Advanced mathematics encrypted in Stone-Age and ancient 'artwork'

[Jiri]

Jiri, ReligionStudent has a valid point. It is valid on at least two counts.

The first is basic scientific process. You have a hypothesis: Mathematical insight and knowledge of an ancient culture can be deduced from the artwork of the culture. (Please, correct that if you feel it misrepresents your hypothesis.)

Why the qualifier "ancient"? You would not gain much mathematical knowledge even from today's artwork. Artists do not write poetry about mathematics, graphic artists and sculptors do not in general create etudes on specific subjects from mathematics. Some 'insight', sure, portrayals of technology, and such speak for themselves. You can see and study the artistic technique and learn about the artist.
Just be careful what you ask for: When experts first saw the Altamira paintings, and the La Marche engravings, they saw advanced academic techniques in them, and promptly declared the artworks to have had been forged by academic artists. Your comments on these embarassing moments, and their relation to your hypothesis should be interesting.

Some modern artists like Leonardo, Durer, Picassso, Kubista, and Escher did use their mathematical knowledge in art, but it was for the purpose of enhancing the art. The self-serving art was never meant as primarily encoded mathematics, which when decoded will expose its spectator to a discussion of mathematics. 'Your' hypothesis is much too general, and quickly leads into problems.

Rather than a hypothesis, I have a postulate. You can reverse the above relation between art and mathematics. Art becomes a medium for the purposes of encoding mathematical ideas , in such a way that these ideas can be reproduced from the art.
A professor of mathematics can draw free-hand diagrams of mathematical ideas, which then may be recognized as such, or may not due to their imprecision, and sloppiness. The same professor could use precision tools, however, such as CAD, to mark strategic points, arcs, and lines of an exact system, and thus create a short-hand method of noting exact order to be worked into what looks like art, but is something more.
.

The next step would be experimentation. The most obvious experiments would evaluate artwork of known-mathematical cultures and of known-non-mathematical cultures. You seem to be assuming your hypothesis correct without the pesky work in the middle to validate your hypothesis.

You'd love to drown me in work, wouldn't you? When I show you an example of Egyptians using the Golden Section construction in the production of some glyphics at Abydos, do you acknowledge that my analysis is compelling? Nah, you just deny it. How about admiring the undeniable geometrical work in the Nazca monkey glyph? Nah, you deny that too. Plus, you denied all the meaning packed into the "Frame". Remember the Frame, which would serve as strong supporting evidence for the work of Santillana and Dechend with its emphasis on certain numbers?


The second is algorithmic ambiguity. Your algorithm for adding lines isn't. (Isn't an algorithm, that is.) The experimenter has too much latitude deciding where lines may be drawn and which lines are to be included. In short, it is an artistic rather than a mechanical process..

Are you discouraged because an engraved line can produce, or force as we say, more than one line? This ought not to be a problem, especially if each line has its own purpose. Remember, the number of lines forced by an engraved line is limited. Many lines as a whole force just a single interpretation.
In the case of the torso of the young woman in the Athena engraving, and the lines within it, it was fairly easy for me to find implications of deliberate order. Of course, my angle measurements could not be precise, since I was using primitive tools (a protractor, and a ruler), and yet, lo and behold, an idea had shone through quite clearly. If enough ideas are tied together, the overall effect is that the design becomes in effect self-correcting for minor imprecisions.
I said that the case of La Marche engravings would be ideal for computer exploration. That is, a deciphernment program should make sense out of what might seem like utter chaos to you and me. Or, it could assist a researcher with sorting all the data.
On the other hand, cases like the Abydos Helicopter, and Nazca monkey are clear-cut geometrically, and there is very little ambiguity to speak of. Since you gave up on those anyhow, it is obvious that you are mostly interested in denial, in sweeping these phenomena under the rug.

[Jiri]

I've got a couple good quotes to bring up:

Quote:
An important constraint on middle-range theories is independence. They should be justified on independent grounds, by appeal to evidence other than the evidence to which they give meaning in credibility
**********************************************

Does Prof. Kosso wish to say that mathematical evidence is not complete per se? Probably not. If he'd like to see independent confirmation, I can offer the geometry of the Nazca monkey glyph. Another independent example of coding similar geometry into glyphs is the so called Abydos Helicopter.


This is the antitheses of Jiri's work. The proof that the ancient people had the knowledge he posits is the presence of the special numeric meanings in the piece. But the special numeric meanings are only there if they knew about them, otherwise it is chance. You have to prove that it could not be chance, or that they knew about these numbers, as represented in another source.
.
You cannot get rid of the image's meaning, because that meaning actually adds up to thought. What I have learned from it someone else could learn as well. Thought like that, or a highly complex, and fully coordinated system does not materialize out of a vacuum. Ever!
.

Another quote:

The relative weight of a claim is not based on a sociological entrenchment. It is not about how many people endorse the claim, or how long the claim has been believed. Rather, it is an epistemic entrenchment. It is about how many other ideas and observations in our network are linked to this one. How many things does this theory explain? How many things contribute to explaining this theory...
******************************************

Basically in presenting a new theory, it has to not only replace another idea, but make up for the fact that existing ideas exist in a web of evidence and other theories. To propose that ancient people hid math in these carvings, you have to explain how they had this, explain the fact that record keeping is only associated with complex societies, explain away the evidence for precision tools that you claim necessary but do not exist, and countless other things. You end up introducing ideas with no evidence, and making an entirely new web out of one single piece. This new web is unsupportable and ends up with holes. For instance, how come they apparently measured in millimeters.

(both quotes from Peter Kosso Prof. of Phil. at Northern Arizona University. In Archaeological Fantasies ed. Garrett G. Fagan. )
.

The above requirements are for a paradigm shift. All I did is find some extremely important evidence going against the accepted theory. The paradigm shift could possibly come later as the result of testing this evidence. I am happy with what I did, but I can see a lot of people wanting this evidence to go away by pointing at dearth of similar evidence. The alleged absence of other evidence certainly does not make absent the evidence I had found. Infact, however, it does go away in the sense that it will be denied due attention. When next someone else happens to come up with similar evidence, everyone will pretend that it is wholly unsupported, although that evidence and my evidence support each other.
Science has two ways to go. One way is to observe facts and collect all important data. Pay attention to anomalies. There is plenty of evidence out there for advanced ancient technology in action in various places of this planet. The other way is a fear-reaction - try to suppress inconvenient facts, and that's what you are doing.

[Jiri]

This is a photo of the remaining outer casing of Chefren's pyramid. It is limestone, not granite. Granite was much more difficult for the Egyptians to work with their copper tools than limestone was. Because of granite's strength it was used to line interior chambers but it was impractical to cover the whole exterior of a pyramid with it.
.
Here what Nova's web-page says:

Quote:
Limestone was used for all but the lowest course of outer casing on Khafre and the lower 16 courses of Menkaure. These lower casings were made of granite.
There is good evidence that Khafre's bottom course of granite casing was being stripped as early as ancient Egypt's 19th Dynasty, and as early as the 12th century A.D., limestone was quarried from the Giza Pyramids for the construction of buildings in Cairo.
The lower courses of Khafre pyramid are allegedly constructed of giant granite blocks weighing up to a hundred metric tons. Wow, that would mean thousands of such granite blocks!
Perhaps, these granite courses making up a grandiose platform had been there thousands of years before Old Kingdom.

Hey, how come no ne had commented on this? Too hot to handle?:boxedin:

[andyandy]

maybe for the benefit of people who havn't been following the thread this is taken from you could condense your argument/main point into a short single post?

[calebprime]

Some modern artists like Leonardo, Durer, Picassso, Kubista, and Escher did use their mathematical knowledge in art, but it was for the purpose of enhancing the art. The self-serving art was never meant as primarily encoded mathematics.

my bold.

Not to sidetrack you, but by being self-serving, artists serve others--as in the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith. Art produced in the service of worthy causes--like, say socialist realism--is usually well-intentioned (or cynical) dreck.

second what andyandy said.

show the big picture, with pictures. I care not so much about your precision, more about how these pictures "force" approximately the geometric designs you see in them.

[ReligionStudent]

**********************************************

Does Prof. Kosso wish to say that mathematical evidence is not complete per se? Probably not. If he'd like to see independent confirmation, I can offer the geometry of the Nazca monkey glyph. Another independent example of coding similar geometry into glyphs is the so called Abydos Helicopter.
I would like to point out that I have already addressed your reply to this post, but I will do so again. Even with the Nazca monkey, you have not proved anything. You are using these pieces to show that ancient people knew certain mathamatical ideas.
To do so, you need to show the pieces have these numbers in them.
But that could just be chance
The only way to show it is not chance is to show that the people knew these numbers.
that is circular and false reasoning.

Additionally, there is no reason at all, and no validity at all, in comparing any Nazca gliff to these other things you have mentioned. You cannot in any way provide a context between them. The Nazca monkey will never be any form of support or proof or whatever for somthing from stone age France.


.
You cannot get rid of the image's meaning, because that meaning actually adds up to thought. What I have learned from it someone else could learn as well. Thought like that, or a highly complex, and fully coordinated system does not materialize out of a vacuum. Ever!
. You still have yet to show it has meaning, and that it is not chance. Additionally, you have yet to show that the sone age people you are concerned with had the highly precision tools you have stated necessary to give the stones more meaning than chance.

Since you cannot provide these tools, it must be chance

.

The above requirements are for a paradigm shift. All I did is find some extremely important evidence going against the accepted theory. The paradigm shift could possibly come later as the result of testing this evidence. I am happy with what I did, but I can see a lot of people wanting this evidence to go away by pointing at dearth of similar evidence. The alleged absence of other evidence certainly does not make absent the evidence I had found. Infact, however, it does go away in the sense that it will be denied due attention. When next someone else happens to come up with similar evidence, everyone will pretend that it is wholly unsupported, although that evidence and my evidence support each other.
Science has two ways to go. One way is to observe facts and collect all important data. Pay attention to anomalies. There is plenty of evidence out there for advanced ancient technology in action in various places of this planet. The other way is a fear-reaction - try to suppress inconvenient facts, and that's what you are doing.

No, it is not the requirement for a paradigm shift. It is part of what supports a theory. For a theory to be supported it has to fit within a specific system of other theories.

Saying that the stone age people made a picture with no special meaning fits well within all existing theories, and is supported by its place in the web.

Your theory fits with nothing, requires that the web be completely ignored, and creates holes all throughout.

For your theory to be true, the web finds holes in the existance of fictional tools you believe existed, the knowledge of ancient people to mathmatics, the links between cultures you keep proposing, and many other places.

You have to take care of these things to support your theory, not draw pictures.

[Ladewig]

.
Here what Nova's web-page says:

When quoting material it is useful to give the actual webs address and to clearly indicate where the quoted material begins and ends.

From the Nova website (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/explore/gizahistory2.html)
Limestone was used for all but the lowest course of outer casing on Khafre and the lower 16 courses of Menkaure. These lower casings were made of granite.
There is good evidence that Khafre's bottom course of granite casing was being stripped as early as ancient Egypt's 19th Dynasty, and as early as the 12th century A.D., limestone was quarried from the Giza Pyramids for the construction of buildings in Cairo.

and

The lower courses of Khafre pyramid are allegedly constructed of giant granite blocks weighing up to a hundred metric tons. Wow, that would mean thousands of such granite blocks!
Perhaps, these granite courses making up a grandiose platform had been there thousands of years before Old Kingdom.

Your post made it appear that Nova was speculating about the age of the platform.

. . . . . . . .
ETA: By putting the word "quote'" inside brackets [] you can begin the quoted material and by putting "/quote" in brackets, you can end the quote.

[Ladewig]

. There is plenty of evidence out there for advanced ancient technology in action in various places of this planet.

Would you provide some citations to show this evidence?

[Dr Adequate]

This thread appears to have started halfway through.

What the heck are you talking about?

[CurtC]

When I click on a new thread, and there are about four screens' worth of posts from the same person right up front, quoting someone else from some unspecified other thread, I tend to read the first sentence and the last sentence, looking to see whether this is an interesting topic worth my time.

In this case, I wasn't able to quickly figure out what you're on about. Seems like some kind of a flame war carried over from another thread or something, so I'm moving on...

[Cuddles]

I think I might be able to see the problem here. A->B does not mean B->A. If mathematical principles can be seen in pretty things it does not mean that mathematical principles were required to make the pretty things. Does a flower have to understand Fibonnachi to grow the right number of petals? No. So why do humans have to understand maths in order to draw pictures? You don't need to know what pi is or how to calculate it in order to draw a circle. Why should it be different for any other picture or mathematical concept?

As far as I can tell Jiri's argument is that some pictures can be analysed using maths, therefore ancient civilisations had really advanced technology. Are you familiar with the old robotic saying "Does not compute!"?

[ReligionStudent]

I think I might be able to see the problem here. A->B does not mean B->A. If mathematical principles can be seen in pretty things it does not mean that mathematical principles were required to make the pretty things. Does a flower have to understand Fibonnachi to grow the right number of petals? No. So why do humans have to understand maths in order to draw pictures? You don't need to know what pi is or how to calculate it in order to draw a circle. Why should it be different for any other picture or mathematical concept?

As far as I can tell Jiri's argument is that some pictures can be analysed using maths, therefore ancient civilisations had really advanced technology. Are you familiar with the old robotic saying "Does not compute!"?

Its not that it can be analyzed mathamatically, its that when you measure it, the millimeter measurements can be arranged to be similar to important mathamatical constants. For example, if you had a rectangular box and one side was 3 meters and the other side was 1 meter, that would be like having 3.1 so obviously the box was based on PI.

He also draws lots of colorful lines that apparently have no real meaning at all.

[Big Les]

I think I might be able to see the problem here. A->B does not mean B->A. If mathematical principles can be seen in pretty things it does not mean that mathematical principles were required to make the pretty things. Does a flower have to understand Fibonnachi to grow the right number of petals? No. So why do humans have to understand maths in order to draw pictures? You don't need to know what pi is or how to calculate it in order to draw a circle. Why should it be different for any other picture or mathematical concept?

As far as I can tell Jiri's argument is that some pictures can be analysed using maths, therefore ancient civilisations had really advanced technology. Are you familiar with the old robotic saying "Does not compute!"?

Not to thread hijack (more tout for knowledge really), but this also appears to be the case with the Rosslyn Chapel carvings that have been claimed to match Chladni vibration patterns which in turn correspond with musical notes. I have a thread here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=80878)for any physics, maths or music types to peruse.

Both claims seem to credit (based upon observation) the "ancients" with technology and knowledge that, as far as all other evidence goes, they just didn't have.

[Belz...]

Isn't this just a continuation of your the thread, Jiri ??

Oh, that's right, I'm on ignore for asking for proof! How silly of me.

[EHocking]

...A professor of mathematics can draw free-hand diagrams of mathematical ideas, which then may be recognized as such, or may not due to their imprecision, and sloppiness. The same professor could use precision tools, however, such as CAD, to mark strategic points, arcs, and lines of an exact system, and thus create a short-hand method of noting exact order to be worked into what looks like art, but is something more. ..Since you recognise this, why don't you apply this to your attempts at analysing the Nazca figures?

This is a post from me from a thread you have apparently abandoned:

In order to make your case more "bullet proof", you need to decide whether your theory is to use line-of-best-fit, or derive your lines from end-point or junction-point of the original.

At the moment your lines are purely arbitrary and indicate no scientific methodology in selection or placement. For instance - the yellow line parallel to line 'b' passes through no end-points or junctions. You need to be able to justify you line-of-best-fit approach mathematically, else, the lines ARE merely artistic.

You'd be best to digitise the end-points, junctions and point on arcs of the original.

At least then you can apply scientific methodology to support your line selection - simple regression formulae would be one, for instance that would give you an idea of correlation accuracy and greatly aid your argument.

[JonnyFive]

Don't forget to ask him about Atlantis.

[jimbob]

This thread appears to have started halfway through.

What the heck are you talking about?

I hope this will help you Dr Adequate:

Jiri joined on a DJJ thread, with similar ideas, and that is all anyone needs to know.

I have just realised that I have made 390 psots on this forum, which is almost exactly 432 especially when measured with a CAD package

Spooky; who can argue against an intelligent designer with non-sequiters observations like these.

Jim

[Jiri]

my bold.

Not to sidetrack you, but by being self-serving, artists serve others--as in the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith. Art produced in the service of worthy causes--like, say socialist realism--is usually well-intentioned (or cynical) dreck.

Very tempting, socialist realism, utopia, which existed only on paper as opposed to the oppresssive reality, all totally needless pure evil emanating from diabolical personalities like Stalin, or Trotzky, their pathological hatred of the idea of God, the tens of millions of wasted lives, millions of needlessly captured and killed Red Army soldiers - very bad..

second what andyandy said.

show the big picture, with pictures. I care not so much about your precision, more about how these pictures "force" approximately the geometric designs you see in them.

Then clad yourself in patience, we were focused on analysis of lines in the center of the image - and within the lens-like torso of the girl.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_155774635745ff18e0.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5419)
.
Critics maintain that the lines a,b,c,d, are random, and do not characterize the engraved lines at all. Yet, these are the lines I had chosen from the very beginning to make, in order to extrapolate straight lines from the torso, so there must have been something I saw in them, and it must have been something more exacting than artistic license. Of course, it just so happened those lines had then created a systematic result together with the pre-existent axial pair x,y. This mini-system then works itself right into the rest of the system already on hand at that time.
Testing the extrapolated lines
The lines you see in these gifs are derived directly from the basic system (the Square). They are test lines for the exactitude of the system since the lines I drew originally were by their nature imprecise due to my usage of manual drafting. We want to see, how exactly the test lines, the geometrical idea, adhere to the picture by our standards of judgement.
We are also discussing the general rules behind extrapolating lines, how certain lines can be considered forced, etc.
For instance, some lines, like 'b', are quite unambiguous as to their general direction. Here is 'b' in good detail. Start the extrapolated line as a tangent to the engraved line at either bottom left or right, and run it in the general direction of the engraved line.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_15577463aa5c494a16.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5535)
.
Line 'b' from the bottom left -starts as a tangent, and continues to run with the left edge of the eng. line, staying near the edge, touching it as a tangent once more above the center of the engraved X. By our rules, this is a forced line (by the image).
It is however just a reflection of the system line 'b', which starts as a tangent at the bottom right edge of the eng. line 'b'. Up to the center of the X, the engraved line moves to the left slightly right away, and then runs parallel, with the humps in the line coming very close to 'b'.
Once above the center of the X, the system line 'b' stays entirely within the engraved line, or runs with the edge, becoming a tangent to it once.
Thus, the system line 'b' keeps the engraved line to the inside below the X junctioin, and it keeps the engraved line to the outside above the X junction. All in all, the system seems to be finding accurate relations to the engraved line.
We also test the engraved line by moving 'b' (magenta color) to its extreme right, at the top. Then it is a tangent twice, which qualifies it as a forced line, as well.
pyrab5ln.gif
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/15577463ad67aac095.gif
We try moving 'b' to the extreme left (magenta). This time it runs with the engraved line very nicely, parallel to the edges, which become a tangent in a number of places at this high magnification far below the limits of unaided eye. There is a single bump, which protrudes. Overall, line 'b' passes the test on both extreme sides of the engraved line. (However, we could have drawn another line, as a tangent to the Humpty-Bumpty bump, which sits on the wall here :) , but that line would obviously miss, its purpose remaining unclear.)
Finally, we test the line 'b' by moving it to the center, as a tangent to leftmost edges on the right of the engraved line. It then runs higher up with the rightmost edges on the left of the engraved line (sorry, if this sounds complicated). This is the green line. Again a nice result in the test. All five test lines can be considered to belong to the forced category, and they all hold the angle of 36 degrees with the y-axis. I encourage everyone to open the gif in Photoshop, or so, and study the position in detail. The same position in greater detail is available upon request, here, as well.

We can also see most of the system line 'a' in this gif. It actually misses being a tangent to the engraved line at the top by about 150 microns (very hard to see at lifesize, and so our critics never saw it). This is a small fault, no doubt. How about the parallel line, which really is a tangent to the engraved line here? It is a forced line - a tangent at the top, and a tangent at the bottom - check out the detail, where we see the two lines start from the bottom of engraved 'a' as tangents on the inside.
.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_15577463ae4df6b2ef.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5539)
.
The line on the right is faultless by our rules, a tangent on both sides. It is one of the four possible forced tangent lines in this context - a tangent from the bottom right of engraved 'a' to its top left. It forces a highly accurate angle line, but this line is about 150 microns too far. It is not too far though to simulate the same idea, because even at two times lefesize one can hardly see any difference.
Since the extrapolated 'b' is already highly accurate, the line 'a' needs to hold only a rough 36 degree angle with the y-axis, and the idea will show through just the same.
BTW, the line as a tangent from the lower left to the top right of engraved 'a' gave me a very exact 52.0098 degrees.
Comments?

[Jiri]

I hope this will help you Dr Adequate:

Jiri joined on a DJJ thread, with similar ideas, and that is all anyone needs to know.

You just forged a big lie, jimbob, shame on you. Your ideas strike me as more similar to DJJ's than mine. That goes for almost everyone else so far on these boards I came across so far, what with their baggage of fixed immutable ideas about a very mutable scientific issue.
Pathetic.

I have just realised that I have made 390 psots on this forum, which is almost exactly 432 especially when measured with a CAD package

Spooky; who can argue against an intelligent designer with non-sequiters observations like these.

Jim

Yes, pathetically amazing! Welcome to my list of the Ignorables!

[Jiri]

Don't forget to ask him about Atlantis.

Plato and Atlantis is a very nice subject. After all, Plato speaks to us about the Americas, does he not?
:boxedin: :crowded:

[EHocking]

..Comments?Practically none of your "forced" lines intersect junction or end points.

Inaccuracy to the micron is still inaccuracy.

[calebprime]

Very tempting, socialist realism, utopia, which existed only on paper as opposed to the oppresssive reality, all totally needless pure evil emanating from diabolical personalities like Stalin, or Trotzky, their pathological hatred of the idea of God, the tens of millions of wasted lives, millions of needlessly captured and killed Red Army soldiers - very bad..


Socialist realism was just an example. I was expecting you'd come back with something more like the artist in ancient or "primitive" societies who is so integrated into the community that she feels no distance from others, and craft=art=spirituality=daily life--no distinctions. Not utopia, but free from alienation, somehow.

...



Then clad yourself in patience....



