. I also told you about the bizarre problem with the museum of Man in Paris. Long time ago, it promptly replied to a letter sent it by the French attaché here, specifically promising a timely reply. And there and then the museum put both me and the attaché on ignore, so to speak. The attaché couldn't believe it, but I could, and when he said that he would urge a reply, I was skeptical. It is realistic to expect seemingly non-serious and inexplicable behaviour to somehow marr the scene of this type of discovery. Either way, I was able to make progress, which I found valuable, and so I didn't press the issue. The Nazca monkey came along - more rewarding work. Just when it seemed that I was running short on research material, the Abydos Helicopter landed square in the middle of my interest. After that, it was my chance to give an informed opinion on some peculiar characteristics of layout for several Giza temples.
So, here we are. You say "You keep mentioning that you're using CAD like it's an automatic pass on accuracy and precision, but the same issues still present themselves and you've done little to address those issues."
Well' there you go, we have an image now to work with, which is available to everybody in the same form, and so some of your previous objections fade away, and yet the same subject matter dominates the design. The simplest explanation for that is that it came down the grapevine from whoever was responsible for La Marche, and Nazca. Superb resolution, or not, the ideas came through the ancient works with enough clarity to be duly observed, and learned. Giza layout is turning out to be in the same class, dominated by the Golden Section in the Geometry department. Giza is a sacred place steeped in meaning.
.
pyramid sides in inches as given by Petrie:
Great Pyramid
9,068.8
second pyramid
8,474.9
third pyramid
4.153.6
north to south total
35,713.1
south side of Great Pyramid to the north side of the second pyramid
5,159.7
west side of Great Pyramid to the east side of the second pyramid
4,393.9
south side of the second pyramid to the north side of the third pyramid
8856.1
west side of the second pyramid to the east side of the third pyramid
3,136
Should take you no more than five Jonny. BTW, you may not be disingenuous in your own perception, but sometimes you make that impression on me. For one, you are not watchful over your confirmation bias.

Reality Check

13th May 2008, 01:45 PM

Jiri: Have you read: Pi, Phi and the Great Pyramid (http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2008/890/heritage.htm)?

To work out an Egyptian value for Pi from the dimensions of the Great Pyramid, they had a unit of length called the Royal Cubit (about 0.524m). By transforming the pyramid's height and base from western units (feet or metres) into cubits, it becomes evident that the designed height measures 280 cubits and the base 440. These figures have been worked out by Egyptologists, and in my view are the only plausible dimensions. Neither -- from the logical point of view -- were any fractions added to these values, considering the large dimensions of the structure. By dividing half the base by the height (cotangent of the slope angle) one reaches the ratio Pi/4. It then follows that the Egyptian value for Pi is 3.142857143 being equal exactly to 22/7, and this is the value, in our view, that was reported later by Archimedes, who studied in Alexandria.

What about the Egyptian value for the Golden Ratio Phi? In calculating the hypotenuse of the triangle of base 220c and height 280c, it is equal from the Pythagoras theorem to the square root of the sum of 48400 and 78400 (notice the resemblance between the digits) to be 356.0898763. Flinders Petrie noticed that the dimensions of this triangle were multiples of 4 cubits, since the base equals 55 times 4 whereas the hypotenuse is 89. It might be mere coincidence that the two numbers 55 and 89 are the 10th and 11th terms in the Fibonacci sequence, with Phi as the limit of its successive quotients. Thus the secant of the angle of inclination of the pyramid face on its base is 89/55 = 1.61818..., far more accurate than the one calculated in my last article. The Egyptian constants are now possibly: Pi = 22/7, Phi = 89/55.

Suggesting that it is a matter of coincidence that the Great Pyramid contains the above proportions could not be further from the truth. For one thing, Phi results automatically if one is to construct any right-angle triangle with dimensions a, b and c, satisfying c/b = b/a. It must have occurred to any mason, architect or engineer during the three millennia of Egyptian civilisation to seek the conditions under which the above proportionality criterion is satisfied. It follows from the Pythagoras theorem that the sides must satisfy a : b : c = 1 : root(Phi) : Phi.

Hokulele

13th May 2008, 02:02 PM

pyramid sides in inches as given by Petrie:
Great Pyramid
9,068.8
second pyramid
8,474.9
third pyramid
4.153.6
north to south total
35,713.1
south side of Great Pyramid to the north side of the second pyramid
5,159.7
west side of Great Pyramid to the east side of the second pyramid
4,393.9
south side of the second pyramid to the north side of the third pyramid
8856.1
west side of the second pyramid to the east side of the third pyramid
3,136

Most of these measurements are averages and do not account for surveying errors. For example, the exterior of the Great Pyramid was measured to be as follows:

N 9069.4
E 9067.7
S 9069.5
W 9068.6

Mean 9068.8

Why don't you use the exact numbers rather than the averages? Also, do you understand the problem of reporting your answers to the hundredth of an inch or more when the raw data is less precise?

Jiri

13th May 2008, 02:51 PM

The exact numbers are close to averages since the greatest difference between them is only 1.8 inches in the case you mention. I am not reporting answers, when I report data. The raw data may be less precise, but I am dealing here with subsequent results, which I simply report. There is a difference between reporting three inches, and 2.6 or 3.4. Surely, you can see that. If things work that well, perhaps there is a reason. Right?
But, the main reason should be that any architect would have had began the plan with pure squares.

Jiri

13th May 2008, 06:22 PM

Check, why would anybody stop at 89/55? Their natural curiosity would keep them going until they would notice that the result converges on some value. How far from noticing that the finer value lets them construct a much finer regular pentagon?
Note, how the temples had workshops, were keepers of tools like lathes, circular saws, tubular drills, and who knows what else, other than serving as schools, and laboratories, and keepers of records for over nine millenia, as a priest told Solon.
Any organization like the Egyptian Temple would have very good chances of survival in the prehistorical wild for a long time. Perhaps, it was by design. Egyptian religion and theology also seems to have been highly developed, and ready to satisfy everybody's needs anytime, even today. Their social organization was also quite benevolent, and altruistic for the times.
The pyramids are a very good proof of a point in time, when not long after supposedly being primitive, Egypt was not only civilized, but highly sophisticated, and possessed of building methods that should have required ages to learn. For instance, there was the staggering quality and performance of their tubular drills so admired by Petrie. How and why would they have developed such extraordinary skills in what egyptologists pass off as hunter-gatherer society? The answer is that they wouldn't and didn't. Whatever it was, our history has it wrong.

Jiri

14th May 2008, 01:10 AM

The notion about the pyramid's perimeter being half a geographical minute doesn't work too well, if we use global circumference of 40,000 kilometers. The pyramid's base of 230.348 m (9,068.8 inches) is 113.3 cm short of 7.5 geographical seconds.
I realize it's apples and oranges, but now the hypotenuse of 356.09 something divided by the 113.3 something
356.09/113.3 = 3.1428.. of something that looks and smells much like apple-orange Pi, equivalent to 22/7.
It's a technicality, a curiosity, which would make sense if the builders knew the metric system, just like they knew about stadia and geographical miles, and mixed things together as long as the pure numbers would work together. Just a two-cent thought I just had. Note that it wouldn't work at 9,069.45 proposed for a true 440 cubit base.

Paul

14th May 2008, 03:55 AM

The exact numbers are close to averages since the greatest difference between them is only 1.8 inches in the case you mention.If, however, you use JH Cole's survey (published in 1925 (http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/egypt/studyguide/gpmath.php)) you get an average of 9069.36 with the greatest difference being 8.04, nearly 4.5 times your figure.

JonnyFive

14th May 2008, 06:01 AM

Oh wow, it's hard to even differentiate between what was a quote and what was something you said, Jiri.

Might I suggest taking another break and coming back when you're more comfortable using forum features like the ability to flag quotes and insert line breaks. I mean, this isn't the first time you've been told this, so either you don't care or you're doing this to troll things up a bit.

