The Giza Funerary Temples of the Pyramids & the (Golden) Φ-Ratio

[Jiri]

The controversy over the discovery of Φ-ratio being designed into the Great Pyramid of Giza has raged for hundreds of years by now. The preponderant stance of Egyptologis and historians is that this is probably accidental, as ancient Egypt is not in general considered that mathematically advanced, especially not in IV. dynasty. The discovery of Φ-ratio is given to the Greeks.
One would think that someone would check next door to the Great Pyramid, for there we have remains of the pyramidal temples, one for each of the three great pyramids. Since these temples have their architectural plans, it seems natural to check those plans for rational order. I did so, basing on diagrams appearing in "The Pyramids of Egypt" by J.E.S. Edwards, who compiled them from research done on the ruins by J.P. Lauer, U. Holscher and Col. H. Vyse.

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


The Φ-proportion (1.6180339887..) abounds in the architectural floor-plans of all three Giza pyramid temples!

I have made this graphically obvious by superposing the relevant geometry over the digrams of the temples. Now, I am on the horns of a dilemma - these geometrical facts are so plainly evident, I don't imagine that my findings will be easily dismissed. Yet, these facts were discoverable with such ease, I can't imagine no one has stumbled over them until now. But, this should have caused some stir since these facts have decisive import on the above mentioned matter of Φ's presence in the design of the G.P. being accidental or not.
Still, all my searches into this topic have turned up an absolute zero! In any case, I am glad to have discovered these facts for myself. If the facts have been supressed previously, or became victim of "auto-censorship" I don't know. What I do know is that the issue over incorporation of Φ in the design of the Great Pyramid is now effectively settled. Φ is the dominant principle of the satellite temples, and is obviously there intentionally, so the same architect(s) must have known what went into the grand design.


Having put my findings onto the web, I came straight here. Randi's is a perfect place to discuss one's discovery in some domain that's guaranteed to cause controversy, or consternation, but mayhem is guaranteed. What do you guys think?

[ilikefrogs]

If all the pyramids are scaled versions of each other, then of course they would all have the Golden Ratio. Where you would make your reputation is if you could PROVE the ancient Egyptians did it on purpose

[Zep]

I'd be VERY curious, Jiri. WHICH parts of the pyramids did you actually measure? Please be precise in this - it's important.

[ReligionStudent]

Hand drawn maps again?
and you still have to show intent and agency if you believe the golden ratio is there. You have failed to do so.

[supercorgi]

What the heck is Φ-ratio? Are you talking about the Golden Mean?

[Apathia]

Give us the Golden Ratio in sunflowers. That's more interesting. I love sunflowers!

http://h1.ripway.com/Apathia/sunflower.JPG

[jsfisher]

By the way, Jiri, you've been away for a while. Welcome back.

[Jiri]

If all the pyramids are scaled versions of each other, then of course they would all have the Golden Ratio. Where you would make your reputation is if you could PROVE the ancient Egyptians did it on purpose

And if they are not all scaled versions of each other? What was I talking about? If you don't know then you are just a scaled version of a scaled version -but of what?
:boxedin:

[Jiri]

I'd be VERY curious, Jiri. WHICH parts of the pyramids did you actually measure? Please be precise in this - it's important.

It is very important to read past the first paragraph, if there is more than one, which you obviously did not, if we want to make educated sounding comments on what we did not read:)

[Jiri]

Hand drawn maps again?
and you still have to show intent and agency if you believe the golden ratio is there. You have failed to do so.

What hand drawn maps?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

After photocopying a number of illustrations from books about Ancient Egypt in the local library, I took them home and scanned into my computer. Measuring a number of circles that appear in these pictures (and making slight adjustments for perspective) I have concluded that the AEs knew Pi to a value of 3.1459, more or less. :rolleyes:

[ReligionStudent]

What hand drawn maps?

The images you link to are not the real images.

[Jiri]

The images you link to are not the real images.

Ah, so Edwards did not use the real images of things under discussion in his books? That's a novel approach. Pray tell us what relation these images I scanned into CAD have to the real images?

[ReligionStudent]

I would like to know what relaition these images you scanned into CAD have to do with the actual places.

[Zep]

It is very important to read past the first paragraph, if there is more than one, which you obviously did not, if we want to make educated sounding comments on what we did not read:)That is not an answer. I'll repeat the question for you, and underline the relevant stuff:

Which parts of the pyramids did you actually measure? Please be precise in this - it's important.

[Jiri]

If all the pyramids are scaled versions of each other, then of course they would all have the Golden Ratio. Where you would make your reputation is if you could PROVE the ancient Egyptians did it on purpose

At least you recognize that the Φ-ratio was built into the Great Pyramid. What you don't recognize is that You just saw the proof that it was done on purpose. Φ-ratio dominates the floor-plan of each of the three pyramid temples. This architecture abounds with Φ to the degree, where I can reconstruct the main features of these temples in scaled models relying on basic Φ constructions, and without writing down any numbers. Could anyone else do the same? Not without using the same method. The Φ proportioning occurs so many times in the temples' plans, it becomes their essence. To have Φ as a regular feature it has to be constructed. Employing Φ-designs in architectural plans on a regular basis requires the knowledge thereof.
That's the pudding. :You can't have the proof and not eat the pudding.;)

[ReligionStudent]

can you show this is not the same as your old trick of finding values all throughout pictures that were never put ther intentionally?

[Jiri]

That is not an answer. I'll repeat the question for you, and underline the relevant stuff:

Which parts of the pyramids did you actually measure? Please be precise in this - it's important.

Where did you get an impression, we were talking about pyramids? The topic is _____________, please, fill in the blank from the thread's name.
Looks like you will have to rephrase your already suspect question.

[Jiri]

can you show this is not the same as your old trick of finding values all throughout pictures that were never put ther intentionally?

When you stop loading your questions..

[Jiri]

I would like to know what relaition these images you scanned into CAD have to do with the actual places.

How strange, you just claimed that these images are not images of the given temples' ground-plans. So, you know better, don't you?

[ReligionStudent]

How strange, you just claimed that these images are not images of the given temples' ground-plans. So, you know better, don't you?

No my qustion is why measure these hand drawn pictures instead of origionals. You have never ever answered such a question.

[Jiri]

No my qustion is why measure these hand drawn pictures instead of origionals. You have never ever answered such a question.

But these are not hand-drawn pictures. They are pictures of the plans Edwards produced from the scientific data available to him from all the previous researches on the site. Of course, if you finance it, we could go and remeasure what's available, what with Zahi Hawass on our back.

[Jiri]

.. and I have answered such questions..

[Zep]

Where did you get an impression, we were talking about pyramids? The topic is _____________, please, fill in the blank from the thread's name.
Looks like you will have to rephrase your already suspect question.OK, I'll rephrase it as you wish.

Which parts of the three Giza pyramid temples did you actually measure? Please be precise in this - it's important.



Incidentally, your OP did happen to waffle on a LOT about the Pyramids and stuff, not the temples. Since I did read that OP, is it any wonder I was misled by what you meant?

[ReligionStudent]

You were looking for Phi and drew a bunch of rectangles (others could easily have been drawn withouth the phi ratio) why should we believe it is the AE's agency and not yours?

[Crossbow]

'Jiri':

I request that you answer the following four questions.

1) Did you actually go to Egypt and take any measurements of the Giza Funerary Temples?

2) If not, then where did you get your data on the Giza Funerary Temples?

3) Did you actually go to Egypt and take any measurements of the Pyramids?

4) If not, then where did you get your data on the Pyramids?

Thank you!

[Molinaro]

Here we go again.

1) You have an outermost square that is blue on the top edge, red on the left, pink on the right, and teal accross the bottom. The top of that square is not positioned in relation to any part of the underlying temple diagram.

2) The top centre of that square is intersected with a large green circular arc. Left left and right intersection points of that arc are highlighted by you with a yellow circle where they meet the left red and right pink edges of the big square. Those intersection points and the green horizontal line between them does not align with anything in the underlying temple diagram.

3) That horizontal green line is then used as the bottom edge of the of the rectangular areas above that you've colored green, yellow, white and blue -- going from left to right. Since that green line was arbitrarily positioned, so are those squares.


See what I'm getting at yet? You've place many of your intersection points in completely arbitrary places -- with respect to the underlying diagram -- purposely to give yourself your desired phi ratios.

If you realy want to get anyone here to give any credit to what you are saying I suggest that you do the following:


Start by showing us a picture with no lines added by you.
Then show a picture with the 1st addition by you.
Justify that addition.

Then we can go onto your next line/arc, one at a time.

Ok?

[andyandy]

Let's just say that the pyramids do follow the golden ratio....so what? The ancient babylonians knew about calculating square roots through iteration - and it's not therefore much of a stretch to assume that the golden ratio was calculated using similar means. It's also not much of a stretch to give them credit for noticing the applicability of the ratio in natural measurements - and given the times, ascribing to a notion that this was some sort of "divine" ratio - thus incorporating the ratio into their pyramid designs....

would it be such a surprise and why should it matter if the pyramids follow such a ratio?

[ReligionStudent]

Well, there is no evidence that they knew about the golden ratio during the 4th dynasty, when they did not have wheeled vehicles and were primarily still using lithics. Were there actual evidence that they purposefully used it in construction of the pyramids, it would be a big thing.

The issue is that all measurments that have to date claimed to illustrate such have not been in agreement and have been arbitrary, most likely reflecting modern agency and not ancient Egyptian agency.

[jsfisher]

I have a simple request, Jiri: Please, for the sake of all that is Mathematics, stop saying "Φ-Ratio". You can call it "golden ratio" or "golden section" or (my personal favorite) just plain old "phi", aka Φ. Ok?

Nothing erodes ones credibility in a subject quite like not even knowing the correct name for the subject.

[phildonnia]

The Φ-proportion (1.6180339887..) abounds in the architectural floor-plans of all three Giza pyramid temples!


You would have to measure the height of the great pyramid to within 69 nanometers to get this kind of accuracy. Far less, if you're measuring something smaller like the height of a doorway.

Pretty good for an old and eroded structure that's clearly missing parts of its facade.

[Big Les]

What is the deal with this golden section BS? I have little time for the Ancient Egyptian and Neolithic claims in that regard, but was it really that important to (say) medieval church builders? Was it seen as somehow spiritual, or just a mathematical/architectural ideal?

I assume these attempts to associate just about everything with the golden mean are related to some New Agey spiritulism/esoterica, but it's hard to separate the fact from the woo.

[Jiri]

Well, Molinaro, you've chased me out of here for a while. Unfortunately I had to agree with your criticism of the very first diagram on my webpage, so I went back and looked at everything again critically. There was much to do - searching my soul, and the web in the next few weeks, as well as editing the article,
http://www.vejprty.com/pt.htm
and all that kept me away from here. Talking about the thing here would drive people to my site, but since it wasn't ready, i kept quiet.
Now, you can review the article again. In my opinion, it gives very strong proof that the golden rectangle is absolutely dominant in the design of all three temples standing right by the great pyramids. This is especially evident in the Khephren's pyramid temple. There is a surprisingly accurate golden rectangle for every major wall line there.
You asked me to present all this to you step by step. Well, in diagram 12 you can check the presence of unbelievably many coaxial golden rectangles in one large temple wide rectangle encompassing the courtyard. Step by step, you encounter one on almost every step. Like I said - Total Dominance of Φ in the design!

[Anacoluthon64]

Jiri, you ought to read this (http://skeptically.org/skepticism/id15.html). It might clear up a few things for you.

'Luthon64

[Zep]

That was written 50 years ago too, Jiri. So it has been readily accessible for some time...

[steenkh]

It is curious, but when I look at Jiri's drawings, I only see completely arbitrarily placed lines. The often seem completely disconnected from features on the buildings, and when not, those features seem arbitrarily chosen.

I would suggest that by the same methods, it would be possible to find practically any ratio or constant in every building of the world.

By the way, Zep, did you say 50 years? That is a multiple of the sacred pyramidal number, this unique fiveness that Gardner explains in the article. Surely, that cannot be coincidental?

[Oualawouzou]

Guys, guys, guys, let's not lose sight of the important thing.

Jiri actually admitted he was mistaken about something. Sure, he went back and replaced the mistake with something just as egregious, but he actually admitted to being wrong about something. To the best of my knowledge, this was unheard of and undreamed of before yesterday.

[Molinaro]

Well, Molinaro, you've chased me out of here for a while. Unfortunately I had to agree with your criticism of the very first diagram on my webpage, so I went back and looked at everything again critically. There was much to do - searching my soul, and the web in the next few weeks, as well as editing the article,
http://www.vejprty.com/pt.htm
and all that kept me away from here. Talking about the thing here would drive people to my site, but since it wasn't ready, i kept quiet.
Now, you can review the article again. In my opinion, it gives very strong proof that the golden rectangle is absolutely dominant in the design of all three temples standing right by the great pyramids. This is especially evident in the Khephren's pyramid temple. There is a surprisingly accurate golden rectangle for every major wall line there.
You asked me to present all this to you step by step. Well, in diagram 12 you can check the presence of unbelievably many coaxial golden rectangles in one large temple wide rectangle encompassing the courtyard. Step by step, you encounter one on almost every step. Like I said - Total Dominance of Φ in the design!

Thanks for coming back and saying this Jiri. People making extraordinary claims here don't always get polite responses. That's mainly because objections and questions are usualy evaded, or outright ignored. I'm very glad to see that you not only understood my questions, but you went off and gave it some serious thought!

I havn't again looked at your site yet, but I most certainly will do so.

Anyone who demonstrates an abiltity and willingness to discuss objections are always welcome here.

[Jiri]

Well, there is no evidence that they knew about the golden ratio during the 4th dynasty, when they did not have wheeled vehicles and were primarily still using lithics. Were there actual evidence that they purposefully used it in construction of the pyramids, it would be a big thing.

The issue is that all measurments that have to date claimed to illustrate such have not been in agreement and have been arbitrary, most likely reflecting modern agency and not ancient Egyptian agency.

The three pyramid temples at Giza integrate the idea of Φ in the form of golden rectangles with overwhelming force, or consisteny. I believe that you haven't seen an effect quite like this yet. I am certain that many will agree that this phenomenon constitutes Proof.
Meanwhile, I've done a lot of wobbling on the web, and there seem to be a lot of sites alleging that Φ comes up regularly in ancient Egyptian temples, but none give any specification except:
http://www.egypt-tehuti.org/articles/sacred-geometry.html
Moustafa Gadalla says:"Many Ancient Egyptian plans of temples and tombs, throughout the history of Ancient Egypt, show along their longitudinal axis and transversely, dimensions in cubits of 1.72' (0.523 m), giving “in clear” consecutive terms of the Summation Series 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610,"
and
"There is evidence about the knowledge of the Summation Series, ever since the Pyramid (erroneously known as mortuary) Temple of Khafra (Chephren), at Giza, built in 2500 BCE, i.e. about 3700 years before Fibonacci.

The essential points of the temple [shown herein] comply with the Summation Series, which reaches the figure of 233 cubits in its total length, as measured from the pyramid, with TEN consecutive numbers of the series. "

Unfortunately for Gadalla's claim, only two of these ten consecutive levels vertically up the temple work, the 34, and 55 cubits levels, if we take the width of the temple to be 89 cubits. The others are too far off for my own standards. The 34 cubit level is also nicely divided in half.
Naturally, the level 55 cubits going west into the temple creates the golden rectangle with the temple's breadth.
I am not sure who had authored these observations as the site asks you to re-discover. I wonder if it is Schawaller de Lubicz, whose analysis of Egyptian gates Gadalla also mention.
With the info on Φ in the ancient temples of Egypt being so scarce, I don't mind discoveving the facts for myself. Today, for instance, I imported a diagram of the valley temple of Khafre into CAD for geometrical testing. Guess what? The valley temple belies none of the ideas of its sibling temple nearer the pyramid! This took me by surprise, I must admit, the second pyramid temple instilled many expectations in me. Aw well..
At any rate, I'd love to check Lubicz's work, but it does not seem readily available. Exactly, how much of his geometrical analysis is suppressed?

[Jiri]

Jiri, you ought to read this (http://skeptically.org/skepticism/id15.html). It might clear up a few things for you.

'Luthon64

Promptly, I rushed off expecting to see an analysis of a temple's architecture for Φ in some respect, such as presence of an inordinate number of co-ordinated golden rectangles. Instead, what do I find? A recount of pyramidology, which has nothing to do with my factual work. How divorced from reality can you get?

[Jiri]

It is curious, but when I look at Jiri's drawings, I only see completely arbitrarily placed lines. The often seem completely disconnected from features on the buildings, and when not, those features seem arbitrarily chosen.

I would suggest that by the same methods, it would be possible to find practically any ratio or constant in every building of the world.

You are definitely in error. I am presently looking at the floor-plan of Khephren's valley temple (next to the Sphinx), and I cannot find any signs of the work being organized on ANY golden-section principles. That's quite a contrast to the three pyramid temples, and frankly, not what I expected. But it does prove you wrong. If only you weren't so religious and overoptimistic with regards to what you think being infallible ideas applicable to everybody. Only Khrustchev measures the world with his own shoe..
You mentioned my method, it's nothing mysterious but rather simple and effective: Once there is a plan with a lot of rectangularity (temples), the diagonals of golden rectangles can be applied to any corner, immediately revealing any other corners participating in the game.
Simple, effective, expeditious.

[jsfisher]

The three pyramid temples at Giza integrate the idea of Φ in the form of golden rectangles with overwhelming force, or consisteny. I believe that you haven't seen an effect quite like this yet. I am certain that many will agree that this phenomenon constitutes Proof.

Keep in mind, it cannot properly be construed as scientific proof. We have been around on this one before: You have declined to construct a falsifiable hypothesis and to follow any of the other basic principles of the scientific method.

<snip>
"Many Ancient Egyptian plans of temples and tombs, throughout the history of Ancient Egypt, show along their longitudinal axis and transversely, dimensions in cubits of 1.72' (0.523 m), giving “in clear” consecutive terms of the Summation Series 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610,"
and
"There is evidence about the knowledge of the Summation Series, ever since the Pyramid (erroneously known as mortuary) Temple of Khafra (Chephren), at Giza, built in 2500 BCE, i.e. about 3700 years before Fibonacci.

The Fibonacci sequence doesn't start with 2 as its first term. It correctly begins with 0 and 1 as the first two elements. The point may seem minor, but when you cite a source claiming an ancient temple in harmony with the Fibonacci numbers, the credibility of the citation is diminished when simple mistakes such as this are made.

[Molinaro]

Jiri, I went back to take a second look at your site and I'm left with the same questions.

Some of your lines line up in obvious ways with the underlying pyramid structure. Other lines only line up with lines drawn by you.

Please, give us a sequence of pictures as follows:

1) Clean image with nothing added by you.
2) The same image with your 1st addition, and it's justification for it's position.
3) The next image with your next addition, and it's justification.
4) etc...

Please show us how you built up your large number of lines and arcs and circles so that we can understand and agree with your justifications for each addition.

[Jiri]

Keep in mind, it cannot properly be construed as scientific proof. We have been around on this one before: You have declined to construct a falsifiable hypothesis and to follow any of the other basic principles of the scientific method.
.
Four simple questions - do you see the rectangles I strive to show in the three temples? Do they follow lines of walls? Are they numerous enough to show intent on the architect's part? What else do you need? Italian dressing?
.

The Fibonacci sequence doesn't start with 2 as its first term. It correctly begins with 0 and 1 as the first two elements. The point may seem minor, but when you cite a source claiming an ancient temple in harmony with the Fibonacci numbers, the credibility of the citation is diminished when simple mistakes such as this are made.

I did not cite this source in support of my theory at all. To the contrary, I reported checking it and finding it to be wrong. I don't know what to think of your strange reaction.

[Jiri]

Jiri, I went back to take a second look at your site and I'm left with the same questions.

Some of your lines line up in obvious ways with the underlying pyramid structure. Other lines only line up with lines drawn by you.

Please, give us a sequence of pictures as follows:

1) Clean image with nothing added by you.
2) The same image with your 1st addition, and it's justification for it's position.
3) The next image with your next addition, and it's justification.
4) etc...

Please show us how you built up your large number of lines and arcs and circles so that we can understand and agree with your justifications for each addition.

Why don't you pick one diagram, and we can discuss it point by point, and if need be, I'll gladly produce the individual frames for each stage of creating such a diagram. It would be too much to do this for the whole study, I expect that the reader has to make some effort, too.

[Zep]

Here's an offer for you, Jiri.

I will be in Egypt later this year, and will be going to Giza. You tell me what you want measured, and I will try to find out what the EXACT measurements are. Can't promise anything, but I will try.

Deal?

[Jiri]

Here's an offer for you, Jiri.

I will be in Egypt later this year, and will be going to Giza. You tell me what you want measured, and I will try to find out what the EXACT measurements are. Can't promise anything, but I will try.

Deal?

Lucky you! Don't need anything from Egypt at the moment, but let me know when you plan on going to Baalbek, or Nazca.
Just on the off-chance you are a frequent flier to Mars, how about hi-res pics of the Face? :)

[Anacoluthon64]

Promptly, I rushed off expecting to see an analysis of a temple's architecture for Φ in some respect, such as presence of an inordinate number of co-ordinated golden rectangles. Instead, what do I find? A recount of pyramidology, which has nothing to do with my factual work. How divorced from reality can you get?In other words, the obvious parallels to your own work escape you. Gardner's treatment of the Washington Monument throws up a plethora of fives and fiveness, but that hardly means that the designers put these things there consciously and deliberately. And, curiously, five is, among many other things, also inherent in Φ, pentagrams, Penrose tilings and is also the number of Platonic Solids! Just what were those designers thinking of?

It has long been known (http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~demo5337/s97b/art.htm) that, for example, a rectangle with side lengths in the ratio close to Φ is quite pleasing to most people's eye (http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibInArt.html), so it isn't surprising that we should find it (or values close to it) abundantly and a posteriori in assorted artful designs by humans. Therefore, rather than showing lots and lots of contrived instances in which it apparently occurs, you will have to present an independent line of evidence that corroborates your contention that the pyramid designers used Φ quite consciously in their designs instead of merely following what looked good. For example, an ancient Egyptian diagram involving a pyramid and indicating twice the ratio of the radii of circumscribed to inscribed circles of a regular pentagon would do nicely.

