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 1