I'm also pretty sure you don't know what confirmation bias is, as you applied it to me when I wasn't making any statements or trying to derive any meaning from any data. Asking you to justify your measurement and analysis issues doesn't have anything to do with confirmation bias, it's called "skepticism."

As Hokulele said, you've still got a lot of issues with precision. Please stop deflecting my questions with irrelevant tangents (e.g. "the images are available to everyone" which has nothing to do with the issue I raised) and walls of hard-to-parse text.

How precise is your source data? Why are you using only one survey as your source data?

Jiri

14th May 2008, 12:10 PM

Oh wow, it's hard to even differentiate between what was a quote and what was something you said, Jiri.

I suggest that may be because there was no quote. You must have automatically assumed that I was quoting, because I couldn't have possibly said The notion about the pyramid's perimeter being half a geographical minute doesn't work too well, if we use global circumference of 40,000 kilometers.The pyramid's base of 230.348 m (9,068.8 inches) is 113.3 cm short of 7.5 geographical seconds."
The statement is critical while being factual, hence you ascribe it to someone else, because I am Dr. Woo to you, and I cannot be open minded. Is that it?
And as to 'confirmation bias', it relates not only to the researcher, but to the critic, as well, when the criticism gets too one-sided.

Rodney

14th May 2008, 01:01 PM

If, however, you use JH Cole's survey (published in 1925 (http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/egypt/studyguide/gpmath.php)) you get an average of 9069.36 with the greatest difference being 8.04, nearly 4.5 times your figure.
Yes, but as noted by Livio Stechinni in "Notes on the Relation of Ancient Measures to the Great Pyramid," an appendix in Peter Tompkins' Secrets of the Great Pyramid (Harper and Row, New York, 1971), pp. 364-366, while the length of the sides of the Great Pyramid vary slightly, its total perimeter as measured by Cole (921,455 millimeters) is virtually identical to the distance in half a minute of latitude at the equator. Coincidence?

Jiri

14th May 2008, 01:27 PM

How precise is your source data? Why are you using only one survey as your source data?

You ask the first question repeatedly, and you've had some answers from varying sources. My source data is Petrie, so you are asking, how precise Petrie was. Let me spin this question from my angle. Petrie's data shines brightly from the viewpoint of my reconstruction. The two are so close, both fall into Petrie's plus-minus range. Which means that for any practical purposes the two are identical. I would venture that this result is very good overall - for the reconstruction, Petrie's surveys, and of course, the builders. That way everything is connected to the geometry of the reconstruction, to pure, and eternal ideas so appropriate for Giza. Cole's measurements are just as close. Citing Paul from above, the average for the Great Pyramid's base is 9069.36 inches. That is 0.56 of an inch more than Petrie's average.. More confirmation, I am almost embarrassed to suggest.

Jiri

14th May 2008, 01:45 PM

Rodney

14th May 2008, 04:05 PM

.
No, that does not look like a coincidence at all since it keeps in lockstep with other observations. Rather than that, it gives a logical reason for the pyramid's base. But, can you cite the actual numbers, so we can see, how much closer Cole gets in comparison to Petrie?
Petrie calculated the distances of each side of the Pyramid as 9069.4 British inches (BI) North, 9067.7 BI East, 9069.5 BI South, and 9068.6 BI West, for a total of 37,275.2 BI; see D. Davidson and H. Aldersmith, The Great Pyramid: Its Divine Message (Williams and Norgate, London, 1932), p. 118. Cole’s measurements are shown in BI by Somers Clarke and R. Engelbach in Ancient Egyptian Construction and Architecture (Dover, New York, 1990), p. 66. Specifically, Clarke and Engelbach show Cole's measurements as 9065.1 BI North, 9070.5 BI East, 9073.0 BI South, and 9069.2 BI West, for a total of 36,277.8 BI. Thus, Petrie's measurements deviated from Cole's by 4.3 BI North, 2.8 BI East, 3.5 BI South, and 0.6 BI West. However, because Petrie's measurement for the North side exceeded Cole's while Petrie's measurements for the other three sides were less than Cole's, the net deviation was only 2.6 BI (66 mm).

Jiri

14th May 2008, 04:15 PM

..virtually identical to the distance in half a minute of latitude at the equator. Coincidence?

Coincidence serves as an all powerful agency around any skeptical media. As such it is a false idol, because in general, coincidence is severely limited by its own nature. It is seldom complete and perfect, when concerning a more complex subject. As the number of variables the coincidence has to satisfy grows, the total number of all possible coincidences gets to be so great that the occurrence of our desired coincidence more than equals winning several major lotteries in a row. Therefore, coincidences, which are deemed to successfully imitate entire systems, and could be therefore called 'complete' simply don't exist in practical life. When such true coincidences are found in architectural plans, it is because those were actually the real plans.
Some here are familiar with my study of the "Frame". The Frame is one such complete system, which is in the wastebasket, because it has been declared either non-systematic, or coincidental.
Yet, the odds against the Frame occurring as is, are so great, no one here was able to actually calculate them with precision, but only informed estimates were given..
www.vejprty.com/atma.htm

Jiri

14th May 2008, 04:24 PM

Rodney, what is the value of half a minute of latitude at the equator? Sorry, that's what I meant to ask.

Blue Mountain

14th May 2008, 05:33 PM

Rodney, what is the value of half a minute of latitude at the equator? Sorry, that's what I meant to ask.

Why at the equator? Why not go a few hundred kilometres north and find a place where the value of 1/2 minute of latitude is precisely the same number as the circumference of the base of the great pyramid? I'm sure you could find some significance for the number of degrees at which that number is found.

I maintain it's coincidence. The wonderful thing about data mining with numbers is there are so many to choose from. (Look up Bible Code).

Rodney

14th May 2008, 06:01 PM

Rodney, what is the value of half a minute of latitude at the equator? Sorry, that's what I meant to ask.
The formula for determining the distance in one degree of latitude, according to the 1964 International Astronomical Union Ellipsoid, is (in meters): 111,133.35 - 559.84 cosine 2x + 1.17 cosine 4x where x is the mid-latitude of the arc. At the equator, one degree of latitude therefore equals 110,574.68 meters and half a minute of latitude (1/120 of a degree) equals 921,455.7 mm. See The Astronomical Almanac for the Year 1992 (Government Printing Office, Washington, 1990) p. K-5. So, Cole's measurement of the perimeter of the Great Pyramid deviated by 0.7 mm from this figure.

Rodney

14th May 2008, 06:19 PM

Why at the equator? Why not go a few hundred kilometres north and find a place where the value of 1/2 minute of latitude is precisely the same number as the circumference of the base of the great pyramid?
As my preceding post explains, you don't have to. Further, you might be interested to know that, until the Twentieth Century, the most accurate overall estimate of the earth was considered to be the Clarke Spheroid of 1866. According to this Spheroid, the distance in half a minute of equatorial latitude is 921,393.5 mm; see American Practical Navigator (Government Printing Office, Washington, 1958), pp. 956-957. However, a more accurate spheroid was developed by Hayford during 1909-1910. This International Spheroid specifies half a minute of equatorial latitude as 921,462.5 mm. See again American Practical Navigator, pp. 956-957. The International Spheroid remained the generally accepted estimate of the earth's dimensions until 1964, when the International Astronomical Union adopted the new International Ellipsoid, based upon satellite measurements of the earth's size and shape.