Also, there are far more efficient ways of approximating Φ than the Fibonacci sequence, ways that require somewhat less ingenuity than measuring to an accuracy of one part in a million or better.

Our Inheritance is a classic of its kind. Few books illustrate so beautifully the ease with which an intelligent man, passionately convinced of a theory, can manipulate his subject matter in such a way as to make it conform to previously held opinions.


'Luthon64

[Molinaro]

Hi Jiri, how about that diagram #12 that you refered to in your 'return post'?

Let's go through it step by step, please. I'm certain that you would have a much better chance of getting some agreement by going through the process of showing us how you built up your diagram.

[Jiri]

Hi Jiri, how about that diagram #12 that you refered to in your 'return post'?

Let's go through it step by step, please. I'm certain that you would have a much better chance of getting some agreement by going through the process of showing us how you built up your diagram.

Excellent choice, one that I would make myself.
I'll get started on it later today, kind of busy right now.

[Jiri]

In other words, the obvious parallels to your own work escape you. Gardner's treatment of the Washington Monument throws up a plethora of fives and fiveness, but that hardly means that the designers put these things there consciously and deliberately. And, curiously, five is, among many other
things, also inherent in Φ, pentagrams, Penrose tilings and is also the number of Platonic Solids! Just what were those designers thinking of?

Just like the medieval cathedrals had established design traditions, the Washington obelisk was probably designed with a lot of thought given to its sacred aspects. If 'fiveness' really is consistently expressed in the monument, then it was designed in, not much doubt about it. This is at any rate a bad example for you to choose. And, yes, that article by Gardner tells me nothing new, as I have been aware of the issues mentioned for quite some time.

It has long been known (http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~demo5337/s97b/art.htm) that, for example, a rectangle with side lengths in the ratio close to Φ is quite pleasing to most people's eye (http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibInArt.html), so it isn't surprising that we should find it (or values close to it) abundantly and a posteriori in assorted artful designs by humans.

Known? You said known? How would you know it?
It has been alleged!
I have a confession to make - I am unable to recognize, to differentiate a golden rectangle from a bunch of similar yet inexact rectangles. I am sure the same goes for thee and Bobby McGuy :) Perhaps, that's why I resort to exact measurements in CAD, rather than waiting for that warm an' fuzzy feeling before yelling BINGO, when looking at some rectangles.
What you propose is serious quackery: the architects got all these measured relations in without measuring, what baloney, and besides these rectangles are nested in various ways, so you or anybody else would have absolutely no clue as to what is what just from looking and intuiting.

Therefore, rather than showing lots and lots of contrived instances in which it apparently occurs, you will have to present an independent line of evidence that corroborates your contention that the pyramid designers used Φ quite consciously in their designs instead of merely following what looked good. For example, an ancient Egyptian diagram involving a pyramid and indicating twice the ratio of the radii of circumscribed to inscribed circles of a regular pentagon would do nicely.

If you were right to any degree then why does not the sibling valley temple show the same plethora of Φ as the Khephren's temple DESPITE a plethora of rectangles, which are kind of similar but just not close enough?
According to you, this should have been automatic, after all it was the same designers for both temples. So, your theory, or explanation of Φ in the three pyramid temples is hopelessly flawed. Try again. I am pleased however that you don't deny that what I am showing really does exist, and for that - thank you.



Also, there are far more efficient ways of approximating Φ than the Fibonacci sequence, ways that require somewhat less ingenuity than measuring to an accuracy of one part in a million or better.

'Luthon64

I lost you there - what are you talking about? Who's measuring ruins with a microscope?

[jsfisher]

.
Four simple questions - do you see the rectangles I strive to show in the three temples? Do they follow lines of walls? Are they numerous enough to show intent on the architect's part? What else do you need? Italian dressing?

In a word, no.

I do recall you coming to this forum absolutely sure of yourself and your methods and your conclusions. Until fairly recently you were unwavering in your conviction. Then, unexpectedly, you vanish for a period of time only to return with different insight and different, revised methods.

Implicitly, you are admitting you were previously wrong even though you were dead-certain of your facts then. Now, after you have applied this new approach, you are equally dead-certain.

So, why should I accept your post-epiphany insight rather than your pre-epiphany insight? What makes one credible over the other?

[Jiri]

In a word, no.

I do recall you coming to this forum absolutely sure of yourself and your methods and your conclusions. Until fairly recently you were unwavering in your conviction. Then, unexpectedly, you vanish for a period of time only to return with different insight and different, revised methods.


Oh, I am never sure of myself, my methods and my conclusions. There is always room for improvement, that statement is widely applicable, even to plausible research.
There is no reason apparent to me why you should think that I don't stand behind my analysis of La Marche - the advanced mathematics encoded into Stone Age art, or my analysis of the Nazca monkey glyph linking it to La Marche directly (and unmistakably), or my analysis of the "Abydos Helicopter".
It was the Abydos Helicopter, which made me notice the diagrams of the three Giza pyramid temples, and the potential for the golden rectangles there. If you miss the connection, the Abydos Helicopter is about Golden Section, and golden rectangles play the starring role since they are similarly abundant there as in, let's say the second pyramid temple. So, there goes your post-epiphany insight, it was my hypothesis that since there are so many golden rectangles in the Abydos Helicopter, I shouldn't be surprised at finding a significant quantity in the pyramid temples' floor-plans. Nevertheless, my surprise was considerable, because the hypothesis was wildly successful.
Not only is there a significant quantity of golden rectangles, there is great abundance of those there.



Implicitly, you are admitting you were previously wrong even though you were dead-certain of your facts then. Now, after you have applied this new approach, you are equally dead-certain.

Silence implies silence, not much else, I did not go absent - you did, you and the others. Let me remind you - last we were talking about the construction of the pentagram (read regular five-pointed star) with the most simplicity. The discussion began with me stating that I believe the Nazca monkey has taught me the simplest method of construction of the pentagram - you disagreed. You stated that you know one that is simpler, but you were wrong. We both had technical difficulties, but in the end, the Nazca monkey method of construction won out as really the one with the best simplicity - thirteen construction operations as opoposed to fifteen for your method. Then you stated that there are other such methods with the same simplicity (13), whereupon I asked that you provide an example.

That was it for you and the other 'skeptics'. You, and others left the discussion for the sake of venting your frustrations on the hapless David Jordan, and his 432 thread. Do you want me to count how much breath you and others wasted there while tip-toeing around me?
Believe me I was acutely aware of your antics, and I knew that I had a chance to rub 'youse guys' noses in the situation, but I chose not to take advantage of it. The thread was left for dead. Now that you had brought up an untrue version of events, you force me to respond with this reminder of those yonder days.



So, why should I accept your post-epiphany insight rather than your pre-epiphany insight? What makes one credible over the other?

Rather than toying with words, you ought to find one of those alleged constructions of the pentagram with as good simplicity as the Nazca monkey's method leads to. Or, do you admit that you were mistaken in your belief? Credibility rests in results..

[jsfisher]

There is no reason apparent to me why you should think that I don't stand behind my analysis of La Marche - the advanced mathematics encoded into Stone Age art, or my analysis of the Nazca monkey glyph linking it to La Marche directly (and unmistakably), or my analysis of the "Abydos Helicopter".

I was not commenting on your views expressed in other threads, just the view expressed here regarding the Giza temples.

So, there goes your post-epiphany insight, it was my hypothesis that since there are so many golden rectangles in the Abydos Helicopter....

Here is the post, from this thread about Giza temples, to which I was referring.

Well, Molinaro, you've chased me out of here for a while. Unfortunately I had to agree with your criticism of the very first diagram on my webpage, so I went back and looked at everything again critically. There was much to do - searching my soul, and the web in the next few weeks, as well as editing the article,
http://www.vejprty.com/pt.htm
and all that kept me away from here.

(Emphasis added.)
There is your confirmation of being MIA for a little bit, and there is your confirmation that you were wrong before, and there is your confirmation of a change in view.

Silence implies silence, not much else, I did not go absent

But you were absent, and you even admitted it, as cited above.

Let me remind you - last we were talking about the construction of the pentagram (read regular five-pointed star) with the most simplicity. The discussion began with me stating that I believe the Nazca monkey has taught me the simplest method of construction of the pentagram - you disagreed.

Not quite. My position expressed in that thread is now and has been that phi is a simple ratio likely to occur naturally without the deliberate intend of "prehistory" mathematicians. I demonstrated a simple square plus semi-circle construction which just happened to have phi embedded. It was you that pooh-poohed the construction and wandered off on a number-of-steps tangent to construct phi and then pentagrams.

By the way, therein was another example where one adamant position (number of steps "documented" in the Nazca monkey drawing) morphed into a new adamant position (fewer steps) once your first position was shown to be wrong.


So, two points remain: Your investigations are not scientific (including but not limited to a heavy dose of experimenter's bias), and you are sufficiently flexible in your methods to adapt them as necessary to maintain the desired result.

[Jiri]

Hi Jiri, how about that diagram #12 that you refered to in your 'return post'?

Let's go through it step by step, please. I'm certain that you would have a much better chance of getting some agreement by going through the process of showing us how you built up your diagram.

My apologies for the delay, but the first diagram is up.
http://www.vejprty.com/abyhelic.htm
Go to Diag.13, and the Diag.12a is now 13a.
*
I was distracted by a new wrinkle - there is a way to determine what the architect's measuring units were, and this study is now incorporated into the article. I am going to produce another example to continue our systematic look at my methods tonight, or more likely tomorrow.
Pleasant, or at least interesting browsing!

[Jiri]

I was not commenting on your views expressed in other threads, just the view expressed here regarding the Giza temples.
Here is the post, from this thread about Giza temples, to which I was referring.

(Emphasis added.)
There is your confirmation of being MIA for a little bit, and there is your confirmation that you were wrong before, and there is your confirmation of a change in view.

But of course! I just never thought that you were going to trifle about things I myself admitted. Yes, I was gone for a while working on the subject, which was recently new to me. What's wrong with that?
And, yes, I let Molinaro know that I had agreed with his criticism, and that I was indeed wrong on that single point. Promptly, I removed the pertinent part. You make it look however as if I recanted along the whole front.. So, what are you trying to prove?
.


My position expressed in that thread is now and has been that phi is a simple ratio likely to occur naturally without the deliberate intend of "prehistory" mathematicians. I demonstrated a simple square plus semi-circle construction which just happened to have phi embedded. It was you that pooh-poohed the construction and wandered off on a number-of-steps tangent to construct Phi and then pentagrams.
.
Phi is indeed a simple ratio, but it leads into complicated applications. When it occurs involuntarily as you say, it will stay simple and isolated. Mysteriously, you try to apply the first case as explanation for cases, where the creator had worked with golden section deliberately, in the process creating something much above the primitive level.
And so, as we wondered off to numbers of steps needed to construct the regular 5-pointed star, you stated that the Nazca monkey's way of doing it is not the way with the best simplicity, or number of construction operations needed. In that you were definitely wrong from the get-go, as the ending proves. You stated that there are other ways to do the same with equal simplicity. You have never corrected yourself on that, while we (Randi's skeptical readership) are still waiting to see your example.
Like I said, you and others went absent off the original thread at that same time - not me - and, I thought this was what you referred to, while trying to twist the facts. How was I to know that you want to squeeze some capital out of something obviously above the table, the fact that I admitted to being wrong, and correcting myself. What's wrong with that? I did not present the erroneous thing adamantly, as if it were perfect to begin with, did I?
How come I had made that mistake? Most likely my eyesight was playing tricks on me after a long period of staring at the screen. It is a simple matter, when my eyes got rested, I saw the mistake myself and made amends. That's perfectly normal, and I assure you that if you can show me any similar mistakes, I will own up to making them - and make amends.



By the way, therein was another example where one adamant position (number of steps "documented" in the Nazca monkey drawing) morphed into a new adamant position (fewer steps) once your first position was shown to be wrong.


As a matter of fact, you made me waver in my conviction with your claims, and this was stated in my posts. I was no longer sure that this method had the best simplicity since you yourself said so. All I knew at that time that the particular construction is indicated in the Nazca monkey's design, but I was unsure as to why. After investigating, I was able to make corrections and to defend my original point - the method is indeed the one with best simplicity, which is most likely the reason why it is there. My first position was shown to be correct. You were shown to be wrong.
As to the Temples & Golden Section my position is still backed by a number of examples. Can you stay off word-games and produce concrete criticism? I will be happy to react, and analyze what and who is wrong.

So, two points remain: Your investigations are not scientific (including but not limited to a heavy dose of experimenter's bias), and you are sufficiently flexible in your methods to adapt them as necessary to maintain the desired result.

Everyone is said to suffer from experimenter's bias. It is therefore important to me that I strive to eliminate as much of it as I consciously can. It is not my wish to trick anybody, including myself.

to maintain the desired result:

If that were my attitude, it would put limits on my research, as it could not progress basing on wrong observations and conclusions. So, yeah, JSF, anybody can make mistakes, myself including. But, not everyone is willing to see and admit them. Are you? :)

[Zep]

Lucky you! Don't need anything from Egypt at the moment, but let me know when you plan on going to Baalbek, or Nazca.
Just on the off-chance you are a frequent flier to Mars, how about hi-res pics of the Face? :)Don't be a bigger supercilious and unctious twerp than you already are, please. I was not rude to you, so I don't expect you to be rude to me.

We really ARE going to Egypt in a few months, we really ARE going to Giza and the pyramids and temples there (and other places in Egypt as well, of course), and the offer to you was quite genuine. At the very least, I will try to provide some hi-res pictures of the places you are referring to in your diatribe, and also try to get some measurements (that may be a lot harder).

Now... I'll try this just one more time:

Are you going to accept my offer?

[jsfisher]

But of course! I just never thought that you were going to trifle about things I myself admitted. Yes, I was gone for a while working on the subject, which was recently new to me. What's wrong with that?

That you were gone wasn't particularly important. That you changed your evidence during the absence was.

And, yes, I let Molinaro know that I had agreed with his criticism, and that I was indeed wrong on that single point. Promptly, I removed the pertinent part. You make it look however as if I recanted along the whole front.. So, what are you trying to prove?

Accepting criticism and accepting new information is laudable. In fact, reconciling current observation with prior hypothesis is a fundamental scientific process.

However, my observation was with the passion with which you held your approach prior to Molinaro's comments and now after.

Phi is indeed a simple ratio, but it leads into complicated applications. When it occurs involuntarily as you say, it will stay simple and isolated.

...I believe I said unintentionally...

Mysteriously, you try to apply the first case as explanation for cases, where the creator worked with golden section deliberately, in the process creating something much above the primitive level.

That it were deliberate is an assumption on your part. It is an assumption you are unwilling to form into an hypothesis and submit to formal scientific investigation.

And so, as we wondered off to numbers of steps needed to construct the regular 5-pointed star, you stated that the Nazca monkey's way of doing it is not the way with the best simplicity, or number of construction operations needed. In that you were definitely wrong from the get-go, as the ending proves.

No, I stated what you said the monkey revealed was not the simplest construction. As simpler constructions were presented, you redefined the monkey revelation.

Everyone is said to suffer from experimenter's bias.

Yours is singularly significant.

It is therefore important to me that I strive to eliminate as much of it as I consciously can. It is not my wish to trick anybody including myself.

If that be true, then formulate a falsifiable hypothesis, then submit it to experimental scrutiny.

So, yeah, JSF, anybody can make mistakes, me including. But, not everyone is willing to see and admit them. Are you? :)

Yes, I sure am. You will even find evidence of that in one of your threads.

[Jiri]

Don't be a bigger supercilious and unctious twerp than you already are, please. I was not rude to you, so I don't expect you to be rude to me.

We really ARE going to Egypt in a few months, we really ARE going to Giza and the pyramids and temples there (and other places in Egypt as well, of course), and the offer to you was quite genuine. At the very least, I will try to provide some hi-res pictures of the places you are referring to in your diatribe, and also try to get some measurements (that may be a lot harder).

Now... I'll try this just one more time:

Are you going to accept my offer?

I really did think you were kidding, not about going to Egypt, but about your helpfulness. My Apologies. i wasn't trying to be rude, just humorous. At least I didn't call you any names, such as "twerp". Ah well.
Getting better specifications and drawings of any ancient Egyptian temples would be tremendous - I accept your offer, of course. Thanks for the goodwill, Zep.

[steenkh]

http://www.vejprty.com/abyhelic.htm
More complete poppycock! Anybody who has studied the egyptian language can readily read this and recognise the signs - and there is no helicopter involved.

As for finding the golden ratio in this text, I can assure you that the Egyptians did not work like you think. They tended to arrange the signs in squares, which has happened here, too. Your analysis just shows that it is possible to find the golden ratio in just about anything, if there is no limit to how many more or less arbitrary lines you are willing to draw.

[Jiri]

More complete poppycock! Anybody who has studied the egyptian language can readily read this and recognise the signs - and there is no helicopter involved.

Dealing with essentially the same statement is a big part of the above mentioned article. That you should ignore all that and simply insist on going right back to the starting point is just too funny.


As for finding the golden ratio in this text, I can assure you that the Egyptians did not work like you think. They tended to arrange the signs in squares, which has happened here, too. Your analysis just shows that it is possible to find the golden ratio in just about anything, if there is no limit to how many more or less arbitrary lines you are willing to draw.

You are trying to falsify the meaning of my objective factual observations without supplying any of your own. It might be more productive for you to just twiddle your thumbs.

[Jiri]

..We really ARE going to Egypt in a few months, we really ARE going to Giza and the pyramids and temples there (and other places in Egypt as well, of course)..

Zep, upon a second look, your expedition sounds promising. May I mention that if you get a chance, a look at the context of the Abydos helicopter, and a better look at the controversial glyphs themselves would be of much merit to solving those controversies?
I would also be happy to host such materials on my Vejprty.com site since I am nowhere near my storage limit.

[steenkh]

You are trying to falsify the meaning of my objective factual observations without supplying any of your own. It might be more productive for you to just twiddle your thumbs.
OK here is the evidence:
http://www.vejprty.com/abydgs.gif
This is just a piece of text superimposed on another piece of text, and they have tried to arrange it nicely into squares just like the Egyptians have always done. You make some heavy inference out of the size and placement of the 't' (the little half-circle - and yes, it is always a 'perfect' half-circle, or the painter would have been sloppy), but the 't' could not have been placed anywhere else, and for that matter, neither could any of the other letters. the idea that the golden ratio have been placed there by intent, and not by accident, is ludicrous. You could have taken any Egyptian text, or for that matter any picture in the whole world and find your golden ratio if you draw enogh circles and squares all over the place.

And from your previous work, I know that you would never fail to do so, if you look hard enough.

[BlackKat]

Did anyone see the second picture at Jiri's site captioned:
"The girl could be almost completely dismantled into sections representing machines. Two legs as planes, left thigh as a sailing ship, right thigh as perhaps a submerine, the torso as a lens with a pyramid inside, the lens being further divisible into a flying saucer and a fighter like aircraft."
And think of Voltron?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltron

[Zep]

I really did think you were kidding, not about going to Egypt, but about your helpfulness. My Apologies. i wasn't trying to be rude, just humorous. At least I didn't call you any names, such as "twerp". Ah well.
Getting better specifications and drawings of any ancient Egyptian temples would be tremendous - I accept your offer, of course. Thanks for the goodwill, Zep.Thank you. I will see what I can get...for everyone.

Zep, upon a second look, your expedition sounds promising. May I mention that if you get a chance, a look at the context of the Abydos helicopter, and a better look at the controversial glyphs themselves would be of much merit to solving those controversies?
I would also be happy to host such materials on my Vejprty.com site since I am nowhere near my storage limit.We won't be going to Abydos. It's too far off the beaten track for us to get to in the time we have available.

However I would like your views as to why the Egyptians chose to portray an Apache attack helicopter, and not, say, a Chinook.

http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/history/aircraft/egypt/Egypt_2000_a.jpg
http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/history/aircraft/egypt/Egypt_2000_a.jpg

[steenkh]

http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/history/aircraft/egypt/Egypt_2000_a.jpg
http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/history/aircraft/egypt/Egypt_2000_a.jpg
Good question.

I studied old Egyptian (Middle Kingdom) for 3 years, and although I have forgotten most by now, the letters are immediately obvious to me, just it would be to any English reader who sees two texts superimposed on each other: there is no helicopter involved. Jiri and Co. is making pareidolia into an art!

[steenkh]

Many years ago, I actually searched for one of von Däniken's misinterpretations in the temple at Dendera. According to v. Däniken, there was a påicture showing people in insulated suits holding big electric light bulbs. As suspected, when we finally located the actual picture in a deep basement of the temple (in a passage where we had to crawl, using candles and with bats swishing past our ears), it was immediately obvious that the "protective suits" were the Egyptian way of rendering two persons standing behind each other doing exactly the same thing. In 3D it was even more obvious than in the line drawing that v. Däniken printed, and as far as I can remember, v. Däniken had also extended the double to surround the figures, instead of being on only one side of the figures, indicating two persons standing behind each other.

I find the Abydos "helicopter" to be an obvious palimpsest, and I would not be surprised if it is even more obvious if you are looking at the actual 3D inscription.

[Jiri]

Did anyone see the second picture at Jiri's site captioned:
Originally Posted by http://www.vejprty.com/abyhelic.htm
"The girl could be almost completely dismantled into sections representing machines. Two legs as planes, left thigh as a sailing ship, right thigh as perhaps a submerine, the torso as a lens with a pyramid inside, the lens being further divisible into a flying saucer and a fighter like aircraft."


And think of Voltron?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltron

There is an interesting parallel to this image, one that also breaks down into components, but biological, i.e., animals, instead of machines.
http://www.vejprty.com/xrayride.htm
All these elements add themselves into a contrasting area of the image, which looks like a man mounted on horseback. It was only recently that I came across a mention of an Egyptian god (forgot who exactly) holding some snakes in his hand. Naturally, all that is supposed to hold symbolical meaning. It is interesting to note that I had made the observation long ago that the horseman of Les Trois Fréres also holds, or rather wields two snakes in his hand, a fact I also ascribed symbolical meaning. Is this another case of descent of theological elements from the Magdalenian France to Egypt?