I'm patient enough, and I certainly don't put you in the same boat with DJJ;
but I have to be frank--I looked at your website and was instantly bewildered where you got the very first lines you added to the monkey.

Plus, I wanted to see a picture zoomed back a little so I could see the wider context.

Until we could establish something basic like that for patzers like me, accuracy to the micron is completely spurious precision.

I think you are sane, intelligent, and good at manipulating pictures, and idealistic. All good things. You remind me of some of the young composers I used to "teach"--scare quotes because trying to teach a young composer anything is like herding a cat...

(you're probably older than I think. I'm guessing 30-35.)

[Cuddles]

Is it just me, or do the lines Jiri has drawn seem to have nothing to do with the ones in the actual picture?

[Belz...]

"Hey look! Some of the lines more-or-less coincide with the original lines. So I can safely ignore the fact that the rest do not!"

[Tirdun]

Plato and Atlantis is a very nice subject. After all, Plato speaks to us about the Americas, does he not?

No.

[Molinaro]

Is it just me, or do the lines Jiri has drawn seem to have nothing to do with the ones in the actual picture?

It's not just you. I see nonsense.

[Jiri]

Socialist realism was just an example. I was expecting you'd come back with something more like the artist in ancient or "primitive" societies who is so integrated into the community that she feels no distance from others, and craft=art=spirituality=daily life--no distinctions. Not utopia, but free from alienation, somehow.

Yeah, like the pioneer times without the Indians:) Very pastoral..

...


I'm patient enough, and I certainly don't put you in the same boat with DJJ;
but I have to be frank--I looked at your website and was instantly bewildered where you got the very first lines you added to the monkey.

Wait a minute Caleb, the very first lines I had added were drawn into the two lines of the Big-X. Its lines (the two longest in the glyph) form a visually exact 36 degree angle. So, the very first two lines kind of disappear in the black.
I am raking my mind for what it might have been, you find fancy. Especially the beginning of the monkey glyph's analysis is very elementary.

Plus, I wanted to see a picture zoomed back a little so I could see the wider context.

I have yet to locate the monkey on the Google maps, in the other lines' context. I am certain that we have to view the other lines and glyphs in the context of the Cone & Square found on the glyph of the monkey.
.
Until we could establish something basic like that for patzers like me, accuracy to the micron is completely spurious precision.
I think you are sane, intelligent, and good at manipulating pictures, and idealistic. All good things.

Thank you for saying those good words about me. You would not say them, I presume, without seeing and agreeing at least some of the geometrical regularities I try to describe. After dealing with all the local native ill-will, it is a breath of fresh air, and a great surprise meeting someone like you. Such attitude comes with feelings of adequacy, achievement, and quiet confidence as opposed to alienation, or frustration.
Can I be quietly confident while alienated? :cool:

You remind me of some of the young composers I used to "teach"--scare quotes because trying to teach a young composer anything is like herding a cat...

(you're probably older than I think. I'm guessing 30-35.)

You're right that you're wrong:p I'm older than that now. But, you may be older still.. Hmm, maybe not :boggled:
Having ideals is like good diet - it keeps you young.

[Jiri]

Originally Posted by Jiri :
Plato and Atlantis is a very nice subject. After all, Plato speaks to us about the Americas, does he not?


No.


Right, he speaks of the Americas' eastern continental coasts.

[JonnyFive]

Plato and Atlantis is a very nice subject. After all, Plato speaks to us about the Americas, does he not?

No, I don't think he does.

If you happen to have a citation for me, that would be fine.

There is one Plato who might have (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Plato), but not the one you're probably thinking of.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Jiri :
Plato and Atlantis is a very nice subject. After all, Plato speaks to us about the Americas, does he not?



Right, he speaks of the Americas' eastern continental coasts.

No.

[ReligionStudent]

Originally Posted by Jiri :
Plato and Atlantis is a very nice subject. After all, Plato speaks to us about the Americas, does he not?



Right, he speaks of the Americas' eastern continental coasts.

I don't believe he did at all.

[strathmeyer]

Right, he speaks of the Americas' eastern continental coasts.

Ok, of which of the pan-American eastern continental coasts has Plato spoken?

[Jiri]

The main point that I will make in this essay is that when one takes into account what we know about ancient Egyptian mathematics (based primarily on the Rhind Papyrus), especially their ways of representing lengths and slopes, then the relationship between pi and the Great Pyramid no longer seems very remarkable. The essential point is that the measurement system which the ancient Egyptians used would lead the architects to use certain slopes in the design of pyramids. One of those slopes just happens to be an excellent approximation to the number 4/pi, and if the architect chooses that slope, then the pyramid would exhibit the famous pi relationship.

Rhind Payrus was probably written as a lower level type of manual, a true to the word Applied Mathematics for Dummies and (work)Gang Leaders. We cannot judge Egyptian mathematics from it and by it.
The temples had their secret knowledge, which Greek initiates brought home to Greece.
The Golden Section and Pi ratio were no secret to Pythagoras, therefore they were no secret to his Egyptian professors.
Remember the claims the Egyptian priest made to Solon as quoted by Plato. The temple had been keeping scientific records since before the end of Atlantis, more than 9,000 years before Solon's time. It is significant that Plato's book is also about record keeping, as it is a compendium of various scientific facts and theories, as well as history. It is all evidently meant to be non-fiction in the eyes of Plato.
Some prism points:
Solon and his instructor are near the Mediterranean seashore, and the instructor priest specifies that this sea is a mere puddle in contrast to the great ocean beyond the Pillars of Hercules. In other words, there is absolutely no doubt that the ocean to Plato, Solon, and Egyptians means what it means to us.
The priest continues that this ocean seems surrounded by continents, and yes, across the ocean, there is a true continent, so vast that it surrounds the ocean from the other side.
Just one question: Was Plato, Solon, and the Egyptian temple right or wrong about this vast continent?
Of course, he was right. Remember, a lot of reputation was in stake here, as there was no question that Atlantic would be navigated one day in the future. How would we judge Plato and the rest of Timeus and Critias then, if there were no other continental mass out there? Plato definitely encourages exploratory voyages across the Atlantic ocean by promising them America. Would he wish to deceive the future sailors, and have them cursing his name? Columbus himself may have had found a measure of encouragement in Plato to make his big decision.
The Egyptian Temple as the guardian to the secrets of advanced prehistoric civilisation would also be the key to the simplest explanation of the existence of the Great Pyramid. It was possible to build it, because the Egyptian Temple had always known how to do it. Was not Imhotep the pyramid's architect at the same time the highest ranking priest of the temple in Egypt? For whoever is building the Great Pyramid must have great knowledge. There are techniques to master in using mechanical advantage methods and machines. There are advanced techniques for polishing large expanses of stone to optometrist's standards, techniques for manouvering enormous blocks in confined spaces, techniques for drilling enormous quantities of granite in short time, etc. Then there is the enormous logistical challenge, as Egypt's fate could easily be endangered by wasting its resources on the building.

[autumn1971]

I was reading this thread, and I thought to myself that I was getting the uncomfortable feeling I sometimes get when observing some modern art, i.e., I don't care what it is supposed to represent, there is no talent in the painting, only in the explanation. This always makes me feel like a philistine, even though I am convinced that I am right (Pollock may have had a unique way of splattering paint, but so would anyone who undertook the task of perfecting their paint-splattering).
As I was going into my kitchen for a refreshing beverage, I realized that my son had a drawing of his own on the refrigerator that may be relevant to this discussion. I couldn't rember what it looked like, other than being a general scribble, but I was sure that I could find meaning in it.

Damn if I didn't hit the jackpot! My son's scribble looked a lot like the Lorentz Attractor! I even pulled out my copy of Chaos to be sure. It isn't exact, but by Jiri's reasoning, my three year old son has a pretty advanced knowledge of math.
I have already purchased my ticket for the Gravy Train.

[Solus]

OK...

I didn't read the whole thread but appears the OP believes aliens created the pyramids or that type of woo?

[Slimething]

OK...

I didn't read the whole thread but appears the OP believes aliens created the pyramids or that type of woo?

And Plato wrote about his astral visit to NYC or some such rot. Someone's been off their meds.

[wollery]

Rhind Payrus was probably written as a lower level type of manual, a true to the word Applied Mathematics for Dummies and (work)Gang Leaders. We cannot judge Egyptian mathematics from it and by it.If it's the only evidence of Egyptian maths then what else are we to use by which to judge it?

The temples had their secret knowledge, which Greek initiates brought home to Greece. Evidence?

The Golden Section and Pi ratio were no secret to Pythagoras, therefore they were no secret to his Egyptian professors.By that argument Relativity was well known to Einstein's professors, and the laws of Planetary motion to Kepler's. :rolleyes:

Are you really trying to suggest that nobody ever makes discoveries of their own? :eek:

Remember the claims the Egyptian priest made to Solon as quoted by Plato. The temple had been keeping scientific records since before the end of Atlantis, more than 9,000 years before Solon's time. It is significant that Plato's book is also about record keeping, as it is a compendium of various scientific facts and theories, as well as history. It is all evidently meant to be non-fiction in the eyes of Plato.
Some prism points:
Solon and his instructor are near the Mediterranean seashore, and the instructor priest specifies that this sea is a mere puddle in contrast to the great ocean beyond the Pillars of Hercules. In other words, there is absolutely no doubt that the ocean to Plato, Solon, and Egyptians means what it means to us.
The priest continues that this ocean seems surrounded by continents, and yes, across the ocean, there is a true continent, so vast that it surrounds the ocean from the other side.
Just one question: Was Plato, Solon, and the Egyptian temple right or wrong about this vast continent?
Of course, he was right. Remember, a lot of reputation was in stake here, as there was no question that Atlantic would be navigated one day in the future. How would we judge Plato and the rest of Timeus and Critias then, if there were no other continental mass out there? Plato definitely encourages exploratory voyages across the Atlantic ocean by promising them America. Would he wish to deceive the future sailors, and have them cursing his name? Columbus himself may have had found a measure of encouragement in Plato to make his big decision.
The Egyptian Temple as the guardian to the secrets of advanced prehistoric civilisation would also be the key to the simplest explanation of the existence of the Great Pyramid. It was possible to build it, because the Egyptian Temple had always known how to do it. Was not Imhotep the pyramid's architect at the same time the highest ranking priest of the temple in Egypt? For whoever is building the Great Pyramid must have great knowledge. There are techniques to master in using mechanical advantage methods and machines. There are advanced techniques for polishing large expanses of stone to optometrist's standards, techniques for manouvering enormous blocks in confined spaces, techniques for drilling enormous quantities of granite in short time, etc. Then there is the enormous logistical challenge, as Egypt's fate could easily be endangered by wasting its resources on the building.That entire screed is based on your interpretation of the motives of people who lived several thousand years ago, in cultures almost totally alien to all of us.

The Greek myths about Zeus, Athena, Perseus, Theseus, et al. were written as though they were fact. Were they?

[Jiri]

If it's the only evidence of Egyptian maths then what else are we to use by which to judge it?

Evidence?

That is what the Greeks said. Are you saying they lied?

By that argument Relativity was well known to Einstein's professors, and the laws of Planetary motion to Kepler's. :rolleyes:

Both Einstein and his professors had comparable educations and mathematical knowledge. Same goes for Pythagoras and his Egyptian instructors.
Had Pythagoras invented the Section, he would have been free to cry Eureka and enjoy the prestige from it. He did nothing of the kind however, for the secret of the Section was entrusted him by the temple. That's the simplest explanation.


Are you really trying to suggest that nobody ever makes discoveries of their own? :eek:


Strawman.


That entire screed is based on your interpretation of the motives of people who lived several thousand years ago, in cultures almost totally alien to all of us.

The Greek myths about Zeus, Athena, Perseus, Theseus, et al. were written as though they were fact. Were they?

Plato, Aristoteles, or Pythagoras didn't write myths, they wrote and taught science. You cannot see the difference, but I can.:jaw-dropp

[Jiri]

What continent across the Atlantic did Plato write about?
How does he describe the geographic situation and is it true?
Why do we know Plato knew the difference between an ocean and a sea?
Why is the story of Atlantis in a scientific compendium written by Plato, and not in a fictional work like the Republic?

[Apathia]

Jiri,

Have you read Plato's Timaeus? If you have do you still rank it as a scientific work?
Are its contents as useful to scentific discourse as anything published in scientific journals now?
What's your take on the Dimiurge?

BTW The Timaeus is the same sort of literature as the Republic, one of Plato's Dialogs. It contains substantiaaly more mythic content than the Republic.

[jsfisher]

Had Pythagoras invented the Section, he would have been free to cry Eureka and enjoy the prestige from it. He did nothing of the kind however, for the secret of the Section was entrusted him by the temple. That's the simplest explanation.


Wow. You've gone well beyond the bounds of pseudo-science into the land of the mystic. The number, phi, was no more invented than was the number, seventeen.

It may have a few interesting mathematical properties, but in that regard, all numbers are interesting. Overall, phi is rather mundane, even though it has been attributed with significance it may not deserve, e.g. ideal architectural proportions or location of the human navel.

The simplicity with which phi can be constructed with straight edge and compass guarantees the high probability of "uncovering phi" in places there was not explicit intention to put it.

Phi is nothing more than an algebraic irrational with a cute name. Now, seventeen, on the other hand, now there's a number!!....

[calebprime]

if you know what i mean

[Solus]

And Plato wrote about his astral visit to NYC or some such rot. Someone's been off their meds.

Hey, I took my medication today!:mad:

;)

So basically his argument is that aliens created math? Were the aliens illegal? :D

Ok... I did read some of his posts. So the OP thinks the Egyptians and ancient Greeks were privy to some of kind of secret knowledge.

[ReligionStudent]

Rhind Payrus was probably written as a lower level type of manual, a true to the word Applied Mathematics for Dummies and (work)Gang Leaders. We cannot judge Egyptian mathematics from it and by it.
The temples had their secret knowledge, which Greek initiates brought home to Greece. Show one piece of archaeological evidence that the Egyptians had this secret knowledge
The Golden Section and Pi ratio were no secret to Pythagoras, therefore they were no secret to his Egyptian professors. That is a completely incorrect assumption. People's teachers obviously do not teach them everything, or else we would not be doing better than stone tools. People develop new thought. Simply put, someone's knowledge of a subject is not proof or even strong evidence his or her teacher had the same.
Remember the claims the Egyptian priest made to Solon as quoted by Plato. The temple had been keeping scientific records since before the end of Atlantis, more than 9,000 years before Solon's time. It is amazing that no such claims appear anywhere in Egyptian history from the Pre-Dynastic period through the OK. (See Paul Jordan "Esoteric Egypt" in Archaeological Fantasies) It is significant that Plato's book is also about record keeping, as it is a compendium of various scientific facts and theories, as well as history. It is all evidently meant to be non-fiction in the eyes of Plato.
Some prism points:
Solon and his instructor are near the Mediterranean seashore, and the instructor priest specifies that this sea is a mere puddle in contrast to the great ocean beyond the Pillars of Hercules. In other words, there is absolutely no doubt that the ocean to Plato, Solon, and Egyptians means what it means to us.
The priest continues that this ocean seems surrounded by continents, and yes, across the ocean, there is a true continent, so vast that it surrounds the ocean from the other side. What about people that assumed Australia was there to balance out the globe. This is not proof that they had seen it or knew it was there, but just a guess. You cannot prove otherwise in this account.
Just one question: Was Plato, Solon, and the Egyptian temple right or wrong about this vast continent?
Of course, he was right. Remember, a lot of reputation was in stake here, as there was no question that Atlantic would be navigated one day in the future. That isn't true at all. There were quite a few myths/stories of this being impossibleHow would we judge Plato and the rest of Timeus and Critias then, if there were no other continental mass out there? Plato definitely encourages exploratory voyages across the Atlantic ocean by promising them America. Would he wish to deceive the future sailors, and have them cursing his name? Columbus himself may have had found a measure of encouragement in Plato to make his big decision.
The Egyptian Temple as the guardian to the secrets of advanced prehistoric civilisation would also be the key to the simplest explanation of the existence of the Great Pyramid. It was possible to build it, because the Egyptian Temple had always known how to do it. Was not Imhotep the pyramid's architect at the same time the highest ranking priest of the temple in Egypt? There was not one temple. There were many, for many gods and pharaoahs. The highest ranking religious figure would have been pharaoah. For whoever is building the Great Pyramid must have great knowledge. There are techniques to master in using mechanical advantage methods and machines. There are advanced techniques for polishing large expanses of stone to optometrist's standards, techniques for manouvering enormous blocks in confined spaces, techniques for drilling enormous quantities of granite in short time, etc. Then there is the enormous logistical challenge, as Egypt's fate could easily be endangered by wasting its resources on the building.

The symplest explanation for the pyramids is a gradual development over time, as seen in things such as Djoser's pyramid. And the large scale buildings are often noted as a reason, at least in part, that the Egyptian culture was stressed, and they were likely a contribution to the First Intermediate Period.

[ReligionStudent]

I would like to put up the following quote from Paul Jordan, "Esoteric Egypt", page 110, in Archaeological FantasiesEgyptian mathematics really got no further than trial and error and approximation, while their geometry was practical and untheroretical.

[Macoy]

Can I be quietly confident while alienated? :cool:


Wot do u think?

[Slimething]

Hey, I took my medication today!:mad:

;)

:)


So basically his argument is that aliens created math? Were the aliens illegal? :D


Damned math-doin' aliems takin' away work frem math-doin' 'gyptians!! Couldn bild a wal hi enuff fer to keep dem out, no sir. Dem an' deyr flyin' saucers an' thyme machines! Glad dey fin'ley got bord an' flu away but did dey haf to taik da dam wheels n' TV's wid dem? Bastards!

Ok... I did read some of his posts. So the OP thinks the Egyptians and ancient Greeks were privy to some of kind of secret knowledge.

I don't know why I get so upset when I initially meet people like Jiri. In the end, they are extremely harmless. It's very easy to undo whatever damage they do by because their beliefs are so easily disproved, except to themselves. They make life more interesting and they reward us by making us look so much more intelligent.

[Jiri]

I would like to put up the following quote from Paul Jordan, "Esoteric Egypt", page 110, in Archaeological Fantasies

Of course, you subscribe to Jordan's drivel, a particularly tasteless diatribe against Egyptian science. Oh, I forgot, like parents send their kids to Oxford, and Harvard, nowadays, affluent Greek families had been sending their kids to Egypt to learn the following:

Egyptian mathematics really got no further than trial and error and approximation, while their geometry was practical and untheroretical.

Solon went to Egypt to learn, how to fix his parents' porch by the world-renowned Egyptian methods of trial & error. ! The mindframe of some scholars is just so Wunderbar.
:eye-poppi :jaw-dropp :eek: :boxedin:

[Jiri]

Originally Posted by Jiri View Post
Can I be quietly confident while alienated?

Wot do u think?

Watt doo Uh think?

[Jiri]

Wow. You've gone well beyond the bounds of pseudo-science into the land of the mystic. The number, phi, was no more invented than was the number, seventeen.

It may have a few interesting mathematical properties, but in that regard, all numbers are interesting. Overall, phi is rather mundane, even though it has been attributed with significance it may not deserve, e.g. ideal architectural proportions or location of the human navel.

The simplicity with which phi can be constructed with straight edge and compass guarantees the high probability of "uncovering phi" in places there was not explicit intention to put it.



I've refuted this contention by you a long time ago, but you never responded. Now, I don't remember where it is exactly.

[jsfisher]

I've refuted this contention by you a long time ago, but you never responded. Now, I don't remember where it is exactly.


I must have missed that refutation. In fact, you have refused to provide any evidence your "phi spotting" is anything more than discovering coincidence.

Meanwhile, you confirmed your analysis is devoid of scientific process (that being just some distraction to bury you in work). So, where does that leave us? You invented a belief (your postulate -- something assumed to be true without proof), then proceeded to apply it in logic-defying ways.

You are one making claims. Where's the evidence to support them?

[ReligionStudent]

Of course, you subscribe to Jordan's drivel, a particularly tasteless diatribe against Egyptian science. Oh, I forgot, like parents send their kids to Oxford, and Harvard, nowadays, affluent Greek families had been sending their kids to Egypt to learn the following:



Solon went to Egypt to learn, how to fix his parents' porch by the world-renowned Egyptian methods of trial & error. ! The mindframe of some scholars is just so Wunderbar.
:eye-poppi :jaw-dropp :eek: :boxedin:

Um, its not tasteless. The culture that Greeks would have sent their children to would have been much different than the Egypt of the pyramids, its basic context and chronology.

I really cannot believe the absoletelly pointless and low methodology that pseudohistorians like you take and attack scholars and such, because their years of actual work and research show things contrary to your afternoon of reading Graham Hancock and von Daniken.

The only reason this scientifically and archaeologically based work is "tasteless" to you is that it illustrates the blatent flaws of your poorly researched and haphazardly thrown together theories.

[ReligionStudent]

I must have missed that refutation. In fact, you have refused to provide any evidence your "phi spotting" is anything more than discovering coincidence.

Meanwhile, you confirmed your analysis is devoid of scientific process (that being just some distraction to bury you in work). So, where does that leave us? You invented a belief (your postulate -- something assumed to be true without proof), then proceeded to apply it in logic-defying ways.

You are one making claims. Where's the evidence to support them?
I would like to point out that a large portion of Jiri's work is the fact that numbers which appear adjacent to eachother somehow represent values. Like a side of 3 next to one of 14 means 3.14.

Or one that is 3, then one of 16, then one of 14 still means 3.14

Its terrible cherry picking and has no basis.

I still challenge the validity of using millimeters as well.

[jsfisher]

I would like to point out that a large portion of Jiri's work is the fact that numbers which appear adjacent to eachother somehow represent values....


Maybe not a large portion, but, yes, he's grasping at the arbitrary and claiming it meaningful. The real problem, though, is that Jiri is very invested in the result. He's put significant time and effort into this house of cards. But he hasn't pursued it as a scientific quest for knowledge, just a self-consistent fantasy, so now his ego won't let him admit the cards have collapsed.

[ReligionStudent]

Maybe not a large portion, but, yes, he's grasping at the arbitrary and claiming it meaningful. The real problem, though, is that Jiri is very invested in the result. He's put significant time and effort into this house of cards. But he hasn't pursued it as a scientific quest for knowledge, just a self-consistent fantasy, so now his ego won't let him admit the cards have collapsed.