So, whereas Cole's measurement of the Great Pyramid of 921,455 mm deviates by 61.5 mm from the Clarke Spheroid figure and by 7.5 mm from the International Spheroid figure, it is only 0.7 mm away from the modern figure.

balrog666

14th May 2008, 07:00 PM

As my preceding post explains, you don't have to. Further, you might be interested to know that, until the Twentieth Century, the most accurate overall estimate of the earth was considered to be the Clarke Spheroid of 1866. According to this Spheroid, the distance in half a minute of equatorial latitude is 921,393.5 mm; see American Practical Navigator (Government Printing Office, Washington, 1958), pp. 956-957. However, a more accurate spheroid was developed by Hayford during 1909-1910. This International Spheroid specifies half a minute of equatorial latitude as 921,462.5 mm. See again American Practical Navigator, pp. 956-957. The International Spheroid remained the generally accepted estimate of the earth's dimensions until 1964, when the International Astronomical Union adopted the new International Ellipsoid, based upon satellite measurements of the earth's size and shape.

So, whereas Cole's measurement of the Great Pyramid of 921,455 mm deviates by 61.5 mm from the Clarke Spheroid figure and by 7.5 mm from the International Spheroid figure, it is only 0.7 mm away from the modern figure.

Am I missing something here?

Why not toss the classic industrial measurements in the trash where they belong and just use the most accurate public survey ever taken (the GPS-based WGS84 survey)?

1/120 degree = 927662.43m

OTOH, if you insist in pre-industrial inaccuracy, why not use the measurements of Eratosthenes or just make something equivalent up with y our own fake ancient Greek scholar?

Hokulele

14th May 2008, 07:00 PM

So, whereas Cole's measurement of the Great Pyramid of 921,455 mm deviates by 61.5 mm from the Clarke Spheroid figure and by 7.5 mm from the International Spheroid figure, it is only 0.7 mm away from the modern figure.

And since it deviates by umpteen mm from the best known measurement at the time (this was before Eratosthenes), it is looking even more likely to be just another coincidence.

ETA: Dammit! Dammit! Dammit! Balrog beat me to the Greeks!

Blue Mountain

14th May 2008, 08:46 PM

Aside from the numbers we've been discussing, is there any evidence that -
1. The Egyptians at the time of the building of the Great Pyramid knew the Earth was a sphere, and
2. they knew the circumference of that sphere, and
3. had reason to divide it into 720 units?

wollery

14th May 2008, 09:44 PM

Why would they choose a distance that is 1/43200th of the Earth's equatorial circumference. Did the Egyptians use degrees of longitude to measure distances?

Jiri

14th May 2008, 11:45 PM

Nice clowning and hunting pack bond reinforcement, guys. But, you're showing some serious reading mis-comprehension.

A degree of latitude is less at the equator. It has to do with the equatorial bulge. Imagine lines radiating from the Earth center to its surface a degree apart, one to the equator, and one towards either south or north. The closer to the equator, the more the connecting line following the spheroid tends towards being straight like a straight line which subtends the arc, I think.
The average 1/2 minute of polar circumference= 926.11 m. As Rodney says, at the equator it is 921,455.07 or is it 921,454.3?

Jiri

15th May 2008, 12:35 AM

Why would they choose a distance that is 1/43200th of the Earth's equatorial circumference. Did the Egyptians use degrees of longitude to measure distances?
Nautical miles are geographical miles, and have been around since time immemorial, along with sub-units known as 'stadia'.
There are 21,600 minutes in 360 degrees.
There are 21,602.6 nautical miles in the polar circumference of Earth. Draw your own conclusion. Another coincidence?

Jiri

15th May 2008, 03:26 AM

To correct myself, the curvature of the meridian is greater at the equator (thus it has shorter radius), and one degree of geodetic, or geographic latitude is measured from this curve. It is the latitude we use in maps, and which gets shorter at the equator.

Cuddles

15th May 2008, 04:20 AM

Yes, but as noted by Livio Stechinni in "Notes on the Relation of Ancient Measures to the Great Pyramid," an appendix in Peter Tompkins' Secrets of the Great Pyramid (Harper and Row, New York, 1971), pp. 364-366, while the length of the sides of the Great Pyramid vary slightly, its total perimeter as measured by Cole (921,455 millimeters) is virtually identical to the distance in half a minute of latitude at the equator. Coincidence?

The ancient Egyptians didn't use minutes, therefore it can't be anything other than coincidence.

Nautical miles are geographical miles, and have been around since time immemorial, along with sub-units known as 'stadia'.

Since time immemorial? Well, I suppose you could be slightly more wrong if you really tried. To start with, there are currently at least three different miles in common useage - the international mile, the US mile and the international nautical mile. There are also various less common ones such as the Scandinvian mile, as well as many different miles which have been in use throughout history. The origin of the word mile was as a Roman measurement, which was actually the shortest one of them all.

There are 21,600 minutes in 360 degrees.
There are 21,602.6 nautical miles in the polar circumference of Earth. Draw your own conclusion. Another coincidence?

Why would this be a coincidence? That's the definition of a nautical mile. Of course, better measurements of the circumference mean that it is no longer quite exact. The current defintion of a nautical mile was adopted in 1929. Are you really suggesting that the Egyptians were using exactly the same measurement several thousand years earlier, before the word mile even existed?

Reality Check

15th May 2008, 04:30 AM

Nautical miles are geographical miles, and have been around since time immemorial, along with sub-units known as 'stadia'.
There are 21,600 minutes in 360 degrees.
There are 21,602.6 nautical miles in the polar circumference of Earth. Draw your own conclusion. Another coincidence?
Stadia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadia_%28length%29) are not subunits of miles. Which stadia are you refering to - Itinerary, Olympic, Attic or Greek or Royal Egyptian?

JonnyFive

15th May 2008, 05:39 AM

I suggest that may be because there was no quote. You must have automatically assumed that I was quoting, because I couldn't have possibly said The notion about the pyramid's perimeter being half a geographical minute doesn't work too well, if we use global circumference of 40,000 kilometers.The pyramid's base of 230.348 m (9,068.8 inches) is 113.3 cm short of 7.5 geographical seconds."

What the hell are you talking about? In your post, you posted words that I had previously written without using the and tags to differentiate between that and your own writing. Moreover you didn't use quotation marks with attribution or other standard ways of separating what you said from what I said.

The rest of what you just wrote has nothing to do with that statement. Please learn to use the exceptionally simple features this board has to make communication more fluid.

Also, why use 40,000 km? That's not the actual measurement (very close to the meridional measure, but off by a few km - off the equatorial measure by a few dozen km). I mean, it's pretty close, but why not use the measurement with the proper level of precision?

You ask the first question repeatedly, and you've had some answers from varying sources. My source data is Petrie, so you are asking, how precise Petrie was. Let me spin this question from my angle. Petrie's data shines brightly from the viewpoint of my reconstruction. The two are so close, both fall into Petrie's plus-minus range. Which means that for any practical purposes the two are identical. I would venture that this result is very good overall - for the reconstruction, Petrie's surveys, and of course, the builders. That way everything is connected to the geometry of the reconstruction, to pure, and eternal ideas so appropriate for Giza. Cole's measurements are just as close. Citing Paul from above, the average for the Great Pyramid's base is 9069.36 inches. That is 0.56 of an inch more than Petrie's average.. More confirmation, I am almost embarrassed to suggest.

You didn't answer my question at all. I will ask again: how precise is your source data?

Do you not understand what this word means? I thought this was explained already, but apparently you don't understand - or you didn't bother to read it.

Maybe I could rephrase it: What is the degree of error in your source data?

Please stop using tangents to try to deflect my questions. If you don't understand them, then please be honest and say so, but don't start going on about how Petrie's data "shines brightly" when I simply asked you to tell me the level of precision in the data. If you don't know, then say so.

EHocking

15th May 2008, 06:10 AM

Stadia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadia_%28length%29) are not subunits of miles. Which stadia are you refering to - Itinerary, Olympic, Attic or Greek or Royal Egyptian?Ummm.... (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stadia)(Italian, probably from Latin, pl. of stadium, a unit of length; see stadium.)