[Jiri]

OK here is the evidence:
http://www.vejprty.com/abydgs.gif
This is just a piece of text superimposed on another piece of text, and they have tried to arrange it nicely into squares just like the Egyptians have always done. You make some heavy inference out of the size and placement of the 't' (the little half-circle - and yes, it is always a 'perfect' half-circle, or the painter would have been sloppy), but the 't' could not have been placed anywhere else, and for that matter, neither could any of the other letters. the idea that the golden ratio have been placed there by intent, and not by accident, is ludicrous. You could have taken any Egyptian text, or for that matter any picture in the whole world and find your golden ratio if you draw enogh circles and squares all over the place.

And from your previous work, I know that you would never fail to do so, if you look hard enough.

You seem to insinuate that any time there is the same symbol, it has to be placed into a golden proportion with the text immediately on the left, because that is the case with the Abydos Helicopter. Thus, you have identified a canon of Egyptian art dictating usage of golden section in all such cases. Ludicrous - isn't it?
.

You could have taken any Egyptian text, or for that matter any picture in the whole world and find your golden ratio if you draw enogh circles and squares all over the place.
.
That's just malicious slander on your part, mister. You want proof? Let's take your "enogh circles and squares all over the place", implying an irrational chaotic style and compare it to my image, which you show above.
First, let's count the elements added by me:
1: there is a horizontal axis, which coincides with the glyphs, as anyone can clearly see, namely the above mentioned circle, plus the bottom lines of some columns, and tops of some triangles. This is legitimate.
2-5: Four vertical lines, each coinciding with verticals in the glyphs, and each a golden section line at the same time. These lines prove the spatial distribution of the glyphs in the golden proportion.
6: a small circle on the right, which completes the semi-circle glyph - again a legitimate action.
7-10: Four lines of a square. By the way do you remember JSF' semicircle over a square? Well, you have exactly the same position here, except that Fischer's square below the semi-circle is here a part of the square, whose diagonal is twice the diagonal of the semi-circle. The square itself could have been replaced by a circle, but then one could not perceive that the glyphic square at the bottom left represents the same size. One, or the other is a necessary preliminary step to finding the golden ratio for the semi-circle, or the half-diagonal of the square. This was a legitimate action again.
11: Big circle concentric with the semi-circle. This circle is absolutely necessary again, as it marks out the golden proportioning in the position. I could have used it and then leave it out, but then how could readers discern that I did not fudge the golden proportions?
12: The small circle on the left, which is exactly the same in radius as the semi-circle was unnecessary since it is there just to show readers that the distance it covers is equal to the distance covered by the semi-circle. I could have skipped it with no harm done to the objective.
So, overall, the mere presence of one necessary square, plus one instrumental circle translates into "enough squares and circles all over the place."? How typical of my critics, although your way of dealing with my discovery is particularly spineless, and devoid of scientific integrity.

[Jiri]

..

I find the Abydos "helicopter" to be an obvious palimpsest, and I would not be surprised if it is even more obvious if you are looking at the actual 3D inscription.

It looks like a palimpsest, but I have made a number of comments and reservations to the fact in my web article, which you seem to be happy to ignore. I could quote them all here, but why should I repeat myself?

[Jiri]

Thank you. I will see what I can get...for everyone.

We won't be going to Abydos. It's too far off the beaten track for us to get to in the time we have available.

However I would like your views as to why the Egyptians chose to portray an Apache attack helicopter, and not, say, a Chinook.

http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/history/aircraft/egypt/Egypt_2000_a.jpg
http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/history/aircraft/egypt/Egypt_2000_a.jpg

On the other hand, why does even the basic glyph look like a leg, nature's high tech transportation, and why does that symbol come in a shape, which we have seen proven as a crucial component in a symbol of a helicopter? Why does everybody recognize the symbol? Why do other glyphs in the immediate vicinity look like symbols of machines? Why are some hieroglyphic components of the alleged palimpsest strangely distorted, for instance the hand? Is it so they could create the result we see? Why the golden section? Why could neither set of the hieroglyphs composing the palimpsest illustrate a particular geometrical construction, which the whole, the alleged palimpsest illustrates so systematically? Because half of the unified design would be missing? Why are some things left over, after we remove the two sets of writing from the position? Why be an exception to the rule in the incredibly outstanding workmanship of this temple? Why the theft of father's achievements by the adoring son, who had completed his father's temple, preserving all his father's other credits immortalized on the panels there? Why the token of having to be exposed in betrayal auspiciously planned for the future, after the plaster crumbles into dust? Why do I find unmistakable evidence of planning with the golden section in the architecture of other temples at Giza? Why to such an intense degree? Why is the second pyramid temple a maze of golden rectangles? What power was ascribed to this golden section labyrinth? What did it do for the living, who attended there, such as cats? :)

[Anacoluthon64]

Just like the medieval cathedrals had established design traditions, the Washington obelisk was probably designed with a lot of thought given to its sacred aspects. If 'fiveness' really is consistently expressed in the monument, then it was designed in, not much doubt about it.Obviously, you haven't paid adequate attention: the "fiveness" is an artificial and apparent artefact, brought about by selecting only those aspects of the monument that seem to support its reality. In such a case, sheer volume does not constitute evidence.


This is at any rate a bad example for you to choose. And, yes, that article by Gardner tells me nothing new, as I have been aware of the issues mentioned for quite some time..Still you choose to ignore the lesson it aims to teach.


Known? You said known? How would you know it?Yes, I said "known." Or do you honestly claim that the ancients were ignorant of such simple geometrical shapes as are pleasing to the human eye?


I have a confession to make - I am unable to recognize, to differentiate a golden rectangle from a bunch of similar yet inexact rectangles.?Now you're finally getting it!


I am sure the same goes for thee and Bobby McGuy :) True enough, though that's "Bobby McGee."


Perhaps, that's why I resort to exact measurements in CAD, …The only way they can be "exact" is if they were so entered — directly or indirectly.


… rather than waiting for that warm an' fuzzy feeling before yelling BINGO, when looking at some rectangles.


What you propose is serious quackery: the architects got all these measured relations in without measuring, what baloney, …Please point out where I have proposed such a thing.


… and besides these rectangles are nested in various ways, so you or anybody else would have absolutely no clue as to what is what just from looking and intuiting.But you, of course, can. For how else would you have made this profound "discovery" sans "looking and intuiting?"


If you were right to any degree then why does not the sibling valley temple show the same plethora of Φ as the Khephren's temple DESPITE a plethora of rectangles, which are kind of similar but just not close enough?Fashions change. Building methodologies evolve, usually through trial and error. Actually, it's you who is left with the real difficulty: if Φ appears widely in one architecture, but is hardly there at all in one from a different period, where is the explicit record that explains the shift from non-Φ to Φ?


According to you, this should have been automatic, after all it was the same designers for both temples.Evidence?


So, your theory, or explanation of Φ in the three pyramid temples is hopelessly flawed.No, yours is and it will remain so until you can advance an independent line of evidence that clearly shows Φ to have been the designers' objective.


I lost you there - what are you talking about? Who's measuring ruins with a microscope?Apparently, you are: though 1.618034 is closer than 1.62 to Φ, neither is exactly Φ.

But here's (http://www.thehiddenrecords.com) a different take on pyramids, not just those in Egypt. Do you think this person is right? Why or why not?

'Luthon64

[Jiri]

<Snipped a lot to be answered later>

Apparently, you are: though 1.618034 is closer than 1.62 to Φ, neither is exactly Φ.

Yeah, but everybody knows that. I said Phi, and listed the first few decimals, just to give an idea of its value, followed by two dots to indicate that this number goes on from there. I have never claimed to be able to measure that accurately, that would be laughable.
.

But here's (http://www.thehiddenrecords.com) a different take on pyramids, not just those in Egypt. Do you think this person is right? Why or why not?

'Luthon64

I've looked at this guy's site recently, but I did not stay long. Had a good chuckle, when there was an admission that in the newest book by this scholar there is some crucial element regarding these star maps that was unavailable (undiscovered) in the previous book. Yet, where was this observation before? The prospective buyers were not told about the shortcoming. Was he worried about sales more than about truth?
Those are just tell-tale signs, however. What matters to me is that some free mason artist is taken as a source of secret ancient knowledge, and the probably random position of stars shown is then taken as a real starmap. Stars get rolled back in time until there is some result.
In Hancock's Fingerprints of the Gods, there is a chapter on the Orion reflection in Giza pyramids. The reader is told, how this reflection is exactly, and astoundingly accurate, when we roll the clock back to 10,500 BC, or so. Since there is an accompanying diagram in the book, I put the statement to test and found a sizable discrepancy between the claim and the reality. The diagram is damn inaccurate, and if that was the best fit these folks could find, they should toss the theory overboard. Instead, it seems they sold books by the million. This was years ago. I wrote up my observations for "sci.archaeology" usenet group, and you could probably still find it easily. If you think that my mind belies pale envy, because I am criticising, you are wrong, I do not envy authors of mistakes, whether they get paid for them or not.
My research really is nothing of the sort. Not many people are ready to admit it, but it is true, just the same. The least inclined to admit it are not declared skeptics like yourself, but rather stars of the genre like Hancock, Daniken, West, Bauval, and Hoagland. The promotion of my discoveries is not in their interest, if only because of the fact that they have ignored my work so completely over the lengthy time period. That would look bad on them.
I do get some moral support now and then from just common folks, who tell it like they see it.
http://www.meez.com/community.dm?page=forum&act=showtopic&tid=467237
Here is an excerpt from a conversation about my Abydos Helicopter findings:
" No kidding there... there is definatly somthing up with those glyphs though. The phi ratios just fit too good for it to be a coincidence."
Bad grammar, good sense:) So, normal people can see simple facts I see as well, which I find very encouraging and reassuring. Meanwhile you, or Daniken, or Hoagland, or JSF cannot perceive the same facts at all.. Hmm.

[jsfisher]

The phi ratios just fit too good for it to be a coincidence."
Bad grammar, good sense:)

That's an assumption that you have made; it is not a fact. It is an assumption you are unwilling to submit to scientific scrutiny, too.

So, normal people can see simple facts I see as well, which I find very encouraging and reassuring. Meanwhile you, or Daniken, or Hoagland, or JSF cannot perceive the same facts at all.. Hmm.

Again, you use the word, facts, where the correct word is something different. And it is not what we fail to perceive as fact, it is what we are unwilling to simply assume as fact. And that, my friend, is at the root of skepticism.

By the way, if you would care to advance your ideas as scientific, there are many people here very inclined to help you in that intellectual pursuit. As long as you continue on this line of "proof by assumption" however, you will meet with opposition.

ETA: Care to create a poll as to what "normal people" see as simple fact? You may be surprised at how alone you will be.

[wollery]

I'm going to assume for a moment that Jiri is correct, and that these temples were built to incorporate several golden ration rectangles.

What would this imply?

Well, simply put, it implies that the Egyptians of that period knew about the golden ratio.

What would them having that knowledge imply?

Nothing. They might have come across it by chance, just trial and error with different rectangles until they found one that looked pleasing. Someone might have done the maths. They might have got it from some other culture. They might have got it from aliens, or Atlantis, or someone had a divinely inspired revelation. There's just no way to know, although I suspect the first option on that list is the most likely.

What you need to show, Jiri, is any evidence that they got it from some advanced civilization. That is your idea, isn't it? Outside of such evidence any argument about whether or not these rectangles are there is pretty moot. They might be there, they might not, but if they are it says nothing more than that they knew how to construct them.

[Jiri]

Just like the medieval cathedrals had established design traditions, the Washington obelisk was probably designed with a lot of thought given to its sacred aspects. If 'fiveness' really is consistently expressed in the monument, then it was designed in, not much doubt about it.

Obviously, you haven't paid adequate attention: the "fiveness" is an artificial and apparent artefact, brought about by selecting only those aspects of the monument that seem to support its reality. In such a case, sheer volume does not constitute evidence.
.
Obviously, someone had a long data sheet, which he studied minutely, and came away with observations of presumably accidental bias of the said monument towards "fiveness". Since I haven't seen complete data of the W.M., I cannot form a qualified opinion on it. What I know for sure is that someone qualified had designed the monument. This person was an architect, and so we may presume that he had a very good idea of the relationships between elements in major categories of the monument, such as dimensions, proportions, materials, etc.


This is at any rate a bad example for you to choose. And, yes, that article by Gardner tells me nothing new, as I have been aware of the issues mentioned for quite some time..

Still you choose to ignore the lesson it aims to teach.

Why would you say that? You insist on classifying my work as numerology, arithmetic and geometric. You must be unfamiliar with my work, or intellectually color-blind. On the other hand I perceive clearly the fundamental differences between my scientific efforts and numerology. Why don't you get in on step-by-step inspection of diagram 13a, which I am supposed to be reviewing together with Molinaro? Then we can judge in terms of specific categories, such as objective properties of the design.
.


Known? You said known? How would you know it?
.
Yes, I said "known." Or do you honestly claim that the ancients were ignorant of such simple geometrical shapes as are pleasing to the human eye?

So, how do you reconcile your opinion with your changed opinion below?


I have a confession to make - I am unable to recognize, to differentiate a golden rectangle from a bunch of similar yet inexact rectangles.
.
Now you're finally getting it!
.
Now, you are contradicting yourself. This is because sensing that some shapes are esthetically pleasing does not equal mathematical understanding of the geometry involved.

Originally Posted by Jiri
I am sure the same goes for thee and Bobby McGuy.

True enough, though that's "Bobby McGee."

If you say true enough then it was not a known fact :)

Originally Posted by Jiri
Perhaps, that's why I resort to exact measurements in CAD, …
The only way they can be "exact" is if they were so entered — directly or indirectly.

Why do you resort to truisms so much? It is clear that I am speaking of my own end of the research, how I take care of it. Using Autocad is superior in precision to using classical instruments. For instance, take my measurements of the temple with respect to its alleged Summation (Fibonacci) series. The rasterized image of the temple underneath is to a degree imperfect, but at least my methods do not introduce further imperfections. Unlike Moustafa Gadalla, I did not simply draw a scale with a thick color pencil next to the temple's diagram. The observations I produce are valid to the degree that the temple's diagram is valid. It is generally valid, I.E.S. Edwards diagram that is. Is it not?
If so, then the temple's architecture demonstrates harmonies. Whether these are intentional or not is secondary to the point - the design is harmonious in specific ways.


Originally Posted by Jiri … rather than waiting for that warm an' fuzzy feeling before yelling BINGO, when looking at some rectangles.
Originally Posted by Jiri
What you propose is serious quackery: the architects got all these measured relations in without measuring, what baloney, …
.
Please point out where I have proposed such a thing.

a) Since your platform is that Egyptians knew neither the Golden Section construction, nor Fibonacci series, the architect could not have intentionally worked the Golden Section in, i,e,, the profusion of golden rectangles. He must have done it without measuring according to you.
b) You stated that because Phi proportioning is pleasing to the human eye, humans had always tended towards expressing it in art and architecture without realizing it. The architect had worked the PHI in unknowingly, and yet, somehow it didn't clash with his conscious design objectives.

Originally Posted by Jiri
… and besides these rectangles are nested in various ways, so you or anybody else would have absolutely no clue as to what is what just from looking and intuiting.
.

But you, of course, can. For how else would you have made this profound "discovery" sans "looking and intuiting?"

It was good for a hint of possibility, but it was not knowledge. That's where mensuration comes in. Without it both the designer, and the viewer will not produce, nor identify a golden rectangle on a consistent basis.
CAD makes it possible to see how closely a rectangle given by any four walls comes to the golden rectangle.
It is too bad that you do not recognize that in order to oppose my analysis, you and others resort to unconventional assumptions. Without such assumptions going against empirical knowledge, it would not be possible to dismiss my findings.

Originally Posted by Jiri View Post
If you were right to any degree then why does not the sibling valley temple show the same plethora of Φ as the Khephren's temple DESPITE a plethora of rectangles, which are kind of similar but just not close enough?

Fashions change. Building methodologies evolve, usually through trial and error. Actually, it's you who is left with the real difficulty: if Φ appears widely in one architecture, but is hardly there at all in one from a different period, where is the explicit record that explains the shift from non-Φ to Φ?

Both temples are part of the same complex, and are considered contemporary by Egyptologist. Here again, you break conventions in order to defend them. You also contradict yourself when convenient. Now you say that "Fashions change", but just a while ago you operated with the notion of a Known tendency as explanations for the same phenomenon. It has to be one or the other. Which is it?
As to your last point, who in their right mind needs an explicit record explaining the presence of planning for the Golden Section in one temple and its absence in another? It is self-evident.

Originally Posted by Jiri View Post
According to you, this should have been automatic, after all it was the same designers for both temples.
.
Evidence?

So, Egyptologists are wrong in presuming the same as me?

Originally Posted by Jiri View Post
So, your theory, or explanation of Φ in the three pyramid temples is hopelessly flawed.

No, yours is and it will remain so until you can advance an independent line of evidence that clearly shows Φ to have been the designers' objective.

Showing that objective geometrical aspects of the temples convene to sophisticated design is sufficient to prove that this design is intentional, because conventional science says that the opposite is impossible.
You could not produce the same type of result without both mensuration, and intent.
Read what mathematicians have to say about it. Someone here recommended prof. Greenberg to me, and, believe me, his analysis and subsequent challenge to Hoagland re: "Cydonia's geometry" is impressive. One has to agree with his way of mathematical philosophy.
If it seems strange to you that I should be recommending Prof.Greenberg here, then perhaps you don't know that mathematicians see natural limits to how deep a system you can expect to find in random sets. How deep is deep enough? Well, nature does not emulate human intelligence, as it already has one of its own. Deep enough for you?

[Hokulele]

Using Autocad is superior in accuracy to using classical instruments.


More precise, not more accurate. GIGO.

[Jiri]

I'm going to assume for a moment that Jiri is correct, and that these temples were built to incorporate several golden ration rectangles.

Make it last. Might as well, no? Your attitude indicates that you see these rectangles then. Even JSF tacitly acknowledges seeing them, but he is unwilling to simply assume it as fact. I can understand that, it goes with the nature of skepticism as he says. In my opinion he suspects that giving an inch might break the dam. Today, it's the rectangles here, and tomorrow it's those at Abydos, and from there we are on our way to Nazca, and La Marche :)

What would this imply?

Well, simply put, it implies that the Egyptians of that period knew about the golden ratio.

A big yes.

What would them having that knowledge imply?

Nothing. They might have come across it by chance, just trial and error with different rectangles until they found one that looked pleasing. Someone might have done the maths. They might have got it from some other culture. They might have got it from aliens, or Atlantis, or someone had a divinely inspired revelation. There's just no way to know, although I suspect the first option on that list is the most likely.

What you need to show, Jiri, is any evidence that they got it from some advanced civilization. That is your idea, isn't it? Outside of such evidence any argument about whether or not these rectangles are there is pretty moot. They might be there, they might not, but if they are it says nothing more than that they knew how to construct them.

Exactly, and I am happy with that! The architect(s) gets due recognition for the intricate design. It is not just several rectangles as you say, it is the plethora of them. If you stroll at a given angle across the courtyard of the second temple, you are treading a magical promenade of golden rectangles, whose corners are all anchored to your line of march. I'd love to walk that line myself. What a tourist attraction!
Wollery, proof of ancient advanced civilisation is not my aim. That would be above my head. What I want is your recognition of the legitimacy of the methods I use to explore designs for hermetic geometry, such as the Giza pyramid temples. Because the designs are there. Damn the consequences!

[Anacoluthon64]

Look Jiri, your attempts at sidetracking, obfuscation and inconsistent argumentation are becoming more and more evident. On the one hand, you propose that the designers of the pyramid put Φ into their designs quite consciously and deliberately. For this proposal to be convincing, you have to first show that they were aware of Φ, independent of its occurrence, as you see it, in the architecture, but instead you show reams and reams of contrived hooey which you expect to be taken seriously. At the same time, you seem to believe that my thoughts in respect of the aesthetics of Φ-like rectangles automatically preclude conscious design and deliberate measurement.

On the other hand, you readily scorn the whacky thoughts of Wayne Herschel and other half-baked pyramid notions with a smarmy, facile ease that has little to do with reasoned argument. Moreover, you simply dismiss the requirement of accurate measurement when trying to establish your case for Φ. You yourself have hit your head on the nail when you put it thus:[S]ensing that some shapes are esthetically pleasing does not equal mathematical understanding of the geometry involved.What you seem not able or willing to comprehend is that this observation hardly excludes the likelihood that the dimensions (and thus the proportions) of such shapes were measured and used by the ancients in their constructions, without any direct knowledge of Φ itself. In addition, the design of a structure by human consciousness is anything but a "random set" so your appeal to "natural limits to how deep a system [one] can expect" therein is completely fatuous.

So you would be left with the problem of demonstrating that they knew about Φ, rather than a pleasing ratio of side lengths, even if every single ancient Egyptian rectangle ever found was "golden."

'Luthon64

[wollery]

Make it last. Might as well, no? Your attitude indicates that you see these rectangles then.I see the rectangles that you have drawn, but importantly, they aren't actually part of the temple. They are extrapolated from construction lines that you have made, following an (apparently) arbitrary set of rules. What you have shown is simply that if you follow your rules for making construction lines you get what seem to be rectangles with roughly the golden ratio. There is absolutely no way to know whether or not the Egyptian designers used these same construction lines.

If they did, then maybe they knew about the golden ratio. But even if they did use the same construction as you, that still doesn't show that they knew of any significance to the golden ratio. And if they did know it, and attached any significance to it, why didn't they make the spaces in the temples to the golden ratio values? Why the elaborate construction to hide the ratio in the design, requiring several levels of construction lines to reveal it?

Even JSF tacitly acknowledges seeing them, but he is unwilling to simply assume it as fact. I can understand that, it goes with the nature of skepticism as he says. In my opinion he suspects that giving an inch might break the dam.Or, he's simply trying to get at what I said above.

Today, it's the rectangles here, and tomorrow it's those at Abydos, and from there we are on our way to Nazca, and La Marche :)So you are trying to connect the temples with Abydos, Nazca and La Marche. Why? What is the significance? If not that these cultures had contact, or acquired knowledge from a previous civilization, then what?