The problem is that now that they have all fallen he keeps dropping that top one in place, and won't admit he needs to go rebuild the bottom first.

[wollery]

That is what the Greeks said. Are you saying they lied?What exactly did the Greeks say?

How did they know about it? Were they told by Egyptians?

According to you it's what Plato said Solon said the Egyptians told him! That's third hand hearsay. Nothing more than anecdote, with no evidence to back it up. I'm not saying the Greeks lied (although it's possible), but the Egyptians may have, to make themselves look better to the Greeks.

Both Einstein and his professors had comparable educations and mathematical knowledge.Nope. Einstein worked in a period when huge advances were being made in maths and physics.

Same goes for Pythagoras and his Egyptian instructors. Had Pythagoras invented the Section, he would have been free to cry Eureka and enjoy the prestige from it. He did nothing of the kind however, for the secret of the Section was entrusted him by the temple. That's the simplest explanation.It's an explanation, and a reasonable one, but that isn't the point. You claimed that they must have known about them because he did. That's flawed reasoning. He could have learned it somewhere else, or discovered it and not said so.

Strawman.No, the logical conclusion from your statement.

You want us to believe that the Egyptians couldn't have built the pyramids without maths and engineering given them by Atlanteans, who in turn got it from someone else (aliens?). Isn't it simpler to believe that they just worked out how to do it over several hundred years of trial and error?

Plato, Aristoteles, or Pythagoras didn't write myths, they wrote and taught science.Plato certainly wrote myths, or at least, essays with mythic content, and a lot of what Aristotle and Pythagorus wrote was just plain wrong.

You cannot see the difference, but I can.:jaw-droppOf course, you're the only person who can tell the difference. :rolleyes:

I know the difference between myth and science extremely well. I work in a field that started as a combination of myth and science, and progressed to drop the myth (like most of them).

[Jiri]

Originally Posted by Jiri View Post
Rhind Payrus was probably written as a lower level type of manual, a true to the word Applied Mathematics for Dummies and (work)Gang Leaders. We cannot judge Egyptian mathematics from it and by it.
The temples had their secret knowledge, which Greek initiates brought home to Greece.

Show one piece of archaeological evidence that the Egyptians had this secret knowledge
.
There are lots, read Schwaller de Lubicz, for example. The "Abydos Helicopter" is another example, which I discovered myself.
http://www,vejprty.com/abyhelic.htm

The Golden Section and Pi ratio were no secret to Pythagoras, therefore they were no secret to his Egyptian professors.
.
That is a completely incorrect assumption. People's teachers obviously do not teach them everything, or else we would not be doing better than stone tools. People develop new thought. Simply put, someone's knowledge of a subject is not proof or even strong evidence his or her teacher had the same.

You don't sound logical. A professor's knowledge of mathematics is the proof that his teachers had essentially the same knowledge. There is PARITY between them. He has to stand on the shoulders of others.


Remember the claims the Egyptian priest made to Solon as quoted by Plato. The temple had been keeping scientific records since before the end of Atlantis, more than 9,000 years before Solon's time.
.

It is amazing that no such claims appear anywhere in Egyptian history from the Pre-Dynastic period through the OK. (See Paul Jordan "Esoteric Egypt" in Archaeological Fantasies)
.
It is even more amazing how such claims correspond with the probably prehistoric Egyptian achievements, such as the Sphinx, the Osireion, the Valley Temple, or possibly even the Baalbek platform, and trilithon.
http://www,vejprty.com/baalbek.htm


It is significant that Plato's book is also about record keeping, as it is a compendium of various scientific facts and theories, as well as history. It is all evidently meant to be non-fiction in the eyes of Plato.
Some prism points:
Solon and his instructor are near the Mediterranean seashore, and the instructor priest specifies that this sea is a mere puddle in contrast to the great ocean beyond the Pillars of Hercules. In other words, there is absolutely no doubt that the ocean to Plato, Solon, and Egyptians means what it means to us.
The priest continues that this ocean seems surrounded by continents, and yes, across the ocean, there is a true continent, so vast that it surrounds the ocean from the other side.
.

What about people that assumed Australia was there to balance out the globe. This is not proof that they had seen it or knew it was there, but just a guess. You cannot prove otherwise in this account.

Proof? I am content to be able to make things fit logic.
Quoting myself:
Just one question: Was Plato, Solon, and the Egyptian temple right or wrong about this vast continent?
Of course, he was right. Remember, a lot of reputation was in stake here, as there was no question that Atlantic would be navigated one day in the future.
.

That isn't true at all. There were quite a few myths/stories of this being impossible

You are being illogical again. Since the technology to sail across the Atlantic had long been there, according to the story of Atlantis, clearly the Atlantic could be sailed again in the future to come. Is that not the clear implication behind Plato's words? "Sail to discover the vast continents across the ocean!"
There were myths,yes, and the alleged mud left from the sinking of Atlantis was typical of them. Sailing into the ocean may have had been temporarily more perilous than usually following the violent demise of Atlantis, hence the stories.
Quoting myself:
How would we judge Plato and the rest of Timeus and Critias then, if there were no other continental mass out there? Plato definitely encourages exploratory voyages across the Atlantic ocean by promising them America. Would he wish to deceive the future sailors, and have them cursing his name? Columbus himself may have had found a measure of encouragement in Plato to make his big decision.
The Egyptian Temple as the guardian to the secrets of advanced prehistoric civilisation would also be the key to the simplest explanation of the existence of the Great Pyramid. It was possible to build it, because the Egyptian Temple had always known how to do it. Was not Imhotep the pyramid's architect at the same time the highest ranking priest of the temple in Egypt?


There was not one temple. There were many, for many gods and pharaoahs. The highest ranking religious figure would have been pharaoah.

You call yourself what, and you don't realize that all those gods were of the same Pantheon? The sum of all the temples is the Egyptian Temple. Greeks went to learn to more than one temple in Egypt, so obviously these temples had a lot in common with each other. The Pharaoh was a symbolic head of the Temple while a guy like Imhotep had risen to the top by the virtue of his scientific prowess, which was the main selection criterium, it seems, since Pythagoras, too, had risen to the very top in the Egyptian Temple while being a foreigner. Neither Egyptians nor Greeks could have had been too orthodox, and fanatical about their religion since they agreed that their respective pantheons were essentially the same thing, the same gods. Since the people making that decision were priests of the temple, they had to be very tolerantly and progressively minded. Solon was a philosopher, and yet he apparently also rose to a prominent position within the Egyptian temple. This history is just extraordinary.
Quoting myself:
For whoever is building the Great Pyramid must have great knowledge. There are techniques to master in using mechanical advantage methods and machines. There are advanced techniques for polishing large expanses of stone to optometrist's standards, techniques for manouvering enormous blocks in confined spaces, techniques for drilling enormous quantities of granite in short time, etc. Then there is the enormous logistical challenge, as Egypt's fate could easily be endangered by wasting its resources on the building.
.

The symplest explanation for the pyramids is a gradual development over time, as seen in things such as Djoser's pyramid.

Yes, but they had been developped long time before Zosser. He probably just didn't devote enough funds and effort to his pyramid.

And the large scale buildings are often noted as a reason, at least in part, that the Egyptian culture was stressed, and they were likely a contribution to the First Intermediate Period.

Stressed, but not broken. If they did pyramid building by brawn, they'd be bankrupt financially and physically ere long.

[ReligionStudent]

Originally Posted by Jiri View Post
Rhind Payrus was probably written as a lower level type of manual, a true to the word Applied Mathematics for Dummies and (work)Gang Leaders. We cannot judge Egyptian mathematics from it and by it.
The temples had their secret knowledge, which Greek initiates brought home to Greece.


.
There are lots, read Schwaller de Lubicz, for example. The "Abydos Helicopter" is another example, which I discovered myself.
http://www,vejprty.com/abyhelic.htm You, who has not studied in Egypt, or actually gone through any archaeological training at all.

Or Schwaller de Lubicz a mystic and self claimed alchamist?

Neither is a reliable source for this information. All I am asking is for some artifacts that be allowed to speak for themselves.

You don't sound logical. A professor's knowledge of mathematics is the proof that his teachers had essentially the same knowledge. There is PARITY between them. He has to stand on the shoulders of others. Yes, but he can make new ideas on those sholders, so there is no proof that one's teachers had all of one's ideas



It is even more amazing how such claims correspond with the probably prehistoric Egyptian achievements, such as the Sphinx, the Osireion, the Valley Temple, or possibly even the Baalbek platform, and trilithon.
http://www,vejprty.com/baalbek.htm
The Sphinx and Osireion are clearly historic, the Valley Temple as well. Please show dates, or at the very least sources if you are going to be making these claims.
Baalbek is in Lebanon.

Proof? I am content to be able to make things fit logic.
Quoting myself:
Just one question: Was Plato, Solon, and the Egyptian temple right or wrong about this vast continent?
Of course, he was right. Remember, a lot of reputation was in stake here, as there was no question that Atlantic would be navigated one day in the future.
.


You are being illogical again. Since the technology to sail across the Atlantic had long been there, according to the story of Atlantis, clearly the Atlantic could be sailed again in the future to come. Is that not the clear implication behind Plato's words? "Sail to discover the vast continents across the ocean!"
There were myths,yes, and the alleged mud left from the sinking of Atlantis was typical of them. Sailing into the ocean may have had been temporarily more perilous than usually following the violent demise of Atlantis, hence the stories.
Quoting myself:
How would we judge Plato and the rest of Timeus and Critias then, if there were no other continental mass out there? Plato definitely encourages exploratory voyages across the Atlantic ocean by promising them America. Would he wish to deceive the future sailors, and have them cursing his name? Columbus himself may have had found a measure of encouragement in Plato to make his big decision.
The Egyptian Temple as the guardian to the secrets of advanced prehistoric civilisation would also be the key to the simplest explanation of the existence of the Great Pyramid. It was possible to build it, because the Egyptian Temple had always known how to do it. Was not Imhotep the pyramid's architect at the same time the highest ranking priest of the temple in Egypt?
But it does not fit at all logically. The only evidence that would logically support their knowledge on building such ships or crossing the atlantic is actual physical boats, maps, etc, or texts describing them. There is no Pre-Dynasic or Dynastic evidence of this at all


You call yourself what, and you don't realize that all those gods were of the same Pantheon? The sum of all the temples is the Egyptian Temple. Greeks went to learn to more than one temple in Egypt, so obviously these temples had a lot in common with each other. The Pharaoh was a symbolic head of the Temple while a guy like Imhotep had risen to the top by the virtue of his scientific prowess, which was the main selection criterium, it seems, since Pythagoras, too, had risen to the very top in the Egyptian Temple while being a foreigner. Neither Egyptians nor Greeks could have had been too orthodox, and fanatical about their religion since they agreed that their respective pantheons were essentially the same thing, the same gods. Since the people making that decision were priests of the temple, they had to be very tolerantly and progressively minded. Solon was a philosopher, and yet he apparently also rose to a prominent position within the Egyptian temple. This history is just extraordinary.
Do you know anything about Egyptian religion? There were many different pantheons at the same time, and countless competing developments. The Memphite religion? Akhenaton? How many different ways did they say the sun moved accross the sky, scarabs, boats, chariots (post Hyksos only). Saying that it was all one pantheon is like saying that there is only one faith of the bible and it includes Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Parsis. Probably actually more inaccurate than this actually


Quoting myself:
For whoever is building the Great Pyramid must have great knowledge. There are techniques to master in using mechanical advantage methods and machines. There are advanced techniques for polishing large expanses of stone to optometrist's standards, techniques for manouvering enormous blocks in confined spaces, techniques for drilling enormous quantities of granite in short time, etc. Then there is the enormous logistical challenge, as Egypt's fate could easily be endangered by wasting its resources on the building.
.


Yes, but they had been developped long time before Zosser. He probably just didn't devote enough funds and effort to his pyramid. That is just pseudoarchaeological woo that has nothing to do with any supported theories at all. His was a developmental step in the process of pyramid building, not a monetary failure.



Stressed, but not broken. If they did pyramid building by brawn, they'd be bankrupt financially and physically ere long.
That is exactly the theory as to why they stopped building pyramids during the OK.

[wollery]

There are lots, read Schwaller de Lubicz, for example. The "Abydos Helicopter" is another example, which I discovered myself.
http://www,vejprty.com/abyhelic.htmYou mean this? http://www.catchpenny.org/abydos.html

[Jiri]

Um, its not tasteless. The culture that Greeks would have sent their children to would have been much different than the Egypt of the pyramids, its basic context and chronology.

I really cannot believe the absoletelly pointless and low methodology that pseudohistorians like you take and attack scholars and such, because their years of actual work and research show things contrary to your afternoon of reading Graham Hancock and von Daniken.

The only reason this scientifically and archaeologically based work is "tasteless" to you is that it illustrates the blatent flaws of your poorly researched and haphazardly thrown together theories.

More tasteless diatribes, this time from you to me. I am not a pseudohistorian, if anything, you could say 'revisionist historian' , or armchair archaeologist. The more I talk to you the more it appears that you know nothing, and have nothing to say. Your posts appear ideology driven.

[Jiri]

You mean this? http://www.catchpenny.org/abydos.html

Heck no, I mean this:
http://www,vejprty.com/abyhelic.htm
there is a big difference between the two.

[ReligionStudent]

I love this catchpenny page that was linked to before, and found this there, so I thought it would be a good tool to look at Jiri's most recent post: http://www.catchpenny.org/crackpot.html

Points, 5 starting points.

Originally Posted by Jiri View Post
Rhind Payrus was probably written as a lower level type of manual, a true to the word Applied Mathematics for Dummies and (work)Gang Leaders. We cannot judge Egyptian mathematics from it and by it.
The temples had their secret knowledge, which Greek initiates brought home to Greece.Points:6, see point 2.


.
There are lots, read Schwaller de Lubicz, for example. The "Abydos Helicopter" is another example, which I discovered myself.
http://www,vejprty.com/abyhelic.htm Points: 16, see rule 9



You don't sound logical. A professor's knowledge of mathematics is the proof that his teachers had essentially the same knowledge. There is PARITY between them. He has to stand on the shoulders of others.
Points: 43. see rules 3, 6, 13

It is even more amazing how such claims correspond with the probably prehistoric Egyptian achievements, such as the Sphinx, the Osireion, the Valley Temple, or possibly even the Baalbek platform, and trilithon.
http://www,vejprty.com/baalbek.htm Points: 79, see rule 5 * 6 and rule 2*6


Proof? I am content to be able to make things fit logic. Points: 81, rule 2
Quoting myself:
Just one question: Was Plato, Solon, and the Egyptian temple right or wrong about this vast continent?
Of course, he was right. Remember, a lot of reputation was in stake here, as there was no question that Atlantic would be navigated one day in the future.
.


You are being illogical again. Since the technology to sail across the Atlantic had long been there, according to the story of Atlantis, clearly the Atlantic could be sailed again in the future to come. Is that not the clear implication behind Plato's words? "Sail to discover the vast continents across the ocean!"
There were myths,yes, and the alleged mud left from the sinking of Atlantis was typical of them. Sailing into the ocean may have had been temporarily more perilous than usually following the violent demise of Atlantis, hence the stories. Points: 146, Rules 13, 14, 25.
Quoting myself:
How would we judge Plato and the rest of Timeus and Critias then, if there were no other continental mass out there? Plato definitely encourages exploratory voyages across the Atlantic ocean by promising them America. Would he wish to deceive the future sailors, and have them cursing his name? Columbus himself may have had found a measure of encouragement in Plato to make his big decision. Points: 147, rule 2
The Egyptian Temple as the guardian to the secrets of advanced prehistoric civilisation would also be the key to the simplest explanation of the existence of the Great Pyramid. It was possible to build it, because the Egyptian Temple had always known how to do it. Was not Imhotep the pyramid's architect at the same time the highest ranking priest of the temple in Egypt? Points: 153, rules 2 and 5



You call yourself what, and you don't realize that all those gods were of the same Pantheon? The sum of all the temples is the Egyptian Temple. Greeks went to learn to more than one temple in Egypt, so obviously these temples had a lot in common with each other. The Pharaoh was a symbolic head of the Temple while a guy like Imhotep had risen to the top by the virtue of his scientific prowess, which was the main selection criterium, it seems, since Pythagoras, too, had risen to the very top in the Egyptian Temple while being a foreigner. Neither Egyptians nor Greeks could have had been too orthodox, and fanatical about their religion since they agreed that their respective pantheons were essentially the same thing, the same gods. Since the people making that decision were priests of the temple, they had to be very tolerantly and progressively minded. Solon was a philosopher, and yet he apparently also rose to a prominent position within the Egyptian temple. This history is just extraordinary. Points 161, rules 2,3,5
Quoting myself:
For whoever is building the Great Pyramid must have great knowledge. There are techniques to master in using mechanical advantage methods and machines. There are advanced techniques for polishing large expanses of stone to optometrist's standards, techniques for manouvering enormous blocks in confined spaces, techniques for drilling enormous quantities of granite in short time, etc. Then there is the enormous logistical challenge, as Egypt's fate could easily be endangered by wasting its resources on the building.
.


Yes, but they had been developped long time before Zosser. He probably just didn't devote enough funds and effort to his pyramid. Points: 179, rule 2, 4, 5, 6 (the inconsistancy here is that Djoser ran out of money, but the machines etc would have kept them from going broke).



Stressed, but not broken. If they did pyramid building by brawn, they'd be bankrupt financially and physically ere long. Points: 187, 4,5

So there is the final total for this post, think how high it must be for the entire thread.

[ReligionStudent]

More tasteless diatribes, this time from you to me. I am not a pseudohistorian, if anything, you could say 'revisionist historian' , or armchair archaeologist. The more I talk to you the more it appears that you know nothing, and have nothing to say. Your posts appear ideology driven.

My posts are not idealogically driven, they are evidence driven. Your work is pseudoarchaeology, see Archaeological Fantasies for a definition.

[Jeff Corey]

What continent across the Atlantic did Plato write about?
How does he describe the geographic situation and is it true?
Why do we know Plato knew the difference between an ocean and a sea?
Why is the story of Atlantis in a scientific compendium written by Plato, and not in a fictional work like the Republic?

1.Atlantis.
2. He didn't and you don't either.
3. See the previous poster, who points out it was not scientific.
Any questions?

[wollery]

Heck no, I mean this:
http://www,vejprty.com/abyhelic.htm
there is a big difference between the two.I can't see the page you link too, even correcting for the incorrect address you give, the Great Firewall of China blocks it. Unless of course you've spelt it wrong as well as using a comma instead of a period! :rolleyes:

And the catchpenny page shows how the apparent vehicles are the result of filling in and overwriting with new glyphs, and some of the filling falling out. It even highlights the relevant glyphs and gives their meanings. A very different and far more plausible explanation than the one I assume is given on the site you link to.

[Jiri]

I love this catchpenny page that was linked to before, and found this there, so I thought it would be a good tool to look at Jiri's most recent post: http://www.catchpenny.org/crackpot.html

Points, 5 starting points.

Points:6, see point 2. Points: 16, see rule 9 Points: 43. see rules 3, 6, 13 Points: 79, see rule 5 * 6 and rule 2*6 Points: 81, rule 2 Points: 146, Rules 13, 14, 25. Points: 147, rule 2 Points: 153, rules 2 and 5 Points 161, rules 2,3,5

[Quote=Jiri] Yes, but they had been developped long time before Zosser. He probably just didn't devote enough funds and effort to his pyramid.
.
Points: 179, rule 2, 4, 5, 6 (the inconsistancy here is that Djoser ran out of money, but the machines etc would have kept them from going broke). Points: 187, 4,5

Ah, the only real comment out of you. Nice twisting, RS (Ares, no!);)
You said I said:"Djoser ran out of money", but I said:" Zosser - He probably just didn't devote enough funds and effort to his pyramid." Which would mean that he did not run out of money, and could have had more done on his pyramid. The techniques of moving cyclopean blocks of stone had already been developed by then. He could have had some of those moved into his pyramid. But, why should he? His was already the biggest pyramid ever built, and the tallest building on Earth, if you believe what you read.. So, where is the alleged inconsistence?
"but the machines etc would have kept them from going broke".

Since king Zosser never went broke over the building of his pyramid, the only time you opened your mouth in this post, you were clearly wrong.
BTW, you can go broke with or without machines, Haven't you thought of that?
Even when using various machines, putting up the Great Pyramid will always be costly, and time consuming. In contrast, Zosser's pyramid is a money and effort saver. Smaller overall, much smaller stones involved, easy to transport to the top by various means, which would not work for the big blocks, less effort spent on the mantle blocks, etc. Nothing to prepare you for the task like building the GP, albeit, it would be a good test for logistics.

So there is the final total for this post, think how high it must be for the entire thread.

Don't you wish it would be trillions of :rolleyes: quadrillions?

[Jiri]

I can't see the page you link too, even correcting for the incorrect address you give, the Great Firewall of China blocks it. Unless of course you've spelt it wrong as well as using a comma instead of a period! :rolleyes:

And the catchpenny page shows how the apparent vehicles are the result of filling in and overwriting with new glyphs, and some of the filling falling out. It even highlights the relevant glyphs and gives their meanings. A very different and far more plausible explanation than the one I assume is given on the site you link to.

Try this: It even beats anything else. It is the simplest explanation, as well.
http://www.vejprty.com/abyhelic.htm

[I less than three logic]

Try this: It even beats anything else. It is the simplest explanation, as well.
http://www.vejprty.com/abyhelic.htm
WTF was that? Honestly, that web page has to rank in the top ten on the list of web sites with the absolute most nonsense stuffed into a single page. There are just a bunch of lines placed, apparently just randomly, on top of pictures of hieroglyphics zoomed to the point that they are pixelated so bad you can hardly make out they're hieroglyphics at all. These are then accompanied by is some incoherent ramblings about what these lines, that have nothing to do with the picture they were drawn upon, are meant to mean. :boggled:

[wollery]

WTF was that? Honestly, that web page has to rank in the top ten on the list of web sites with the absolute most nonsense stuffed into a single page. There are just a bunch of lines placed, apparently just randomly, on top of pictures of hieroglyphics zoomed to the point that they are pixelated so bad you can hardly make out they're hieroglyphics at all. These are then accompanied by is some incoherent ramblings about what these lines, that have nothing to do with the picture they were drawn upon, are meant to mean. :boggled:Hmmm, that sounds strangely familiar......

