Please if you are going to quote me, please do it correctly. I said I can, from Ancient Egyptian Archives show direct support for what I profess.
somewhere (maybe in here, of all places)
some Text-ologist of some variety/stripe
knows where to find the reference/quote
wherein the AEs told Plato (via Solon?)
that Atlantis was just the most recent
previous civilization no longer with us
the one he's/we've heard of
- that many have gone before
going back millions of years
and there's nothing that disputes that
only text which is dubious-definitivus
in fact, there's more corroboration for that
if you take into account the full scope
of all texts available worldwide
possibly concerning the era?
otherwise, we're cherry-picking
and that's not responsible science
still we want to take ourselves seriously
but without applying blinders selectively
case and point, for the sake of alacrity/hilarity:
imagine global climate warming warning change wins
and more water in the atmosphere means more clouds
so that "the sky" is permanently overcast for ages...
suddenly, purporters of paradigms can more easily say
the world is flat, and there's no such thing as outer space,
and dare anyone to provide an observation of an alleged star
which of course makes truth-seekers seem like the silly ones
...the angels and overlords think they might wanna see that?
i can only provide a bit of text towards that, at the moment
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'!
what are the odds that i park my car randomly
in the exact parking space numbered 440 x 280?
...or any such parking spot, even less than perfectly...
which has a serial number of interesting-ish possibilities
now say there's several famous estimations for that number
and where i'm parked, while less than perfectly
just so coincidentally amazingly happens to be
the dead center mean of all synonym values?
suddenly we take ourselves more seriously
as... even the funny ones get respected?
my measures of OCT
line up G3 to Phi
...fortunately, we always
keep our corners numbered,
for just such an emergency?
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. There is no evidence other than yours and others training and ability to find these modern mathematical operators which occur naturally in the mathematics of structures by our current system. As stated many times before: [i[ If one draws a square, the √2 is an inherent value of the diagonal within the square, similarly if one draws a circle then л is the inherent value within the circle relating the diameter to circumference. Is foreknowledge of either of these factors is necessary for the completion of either task.[/i] It seems all of the research being done is directed towards things which cannot be proved like pi, phi, √2, etcetera.
even our noble ("no-bull") Occum's Razor would caution / instruct us:
that in general, the more impressive the engineering or construction
the less likely it is that the inventor came up with it by chance...
now it is true that it is possible to build / design something simple
which has natural symmetries and other interesting thingies about it
that the ideal humble stumbler is not cognizant nor responsible for
and may even remain blissfully unaware of, just not looking for them
but the learning (etc.) curves involved in the shape of a pyramid
keeps klunking n punking one over the head and any thingy else...
so much so that its detractors are accidental backpedaling champs
A couple of years ago I quit looking for what couldn't be prove and started looking for what could be proved regarding the Ancient Egyptians mathematics. Here is a hint: It doesn't reside in our modern mathematical operators like pi, phi, √2, √3 or √5 since they are naturally occurring factors within our current system. As Corinna Rossi determined, from a perspective based on the available evidence strongly indicates the Ancient Egyptians were not aware of our concepts nor did they employ these factors. But I do wish you good luck on your quest to prove otherwise.
- it's almost as if every ancient text
only supports the emerging hypothesis
that the AEs could not possibly have
designed much less built the things
that their culture grew out of the shadow of these things
as does our greater larger modern world, zooming out time
the big picture larger assessment now being self evident
as we note they're models of earth, and all the planets
which it's now only more obvious that the AEs
had an incomplete idea of something we have
...a somewhat different incomplete idea of...
and what they wrote of what they knew is incomplete
seems like "the incomplete" is our greatest challenge
when knowledge = nutrition
then we also become wiser
just go easy on the sweetcakes
don't wanna spoil your dinner
plus all these ancient monuments align to each other
using the same cool / interesting significant numbers
- i think we have permission to give that more weight
than basically hearsay that's been partly discredited?