Rodney

15th May 2008, 06:28 AM

Am I missing something here?
Yes, you're confusing equatorial latitude with equatorial longitude.

Why not toss the classic industrial measurements in the trash where they belong and just use the most accurate public survey ever taken (the GPS-based WGS84 survey)?
The 1964 IAU Ellipsoid was based on satellite measurements of the earth.

1/120 degree = 927662.43m
Again, that's longitude at the equator, not latitude (and your unit is wrong -- it's 927,662.43 millimeters or 927.66243 meters). Does the WGS84 survey show that a degree of latitude at the equator is something other than 110,574.68 meters? If not, then 1/120 of a degree is indeed 921,455.67 mm.

OTOH, if you insist in pre-industrial inaccuracy, why not use the measurements of Eratosthenes or just make something equivalent up with your own fake ancient Greek scholar?
The relevant question is: Why is the perimeter of the Great Pyramid virtually identical to half a minute of latitude at the equator, as determined by satellite measurements?

Rodney

15th May 2008, 06:42 AM

Why would they choose a distance that is 1/43200th of the Earth's equatorial circumference. Did the Egyptians use degrees of longitude to measure distances?
Interesting question, because the origins of the sexagesimal system are unknown. As Florian Cajori states in A History of Mathematics (MacMillan, London, 1919), at pp 5-6:

"It may be asked, what led to the invention of the sexagesimal system? Why was it that 60 parts were selected? To this we have no positive answer. Ten was chosen, in the decimal system, because it represents the number of fingers. But nothing of the human body could have suggested 60. Did the system have an astronomical origin? It was supposed that the early Babylonians reckoned the year at 360 days, that this led to the division of the circle into 360 degrees, each degree representing the daily amount of the supposed yearly revolution of the sun around the earth. Now they were, very probably, familiar with the fact that the radius can be applied to its circumference as a chord 6 times, and that each of these chords subtends an arc measuring exactly 60 degrees. Fixing their attention upon these degrees, the division into 60 parts may have suggested itself to them. Thus, when greater precision necessitated a subdivision of the degree, it was partitioned into 60 minutes. In this way the sexagesimal notation was at one time supposed to have originated. But it now appears that the Babylonians very early knew that the year exceeded 360 days. Moreover, it is highly improbable that a higher unit of 360 was chosen first, and a lower unit of 60 afterward. The normal development of a number system is from lower to higher units. Another guess is that the sexagesimal system arose as a mixture of two earlier systems of the bases 6 and 10. Certain it is that the sexagesimal system became closely interwoven with astronomical and geometrical science."

JonnyFive

15th May 2008, 06:43 AM

Ummm.... (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stadia)(Italian, probably from Latin, pl. of stadium, a unit of length; see stadium.)

Am I missing something? RC's link indicates that it's a unit of measurement that can vary depending on country of origin. Also, it is not a sub-unit of the mile, which is what Reality Check said.

I think we have the seeds of a misunderstanding being planted here.

Cuddles

15th May 2008, 06:48 AM

The relevant question is: Why is the perimeter of the Great Pyramid virtually identical to half a minute of latitude at the equator, as determined by satellite measurements?

No, the really relevant questions is who cares? There are two possibilities. Either the people who built the pyramid knew approximately the Earth's circumference, used degrees and minutes for measuring angles and decided to make the pyramids as close to half a minute of the Earth's circumference as possible. Or, it's coincidence. Either way, what difference does it make to anyone? The fact is, relatively good estimate's of the Earth's circumference were made thousands of years ago, and circles have been divided into 360, among other things, almost since mathematics was first invented. If they happened to work all that out and thought it was a nice size for a pyramid, so what? If they didn't work it all out and it just happened, again, so what?

This thread was supposed to be about claims that there is advanced mathematics involving pi, phi, and complex geometry being encoded into the pyramids, not about some basic measurements that we already know people could do thousands of yearas ago.

Incidentally, aside from the problem that it's irrelevant and the problem that coincidence is perfectly plausible, you are also guilty of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy here. What exactly is so special about something being close to half a minute of the Earth's circumferece? Why do you think the Egyptians would even consider this as special? All you are doing is looking at how big the pyramids are, finding something about the same size and declaring they must be related. No matter what size it was, you would be able to find something about the same size, so unless you can find some actual evidence that this was done on purpose, the whole question is completely meaningless.

JonnyFive

15th May 2008, 07:22 AM

Yeah, what ever happened the the encoding of advanced mathematics? All we're getting is basic geometry and I honestly feel kind of ripped off.

Rodney

15th May 2008, 07:56 AM

Yeah, what ever happened the the encoding of advanced mathematics? All we're getting is basic geometry and I honestly feel kind of ripped off.
In his 1978 book, Pyramid Odyssey (Mayflower, New York, 1978), William Fix argues that the builders of the Great Pyramid encoded not only equatorial latitude, but also equatorial longitude and the polar radius, into the Pyramid's external dimensions. So, while Fix is not arguing the exact same thing as Jiri, there are similarities.

steenkh

15th May 2008, 09:31 AM

In his 1978 book, Pyramid Odyssey (Mayflower, New York, 1978), William Fix argues that the builders of the Great Pyramid encoded not only equatorial latitude, but also equatorial longitude and the polar radius, into the Pyramid's external dimensions. So, while Fix is not arguing the exact same thing as Jiri, there are similarities.
Does Fix give a good explanation for why the Egyptians would build in longitude and latitude concepts that as far as their own documents show, were unknown to them?

Paul

15th May 2008, 09:53 AM

In his 1978 book, Pyramid Odyssey (Mayflower, New York, 1978), William Fix argues...I wouldn't use Fix (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/bonepeddlers.html) as an authority if I were you.

Rodney

15th May 2008, 10:59 AM

Does Fix give a good explanation for why the Egyptians would build in longitude and latitude concepts that as far as their own documents show, were unknown to them?
I would have to dig out my copy of Pyramid Odyssey, but Fix believes that the Great Pyramid was built about 10,500 BC, rather than the conventionally-accepted date of about 2,600 B.C. If he's right about that (and I'm sure everyone here totally agrees that he is ;)), the Pyramid's builders may well have developed the sexagesimal system long before most Egyptologists acknowledge a civilization. And, if that system was developed as long as 12,500 years ago, it's much more understandable that no one knows how it originated. Simple, huh? :)

EHocking

15th May 2008, 03:16 PM

Am I missing something? RC's link indicates that it's a unit of measurement that can vary depending on country of origin. Also, it is not a sub-unit of the mile, which is what Reality Check said.

I think we have the seeds of a misunderstanding being planted here.Allow me to apply the herbicide - my bad.

jsfisher

15th May 2008, 08:43 PM

No, the really relevant questions is who cares? There are two possibilities. Either the people who built the pyramid knew approximately the Earth's circumference, used degrees and minutes for measuring angles and decided to make the pyramids as close to half a minute of the Earth's circumference as possible. Or, it's coincidence. Either way, what difference does it make to anyone? The fact is, relatively good estimate's of the Earth's circumference were made thousands of years ago, and circles have been divided into 360, among other things, almost since mathematics was first invented. If they happened to work all that out and thought it was a nice size for a pyramid, so what? If they didn't work it all out and it just happened, again, so what?

This thread was supposed to be about claims that there is advanced mathematics involving pi, phi, and complex geometry being encoded into the pyramids, not about some basic measurements that we already know people could do thousands of yearas ago.

Incidentally, aside from the problem that it's irrelevant and the problem that coincidence is perfectly plausible, you are also guilty of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy here. What exactly is so special about something being close to half a minute of the Earth's circumferece? Why do you think the Egyptians would even consider this as special? All you are doing is looking at how big the pyramids are, finding something about the same size and declaring they must be related. No matter what size it was, you would be able to find something about the same size, so unless you can find some actual evidence that this was done on purpose, the whole question is completely meaningless.

There. Fixed it for you.

