> Origyptian Wrote:
> Sorry, what does 26°31'23” equate to exactly again?
I get 26.523 degrees. But don't take my word for it; there are 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in a degree.
First, 23" = 0.38'
Therefore, 31'23" = 31.38' = 0.523 deg.
And so 26°31'23” = 26.523°
> > And once again, please stop trying to visit my
> > intentions and just mind the words being posted.
> > You keep insisting you know what I "want" but you
> > do not. It is as if you are the one who
> > "wants" me to want a different scenario, and
> > perhaps that's because it's difficult to find the
> > logic that would justify the star alignment
> > scenario in the first place.
> What "you want" you have made perfectly clear time
> and again as there is nothing you do not see
> through the filter of being tens of thousands if
> not millions of years old. Every day Your words
> speak for themselves despite your protestations to
> the contrary so just own it.
I do not subscribe to de novo anything when it comes to ancient culture. Doesn't matter if we're talking about language, art, religion, medicine, math, engineering, etc. If you think it was possible to go from a mastaba to Djoser, then THREE pyamids during one man's (Sneferu) lifetime, then immediately to G1, good for you. I don't "want" it to take more time, I just think it DID take more time since I've heard no plausible explanation of how all that could have happened so early in the late stone age era without any known tools, methods, eyewitness reports, or any other evidence that the culture had the wherewithal to do that work. I have no idea why you would translate that into someone having a preconceived notion of "wanting" it to be older despite all the logic I've gone into about how implausible it is to claim anything near a 3rd millennium BC provenance.
Meanwhile, I'd love to see an example of me expressing anything that resembles a "desire", "want", "preconceived notion" or any other intent other than pure objectivity in search of the facts based on the physical evidence.
> Regardless, again, regarding Thuban, as
> interesting and tidy as it would be if it were the
> target of the DP's obviously the idea has its
> weaknesses which the main reason for bringing it
> up it to explore the idea that if the DP's were in
> fact stellar aligned then what were they aligned
> at which may possibly tell us when. While it may
> not be the case, warts and all, Thuban is still at
> least possible.
Thuban is certainly possible, but I don't see the logic to it. The north pole is a "fixed point" and if the builders could align G1 to within 0.04 degree of error with the cardinal points, I see no reason they couldn't achieve the same degree of accuracy in finding the north pole to begin with rather than depend on the position of a star that's off-axis by almost 2 orders of magnitude greater error than the cardinal points alignment. Again, no one has offered any logical rationale for such a discrepancy in precision.
> > My only point is that since there are other
> > consistent angles throughout ancient Egyptian
> > architecture, it seems like cherry-picking to
> > claim that one angle necessarily "points to"
> > something in the sky while other angles do not,
> > without providing a logical rule that discerns a
> > reason for that discretion.
> I addressed this point multiple times. You don't
> agree, which is fine, but what I am saying has merit.
Understood. I just don't see the merit, that's all.
> > But it's not a fixed point at all. An off-axis
> > star is in constant motion as it circumscribes the
> > north pole. It makes a complete 360 degree
> > revolution about that pole every 24 hours. Thuban
> > would have been a moving target during every
> > second of every day. And considering that when
> > Thuban may have been visible during apart od the
> > day in 3000 BC, it would have been a full 3.5
> > degrees off-axis in its excursion (30N lat vs.
> > 26.5 deg DP), that's quite a large movement for
> > such an allegedly "fixed point". How do you think
> > the builders were able to capture the position and
> > angle of that "fixed point" during that specific
> > time each day and during the many years it likely
> > took to build that passage? Surely no one believes
> > Thuban would have been visible as a "fixed point"
> > in that same position in the sky during the entire
> > construction of that 100m passage.
> A "fixed point" in the sense it is an object to
> align to not that it "never" moves. It is not
> required to be fixed along its length during
> construction, but only for enough time to sight
> the line to set the angle.
> > I do not. Sorry. Just because the DP is steeper
> > than those 4.6 degree causeways does not mean it
> > is pointing to something while the others are not.
> > So what is the rationale that makes you believe
> > the DP is pointing at something?
> I've said why several times. I've also said
> several times it may in fact be just coincidence,
> with diagram (see below), and not point at anything.
> > No idea what you mean by that. I see no reason to
> > believe the incline in your diagram is necessarily
> > intended to point to anything in particular.
> It clearly says it points to "nowhere in
> particular". See comment directly above.
I thought you were being sarcastic since I thought you said earlier that such an angle surely must point to something. Sorry if I misunderstood your intent.
> > I'm talking about
> Collins' Cygnus correlation.
> Apologies to Mr Collins, but I never gave it much
> thought to be honest with you.
The publication claims to be a "peer-reviewed" and contends that Collins' Cygnus correlation fits the evidence better, and seems more probable, than an Orion correlation.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 25-Feb-17 21:37 by Origyptian.