[ReligionStudent]

WTF was that? Honestly, that web page has to rank in the top ten on the list of web sites with the absolute most nonsense stuffed into a single page. There are just a bunch of lines placed, apparently just randomly, on top of pictures of hieroglyphics zoomed to the point that they are pixelated so bad you can hardly make out they're hieroglyphics at all. These are then accompanied by is some incoherent ramblings about what these lines, that have nothing to do with the picture they were drawn upon, are meant to mean. :boggled:

That is pretty much Jiri's entire theory and his entire support all in one.

signifying nothing

[ReligionStudent]

[QUOTE=ReligionStudent;2578596]Since king Zosser never went broke over the building of his pyramid, the only time you opened your mouth in this post, you were clearly wrong.
BTW, you can go broke with or without machines, Haven't you thought of that?
Even when using various machines, putting up the Great Pyramid will always be costly, and time consuming. In contrast, Zosser's pyramid is a money and effort saver. Smaller overall, much smaller stones involved, easy to transport to the top by various means, which would not work for the big blocks, less effort spent on the mantle blocks, etc. Nothing to prepare you for the task like building the GP, albeit, it would be a good test for logistics.

In any case, your comment on Djoser saving money is just random thought you are pulling out of nowhere. It goes completely against all credible theory and chronology. Please give at least a little credible support to your money saving theory as oppose to the step in a gradual evolution of pyramids theory.


Additionally, the Egyptians did not have money.

[jsfisher]

...
The simplicity with which phi can be constructed with straight edge and compass guarantees the high probability of "uncovering phi" in places there was not explicit intention to put it.
I've refuted this contention by you a long time ago, but you never responded. Now, I don't remember where it is exactly.


Forgive the quality of my artistic skills, but please consider the attached image. The square is meant to be a unit square, and the circle, of unit diameter. So, what would be the length of the line segment from from corner, through circle center, to circle edge?

[Jiri]

Forgive the quality of my artistic skills, but please consider the attached image. The square is meant to be a unit square, and the circle, of unit diameter. So, what would be the length of the line segment from from corner, through circle center, to circle edge?

Why, 1.6180339887... , of course. The line to the edge of the square equals the square root of 5/2 = 1.1180339.. and the circle radius is 0.5.
Now, how does this support your theory that Phi pops out of art easily and automatically? We just got to the stage, where I have pointed out in my previous response to this that more steps are needed to create the Golden Section here.
I don't see Phi in your picture anywhere. We have a ratio of 1.118 : 0.5 in the line. Either, the line has to be swung down to the baseline, next, in order to create the Golden ratio, or the square's side has to be swung onto the line. Then we get the ratio 1 : 0.6180..

[jsfisher]

I don't see Phi in your picture anywhere. We have a ratio of 1.118 : 0.5 in the line. Either, the line has to be swung down to the baseline, next, in order to create the Golden ratio, or the square's side has to be swung onto the line. Then we get the ratio 1 : 0.6180..


Ummm, Jiri, φ, aka phi, aka the Golden Ratio, aka the Golden Section, is (1 + √5) / 2, which is, approximately, 1.6180339887.

[Apathia]

Why, 1.6180339887... , of course. The line to the edge of the square equals the square root of 5/2 = 1.1180339.. and the circle radius is 0.5.
Now, how does this support your theory that Phi pops out of art easily and automatically? We just got to the stage, where I have pointed out in my previous response to this that more steps are needed to create the Golden Section here.
I don't see Phi in your picture anywhere. We have a ratio of 1.118 : 0.5 in the line. Either, the line has to be swung down to the baseline, next, in order to create the Golden ratio, or the square's side has to be swung onto the line. Then we get the ratio 1 : 0.6180..

If it had been a snake, it would have bit you.
Elsewhere you are running from a piece of rope.
:jaw-dropp

[ReligionStudent]

Ummm, Jiri, φ, aka phi, aka the Golden Ratio, aka the Golden Section, is (1 + √5) / 2, which is, approximately, 1.6180339887.

Yes, and I would like to throw my support behind my Its a common number to turn up side of the court.

Additionally, there are numerous theories which say that it may be a pleasing ratio to the human eye, an evolved characteristic that was not conciously known until recently (ie after such studies) and would have been included accidently through its aesthetic value, and not its mathamatical importance.

[Jiri]

Ummm, Jiri, φ, aka phi, aka the Golden Ratio, aka the Golden Section, is (1 + √5) / 2, which is, approximately, 1.6180339887.

Huh? You, me, just gave Phi as ((√5) : 2) + 0.5 Those are the two sections of your line: 1.118 and 0.5
I don't see (1 + √5), or 3.236067977499.., anywhere in your picture, because I don't see √5 anywhere.

But, I was asking you : "How does this support your theory that Phi pops out of art easily and automatically?"

In other words: Can you show us any example of ancient art constructed with compasses and straight-edge including a square capped by a semicircle with a line drawn from one of the bottom corners of the square to the semi-circle's center, and on to the semi-circle? Do these pictures utilize this basic position in deriving more directly related design?
.
Such as construction of the 36 degree angle. There is a way to use that angle in the simplest possible construction of a regular 5-pointed star in this position. Can you show us your answer to this?
I am going to compare your answer to the construction given by the Nazca monkey, so you have some serious competition there, I think. That construction seems to be the solution to one entire level of the monkey's puzzle.
So, such culmination in a specific construction must mean something. I took it as a sign that this construction must be the fastest one. The fastest of all the time - and even prehistory! By the way, the gif below should also show the circle around the bigger square, a slight omission, sorry.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_15577463eb52e4ee88.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5576)

You are free to break my heart like you did with 48, and 54 :)
**********
In short, JF, any picture not based on the Section in some way, will be Phi-free.

[ReligionStudent]

Huh? You, me, just gave Phi as ((√5) : 2) + 0.5 Those are the two sections of your line: 1.118 and 0.5
I don't see (1 + √5), or 3.236067977499.., anywhere in your picture, because I don't see √5 anywhere.

But, I was asking you : "How does this support your theory that Phi pops out of art easily and automatically?"

In other words: Can you show us any example of ancient art constructed with compasses and straight-edge including a square capped by a semicircle with a line drawn from one of the bottom corners of the square to the semi-circle's center, and on to the semi-circle? Do these pictures utilize this basic position in deriving more directly related design?
.
Such as construction of the 36 degree angle. There is a way to use that angle in the simplest possible construction of a regular 5-pointed star in this position. Can you show us your answer to this?
I am going to compare your answer to the construction given by the Nazca monkey, so you have some serious competition there, I think. That construction seems to be the solution to one entire level of the monkey's puzzle.
So, such culmination in a specific construction must mean something. I took it as a sign that this construction must be the fastest one. The fastest of all the time - and even prehistory! By the way, the gif below should also show the circle around the bigger square, a slight omission, sorry.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_15577463eb52e4ee88.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5576)

You are free to break my heart like you did with 48, and 54 :)
**********
In short, JF, any picture not based on the Section in some way, will be Phi-free. your final conclusion is absolutely false as there is a chance of it appearing randomly.

[Jiri]

Yes, and I would like to throw my support behind my Its a common number to turn up side of the court.

Additionally, there are numerous theories which say that it may be a pleasing ratio to the human eye, an evolved characteristic that was not conciously known until recently (ie after such studies) and would have been included accidently through its aesthetic value, and not its mathamatical importance.

Ha ha, you can't have it both ways. You guys were just supporting George Markowsky, who says the opposite, and calls such theories 'woo'. Are you sure RS that you have no deceit in your heart?
Anyway, gotcha.

[Jiri]

your final conclusion is absolutely false as there is a chance of it appearing randomly.

Randomly means unsystematically.
Systematically means non-randomly.
There are practical limits to how far randomness can go and simulate geometrical science.

[ReligionStudent]

Ha ha, you can't have it both ways. You guys were just supporting George Markowsky, who says the opposite. Are you sure RS that you have no deceit in your heart?
Anyway, gotcha.

Um, what it can't be both a common number, and one that has been theoriezed to be pleasing to human aesthetics? Your claim makes no sence.
I simply noted these theories (note that while I would certainly defer to George Markowsky, I have not mentioned him at all) exist, and that they do not seek to imply intention in the ratio's presence. Instead they seek to say that it may be accidental if it is present.

[ReligionStudent]

Randomly means unsystematically.
Systematically means non-randomly.
There are practical limits to how far randomness can go and simulate geometrical science.

A ratio can clearly be placed without the systematic intent of a creator.

[Jiri]

Yes, and I would like to throw my support behind my Its a common number to turn up side of the court.

Additionally, there are numerous theories which say that it may be a pleasing ratio to the human eye, an evolved characteristic that was not conciously known until recently (ie after such studies) and would have been included accidently through its aesthetic value, and not its mathamatical importance.

Do yourself a favor: Draw a 5-pointed star by hand!
Then measure your precision. Then the proverbial bulb in your mind might come on. :eye-poppi

[wollery]

When asked to prove why he should be chosen as artist to the pope Michaelangelo drew a perfect circle freehand.

A good artist should be able to draw a geometric shape with precision easily good enough to satisfy your requirements.

[Jiri]

I would like to point out that a large portion of Jiri's work is the fact that numbers which appear adjacent to eachother somehow represent values. Like a side of 3 next to one of 14 means 3.14.
.
It means three digits in a row : 314, which could symbolize Pi. It all depends on what comes next, and after that and on, and on. When you get to eighteen decimal digits of Pi to follow the initial 3, you've got something even without the dot.

Or one that is 3, then one of 16, then one of 14 still means 3.14



That is not true! Will you apologize for misrepresenting me?

[ReligionStudent]

.
It means three digits in a row : 314, which could symbolize Pi. It all depends on what comes next, and after that and on, and on. When you get to eighteen decimal digits of Pi to follow the initial 3, you've got something even without the dot. You need to show that there is some reason to believe that such methods were used, as well as address hte many issues raised with your measurment method, precission, and units



That is not true! Will you apologize for misrepresenting me?
No, looking at your page, at least once you picked some number out from between two others and said its surrounding numbers were important and linked.

The number 16 is mildly interesting per se, in part because it could represent the first two digits of Phi, the acclaimed Golden Ratio, as well as the base of the hexadecimal system.. So, we check to the left of 16, and check to the right, and count a total 314 for the next-door segments. Of course, 314 consists of the first three digits of Pi, the best known ratio of all.


You may begin hoisting at will.

[Belz...]

Plato, Aristoteles, or Pythagoras didn't write myths, they wrote and taught science.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

You don't sound logical. A professor's knowledge of mathematics is the proof that his teachers had essentially the same knowledge. There is PARITY between them. He has to stand on the shoulders of others.

That is completely illogical. If your statement was correct, no technology would be possible.

More tasteless diatribes, this time from you to me. I am not a pseudohistorian, if anything, you could say 'revisionist historian' , or armchair archaeologist. The more I talk to you the more it appears that you know nothing, and have nothing to say. Your posts appear ideology driven.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/6080463f5270dbb87.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5580)

[Belz...]

Try this: It even beats anything else. It is the simplest explanation, as well.

I'm sorry. Your explanation isn't necessarily the simplest just because you like it better.

Why is the story of Atlantis in a scientific compendium written by Plato

That was a philosophical essay, not a scientific compendium. Did you even read the Timaeus and the Critias ?

Do yourself a favor: Draw a 5-pointed star by hand!
Then measure your precision. Then the proverbial bulb in your mind might come on

If they drew it by hand then it is imprecise and useless to your theory.

[jsfisher]

Jiri, your posts on Phi appearing in my diagram of square plus semicircle have been so fraught with contradiction, it is difficult to piece out the point you are trying to make. Nonetheless, let's have a go at the most recent.

Huh? You, me, just gave Phi as ((√5) : 2) + 0.5
Now, whereas I do not recall ever using that exact formulation, it is equivalent to any other expression for Phi. Viz.,

((√5) : 2) + 0.5 = ((√5) / 2) + 1/2 = (1 + √5) / 2

so, I guess you are in agreement with the conventional value associated with Phi. Your "Huh?" therefore confuses me.

Those are the two sections of your line: 1.118 and 0.5
Yes, the line segment from corner through center to edge is best analyzed in two parts. The part from corner to center is √(12 + 0.52) and the part from center to edge is 0.5.

I don't see (1 + √5), or 3.236067977499.., anywhere in your picture, because I don't see √5 anywhere.
Well, let's see:

√(12 + 0.52) = √(1 + 1/4) = √5 / 2

I see a √5 there, don't you?

Continuing, when you add the two parts, you get:

√(12 + 0.52) + 0.5 = √5 / 2 + 1 / 2 = (1 + √5) / 2

I see a (1 + √5) there, don't you? And I see a Phi there, don't you?

But, I was asking you : "How does this support your theory that Phi pops out of art easily and automatically?"
The square and circle are very basic art elements. Combine them in a very simple way, and, Lo!, there's Phi.

In other words: Can you show us any example of ancient art constructed with compasses and straight-edge including a square capped by a semicircle with a line drawn from one of the bottom corners of the square to the semi-circle's center, and on to the semi-circle? Do these pictures utilize this basic position in deriving more directly related design?
You have set a different standard than you use for your own analysis. You add lines in ways you claim are meaningful and revealing. I have done nothing more than taken a simple figure and added a line (through a square's corner and circle's center) to "reveal" Phi.

Such as construction of the 36 degree angle. There is a way to use that angle in the simplest possible construction of a regular 5-pointed star in this position. Can you show us your answer to this?
And now you move the goal post. I made a claim regarding Phi, which you rejected. I have supported my claim, and you now try to switch topic.

By the way, since 5-pointed stars seem to fascinate you, you might want to look up how Betsy Ross (allegedly) made her 5-pointed stars for the first US flag.

...
In short, JF, any picture not based on the Section in some way, will be Phi-free.
The facts seem to say otherwise.

So, where are we, then? Let's review:

I've criticized your analysis as non-scientific. You agreed.
I've criticized your line placement methods as non-algorithmic. You agreed.
I've alleged that values like Phi can show up in simple shapes without the intend of the artist. Do you now agree?

[Jiri]

Jiri, your posts on Phi appearing in my diagram of square plus semicircle have been so fraught with contradiction, it is difficult to piece out the point you are trying to make. Nonetheless, let's have a go at the most recent.
Now, whereas I do not recall ever using that exact formulation, it is equivalent to any other expression for Phi. Viz.,

((√5) : 2) + 0.5 = ((√5) / 2) + 1/2 = (1 + √5) / 2

so, I guess you are in agreement with the conventional value associated with Phi. Your "Huh?" therefore confuses me.

Simple fact is that you made a line, which had the Phi value in relation to the square (a side of this square) you made. This line was further divided into two sections, whose lengths had values that I then mentioned, which is when you came in, and presented one of the equations, as if that were the only correct one, and not the one I took from you in the picture. So, you pounced on yourself like a cat on its tail. :)




Well, let's see:

√(12 + 0.52) = √(1 + 1/4) = √5 / 2

I see a √5 there, don't you?

Continuing, when you add the two parts, you get:

√(12 + 0.52) + 0.5 = √5 / 2 + 1 / 2 = (1 + √5) / 2

I see a (1 + √5) there, don't you? And I see a Phi there, don't you?

Now, you take this chat into a bizarre dimension. The topic was your picture, where we see no line, whose length would equal √5. So, coming back at me with yet another equation of Phi wasn't warranted, nor rooted in the picture's reality. Of course, when you write the same on paper, I see it.

The square and circle are very basic art elements. Combine them in a very simple way, and, Lo!, there's Phi.


No, you took a number of steps to get a single line, and a simple, although unseen Phi presence, because that single line was not divided at the Phi point. Instead, it was divided at another point further confusing the matter. At that stage, your Phi is still very much hermetic.
That's not what my discovery is about. The ancient 'art' in question deals with Phi themes on a high level of intelligence, and complexity.



And now you move the goal post. I made a claim regarding Phi, which you rejected. I have supported my claim, and you now try to switch topic.

You showed something very simple, a possible start, which the artist/designer might capitalize on to develop the design further, if that were his/her intent. Which is when things would get much more complicated. Still, just like we could decode your picture, we could decode the said designer's picture and expose the geometry he/she used.

I am not moving the goalposts. We finished one game, I said what I had to say about your nonsensical contention that the engraving of Athena, the monkey, or the Abydos Helicopter is explicable by your simple Phi-ne line making.

The 'new goalposts' are part of the monkey glyph's geometrical system. I had learned a specific way how to construct a 5-pointed star from the monkey. It seems to me that this construction is the most effficient of all. You turned down this challenge to a battle of wits with 'my' monkey.
You lose!
Unless, of course, you can come up with a better construction, involving fewer steps. You could also be gracious, and admit that the Nazca monkey is very special mathematically.


So, where are we, then? Let's review:

I've criticized your analysis as non-scientific. You agreed.

No, I did not and do not!


I've criticized your line placement methods as non-algorithmic. You agreed.

No, I did not and do not! Neither you nor others have even reacted to my last post going into more details on lines 'a' and 'b' of the torso. You can see the algorithm at work. You can see why I had made the equivalent exploratory lines, where I made them. It is beyond my power to place exploratory lines without regard for the given image, and have those lines set in positions taken right out of a treatise on geometry.
The two lines set out their angles with astounding accuracy. If you wish, I can supply a look at the position at an even greater resolution.
I still have to supply a better look at lines 'c' and 'd', which, BTW, turns out very nicely.

I've alleged that values like Phi can show up in simple shapes without the intend of the artist. Do you now agree?


No, you said that the complex Science-Art, which I am showing, is explicable in terms of "values like Phi can show up in simple shapes without the intend of the artist".
That just is not true, because the meaning, the thoughts, which emanate from these works are not explicable by a simple, or even single accident.
Besides, when have I denied the obvious existence of accidents? Sure, accidents happen, but, if half of Big Apple's vehicles should crash at a single intersection, I will tell you firmly that it could not have happened by accident. There had to be some reason for it to happen.
The same philosophy helps me judge, whether the order of this ancient art in question is deliberate or not.

[Jiri]

You need to show that there is some reason to believe that such methods were used, as well as address hte many issues raised with your measurment method, precission, and units

Been there, done that over and over. Every time the system gets better, there is more reason to believe.
.

No, looking at your page, at least once you picked some number out from between two others and said its surrounding numbers were important and linked.
You may begin hoisting at will.

Yes, 16 between 139 and 175.
139+175=314 first three digits of Pi
16 = first two digits of Phi
This combination can be seen as significant, if there is further confirmation, especially lots and lots of it. Do you want me to show you some more confirmation that I did the right thing?

[ReligionStudent]

Been there, done that over and over. Every time the system gets better, there is more reason to believe.
. This has nothing to do with my questions


Yes, 16 between 139 and 175.
139+175=314 first three digits of Pi
16 = first two digits of Phi
This combination can be seen as significant, if there is further confirmation, especially lots and lots of it. Do you want me to show you some more confirmation that I did the right thing?

Um no that's all right, I read as much of your webpage as was navigable, but this was posted in dirrect contradiction of your claim that you did not pull 16 from between two other numbers and claim that they mean pi, when they have nothing at all to do with Pi.

[jsfisher]

So, where are we, then? Let's review:

I've criticized your analysis as non-scientific. You agreed.
No, I did not and do not!


Science is process in pursuit of knowledge. One develops an hypothesis which is then exposed to scrutiny through experimentation. You said:

Rather than a hypothesis, I have a postulate.


A postulate is a statement excepted as true without question. That constitutes an admission your analysis is non-scientific.

With respect to the need in science for experimentation to validate an hypothesis, you responded:

You'd love to drown me in work, wouldn't you?


Again, an admission your analysis is based on assumption, not science.


I've criticized your line placement methods as non-algorithmic. You agreed.
No, I did not and do not!


An algorithmic process is deterministic without subjective influence, but you described the process as:

Are you discouraged because an engraved line can produce, or force as we say, more than one line? This ought not to be a problem, especially if each line has its own purpose. Remember, the number of lines forced by an engraved line is limited. Many lines as a whole force just a single interpretation.
In the case of the torso of the young woman in the Athena engraving, and the lines within it, it was fairly easy for me to find implications of deliberate order. Of course, my angle measurements could not be precise, since I was using primitive tools (a protractor, and a ruler), and yet, lo and behold, an idea had shone through quite clearly. If enough ideas are tied together, the overall effect is that the design becomes in effect self-correcting for minor imprecisions.


You described an interpretive process, not an algorithmic one.

I stand by my statements:
I've criticized your analysis as non-scientific. You agreed.
I've criticized your line placement methods as non-algorithmic. You agreed.

[wollery]

Simple fact is that you made a line, which had the Phi value in relation to the square (a side of this square) you made. This line was further divided into two sections, whose lengths had values that I then mentioned, which is when you came in, and presented one of the equations, as if that were the only correct one, and not the one I took from you in the picture. So, you pounced on yourself like a cat on its tail. :) The entire point was the ease with which it is possible to construct a pair of lines with a phi ratio. In this case the unit length of the square & circle, and the line from the corner of the square through the circle centre.

This could easily be a shape used by an artist, with no intent to make a phi ratio. It would appear in that artist's work, where you would see a phi ratio and say, "Look, this artist is trying to tell us something mathematical!" when in fact he was just drawing an arched doorway!

[jsfisher]

No, you took a number of steps to get a single line, and a simple, although unseen Phi presence, because that single line was not divided at the Phi point.
(Emphasis added.)


Jiri, are you aware that Phi is a number? Not two numbers; just one.

[Jiri]

(Emphasis added.)


Jiri, are you aware that Phi is a number? Not two numbers; just one.

J, are you not aware that the Golden Section is generally presented as splitting (sectionning) a single line segment into two with a special relationship between them?
Your line lacks a point, where the section would be. Yet, it has another point somewhere else. Do you take your own faults against me? Seems you do. Was that your entire response to my post?

[ReligionStudent]

J, are you not aware that the Golden Section is generally presented as splitting (sectionning) a single line segment into two with a special relationship between them?
Your line lacks a point, where the section would be. Yet, it has another point somewhere else. Do you take your own faults against me? Seems you do. Was that your entire response to my post?

That fails to address Phi measurments, what is what your pictures and lines are related to. Usually something to the effect of a 1 next to a 6 or some such thing

her's at least was a single line that equaled Phi.

Perhaps a much clearer and better way to give information. Why didn't the ancients atlanteans draw a square and a circle instead of hiding it so no one could find it, and if they did no one would believe them because it was so well hidden... er ... so well not there.