JonnyFive

16th May 2008, 07:25 AM

Allow me to apply the herbicide - my bad.

Heh. No big deal - I just wanted to clear things up, since this thread is convoluted enough as it is. :)

Jiri

20th May 2008, 09:33 PM

http://www.vejprty.com/gizaplan.htm

Check out the latest version of my report. I've completed a simple algorithm, which reconstructs from clean slate, and yet with utter precision, the layout of Giza's major pyramids, as given by Petrie. Especially, the reconstruction of Khafre's layout is so precise, it is completely identical to Petrie's plan, what with the average deviation of less than 0.04 inches. Yet, starting from scratch, I can probably perform the entire reconstruction in under five minutes, which means that this reconstruction is really simple, and hence efficient.
The question is, what relevance does this reconstruction have to the original architectural plan? The answer I think must be preceded by an answer to another question - what are the chances of finding a simple algorithm to precisely pinpoint the relative size and position of three identically oriented squares randomly scattered over an area like the three pyramids at Giza? The answer to the second question is approximating zero, I believe.
Yet, scholars and pyramid buffs have been trying to do the same for a long time. Why would they try in the first place? Was it because they entertained the thought that there may exist a unified design of Giza, a grand-plan, a sacred structure? Now that I've done it, will anybody notice this modest contribution to our treasure chest of knowledge on ancient Egypt?

Jiri

20th May 2008, 09:46 PM

Rodney, the sexagesimal system could have existed without the pyramids and probably did. Speaking of a period 12,500 years ago, it's long ago, but not as long as 14,000 years ago. I reiterate that a certain engraving from that time also clearly deals with sexagesimal numbers, and equinoctial precession. It does so in its own way, and it does it well.

Gravy

20th May 2008, 10:24 PM

Jiri

21st May 2008, 12:24 AM

Why do some people go from discussion to discussion, just to emit habitual calls not much deeper than a birdie's lungful?

Paul

21st May 2008, 04:22 AM

Why do some people go from discussion to discussion, just to emit habitual calls not much deeper than a birdie's lungful?Perhaps you could enlighten us, and while you're at it, perhaps you could explain your obsession with Petrie.

JonnyFive

21st May 2008, 05:56 AM

Why do some people go from discussion to discussion, just to emit habitual calls not much deeper than a birdie's lungful?

Why won't you just answer our questions in a straightforward manner?

Jiri

22nd June 2008, 03:39 PM

Please accept my apologies for neglecting this discussion, but new developments kept me busy.
.
You could reconstruct Giza with extreme accuracy and precision, and show that it fits into a golden ratio scheme, and you will still have proven nothing. Except that it's possible to fit it into a golden ratio scheme. It doesn't prove that that was how the Egyptians planned it, let alone that they even knew about the golden ratio.
.
Prophetic words, Wollery! Indeed, extreme accuracy and precision, purity of method, high intellectual level of the design - it all happened just like you said, although I was skeptical of your words at the time. The greatest shock came at the very end, when it was time to switch units from inches to cubits, based upon the theory by John Legon that the northwest distance between the pyramids expressed, in cubits, 1,000 times the square root of 3. Remeasuring my reconstruction in these terms brought up extremely precise values, and also provided the means to making final adjustments, which bring the reconstruction and Petrie's plan into hitherto never seen virtual identity.
The strange thing is that everything works best, when the square-root value of 3 is taken as exactly 1.73205.
.
Except that it's possible to fit it into a golden ratio scheme. It doesn't prove that that was how the Egyptians planned it
.
Anybody, who read the early version of this report will be surprised at how nicely it came along. Contrary to your words, the world appreciates precision, and dazzling precision especially. Therefore, all those people who have an interest in Giza will take this work seriously.

To whet appetites, here is a diagram. It deals with the final adjustment for the Third Pyramid.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/15577485ed40c44192.gif

jsfisher

22nd June 2008, 05:38 PM

Anybody, who read the early version of this report will be surprised at how nicely it came along. Contrary to your words, the world appreciates precision, and dazzling precision especially. Therefore, all those people who have an interest in Giza will take this work seriously.

The best way for me to express my excitement is through words and wisdom of Homer Simpson: "Woo, woo!"

Jiri

22nd June 2008, 10:12 PM

Speaking Simpsonese is so safe around here. Coming from you, it is the maximum endorsement one could ever expect. Thanks..

JonnyFive

23rd June 2008, 06:36 AM

Speaking Simpsonese is so safe around here. Coming from you, it is the maximum endorsement one could ever expect. Thanks..

To reinterate:

Why won't you just answer our questions in a straightforward manner?

And where is the evidence that any of this was done intentionally?

jimbob

23rd June 2008, 11:35 AM

.
Anybody, who read the early version of this report will be surprised at how nicely it came along. Contrary to your words, the world appreciates precision, and dazzling precision especially. Therefore, all those people who have an interest in Giza will take this work seriously.

Hmm

Complexity

23rd June 2008, 01:58 PM

What a load of twaddle.

I haven't seen such a tall steaming pile of ignorance in months.

ddt

23rd June 2008, 03:53 PM

To whet appetites, here is a diagram. It deals with the final adjustment for the Third Pyramid.
It goes to show that if you draw enough lines, you can "prove" anything.

Jiri

24th June 2008, 02:02 AM

Prove it!
For the final re-measurement in cubits instead of inches everything was set in stone. It was either going to be a revelation, or not. No choices, or even a lot of them. The lines weren't going to change I am not going to be apologetic for it having worked out revelatory.
Giza is an example of intense convergent order. It produces far more so called geometrical coincidences than should be expected. Chaos must also be given its due. When chaos goes missing, and order prevails, those who allege that 'it is all concidence' sound a little crazy.
Giza has so many geometrical coincidences in fact that you may construe these into chains, and hypothesize that this was, how the original plan was drawn. There are several such reconstruction theories. Some of these theories allow for too great a margin of error, and can be discarded as unlikely. John Legon, and Robin Cook between themselves have identified a high number of geom. coincidences. Both reconstruct Giza. Rather than going against the grain of their findings, my theory synthesizes elements of both, with one notable difference, the results are much more accurate, as their precise form clearly indicates.
Believe me, the task of chaining coincidences so they maintain the same high level of precision is not only difficult, but impossible. Obviously, it is not chains of coincidences, which my reconstruction follows, but rather chains of coincidences that the designers knew all about, and that's why Giza is a composition on these coincidences, so to speak.
You cannot show us another reconstruction, which achieves virtual perfection like the one I did. It does not exist. So, go ahead and falsify this theory of unified Giza layout, with corresponding accuracy. If you ever do, I will change my opinion, I promise. The outcome I count on has you gone for a very long time, while you are drawing 'enough' lines.

Kuko 4000

24th June 2008, 04:07 AM

It goes to show that if you draw enough lines, you can "prove" anything.

Nail. Head.

ddt

24th June 2008, 04:22 AM

Prove it!
Whom you're addressing? Who should prove what?

JonnyFive

24th June 2008, 06:10 AM

Complexity

24th June 2008, 10:05 AM

Jiri - Precisely which aspects of "advanced mathematics" are you knowledgeable about? Please offer some evidence of your capabilities in mathematics.

Jiri

24th June 2008, 10:47 AM

Nail. Head

Hospital, take nail out of the head.

Jiri

24th June 2008, 10:51 AM

Whom you're addressing? Who should prove what?

Don't sound so alarmed, but you - you should prove that. It was you, who proposed, now dispose.

