Mysteries :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums

Whether or not pi was part of the premeditated design of the Great Pyramid isn't something to be adjudicated by the authority of anyone, but by a line of evidence of falsification, DavidK. Against you and Jim's insistence that it was, Jacob and I are pointing out that no record of its professed use exists and its frequent occurrence, emerging by computational manipulation of Great Pyramid lengths and angles, may simply have been unwitting by virtue of a numerical tether to something else, like the number 22 and its multiples for example, or the

When Jacob says there is no record of its use and shows how it was not needed, he does not falsify the idea it was used. Merely, the plausibility and probability that it was used diminishes.

When I say you only see pi because it is mathematically and geometrically tethered to the "golden"

Just like we can falsify the idea the foot was the metric used to design the Great Pyramid (see the proof I posted for Jim), we have to present proof that pi was not on the mind of the architect to actually falsify it.

An argument based on probability does not suffice. Many scientists rely on it, but too often they end up getting burnt using common wisdom based on their judgement of likeliness.

So, this is what ya'll should be focused on: How do you falsify the idea pi was consciously used, or how do you falsify the idea that its cameos aren't merely incidental to something else indeed intended?

An immediate difficulty presents itself, because proving something's absence is impossible. You can prove the presence of something and by doing so falsify that which negates it. This we can do with cubit vis-a-vis the foot or the meter. There is virtually no wiggle room left unless you want to say both cubit and foot were used on the same features which makes no sense. Nevertheless, one cannot say the cubit was not used because it evidently was.

Given this complication in the logic of proof, here is an example: Let's say you see a nearly perfect ancient megalithic circle. By definition of the geometry, you know pi is embedded, but was that known? Let's say in the center, you find an ancient yard stick which shows you the metric used by the circle's ancient designer. Has anything changed? No. In what metric you measure the lengths makes no difference, because pi approximately derives from a ratio or by the method of exhaustion. However, if the circle's circumference and diameter, when measured in the units of the ancient metric, reveal a certain ratio or irrational fractional number and that same ratio or number you also discover in some other record, for example in the dimensions of a rectangle 22 units long and 7 units wide within this circle, then you have compelling proof.*

So this is one thing you could look for inside the Great Pyramid: Find a distinct feature 22 cubits by 7 and see if it associated with something else which is round.

*This is the problem with Great Pyramid Pi from 880/280....it is a multiple of 22/7, not the elemental ratio. Find something which is actually 22 and 7 and find a circle next to it, and you may well have it.

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 28-Nov-18 14:51 by Manu.

For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board).

QuoteThe sekhed is obviously a superior unit than Pi within the design of the GP and I learned this from you. It works three dimensionally. So why would they focus on 22/7, they used 256/81 and 22/7 is naturally built into the design of the GP by using the sekhed. Using 256/81 shows that they used the diameter to relate to the circle so they would have known 22/7

Whether or not pi was part of the premeditated design of the Great Pyramid isn't something to be adjudicated by the authority of anyone, but by a line of evidence of falsification, DavidK. Against you and Jim's insistence that it was, Jacob and I are pointing out that no record of its professed use exists and its frequent occurrence, emerging by computational manipulation of Great Pyramid lengths and angles, may simply have been unwitting by virtue of a numerical tether to something else, like the number 22 and its multiples for example, or the

*seqed*, both of which litter the pyramid's design.

When Jacob says there is no record of its use and shows how it was not needed, he does not falsify the idea it was used. Merely, the plausibility and probability that it was used diminishes.

When I say you only see pi because it is mathematically and geometrically tethered to the "golden"

*seqed*, which itself may have come from astronomy, or is mathematically tethered to multiples of 22 cubits, I do not falsify the idea of its premeditated use. Merely, the plausibility and probability that it was used even further diminishes.

Just like we can falsify the idea the foot was the metric used to design the Great Pyramid (see the proof I posted for Jim), we have to present proof that pi was not on the mind of the architect to actually falsify it.

An argument based on probability does not suffice. Many scientists rely on it, but too often they end up getting burnt using common wisdom based on their judgement of likeliness.

So, this is what ya'll should be focused on: How do you falsify the idea pi was consciously used, or how do you falsify the idea that its cameos aren't merely incidental to something else indeed intended?

An immediate difficulty presents itself, because proving something's absence is impossible. You can prove the presence of something and by doing so falsify that which negates it. This we can do with cubit vis-a-vis the foot or the meter. There is virtually no wiggle room left unless you want to say both cubit and foot were used on the same features which makes no sense. Nevertheless, one cannot say the cubit was not used because it evidently was.

Given this complication in the logic of proof, here is an example: Let's say you see a nearly perfect ancient megalithic circle. By definition of the geometry, you know pi is embedded, but was that known? Let's say in the center, you find an ancient yard stick which shows you the metric used by the circle's ancient designer. Has anything changed? No. In what metric you measure the lengths makes no difference, because pi approximately derives from a ratio or by the method of exhaustion. However, if the circle's circumference and diameter, when measured in the units of the ancient metric, reveal a certain ratio or irrational fractional number and that same ratio or number you also discover in some other record, for example in the dimensions of a rectangle 22 units long and 7 units wide within this circle, then you have compelling proof.*

So this is one thing you could look for inside the Great Pyramid: Find a distinct feature 22 cubits by 7 and see if it associated with something else which is round.

*This is the problem with Great Pyramid Pi from 880/280....it is a multiple of 22/7, not the elemental ratio. Find something which is actually 22 and 7 and find a circle next to it, and you may well have it.

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 28-Nov-18 14:51 by Manu.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.