[Jiri]

The entire point was the ease with which it is possible to construct a pair of lines with a phi ratio. In this case the unit length of the square & circle, and the line from the corner of the square through the circle centre.

This could easily be a shape used by an artist, with no intent to make a phi ratio. It would appear in that artist's work, where you would see a phi ratio and say, "Look, this artist is trying to tell us something mathematical!" when in fact he was just drawing an arched doorway!

Certainly, I would not say that unless there was more geometry than that. Stop speaking for me, I can and do speak for myself.

[Jiri]

That fails to address Phi measurments, what is what your pictures and lines are related to. Usually something to the effect of a 1 next to a 6 or some such thing

her's at least was a single line that equaled Phi.

You deny and deny the meanings I show you. Which is fine with me because a neutral observer can see it and think accordingly.

Perhaps a much clearer and better way to give information. Why didn't the ancients atlanteans draw a square and a circle instead of hiding it so no one could find it, and if they did no one would believe them because it was so well hidden... er ... so well not there.

You haven't been paying attention. By the time you execute a couple of constructions on a single space, any further constructions will simply create an impenetrable tangle of lines.
The Science-Art in question is about a lot more than a couple circles, or a simple Phi-ratio somewhere. It has a way to encode far more information than you would like. Can't you understand that once and for all?

[jsfisher]

J, are you not aware that the Golden Section is generally presented as splitting (sectionning) a single line segment into two with a special relationship between them?
Your line lacks a point, where the section would be. Yet, it has another point somewhere else. Do you take your own faults against me? Seems you do. Was that your entire response to my post?


Phi can be and has been presented in many ways. The most common presentation does involve line segments and the ratio of their parts, but nonetheless, presentation used does nothing to change the fact phi is a number. The number can be expressed without resorting to partitioning it into parts.

[Jiri]

This has nothing to do with my questions

Um no that's all right, I read as much of your webpage as was navigable, but this was posted in dirrect contradiction of your claim that you did not pull 16 from between two other numbers and claim that they mean pi, when they have nothing at all to do with Pi.

"when they have nothing at all to do with Pi". why do you make such statements, when you don't want me to show you how wrong they are?

[Jiri]

Phi can be and has been presented in many ways. The most common presentation does involve line segments and the ratio of their parts, but nonetheless, presentation used does nothing to change the fact phi is a number. The number can be expressed without resorting to partitioning it into parts.

But, I am not arguing against such simple truths. You just argued with yourself, that's all. What I was asking is if you will disregard the challenge issued to you regarding the simplest construction of a regular 5-pointed star.

[ReligionStudent]

"when they have nothing at all to do with Pi". why do you make such statements, when you don't want me to show you how wrong they are?

You say that two numbers which add to 314 have something to do with Pi, to spite the many many many sets of three digit numbers that add to 314, .314,3.14,31.4....etc etc etc.

Well that's actually quite infinite.

Now if we take all sets of 3 numbers, where two numbers add to 314 or some similar arrangment of 3,1, and 4, its even larger.

Does every time one of these sets turns up somwhere int he world mean coding for Pi. No, so show us why yours does.


Hint it has to be something other than it looks like the first three digits of Pi.

[ReligionStudent]

You deny and deny the meanings I show you. Which is fine with me because a neutral observer can see it and think accordingly.



You haven't been paying attention. By the time you execute a couple of constructions on a single space, any further constructions will simply create an impenetrable tangle of lines.
The Science-Art in question is about a lot more than a couple circles, or a simple Phi-ratio somewhere. It has a way to encode far more information than you would like. Can't you understand that once and for all?

I still have not seen any evidence that any information was actively coded in these pictures.

[jsfisher]

But, I am not arguing against such simple truths. You just argued with yourself, that's all.

Ok, if you say so.

What I was asking is if you will disregard the challenge issued to you regarding the simplest construction of a regular 5-pointed star.


I'm not sure what constitutes "simplest" for you, but given line segments of lengths 1 and φ (that can be easily constructed as previously shown), one can construct a (φ,φ,1) isosceles triangle. The point on a 5-pointed star is such a triangle. Constructing the rest of the star follows directly.

[wollery]

The entire point was the ease with which it is possible to construct a pair of lines with a phi ratio. In this case the unit length of the square & circle, and the line from the corner of the square through the circle centre.

This could easily be a shape used by an artist, with no intent to make a phi ratio. It would appear in that artist's work, where you would see a phi ratio and say, "Look, this artist is trying to tell us something mathematical!" when in fact he was just drawing an arched doorway!

Certainly, I would not say that unless there was more geometry than that. Stop speaking for me, I can and do speak for myself.It was a simplified example of how you see patterns and encoded information where none exists.

Since there's also a circle involved you get pi, and the diagonal of the square is √2, another irrational number. That's three "interesting" numbers in one simple shape. And it's just an arched doorway. Add a few more shapes and other numbers will appear in the geometry. And none of them encoded, just shapes drawn by an artist with no intention other than to please the eye.

[jsfisher]

It was a simplified example of how you see patterns and encoded information where none exists.

Since there's also a circle involved you get pi, and the diagonal of the square is √2, another irrational number. That's three "interesting" numbers in one simple shape. And it's just an arched doorway. Add a few more shapes and other numbers will appear in the geometry. And none of them encoded, just shapes drawn by an artist with no intention other than to please the eye.


Don't forget, the figure has 4 sides, 3 of which are straight lines, derived from 2 shapes joined together. 432 is everywhere.

[Jiri]

Science is process in pursuit of knowledge. One develops an hypothesis which is then exposed to scrutiny through experimentation. You said:

A postulate is a statement excepted as true without question. That constitutes an admission your analysis is non-scientific.

I postulate that mathematics can be used to count the fingers on my hand. I don't have to hypothesize that first. It is generally accepted as true. I am being scientific. - So much for one postulate.
The other postulate was much the same. I used statements, which I believe are generally accepted as true. All good science still. My original hypotheses were made along the road to discovery. The most crucial one was made prior to applying the compasses and ruler tools to the Athena image. It had to do with all these elementary geometrical shapes, which the engraving is made out of. It had to do with the overall layout, which I found had come through in a powerful harmonious effect.
To know what I mean, you really would have to be impressed by the image's aesthetic power. But, I doubt that you will. Therefore, there remains but one way to impress you - rigorous geometry, and mathematics.

[/QUOTE]With respect to the need in science for experimentation to validate an hypothesis, you responded: Quote: You'd love to drown me in work, wouldn't you?
Again, an admission your analysis is based on assumption, not science. [/QUOTE]

The truth is simple. You offered me a hypothetical hypothesis, and then you asked me to get buried in work checking out your hypothesis. Naturally, I decline with thanks.
As you can see I do plenty of work to validate my own experiments.



[/QUOTE]An algorithmic process is deterministic without subjective influence, but you described the process as:"

Originally Posted by Jiri View Post
Are you discouraged because an engraved line can produce, or force as we say, more than one line? This ought not to be a problem, especially if each line has its own purpose. Remember, the number of lines forced by an engraved line is limited. Many lines as a whole force just a single interpretation.
In the case of the torso of the young woman in the Athena engraving, and the lines within it, it was fairly easy for me to find implications of deliberate order. Of course, my angle measurements could not be precise, since I was using primitive tools (a protractor, and a ruler), and yet, lo and behold, an idea had shone through quite clearly. If enough ideas are tied together, the overall effect is that the design becomes in effect self-correcting for minor imprecisions."

You described an interpretive process, not an algorithmic one.[/QUOTE]

Obviously, the interpretive process included an algorithmic one. This is evident in testing, when we replace the inexact system by the exact system. The exact lines we are looking at within the torso are algorithmic to the engraved lines.
A properly written computer program would discover this system in the torso by using a similar method.

I stand by my statements:
I've criticized your analysis as non-scientific. You agreed.
I've criticized your line placement methods as non-algorithmic. You agreed.

My methods for forced line extraction from an engraved line are algorithmic, because they are relevant to the physical specifics of the given line. Check the line 'b' again:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/15577463ad67aac095.gif

I recommend looking at this image under further magnification, at 2 or 4 times to best see what I am talking about.

[Slimething]

I postulate that mathematics can be used to count the fingers on my hand. ... I am being scientific. - So much for one postulate.
... I used statements, which I believe are generally accepted as true. All good science still.

No, sorry. The use of postulates bars anything you are doing from being science. Mathematics is not a science. Please review the tenets of the scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) before you sully it with your silly geometric nonsense.

Thanks. Carry on.

[Jiri]

It was a simplified example of how you see patterns and encoded information where none exists.

Since there's also a circle involved you get pi, and the diagonal of the square is √2, another irrational number. That's three "interesting" numbers in one simple shape. And it's just an arched doorway. Add a few more shapes and other numbers will appear in the geometry. And none of them encoded, just shapes drawn by an artist with no intention other than to please the eye.

And how will those numbers and shape relate into a design? They will not. They will remain unrelated except for being circle, or triangles. If you want a truly intelligent system, you have to design it in. And don't bother mentioning Prof. Greenberg with his margins of error and still no real system. Why, even Greenberg says that if he could have predicted his results he woud have been impressed. But they were unpredictable without those margins of error.
Now take the Frame, dor instance. Due to conspicuous opening plays on Pi, and Phi, you can predict two things for the position : No more Pi, hence what we saw was either accidental or incidental, or more Pi, and Phi, which is what I have done, and was rewarded accordingly.
Impressive by Greenberg's criteria, as he wouldn's even dare to put the odds for accident at anything else than effective zero.

[Jiri]

When asked to prove why he should be chosen as artist to the pope Michaelangelo drew a perfect circle freehand.

A good artist should be able to draw a geometric shape with precision easily good enough to satisfy your requirements.

Have you seen some sketches by Leonardo? They are very imprecise, but you can still tell what he intends to show, so it does not matter. As he shows more than a mere circle, he has a lot more chances to go off the true. Nevertheless, an interesting episode.

[autumn1971]

Jiri, I know that this falls on deaf ears, but unless you accept the fact that any randomy generated squiggle is going to include points that can be manipulated and given values such that interesting numbers and ratios can be extracted from it, you are living in a world in which, as I mentioned before, my three-year-old son has advanced knowledge of fractal geometry. I am a terrible artist, but I am sure that , given enough paper, I could eventually draw a figure with some astounding proportion.

[autumn1971]

Have you seen some sketches by Leonardo? They are very imprecise, but you can still tell what he intends to show, so it does not matter. As he shows more than a mere circle, he has a lot more chances to go off the true. Nevertheless, an interesting episode.


Okay, I'll try a different tack.
Given your assumption that the ancient (or prehistoric [I really don't think that word means what you think it means]) Egyptians possesed this amazing geometrical knowledge, WHY THE HELL WERE THEY UNABLE TO MAKE A DECENT PERSPECTIVE BASED PICTURE?
Seriously, their art is crap compared to modern methods.

[ReligionStudent]

Okay, I'll try a different tack.
Given your assumption that the ancient (or prehistoric [I really don't think that word means what you think it means]) Egyptians possesed this amazing geometrical knowledge, WHY THE HELL WERE THEY UNABLE TO MAKE A DECENT PERSPECTIVE BASED PICTURE?
Seriously, their art is crap compared to modern methods.

Jiri certainly seems to have issues with the terminology of prehistoric and stone age.

[ReligionStudent]

And how will those numbers and shape relate into a design? They will not. They will remain unrelated except for being circle, or triangles. If you want a truly intelligent system, you have to design it in. And don't bother mentioning Prof. Greenberg with his margins of error and still no real system. Why, even Greenberg says that if he could have predicted his results he woud have been impressed. But they were unpredictable without those margins of error.
Now take the Frame, dor instance. Due to conspicuous opening plays on Pi, and Phi, you can predict two things for the position : No more Pi, hence what we saw was either accidental or incidental, or more Pi, and Phi, which is what I have done, and was rewarded accordingly.
Impressive by Greenberg's criteria, as he wouldn's even dare to put the odds for accident at anything else than effective zero.


You still have yet to illustrate how your method of finding numbers, ie looking at questionable measurments and saying things like they add up to Pi or Phi would work only on prepared pieces. Additionally, I think my quick horse demonstration last month showed quite differently.

[jsfisher]

Therefore, there remains but one way to impress you - rigorous geometry, and mathematics.
Mathematics would include geometry. I'd be impressed by scientific study, too.

The truth is simple. You offered me a hypothetical hypothesis, and then you asked me to get buried in work checking out your hypothesis. Naturally, I decline with thanks.
No, that is a misrepresentation of the facts. I speculated what your hypothesis might be, and I offered you the opportunity to insert your own in its place. I continued with:
You seem to be assuming your hypothesis correct without the pesky work in the middle to validate your hypothesis.
Your hypothesis, not my candidate, but since you stated you had no hypothesis, just your postulate, the point is moot.

As you can see I do plenty of work to validate my own experiments.
No, I don't see. All you have done is Proof by Assumption.

...
A properly written computer program would discover this system in the torso by using a similar method.
Not from how you have described the process so far. So far you have provided post hoc justification for your lines and arcs, nothing more.

[jsfisher]

An undercurrent throughout this thread seems to be "Isn't it obvious?" Since things are so obvious, how can anyone deny them?

Well, consider this image (http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5639/2020/1600/delprete_message.jpg)

Isn't it obvious it depicts an etching of a nude couple embracing on the side of a glass bottle? Obvious, right?

It is not so obvious to any 7 year-old, and not because of age or intelligence. We see what our experiences and biases help us see. A 7 year-old sees dolphins.

[JonnyFive]

An undercurrent throughout this thread seems to be "Isn't it obvious?" Since things are so obvious, how can anyone deny them?

Well, consider this image (http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5639/2020/1600/delprete_message.jpg)

Isn't it obvious it depicts an etching of a nude couple embracing on the side of a glass bottle? Obvious, right?

I saw the dolphins too, but not at first. I figured there was something else to look for, or you wouldn't have posted it. :)

Obvious!

Also, the simple Monty Hall problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem) gives us a good glimpse into the world of the obvious.

ETA: You know, I'm not particularly impressed by the appearance of Pi and Phi. Even if we believe everything Jiri says, that's not very advanced. Where are the integral and differential calculations? Where are the statistical plots? Vector calculus? Imaginary numbers? Ancient econometric calculations?

[Jiri]

What I was asking is if you will disregard the challenge issued to you regarding the simplest construction of a regular 5-pointed star.
.
I'm not sure what constitutes "simplest" for you, but given line segments of lengths 1 and φ (that can be easily constructed as previously shown), one can construct a (φ,φ,1) isosceles triangle. The point on a 5-pointed star is such a triangle. Constructing the rest of the star follows directly.

Right, so that's how you would do it with compasses and a straightedge. In that case, if I am right, the monkey method accomplishes the construction of the regular 5-pointed star in 18 steps, whereas your method would do it in 21 steps. I count drawing every circle, and every line through two points as a single step. It takes me four steps to get an axial cross, and twelve steps to get the second and the third lines of the star.
I count eleven steps for your method to get to making the Phi line, seventeen steps to get the circle around your triangle, and four more steps to complete the star..
Maybe I am wrong, and you can do it quicker. In that case, I'd like to see how. Here is the monkey method. The red circles are just help circles to construct perpendiculars to given lines, but they each count as a step, of course. Also, I trimmed some lines to clean up the diagram.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1557746407642c60e2.gif

For your university's sake, I sure hope they taught you right how to best construct a 5-pointed star. So, far my impression is that the monkey provides the superior method, and hence education on this issue :jaw-dropp .

[EHocking]

Could you provide a link to the line drawing of the monkey glyph that you are basing this on? That is, not a gif of the original, but the diagram that YOU are tracing your lines onto.

[ReligionStudent]

.
For your university's sake, I sure hope they taught you right how to best construct a 5-pointed star. So, far my impression is that the monkey provides the superior method, and hence education on this issue :jaw-dropp .

I am always amused when pseudo-science people make statments such as this. It really makes me wonder why they have it out for "the establishment". It also makes me wonder why any university teaching how to make a five point star would be a big deal, as it is realy not a useful skill at all. I for one would rather have my university teach me scientific and archaeological methodology rather than how to draw stars. I guess we know what Jiri's issue is now though, he went to a special university where they draw pretty shapes.

[jsfisher]

...whereas your method would do it in 21 steps. I count drawing every circle, and every line through two points as a single step.
Seventeen lines and circles, actually, but what does any of this have to do with my criticism of your work as non-scientific?

For your university's sake, I sure hope they taught you right how to best construct a 5-pointed star.
I'll have to review the course catalog. I don't recall 5-point star construction methods in any of the advance topics course.

[jsfisher]

I saw the dolphins too, but not at first. I figured there was something else to look for, or you wouldn't have posted it. :)


I think, JonnyFive, you've admitted you are just too innocent to be posting in that "Jesus created sex" thread. Stay away from that one, please.

[Jiri]

Could you provide a link to the line drawing of the monkey glyph that you are basing this on? That is, not a gif of the original, but the diagram that YOU are tracing your lines onto.

http://www.vejprty.com/namon.htm
Scroll way down down to the "Big clue", and start there.

[Cuddles]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/15577463ad67aac095.gif

I'm probably being an evil, closed-minded skeptic, but I still don't see how any of those lines have anything to do with the picture you are drawing them on. Although admittedly one of them almost does.

[JonnyFive]

I think, JonnyFive, you've admitted you are just too innocent to be posting in that "Jesus created sex" thread. Stay away from that one, please.

But DJJ said I was an evil, impure, false skeptic. I don't understand!

Although, I think I will take your advice with regards to that thread. I can only take so much DJJ at one time.

[Jiri]

Seventeen lines and circles, actually, but what does any of this have to do with my criticism of your work as non-scientific?

.
Well, I see now, how you can do it in eighteen steps from your diagram, the same number of steps as the monkey diagram, but I don't see how it can be seventeen. Are you sure?
How many steps do you take to make your Phi line? I get eleven. Then I have to make two more circles (thirteen steps) and drawing the five star sides makes it eighteen steps.

[Jiri]

I'm probably being an evil, closed-minded skeptic, but I still don't see how any of those lines have anything to do with the picture you are drawing them on. Although admittedly one of them almost does.

You are being an evil, closed-minded skeptic:) You'd have to start from the top to see how some lines got where they are.

[ReligionStudent]

You are being an evil, closed-minded skeptic. You'd have to start from the top to see how some lines got where they are.

I have been involved in these threads for a while and still don't see it. (Its been over a month now and I still see no evidence these lines were intended by the creators.)

[Jiri]

.
Well, I see now, how you can do it in eighteen steps from your diagram, the same number of steps as the monkey diagram, but I don't see how it can be seventeen. Are you sure?
How many steps do you take to make your Phi line? I get eleven. Then I have to make two more circles (thirteen steps) and drawing the five star sides makes it eighteen steps.

This is getting to be a thrill. I saved a step in the monkey method. So, I can do that one in seventeen, but yours still takes me eighteen.:eye-poppi
Ok, I'll take the door with the goat, got a car already, but I need a driver:)

[Jiri]

I have been involved in these threads for a while and still don't see it. (Its been over a month now and I still see no evidence these lines were intended by the creators.)

Tell me, RS, do you at least see the pure system, which I say is taken out of the images? I know that you cannot see, how the one ties into the other, already.

[Belz...]

Have you seen some sketches by Leonardo? They are very imprecise, but you can still tell what he intends to show, so it does not matter.

They're imprecise because they were not meant to be. You'r arguing that they were, and now you're akwardly backpedaling.

Also:

Did you read the Timaeus and the Critias ?

[Belz...]

You are being an evil, closed-minded skeptic.

Evil because he's disagreeing with you ?

Woah.

[ReligionStudent]

Tell me, RS, do you at least see the pure system, which I say is taken out of the images? I know that you cannot see, how the one ties into the other, already.

pure system seems to be just some made up non-technical term, so no I do not see it.

[jsfisher]

.
Well, I see now, how you can do it in eighteen steps from your diagram, the same number of steps as the monkey diagram, but I don't see how it can be seventeen. Are you sure?
How many steps do you take to make your Phi line? I get eleven. Then I have to make two more circles (thirteen steps) and drawing the five star sides makes it eighteen steps.


I think I did miscount. I had an unnecessary step. At any rate, I get a line of length φ in seven compass/ruler steps:


1. Draw a line. WLOG assume the line is horizontal.
2. Draw a circle with its center anywhere on Line #1. WLOG assume the circle to be of unit diameter.
3. Draw a circle of diameter 2 with center where the first circle intersects the horizontal line on the left.
4 - 6. Construct a line perpendicular to the first line passing through the center of the second circle. (This involes drawing two large circles centered at the points where the second circle intersects the horizontal line. The perpendicular line is drawn through the points where the two circles intersect. For clarity, these circles are not shown in the diagram.)
7. Draw a line through the point of intersection of the second line with the second circle and the center of the first circle.

See the attached diagram. The line segment (A,B) has length φ.

After that, I believe there are four more steps to complete the (φ,φ,1) isosceles triangle, another three to define the interior pentagon, and finally, two lines to complete the star points.

Total, sixteen.

That's building the 5-point star using the entire isosceles triangle as one of its points. The star can also be constructed from inside the triangle. I haven't looked at that closely, but it might take one few step. If so, that would make my total fifteen.

[Jiri]

I think I did miscount. I had an unnecessary step. At any rate, I get a line of length φ in seven compass/ruler steps:


Thank you very much.

[Jiri]

I can construct the star in 15 steps utilizing the insight you gave me into this matter, but also sticking with the monkey system, by using circle, whose radius is Phi - 1, as in the diagram below. We diverge at step 7, when I draw the Phi-1 circle instead of your Phi line. This also gives a segment line with the length Phi marked out on the vertical axis, and further divided into 1 and 1/Phi.
Now, I'm pretty sure you can do it in fifteen steps as well, like you said, especially if your method should coincide with the monkey's one entirely. Coincidence abounds :)
And, as usual, I was wrong, but the monkey was right :)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1557746415f8f4a044.gif

[Slimething]

I'm probably being an evil, closed-minded skeptic, but I still don't see how any of those lines have anything to do with the picture you are drawing them on.

I suffered from the same blindness until I saw that every visual design can be overlayed with random geometric shapes. Eventually, the random shapes will resemble the primary shapes that make up the original design. Then, if you draw enough line segments to one place or another among those overlaying shapes, you can get any number you want.