Jiri

24th June 2008, 11:34 AM

Jiri, more than anything it would be nice if you would actually show some evidence of encoding "advanced mathematics" in various stone age carvings. You haven't even shown evidence that the Egyptians were "encoding" various phi ratios for any reason, let alone evidence of anything even remotely advanced in any of your various pieces. You promise much, but deliver nothing.
.
The problem with your appreciation is ignoring the circumstances. What may not be impressive enough to you and others by itself,is impressive, when woven into art. The presence of the same complex design (although not what you call high math) at a French site 14,000 years old, and then also at Nazca is impressive mainly for two reasons:
One - lasting presence, and influence, spanning millenia of prehistory
Two - encoding exact ideas in art
Of course, you deem yourself more educated than these prehistorical scientists, and so it ought to be easy for you to show us, how you would encode your favorite hi-math into what should at first appear as pure art.
Now that you go to school, it should not be a problem for you to search out a method of constructing a 5-pointed star faster, or at least equal to that taught to you by the Nasca Monkey. Right now, you only know what the monkey has taught you, right? Of course, you are forgetful of some things, too. Take the Hex-machine, a design I found in the French prehistoric art-piece. It may not be high-math, but it is complex and beautiful, and it is exact math. Therefore, it is rather logical to assume that these ancient designers knew high-math to boot.

ddt

24th June 2008, 11:54 AM

Whom you're addressing? Who should prove what?

Don't sound so alarmed, but you - you should prove that. It was you, who proposed, now dispose.
I'm not alarmed at all. It's just that it wasn't clear whom you were addressing. You could have made that clear by including my post, or even by just including my name.

What do I have to prove:
It goes to show that if you draw enough lines, you can "prove" anything.

That's really easy. You're so fond of ruler-and-edge constructions, aren't you? When I read the thread correctly, jsfisher convinced you at last last year that that's really only a curiosum in mathematics nowadays. There's only one interesting result about them:

The set of numbers that can be constructed with ruler-and-edge (as in: a line segment with that length relative to a given unit length) is precisely the set of algebraic numbers.

The algebraic numbers are a superset of the rational numbers, so they're dense. If I give you some (non-algebraic) number and a precision within which you have to approximate it, you can find an algebraic number that's within the precision and thus you can make a ruler-and-edge construction that makes that number.

Others have already commented on the fact that none of your "reconstructions" are mathematically exact - and neither would be any measurements of the pyramids you used, whether from Petrie or from GPS or from another source, so the precision argument applies.

QED.

You cannot show us another reconstruction, which achieves virtual perfection like the one I did. It does not exist. So, go ahead and falsify this theory of unified Giza layout, [...]
Trying to shift the burden of proof on the other party is symptom #3 on the crackpot spotting list. It's not up to me to show your "reconstruction" to be false, and not in the least by putting other lines on the map.

The onus is on you to prove the OK Egyptians did use your geometric lay-out to put the pyramids there, e.g. by unearthing some hieroglyphs stating such - maybe they've hidden it in one of those small shafts :D :p.

ETA. Sorry guys, that this still does not qualify as "advanced mathematics"...

ddt

24th June 2008, 12:02 PM

.
Of course, you deem yourself more educated than these prehistorical scientists, and so it ought to be easy for you to show us, how you would encode your favorite hi-math into what should at first appear as pure art.
Now that you go to school, it should not be a problem for you to search out a method of constructing a 5-pointed star faster, or at least equal to that taught to you by the Nasca Monkey.

As already has been pointed out, your drawings are quite imprecise and this way you can "prove" anything if you search for it.

Why the hell would these old cultures encode their math in art? Why then didn't they leave written instructions on how to do it? IIRC, the Babylonians left cuneiforms with instructions on solving quadratic equations which came pretty close to our current a-b-c formula. Why "encode" it in "art"?

Jiri

24th June 2008, 12:03 PM

Jiri - Precisely which aspects of "advanced mathematics" are you knowledgeable about? Please offer some evidence of your capabilities in mathematics.
.
Huh, did I make any claims to that effect? I am not a mathematician..
It appears however that I can put two and two together as well as many a math professor. And so, it came to pass that many professionals had tried to find the algorithm for the design of Giza's layout, and failed, or to be more precise, failed in comparison to the algorithm I found. So, this algorithm is the authoritative one. It will be extremely diffficult to surpass. By the same token, it should have been a mathematician noticing mathematical encoding in prehistorical art. If not for me, chances were that these discoveries would eventually be made by either mathematicians or computer programs. Therefore I am sorry to impose myself on the field, but not sorry enough:)
But, why am I talking to you? You were as rude as a butcher's dog, as you came in barking out your mistaken impressions. So, why the change of tone? Bad cop-good cop? You trying to be both? Are you a mathematician? Hey, then maybe you would know, where we could find a record of.. nah, forget it.

Complexity

24th June 2008, 12:15 PM

.
Huh, did I make any claims to that effect? I am not a mathematician..
It appears however that I can put two and two together as well as many a math professor. And so, it came to pass that many professionals had tried to find the algorithm for the design of Giza's layout, and failed, or to be more precise, failed in comparison to the algorithm I found. So, this algorithm is the authoritative one. It will be extremely diffficult to surpass. By the same token, it should have been a mathematician noticing mathematical encoding in prehistorical art. If not for me, chances were that these discoveries would eventually be made by either mathematicians or computer programs. Therefore I am sorry to impose myself on the field, but not sorry enough:)
But, why am I talking to you? You were as rude as a butcher's dog, as you came in barking out your mistaken impressions. So, why the change of tone? Bad cop-good cop? You trying to be both? Are you a mathematician? Hey, then maybe you would know, where we could find a record of.. nah, forget it.

I didn't think you knew anything about mathematics. It was obvious.

I'm afraid, my dear, that mathematics is more than "putting two and two together".

I'm fairly certain you can tie your shoes as well as several mathematicians as well, but that isn't any more relevant to this discussion.

Most people see faces and animals in clouds that are only in their minds.

You see patterns in things in the world that are only in your mind, as well.

You think you've accomplished something.

You think you're special.

You're wrong.

There's nothing to discover in these things, my dear, nothing at all. Your bored mind has made it all up, and it signifies nothing.

I haven't changed my tone - if you reread my most recent post, you'll see I'm being just as evil (i.e. just, skeptical, and derisively challenging) as I was in my earlier post.

You are the world's expert on absolutely nothing at all.

Oh, yes, I'm something of a mathematician and very much a computer scientist.

You are hereby forbidden to use the word 'algorithm'.

ddt

24th June 2008, 12:19 PM

Huh, did I make any claims to that effect? I am not a mathematician..
It appears however that I can put two and two together as well as many a math professor. And so, it came to pass that many professionals had tried to find the algorithm for the design of Giza's layout, and failed, or to be more precise, failed in comparison to the algorithm I found.
Are there any professionals who even tried? You haven't namely given any reason why there would be a design at all to the Giza complex.

So, this algorithm is the authoritative one. It will be extremely diffficult to surpass. By the same token, it should have been a mathematician noticing mathematical encoding in prehistorical art. If not for me, chances were that these discoveries would eventually be made by either mathematicians or computer programs. Therefore I am sorry to impose myself on the field, but not sorry enough:)
Why should a mathematician be looking for "mathematical encoding" in places where it's simply very probably not there. A mathematician with an interest in (ancient) history has enough real, obvious mathematical sources to work with to do interesting work than to look for it in obscure places where there's no indication whatsoever that there would be some "mathematical encoding" as you put it.

Jiri

24th June 2008, 01:12 PM

Why the hell would these old cultures encode their math in art? Why then didn't they leave written instructions on how to do it? IIRC, the Babylonians left cuneiforms with instructions on solving quadratic equations which came pretty close to our current a-b-c formula. Why "encode" it in "art"?
.
The ancient cryptographers stand accused by you of not communicating the way you would prefer them to. Shouldn't that be #3 on the aforementioned list?
As you know there are things in Egypt, which are still impossible to duplicate today. Yes, we could move blocks bigger than that if we wanted to, but so could they - if they wanted to. I'm talking about the drill cores Petrie found and Dunn embraced. They exist. Having established their existence, they become means for a challenge to the historian - duplicate me, in order to establish experimentally the technological capability of the artifact's maker.
Well, it seems that to duplicate these cores, we would have to use pressure of over a ton per square inch. Hence, we could do it, but only using modern technology. Not surprisingly, egyptologists reacted like you. It seems that the ancients were not kind enough to provide samples of their miraculous drills, but only left samples of such drilling. Therefore, Egyptology denies the existence of these drills. It's an endless circle. It too, should have a nice low number on the aforementioned list.

