Mysteries :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums

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).

Pudding. You know, where they keep the proof and all that.

Sirfiroth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi Scott,

>

> Actually it is much easier to understand Ancient

> Egyptian methods if you have no knowledge of pi

> whatsoever. Unfortunately it seems no one is

> capable of overcoming their pi programming to view

> things from a different perspective clearly.

Now there's there's a terribly ironic thing for you to say. I'm not incapable of comprehending 22/7 or a

Suppose things in ancient Egypt were a lot like they were on GMBH and you have a couple of guys trying to give Pi away and nobody will touch it because they're perfectly happy with their 22/7, which obviously works fine for lots of things. It's just not the best that we're capable of, and I have no reason to think it was best

Anyway, yeah, we know you. Show us the papyrus. Therefore to use the very same criteria, the Great Pyramid was improvised because no blueprint can be produced that demonstrates premeditation.

God forbid we get you near the subject of Stonehenge because that too will have to have been improvised, because we certainly aren't likely to find you a papyrus that demonstrates any planning whatsoever went into that either. If it wasn't written down, it just never existed, end of story, right?

Sure, that's a great way to never lose an argument, to demand proofs you know you're most likely never going to get, but when is it your turn to be on the receiving end of that?

I say the length of the Queen's Chamber is 6 Pi feet. I say the length of the Queen's Chamber is (1/9) x (Pi^2) Royal Cubits. That's 10.96622711 Royal Cubits, not 11. Can you tell the difference? There

I want you to prove to me that it's 11 Cubits. 1.715681818 to use Petrie's data - isn't a cubit in my book. I have enough cubits already, thanks. I have an important mathematical constant 1.715917826 in my book that probably merits more investigation for geodetic value, but I have yet to encounter an incentive to declare it or many other things an actual cubit value.

1.715681818

As in the modern day where there is the need for metric standards to prevent an avalanche of different ways of looking at a given unit, there probably would have been a similar need in ancient times for metric standards, and I can't think of a better one than the exact geometric derivation of the consensus cubit value in feet.

Still trying my best to keep it down to one Royal Cubit, two Remens, and three Megalithic Yards here. Wish me luck keeping down the number of Palestine Cubits, I'll definitely need it.

I still haven't shown you a measuring rod or a papyrus proving they were aware of the modern foot to illuminate the Royal Cubit value thus, but I could ask what people think the diagonal of Chephren's pyramid is even if I disagree with them, and I have a round 216.0000000 feet as the intended height of Mycerinus' pyramid. These may not constitute

Can you get out a papyrus or a pocket calculator and

I was hoping we might be able to shed light on things looking at larger measures - I currently have it that the E-W distance between the apices of Chephren and Mycerinus' pyramids according to Petrie would probably be exactly 100 times the length of the Queen's Chamber, but I'm afraid the difference between 22/7 and Pi even at that scale is probably within a typical error margin for Petrie.

I can't

Beyond that, as always I can only default to the idea that ancient architecture is meticulously designed, and that the parts should fit together coherently within in a rigid standard of accuracy. They should multiply and divide well, they should add and subtract well where applicable even for as mutually exclusive as those different operations may be. Their parts should show significant ratios between one another. They should probably frequently reference astronomy and geodesy to be convincing.

So what should we think of mathematics that can live up to all of those rigorous demands?

Do we think masterpieces like that just design themselves by accident?

Sadly, even this may not settle the issue, because 22/7 is Pi to .9995976620, while the standard of accuracy I've been able to establish is >.9995.

We might only be able to agree to disagree and see where our respective paths of inquiry take us and stop demanding proofs from one another that we should know it isn't reasonable to ask for.

I dunno, unless maybe someone is going to prove to me whether you can use their numbers at higher powers like I'm so often able to use mine, or whether the difference between 22/7 and Pi is going to become noticeable with exponential use by its impact on the numbers we should expect to see as output from that sort of application.

That's data capacity, and wanting to make any kind of statements through numbers incorporated into architecture is wanting to store data. What sort of math best serves that purpose?

Anyway, at the third power, the difference between 22/7 and Pi becomes

((22/7)^3) / (Pi^3) = .998793478

Their similarity seems to be plummeting here, from (22/7) / Pi = .9995976620 all the way down to ((22/7)^3) / (Pi^3) = .998793478, and at only the 3rd power.

Can you think of a way to use this to advantage in sorting out whether we have any examples of applications that can only work with Pi and not 22/7, as possible evidence that true Pi had to be used in the planning, even if it wasn't typical ancient Egyptian math?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02-Jan-20 21:47 by thinkitover.

Sirfiroth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi Scott,

>

> Actually it is much easier to understand Ancient

> Egyptian methods if you have no knowledge of pi

> whatsoever. Unfortunately it seems no one is

> capable of overcoming their pi programming to view

> things from a different perspective clearly.