Simple. So obvious! Why didn't I see it before? :boggled:

[Jiri]

I suffered from the same blindness until I saw that every visual design can be overlayed with random geometric shapes. Eventually, the random shapes will resemble the primary shapes that make up the original design. Then, if you draw enough line segments to one place or another among those overlaying shapes, you can get any number you want.

Simple. So obvious! Why didn't I see it before? :boggled:

"Any number you want", eh? That is the problem, because you will have learned exactly zero at the end of your process. You impose your will and your savvy upon the work, instead of letting it impose its wisdom if any upon you. I have learned things from prehistoric and ancient 'art' you would not believe, although you do get to see them here, now and then, bit by bit ;)
Such nothingness is what I see as the problem with Hoagland's analysis of Cydonia's geometry. His solution does nothing. It creates no glorious works of geometrical design, nothing complete. I can't help but notice that things are otherwise with my own efforts. The Athena engraving abounds with complete design, and abounds with a unified system. System of that type simply cannot be accidental, because the possibility of it being accidental is essentially zero, as Prof. Greenberg would say.

[Jiri]

Been there, done that over and over. Every time the system gets better, there is more reason to believe.
.


Yes, 16 between 139 and 175.
139+175=314 first three digits of Pi
16 = first two digits of Phi
This combination can be seen as significant, if there is further confirmation, especially lots and lots of it. Do you want me to show you some more confirmation that I did the right thing?

Since you mouthed off in response, I am now compelled to supply at least some supporting evidence. _______ So, without the three just mentioned segments, the rest of the Frame resembles a horseshoe. This horseshoe is divided into sections of 680, and 216, and further subdivided into two sections of 340, and two of 108.

340/216 = 3.14.. correct Pi to two decimals

Which two segments are next to the ends of the horseshoe? Well, 139 on the left, and 175 on the right, the two segments you didn't like. The total is 314.
This total comes immediately after 680/216.
We get 680/216 = 314 Just the decimal point is missing.
Of course, you already didn't know that:eye-poppi

[wollery]

Since you mouthed off in response, I am now compelled to supply at least some supporting evidence. _______ So, without the three just mentioned segments, the rest of the Frame resembles a horseshoe. This horseshoe is divided into sections of 680, and 216, and further subdivided into two sections of 340, and two of 108.

340/216 = 3.14.. correct Pi to two decimals

Which two segments are next to the ends of the horseshoe? Well, 139 on the left, and 175 on the right, the two segments you didn't like. The total is 314.
This total comes immediately after 680/216.
We get 680/216 = 314 Just the decimal point is missing.
Of course, you already didn't know that:eye-poppiI think you mean 340/108 and 680/216, both of which come to 3.148(rec). Proper rounding would make that 3.15 to two decimal places, not allowing for measurement errors. Shame you can't even do basic maths without messing it up or fudging the results.

[Belz...]

Last edited by Jiri : Today at 04:57 AM. Reason: woo

You missed a spot.

[Jiri]

I think you mean 340/108 and 680/216, both of which come to 3.148(rec). Proper rounding would make that 3.15 to two decimal places, not allowing for measurement errors. Shame you can't even do basic maths without messing it up or fudging the results.

Shame you must go gaga all over yourself passing my simple oversight, as it is evidently just that, as if it were some great wrongdoing, and on top of that you accuse me of cheating. No one was rounding anything. I showed 3.14.. - Pi correct to two decimals, words which of course mean that the digits after that are incorrect. Moreover, the two dots after the number mean the same thing, i.e., that the fraction continues, but is not shown.
No wonder I count you among the ignorables. Your lies are no good here, hombre.

[jsfisher]

Now, I'm pretty sure you can do it in fifteen steps as well, like you said, especially if your method should coincide with the monkey's one entirely. Coincidence abounds :)
And, as usual, I was wrong, but the monkey was right :)


Are you now saying there is a different set of obvious and deterministic lines and circles for the monkey carving that must be used? Every time you learn something new does the monkey get smarter?

Are you familiar with facilitated communication (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facilitated_communication) and the observer-expectancy effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer-expectancy_effect)?

[Paul]

I showed 3.14.. - Pi correct to two decimals, words which of course mean that the digits after that are incorrect.So it's not Pi and you are an incompetent liar.

[ReligionStudent]

"Any number you want", eh? That is the problem, because you will have learned exactly zero at the end of your process. You impose your will and your savvy upon the work, instead of letting it impose its wisdom if any upon you. I have learned things from prehistoric and ancient 'art' you would not believe, although you do get to see them here, now and then, bit by bit ;)
Such nothingness is what I see as the problem with Hoagland's analysis of Cydonia's geometry. His solution does nothing. It creates no glorious works of geometrical design, nothing complete. I can't help but notice that things are otherwise with my own efforts. The Athena engraving abounds with complete design, and abounds with a unified system. System of that type simply cannot be accidental, because the possibility of it being accidental is essentially zero, as Prof. Greenberg would say.

If you are specificly looking for glorious geometrical design etc, that is trully based on your own opinion, and you turn out to be the one robbing the creator of any agency.


Additionally, the monkey is line drawings, it has no agency to be correct through.

[ReligionStudent]

Since you mouthed off in response, I am now compelled to supply at least some supporting evidence. _______ So, without the three just mentioned segments, the rest of the Frame resembles a horseshoe. This horseshoe is divided into sections of 680, and 216, and further subdivided into two sections of 340, and two of 108.

340/216 = 3.14.. correct Pi to two decimals

Which two segments are next to the ends of the horseshoe? Well, 139 on the left, and 175 on the right, the two segments you didn't like. The total is 314.
This total comes immediately after 680/216.
We get 680/216 = 314 Just the decimal point is missing.
Of course, you already didn't know that:eye-poppi

Ok, so the two ends, which are only related because they are at the ends and therefore the farthest away and least related otherwise add up to something. WOw that makes no sence at all.

[Molinaro]

http://www.vejprty.com/namon.htm
Scroll way down down to the "Big clue", and start there.

I am utterly bewildered by the images found in that link. From what I see you could take the monkey drawing and replace it with any childs drawing and it still WOULD NOT line up with the nonsense stars, triangles, and lines that have been superimposed.

They don't line up at all.

The image BIG X is very puzzling. The big blue star does not line up with anything other than other stars and lines that have been added.. which also don't line up with anything!

And that red star at the bottom right corner?! One edge is drawn superimposed on a straight line. Is that suposed to mean something? You could have drawn any geometric figure that has 1 straight edge and lined it up in that position. And it would have been equaly meaningless.

I sincerely feel that far to much attention is being given to the ideas put forth in this thread.

[jsfisher]

We diverge at step 7, when I draw the Phi-1 circle instead of your Phi line.


That would be the large-ish circle in the lower part of the triangle, right?

I do not see how you can draw that circle without drawing the "phi line" first. You need that line to establish the measure for the circle's radius: After the line is drawn, the circle, then, has its center a my point "A" and a point on the circumference where the "phi line" first intersects the smaller circle.

So, I think you left out a step. By the way, I've confirmed I can do it in 15 compass/straight edge steps; it looks like even with your now smarter monkey, you need 16.


ETA: I think you need another step, too, to establish the length of that base line segment. 17.

[Slimething]

OK, Jiri, let's for one moment pretend that you have a working hypothesis. What does it predict? How are you going to test it? You said previously that you wanted to be scientific so let's have at it, OK?

[Jiri]

Are you now saying there is a different set of obvious and deterministic lines and circles for the monkey carving that must be used?

Not at all! The position didn't change one bit. The clue is still the same. My conclusion also didn't change: The clue leads to the most efficient, or one of the most efficient constructions of the 36-degree angle, and the regular 5-pointed star. Had I never seen this clue, I would have never known the best method of construction.
This construction inspired by the monkey takes only fifteen steps, whereas you could come up with a sixteen step construction only, so far, and yet, you are the mathematician here. You say that you could probably do it in fifteen steps by your method, as well. Can you? Or, does the monkey rule the roost? :)


Every time you learn something new does the monkey get smarter?

It seems to, because my presentation gets better.


Are you familiar with facilitated communication (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facilitated_communication) and the observer-expectancy effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer-expectancy_effect)?

Very well, let's look at the effect of this effect on me in relation to my discovery: Having learned an idea from the monkey, which was prominent in the context, it was natural to hypothesize that this idea should also be given some prominence in the directly related Athena engraving (Observer-expectancy_effect].
Specifically, a part of the idea was that once you get your Phi-1 circle in your system, sometimes the square inscribed into this circle is somehow important, too. It was a perfect experiment, because everything was already predetermined. The actual size of the Phi-1 circle in the Athena engraving's system was already set in stone. Also, the location of the primary square of the engraving was already set, etc. So, all I could do was to transfer the diagram deduced from the monkey glyph onto the engraving.
Was there going to be an amazing fit?
This experiment had worked out rather beautifully. The so called Foot-square from the monkey does transfer onto the feet of the Athena figure meaningfully. I was surprized however, how the same square fits the head of the Athena figure. Did you see it already while perusing my pages? Others didn't and so here it is: What precision! Even under magnification!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1557746428193b779a.gif

[jsfisher]

Not at all! The position didn't change one bit. The clue is still the same. My conclusion also didn't change: The clue leads to the most efficient, or one of the most efficient constructions of the 36-degree angle, and the regular 5-pointed star. Had I never seen this clue, I would have never known the best method of construction.


I see. So, the information was there right along in the monkey carving; you just hadn't realized it, yet.

Very well, let's look at the effect of this effect on me in relation to my discovery: Having learned an idea from the monkey, which was prominent in the context, it was natural to hypothesize that this idea should also be given some prominence in the directly related Athena engraving (Observer-expectancy_effect].
Specifically, a part of the idea was that once you get your Phi-1 circle in your system, sometimes the square inscribed into this circle is somehow important, too....


So, then, are you agreeing that the observer-expectancy effect is in play?

[Jiri]

That would be the large-ish circle in the lower part of the triangle, right?

I do not see how you can draw that circle without drawing the "phi line" first. You need that line to establish the measure for the circle's radius: After the line is drawn, the circle, then, has its center a my point "A" and a point on the circumference where the "phi line" first intersects the smaller circle.

Hmm, I agree.


So, I think you left out a step. By the way, I've confirmed I can do it in 15 compass/straight edge steps; it looks like even with your now smarter monkey, you need 16.

Good for you, it does look like it, although I haven't seen your construction. Perhaps, I have misinterpreted the reason, why this specific construction using the Phi-1 circle is clued on in the monkey, and why the idea of the "foot-square" inscribed within this circle carries on so strongly into the Athena engraving. Since you can do the construction without using the same circle, and it takes only fifteen steps, even if the construction shown in the monkey can be improved to also take fiffteen steps, or even if your method can be shown to also take sixteen steps due to some mistake of yours, it has become obvious that the monkey's construction was not meant as the shortest construction of the 5-pointed star, but that it was meant as the given construction using certain specifics of squares.
Consequently, I am going to correct this "shortest" claim on my website, when I get around to it, since now I see this claim as counter-productive, due to being false.
.

ETA: I think you need another step, too, to establish the length of that base line segment. 17.

I don't think that the length of the base line segment has to be established at all. Sweet sixteen.

[ReligionStudent]

So instead of passing on the fastest method they passed on a method? Isn't it more likely that there may not have been anything important to pass on?

[Jiri]

That would be the large-ish circle in the lower part of the triangle, right?

I do not see how you can draw that circle without drawing the "phi line" first. You need that line to establish the measure for the circle's radius: After the line is drawn, the circle, then, has its center a my point "A" and a point on the circumference where the "phi line" first intersects the smaller circle.

So, I think you left out a step. By the way, I've confirmed I can do it in 15 compass/straight edge steps; it looks like even with your now smarter monkey, you need 16.
ETA: I think you need another step, too, to establish the length of that base line segment. 17.
*******************************************

Basing on the idea of the Phi-1 circle from the monkey glyph, the construction of the regular 5-pointed star takes fourteen steps using compasses and a straight-edge. I doubt that I could improve this anymore.
If you have a way to do it in 13 steps, so be it ;) After all, you are the mathematician, I am just an investigator-reporter. Without your correction I would have claimed 13 steps erroneously. --- Happy Victory in Europe-day, guys!


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/155774642b838468cf.gif

[Jiri]

So instead of passing on the fastest method they passed on a method? Isn't it more likely that there may not have been anything important to pass on?

Even though it now appears that I may have been right all along, and this construction learned from the monkey is the fastest one - I've realized, how foolish of me it was to dwell on a single aspect of the whole thing. The fact is that the same construction carries over into the Athena engraving, and so it is fairly easy to assume that this particular construction really is important for other reasons than just its geometry.

[ReligionStudent]

Even though it now appears that I may have been right all along, and this construction learned from the monkey is the fastest one - I've realized, how foolish of me it was to dwell on a single aspect of the whole thing. The fact is that the same construction carries over into the Athena engraving, and so it is fairly easy to assume that this particular construction really is important for other reasons than just its geometry.

Other reasons such as?

[Jiri]

OK, Jiri, let's for one moment pretend that you have a working hypothesis. What does it predict? How are you going to test it? You said previously that you wanted to be scientific so let's have at it, OK?

You will have to ask me in another way, because I don't pretend that I have a working hypothesis, okay? I've had one since the beginning and it's been working all these years just fine.

[Jiri]

Other reasons such as?

Non-geometric? Cryptographical, or technological? Both?
Cryptograhical for sure since we have been treading Cryptography's ground here. That's where the original postulate had come from, I believe.
I've often wondered about what other purposes could these impressive geometric designs serve, especially remembering that there are 1,500 engravings from La Marche alone, and who knows how many continue, where the Athena engraving leaves off. There is a lot that comes to mind, but these thoughts are tentative and unscientific so far, and thus no concern of yours. Or, mine at that, since I try to stick to the analysis at hand.

[Big Les]

I am utterly bewildered by the images found in that link. From what I see you could take the monkey drawing and replace it with any childs drawing and it still WOULD NOT line up with the nonsense stars, triangles, and lines that have been superimposed.

They don't line up at all.

The image BIG X is very puzzling. The big blue star does not line up with anything other than other stars and lines that have been added.. which also don't line up with anything!

And that red star at the bottom right corner?! One edge is drawn superimposed on a straight line. Is that suposed to mean something? You could have drawn any geometric figure that has 1 straight edge and lined it up in that position. And it would have been equaly meaningless.

I sincerely feel that far to much attention is being given to the ideas put forth in this thread.

Quoted for Truth. This guy is seeing what he wants to see, and heaping on the confirmation bias to help him contrive to make things fit. Simple as that.

You're deluding yourself, Jiri. Please take a step back and try to objectively think about what you're claiming. Even your best case scenario at present is that you're right, but you have no evidence to prove it. Either way, you're barking up the wrong obelisk.

[jsfisher]

Basing on the idea of the Phi-1 circle from the monkey glyph, the construction of the regular 5-pointed star takes fourteen steps using compasses and a straight-edge.


That doesn't look like a proper construction. How'd you draw those two new large circles in the upper part? To draw a specific circle, you'd need a defined center point and a point on the circle's circumference.

ETA: It looks like you are drawing lines tangent to the "phi-1" circle. That is also not an allowed compass / straightedge step. Specific lines require two specific points.

[Belz...]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1557746428193b779a.gif

Woah! I feel like I'm in the 60s again!

Wait a minute. I was never in the sixties!

[jsfisher]

Woah! I feel like I'm in the 60s again!

Wait a minute. I was never in the sixties!


Let's be fair. It would have been the 70's.


...and disco still sucks.

[Jiri]

Originally Posted by Molinaro View Post
I am utterly bewildered by the images found in that link. From what I see you could take the monkey drawing and replace it with any childs drawing and it still WOULD NOT line up with the nonsense stars, triangles, and lines that have been superimposed.

They don't line up at all.

The image BIG X is very puzzling. The big blue star does not line up with anything other than other stars and lines that have been added.. which also don't line up with anything!

And that red star at the bottom right corner?! One edge is drawn superimposed on a straight line. Is that suposed to mean something? You could have drawn any geometric figure that has 1 straight edge and lined it up in that position. And it would have been equaly meaningless.

I sincerely feel that far to much attention is being given to the ideas put forth in this thread.


Quoted for Truth. This guy is seeing what he wants to see, and heaping on the confirmation bias to help him contrive to make things fit. Simple as that.

Simple? Yes it is simple. Have you looked at the image yourself? If you just took Molinaro's word then be cautioned - Willy-nilly, Molinaro gives unadulterated false testimony. Let's go to the jumping ball. Molinaro said:"The big blue star does not line up with anything other than other stars and lines that have been added.. which also don't line up with anything!".
Now, what was that Big-X again? Did Molinaro ask himself where did the Big-X, the longest lines on the monkey glyph go to? You can only see a little bit of the Big-X in this particular picture, because it is hiding in the arms of three of the stars, and under the pentagon of the fourth one. We have a beautifully accurate major alignment between the system shown and the image. Plus, there is the overall Phi proportion between the big blue star and the other stars. These are facts, I believe you have to agree to.
Believe me I had my reasons to make every line, star, and triangle in the picture. Be glad to answer question on this, too.

You're deluding yourself, Jiri. Please take a step back and try to objectively think about what you're claiming. Even your best case scenario at present is that you're right, but you have no evidence to prove it. Either way, you're barking up the wrong obelisk.

If I had no evidence, how could there be a best case scenario? That would be madness. This case is interesting by the sheer number of false testimonials issued here against my work. Obviously, there is a shortage of real reasons. How can I not derive encouragement from the fact?

[Cuddles]

These are facts, I believe you have to agree to. Will you? Will anybody?

Nope.

That would be madness.

Yep.

[Jiri]

ETA: It looks like you are drawing lines tangent to the "phi-1" circle. That is also not an allowed compass / straightedge step. Specific lines require two specific points.

I switched positions of your two paragraphs, making it easier to answer you. First the above: I am drawing tangents to the Phi-1 circle, because the points are where the big blue circle intersects it.


That doesn't look like a proper construction. How'd you draw those two new large circles in the upper part? To draw a specific circle, you'd need a defined center point and a point on the circle's circumference.

Likewise here the points are at the intersections of the two tangents to the Phi-1 circle with the x-axis, and of course at the top of the 36-degree angle. Forteen steps it is.

[Apathia]

Jiri:
Believe me I had my reasons to make every line, star, and triangle in the picture.

I do.
What we want you to realize is that your end results isn't something objectively and intenfully hidden in the images but emerges from your process.

Abstracts such as you have produced above can be generated from working over most any drawing. Not surprisingly paintings by DaVinci, Durer, Escher, and a host of other painters who merely follow rules of composition and perspective will especially yield some geometrical abstractions.

In fact, I kind of like the idea of it. You could establish an atritist's niche for yourself with this. Imagine an exhibition of the figures you derive overlaying the famous works of art you put to the process. Really, I think it would be neat.

[Paul]

If I had no evidence, how could there be a best case scenario? That would be madness.Yes it would, odd that.


This case is interesting by the sheer number of false testimonials issued here against my work.I see by false testimonials you mean all the posts pointing out the many and varied problems with your fudging, falsifying, finagling and flat-out making stuff up.


Obviously, there is a shortage of real reasons.Nope, plenty of real reasons, you just refuse to engage with anyone who provides one.


How can I not derive encouragement from the fact?Presumably it's because you are so deluded you will not see reason, or because you know you are wrong and refuse to admit it.

[ReligionStudent]

Jiri: The only false testimonials I have yet to see are yours. You consistantly attribute your agency to ancient peoples and abuse archaeology like no one's business. You do not even have the remotest evidence that these cultures had the mathamatical abilities you attribute to them, or any reasons to support that what you have drawn on top represents their work.

[wollery]

I've annotated your image Jiri, and have a few questions.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/95746432f07660fd.gif

The rectangle passes well within the chin at point A, just inside the nose at point B, doesn't coincide at all with the hair at point C and D, passes inside the hair at E, and just outside the hair at F. How can you claim that this rectangle fits perfectly given these inconsistencies? How did you arrive at placing the rectangle in this position?

Further, I've circled where the construction lines intersect each other, but do not intersect any of the lines of the engraving. These points far outnumber those where consruction lines do intersect both each other and the engraving lines. Given this, how can you possibly claim that the construction coincides with the engraving?

[Slimething]

You will have to ask me in another way, because I don't pretend that I have a working hypothesis, okay? I've had one since the beginning and it's been working all these years just fine.

I have to do the asking? Am I missing something here? :confused: You say you have a working hypothesis. Then, it's high time to take the next step and test it to confirm it's worthiness.

What does your hypothesis predict?
How can it be tested?
Is there unrelated but supporting evidence for it?
Can you establish a consistent timeline?
How does it conform to what we know already?
Why is it important? Does it have a practical use?
What are your assumptions? Why do you feel they're valid to make?

So, that's just a few questions. If you want them asked in a different way, rephrase them and post them to yourself. I'm only interested in the answers.

[Belz...]

Let's be fair. It would have been the 70's.

...and disco still sucks.

Does "staying alive" qualify as disco ? I'm completely ignorant when it comes to categorizing musical styles.

[JonnyFive]

Does "staying alive" qualify as disco ? I'm completely ignorant when it comes to categorizing musical styles.

I'd say it does.

[Belz...]

Well, then Jsfisher is incorrect.

[JonnyFive]

Well, then Jsfisher is incorrect.

About disco sucking?

Perhaps you would care to listen to "Staying Alive" for the next six hours straight and then report back to us with your findings?

[Hokulele]

About disco sucking?

Perhaps you would care to listen to "Staying Alive" for the next six hours straight and then report back to us with your findings?


Or just listen to the original BBC broadcast version of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", specifically the episode where two of the characters (briefly) enter a disco.

The background music was created by playing "Staying Alive" backwards and, I believe, removing every 5th beat.

[Jiri]

I've annotated your image Jiri, and have a few questions.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/95746432f07660fd.gif

The rectangle passes well within the chin at point A, just inside the nose at point B, doesn't coincide at all with the hair at point C and D, passes inside the hair at E, and just outside the hair at F. How can you claim that this rectangle fits perfectly given these inconsistencies? How did you arrive at placing the rectangle in this position?