A big yes.Actually, no.

It might imply that, if you could show that the Egyptians used the same construction lines as you, but I don't see any evidence for that at all.

Exactly, and I am happy with that! The architect(s) gets due recognition for the intricate design. It is not just several rectangles as you say, it is the plethora of them. If you stroll at a given angle across the courtyard of the second temple, you are treading a magical promenade of golden rectangles, whose corners are all anchored to your line of march. I'd love to walk that line myself. What a tourist attraction!So what's the point? That the temples are wonderfully constructed, to geometric patterns? Big wow. They were meant to be impressive, awe-inspiring places. I'd be disappointed if they weren't.

Wollery, proof of ancient advanced civilisation is not my aim. That would be above my head. What I want is your recognition of the legitimacy of the methods I use to explore designs for hermetic geometry, such as the Giza pyramid temples. Because the designs are there. Damn the consequences!The designs are on your computer, and in your head. It is vaguely possible that they were in the original design, but you have no evidence to show that they were. No contemporary documentary evidence. None of the actual spaces are golden rectangles. No construction lines etched into the stones themselves. No evidence at all. None. Not a sausage. Complete bubkis. Diddley squat. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Zero. A big fat nothing.

In summary, my assumption that you are right hasn't lasted. You have given no reason for it to do so.

[steenkh]

So you would be left with the problem of demonstrating that they knew about Φ, rather than a pleasing ratio of side lengths, even if every single ancient Egyptian rectangle ever found was "golden."
One point here: I have not seen a single example demonstrated by Jiri that showed a room with dimensions that were related to Φ. Instead, Φ is to be found in many places including lines that extend out of the rooms, and in the middle of rooms, none of which will be obvious to a person who is surveying the rooms.

[Anacoluthon64]

One point here: I have not seen a single example demonstrated by Jiri that showed a room with dimensions that were related to Φ. Instead, Φ is to be found in many places including lines that extend out of the rooms, and in the middle of rooms, none of which will be obvious to a person who is surveying the rooms.Yes, Jiri needs to provide something considerably less rareΦd.

'Luthon64

[Jiri]

One point here: I have not seen a single example demonstrated by Jiri that showed a room with dimensions that were related to Φ. Instead, Φ is to be found in many places including lines that extend out of the rooms, and in the middle of rooms, none of which will be obvious to a person who is surveying the rooms.

Anaco will find your words strangely familiar. Quoting myself to Anaco: "What you propose is serious quackery: the architects got all these measured relations in without measuring, what baloney, and besides [I]these rectangles are nested in various ways, so you or anybody else would have absolutely no clue as to what is what just from looking and intuiting.

Our observations coincide here. In fact, it seems that readily perceptible golden rectangle shapes in the floor-plans had been carefully avoided. The completion of any given g. rectangle there always hides on the other side of the wall. It means that Golden Section in these designs did not serve the purposes of visual pleasure of mortals who cannot see through walls, or who don't have the blueprints in front of them, but something, or someone else.
The same observation also bears directly on the notion that the cause for the presence of these rectangles there was the alleged human tendency to unintentionally create Golden Section in designs for visual pleasure.

[Jiri]

I see the rectangles that you have drawn, but importantly, they aren't actually part of the temple. They are extrapolated from construction lines that you have made, following an (apparently) arbitrary set of rules. What you have shown is simply that if you follow your rules for making construction lines you get what seem to be rectangles with roughly the golden ratio. There is absolutely no way to know whether or not the Egyptian designers used these same construction lines.

Your statement that edges of walls do not constitute construction lines is evidently untrue. It's that simple. If there was a blueprint then wall edges were construction lines in it.

If they did, then maybe they knew about the golden ratio. But even if they did use the same construction as you, that still doesn't show that they knew of any significance to the golden ratio. And if they did know it, and attached any significance to it, why didn't they make the spaces in the temples to the golden ratio values? Why the elaborate construction to hide the ratio in the design, requiring several levels of construction lines to reveal it?[/QUOTE]

See my other post. The Φ is not there to please mortal senses. They, the designers used it as they chose, without asking you.


The designs are on your computer, and in your head. It is vaguely possible that they were in the original design, but you have no evidence to show that they were.

You omit the fact that these golden rectangles are objective facts when you categorize the shapes created by lines of walls.
.
No contemporary documentary evidence. None of the actual spaces are golden rectangles. No construction lines etched into the stones themselves. No evidence at all. None. Not a sausage. Complete bubkis. Diddley squat. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Zero. A big fat nothing.

Do you always have to work yourself up like this before being able to ignore existing evidence?

[jsfisher]

You omit the fact that these golden rectangles are objective facts when you categorize the shapes created by lines of walls.

Do you always have to work yourself up like this before being able to ignore existing evidence?

(Emphasis added.)

If you find the your objective facts and existing evidence are so compelling, why not submit it all to scientific scrutiny to validate your claims?

[wollery]

Your statement that edges of walls do not constitute construction lines is evidently untrue. It's that simple. If there was a blueprint then wall edges were construction lines in it.I never said that. I said they were "(apparently) arbitrary". That is not the same thing at all. If you're going to debate someone in written form it's best not to attribute things to them that they didn't say, since it's very esy for others to check, and it doesn't look good for you to be doing it.

See my other post. The Φ is not there to please mortal senses. They, the designers used it as they chose, without asking you.
So why did they do it at all (assuming that they did)?

You omit the fact that these golden rectangles are objective facts when you categorize the shapes created by lines of walls. No, they are subjective, only becoming apparent when using your construction lines. And you have yet to show why your construction lines should be used, except that they apparently produce golden rectangles.

Do you always have to work yourself up like this before being able to ignore existing evidence?What evidence? That for certain ancient buildings you can make golden rectangles appear if you draw enough arbitrary construction lines? I'm not ignoring that. I just question what the point is and note that it has no bearing on what the designers might have originally intended. However, in the complete absence of any corroborating evidence you have nothing to show that the golden rectangles were their intent, which leaves your entire work as nothing more than an exercise in mental masturbation.

[steenkh]

Our observations coincide here. In fact, it seems that readily perceptible golden rectangle shapes in the floor-plans had been carefully avoided. The completion of any given g. rectangle there always hides on the other side of the wall. It means that Golden Section in these designs did not serve the purposes of visual pleasure of mortals who cannot see through walls, or who don't have the blueprints in front of them, but something, or someone else.
Or, more likely, the golden rectangles were never designed to be there at all: You have just found them by meticulous searching.The question is if there is any building or drawing of just a little complexity where you will not find
Φ.

The same observation also bears directly on the notion that the cause for the presence of these rectangles there was the alleged human tendency to unintentionally create Golden Section in designs for visual pleasure.
When I was young, I made many drawings of imaginary house plans. I never knew about the golden rectangle, but I am nevertheless sure some of those plans would have included one.

ETA: And when you use your "special" search methods to find golden rectangles in order to prove the existence of helicopters in a text that some ancient artist has corrected long ago because political circumstances necessitated new titles for the king, you are off your rockers! It may be news to you, but the Egyptians knew how to write, and they wrote a lot, but somehow they forgot to mention helicopters and other modern technology.

[Anacoluthon64]

Anaco will find your words strangely familiar. Quoting myself to Anaco: "What you propose is serious quackery: the architects got all these measured relations in without measuring, what baloney, and besides [i]these rectangles are nested in various ways, so you or anybody else would have absolutely no clue as to what is what just from looking and intuiting.Jiri, I've addressed this before: How, please, does ignorance of Φ exclude making measurements? Because that proposal is pure Φstiness (http://www.answers.com/feistiness), besides being a non sequitur.

'Luthon64

[Jiri]

Jiri, I've addressed this before: How, please, does ignorance of Φ exclude making measurements? Because that proposal is pure Φstiness (http://www.answers.com/feistiness), besides being a non sequitur.

'Luthon64
.

I said to you: "What you propose is serious quackery: the architects got all these measured relations in without measuring, what baloney, and besides [i]these rectangles are nested in various ways, so you or anybody else would have absolutely no clue as to what is what just from looking and intuiting.
In other words, ignorance of Φ precludes making systematic measurements in Φ. We know that the architect had made measurements, certainly, there had been a plan before the building was begun. I have shown that the plan of the second pyramid temple abounds with golden rectangles, which also dominate in the blueprints of the other two Giza pyramid temples. So the question defenders of status quo will find hard to answer is - With what ideas in mind did the architect measure the temples, when the only consistent ideas, which come across from the plan are the numerous, and dominant golden rectangles? Next question asks for explanation, why these rectangles are in their majority such notably excellent facsimiles of golden rectangles.
Unless you can dispose of these questions, your paradigm is less valid than mine. What was accepted has to be reviewed, because I've managed to cast doubt on it. I have falsified the main-stream theory.
The theory, which maintains that Egyptians did not know the Golden Section geometric procedure also predicts that the same cannot be found consistently playing a dominant role in the design of a number of temples. I have shown experimentally that this prediction is wrong.

[jsfisher]

The theory, which maintains that Egyptians did not know the Golden Section geometric procedure also predicts that the same cannot be found consistently playing a dominant role in the design of a number of temples. I have shown experimentally that this prediction is wrong.


I don't know what you mean by "Golden Section geometric procedure," but I believe the position of all here save one is that there is no evidence the ancient Egyptians were aware of phi as a mathematical concept. Similarly, I believe the position of all here is that there is no evidence the early cavemen were aware of pi as a mathematical concept despite their advancements with the wheel.

Please note that the premise, cavemen had no concept of pi, does not predict wheels would not be invented. Your presumed prediction for those unaware of phi is equally incorrect.

[Jiri]

Or, more likely, the golden rectangles were never designed to be there at all: You have just found them by meticulous searching.
.
Meticulous searching does not find what is not there.
.

The question is if there is any building or drawing of just a little complexity where you will not find
Φ.
.
The probability of that for rectangular buildings could be worked out. You have two groups of lines at 90 degrees to each other. Basically, one could look into all the line trios - two parallels, and one transverse. Those trios are all potential golden rectangles. What is the likelihood that there is the fourth line, which makes a particular trio a golden rectangle? That depends on average density of lines running in that direction.


When I was young, I made many drawings of imaginary house plans. I never knew about the golden rectangle, but I am nevertheless sure some of those plans would have included one.

Indeed, some would include one, or even some more, so what? The important part is that these rectangles would not dominate the design. Yet, that's what they do in the floor-plans of the three pyramid temples.
So much for your trick propositions. Why do you feel the need to distort the problem itself?



ETA: And when you use your "special" search methods to find golden rectangles in order to prove the existence of helicopters in a text that some ancient artist has corrected long ago because political circumstances necessitated new titles for the king, you are off your rockers!
.
Seti's titles did not change anywhere else in the temple. Egyptologists allege that out of the many inscriptions of Seti I in the temple, his son Ramses ripped off a single one. It would be a singularity. I may be off my rockers (!), but you are naively wrong.

It may be news to you, but the Egyptians knew how to write, and they wrote a lot, but somehow they forgot to mention helicopters and other modern technology.

i just asked my cat, and she knew all about hieroglyΦ, and demotic. She wants me to ask you why they forgot to mention building the great pyramids, and also why there are no writings in the big pyramids aside from one scribble, which is most likely forged.
Φ on you.

[Jiri]

I don't know what you mean by "Golden Section geometric procedure," but I believe the position of all here save one is that there is no evidence the ancient Egyptians were aware of phi as a mathematical concept. Similarly, I believe the position of all here is that there is no evidence the early cavemen were aware of pi as a mathematical concept despite their advancements with the wheel.

Actually all the wheels made between 1,000,000 BC and 10,000 BC show the value of Pi to have been 3.45678912 back then. You cannot see them today, because they came in other dimensions.
.:jaw-dropp


Please note that the premise, cavemen had no concept of pi, does not predict wheels would not be invented. Your presumed prediction for those unaware of phi is equally incorrect.

Great logic, JSF! But, I suspect not as great as what elevates you into these Friday Night spirits.
The prediction for those unaware of Φ that it will be invented is ludicrous, because it has been invented already.
:boxedin:

[jsfisher]

Actually all the wheels made between 1,000,000 BC and 10,000 BC show the value of Pi to have been 3.45678912 back then. You cannot see them today, because they came in other dimensions.

Did you really mean what you said, here? The value for pi, that is, the ratio of circumference of a circle to its diameter, has changed over time?

The prediction for those unaware of Φ that it will be invented is ludicrous, because it has been invented already.

I am again at a loss trying to decipher your meaning, here, as well. On the one hand, phi isn't an invention. On the other, your statement is unrelated to your original statement regarding phi and predictions.

You stated this:
The theory, which maintains that Egyptians did not know the Golden Section geometric procedure also predicts that the same cannot be found consistently playing a dominant role in the design of a number of temples.

Your statement is opinion and conjecture. It is supported by neither science nor logic.

[jsfisher]

Jiri,

A while back in another thread I'd asked if you could describe the steps you followed to add your lines and circles to these ancient etchings and structures. You did oblige. The difficulty, though, was that your steps weren't deterministic in any real sense; their application left broad discretion to the imagination of the user.

Be that as it may, I notice for your analysis of the Giza temple, you don't follow the same set of steps. Those three diagonals you added early on don't adhere to any of the steps you provided before.

[Jiri]

Did you really mean what you said, here? The value for pi, that is, the ratio of circumference of a circle to its diameter, has changed over time?

To tell you the truth I thought that you were drunk, or stoned, and wanted to kid around. It was Friday Night, and your premises were and still are bizarre. Hence I gave you a like reply, bizarre, yet humorous. You spoke about early cavemen. Early cavemen were not even H.S.S, unless you believe with Michael Cremo that Cromagnons had existed already more than a million years ago.
Read my words again, they are very kind. I could have pounced on your "no evidence the early cavemen were aware of pi as a mathematical concept despite their advancements with the wheel."
What wheel? If I had no sense of humour, I would have had swallowed your bait, and wasted my breath on the obvious. Yet, you come back to these jokes with a serious mien, which leads me to ask, if you have sense of humour at all.
.

I am again at a loss trying to decipher your meaning, here, as well. On the one hand, phi isn't an invention. On the other, your statement is unrelated to your original statement regarding phi and predictions.

You stated this:

Quote:
The theory, which maintains that Egyptians did not know the Golden Section geometric procedure also predicts that the same cannot be found consistently playing a dominant role in the design of a number of temples.


Your statement is opinion and conjecture. It is supported by neither science nor logic.

Quite to the contrary, it is the mainstream theory, which I have successfully falsified in these experiments. Or does the mainstream theory have no predictive power? Either way, it does not look good, when experimentally degraded.

[Jiri]

Jiri,

A while back in another thread I'd asked if you could describe the steps you followed to add your lines and circles to these ancient etchings and structures. You did oblige. The difficulty, though, was that your steps weren't deterministic in any real sense; their application left broad discretion to the imagination of the user.

Be that as it may, I notice for your analysis of the Giza temple, you don't follow the same set of steps. Those three diagonals you added early on don't adhere to any of the steps you provided before.

First of all, broad discretion to the imagination of the user is fine, if it is defined and stays within limits. Broad discretion just translates into an assortment of techniques, which is an absolute must, when you are dealing with a complex position.
In contrast, the temple plans are relatively very simple because almost all lines in it are in one of two clearly set directions. Hence, I did not have to derive lines. The lines are already there. They are the lines belonging to walls. All I had to do was to duplicate them for the CAD program, to trace the wall edges, while making sure that the match was as close as possible.
And yet, there are some here, who have the the gall to call these lines apparently arbitrary.
Spanish Inquisition seems more open-minded than them.

[Jiri]

To tell you the truth I thought that you were drunk, or stoned, and wanted to kid around. It was Friday Night, and your premises were and still are bizarre. Hence I gave you a like reply, bizarre, yet humorous.

Before you get mad, I meant drunk or stoned as in having a couple steiners of some heavenly beer made in Bohemia to get you into good spirits. Nothing wrong with that on a Friday night:)

[Jiri]

I am again at a loss trying to decipher your meaning, here, as well. On the one hand, phi isn't an invention.



Yeah, but a Pi of 3.45678912 is.

[jsfisher]

To tell you the truth I thought that you were drunk, or stoned, and wanted to kid around. It was Friday Night, and your premises were and still are bizarre. Hence I gave you a like reply, bizarre, yet humorous. You spoke about early cavemen. Early cavemen were not even H.S.S, unless you believe with Michael Cremo that Cromagnons had existed already more than a million years ago.

The use of the word, caveman, was meant to be somewhat metaphoric. I believe the invention of the wheel is generally placed into the 8000 - 5000 BC time range. The underlying point, though, still stands, that the inventors came up with the wheel without a mathematical basis for pi. Many things are possible without any appreciation for any sort of mathematical underpinning.

What do you fine bizarre about that?

Read my words again, they are very kind. I could have pounced on your "no evidence the early cavemen were aware of pi as a mathematical concept despite their advancements with the wheel."
What wheel? If I had no sense of humour, I would have had swallowed your bait, and wasted my breath on the obvious. Yet, you come back to these jokes with a serious mien, which leads me to ask, if you have sense of humour at all.

I have no idea what joke you thought I was making.

it is the mainstream theory, which I have successfully falsified in these experiments. Or does the mainstream theory have no predictive power? Either way, it does not look good, when experimentally degraded.

Nothing you have presented here can be categorized as an experiment, at least not in the scientific sense. Sadly, though, I don't think you can see why.

[jsfisher]

First of all, broad discretion to the imagination of the user is fine, if it is defined and stays within limits. Broad discretion just translates into an assortment of techniques, which is an absolute must, when you are dealing with a complex position.

That would guarantee your work will never have any scientific value.

In contrast, the temple plans are relatively very simple because almost all lines in it are in one of two clearly set directions. Hence, I did not have to derive lines. The lines are already there. They are the lines belonging to walls. All I had to do was to duplicate them for the CAD program, to trace the wall edges, while making sure that the match was as close as possible.
And yet, there are some here, who have the the gall to call these lines apparently arbitrary.

Did I misunderstand what you wrote on your web site (http://www.vejprty.com/pt.htm)? Didn't you write this:

The east, south, and north walls of the temple form three sides of a rectangle. We complete it into a square, which can then be given the basic golden-section grid. The diagram below is an example of that. Each of the three diagonals marks a golden (Φ) rectangle - one from top, one from bottom, and one in the middle

(Emphasis added.)

What was your basis for adding the three diagonals? They seem arbitrary to me.


Spanish Inquisition seems more open-minded than them.

Have I sniped at you? If so, I apologize, but I had thought I'd avoided casting any insults in your direction. I have commented on your methods, your assumptions, your results, and so on, but I have not attacked you. So, why do you counter with these petty aspersions?

[Jiri]

You seem to ignore that there two kinds of lines. Horizontal and vertical lines given by walls. There is nothing arbitrary about lines given by wall edges.
In great many cases these lines add up to golden rectangles. There is nothing arbitrary about those rectangles, because they come directly from real non-arbitrary lines.
Next of course, having a real golden rectangle, you are entitled to add its diagonals. Calling this action arbitrary also seems inappropriate.
...
The three diagonals
Divide the width of the temple by the Golden Section. The vertical lines produced are not arbitrary lines, but Golden Section lines. They would be arbitrary, only if they didn't work. But, one of these lines works very accurately along the edge of the structure on top (the west), and the other is close as well.
Next you simply duplicate the same golden sectioning along the height (east to west) of the temple's floor-plan. That's when it is revealed that one of these lines is the same as a line of the wall at the western end of the temple. Hence, as I said, • The temple, when simplified to a rectangle, is defined by the golden-section.
And, if you connected your lines by diagonals, you would re-obtain the Three Diagonals.

The Golden rectangles and Giza

Much has been written on the subject. Today, I resolved to check out one diagram of Giza from GizaGrid Dotcom, which tries to deal with simiar subject. In CAD, obviously.
Since the three pyramids are supposed to be squares, what is simpler than starting with one of these squares, when looking for the basic golden rectangle ideas at Giza?
Just take the Second Pyramid as a square and extend it into the Golden rectangle(s) on each side. Add the diagonals.
Simple? Well, it seems that this is the approach that bears most promise, because it has produced instant results for me. Interestingly, these guys don't have the great Pyramid as a square at all, but the Second pyramid is still a square. I'll have at least one diagram based on this specific idea out tomorrow. Are you curious?
To answer yet another of your concerns, you seem to be relating my objections to rudeness in these discussions to you. Yet, I have never found your behavior rude. Perhaps hard-headed but not rude.

[wollery]

So, let me see if I've got this correct.

You take a rectangle, and construct lines at golden ratio distances from the edges, and make a few more construction lines, and end up with - golden rectangles.

Well, I for one am shocked that this method should manage to produce these. :rolleyes:

[Jiri]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1557746b55f9cf00d0.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7453)

In the diagram above, the width of the yellow section is the same as the width of the adjacent pyramid temple.

If a side of the Khephren's pyramid is taken as Φ squared (2.618..), then the width of the temple is 1/Φ (0.618..)

Caveat Emptor - better resolution map is sorely needed to confirm the preliminary observations above.

[jsfisher]

You seem to ignore that there two kinds of lines. Horizontal and vertical lines given by walls. There is nothing arbitrary about lines given by wall edges.

Fine. You should standardize, though, on whether you are aligning with the outside wall edge, inside edge, or center-line.

In great many cases these lines add up to golden rectangles. There is nothing arbitrary about those rectangles, because they come directly from real non-arbitrary lines.

If you say so, but for the case I was citing this was not the case. You started with just three outer walls from which you constructed a square, nothing more.

Next of course, having a real golden rectangle, you are entitled to add its diagonals. Calling this action arbitrary also seems inappropriate.

Adding in the diagonals without first establishing the "golden rectangles", however, is arbitrary.

The three diagonals
Divide the width of the temple by the Golden Section. The vertical lines produced are not arbitrary lines, but Golden Section lines.

Do you not see that this is embedding your conclusion in your methods and assumptions?

They would be arbitrary, only if they didn't work.

And given the multitude of arbitrary ways in which you can try such things, your chances of it working are quite promising.

[Myriad]

Nakhmet and the Divine Ratio

"Hey Nakhmet"

"Yeah Boss?"

