> Surveys of this sort only reflect the ‘as
> built’ dimensions, not intended dimensions. If
> you disagree, please provide what irrefutable
> evidence that exist which would lead anyone to
> assume any surveyed dimension of G1 are the exact
> intended dimensions of the Ancient Egyptian
> builders? That any survey does is an assumption
> with no irrefutable evidence addressing this
> conundrum. Therefore the correct answer can only
> be 'None of them'!
i use Legon's numbers in my 3D model of Giza
which has the automatic and enviable etc. feature
of being ideal to measure the distances between peaks
and other exclusive traits i have yet to get fully around to
(i had grand designs on measuring and comparing the spheres,
but kept tripping over the so far endless distractions)
this image: (http://dudeman.net/astra/giza/6b.gif)
shows there is a point equidistant from all 3 pyramids
this page: (http://dudeman.net/astra/giza/lines-proj.html)
attempts to explain, without advanced math, how odd that is
...that the distance should be exactly 5000 cubits, however
seems somehow somewhat conspicuous to the casual observer?
but, this is where mathematicians are even more impressed
and thus why skeptics must play dumb at points like this
...the odds of that are beyond accidental, not possibly unintentional
point to anything else easily deemed obviously officially intentional
perhaps you're familiar with the expression
"even a broken watch is right twice a day"
but if the watch is always right, maybe it's not broken
that is the essence of a mathematical Proof by Induction
basically, if something has proven itself a reliable predictor
we are charged by Science to give it the benefit of the doubt
- or that w/c/should be a detail we didn't follow up on properly
which then we would all feel very silly at the end of the movie ;o)
"Repeated Confirmed Correlation: is what is needed, and what we have
...at risk of feeling silly in a minute, i will attempt to explain...
ok so, i am currently in a room which happens to be exactly 10 x 10
if you have a room in a house that is exactly 10 x 10, meters or feet
and other measurements of other dimensions and angles etc. within
confirm a tendency for integer units as obvious common denominators
that contribute to an assumption, so common as to evade description
all minor details that point to a now even widely accepted conclusion
- which leaves the skeptic in an uncomfortable and unenviable position:
just because the details are small enough to be dismiss-able on their own
that they are of a set of observations contributes to the merit of that set
so, the commonality that ties them together is what has gained plausibility
- attacking the details misses the whole point, which may be the whole point
we have a conundrum, positioned somewhere between:
"just because the pi isn't all shtick doesn't mean its edible"
and "ok, we've found a few trees, but where's the confounded forest?"
well, let's point our tricorder around and see if more trees appear?
it's the age old argument of... which method makes a better argument"
specific verified measurements, or some text on papyrus or in clay ???
is the road trip's paper map the end-all/be-all of that kinda knowledge?
or... if a new road or intersection appears before you, is the map wrong?
it's like we've hit the jackpot at a slot machine (whee, tokens on the floor)
and the guy next to us is trying to tell us that we haven't won anything really
but we're too busy stacking the tokens spewing out of this thing to pay any mind
still, there's this nagging sensation of these tokens not being tender anywhere...
but the thingy is ...we would have noticed... so, there is no prevalence of
surprising interesting geometric interesting significant number coincidences
in enough random places to dismiss these findings enough to just ignore them
but the burden of proof is not on us, paper only covers rock
so, if you have a scroll that says this rock was carved upon
we have no reason to not take its word for that
but scissors cuts paper
if we have an empirical repeatable measurement
which contradicts something written somewhere
...then the credibility of scrolls is reduced
...which may be what's worth so much trouble
so that's what this is all about
believing what's written
instead of our own eyes
- but still, rock breaks scissors -
if the pyramids were aligned to stars
that turns out never remotely existed
yes, that would indeed be a thing
and thus, cause to drop OCT, say
...but it's not ;o)
> So Jim, without knowing the intent of the Ancient
> Egyptians you, like everyone else, are just
> guessing and guessing is not science. Fact: No one
> has yet provided any evidence, let alone
> irrefutable evidence. supporting the Ancient
> Egyptians use of pi, phi, √2, √3 or √5.
the Ancient Greeks were convinced
that all numbers must be rational
that is, could be possibly expressed as a ratio
thus proving the gods were not random or insane
and they invented math, obviously
so there were strong feelings etc.
it is not known today, what happened to the guy
who proved that √2 must be an irrational number
but no story of his demise has him ending well
- and it turns out nowadays we know he was right
and there are other irrational numbers as well
in fact irrational numbers outnumber rationals
that there is no mention of pi in any scroll
may be a clue that the scribes n scrollers
were indeed not the designers n architects
but you simply can't be a circle expert and not know pi
just as you simply ...and using Occam's Razor, now...
- can't be a square expert and not know √2
- can't be a triangle expert and not know √3
- can't be a rectangle expert and not know √5
now, you can cook without being able to eat, but why?
are you a robot chef? some other more plausible accident?
...and just as it is possible to compose an opera without any music theory
but the odds of that make any empirical examples so far staggeringly rare
see, arguments like that, so far, their only purpose seems to be
to just diminish the apparent significance of, well, math itself
and would ironically be an easily worthy argument
if the world didn't have so much of it... oh...
neither are pi and phi modern constructs
they're older than the stars themselves
...hiding your head in the sand, as it were
only sells that shtick to fellow ostriches?
- significant numbers are traipsed upon here
and danced around with obvious choreography
thus, your argument's very nature just... qualifies itself
for automatic compulsory investigation into gaslighting...
even so, already
for your penance
you must watch a Musical on mute
and that's from me, a fellow peer
i can't wait to see
what professor says