Below, I've quoted the text accompanying the gif, which by the way is almost the lifesize of the entire engraving. As you see there is no mention of the rectangle. It's all primarily about the fit of the "Foot-square" over the head of Athena, which of course was a secondary issue to its fit over Athena's feet. Yet, this fit is excellent.
Of course, the "foot-square" had to fit the head on more than two sides, plus, it had to keep the orientation of the x-y axes (the long vertical next to the central vertical axis of the "foot-square" is the actual x-axis.
As you can see (I hope) the "foot-square" slips over the head tight on the outside, which makes it three sides, and the base of the square fits starting from the left in the following manner: It limits the long line of the back of the helmet, which plunges straight down. Moving right it just misses a point (but you wouldn't see this miss in lifesize due to the thickness of the pen), and then it hits four points in a row, the last one being its intersection with the x-axis exactly on the edge of an angraved line. Pretty good fit I would say.
Next I added the central axis to the Foot-square. Result:
The horizontal axis limits the top of the face. It's a fit there. Then you missed the exit of this axis on the left through a short engraved horizontal.
The vertical then comes down rather modestly until it hits a tangent point, where the jaw meets the neck, and then it also meets the shoulder line. All in all, the square even subdivided fits the head well. It is now composed of four little squares.
However, there is a rectangle here, as there is addition below the base of the square,which is colored in. You yourself said that it does fit down to the chin. Plus, its left lower corner is exactly at the edge of an engraved line, another perfect fit.
The entire colored rectangle over the head is now composed of four little squares, and two golden rectangles. This gives some interesting stratification of the head.

The diagonals you see are just exploration lines. I haven't made any claims about those, but even those are interesting. But, there is the little square on the inside of the bigger one, which also shows more than its share of harmony points with the image.
Quote:
"It was a perfect experiment, because everything was already predetermined. The actual size of the Phi-1 circle in the Athena engraving's system was already set in stone. Also, the location of the primary square of the engraving was already set, etc. So, all I could do was to transfer the diagram deduced from the monkey glyph onto the engraving.
Was there going to be an amazing fit?
This experiment had worked out rather beautifully. The so called Foot-square from the monkey does transfer onto the feet of the Athena figure meaningfully. I was surprized however, how the same square fits the head of the Athena figure."
.
[/QUOTE]Further, I've circled where the construction lines intersect each other, but do not intersect any of the lines of the engraving. These points far outnumber those where consruction lines do intersect both each other and the engraving lines. Given this, how can you possibly claim that the construction coincides with the engraving?[/QUOTE]
.
I haven't made any claims about those lines. For instance you see one corner point of the main Square, with a whole bunch of lines emanating from it downwards, the rest of which we cannot see here. You have made a bunch of circles there, yet, this point was shown only for orientation on how far horizontally (in this orientation) does the principal square of the engraving reach. You also circles points on objects, which I also didn't claim anything for. You see, I used to have a free site limited to only 15 MBs. So, I used to add all kinds of stuff to my gifs, which otherwise would not be there.

[Jiri]

Jiri:


I do.
What we want you to realize is that your end results isn't something objectively and intenfully hidden in the images but emerges from your process.

Abstracts such as you have produced above can be generated from working over most any drawing. Not surprisingly paintings by DaVinci, Durer, Escher, and a host of other painters who merely follow rules of composition and perspective will especially yield some geometrical abstractions.


Wasn't following Escher's perspective lines how I got here?
Geometrical abstractions should not surprise you with a guy like Durer, who even did a portrait of himself in the workshop (atelier) full of geometrical tools..
Did you ever hear about the Golden-section compasses? You could pick any distance and it would already be divided into Phi by these compasses. Those could also make circles in the Phi-proportion as well.

In fact, I kind of like the idea of it. You could establish an atritist's niche for yourself with this. Imagine an exhibition of the figures you derive overlaying the famous works of art you put to the process. Really, I think it would be neat.

Why don't you try it? I am too preoccupied with what I am doing already.

[Belz...]

About disco sucking?

Perhaps you would care to listen to "Staying Alive" for the next six hours straight and then report back to us with your findings?

Listening to ANY music for six hours straight will make its musical style "suck".

[Macoy]

o no it isn't

[Macoy]

i have to admit to listening to 8 hours continuous Led Zeppelin & i didn't think it sucked although there was a certain amount of lemon squeezing.

[jsfisher]

i have to admit to listening to 8 hours continuous Led Zeppelin & i didn't think it sucked although there was a certain amount of lemon squeezing.


Now, try the Bee Gee's and see what happens.

[Macoy]

Now, try the Bee Gee's and see what happens.

for 8 hours?

[jsfisher]

for 8 hours?


I think 30 minutes should do it.

[Macoy]

i tried it for 6 hours, as suggested, but i can't say i cared for it much.

[Macoy]

in fact, it may be the time to draw a line under the bee gees matter - that is line 'BG', which obviously forces a tangent on line 'BS' with a ratio of very nearly infinity:(infinity - 1) thus giving us travolta at line ot8, talking to animals, very closely superimposed upon cruise, still smiling, not drowning.

[Oualawouzou]

in fact, it may be the time to draw a line under the bee gees matter - that is line 'BG', which obviously forces a tangent on line 'BS' with a ratio of very nearly infinity:(infinity - 1) thus giving us travolta at line ot8, talking to animals, very closely superimposed upon cruise, still smiling, not drowning.

:D

[Jiri]

Originally Posted by Jiri
Basing on the idea of the Phi-1 circle from the monkey glyph, the construction of the regular 5-pointed star takes fourteen steps using compasses and a straight-edge.

That doesn't look like a proper construction. How'd you draw those two new large circles in the upper part? To draw a specific circle, you'd need a defined center point and a point on the circle's circumference.

ETA: It looks like you are drawing lines tangent to the "phi-1" circle. That is also not an allowed compass / straightedge step. Specific lines require two specific points.
.
Sorry, I was wrong, there was a step to be saved in my diagram of the construction. We need just one of those new large circles. It takes thirteen steps to construct a regular 5-pointed star by the compasses and straight-edge method, while basing on the crucial idea learned from the Nazca monkey glyph.
I believe that this is it - finally the most efficient procedure. Lucky 13 it is! ;) http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1557746458739450e8.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5713)

[jsfisher]

...while basing on the crucial idea learned from the Nazca monkey glyph...


Remind me, please, what crucial idea did you learn form the Nazca carving?

[ReligionStudent]

Remind me, please, what crucial idea did you learn form the Nazca carving?

An archaeologist I was in class with said that they are actually pretty small and that there are plenty of areas to go up and look at them from above. So, they could just be pretty pictures.

[Jiri]

Remind me, please, what crucial idea did you learn form the Nazca carving?

Regarding regular pentagram's construction? - It was the idea of the "Foot-square", which specifies the given 5-pointed star in the monkey's geometrical position. The idea also specifies existence of the Phi-1 circle - step 8 in the diagram in my post, which is the step, where our respective constructions diverge.
While contemplating this star, an idea had occurred to me that this might be the fastest such construction, because the construction actually begins with the star's horizontal arm, and so we don't have to construct it later.
Now I am curious if this is the construction given in books as the one taking fewest steps.
If not, it should be there, unless, of course, there are other constructions requiring the same number of steps. I really don't imagine that there could be any even faster, because the monkey's method is already so efficient and elegant.

[jsfisher]

Now I am curious if this is the construction given in books as the one taking fewest steps.


Generally, classic compass & straightedge constructions are little more than just a geometric curiosity with little pedagogical value. Pentagrams are considered along with pentagons, with the usual problem being to inscribe one in a given circle.

Also, "fewest steps" isn't usually cherished in Mathematics. However, clarity is generally valued in teaching.

If not, it should be there, unless, of course, there are other constructions requiring the same number of steps. I really don't imagine that there could be any even faster, because the monkey's method is already so efficient and elegant.


Isn't that monkey remarkable!! And even that little construction I showed you, the one you didn't know and hadn't yet found in the carving, the monkey already knew it; it was just waiting for you to know it, too, before it would reveal it.

Powerful stuff, that observer-expectancy effect, isn't it?

[Jiri]

An archaeologist I was in class with said that they are actually pretty small and that there are plenty of areas to go up and look at them from above. So, they could just be pretty pictures.

Something tells me that your prof did too much peyote on his excursions down south. There is only one way to go up really, and those are the foothills to the east. By then, of course, you are too far from the plain to see the figures, although you'd get a nice panorama of the lines and pistas. However for undistorted view, you need to be directly over the figures.
Saying the Nazca lines just make pretty pictures is haphazard. While the lines are indeed spectacular, that is not the real reason why they were made, I believe. Of course, since you cannot see any sense in my explanation of the monkey, or in anything else I showed you, talking to you about these things is a waste of time.

[Jiri]

Generally, classic compass & straightedge constructions are little more than just a geometric curiosity with little pedagogical value. Pentagrams are considered along with pentagons, with the usual problem being to inscribe one in a given circle.

Okay, so pure Euclidean geometry is no longer appreciated in schools. The problem of the most efficient pentagram construction is just a curiosity to science according to you, but not part of science, so really.


Also, "fewest steps" isn't usually cherished in Mathematics. However, clarity is generally valued in teaching.

This construction given by the monkey certainly possesses clarity. Simplicity (fewest steps) must also mean something to mathematics, I believe.


Isn't that monkey remarkable!! And even that little construction I showed you, the one you didn't know and hadn't yet found in the carving, the monkey already knew it; it was just waiting for you to know it, too, before it would reveal it.

Since the monkey clues onto this simplest construction, it is reasonable that its designers would have known the in-between steps as well. I am just the monkey's monkey here, so to speak.


Powerful stuff, that observer-expectancy effect, isn't it?

Well, you present the observer-expectancy effect as something pathological. Please, do not forget that this effect would apply to any observer. It is natural that observations of a process lead to certain expectancy in the observer. The effect is different with a trainer of a horse trying for a sugar-cube than with a researcher seeing facts of an exact nature, and forming expectations as to what these facts might lead to. Some people might even call it "forming a new hypothesis on the basis of new data.

Some could even attribute the "observer-expectancy effect to you in this situation. After all, the bone of contention was the most efficient construction. Because I was basing my claim on something learned from a "mere primitive monkey", your expectancy was that you can easily dispense with it.
Now that you lost that one to ancient science, I think that I see evidence of the "sour-grapes" effect in you. Or is it just an "observer-expectancy effect on me?:)

[jsfisher]

Okay, so pure Euclidean geometry is no longer appreciated in schools. The problem of the most efficient pentagram construction is just a curiosity to science according to you, but not part of science, so really.


Wrong on multiple counts: Euclidean geometry is appreciated just fine. I wrote of mathematics, not science. I did not say pentagram construction as just a curiosity. Mathematics is not a part of science as you imply.

This construction given by the monkey certainly possesses clarity.


That assumes the monkey carving possesses any of the attributes you've ascribed to it. You have not presented anything approaching a convincing argument supporting your position.

Simplicity (fewest steps) must also mean something to mathematics, I believe.


Simplicity and fewest steps are not synonymous terms. Be that as it may, though, in some contexts, sure, fewest steps for a compass & straightedge construction could have some mathematical significance. But you have been lamenting that this should be a basic part of a mathematics curriculum. It should not.

Well, you present the observer-expectancy effect as something pathological. Please, do not forget that this effect would apply to any observer. It is natural that observations of a process lead to certain expectancy in the observer. The effect is different with a trainer of a horse trying for a sugar-cube than with a researcher seeing facts of an exact nature, and forming expectations as to what these facts might lead to. Some people might even call it "forming a new hypothesis on the basis of new data.


You understanding of the observer-expectancy effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer-expectancy_effect) appears to be exactly backwards from reality. Wikipedia suggests:

The observer-expectancy effect (also called the experimenter-expectancy effect, observer effect, or experimenter effect) is a cognitive bias found in science that occurs when a researcher expects a given result and therefore unconsciously manipulates an experiment in order to find it.
Emphasis added.

Some could even attribute the "observer-expectancy effect to you in this situation. After all, the bone of contention was the most efficient construction. Because I was basing my claim on something learned from a "mere primitive monkey", your expectancy was that you can easily dispense with it.
Emphasis in the original.

Wow, is that ever twisted. There is no "bone of contention" regarding constructing pentagrams. The whole "fewest steps" nonsense is your issue, not mine.

By the way, since you seem so proud of your construction, you might want to correct the error in it before you seek publication. Also, there are other 13-step methods.

Now that you lost that one to ancient science, I think that I see evidence of the "sour-grapes" effect in you. Or is it just an "observer-expectancy effect on me?:)


Just how did I lose to ancient science? This whole aside into pentagram constructions was your diversion, not mine. Also, it has been you drawing pentagrams, not some ancient carving, and it has been your methods, not some ancient carving's, that have gotten better with some modern-day, not ancient, hints.

My points and interest have been elsewhere. My allegations have been and continue to be the following:

Your methods are entirely non-scientific. You do not embrace the scientific method. You have made statements that agree with this allegation.
Your process for placing lines and circles is not algorithmic. Rather, it is an open-ended set of guidelines that practically demand observer-expectancy corruption of the result. Your description of the process and other statements you have made support this allegation.
Mathematical relations can appear in the simplest of artwork without the intend of the artist. I have provided an example of this.

Those are my points. Whereas you accuse me of losing to ancient science by logic that escapes me, I have growing evidence that you are out of touch with modern science.

[Jiri]

Ok, so the two ends, which are only related because they are at the ends and therefore the farthest away and least related otherwise add up to something. WOw that makes no sence at all.

You won't get away with this one.
I said that without the three just then mentioned segments, the rest of the Frame resembles a horseshoe. This horseshoe is divided into sections of 680, and 216, and further subdivided into two sections of 340, and two of 108.

680/216 = 3.14.. Pi correct to two decimals
340/108 = 3.14..
Which two segments are next to the ends of the horseshoe? Well, 139 on the left, and 175 on the right, whose total is 314.
This total comes immediately after 680/216.
We get 680/216 = 314 The decimal point is missing, but we have the first three digits of Pi.
And what is the segment after that? Why, 16. So, from this vantage point we read 314 & 16, or digits of Pi rounded to four decimals.
The 314 gives the ratio in the rest of the Frame to the first three digits. The 16 following is subsequently seen only in conjunction with that 314, but not the rest.
Methinks, you forgot that the horseshoe forms a closed circuit with those three segments.

[jsfisher]

680/216 = 3.14.. Pi correct to two decimals
340/108 = 3.14..


As others have already observed, neither 680/216 nor 340/108 is pi, correct to two decimal places. Both ratios are 3.148148148148.... To just two decimal places, π is 3.14 while either ratio is 3.15.

The first time an erroneous statement is made, it can be a mistake. Once the mistake is exposed, however, any restatement becomes a lie.

[wollery]

You won't get away with this one.
I said that without the three just then mentioned segments, the rest of the Frame resembles a horseshoe. This horseshoe is divided into sections of 680, and 216, and further subdivided into two sections of 340, and two of 108.

680/216 = 3.14.. Pi correct to two decimals
340/108 = 3.14..
Which two segments are next to the ends of the horseshoe? Well, 139 on the left, and 175 on the right, whose total is 314.
This total comes immediately after 680/216.
We get 680/216 = 314 The decimal point is missing, but we have the first three digits of Pi.
And what is the segment after that? Why, 16. So, from this vantage point we read 314 & 16, or digits of Pi rounded to four decimals.
The 314 gives the ratio in the rest of the Frame to the first three digits. The 16 following is subsequently seen only in conjunction with that 314, but not the rest.
Methinks, you forgot that the horseshoe forms a closed circuit with those three segments.I pointed out the glaring errors in that once already, but you seem to be wilfully ignorant of your own errors. So let me point them out again.

680/216 is 3.148rec (as is 340/108). There is a decimal point, despite you saying there isn't! And this rounds to 3.15. You can't just lop decimal places off the end of a number arbitrarily, especially when you use rounding to claim that placing the 16 at the end of 3.14 (which should be rounded to 3.15) gives 3.1416 which is pi rounded to 4 decimal places! If you don't round off 3.148 correctly then you can't claim rounding for the next arbitrarily picked number! By doing this you render your claims internally inconsistent!! And this is precisely the point of observer expectancy. You expect there to be magical numbers in this art, so you fiddle the results to find them, ignoring correct rounding where it's inconvenient, and assuming it was used where there's no reason to, placing one arbitrary number at the end of another to give "more accuracy" to numbers that aren't what you say they are.

You see what you want to see, and force the numbers to fit your theories. The value of pi could be very easily represented by line lenghts of 22 and 7, which is the classical simple ratio, and any mathematician would recognize it as such, so if these ancients were so well versed in advanced maths why did they muck about with line ratios that give the wrong number, unless you use arbitrary addition of the value of one line length to the end of an incorrectly rounded line length ratio?

It makes no sense!

What's truly sad is that, rather taking these criticisms on board and reviewing your methods, you'll probably view the above as irrelevant, or "sour grapes".

[Jiri]

By the way, since you seem so proud of your construction, you might want to correct the error in it before you seek publication. Also, there are other 13-step methods.

There is no error in the construction. I count the steps - thirteen - all legal. After the first seven steps, the eighth stepp is to make the Phi-1 circle. Two more steps to draw lines through two distinct points in each case. Then the big circle from a distinct point through two tips of the star and two corners of the inside pentagon. Then steps twelve and thirteen again draw lines through two disctinct points.
It's all legit, so you must be wrong.


The result is a regular 5-pointed star, so there is no logical error.

[jsfisher]

There is no error in the construction. I count the steps - thirteen - all legal. After the first seven steps, the eighth stepp is to make the Phi-1 circle. Two more steps to draw lines through two distinct points in each case. Then the big circle from a distinct point through two tips of the star and two corners of the inside pentagon. Then steps twelve and thirteen again draw lines through two disctinct points.
It's all legit, so you must be wrong.


The result is a regular 5-pointed star, so there is no logical error.


Look closer.

[Jiri]

Look closer.

I believe you are getting too fancy since you agree that I am showing a correct 13-step method. The diagram does not show two help-circles used to get the vertical axis, that's all.

If there are other 13-step methods, I wonder, was yours one of them in the end, or is it still a 15-step method? Are these methods so hard to find, you could not find an example of one and use it?

[Jiri]

As others have already observed, neither 680/216 nor 340/108 is pi, correct to two decimal places. Both ratios are 3.148148148148.... To just two decimal places, π is 3.14 while either ratio is 3.15.

The first time an erroneous statement is made, it can be a mistake. Once the mistake is exposed, however, any restatement becomes a lie.

All I am trying to say is that those are the first three digits of Pi. Nothing more, nothing less for me in it.

[wollery]

All I am trying to say is that those are the first three digits of Pi. Nothing more, nothing less for me in it.Which is disingenuous at best, since you then take a line length of 16, add those digits onto the end of you incorrect 3.14, and claim that that is pi rounded to 4 decimal places.

It's fiddling the result, and makes it clear that you are looking to find something that you already believe to be there.

[Jiri]

That assumes the monkey carving possesses any of the attributes you've ascribed to it. You have not presented anything approaching a convincing argument supporting your position.

Untrue. I have presented evidence of the system in the monkey glyph step by step. Each step was based on geometrical properties of the glyph. As for the "Foot-square", it was obtained methodically, by simple framing between exploration lines of the cardinal directions. Note, no unconscious manipulation by the researcher is possible here. This simple step produces a number of regularities. The 13-step star is one of those regularities. It's in the position.
If it weren't then I would be unable to charm it out of the air.
If you think that application of my methods would produce similar results out of random art, think again. Give me an example even approaching a similar level of order. I haven't seen any. There aren't any.






Wow, is that ever twisted. There is no "bone of contention" regarding constructing pentagrams. The whole "fewest steps" nonsense is your issue, not mine.

Really? Then why do you say the below?
.
Just how did I lose to ancient science? This whole aside into pentagram constructions was your diversion, not mine. Also, it has been you drawing pentagrams, not some ancient carving, and it has been your methods, not some ancient carving's, that have gotten better with some modern-day, not ancient, hints.
.
Wrong. The makings of the pentagrams are in the image. I only complete what's given. My methods have only been catching up to the ancient etching. Modern hints or not, the idea of the "Foot-square" does not change. It is there, it is ancient, and it sets up the position for the fastest, or one of the fastest constructions of the pentagram.



Your process for placing lines and circles is not algorithmic. Rather, it is an open-ended set of guidelines that practically demand observer-expectancy corruption of the result.
.
Or so you like to think. But, if you programmed a computer to use the same or a very similar set of guidelines, it would come up with the same results. For example, it would come up with the same line 'b' inside the lens of the girl's torso. You have avoided adressing specific explanations I gave.
As have others. Wollery is always one step ahead. He ignores the explanation given for one thing, instead of acknowledging it, and goes to the next one.

[QUOTE]
Mathematical relations can appear in the simplest of artwork without the intend of the artist. I have provided an example of this.

I have no idea why you pretend so obstinately that we are talking about the same thing. There are degrees of order. You are talking about incidents of order.
I am talking about systems. Your incidents even when constructed to exacting specs, such as you have shown will remain unconnected and unintegrated into a greater system. You will get what you might find in an old junkyard - a mess of orderly elements, which do not belong together, and you could never make those unrelated parts work together. While it is relatively easy to unintentionally draw a Phi line over a square, it is a little harder to draw an angle of 36 degrees unintentionally without being a little more constructive about it. It is harder still to have the particular triangle take on functions of a star it could be, without completion into a star. It is infinitely hard to have order of an initial acccident continue expanding in a wave over given artwork, and into another artwork a continent, and a few millenia away. Since it can't be a repetitive pattern, it needs to reach deeper levels of abstraction, and development of the initial idea.

[Jiri]

Which is disingenuous at best, since you then take a line length of 16, add those digits onto the end of you incorrect 3.14, and claim that that is pi rounded to 4 decimal places.

It is, because it fits the general pattern. It is simply how it looks from the outside, from the ends of the horseshoe.

It's fiddling the result, and makes it clear that you are looking to find something that you already believe to be there.

Of course, I am looking to find more of what I had already found in crystal clear form. I want to find every related instance. I want a complete picture. You can call it what you want and be wrong.

[jsfisher]

In a prior post of mine, I made an erroneous statement. I said:
By the way, since you seem so proud of your construction, you might want to correct the error in it before you seek publication.


That was a mistake on my part. I had crossed details of another method with Jiri's approach, and that led to an incorrect conclusion.

I retract the statement, and I offer Jiri my apologies for the false accusation.

[Jiri]

In a prior post of mine, I made an erroneous statement. I said:


That was a mistake on my part. I had crossed details of another method with Jiri's approach, and that led to an incorrect conclusion.

I retract the statement, and I offer Jiri my apologies for the false accusation.