Complexity

24th June 2008, 01:16 PM

Nonsense.

ddt

24th June 2008, 01:28 PM

The ancient cryptographers stand accused by you of not communicating the way you would prefer them to. Shouldn't that be #3 on the aforementioned list?
The fallacy is already in the first three words. You presume there were ancient cryptographers and that they encrypted some "message" in the subjects you chose. You haven't, however, given any shred of evidence of the existence of such cryptographers nor that there should be a "message" in the things you present, like the "design" of the Giza complex or the Nazca monkey.

You failed right there. Come back when you have justification why one should look for a design in Giza.

Jiri

24th June 2008, 01:29 PM

Are there any professionals who even tried? You haven't namely given any reason why there would be a design at all to the Giza complex.

Yes, quite a few people did, and quite a few people are interested in the subject. Also, quite a few people had stated reasons why Giza's layout should be due to implementation of an exact design. Of course, you have already spoken to me, as if no one ever did. In other words, you spoke out of your ignorance.
.

Why should a mathematician be looking for "mathematical encoding" in places where it's simply very probably not there. A mathematician with an interest in (ancient) history has enough real, obvious mathematical sources to work with to do interesting work than to look for it in obscure places where there's no indication whatsoever that there would be some "mathematical encoding" as you put it.
.
No need to look for it. These places and artifacts are well known and visible. They are not obscure. So, this is about selective seeing. I've seen what I saw, and if I look again, it still is there.

Jiri

24th June 2008, 01:34 PM

The fallacy is already in the first three words. You presume there were ancient cryptographers and that they encrypted some "message" in the subjects you chose. You haven't, however, given any shred of evidence of the existence of such cryptographers nor that there should be a "message" in the things you present, like the "design" of the Giza complex or the Nazca monkey.

You failed right there. Come back when you have justification why one should look for a design in Giza.

I failed you, and people like you, but I did not fail others. The field of research exists, and you can't wish it away.

ddt

24th June 2008, 01:36 PM

Yes, quite a few people did, and quite a few people are interested in the subject. Also, quite a few people had stated reasons why Giza's layout should be due to implementation of an exact design. Of course, you have already spoken to me, as if no one ever did. In other words, you spoke out of your ignorance.
Names? References? Quotes?

I read the whole thread, and I can't remember one being mentioned. Nor on the webpage you linked to.

No need to look for it. These places and artifacts are well known and visible. They are not obscure. So, this is about selective seeing. I've seen what I saw, and if I look again, it still is there.
No, but you claim the message is obscured.

24th June 2008, 01:58 PM

I failed you, and people like you, but I did not fail others. The field of research exists, and you can't wish it away.

People also researched Q-rays, Psi, Homeopathy, Naturopathy, Chiropractic, Phrenology, and Palm Reading.

And they are also garbage.

Jiri

24th June 2008, 02:07 PM

I'm afraid, my dear, that mathematics is more than "putting two and two together".
.
Is this a gay bath in your perception? Please, don't call me dear unless you are a woman, or at least a woman trapped in a man's body as the avatar you use might indicate.

I'm fairly certain you can tie your shoes as well as several mathematicians as well, but that isn't any more relevant to this discussion.
Most people see faces and animals in clouds that are only in their minds.
You see patterns in things in the world that are only in your mind, as well.

Putting two and two together isn't tying shoelaces, it's logic. Patterns, which are measurable are not only in your mind, they are where they are measurable, as well, and that goes without discussion.
.

You think you've accomplished something. You think you're special.
.
I know what I accomplished, but that does not make me special. That's your psycho-talk. What I accomplished is special however.
.

You're wrong. There's nothing to discover in these things, my dear, nothing at all. Your bored mind has made it all up, and it signifies nothing.
I haven't changed my tone - if you reread my most recent post, you'll see I'm being just as evil (i.e. just, skeptical, and derisively challenging) as I was in my earlier post. You are the world's expert on absolutely nothing at all.
Oh, yes, I'm something of a mathematician and very much a computer scientist. You are hereby forbidden to use the word 'algorithm'.

So much 'feel good' talk. Now that you psyched yourself up, I don't need to be psycho-analyzed by a mathematician. As a psychologist, philosopher, or historian you amount to nothing more than a quack.

Jiri

24th June 2008, 02:21 PM

Names? References? Quotes?

Internet searches - do them. You will find a ton of the stuff.
.

I read the whole thread, and I can't remember one being mentioned. Nor on the webpage you linked to.

You mean Allison's page? He gives examples of John Legon, Robin Cook, and others' work.
.

No, but you claim the message is obscured.
|.
Say, you have two lines that cross precisely at 36 degrees. The angle is very special in a way, but you can't see it, because your eyes lack a built-in protractor. Hence that message is obscured until you check it.

Jiri

24th June 2008, 02:36 PM

Nonsense.
__________________
"It is a great nuisance that knowledge can only be acquired by hard work."

- W. Somerset Maugham

"Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible; thought is merciless to privilege, established intuititions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man."

- Bertrand Russell .
.
.
Don't tell me you are not a pyramid-buff! Just look at the nice pyramid you have constructed in your post. First, there is a wide base, quotes of great people. Having thus associated yourself with these greats, and therefore implied that you should be somehow appreciated, you trod on their shoulders to say your one word. Impressive! The same quotes over and over, perhaps, one day I'll be actually able to memorize these great quotes.
Thought is great and swift and free. Yadda, yadda - Be well, be love. Wear galoshes, cause it's slushy around here.

Complexity

24th June 2008, 04:03 PM

.
Is this a gay bath in your perception? Please, don't call me dear unless you are a woman, or at least a woman trapped in a man's body as the avatar you use might indicate.

I was calling you 'dear' sarcastically, to emphasize which pit I've dropped you into. I'm gay and I can assure you that no one with your belief system is in any way attractive to me. I prefer my men with minds.

Putting two and two together isn't tying shoelaces, it's logic. Patterns, which are measurable are not only in your mind, they are where they are measurable, as well, and that goes without discussion.

Nothing that you've written indicates that you are susceptible to logic.

I know what I accomplished, but that does not make me special. That's your psycho-talk. What I accomplished is special however.

You have not accomplished a damned thing except to waste much of your life and moments of some others' lives. The stuff you are pushing is old, rehashed, lifted-from-others excrement.

So much 'feel good' talk. Now that you psyched yourself up, I don't need to be psycho-analyzed by a mathematician. As a psychologist, philosopher, or historian you amount to nothing more than a quack.

What you need is a new hobby - one that involves reality and, preferably, one that you can indulge in by yourself.

Quit spewing this nonsense. It is unworthy of a human being.

ddt

24th June 2008, 04:24 PM

Internet searches - do them. You will find a ton of the stuff.
You come here with that stuff. So the burden of proof is on you. How many times do I have to repeat that?

You mean Allison's page? He gives examples of John Legon, Robin Cook, and others' work.
You mean that http://www.vejprty.com/gizaplan.htm isn't even your own page? You presented it as such:
http://www.vejprty.com/gizaplan.htm
Check out the latest version of my report.
That page gives no justification whatsoever, and the links in the page neither. One of them - http://www.kolumbus.fi/lea.tedder/OKAD/Gizaplan.htm - mentions Bauval favourably, and that says enough for me.