Now there's there's a terribly ironic thing for you to say. I'm not incapable of comprehending 22/7 or a

*seked*, I just haven't had it proven to me that they ever represented the state of the art.Suppose things in ancient Egypt were a lot like they were on GMBH and you have a couple of guys trying to give Pi away and nobody will touch it because they're perfectly happy with their 22/7, which obviously works fine for lots of things. It's just not the best that we're capable of, and I have no reason to think it was best

*they*were capable of.Anyway, yeah, we know you. Show us the papyrus. Therefore to use the very same criteria, the Great Pyramid was improvised because no blueprint can be produced that demonstrates premeditation.

God forbid we get you near the subject of Stonehenge because that too will have to have been improvised, because we certainly aren't likely to find you a papyrus that demonstrates any planning whatsoever went into that either. If it wasn't written down, it just never existed, end of story, right?

Sure, that's a great way to never lose an argument, to demand proofs you know you're most likely never going to get, but when is it your turn to be on the receiving end of that?

I say the length of the Queen's Chamber is 6 Pi feet. I say the length of the Queen's Chamber is (1/9) x (Pi^2) Royal Cubits. That's 10.96622711 Royal Cubits, not 11. Can you tell the difference? There

*is*one.I want you to prove to me that it's 11 Cubits. 1.715681818 to use Petrie's data - isn't a cubit in my book. I have enough cubits already, thanks. I have an important mathematical constant 1.715917826 in my book that probably merits more investigation for geodetic value, but I have yet to encounter an incentive to declare it or many other things an actual cubit value.

1.715681818

*could*be a cubit, there are countless cubits if I did like Egyptological types and round off to the nearest cubit without having to account for what that does to the length of a cubit, which is how Petrie managed to have such a menagerie of cubits that it allowed him to remain oblivious to the obvious use of the Remen in Egyptian architectural design.As in the modern day where there is the need for metric standards to prevent an avalanche of different ways of looking at a given unit, there probably would have been a similar need in ancient times for metric standards, and I can't think of a better one than the exact geometric derivation of the consensus cubit value in feet.

Still trying my best to keep it down to one Royal Cubit, two Remens, and three Megalithic Yards here. Wish me luck keeping down the number of Palestine Cubits, I'll definitely need it.

I still haven't shown you a measuring rod or a papyrus proving they were aware of the modern foot to illuminate the Royal Cubit value thus, but I could ask what people think the diagonal of Chephren's pyramid is even if I disagree with them, and I have a round 216.0000000 feet as the intended height of Mycerinus' pyramid. These may not constitute

*proof*of anything but they do look suspiciously like*evidence*.Can you get out a papyrus or a pocket calculator and

*prove*to me that the QC*is*11 Cubits long, or is it even fair for me to ask you that if I'm already skeptical that you can deliver?I was hoping we might be able to shed light on things looking at larger measures - I currently have it that the E-W distance between the apices of Chephren and Mycerinus' pyramids according to Petrie would probably be exactly 100 times the length of the Queen's Chamber, but I'm afraid the difference between 22/7 and Pi even at that scale is probably within a typical error margin for Petrie.

I can't

*prove*that assessment either but I could tender as possible*evidence*that to regard the QC and Chephren-Mycerinus distances that way gives pleasing results in a number of metrologies using already established values even when demanding absolute precision.Beyond that, as always I can only default to the idea that ancient architecture is meticulously designed, and that the parts should fit together coherently within in a rigid standard of accuracy. They should multiply and divide well, they should add and subtract well where applicable even for as mutually exclusive as those different operations may be. Their parts should show significant ratios between one another. They should probably frequently reference astronomy and geodesy to be convincing.

So what should we think of mathematics that can live up to all of those rigorous demands?

Do we think masterpieces like that just design themselves by accident?

Sadly, even this may not settle the issue, because 22/7 is Pi to .9995976620, while the standard of accuracy I've been able to establish is >.9995.

We might only be able to agree to disagree and see where our respective paths of inquiry take us and stop demanding proofs from one another that we should know it isn't reasonable to ask for.

I dunno, unless maybe someone is going to prove to me whether you can use their numbers at higher powers like I'm so often able to use mine, or whether the difference between 22/7 and Pi is going to become noticeable with exponential use by its impact on the numbers we should expect to see as output from that sort of application.

That's data capacity, and wanting to make any kind of statements through numbers incorporated into architecture is wanting to store data. What sort of math best serves that purpose?

Anyway, at the third power, the difference between 22/7 and Pi becomes

((22/7)^3) / (Pi^3) = .998793478

Their similarity seems to be plummeting here, from (22/7) / Pi = .9995976620 all the way down to ((22/7)^3) / (Pi^3) = .998793478, and at only the 3rd power.

Can you think of a way to use this to advantage in sorting out whether we have any examples of applications that can only work with Pi and not 22/7, as possible evidence that true Pi had to be used in the planning, even if it wasn't typical ancient Egyptian math?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02-Jan-20 21:47 by thinkitover.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.