Apologies are unnecessary, JS. You have a lot of credit with me as an opponent. You know your mathematics, and you are really trying to convince me using reason, as opposed to, sorry to say, a vast majority of voices around here.
Your only shortcoming is that you cannot free yourself of the widespread myth that order can be found in any random doodles. Why is this myth so bad? Because it is true.
It is true, but incompletely stated. Any abstract order found in chaos is primitive, and approximate. It is not to be confused with fractals, for an instance of natural order in chaos.
Truth become truism prevents rational appreciation of the real stuff, when it is available. The field is strewn with too much 'woo' and emotionalism.

[Macoy]

Apologies are unnecessary, JS. You have a lot of credit with me as an opponent. You know your mathematics, and you are really trying to convince me using reason, as opposed to, sorry to say, a vast majority of voices around here.
Your only shortcoming is that you cannot free yourself of the widespread myth that order can be found in any random doodles. Why is this myth so bad? Because it is true.
It is true, but incompletely stated. Any abstract order found in chaos is primitive, and approximate. It is not to be confused with fractals, for an instance of natural order in chaos.
Truth become truism prevents rational appreciation of the real stuff, when it is available. The field is strewn with too much 'woo' and emotionalism.

your smugness is unbecoming, & i anticipate no apology from you for your continuing attempts at the von-danikenisation of history.

[Slimething]

... and you are really trying to convince me using reason, as opposed to, sorry to say, a vast majority of voices around here.
Your only shortcoming is that you cannot free yourself of the widespread myth that order can be found in any random doodles. Why is this myth so bad? Because it is true.
It is true, but incompletely stated.

So, I've asked you how you are going to test your hypothesis and you've completely ignored me. I am interpreting that as either an admission that you feel your hypothesis is not testable or that you are not willing to test it. Fine. We all know what that translates to, don't we? Even you would have to admit that your hypothesis reeks of improbability and that your reticence to expose your contrivance to systematic examination is telling.

So, let me say it. Your ideas are baseless. Your hypothesis is unfalsifiable in fact, and maybe even in theory. There is nothing to what you believe short of a rambling dissertation accompanied by the haphazard stylings of someone who just got their first compass/ruler set. Your next step is a French Curve. No telling what ancient secrets you'll uncover then! :jaw-dropp

[Jiri]

So, I've asked you how you are going to test your hypothesis and you've completely ignored me. I am interpreting that as either an admission that you feel your hypothesis is not testable or that you are not willing to test it. Fine. We all know what that translates to, don't we? Even you would have to admit that your hypothesis reeks of improbability and that your reticence to expose your contrivance to systematic examination is telling.

You've also asked me what my hypothesis is. The question is about what? I've already successfully tested some of my earlier hypotheses. I'm not walking on air, I am standing on the shoulders of ancient scientists.
Since you are not willing to recognize any of my present results as significant, we cannot discuss my hypothesis on a common basis.


So, let me say it. Your ideas are baseless. Your hypothesis is unfalsifiable in fact, and maybe even in theory.
.
To the contrary, you can falsify all you want. Why don't you explain yourself in more detail?
.


There is nothing to what you believe short of a rambling dissertation accompanied by the haphazard stylings of someone who just got their first compass/ruler set. Your next step is a French Curve. No telling what ancient secrets you'll uncover then! :jaw-dropp
.
Now it is clear that you can only bark.

[wollery]

I only have one question at this point.

You claim that these Egyptian engineers were highly advanced, more so than anyone gives them credit for, and the Greeks they taught were just as knowledgeable, and this knowledge came from some ancient advanced civilization, who had knowledge and technology to rival that of the modern world.

So why didn't they have the arch?

[ReligionStudent]

More importantly, why didn't this ancient super civilization have writing. Early Complex Societies had writing.

[JonnyFive]

More importantly, why didn't this ancient super civilization have writing. Early Complex Societies had writing.

At the rate we're going with this, I'm kind of surprised he hasn't claimed they had DVDs, flying nuclear cars, time travel, and advanced space flight.

Unless I missed something.

[jimbob]

They had nuculur weapons, which are remembered in the Vedic scriptururrs, I can't explain why this was in India and not Egpt, can anyone come up with a (creative) explanation?

[realpaladin]

Xenu!

[ReligionStudent]

They had nuculur weapons, which are remembered in the Vedic scriptururrs, I can't explain why this was in India and not Egpt, can anyone come up with a (creative) explanation?


Well, Vedic was later than the OK, but there is evidence that Egypt and the earlier Indus Valley cultures were at least in some sort of trade routes together.

[JonnyFive]

I'm still waiting on an explanation for why no math more advanced than pi, phi, basic geometry, and simple ratios is "found" in these pieces of artwork.

Where are the integrals? Probability calculations? Boolean logic? Computational optimization algorithms? Econometric models?

Seriously, what gives? What exactly do you consider "advanced," Jiri?

[Jiri]

The least number of operations needed to construct a given figure is its simplicity. So simplicity of the pentagram construction given by the Nazca glyph of a monkey is 13 (thirteen), and its pentagon simplicity is "15". I've done a number of searches, but can't find what exactly is the simplicity known for the regular pentagram. JSFischer had it at fifteen for his construct. To me it looks like what the monkey teaches might be the only such method known, although JSF says there are other and just as simple constructions.

Here is a couple of links I came across on my quest:
MATHEMATICAL CONNECTIONS IN NATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART By Dr. Oleksiy Stakhov
http://www.fenkefeng.org/essaysm18004.html
Just a couple of quick notes: Note in the article, how Mona Lisa's frame is the same as Nazca monkey's. Lots of interesting stuff but check out Fig. 31. The Golden Section in Shishkin’s painting “The Ship Grove” and Konstantin Vasil’ev’s painting "Near to the window".
Do you see it - the Golden rectangles and squares? It seems so obvious, does it not? No one would question that this was all done on purpose, but the Abydos Helicopter's golden rectangles are more precise than that, yet no one can see this fact, or purpose. Bizarre!

and


http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Geometrography.html
Geometrography

COMMENT On this Page

A quantitative measure of the simplicity of a geometric construction which reduces geometric constructions to five steps. It was devised by È. Lemoine.

S_1 Place a straightedge's graph edge through a given point,

S_2 Draw a straight line,

C_1 Place a point of a compass on a given point,

C_2 Place a point of a compass on an indeterminate point on a line,

C_3 Draw a circle.

Geometrography seeks to reduce the number of operations (called the "simplicity") needed to effect a construction. If the number of the above operations are denoted m_1, m_2, n_1, n_2, and n_3, respectively, then the simplicity is m_1+m_2+n_1+n_2+n_3 and the symbol is m_1S_1+m_2S_2+n_1C_1+n_2C_2+n_3C_3. It is apparently an unsolved problem to determine if a given geometric construction is of the smallest possible simplicity.

SEE ALSO: Simplicity. [Pages Linking Here]

REFERENCES:

De Temple, D. W. "Carlyle Circles and the Lemoine Simplicity of Polygonal Constructions." Amer. Math. Monthly 98, 97-108, 1991.

Eves, H. An Introduction to the History of Mathematics, 6th ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1990.




CITE THIS AS:

Weisstein, Eric W. "Geometrography." From MathWorld--A Wolfram Web Resource. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Geometrography.html

© 1999 CRC Press LLC, © 1999-2007 Wolfram Research, Inc. | Terms of Use

[JonnyFive]

The least number of operations needed to construct a given figure is its simplicity. So simplicity of the pentagram construction given by the Nazca glyph of a monkey is 13 (thirteen), and its pentagon simplicity is "15". I've done a number of searches, but can't find what exactly is the simplicity known for the regular pentagram. JSFischer had it at fifteen for his construct. To me it looks like what the monkey teaches might be the only such method known, although JSF says there are other and just as simple constructions.

Why are you so hung up on what boils down to ruler/compass construction? That's not advanced math at all. That's like the people that try to provide proofs for complex mathematical problems using only sixth grade algebra.

[Jiri]

I'm still waiting on an explanation for why no math more advanced than pi, phi, basic geometry, and simple ratios is "found" in these pieces of artwork.

Basic geometry can lead to very complex designs. Check out the Hex-machine, in trihex.htm on my site. What do you think of the design - pretty complex?

Where are the integrals? Probability calculations? Boolean logic? Computational optimization algorithms? Econometric models? Seriously, what gives? What exactly do you consider "advanced," Jiri?

Well, the fault is probably with me entirely since I am not a mathematician, so these things are not as obvious to me as simpler geometrical shapes. Secondly, the Athena engraving could be a teaching device eventualy leading to greater complexity. Remember, there are 15 hundred La Marche engravings and some are apparently tangles of almost invisibly engraved hairlines. Besides, parts of the engraving like the Frame we've dealt with before, lead to very demanding mathematics regarding its nature. Remember JSFischer's method calculating its odds delving into multidimensionality? If he looked into the geometry of the lines leading to the Frame's points, there is no telling what he might see.
What's advanced to me? An engraving like Athena with its subliminal precision, for example. Too bad, you cannot see it like I do. Makes for an esthetically enjoyable experience.

[JonnyFive]

Basic geometry can lead to very complex designs. Check out the Hex-machine, in trihex.htm on my site. What do you think of the design - pretty complex?

Complex designs do not equal complex math.

Well, the fault is probably with me entirely since I am not a mathematician, so these things are not as obvious to me as simpler geometrical shapes. Secondly, the Athena engraving could be a teaching device eventualy leading to greater complexity. Remember, there are 15 hundred La Marche engravings and some are very densely engraved, apparently. Besides, parts of the engraving like the Frame we've dealt with before, lead to very demanding mathematics regarding its nature. Remember JSFischer's method delving into multidimensionality? If he looked into the geometry of the lines leading to the Frame's points, there is no telling what he might see.
What's advanced to me? An engraving like Athena with its subliminal precision, for example. Too bad, you cannot see it like I do. Makes for an esthetically enjoyable experience.

Actually, I think it's because the stuff isn't there. That "you just can't see it" canard may be helpful to you for rationalizing things, but it doesn't take your point too far for the rest of us.

What? Jsfisher's use of hyperplanes to estimate the number of permutations that fit into your totally arbitrary limits? Is that what you mean? If so, it didn't have anything to do with the frame's construction, it had to do with us trying to figure out something that you brought up (number of possible permutations of certain numbers that fell within some random range you picked), without bothering to explain the solution yourself (probably because you didn't know it).

I thought his solution to that problem was clever, and he was kind enough to explain to me how it worked.

Does it bother you in the slightest that everyone in this thread with an inkling of mathematical knowledge doesn't agree with your conclusions?

[Jiri]

Why are you so hung up on what boils down to ruler/compass construction? That's not advanced math at all. That's like the people that try to provide proofs for complex mathematical problems using only sixth grade algebra.

Eucklidean geometry could be very suitable for cryptographical purposes and coding purposes. Besides, these things do lead directly to a lot of advanced elements in today's science, as well.
And why am I hung up? I just had a nice and instructional episode with the 13-operations construction of the regular pentagram. Nothing wrong in that, and it was quite an adventure for me, too.

[Jiri]

Complex designs do not equal complex math.



Actually, I think it's because the stuff isn't there. That "you just can't see it" canard may be helpful to you for rationalizing things, but it doesn't take your point too far for the rest of us.

So you can see the rectangles in modern art, but you cannot see them when they are ancient Egyptian. That's psychodelic. I feel like I am back in the sixties, or is it 1985?

Does it bother you in the slightest that everyone in this thread with an inkling of mathematical knowledge doesn't agree with your conclusions?

No, just like it does not bother me that the majority without an inkling of MK likewise disagrees. What's conclusions? Which conclusions? If we play the jumping ball on the Nazca monkey, a step by step game with lots of first downs.. I will have you either agreeing, or appearing sensorially handicapped. ;)

[wollery]

So you can see the rectangles in modern art, but you cannot see them when they are ancient Egyptian. That's psychodelic. I feel like I am back in the sixties, or is it 1985? Wow, what a parrallel to draw. The rectangles in modern art are there for all to see, they don't need to be reconstructed. :rolleyes:

No, just like it does not bother me that the majority without an inkling of MK likewise disagrees. What's conclusions? Which conclusions? If we play the jumping ball on the Nazca monkey, a step by step game with lots of first downs.. I will have you either agreeing, or appearing sensorially handicapped. ;)You may think that, I couldn't possibly comment.

[JonnyFive]

Eucklidean geometry could be very suitable for cryptographical purposes and coding purposes. Besides, these things do lead directly to a lot of advanced elements in today's science, as well.

Actually, it isn't very suitable for cryptography at all. Elliptic curve cryptography requires the use of non-Euclidean geometry, if I am not mistaken.

But this is beside the point. You've only shown some line fitting and simple extrapolation. Whatever happened to the Osiris numbers, anyway?

So you can see the rectangles in modern art, but you cannot see them when they are ancient Egyptian. That's psychodelic. I feel like I am back in the sixties, or is it 1985?

There's a difference between seeing rectangles and claiming that they perfectly embody a series of natural mathematical relationships that show that the ancient people had advanced mathematical knowledge.

[Jiri]

It's been a while, but since this thread also involved the subject of Giza pyramids & the Golden Section, it is only fair that I update you on something new and rather interesting. I got into editing some of my web-pages recently, and before I knew it, I had a new version of reconstructing the ground-plan of the great Giza pyramids on my hands.
http://www.vejprty.com/gizaplan.htm
All things considered, this is a simple, and easy to remember method of constructing a pretty good facsimile of the relative sizes and positioning of the three great Giza pyramids.

[Paul]

WOW! almost an entire year later and you return to post a page, dated august 2007, containing a pointlessly over-complicated method of arranging three squares.
:alien012:

[Jiri]

You sound like you think that you can come up with a simpler, yet as effective method.
Well, can you? Oh, I forgot, you're a skeptic, and had to say something skeptically sounding.
My method is easily memorized and understood, not exactly a mark of over-complication.

[steenkh]

What you have shown before is some kind of mathematical pareidolia: Seek and ye shall find. You just rearrange circles, squares and rectangles until something crops up that you think makes sense. You have shown that you can do it with anything: floor plans of temples, pyramids, even random drawings.

What is it that should make this one more interesting that your previous finds?

[JonnyFive]

Oh come on. You resurrected a year-old thread to bring us this?

Constructing geometric shapes on an imprecise layout of the site of the Great Pyramids to approximate phi to one bloody decimal place (well, two decimal places in one case... and that seems to be the result of some rather funny geometric construction)? I agree with steenkh, you're just seeing what you want to.

I want to hear more about the ancient secrets and Atlantis and stuff like that.

Actually, I wouldn't mind you actually answering my earlier question about the embedding of "complex math" in these geometric designs. Having now taken some more high-level undergrad mathematics courses, I'd be very interested to see how that pops up. Not even really complicated stuff... what about things like the concepts of differentiation or, even better, integration? Surely such important problems must be hidden in the ancient secrets.

[Jiri]

You have shown that you can do it with anything: floor plans of temples, pyramids, even random drawings.

What is it that should make this one more interesting that your previous finds?

Why should it be more interesting, when, so really, it is more of the same (evidence).

You lack fairness in going into the heart of the matter, and completely ignore the pluses of my theory. when it is seen in context of other theories attempting to do the same, start with a clean slate like an Egyptian planner would have, and draw a plan of Giza from your head in CAD. The logically most justified premise is, I think, that the simpler your procedure, and the closer to reality, the closer it will be to the original plan. Of course, this applies only if there was such an original plan.
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. 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. 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. 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.
That's a whole lot of things right for a simple geometrical procedure with emphasis on the Golden Section.
The simplest explanation for this incredible accuracy is that my recreation is actually closer to the original plan than the pyramids themselves. At the same time, it seems that the builders did an absolutely incredible job sticking to the plan, and Petrie did a superlative job measuring it all. Overall, my study lends strong support to the idea of the unified plan of Giza. You measured my work, and came a mile short of reality. I am sure your skeptical self loves hearing, how unscientific it is, when in the throes of skeptical passion.

[Gravy]

when it is seen in context of other theories attempting to do the same, start with a clean slate like an Egyptian planner would have, and draw a plan of Giza from your head in CAD.That reminds me: since I burned my tongue with pizza, I haven't been able to print.

[jsfisher]

Jiri,

You really need to work on that confirmation bias. Seriously.

[wollery]

Jiri,

You really need to work on that confirmation bias. Seriously.No he doesn't, he's really good at it.

[Jiri]

It sure is startling, how this fruit-stand is down to sour grapes.

[wollery]

From Dictionary.com

sour grapes

noun
disparagement of something that is unattainable

Don't see how that applies at all. :rolleyes:

[Jiri]

It does make it sound like those are even past Nirvana, and the way is laid with banana peels. Skeptical of your reply since words have varying connotations more often than not, a check was in order:
"sour grapes - disparagement of something that is unattainable
derogation, disparagement, depreciation - a communication that belittles somebody or something "

The part, which you chose to ignore seems quite realistic and attainable under the circumstances.

[wollery]

It does make it sound like those are even past Nirvana, and the way is laid with banana peels. Skeptical of your reply since words have varying connotations more often than not, a check was in order:
"sour grapes - disparagement of something that is unattainable
derogation, disparagement, depreciation - a communication that belittles somebody or something "

The part, which you chose to ignore seems quite realistic and attainable under the circumstances.And where exactly did you get that definition? Because it isn't in any entry at dictionary.com, which is where I got my definition.

[EHocking]

...The simplest explanation for this incredible accuracy is that my recreation is actually closer to the original plan than the pyramids themselves.So all of this palaver has no actual relationship with the pyramids, only with your wish that the pyramids were constructed in the manner that you bang on about. visAt the same time, it seems that the builders did an absolutely incredible job sticking to the plan, and Petrie did a superlative job measuring it all.So Petrie's measurements merely demonstrate that the pyramids do not line up as you wish. Your excuse being that the builders of the pyramid weren't all that accurate and it is THEIR fault that your wishful thinking about the pyramid's alignment doesn't match the reality of the structures. visOverall, my study lends strong support to the idea of the unified plan of Giza. You measured my work, and came a mile short of reality. No. As you stated above, REALITY comes a mile short of your idea of a unified plan. The only difference is that we are blaming your technique for mismatching your imagined floor plan to the actual arrangements of the pyramids, where you blame the shoddy builders for not building the pyramids to your imagined floor plan.I am sure your skeptical self loves hearing, how unscientific it is, when in the throes of skeptical passion.I can't even begin to parse that sentence.

[Jiri]

And where exactly did you get that definition? Because it isn't in any entry at dictionary.com, which is where I got my definition.

Follow links from the dictionary.com, and you get tons of meanings like the below examples. The meat of the matter is that because you know that I am not a native English speaker, you try to get out of hot soup by spooon-feeding us skeletal ideas of English for chokecherries.

36 Moby Thesaurus words for "sour grapes":
acid, acidulant, belittling, bread-and-butter pickle, chokecherry,
comedown, contempt, crab apple, decrial, depreciation, derogation,
detraction, dill pickle, disapproval, discrediting, disgrace,
disparagement, faint praise, green apple, indignity, knocking,
lemon, lime, lukewarm support, minimizing, pickle, putting down,
slighting, sour, sour balls, sour cream, sour pickle, sourdough,
verjuice, vinegar, yogur

[Jiri]

.
you blame the shoddy builders for not building the pyramids to your imagined floor plan

it seems that the builders did an absolutely incredible job sticking to the plan, and Petrie did a superlative job measuring it all

You call that blaming the pyramid builders? Speaking of twisting, you put pretzel makers to shame.

[Foster Zygote]

Zombie Thread want brainnnnnns!

[Paul]

The meat of the matter is that because you know that I am not a native English speakerEven given that English is not your first language, you must know that they are not synonymous with sour grapes; mousing over them gives the definitions, which demonstrate that care is needed with taking the internet at face value.

[JonnyFive]

Follow links from the dictionary.com, and you get tons of meanings like the below examples. The meat of the matter is that because you know that I am not a native English speaker, you try to get out of hot soup by spooon-feeding us skeletal ideas of English for chokecherries.

36 Moby Thesaurus words for "sour grapes":
acid, acidulant, belittling, bread-and-butter pickle, chokecherry,
comedown, contempt, crab apple, decrial, depreciation, derogation,
detraction, dill pickle, disapproval, discrediting, disgrace,
disparagement, faint praise, green apple, indignity, knocking,
lemon, lime, lukewarm support, minimizing, pickle, putting down,
slighting, sour, sour balls, sour cream, sour pickle, sourdough,
verjuice, vinegar, yogur

As English is not your first language, I would like to point out that a thesaurus often gives words or phrases that may have quite different meanings from the word referenced, even if the intent is slightly similar.

Anyway, let's not belittle a stupid point. You said your layout doesn't match the actual layout, but that it's somehow more accurate? How did you determine that your layout is correct? Did you pick a layout that produced better "golden ratios?" If so, why?

In any case, if you used a constructed layout, surely you could've done better than to approximate phi to one decimal place. That's quite poor performance for a manufactured approximation.

[Jiri]

I said sour grapes, and Wollery knew what I meant. The term has a loose enough meaning to be interpreted in tune with the context. In this case there is apparent avoidance of the subject at hand, i.e., reconstruction of the Giza layout, and steering the discussion into nitpicking over something else.
The reconstruction has its merits, and tangible scientific value, although it is not exactly up there with transmutation of spring water into high-octane gas. What is so hard about acknowledging the evident? How can that be unattainable?

[Hokulele]

Until you understand the difference between accuracy and precision, there is no scientific value, tangible or otherwise, at all. None.

[Jiri]

You said your layout doesn't match the actual layout, but that it's somehow more accurate? How did you determine that your layout is correct?

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.
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.
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.

In any case, if you used a constructed layout, surely you could've done better than to approximate phi to one decimal place. That's quite poor performance for a manufactured approximation.

Really? Where do you get this nonsense. The reconstruction uses exact means, CAD, a start from an exact Golden rectangle, etc, etc.

[Jiri]

Until you understand the difference between accuracy and precision, there is no scientific value, tangible or otherwise, at all. None.

Perhaps, you don't understand, otherwise you would not oversimplify. 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. Do you understand that?

[Hokulele]

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. 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. 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. 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.


Reread this section. Which numbers are more accurate? Which are more precise? Do you realize the very first sentence in this quote pretty much throws your whole idea out the window?

As others have said, this is a very impressive exercise in confirmation bias.

[Gravy]

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.