> Use the Metric system, not feet, for accurate
> findings. The ancients knew the metric system
> (10,000km North Pole to Equator) and the cubit is
> based on PI/PHI and Metric system - this is
> obvious if you dig deep enough.
> Also, the ancients were aware of 4 dimensions -
> not 3 - The 4th being time. It's riddled all over
I seem to be generally finding the same things in what is probably a very different way. In fact, that may be an interesting thing about Pyramidology, is that many people seem to be able to find similar data in spite of the difference in approaches - geodetic data, for example. (Perhaps pyramids are some sort of Logic Inverters whereby in areas of inquiry outside of archaeology, the more coincidences accumulate, the less likely they are to be thought coincidences by Wikipedia...) :-)
I just had an interesting experience with looking at the measures of a certain pyramidion whose height is stated as 1 m, although as Bauval pointed out it's been subject to what may be questionable reconstruction, and a sensible reason (aside from typographical errors) for Zahi quoting a different figure hasn't clearly emerged yet - not that the lack of a physical representation really changes anything if one is truly able to demonstrate geometric relationships between metrological units.
I do find it challenging, though - it may be that a lot of the likely ancient units are eligible to have origins in geometry, geodesy, metrology, and astronomical cycles, so it's difficult sometimes to posit an origin for a metrological unit and feel too much certainty. Lately, I've begun to wonder if it wasn't the 4th dimension that man began to grapple with first in order to be sure he'd gathered enough wood to survive the winter.
I'm not sure archaeologists should be permitted use of the meter, though - since I rarely see data after the second place after the decimal, it's troubling that .01 meter is of course almost 3 1/3 times the error as .01 feet. IMHO, that difference actually could make a difference in the results / findings too often. Some people (quite possibly including myself) must already find it too easy to confuse, say, 5 cubits with 7 remens.
FWIW, I'm suspicious that if the ancients dabbled in the meter, the most common one may have been slightly larger than the contemporary one - I'm experimenting with ~3.289 vs ~3.280 ft and have had some interesting results. Believe it or not though, I still haven't been able to overturn the idea that the most common and ubiquitous ancient metrological unit may be the "modern" foot - that subject also eventually touches on the possibility that some of Berriman's proposed remen fractions are linked to some other ancient metrologies simply by the ratio 6:5 or (6:5) x 10 (i.e., comparable to the division of the foot into inches).
I would also have to guess that someone probably also used one or more values in feet for miles in ancient times - including, for intents and purposes, one identical to the contemporary one, in order that many of the geodetic figures reported from ancient monuments (i.e., figures in modern miles) should have recognizable meaning, but I've never been able to come up with a good guess for how a 5280-foot mile first originated.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09-Nov-17 09:17 by thinkitover.