"You got those foundation lines laid out yet?"

"Almost, Sir. I've marked out a square with one edge aligned with the edge of the street, just like you wanted. And I compared the two diagonals of the square, to make sure it's true. Then I found the center point on the street side. I was just doing a double-check to make sure it's the exact center, by staking a string at the center point and comparing the two diagonals from the center point to the far corners. And let's see... here's the mark from the other corner, let me bring it to the corner here... ah! Perfect!"

"Great, Nakhmet. Now, I have a tricker problem. I've decided I want the building wider than that."

"No problem, Boss. How about if I just double the width by laying out another square next to this one?"

"No, that would be too wide."

"Okay, then. I've already measured the center of the side, so I can copy that distance, make the addition half the side of the square."

"Actually, I don't think that would be quite wide enough. Can you make it just a little wider than that?"

"Gee, I don't know, Boss. I'm not real good with numbers and stuff. And if I just make it any old width it'll be hard to check the builders' work later, and what if the Pharaoh asks us to duplicate the design somewhere else next year? It's best if we stick to what we can plot out with strings."

"Okay, I see your point. Wait a sec, how about that string you're holding right now?"

"What about it, Boss?"

"Just walk your end over here to the street line, and see where your corner mark meets."

"Interesting, Boss. It does look like it's just a little wider than if I'd added another half a square."

"Good, mark the new corner there. I like it."

"Yeah, me too, Boss. It's like you've somehow hit upon the most aesthetically pleasing of all possible rectangles. Our distant descendents in future ages will see this building and know without doubt that you must have been inspired by divine beings with secret mathematical knowledge far beyond our poor selves."

"Nakhmet, I can't tell if you're sucking up or insulting me. Either way, cut it out and get back to work."

Respectfully,
Myriad

[NobbyNobbs]

.

.
That's just malicious slander on your part, mister. You want proof? Let's take your "enogh circles and squares all over the place", implying an irrational chaotic style and compare it to my image, which you show above.


Or, more likely, the golden rectangles were never designed to be there at all: You have just found them by meticulous searching.The question is if there is any building or drawing of just a little complexity where you will not find
Φ.


When I was young, I made many drawings of imaginary house plans. I never knew about the golden rectangle, but I am nevertheless sure some of those plans would have included one.




Inspired by this thread, I've gone and made some measurements and calculations myself. Not having the funds or opportunity to go to Egypt, however, I've had to restrict myself to making measurements here at home. I picked an item of sufficient complexity that, like the pyramids, the creator must have intentionally designed everything that goes into it. The following measurements I made from my daughter's bicycle:

(All measurements are in inches)

A. Diameter of large gear: 6.0
B. Diameter of small gear: 2.5
C. # of studs on each pedal: 23
D. Length of rear wheel support: 15.0
E. Length of front wheel support: 12.0
F. Number of links in gear chain: 88
G. Width of tire: 1.5
H. Width of seat at widest point: 5.5
I. Distance between outer ends of handlebars: 25.25
J. Distance between inner ends of handlebars: 10.5
K. Number of spokes in each wheel: 28
L. Height of seat: 24
M. Number of reflectors: 3
N. Model #: 8595-58
P. Outer radius of wheel: 10

Now, some calculations...

1) The ratio of the gears times the radius of the tire (P*A/B) exactly equals 24, the number of hours in a day.

2) Multiply the lengths of the tire supports (D*E) and you get 180. This is not only a half-circle, but very nearly half the number of days in a year.

3) The number of links in the gear chain times the width of the tire and divided by the width of the seat (F*G/H) and again you get 24.

4) The ratio of the outer distance of the handlebars to the inner distance of the handlebars, times the outer radius of the wheel (P*(I/J) again equals 24.

5) The number of spokes on each wheel is 28, the number of days it takes for the moon to cycle.

6) The height of the seat is 24, yet again.

7) The sum of the lengths of the tire supports, less the number of reflectors (D+E-M) is again 24.

8) The sum of the digits in the model number divided by the seat's width is 7.27272.... This is equal to 2.42424....times 3, the number of reflectors (and, completely coincidentally, the Holy number of the Trinity).

9) There are 23 studs on each pedal. This is precisely equal to the number of chromosomes a human inherits from each parent. This has nothing to do with my analysis, but I thought it was interesting, so I mentioned it.

10) Finally, my daughter, to whom the bike belongs, is 8 years old and was born on February 16 (2/16). Sixteen divided by two gives her age. Her age times the number of reflectors on the bike is 24 again.

The conclusions are obvious and unmistakable. The designer and manufacturer of this bicycle obviously and intentionally incorporated the basic fundamental measurements of the earth and its period of rotation. The prevalent and repeated use of the number 24 shows that the company was aware of the number of hours in a day and felt it necessary, for some mysterious unknown reason, to include in in every aspect of manufacture that they could.

I'm am sure that with advanced techniques and more accurate measurements, scientists will one day uncover the secrets of the Malibu Barbie bicycle.

[Jiri]

Originally Posted by Jiri
You seem to ignore that there two kinds of lines. Horizontal and vertical lines given by walls. There is nothing arbitrary about lines given by wall edges.


Fine. You should standardize, though, on whether you are aligning with the outside wall edge, inside edge, or center-line.
.

Thank you. This standardisation relies on wall edges (objective facts), both inside and outside, but not center-line, because the center-lines are invisible, unlike the wall-edges. Diagram 8 in my report shows a significant number of horizontal wall-edges, both outside and inside, in some cases on both sides of the same wall, which correspond with whole cubit distances.


In great many cases these lines add up to golden rectangles. There is nothing arbitrary about those rectangles, because they come directly from real non-arbitrary lines.

If you say so, but for the case I was citing this was not the case. You started with just three outer walls from which you constructed a square, nothing more.
.
Yes, I did. Please, do not lose sight of my hunting/fishing licence, which I got myself at the Abydos temple of Seti I, and Ramses II. The Abydos temple, specifically the helicopter area was like a pond full of goldfish - Golden Rectangles, harr, harr. Fishing them all out gave me a taste for their golden ichor, and so off to a nearby pond to experiment with our luck.
In other words the hypothesis wanted to verify possible re-occurrence of the same phenomena at the Giza temples.
But, you are right, I should just open with stating the hypothesis, which justifies checking the Giza temples for evidence of Golden Section used in planning.
We are talking about the floor-plan of Khufu's temple. It is a rectangle based on its long side. In order, to check it for golden-section, we use a technique, which completes the rectangle into a square. Hence the square. It is an instrument. The instrument enabled us to categorize the shape of the rectangle given by the temple's outside walls, three outside edges, and one inside edge.

Quote:
Next of course, having a real golden rectangle, you are entitled to add its diagonals. Calling this action arbitrary also seems inappropriate.
.
Adding in the diagonals without first establishing the "golden rectangles", however, is arbitrary.

Your viewpoint is arbitrary, because in a rectangular structure, manipulation of these diagonals is a sound and fast method of detecting the presence or absence of golden rectangles.

:
The three diagonals
Divide the width of the temple by the Golden Section. The vertical lines produced are not arbitrary lines, but Golden Section lines.
.
Do you not see that this is embedding your conclusion in your methods and assumptions?
.
Frankly, no. These methods do not guarantee successful outcome of the experiment. Failure is so likely in random positions that it is almost guaranteed.
.

And given the multitude of arbitrary ways in which you can try such things, your chances of it working are quite promising.

Excuse Me? What multitude? Each given distance, or a space has its unique division by the Golden Section. A given square has only one basic G.S. grid. Look at my avatar to the left, you see it right there.
I can't count how many times I have explained this type of things to you, and you always come back with the same false assertion.

[Jiri]

Inspired by this thread, I've gone and made some measurements and calculations myself. Not having the funds or opportunity to go to Egypt, however, I've had to restrict myself to making measurements here at home. I picked an item of sufficient complexity that, like the pyramids, the creator must have intentionally designed everything that goes into it. The following measurements I made from my daughter's bicycle:

(All measurements are in inches)

A. Diameter of large gear: 6.0
B. Diameter of small gear: 2.5
C. # of studs on each pedal: 23
D. Length of rear wheel support: 15.0
E. Length of front wheel support: 12.0
F. Number of links in gear chain: 88
G. Width of tire: 1.5
H. Width of seat at widest point: 5.5
I. Distance between outer ends of handlebars: 25.25
J. Distance between inner ends of handlebars: 10.5
K. Number of spokes in each wheel: 28
L. Height of seat: 24
M. Number of reflectors: 3
N. Model #: 8595-58
P. Outer radius of wheel: 10

Now, some calculations...

1) The ratio of the gears times the radius of the tire (P*A/B) exactly equals 24, the number of hours in a day.

2) Multiply the lengths of the tire supports (D*E) and you get 180. This is not only a half-circle, but very nearly half the number of days in a year.

3) The number of links in the gear chain times the width of the tire and divided by the width of the seat (F*G/H) and again you get 24.

4) The ratio of the outer distance of the handlebars to the inner distance of the handlebars, times the outer radius of the wheel (P*(I/J) again equals 24.

5) The number of spokes on each wheel is 28, the number of days it takes for the moon to cycle.

6) The height of the seat is 24, yet again.

7) The sum of the lengths of the tire supports, less the number of reflectors (D+E-M) is again 24.

8) The sum of the digits in the model number divided by the seat's width is 7.27272.... This is equal to 2.42424....times 3, the number of reflectors (and, completely coincidentally, the Holy number of the Trinity).

9) There are 23 studs on each pedal. This is precisely equal to the number of chromosomes a human inherits from each parent. This has nothing to do with my analysis, but I thought it was interesting, so I mentioned it.

10) Finally, my daughter, to whom the bike belongs, is 8 years old and was born on February 16 (2/16). Sixteen divided by two gives her age. Her age times the number of reflectors on the bike is 24 again.

The conclusions are obvious and unmistakable. The designer and manufacturer of this bicycle obviously and intentionally incorporated the basic fundamental measurements of the earth and its period of rotation. The prevalent and repeated use of the number 24 shows that the company was aware of the number of hours in a day and felt it necessary, for some mysterious unknown reason, to include in in every aspect of manufacture that they could.

I'm am sure that with advanced techniques and more accurate measurements, scientists will one day uncover the secrets of the Malibu Barbie bicycle.

I have no idea why you engage in this pointless exercise. Now tell me how many unique combinations of two and even three elements out of the fifteen elements are there?
And out of all those thousands upon thousands of possible results you manages to eke out six results giving 24? I assure you that with your method you should be able to find 24 at least 240 times, which is amazing because I was once (oncex24=24!!!) 24 myself, and so it must be my calling to point this out.

Let me saddle you with a much more challenging task based on the same numbers, which we will now consider random, and make a chain of them in the order you specified, and multiply them by ten. Using only combinations of numbers in a row (whole sections of the chain), see with what consistency do these give you Pi, and Phi approximations. If you succeed, you will have falsified successfully a big part of my work.
How do I know, you are bound to fail? Because your chances are almost nil. You won't succeed until you produce pages and pages of consistent results like I did.

Good Luck!

[jsfisher]

I have no idea why you engage in this pointless exercise. Now tell me how many unique combinations of two and even three elements out of the fifteen elements are there?


That was the point.

[Jiri]

Originally Posted by Jiri
I have no idea why you engage in this pointless exercise. Now tell me how many unique combinations of two and even three elements out of the fifteen elements are there?

[/Quote]That was the point. [/Quote]
-
A perfectly irrelevant point it was.
BTW, I have edited the opening section of my study of these Giza pyramid temples, because your distaste for it had some influence on me. It was way too wordy. If there is still wordiness there, it is mild at most.

[jsfisher]

My money is still on Nakhmet.

[jsfisher]

Jiri,

I stumbled across a fascinating review of a book (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2004/2004-09-21.html) that may interest you. The book (which I have not see) is:

Corinna Rossi, Architecture and Mathematics in Ancient Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Pp. 280. ISBN 0-521-82954-2.

Although the review suggests the book may oppose some of your views, it appears to qualify as a scholarly reference and should have at the very least a wealth of insight into ancient architecture and citations to other scholarly material, many of which should help in your pursuits.

[Jiri]

Jiri,

I stumbled across a fascinating review of a book (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2004/2004-09-21.html) that may interest you. The book (which I have not see) is:

Corinna Rossi, Architecture and Mathematics in Ancient Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Pp. 280. ISBN 0-521-82954-2.

Although the review suggests the book may oppose some of your views, it appears to qualify as a scholarly reference and should have at the very least a wealth of insight into ancient architecture and citations to other scholarly material, many of which should help in your pursuits.

She only wants a hundred bucks for it, eh. :jaw-dropp We have been discussing and reviewing amazingly similar themes here for a while, especially after my recent analysis of the three Giza temples. Indeed, it's a fascinating review just like you say. Here is something that amused me:
"The author's main argument here is that plans drawn to scale probably never formed an integral aspect of Egyptian architectural praxis, as they do ours, since Egyptian building, like all ancient and/or traditional construction, evidently contained a significant mnemonic component that enabled contemporary builders to transfer architectural ideas to three dimensions without extensive use of architectural drawings or models understood in the modern sense of the word. What shines through most clearly in the book is perhaps this mnemonic nature of Egyptian architectural design and building praxis rather than the presence of a tangible Egyptian mathematical system which the architects drew on in their designs of monuments."

a) no plans
I am not even going to discuss this point in view of the complex, demanding, and magnificent architecture itself.
b) mnemonics
Do you find it surprising that this relates directly to what I emphasize about the designs discovered by me so far at La Marche, Nazca, and Abydos? I claim to be able to reconstruct these complex ancient designs to a great degree from memory. There is big difference between her and my mnemonics though. She says that things had to be kept simple. What helps me with reconstruction of the ancient works from memory is systematic ideas on a high theoretical level. It's nothing simple. Example?
http://www.vejprty.com/trihex.htm
I haven't worked on this file for a while, and it may appear crudely written, but the "Hex-machine" makes it all worthwhile. Tell me, have you seen this before? It is an original creation, a saga of three generations of hexagons, and the number of harmonies it creates is spectacular.

After all, within the confines of the book, the author's mathematical focus on the pyramids is restricted to slopes alone, while the siting and orientation of the Giza group or the alignment of the shafts inside the pyramids with aspects of the night sky, all mathematical/astronomical feats, are not addressed.

Funny, how no one can remember the many aspects, from which the pyramids should be reviewed all at once, in one great comprehensive study. For instance, Mehmet omits the geographical implications in the Great Pyramid, problems in dating, which leave the question open of some pyramids being much older than believed, advanced stone production, and transport technologies, which seem prerequisite to making some of the ancient artifacts, the obvious logistical genius presenting Egyptian logistics at their best in an extremely favorable view. I am sure, I missed some, too.

"The author argues that although many of these relations are possible to discover a posteriori from the plan, this does not necessarily mean that they were intended by the builders, or that they truly constituted the geometric bases of the designs."

Rossi's argument happens on a naive level. She fails to see the problem in its proper scientific framework. She should deal with fundamental ideas first, problems of order & chaos foremost. What makes a design intelligent and deliberate upon independent inspection? Where is the limit on randomness as agency behind intelligent design?
Rossi should familiarize herself with my work, which should present the greatest challenge to her so far. For example, what truly constitutes the geometric bases of the designs of the three pyramid temples at Giza? I present one geometric base of design - can she present something entirely different that would account for all the golden rectangles there, and their systematical ararngements?
I seriously doubt it.

[Jiri]

My money is still on Nakhmet.

Yeah, anybody that dispenses wisdom to Solon, and Pythagoras in exchange for rich gifts is a favorite of mine too..

[Anacoluthon64]

I said to you: "What you propose is serious quackery: the architects got all these measured relations in without measuring, …I think you should remove that funny mental block you're sporting: I'll happily concede that there are "measured relations." These things are, after all, the inevitable result of the activity and purpose of measurement. Your spin is, essentially, that you can divine the designers' intentions from a selection of dimensions that you chose. Tell me this: how did you control you sampling method for selection bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias)?



… what baloney, and besides [i]these rectangles are nested in various ways, so you or anybody else would have absolutely no clue as to what is what just from looking and intuiting.But, but, but … you did so "look and intuit!" Strange that it must, therefore, be true!



In other words, ignorance of Φ precludes making systematic measurements in Φ.Equally, the presumption (and expectation) of a knowledge of Φ will reveal any number of such occurrences, especially when you're happy to tweak and adjust where necessary. This has been illustrated for you by Gardner and other posters in this thread, but the lesson seems to be totally lost on you. That is why you need to show, as I keep insisting, a separate line of evidence that establishes a knowledge of Φ, independent of buckets and buckets of "close enough" relations. Otherwise you don't know whether you're fooling yourself by seeing just what you expect to see.



So the question defenders of status quo will find hard to answer is - With what ideas in mind did the architect measure the temples, when the only consistent ideas, which come across from the plan are the numerous, and dominant golden rectangles?False dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma) floating about in two tubs of redundant hyperbole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole). How have you eliminated all the other explanatory possibilities?



Next question asks for explanation, why these rectangles are in their majority such notably excellent facsimiles of golden rectangles.Because you selected them.



I have falsified the main-stream theory.
The theory, which maintains that Egyptians did not know the Golden Section geometric procedure also predicts that the same cannot be found consistently playing a dominant role in the design of a number of temples. I have shown experimentally that this prediction is wrong.First, what is this "Golden Section geometric procedure?" Is it captured somewhere in a manner that is independent of your expectations, e.g. an ancient diagram indicating the base-to-side-length ratio of a (36°, 108°, 36°) isosceles triangle? Because that would a very good start.

Next, you haven't falsified anything apart from the assumption that you are open to reasoned criticism.

Finally, the various critiques of your method (i.e. using CAD to "measure" lengths) are also quite damning, yet you provide no good reason(s) why this technique is preferable. Did the ancients use CAD, theodolites and laser levels instead of knotted ropes and sticks?

'Luthon64

[NobbyNobbs]

I think you should remove that funny mental block you're sporting: I'll happily concede that there are "measured relations." These things are, after all, the inevitable result of the activity and purpose of measurement. Your spin is, essentially, that you can divine the designers' intentions from a selection of dimensions that you chose. Tell me this: how did you control you sampling method for selection bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias)?

...

Equally, the presumption (and expectation) of a knowledge of Φ will reveal any number of such occurrences, especially when you're happy to tweak and adjust where necessary. This has been illustrated for you by Gardner and other posters in this thread, but the lesson seems to be totally lost on you. That is why you need to show, as I keep insisting, a separate line of evidence that establishes a knowledge of Φ, independent of buckets and buckets of "close enough" relations. Otherwise you don't know whether you're fooling yourself by seeing just what you expect to see.


Because you selected them.


'Luthon64

Which is exactly the point I was trying to show (too subtly, apparently) with my bicycle example. Thank you for clarifying for those who needed it.

[jsfisher]

Which is exactly the point I was trying to show (too subtly, apparently) with my bicycle example.


If it is of any consequence, NoobyNobbs, I understood your point. :D

[Jiri]

.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1557746b9a4216117d.gif

In the above diagram is an explanation for the position and size of the second pyramid at Giza. Can you see what it is? No, I didn't copy it off my aegis up there under my name, though there is some strong coincidence.
.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1557746b9a52560b7e.gif

.
This is how it started. Do you see any auspicious regularities?
Isn't the solution simple? It makes Mr. Ockham very very happy, because it is the simplest solution to the problem, I have seen so far. It uses the simplest grid given by the Great and the Menkaure pyramids.
This is also a gift to Luthon, who wanted to see more confirmation of the ancient architects employing the Golden Section in design of sacred sites. Here is the Golden Giza Grid (GGG), Luthon. Enjoy ;)

[Myriad]

This is how it started. Do you see any auspicious regularities?

I see a suspicious irregularity. The larger pyramids are 5 pixels wider north-south than they are east-west in your diagrams. That's an error of just under 3.8%. My understanding of the accuracy of the pyramids' construction is that they are close enough to square that the difference should not be visible on a raster screen (about .05%).

Your largest red rectangle is similarly distorted, if it's supposed to be a square. Its height exceeds its width by 20 pixels, more than can be accounted for by any reasonable error in the drafting process. And if it's not not intended to be a square, but just an arbitrary rectangle, then it doesn't show any significant relationship between the dimensions of the site.

Of course, the rectangle with the white diagonal on your second picture isn't a golden rectangle either. It would have to be 13 pixels wider (east-west). Perhaps that distortion offsets the distortion of the pyramids? At least it shows that you're not cheating by drawing the golden rectangles first and then distorting the pyramids to fit, because in that case I would expect the golden rectangles to be correctly proportioned. But it does leave me at a loss as to what you actually are doing.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[steenkh]

One problem with this is that is presupposes that ll three pyramids were planned at the same time, but this is highly unlikely. In fact it seems likely that each pyramid should have been larger than its predecessor.

[Jiri]

I see a suspicious irregularity. The larger pyramids are 5 pixels wider north-south than they are east-west in your diagrams. That's an error of just under 3.8%. My understanding of the accuracy of the pyramids' construction is that they are close enough to square that the difference should not be visible on a raster screen (about .05%).

For some reason, you have chosen to give an entirely fictional account of the physical reality in the GIF. I have no idea why you did that.


Your largest red rectangle is similarly distorted, if it's supposed to be a square. Its height exceeds its width by 20 pixels, more than can be accounted for by any reasonable error in the drafting process. And if it's not not intended to be a square, but just an arbitrary rectangle, then it doesn't show any significant relationship between the dimensions of the site.

Thanks god for the diagonals! They make possible exposing your hatchet job for what it is.
If each diagonal is 45 degrees from horizontal level, then any two vertical and horizontal lines meeting on the given diagonal in a point must form a square with any other two such lines also meeting in a point on the same diagonal. This is exactly the case in the diagram, which is simply a snapshot of the position in CAD.
Here is how the program lists the lengths of the two blue diagonals of the smaller red square in the center, which it shares with the big square:

LINE Layer: "Giza Plan"
Space: Model space
Color: 5 (blue) Linetype: "BYLAYER"
Length =11922.83755642,
Angle in XY Plane = 315.00000000

LINE Layer: "Giza Plan"
Space: Model space
Color: 5 (blue) Linetype: "BYLAYER"

Length =11922.83755664,
Angle in XY Plane = 45.00000000

You have been caught red-handed, sir. That's OK, you don't have to run, similar hatchet jobs are perfectly legal on Randi's, it seems. BTW, not many around here are naive enough to think that you actually counted pixels.
It is interesting however that a tiny fault has somehow crept in, since these two lines differ by two ten-millionths of an inch. Yes, I had fed Petrie's measurements in inches of the Giza pyramids into the program.