Say, you have two lines that cross precisely at 36 degrees. The angle is very special in a way, but you can't see it, because your eyes lack a built-in protractor. Hence that message is obscured until you check it.
Except that you've been shown to not have that precision. Nor have you given any justification whatsoever why it should be for some "secrut messuge" and not either chance or some simple other design decision.

Jiri

24th June 2008, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by Jiri View Post
You cannot show us another reconstruction, which achieves virtual perfection like the one I did. It does not exist. So, go ahead and falsify this theory of unified Giza layout, [...]

[quote]Trying to shift the burden of proof on the other party is symptom #3 on the crackpot spotting list. It's not up to me to show your "reconstruction" to be false, and not in the least by putting other lines on the map.
.
First of all, what burden of proof? I asked you for dis-proof. There is only one such, something that would accomplish the reconstruction as precisely, and as methodically, but basing on different principles. Then, and only then I would believe that what I am doing is only a sort of art, rather than science. But, I am skeptical that you, or anybody else can.
That's how Giza was planned, in full awareness of all the possible geometrical coincidences. This makes Giza reflect the journey through life. Coincidences abound, and one can easily be fooled by these coincidences, and led off the true (geometrical) path. There is only one exact geometrical plan, however, and the coincidences do not influence its execution. It should not be unnecessarily complex, while having a sacred nature.
Fortunately, there are virtual checkpoints, where you can ascertain that you are still on the right path, because the precise style readings, and precise duplication are still there.
These readings certainly bear out Legon's observation that the north-south distance between the pyramids was made to correspond to the square root of 3, times 1,000 in cubits. All this shows you that the pyramids had been built exactly to specifications of the overall plan, and later measured just as well by Petrie. There is no other rational explanation for the precise character of the reconstruction.

The onus is on you to prove the OK Egyptians did use your geometric lay-out to put the pyramids there, e.g. by unearthing some hieroglyphs stating such - maybe they've hidden it in one of those small shafts .

You don't get it. The onus was on me, when I set out to explore the possibility that there is a geometrical layout. Once I found it, my job was done. It is there. It exists. Let people interpret its existence for themselves. I don't think that I could change your mind. You have already made the critical choices in how you view the world. Please, do not let me disturb you out of your tub of bliss.

Complexity

24th June 2008, 05:08 PM

Life is too short for this nonsense.

You do know where you can put your pyramids, I assume...

Jiri

24th June 2008, 05:24 PM

I was calling you 'dear' sarcastically, to emphasize which pit I've dropped you into. I'm gay and I can assure you that no one with your belief system is in any way attractive to me. I prefer my men with minds.

Nothing that you've written indicates that you are susceptible to logic.

You have not accomplished a damned thing except to waste much of your life and moments of some others' lives. The stuff you are pushing is old, rehashed, lifted-from-others excrement.

What you need is a new hobby - one that involves reality and, preferably, one that you can indulge in by yourself.

Quit spewing this nonsense. It is unworthy of a human being.

My Goodness! It seems I caused a lid to fall off a volcano, which made the volcano fall out of the closet. Not being a volcanologist, my contact with you will remain limited to the following observations: This is my thread, and not gay confessions thread. Discussions on matters like ancient science, etc., are Randi's bread and butter. Good by!

ddt

24th June 2008, 05:50 PM

First of all, what burden of proof? I asked you for dis-proof.
And you were wrong in that. The burden of proof that your convoluted drawings with circles and lines make any sense is still on you.

There is only one such, something that would accomplish the reconstruction as precisely,
Why do you keep repeating "reconstruction"? You haven't reconstructed anything, you've put some lines on (electronic) paper. Reconstruction is, e.g., what the Germans did with the Dresden Frauenkirche. Speaking of which, there is also a geometric design in 1945 Dresden, did you know that?

That's how Giza was planned, in full awareness of all the possible geometrical coincidences.
Then show us those hieroglyphs with Horus handing down to Cheops the design for Giza, or some such. You're still reasoning from the standpoint that there must be a design behind it. Hint: it doesn't have to.

You don't get it. The onus was on me, when I set out to explore the possibility that there is a geometrical layout.
I showed you that anyone can put some lines on the map and claim: "there is a plan". But I guess you didn't comprehend my mathematical proof. Some posters have already commented on your addition errors. Have you corrected those?

Jiri

24th June 2008, 07:20 PM

You mean that http://www.vejprty.com/gizaplan.htm isn't even your own page? You presented it as such:That page gives no justification whatsoever, and the links in the page neither. One of them - http://www.kolumbus.fi/lea.tedder/OKAD/Gizaplan.htm - mentions Bauval favourably, and that says enough for me.

And so, your conclusion is that you don't see any justification anywhere for theorizing that there was an overall plan for the three pyramids of Giza? Well, I see a lot of reasons, why such a plan is the first thing that comes to our minds. But, you wouldn't understand those reasons, you've made that clear already.
http://home.hiwaay.net/~jalison/gpsp.html

Except that you've been shown to not have that precision. Nor have you given any justification whatsoever why it should be for some "secrut messuge" and not either chance or some simple other design decision.
.
Good to see you admit that there was an overall design, although not identical to mine, according to you.
It's a good thing that my Giza algorithm abounds in precision. In this way your statements are directly confronted by reality. It's a good thing that Petrie's measurements of Giza are widely accepted and used. The fact lends my analysis more reliability.
And what other simple design decision do you mean? The ones that are not accurate regarding the reconstruction as an exact plan? Should not consistent precision of a reconstruction be considered as likely effect of accuracy in keeping with the exact original plan?

Jiri

24th June 2008, 08:11 PM

And you were wrong in that. The burden of proof that your convoluted drawings with circles and lines make any sense is still on you.
.
I've duplicated Petrie's plan in a surprisingly few steps using pure geometry. That makes sense to me, but not to you. Fine. We just don't have the same type of intelligence. Or, are you alleging that I've cheated, and if you were to use my instructions, you would not come to exactly the same results?

Why do you keep repeating "reconstruction"? You haven't reconstructed anything, you've put some lines on (electronic) paper. Reconstruction is, e.g., what the Germans did with the Dresden Frauenkirche. Speaking of which, there is also a geometric design in 1945 Dresden, did you know that?
.
Reconstruction does mean a lot more than material reconstruction. You know it, and I know it. And, no I don't want to know about the Frauenkirche design, because we have not yet agreed on the Giza design. I would not be surprised however if its floor-plan were based on the so called sacred geometry, which it would have inherited directly from the prehistoric traditions. I also would not be surprised, if its overall design expressed mastery of geometry in achieving both architectural soundness and intense spiritual and artistic effect.
Giza comes chronologically long before Dresden, so understanding the intricacies of its architecture does very little for our understanding of prehistory, and early history.
'
Then show us those hieroglyphs with Horus handing down to Cheops the design for Giza, or some such. You're still reasoning from the standpoint that there must be a design behind it. Hint: it doesn't have to.

Okay, put this way. If you simply had to duplicate Petrie's plan of the three Giza pyramids by geometrical means, as precisely as possible, and keep it as simple as possible, at this point of time, you would be stuck with my plan.
Nothing else comes close. So, what is that something, you would have to use (after putting on rubber gloves I suppose) to reconstruct the situation geometrically? Is it not a design?

I showed you that anyone can put some lines on the map and claim: "there is a plan".

Incredibly, I have seen that done a number of times before you 'showed me'.
So what's your point? That anybody can make an unjustified claim?
See, you are lapsing into your 'you've done nothing special, because anybody can do it' fallacy. We've been at that point before, and my reasoning has struck no resonance in you. But' like I say, if your life depended on it, you would choose my reconstruction, and not some lines that were just put on paper. Are skeptics supposed to be disingenuous like that?

But I guess you didn't comprehend my mathematical proof. Some posters have already commented on your addition errors. Have you corrected those?

How strange, I don't even remember doing anything else but geometry in my giza-plan article. Where do you see addition there, especially mistaken one?