Of course, the rectangle with the white diagonal on your second picture isn't a golden rectangle either. It would have to be 13 pixels wider (east-west).

Ditto, more fiction on your part. I use the same argument from above - if the diagonal has the angle of a golden rectangle angle, any two pairs of vertical, and horizontal lines meeting on the diagonal must together form a golden rectangle:

LINE Layer: "Giza Plan"

In Current UCS, Length =26083.06020928,
Angle in XY Plane = 31.71747441

The angle is correct, therefore you are not.

.


Perhaps that distortion offsets the distortion of the pyramids? At least it shows that you're not cheating by drawing the golden rectangles first and then distorting the pyramids to fit, because in that case I would expect the golden rectangles to be correctly proportioned. But it does leave me at a loss as to what you actually are doing.

Respectfully,
Myriad

You should have said disrespectfully, because you must know that everything you said is total fiction. Everybody else knows it now, too..

[Jiri]

One problem with this is that is presupposes that ll three pyramids were planned at the same time, but this is highly unlikely. In fact it seems likely that each pyramid should have been larger than its predecessor.

Physical reality is physical reality. It is what it is, so its right to exist should not be questioned. But, you do that, find reality guilty of pyramidiocy, and refuse to acknowledge it until it starts behaving as you think it should.

[Jiri]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1557746b9a4216117d.gif

The diagram consists of two main elements:

a) The north and east sides of the Great Pyramid give two sides of a square, and the south side of Menkaure's pyramid gives the third. The fourth side of the square is given automatically. The square is then divided by the Golden Section.

b) Khafre's pyramid is taken as the square within a Golden-cross (see diagram) and this cross is placed into the square. As seen, the two crosses coincide very closely. The pyramid overlaps the given square within the grid by 22 inches (56 centimeters on each side). In the diagram, this works out to the two structures being pixel-to-pixel, the smallest possible difference. For some reason, though, the Photoshop insists on adding a pixel on the south side of the pyramid's Golden Cross. This is despite the fact that the design itself in CAD is precise. Please note that I would be quite justified in correcting this mistake by the Photoshop, but I chose to tell you about this funny phenomenon instead.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1557746b9a52560b7e.gif

.
This diagram shows my CAD drawing of the three pyramids based on Petrie's measurements in inches.
The first and third pyramids determine the square.
The second pyramid is extended upwards into a golden rectangle, and a square is added to this rectangle on each side. As a result, we get two large golden rectangles.

It is easy to notice the harmony here, because the added square on the left is:

a)pixel-to-pixel with the big square being just to the outside.

b) The top line of the golden rectangle overlaps by one pixel (is pixel-to-pixel) with the south side of the Great Pyramid.

c) The added square on the right overlaps the big square by three pixels. If we move the golden rectangle two pixels to the left, there will be an overlap by a single pixel on each side.
Noticing these harmonies led me to producing the first diagram. Judging from the two diagrams, it seems that there was an overall planning for Giza. The second pyramid iemulates closely the square within the Golden Section grid of the big Giza square. Its Golden Cross emulates closely the Golden Cross of the Great Pyramid. The second pyramid was then repositioned so its golden rectangle would harmonize with the Great Pyramid.
This analysis does not explain the sizes of the first and third pyramid. It also explains only the south side of the third pyramid, and possibly the west side, as well. It does explain the second pyramid positionally, however, in the context of the other two.

[wollery]

Nope.

Just downloaded the gif, and the long diagonal, bottom left to top right is definitely not at 45o. The vertical axis is 20 pixels longer than the horizontal, which is 575 pixels, making it nearly 3.5% different. The small pyramid is over 4.5% different. None of your "squares" are actually square.

Your two large "golden rectangles" have ratios of 1.671 and 1.676, whereas phi is 1.618. This is a difference of 3.3% and 3.59% respectively. I.e. they aren't phi rectangles. In fact, I can't find a single golden rectangle in either of your gifs.

Now, this may be a problem of saving it into gif format from your program, but it doesn't look good for your calculations.

[Jiri]

Nope.

Just downloaded the gif, and the long diagonal, bottom left to top right is definitely not at 45o. The vertical axis is 20 pixels longer than the horizontal, which is 575 pixels, making it nearly 3.5% different. The small pyramid is over 4.5% different. None of your "squares" are actually square.

Your two large "golden rectangles" have ratios of 1.671 and 1.676, whereas phi is 1.618. This is a difference of 3.3% and 3.59% respectively. I.e. they aren't phi rectangles. In fact, I can't find a single golden rectangle in either of your gifs.

Now, this may be a problem of saving it into gif format from your program, but it doesn't look good for your calculations.

Yes, I just cropped the square out, and it says 596 tall, but 576 wide.
Went back to CAD and had the two distances listed:

LINE Layer: "Giza Plan"

In Current UCS, Length =35713.10000000,
Angle in XY Plane = 0.00000000
3D Length =35713.10000000,

LINE Layer: "Giza Plan"

In Current UCS, Length =35713.10000000,
Angle in XY Plane = 270.00000000
3D Length =35713.10000000,
Angle from XY Plane = 0.00000000

Things certainly are as they should in CAD. That's the main thing, you can reproduce my findings exactly from Petrie's data. I assure you, I am not a cheat.
That said, I was wrong about Myriad, as I was basing my opinion on secure knowledge that the design was fine. His fault was basing his opinion on the unreliable GIFs.

[jsfisher]

Well, you might want to go back and correct this image, then, too. Notice that the yellow rectangle doesn't really line up with the temple.

[/URL][URL]http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1557746b55f9cf00d0.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7453)

[Tearout]

I use AutoCAD every day. It is an extremely acurate vector based program.
Recent versions allow users to drop raster images into the vector modeling environment. But one must be extremely cautious with regards to trusting the accuracy of the image. In my experience, the aspect ratio of inserted images is rarely maintained. This is of particularly concern where they have been scanned in from paper originals.

The big problem I'm having with this study is the use of a highly sofisticated program to overlay very accurate points and lines onto raster sketches that have no scale or dimension for verification. Furthermore, there is no assurance that the raster images used have not been distorted in comparision to the original line drawings. Are the original line drawings even accurate enough to be considered useful for a study of this nature?

I urge Jiri, if serious in this endeavor, to aquire some reliable dimensional plan data to work with rather than N generation rasters. The central tool used in this study is AutoCAD, but without accurate original plan data, even a detailed AutoCAD analysys must remain suspect.

Another problem I have is with regards to the builders themselves. Is there any evidence that phi was so spiritually significant, that the priests, the arhitects, or the Pharaohs, deem it necessary that they build this very non-intuitive ratio into these temples? In an arcane way or otherwise?

In my opinion, both of these issues should be given further consideration. Until then, the OP can only be considered an interesting speculation at best.

.

[Oualawouzou]

Don't hold your breath, Tearout. In another thread, many people tried to get him to understand a blown-up version of a gif of a scan of a hand drawn reproduction of a photography of a carving on a cavewall wasn't fit for precise measurements of angles and aspect ratios, without success.

I wish I was making this up.

[jsfisher]

I wish I was making this up.


Sadly, most of us know you are not making this up.

[Tearout]

Don't hold your breath, Tearout. In another thread, many people tried to get him to understand a blown-up version of a gif of a scan of a hand drawn reproduction of a photography of a carving on a cavewall wasn't fit for precise measurements of angles and aspect ratios, without success.

I wish I was making this up.

That's unfortunate.

Without accurate initial data, all the technical verbage in the world can result in little more than dross.

[Jiri]

Well, you might want to go back and correct this image, then, too. Notice that the yellow rectangle doesn't really line up with the temple.

[/URL][URL]http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1557746b55f9cf00d0.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7453)

There is nothing to correct, JSF. I did not say that the two line up. The point I made that the rectangle is as wide as the temple. This observation only applies to the rather crude gif taken off the net, but I would not be surprised if it worked out with the correct data as well. It certainly seems on topic.

[Jiri]

Sadly, most of us know you are not making this up.

But, he is making it up, and are making up your memories of his chimeras.

[Jiri]

That's unfortunate.

Without accurate initial data, all the technical verbage in the world can result in little more than dross.

Glad to hear your remarks on using Autocad. Regarding the Giza plan, you can duplicate my drawings exactly from Petrie's data. His measurements are considered extremely accurate. They were confirmed by Cole, who measured the same around 1925. The two sets of results differed only negligibly, by two or three inches over long distances across Giza.
You are of course right about unreliability of raster maps. But, let me point out that while regular figures can go out of whack easily, irregular shapes are not likely to become regular figures by random variation. When my CAD experiments on raster maps identify exact ideas, it is more likely that these ideas have been preserved in the raster map, than that ideas appear in the image out of nowhere.
When the results are consistently right with the system, one has to at least respect them. One has to respect the ideas that come across from the image.
So, although I work not in ideal conditions, the results are there. They should warrant a follow-up investigation, but since I cannot get anyone interested, I consider my results unfairly ignored and in effect suppressed.

[robinson]

I see a suspicious irregularity. The larger pyramids are 5 pixels wider north-south than they are east-west in your diagrams. That's an error of just under 3.8%.


What diagram are you talking about?

[jsfisher]

There is nothing to correct, JSF. I did not say that the two line up. The point I made that the rectangle is as wide as the temple. This observation only applies to the rather crude gif taken off the net, but I would not be surprised if it worked out with the correct data as well. It certainly seems on topic.


In the .GIF you posted, the widths are not the same.

[Oualawouzou]

But, he is making it up, and are making up your memories of his chimeras.

I was serious when I said I wished I was making this up. So I'll be happy to amend if it is shown I was mistaken. But I am pretty sure you posted blown-up gifs of a scan of a hand drawn reproduction of a picture of a cavewall engraving to support your "analysis" of the La Marche art piece, in that other, couple dozens pages long thread of yours (that also involved rifle-wielding cavemen, if I recall right).

[Myriad]

That said, I was wrong about Myriad, as I was basing my opinion on secure knowledge that the design was fine. His fault was basing his opinion on the unreliable GIFs.

I'll accept the admission that I was not being dishonest.

Calling it my "fault" is amusing, though. Are you saying it was wrong of me to base my opinion of your claim on the information you presented to support that claim? Was I supposed to hack into your computer to read the parameters directly from your CAD files instead?

How, besides ignoring the evidence you present, can we avoid such fault in the future?

What diagram are you talking about?


The lower diagram in post 118, though the upper diagram has the same problems.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[robinson]

The lower diagram in post 118, though the upper diagram has the same problems.

I see a suspicious irregularity. The larger pyramids are 5 pixels wider north-south than they are east-west in your diagrams. That's an error of just under 3.8%.

I checked, because that didn't make sense. And indeed, your claim is not anywhere close to true.

The larger pyramids are 5 pixels wider north-south than they are east-west

WTF? What software are you using?

[Myriad]

I checked, because that didn't make sense. And indeed, your claim is not anywhere close to true.

The larger pyramids are 5 pixels wider north-south than they are east-west

WTF? What software are you using?


If it's a software issue it's apparently a widespread one, as Wollery, and Jiri himself when he checked the GIFs, noticed the same phenomenon.

Look closely at the green diagonal lines on the second image in post 118. Do they look smooth, or are there pixel displacements along them (which suggests they're not 45-degree lines, and the polygons enclosing them are not squares)? I can clearly see the aliasing, which suggested to me that the squares were not square, so I measured the pixel sizes of the squares, and it turned out they were not square.

The point is moot, as Jiri has acknowledged that the GIFs output from his CAD images do not accurately represent the CAD images he was working from, and that accounts for the suspicious irregularities I pointed out, so he knows that I wasn't making false accusations. I in turn accept that the mismatch I pointed out, between the GIFs and the reality of the site (e.g. the shapes of the pyramids), is accounted for by the distortion in the GIF output and is not evidence of any kind of dishonesty on Jiri's part. So, whether it makes sense to you or not is really no concern of mine at this point.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Jiri]

[QUOTE=Myriad;2850546]

I can clearly see the aliasing, which suggested to me that the squares were not square, so I measured the pixel sizes of the squares, and it turned out they were not square.

/QUOTE]

I saw the aliasing myself when producing the gifs, and my conclusion was the same. It made me go and check the CAD drawing. Reassured that all was fine, I didn't pay the effect anymore attention, but I should have counted the pixies :)
Yesterday, I tried encapsulated postscript as the printer to a file, and guess what? Exactly the same distortion happened again, so it must be something to do with the program. I also checked some older gifs accompanying my writings, and all the 45 degree lines are fine (no aliasing), so that's a big relief. All my older gifs are alright. Perhaps, I' should go back to an older version of the program, if I find the CD, but I am as bad as the British Museum. Today, I'll try conversion of the drawing into TIFFs, as the last straw to grasp, but I am pessimistic (skeptical?)

My best regards,
Jiri

[Jiri]

How, besides ignoring the evidence you present, can we avoid such fault in the future?



Until I fix the problem, I will have to caution readers and ask them to accept the distorted diagrams at face value.
All this aside, I take it that you found the subject matter interesting per se. Did you?

[ReligionStudent]

The use of the word, caveman, was meant to be somewhat metaphoric. I believe the invention of the wheel is generally placed into the 8000 - 5000 BC time range. The underlying point, though, still stands, that the inventors came up with the wheel without a mathematical basis for pi. Many things are possible without any appreciation for any sort of mathematical underpinning.

Just and archaeologist here, but I don't get the metaphor.

[Jiri]

I was serious when I said I wished I was making this up. So I'll be happy to amend if it is shown I was mistaken. But I am pretty sure you posted blown-up
gifs of a scan of a hand drawn reproduction of a picture of a cavewall engraving to support your "analysis" of the La Marche art piece, in that other, couple dozens pages long thread of yours (that also involved rifle-wielding cavemen, if I recall right).

Your points:
blown-up gifs: Never ever blow up your gifs, the going is too rough

Scan: Scanners have come long ways since Star Trek. They do a good job if you use high resolution.

A hand drawn reproduction : No, the tracing used methods also used by counterfeiters, obviously with the aim of precise reproduction. The La Marche engravings were photographed from different angles using varying light sources. Casts were made from different materials, etc. One of the end products was the image supplied to the peer reviewed "Bulletin of the French Prehistorical Society", where it was published.
Up to here everything is kosher. Do you agree?
if so, we are down to the last two steps, the image had been scanned at the Wisconsin University library and the print of it was sent to me. I had to rescan the print.
These two scans could be possible sources of some distortion, but like I said, scanners can also give you pretty good results.
In the end, I also had to regenerate the scale used for the image by the Stone Age designers from the scan in Cad, and test it by remeasuring segments of the locally infamous "Frame". I am sure you remember the study dealing with ingenious Pi, and Phi approximations. That test was a success.
An independent test!
My analysis of the Nazca monkey-glyph had stumbled, somewhat miraculously, upon the very same basic geometric configuration. Both the Nazca and La Marche images are in essence exactly the same, they both use the same "geometrical engine", but you could never see this just by looking. It takes analysis.
So, if the two images are good enough to belie their common nature, they are acceptable for preliminary scientific research.

cave-wall engraving : No, it was mobile art, tablets of limestone and quartzite, many allegedly just like the limestone slates children used to use in schools of the centuries past.

your "analysis": No, it's just analysis.

of the La Marche art piece: No, it is much more than a mere art-piece. It is constructed, and an attempt at formal communication. It is the greatest work on the intricacies of Pi and Phi ever, and who knows what else remains beyond the bounds of my intelligence and experience. Without the said La Marche " Athena" engraving, I would have never had started on the path I am on today. I'd have no analysis of the monkey glyph, nor the Abydos helicopter, nor the Giza temples, nor the Giza Plan.

At any rate, Zou, I am not asking you to apologize, as I believe that you weren't born with that capacity ;)

[ReligionStudent]

Jiri,

I stumbled across a fascinating review of a book (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2004/2004-09-21.html) that may interest you. The book (which I have not see) is:

Corinna Rossi, Architecture and Mathematics in Ancient Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Pp. 280. ISBN 0-521-82954-2.

Although the review suggests the book may oppose some of your views, it appears to qualify as a scholarly reference and should have at the very least a wealth of insight into ancient architecture and citations to other scholarly material, many of which should help in your pursuits.

I would suggest to him Archaeological Fanatasies Ed. G. Fagan 2006.

[ReligionStudent]

One problem with this is that is presupposes that ll three pyramids were planned at the same time, but this is highly unlikely. In fact it seems likely that each pyramid should have been larger than its predecessor.

There is no evidence that the pyramids were planned together.

[ReligionStudent]

But, he is making it up, and are making up your memories of his chimeras.

Actually i remember that quite clearly, he is not making it up.

[ReligionStudent]

Your points:
blown-up gifs: Never ever blow up your gifs, the going is too rough The picture was englarged, you stated so many times

Scan: Scanners have come long ways since Star Trek. They do a good job if you use high resolution. But still not as accurate as measuring on the origional, or even a photograph

A hand drawn reproduction : No, the tracing used methods also used by counterfeiters, obviously with the aim of precise reproduction. The La Marche engravings were photographed from different angles using varying light sources. Casts were made from different materials, etc. One of the end products was the image supplied to the peer reviewed "Bulletin of the French Prehistorical Society", where it was published.
Up to here everything is kosher. Do you agree? I disagree. The most accuracy you will get is obviously from the original, but drawings in a journal certainly are far from the most accurate. The peer review aspect does not mean the measurements of the pictures. drawings of engravings etc are known to not come out 100% accurate. Stop mixing your dairy and your meat.
if so, we are down to the last two steps, the image had been scanned at the Wisconsin University library and the print of it was sent to me. I had to rescan the print.
These two scans could be possible sources of some distortion, but like I said, scanners can also give you pretty good results. so which is it? Can you prove it is accurate, based on the likely innacuracies of hand drawing, its unlikely
In the end, I also had to regenerate the scale used for the image by the Stone Age designers from the scan in Cad, and test it by remeasuring segments of the locally infamous "Frame". I am sure you remember the study dealing with ingenious Pi, and Phi approximations. That test was a success.
An independent test!
My analysis of the Nazca monkey-glyph had stumbled, somewhat miraculously, upon the very same basic geometric configuration. Both the Nazca and La Marche images are in essence exactly the same, they both use the same "geometrical engine", but you could never see this just by looking. It takes analysis.
So, if the two images are good enough to belie their common nature, they are acceptable for preliminary scientific research.
I would like to point out that this is based on your analysis which was highly questioned, and based on completely improper methodology. For one, you have zero context on which to compare these two different images, also, you completely ignore all existing epistemological evidence.

[Jiri]

..I don't get the metaphor.

It was a sleight of brain..

[Jiri]

There is no evidence that the pyramids were planned together.

There is some evidence, maybe not enough, but some. Even I supplied some already, my latest work certainly isn't pure vapor.

The Giza pyramids also look as if they were planned together, after all they are birds of the feather. That's even without any evidence. They are more likely to have been planned together than not, when you think about it.

[Jiri]

Originally Posted by Jiri
But, he is making it up, and are making up your memories of his chimeras.


Actually i remember that quite clearly, he is not making it up.

Slowly, you convince me of your membership in the Pythagorean (Free Mason) Society, specifically their division called False Witnesses sent into this world to help keep the secrets encrypted ;)

[Jiri]

The picture was englarged, you stated so many times But still not as accurate as measuring on the origional, or even a photograph


It was a TIFF that I scanned into CAD not GIF. It was at high resolution, high enough to let you see some details, which normally escape attention, such as toolmarks. Of course, those toolmarks had been faked by the designers.


The most accuracy you will get is obviously from the original, but drawings in a journal certainly are far from the most accurate. The peer review aspect does not mean the measurements of the pictures. drawings of engravings etc are known to not come out 100% accurate. Stop mixing your dairy and your meat. so which is it? Can you prove it is accurate, based on the likely innacuracies of hand drawing, its unlikely

For the umpteenth time, it's not a hand drawing. It seems that the facsimile was good enough because of the reasons I mentioned in my reply to Zou.

I would like to point out that this is based on your analysis which was highly questioned, and based on completely improper methodology. For one, you have zero context on which to compare these two different images, also, you completely ignore all existing epistemological evidence.

What does your so called epistemological evidence do to my results? Nothing. They stand by themselves on the shoulders of epistemology I put a lot on the other scale at the weigh-in with your demurrals.
As for the context, it is geometric, remember the "Simplicity 13 " construction of the regular 5-[pointed star? I learned its idea from the Nazca monkey, and it still rules around here as the best there is. JSF had promised to show that this construction and others of the same simplicity are known, but until now he has failed to do so. That is not the point however. The point is that I learned real geometry from the allegedly primitive drawing(s).

[Jiri]

To correct myself, well, he didn't promise, he alleged the existence thereof, basing on pure faith, I guess . At first, i extrapolated that he had seen mentions to the effect somewhere, but apparently not.

[wollery]

Don't hold your breath, Tearout. In another thread, many people tried to get him to understand a blown-up version of a gif of a scan of a hand drawn reproduction of a photography of a carving on a cavewall wasn't fit for precise measurements of angles and aspect ratios, without success.

I wish I was making this up.
Originally Posted by Jiri
But, he is making it up, and are making up your memories of his chimeras.


Slowly, you convince me of your membership in the Pythagorean (Free Mason) Society, specifically their division called False Witnesses sent into this world to help keep the secrets encrypted ;)He wasn't making it up. I myself pointed it out on at least 2 occasions, and you never corrected the statements then. Do I have to go and find the relevant posts? They're all archived you know.

[ReligionStudent]

There is some evidence, maybe not enough, but some. Even I supplied some already, my latest work certainly isn't pure vapor.

The Giza pyramids also look as if they were planned together, after all they are birds of the feather. That's even without any evidence. They are more likely to have been planned together than not, when you think about it.

Actually it is highly unlikely that the Giza Pyramids were planned together. For one thing, the actual order of individuals who became pharaoh changed during the reigns of the three people whose tombs they were. Thus, the actual individuals who built them would not have known they would be pharaoh until after construction had already begun.

[ReligionStudent]

Originally Posted by Jiri
But, he is making it up, and are making up your memories of his chimeras.




Slowly, you convince me of your membership in the Pythagorean (Free Mason) Society, specifically their division called False Witnesses sent into this world to help keep the secrets encrypted ;)

Yes that damned scientific method. Run by the freemasons ever since Jesus had his baby.

[ReligionStudent]

It was a TIFF that I scanned into CAD not GIF. It was at high resolution, high enough to let you see some details, which normally escape attention, such as toolmarks. Of course, those toolmarks had been faked by the designers. So toolmarks (that are apparently fake anyway) were on the illustration? And certainly their presence does not rule out distortion




For the umpteenth time, it's not a hand drawing. It seems that the facsimile was good enough because of the reasons I mentioned in my reply to Zou.
It was an illustration, not a picture or other more accurate reproduction. Also, it seems... isn't any sort of evidence of its accuracy at all, its your belief, which we obviously question


What does your so called epistemological evidence do to my results? Nothing. They stand by themselves on the shoulders of epistemology I put a lot on the other scale at the weigh-in with your demurrals. Epistemalogically, these cultures did not have the math you claim they did, or the fire arms, blimps, spaceships, precise tools you require etc. Additionaly, there are alternative explanations to yours for the Nazca images, that fit within existing epistemology. Yours contradict so much that they cannot stand without you offering a complete rewrite of history, which you have yet to show evidence for.

As for the context, it is geometric, remember the "Simplicity 13 " construction of the regular 5-[pointed star? I learned its idea from the Nazca monkey, and it still rules around here as the best there is. JSF had promised to show that this construction and others of the same simplicity are known, but until now he has failed to do so. That is not the point however. The point is that I learned real geometry from the allegedly primitive drawing(s).

Um, you have no cultural context. They are completely unrelated, and any comparison you make represents nothing but your imagination. Their is no archaeological link between the cultures, and no reason to surmise that something found in one of these two cultures can be used in discussing the other. This is just one huge pseudo-archaeological smoke and mirrors step.

[Jiri]

He wasn't making it up. I myself pointed it out on at least 2 occasions, and you never corrected the statements then. Do I have to go and find the relevant posts? They're all archived you know.

I've provided the info on how the images had been carefully, and methodically studied before reproduction, at least once before here. Go ahead and dig into the archives, yu have my whole-hearted support.
The fact that you guys refuse to accept records of particular research done by the French scientists clearly demonstrates your disregard for science, when it does not suit your agenda.

[Jiri]

So toolmarks (that are apparently fake anyway) were on the illustration? And certainly their presence does not rule out distortion It was an illustration, not a picture or other more accurate reproduction.

You are not communicating, because you disregard any undisputed fact, which does not fit your pseudo-scientific beliefs. Your monologue consisting of wishful fantasies does nothing for this discussion.

Additionaly, there are alternative explanations to yours for the Nazca images, that fit within existing epistemology. .

Epistemology is not a collection of data, it is a science. epistemology evaluating internal analysis of the said Nazca image will have to arrive to the same conclusions I did.

Um, you have no cultural context.

Oh yes, I do. There are many facts swept under the rug answering that category.

They are completely unrelated, and any comparison you make represents nothing but your imagination.

When two things are based on the same unique idea, they are comparable.

Yours contradict so much that they cannot stand without you offering a complete rewrite of history

If you preserve your "history" by refusing to acknowledge cold scientific facts, by suppression, it is not history, but historical fiction orf the dishonest kind.
Besides, the period, when Nazca drawings and lines had been made belongs to prehistory, not history.

[Jiri]

Downloaded BlueBeam pdf driver yesterday.
Tried other drivers, too. Same result - they all allocate more pixels vertically than horizontally for the square to be printed.
is it possible that agents from Religion Student's maddrassa had broken into my computer in order to sabotage progress of science? ;)

[Oualawouzou]

As promised, I will amend my original post. The modifications are in italics below.

---

Don't hold your breath, Tearout. In another thread, many people tried to get him to understand a blown-up version of a gif of a scan of a print of a scan of a hand drawn reproduction of a photography of a carving on a cavewall wasn't fit for precise measurements of angles and aspect ratios, without success.

I wish I was making this up.

[Jiri]

Don't hold your breath, Tearout. In another thread, many people tried to get him to understand a blown-up version of a gif of a scan of a print of a scan of a hand drawn reproduction of a photography of a carving on a cavewall wasn't fit for precise measurements of angles and aspect ratios, without success.

I wish I was making this up.

You failed to grasp your mission. Here is what you said:
He wasn't making it up. I myself pointed it out on at least 2 occasions, and you never corrected the statements then. Do I have to go and find the relevant posts? They're all archived you know.

The bone of contention is yours :you never corrected the statements then.
You pretend that I never corrected your statements then.
You are therefore supposed to prove the absence of my correction, which I say I made. So, you have to compile a digest of my posts from the period, from which it would either be evident that such corrections of your mistaken beliefs weren't made, or that they were.
They were, and that's the truth. I had made them just as I made them (the corrections) in this discussion. A glimpse into the truth of the matter may be gained from the fact that you and him both ignore these corrections now, as you did then. You don't give me sufficient incentive to go and dig through a bunch of my old posts just to prove this. Otherwise I would do it, of course.

[Jiri]

Actually it is highly unlikely that the Giza Pyramids were planned together. For one thing, the actual order of individuals who became pharaoh changed during the reigns of the three people whose tombs they were. Thus, the actual individuals who built them would not have known they would be pharaoh until after construction had already begun.

Well, I recognize the language you use. It is English, the language I started learning, when I was twenty. But, aside from your first sentence, your words seem to have no logical structure, and express no coherent idea. In short - you make no sense, buddy! Could you please explain what you meant in more detail?

[steenkh]

Actually it is highly unlikely that the Giza Pyramids were planned together. For one thing, the actual order of individuals who became pharaoh changed during the reigns of the three people whose tombs they were. Thus, the actual individuals who built them would not have known they would be pharaoh until after construction had already begun.
Much as I do not want to encourage Jiri in his fantasies, I have to say that even if the order of kings was changed, the kings themselves would have had no problems in taking over any designs their predecessors might have planned. That was the way they worked.

But it is still highly unlikely the pyramids were planned together.

[ReligionStudent]

You are not communicating, because you disregard any undisputed fact, which does not fit your pseudo-scientific beliefs. Your monologue consisting of wishful fantasies does nothing for this discussion.
None of what I said was pseudo science, my thoughts are based on evidence and what can actually be clearly illustrated by the archaeological record


Epistemology is not a collection of data, it is a science. epistemology evaluating internal analysis of the said Nazca image will have to arrive to the same conclusions I did. Epistemalogically, you need to look at the entire web of existing data and theory. If you throw in your fantasy, it throws the web out and creates innumberable questions, as well as ignoring existing evidence that is much stronger behind the Nazca lines etc



Oh yes, I do. There are many facts swept under the rug answering that category.What cultural context do you have? You have two culture with no linking material remains existing thousands of miles apart and thousands of years apart. There is no context for comparison



When two things are based on the same unique idea, they are comparable.
That is not how archaeology works. You must first show that they are somehow in contact or otherwise able to share ideas before you can use one as evidence or theory for the other. You cannot do so at all


If you preserve your "history" by refusing to acknowledge cold scientific facts, by suppression, it is not history, but historical fiction orf the dishonest kind.
Besides, the period, when Nazca drawings and lines had been made belongs to prehistory, not history. No, this is not preserving history by supresion, it is requiring evidence before rewriting clear, cogent, and supportable theories about the Nazca lines and their creators. You require a complete reworking of all known history to set up a connecting between these two cultures, that not only lacks evidence but requires that we ignore counteless pieces of counter evidence to your theory.

While it is pre-historic, we still call what we write about it and theorize about it history.

[ReligionStudent]

Well, I recognize the language you use. It is English, the language I started learning, when I was twenty. But, aside from your first sentence, your words seem to have no logical structure, and express no coherent idea. In short - you make no sense, buddy! Could you please explain what you meant in more detail?

The pyramids of the three pharoahs and their additional funerary temples and pyramids were build over a period of time.

During that time the expected order in which members of the royal family came to power changed.

This means that their funerary temples, other pyramids, and their main pyramids wer most likely not planned together.

[ReligionStudent]

Much as I do not want to encourage Jiri in his fantasies, I have to say that even if the order of kings was changed, the kings themselves would have had no problems in taking over any designs their predecessors might have planned. That was the way they worked.

But it is still highly unlikely the pyramids were planned together.

Well this overlooks the fact that the arrangement of the pyramids also has to be done around burials of people associated with the individual pharaohs that could not be preplanned, such as their own advisor's and families. Two of the pharaohs have pyramids for their wives. had the burials been based on the earlier ideas of what order pharaohs would be buried in, it is unlikely that they would have known the correct number of advisers or wives etc.

Additionally, since we have no records of the planning theorizing it in light of such evidence makes little sense, as does the statement that "that was the way they worked".

[steenkh]

Additionally, since we have no records of the planning theorizing it in light of such evidence makes little sense, as does the statement that "that was the way they worked".
Usurping the monuments of the predecessors the way they worked in Egypt. There are countless examples of it.

[ReligionStudent]

yes, but there is no archaeological evidence of such occuring with the pyramids, and the surrounding complexes being specifically created for the inhabitants tips the scale in the other direction.

[Jiri]

yes, but there is no archaeological evidence of such occuring with the pyramids, and the surrounding complexes being specifically created for the inhabitants tips the scale in the other direction.

a)There is no such archaeological evidence, because there is no archaeological evidence found within the pyramids that they belonged to any pharaoh whatsoever.
b)The surrounding complexes are absolutely secondary to the pyramids.
Once the pyramids stood there, it would be only natural to seek burials there. It was a privilege.

Where you stand on this discussion.
I have identified a geometrical idea inherent in the Giza pyramids. From the viewpoint of the Giza plan, this idea is self-creative. It is set by lines directly given by the pyramids themselves, and nothing else. The result is an extremely close facsimile of the exact idea.
The idea itself is fundamental to geometry dealing with the Golden Section - the Golden Cross - division of a square by the Golden Section. Certainly, such an idea is most befitting for a sacred ground, anywhere, anytime.
You have seen me finding plentiful evidence of Egyptians using Golden Section in the design of Giza's pyramid temples. You are familiar with many other observations of geometrical planning in the Giza architecture. The Great Pyramid integrates wonderfully into the world of geometrical ideas, and geographical measurements. The second pyramid itself is designed to represent a 3-4-5 triangle, etc, etc.
The order, the plan of Giza is therefore a perfectly tangible fact, and should be acknowledged by Egyptology. You yourself are willing to completely disregard all this evidence, because of an inconsequential fact, namely that there are some royal family graves near the pyramids. So what?
You haven't acknowledged my theoretical success, the identification of the planned-like mutual positioning of the the three Giza pyramids. In effect, you are saying to me: "Jiri, you have done nothing of the kind, it would be better for you just to forget all about this, and go away. Likewise forget about all the other research you have done, it is all delusion, fantasy, which I, and all the other true scientists will never take into account, when considering history.
Did I hit the nail square on?

[wollery]

When you present good evidence of your findings there may be cause to consider them as something more than the wishful thinking of someone deep in the grip of paredolia.

At the moment you can't even provide us with graphical evidence that your drawings are accurate (we have to take your word for it that the gifs you present do not accurately represent what you have in your CAD program), and you have yet to satisfy anyone that your methods are anything more than haphazard retrofitting.

Even if you manage to satisfy everyone of the above, you would still have the task of finding evidence that these features were actually designed into the buildings and not just a chance event, when all the existing evidence suggests that there was no overall design.

[ReligionStudent]

a)There is no such archaeological evidence, because there is no archaeological evidence found within the pyramids that they belonged to any pharaoh whatsoever.
Blatantly wrong, as one of the pyramids has a carving inside stating that it is for a specific pharaoh. Additionally they are physically connected to the temple complexes for the specific rulers. Finally, throughout Egyptian history, both significantly before and after the pyramids at Giza, the pyramids were built specifically by and for individual pharaohs.
b)The surrounding complexes are absolutely secondary to the pyramids.
Once the pyramids stood there, it would be only natural to seek burials there. It was a privilege. What evidence do you base this statement on, it goes quite clearly against the many other pyramid complexes present in Egypt.

Where you stand on this discussion.
I have identified a geometrical idea inherent in the Giza pyramids. From the viewpoint of the Giza plan, this idea is self-creative. It is set by lines directly given by the pyramids themselves, and nothing else. The result is an extremely close facsimile of the exact idea.
The idea itself is fundamental to geometry dealing with the Golden Section - the Golden Cross - division of a square by the Golden Section. Certainly, such an idea is most befitting for a sacred ground, anywhere, anytime.
You have seen me finding plentiful evidence of Egyptians using Golden Section in the design of Giza's pyramid temples. You are familiar with many other observations of geometrical planning in the Giza architecture. The Great Pyramid integrates wonderfully into the world of geometrical ideas, and geographical measurements. The second pyramid itself is designed to represent a 3-4-5 triangle, etc, etc.
The order, the plan of Giza is therefore a perfectly tangible fact, and should be acknowledged by Egyptology. You yourself are willing to completely disregard all this evidence, because of an inconsequential fact, namely that there are some royal family graves near the pyramids. So what?
You haven't acknowledged my theoretical success, the identification of the planned-like mutual positioning of the the three Giza pyramids. In effect, you are saying to me: "Jiri, you have done nothing of the kind, it would be better for you just to forget all about this, and go away. Likewise forget about all the other research you have done, it is all delusion, fantasy, which I, and all the other true scientists will never take into account, when considering history.
Did I hit the nail square on?

A) i see no reason or evidence to see the pyramids as planned, as opposed to the patterns being your agency (this is perhaps spoken to best by the countless other plans that others have seen and said are self evidenct etc, but are all contrary to yours and eachother).

B) This idea of a plan overlooks everything known about Egyptian pyramid culture and well document through many many pyramids

C) There is evidence tying the pyramids to the surrounding burrial sites, and showing them to be tombs.

[Jiri]

I said to you: "What you propose is serious quackery: the architects got all these measured relations in without measuring,
…

I think you should remove that funny mental block you're sporting: I'll happily concede that there are "measured relations." These things are, after all, the inevitable result of the activity and purpose of measurement. Your spin is, essentially, that you can divine the designers' intentions from a selection of dimensions that you chose. Tell me this: how did you control you sampling method for selection bias?


Your post deserves another look, because a lot of subsequent 'skeptical' posts seem based on its ideas. Firstly, it is important that you agree that there was architectural planning. In the following phrase, however you ascribe me a spin by putting on your own spin: According to you I select measurements, which work together in the given way. That is disingenuous because you imply two untrue things
a) there are so many possible combinations of measurements available to 'fishing' that the measurements found to comply do not represent a significant portion of all the possibilities.
b) You would have me divine designers' intentions. Tell me, is observation of facts a divination? Of course not. The planning of the Giza pyramid temples by the Golden Section is obviously observable. That is a fact. Divination comes in afterwards, and essentially amounts to learning a lesson, how the Golden Section was held by Egyptians to be sacred, and thus it was suitable for the design of temples, etc. Medieval architects thought in similar ways.
Finally, you also ask a question, which is not based on reality, whatsoever, because you speak of a sampling method, where there was none. There was no sampling, because the sample included everything. There was no selection bias. The Golden Section in the design is pervasive, it is dominant. A devastating proportion of the temple's walls contributes to the same effect. That's physical reality. 'Happy to adjust' would not cut it if the reality were any different.

…
these rectangles are nested in various ways, so you or anybody else would have absolutely no clue as to what is what just from looking and intuiting.…


…
But, but, but … you did so "look and intuit!" Strange that it must, therefore, be true!…

I have a bird's eye view of the plan, as opposed to temple visitors. They could not see through walls. So, there would be no aesthetic effect on visitors. As for the architect himself, he is looking at the entire plan, designs every last detail of it with great care, and you would have us believe that he intuits all this dominant Golden Section stuff as just an after-effect? My intuition was only good for giving me an idea to be tested, it was worthless as a tool, with which I could identify even one golden rectangle with certainty. This is just another disingenuous argument by you. Can't you use solid and honest arguments? You use a propagandistic style hell-bent on cheap victory even if truth should lose. What's the point?

…
In other words, ignorance of Φ precludes making systematic measurements in Φ.…

…
Equally, the presumption (and expectation) of a knowledge of Φ will reveal any number of such occurrences, especially when you're happy to tweak and adjust where necessary. …

Another pseudo-scientific statement by you. Presumption of knowledge will not reveal such knowledge, where there was none to begin with. There might be some occurences as you diplomatically say, but those should be statistically insignificant. The fact is that ignorance of Φ precludes making systematic measurements in Φ. You will find it impossible to reason against this postulate with reason.

…
This has been illustrated for you by Gardner and other posters in this thread, but the lesson seems to be totally lost on you.…

To the contrary, I believe that I understand these issues very well. It is you, who wields Gardner, as if he were God, and what he wrote applied to serious research as well. In reality, Gardner addresses the excesses of numerologists, and other such losers. Besides, Gardner is by no measure saying anything new. Remember, these creationist explanations of the Pyramid never did catch on. It is bigoted of you to include me in that category, because in order to do so, you have to close your eyes to all the serious, and quality work I have done (which Gardner, or prof. Greenberg, might have actually appreciated).

…
That is why you need to show, as I keep insisting, a separate line of evidence that establishes a knowledge of Φ, independent of buckets and buckets of "close enough" relations. Otherwise you don't know whether you're fooling yourself by seeing just what you expect to see.…

No one has ever before shown 'buckets nad buckets' of 'close enough' relations. You fail to recognize it, and congratulate me on this first.
I am not fooling myself, because you, and others actually see what I see, up to a degree. Besides, are you saying that I cannot read measurements?
Do you see something else? Can you make a counter-case, where you would give numerous examples that the architect's intention lay elsewhere? The absence of your competing observations demonstrates how childish, and self-deceptive are all claims of being able to find impressive order, where there is none.

…
So the question defenders of status quo will find hard to answer is - With what ideas in mind did the architect measure the temples, when the only consistent ideas, which come across from the plan are the numerous, and dominant golden rectangles?…

…
False dilemma floating about in two tubs of redundant hyperbole. How have you eliminated all the other explanatory possibilities?…


What false dilemma? It is a dilemma you and your fellows share. You have admitted there has to be a plan. If so, then the question is "does this plan base on specific ideas?
I have shown empirically that the plan emphasizes a recurring idea. Have you proposed any other explanatory possibilities? No, sir, you haven't brought on a single other explanatory possibility. Your position is shambles.
However, if you insist, let me give you an example of eliminating other possibilities. Eliminate all the walls, which play a role in my version, and what are you left with? Just about nothing, as all the major walls are gone!
A good example is diagram 8 at http://www.vejprty.com/pt.htm You see added horizontal lines closely correspond with the walls. Yet, these lines are where they are primarily as markers for round values in the detected unit system.
The fact is that these architectural elements play the same role often more than once or even twice. Objective observer would call this consistent. That's the word that terrifies you.


…
Next question asks for explanation, why these rectangles are in their majority such notably excellent facsimiles of golden rectangles.…

…
Because you selected them.…

You're hitching the cart in front of the beast of burden. These golden rectangles are excellent facsimiles of golden rectangles, because they are. They exist. In order not to find them, you'd have to close your eyes. I did not select them, I did not create them. They are there, because anyone can duplicate my results. That's for one. Two, they are there in a systematic arrangement.



…
I have falsified the main-stream theory.
The theory, which maintains that Egyptians did not know the Golden Section geometric procedure also predicts that the same cannot be found consistently playing a dominant role in the design of a number of temples. I have shown experimentally that this prediction is wrong..…
..
…First, what is this "Golden Section geometric procedure?" Is it captured somewhere in a manner that is independent of your expectations, e.g. an ancient diagram indicating the base-to-side-length ratio of a (36°, 108°, 36°) isosceles triangle? Because that would a very good start..…

I used to be totally devoid of any knowledge of Phi, whatsoever. Then I dug it, and geometry in general out of a Stone Age engraving using compasses and straight-edge to pick and shovel. I could see what I laid bare. Obviously, it was Geometry, but it looked impenetrable to me, although beautiful. It was also undeniably systematic, but it was not self-explanatory. Finally, in not too long, I figured out the basic function of the position, and the system turned out to be not only self-explanatory, but self-generating. Ever since then I had found so many advanced variations on Phi in my explorations, I can't remember them all at the same time. You have an opportunity to explore all of these. How is the greatest simplicity construction of the regular pentagram? That was learned from the Nazca monkey, not from a book on geometry, and not from JSF on this forum. You want an Egyptian example, of course, so have the Abydos Helicopter configuration. There, everything correlates to one specific construction, the Golden Section geometric procedure. In short, you are being offered a treasure, but you refuse it for the sake of a small coin (a particular triangle). How truculent! By the way, we were dealing with this very same triangle in discussions on the subject of the lens like torso of Athena in an earlier thread.

.…Next, you haven't falsified anything apart from the assumption that you are open to reasoned criticism..…

I have falsified the official, the prevalent theory. Out of five samples, four went against the grain of the prevalent theory. That's four too many, and one just isn't enough. The prevalent theory has no predictive power, and thinking in its frame is counter-productive. You haven't addressed this problem specifically, at all. What you call reasoned criticism is shooting duds.
Moreover, your nihilistic attitude also precludes you and others like you from ever become aware of ancient things, which I am discovering with ease. Example? The sixth sample I looked at, became the fifth, where the prevalent theory fails to predict the outcome in a fundamental way. The graven image of Hesire (Third Dynasty) on a wooden door in his tomb
http://www.vejprty.com/gizaplan.htm
incorporates the Golden Section to a significant degree. This is the second such discovery I made since you wrote your post. Have you discovered anything remotely relevant to ancient Egypt in the meantime? Have you ever made any discovery related to prehistory and early history? Nihilists never discover anything..

…Finally, the various critiques of your method (i.e. using CAD to "measure" lengths) are also quite damning, yet you provide no good reason(s) why this technique is preferable. ..[QUOTE]…

You are damning yourself by disdain for modern research techniques. If you want to be a fossil, please yourself.

..[QUOTE]…Did the ancients use CAD, theodolites and laser levels instead of knotted ropes and sticks?..…

Well, Luthon, the ancient Egyptians had certainly used far more than the primitive techniques based upon the primitive science we (but without me:) allow them. The overall picture is that out of nowhere, the Egyptians suddenly had capabilities, which could only be acquired through long civilisational development, and not in a simple hunter-gatherer society. The only explanation is that there had been some advanced civilisation, which had disappeared, but some of it, not all, had been preserved by the agency of survivors, who had been reduced to inactivity for thousands of years, before restarting a relatively advanced civilisation in Egypt. I am of the opinion that the power and influence of the institution of Egyptian temples is strongly underestimated today, and the power of a pharaoh is exaggerated. The most glaring result of this failure to understand ancient Egypt is the failure to understand that the Giza pyramids were never intended to be pharaonic tombs. These pyramids are obviously not tombs. Some giant reasons in support of this position are the absence of glyphics in any of these alleged tombs despite the fact that decorations were standard in tombs of the rich and powerful, the absence of any traces of actual non-intrusive burials in these pyramids, realisation that the coffer in King's chamber of the Great Pyramid never had a lid, and realisation that no pharaoh could rightfully expect that his pyramid will be constructed before his death. Furthermore, the pyramids were finished in an insecure manner. Obvious security measures had been omitted. For instance, the passageways could have been filled in with interlocking blocks, and granite blocks could have been used to a greater degree, to not only plug the passage-way, but also in the masonry around it, thus completely frustrating later attempts to break in by force. These obvious security measures could have been taken with but a little extra effort.
The great pyramids, if built in the dynastic Egypt at all, and not millennia earlier, had been built for the institution of the Egyptian temple. It was this institution, which could guarantee the accomplishment of these unbelievably difficult tasks. It could have been only this institution to even conceive of the idea, and not some fragile and perishable pharaoh, who would more often than not be just an impressionable youth under the guidance of the temple. Logically, once the temple took the decision to build great pyramids at Giza, the whole thing became one single project, and had an overall concept, and planning. Otherwise the first, the Great Pyramid would be standing centrally in the stead of the second pyramid, and on a higher ground to boot. But, the position of the Great Pyramid obviously allows room for the subsequent two great pyramids, hence right there you have planning..

[leftysergeant]

After photocopying a number of illustrations from books about Ancient Egypt in the local library, I took them home and scanned into my computer. Measuring a number of circles that appear in these pictures (and making slight adjustments for perspective) I have concluded that the AEs knew Pi to a value of 3.1459, more or less. :rolleyes:

Including the value of Pi into a structure may be the result of using a wheel to measure distances for the foundation, then using the measurement of one wheel-determined length to determine the length of the next line.

I recall seeing something on TV about the possibility of there having been wheels used to measure lines on the ground.

[Jiri]

Including the value of Pi into a structure may be the result of using a wheel to measure distances for the foundation, then using the measurement of one wheel-determined length to determine the length of the next line.

I recall seeing something on TV about the possibility of there having been wheels used to measure lines on the ground.

Herein is your key to the issue - it would be a practical albeit inexact way to measure distances on the ground. Of course, it would have to be very nice and flat. So much for the practical aspect of this.
In contrast, measuring heights by the same wheel is wholly impractical.
Ask yourself a question: Why would only one pyramid be measured this way, the one, where it would be most impractical?
More questions: Did the AEs measure the entire Earth with their mysterious wheel before making the pyramid geo-commensurate?
How did the AEs make the circuit of the wheel equal one exact cubit - 523.5 to 524 mms? Would they not have to calculate it from the diameter? But, then they would have to know the value of Pi to a degree our savants are unwilling to consider.
Dilemmas - solutions such as the wheel theory only introduce more problems, they are not serious, but designed to introduce chaos and uncertainty, to brainwash the uninformed into dis-informed.
Are you a lawyer?

[Skeptical Greg]

How did the AEs make the circuit of the wheel equal one exact cubit - 523.5 to 524 mms? Would they not have to calculate it from the diameter?But, then they would have to know the value of Pi to a degree our savants are unwilling to consider....
Little tidbits like this, are gentle reminders that you don't have a clue..

Carry on ..

[wollery]

How did the AEs make the circuit of the wheel equal one exact cubit - 523.5 to 524 mms? Would they not have to calculate it from the diameter? But, then they would have to know the value of Pi to a degree our savants are unwilling to consider.Measure out one cubit flat, then form that into a circle and use it as a template.

Not very practically minded, are you?

[Skeptical Greg]

Oh, I forgot to ask..

What is an exact cubit ?

[Jiri]

Measure out one cubit flat, then form that into a circle and use it as a template.

Not very practically minded, are you?

You are not very theoretically, or practically minded yourself, are you? You don't make a circle out of a string by forming it first into some ellipse then circle. It won't be a circle, but rather a somewhat inexact falsification. To make a circle, you need a center point, and a radius, which of course can be a piece of string. Then the question remains - how does the radius relate to the circumference? How long should the string be?
Of course, you could have a special machine - a transformer of string loops into circles - a cone onto which to slip the given length of string. When it, the string, is tight against the cone, and you make sure that it is horizontal, then you must make it rigid in order to take it off the cone, or you just saw the cone along the plane marked by the string, and you have your wheel. Are Egyptians allowed wheels four and a half thousand years ago?
Now that you have your wheel, it should be soft, so it would not bounce on the hard, and rough desert surface, because when it bounces, you lose accuracy. Oh, when did they invent tyres? So really, it would also be desirable if this wheel were connected to another one serving as a gyroscope, in order to counteract the wheel's tendency to veer away from the straight line.
Do I even have to continue this? It is obvious that such measuring wheels would only be used for quick and dirty measurements. measurements on the Pyramid required more precise methods, that's all.

[Jiri]

Oh, I forgot to ask..

What is an exact cubit ?

The fact that I cannot give you the exact value of the so called Royal Cubit, does not mean that it did not have a set value.
It seems that the consensus today puts the value of one cubit somewhere between 523.5 and 524 millimeters. The difference is less than 1/1,000th.
So an exact cubit would be one that Egyptians could replicate over and over, and its value would remain the same from application to application..
Your opinion on the exact value of a cubit is?

[Jiri]

Little tidbits like this, are gentle reminders that you don't have a clue..

Carry on ..

Get lost - and we won't have a clue..

[wollery]

Measure out one cubit flat, then form that into a circle and use it as a template.

Not very practically minded, are you?

You are not very theoretically, or practically minded yourself, are you? You don't make a circle out of a string by forming it first into some ellipse then circle. It won't be a circle, but rather a somewhat inexact falsification. To make a circle, you need a center point, and a radius, which of course can be a piece of string. Then the question remains - how does the radius relate to the circumference? How long should the string be?
Of course, you could have a special machine - a transformer of string loops into circles - a cone onto which to slip the given length of string. When it, the string, is tight against the cone, and you make sure that it is horizontal, then you must make it rigid in order to take it off the cone, or you just saw the cone along the plane marked by the string, and you have your wheel. Are Egyptians allowed wheels four and a half thousand years ago?
Now that you have your wheel, it should be soft, so it would not bounce on the hard, and rough desert surface, because when it bounces, you lose accuracy. Oh, when did they invent tyres? So really, it would also be desirable if this wheel were connected to another one serving as a gyroscope, in order to counteract the wheel's tendency to veer away from the straight line.
Do I even have to continue this? It is obvious that such measuring wheels would only be used for quick and dirty measurements. measurements on the Pyramid required more precise methods, that's all.Thank you for demonstrating my point by needlessly overcomplicating something incredibly simple.

[Jiri]

Thank you for demonstrating my point by needlessly overcomplicating something incredibly simple.

It is only simple, when it achieves the objective. Your string example is not simple, because it does not create a true circle. So, how do you make a a real circle of a specified size without using Pi, and keep it incredibly simple?
I suggest, you square it - that way you can park it, and it won't roll away on you.. Now, that is practical.

[wollery]

It is only simple, when it achieves the objective. Your string example is not simple, because it does not create a true circle. So, how do you make a a real circle of a specified size without using Pi, and keep it incredibly simple?
I suggest, you square it - that way you can park it, and it won't roll away on you.. Now, that is practical.You mentioned string, I talked about making a template, without specifying the material to be used. And besides, if all you want to do is measure a distance, not only do you not need a true circle, you don't even need to have the axis at the exact centre! Hence why you don't need pi.

[Skeptical Greg]

... measurements on the Pyramid required more precise methods, that's all.More precise than what ? And for what reason ?

The pyramids were built.. Whatever measurements they used,were available at the time and obviously worked...

[Skeptical Greg]

... To make a circle, you need a center point, and a radius, which of course can be a piece of string. Then the question remains - how does the radius relate to the circumference? How long should the string be?.....Uhhh.. That would be, long enough to produce a circle with a circumference equal to 523mm or any value you choose..

Again, the fact that you seem to think this is extremely complicated, shows us you sort of skipped introductory level geometry along the way.

Sort of a handicap when someone is trying to demonstrate the relationships you claim exist ..

[Jiri]

And besides, if all you want to do is measure a distance, not only do you not need a true circle, you don't even need to have the axis at the exact centre! Hence why you don't need pi.

True - and you don't even need to interpolate your slightly deformed wheel into the process. Accurately measuring the distance of 440 cubits along an almost perfectly straight line would be much better served by first using sighting posts to produce the line, and mark it on the ground. Then you would just measure along this line with a high quality measuring rod. Of course, the ground should be perfectly flat before the final measurements start. As you know the pyramid's platform is almost perfectly flat, the variation is insignificant, an inch or so.
You could use your measuring wheel to do a quick preliminary layout over rough ground. But, to paraphrase Flinders Petrie, you would not use it to lay out the entire pyramid so exactly that the total error for all four sides can be covered with a thumb. That would be impossible.
Note that this discussion deals with the proposition that Pi is incorporated in the Great Pyramid, because it was designed on the simple principle of one turn of the measuring wheel along the side of the pyramid for one diameter up. In reality, it should be one turn for two diameters up, but then the myth would lose much of its glitter.
Supposing that your wheel tactics worked flawlessly, the result when dividing one side by half its height would be perfect Pi!. But, it has already been shown that most of the great pyramids use whole number ratios for slopes. The ratio for the Great Pyramid conforms very closely to 22 steps towards the center to 28 steps up. Khafre's pyramid is very close to 21:28. The Bent Pyramid is 20:28 in its steeper part. Ralph Grenberg is of the opinion that Egyptians were stunningly accurate, paraphrasing loosely.He also says that any of the main suspects - principles by which the Great Pyramid was built - would cause the rest to appear, too. All these are so close, it is impossible to tell, which was the main one, but he is sure that it was not Pi or Phi, which were on the architect's mind.
Well, he can be wrong. For instance, he says that if Pi gets written into the Pyramid, so will Phi. But, as is, we have Phi given directly (366/220=1.61818...). Change the equation for Pi, and neither it nor Phi will be directly readable. Greenberg should let his so called probability space (or whatchmacallit) factor in his thinking more, but he appears to put on blinders voluntarily.
http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/pyressay.html
I was accused of needlessly complicating a simple thing like the measuring wheel. A couple of personal attacks showed up based on the flamer's primitive grasp of the problem. The gist of the matter is that If accurate measurements are needed a whole bunch of fine details and factors start to matter, which would not matter for a simple task.
The myth that the Great Pyramid contains Pi, because it was possibly laid out with a measuring wheel should be put to rest. Howgh.

[Hokulele]

The gist of the matter is that If accurate measurements are needed a whole bunch of fine details and factors start to matter, which would not matter for a simple task.


This is really starting to bother me. Jiri, do you understand the difference between accuracy and precision? This came up before in your discussions of the use of CAD systems, and you did not answer there.

[Skeptical Greg]

As you know the pyramid's platform is almost perfectly flat, the variation is insignificant, an inch or so.

Is that supposed to present a problem?

Do you know how easy it is to get any size foundation ' almost perfectly flat ' ?

[wollery]

Nice deflection Jiri.

You claim that in order to make a measuring wheel one must have knowledge of pi, which I clearly and simply demonstrate is false. You agree with me and make it sound as if you were never arguing for it in the first place.

Bravo sir. :clap:

[robinson]

Is that supposed to present a problem?

Do you know how easy it is to get any size foundation ' almost perfectly flat ' ?

I have no idea. How do you do it? And how easy is it? Considering the size, and lack of modern technology, how would you level that large of an area to such an exacting degree? As in, 4600 years ago?

[robinson]

... do you understand the difference between accuracy and precision?

What is the difference?

[wollery]

If the actual value of the thing you are measuring is 48 and you get a measurement of 48 plus or minus 10 your measurement is accurate, but not precise. If you measure 42 plus or minus 0.1 your measurement is precise, but not accurate.

[Hokulele]

What is the difference?


What wollery said. For another example, let's say I have a piece of string that is exactly 1 foot long. Consider the following statements.

The string is 12 inches long.

The string is 12.0000000 inches long.

Which of the two statements is more accurate? Which is more precise?

They are equally accurate, but the second is more precise.
In other words, what has been bothering me is that Jiri has been claiming that higher precision always leads to higher accuracy. Not true.

[Jiri]

Is that supposed to present a problem?

Do you know how easy it is to get any size foundation ' almost perfectly flat ' ?
I have no idea. How do you do it? And how easy is it? Considering the size, and lack of modern technology, how would you level that large of an area to such an exacting degree? As in, 4600 years ago?

What supreme arrogance. As if I didn't know what you have in mind - water. You are a genius. But digging a ditch and filling it with water is not the whole job. You have to implement this water level physically in your construction. The fact is that the Pyramid platform job is admired as an achievement even with using such aids.

[Jiri]

What wollery said. For another example, let's say I have a piece of string that is exactly 1 foot long. Consider the following statements.

The string is 12 inches long.

The string is 12.0000000 inches long.

Which of the two statements is more accurate? Which is more precise?

They are equally accurate, but the second is more precise.
In other words, what has been bothering me is that Jiri has been claiming that higher precision always leads to higher accuracy. Not true.

What short memory you have! When discussing the "Frame" you guys were insisting on precise measurements in order to cast doubt on my methods of rounding sections of the "Frame" to the nearest half-millimeter (life-size), which then produced a perfectly accurate set of values for the job that the "Frame" does.
Back then you did not understand what you are now preaching. Strange, isn't it?

[Jiri]

If the actual value of the thing you are measuring is 48 and you get a measurement of 48 plus or minus 10 your measurement is accurate, but not precise. If you measure 42 plus or minus 0.1 your measurement is precise, but not accurate.

That's as true as life :)

[jsfisher]

What is the difference?


Accuracy refers to how close a measurement is to the "true" value; precision refers to the resolution of the measurement (number of significant digits).

For repeated measures of the same phenomenon, precision can be thought of as how tightly the measurements cluster around a mean, while accuracy corresponds to how far that mean is from the correct value.

[robinson]

Fascinating. I suspected that was the case, but never heard it explained so succinctly.

Ah, water, yes, an elegant solution. I suspect the Ancients understood water a lot better than records would show. No doubt due to the ordinary nature of the thing.

Much as we see no record of the tools we use to build complex structures, anywhere on the frescoes or art displayed on these structures. Using water, one could lift pretty much any size stone with ease, and move it anywhere. We still do this today, moving vast amounts of material using water.

[Skeptical Greg]

The obvious bottom line here, is that the pyramids were built.
Whoever built them, had the tools to get the job done..

They are big piles of rocks fer Pete's sake..
A whole bunch of people had a lot of time on their hands before we had ' Dancing With The Stars ' to keep us occupied....

If we were looking at sliding doors that opened as you approached them, or perpetual sources of lighting with no discernible source of power, this discussion might make sense. As it is, line 2 of my sig seems to be applicable here..


.

[robinson]

I think the issue is about what the Ancients knew and stuff. Did they just know how to build really really big structures, with very durable materials, with really cool secrets inside them, or did they also understand the divine proportion and use it as well?

Was it just chance? Or was it planned out?

[Big Les]

The issue is one big argument from incredulity. People (understandably) can't personally fathom how such enormous and apparently precise structures could have been built by pre-industrial people, therefore I will look for patterns post hoc and read into things that were either never intended, or that there is at least no evidence for. And so we get the believers like your man here presenting speculation and assertion dressed up as evidence and fact. Sometimes they're looking to get the credit and respect afforded to genuine historians and archaeologists, without the years of training and experience that takes, though I couldn't say whether that's the case here or not. Some are just convinced they're right and can't understand why others don't see it too.

[robinson]

I'm far more impressed with the discovery that Egyptians did Dentistry. We like to think we invented the drill and fill, when they were doing it 5,000 years ago.

[Pyrts]

Another "if you let me pick the points I want, then I can show you the Ancient Egyptians knew and used the Golden Mean/Pi/Fibonacci sequence/Sieve of Eratosthenes/Hilbert Hotels/Boltzman's Brains/Ley Lines/Boolean Algebra/Flying Spaghetti Monster Meat Balls" post.

The controversy over the discovery of Φ-ratio being designed into the Great Pyramid of Giza has raged for hundreds of years by now. The preponderant stance of Egyptologis and historians is that this is probably accidental, as ancient Egypt is not in general considered that mathematically advanced, especially not in IV. dynasty. The discovery of Φ-ratio is given to the Greeks.

Because they wrote about it and taught it and we have lots of bits of scrolls about it. It also was an important concept in their philosophy.

One would think that someone would check next door to the Great Pyramid, for there we have remains of the pyramidal temples, one for each of the three great pyramids.
But before one does, perhaps one should look for this revolutionary thought in educated Ancient Egypt, particularly because it could be related to astronomical objects (like star patterns) or city design or standard temple design because the time period covers a 100 year section of time. And then we should look for it occuring in lessons and writings and a special term for it showing up in their educational system.

...and then one would think that because there was no mention of this or term for this or pages of calculations showing young architects the math, that it wasn't a part of their culture.

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

The Φ-proportion (1.6180339887..) abounds in the architectural floor-plans of all three Giza pyramid temples!

I notice this only works if you don't take the actual measurements and if you "fudge" things by starting your circles in different places.

For instance, you say "The floor-plan of Khufu's temple is a rectangle based on its long side. In order, to check it for golden-section, we use a technique, which completes the rectangle into a square, which is then given the basic golden-section grid."

If it really was, you wouldn't have to "complete the rectangle into a square." You could just slap it down and there it'd be. You also selected the points for the grid and based it on 6 -- a number that made things work -- instead of looking at Sacred Numbers. In addition, you had to place the top line some distance outside the entrance of the temple -- presumably because if you started with the actual walls, it doesn't work out... right?

I don't imagine that my findings will be easily dismissed.

You mean because you don't expect people to take the height and base of the pyramids and use simple calculators to check and see if the divison comes out to be something like 1.56 instead of 1.6? Or that the proportions of the second pyramid come out to be 1.496 while the third one comes out to 1.62?

(reference: http://www.ronaldbirdsall.com/gizeh/petrie/index.htm)

Yes they will.

Or you don't expect someone to point out that the Greeks could build it precisely to those dimensions but the purported discoverers of the number weren't anywhere near that precise in engineering design?

Petrie had a term for people who kept confabulating data about the pyramids. I leave you with the Wikipedia citation:
Despite the authoritative evidence to the contrary, pyramidologists then and now remain unwavered in their belief, a phenomenon which even in the late 1800's prompted Petrie to coin the term 'pyramidiot'. Petrie summarized his contention by concluding: "It is useless to state the real truth of the matter, as it has no effect on those who are subject to this type of hallucination. They can but be left with the flat earth believers and other such people to whom a theory is dearer than a fact.".

The full Petrie quote is here http://www.pinetreeweb.com/bp-petrie.htm :
By 1800, Egyptologists were certain that the Egyptians had used the pyramids as tombs, but during the course of the nineteenth century a multitude of cranks and cultists disputed the idea. Eventually professional Egyptologists would be able simply to ignore the various pyramid cults, but during the nineteenth century, they could not always do so. At least one pyramid cultist, Charles Piazzi Smyth, performed useful work in measuring the Great Pyramid at Giza and thereby made for himself an international reputation as an authority on the structure, origins, and function of the Great Pyramid. A multitude of other pyramidiots attracted considerable attention, scholarly and otherwise. The bizarre speculations concerning the pyramids had a long life, and at least one pyramid cult has succeeded in maintaining itself in the twentieth century.”

As with everything else, it works out perfectly if you ignore the facts.

Noticed also your speculation on the Abydos palimpset. It appears you didn't understand that the Ancient Egyptians could indeed write and write literately and that the symbols have real meaning to them instead of being a pretty design of some sort.

[Skeptical Greg]

Nice post Pyrts..

[Hokulele]

What short memory you have! When discussing the "Frame" you guys were insisting on precise measurements in order to cast doubt on my methods of rounding sections of the "Frame" to the nearest half-millimeter (life-size), which then produced a perfectly accurate set of values for the job that the "Frame" does.
Back then you did not understand what you are now preaching. Strange, isn't it?


Absolutely, 100%, completely wrong. I cast apsersions on your method as you were claiming half-millimeter precision coming from drawings of questionable accuracy as proof that your answers were correct.

[wollery]

This is really starting to bother me. Jiri, do you understand the difference between accuracy and precision? This came up before in your discussions of the use of CAD systems, and you did not answer there.

What short memory you have! When discussing the "Frame" you guys were insisting on precise measurements in order to cast doubt on my methods of rounding sections of the "Frame" to the nearest half-millimeter (life-size), which then produced a perfectly accurate set of values for the job that the "Frame" does.
Back then you did not understand what you are now preaching. Strange, isn't it?Thank you for proving that you don't know the difference.

[leftysergeant]

If they used a line attached to a stake in the ground at one point as a compass to calculate the positions of otehr corner, and the length of that line to measure the up rights, wouldn't this also build in some factor involving pi? (I'm not that good at math, mind.)