Mysteries :  The Official 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). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
The only problem is that Newton pulled the sacred cubit not from Greaves analysis, but, hold yourself, from Josephus and the Talmudists and then claimed that the Memphis ("profane") cubit was derived from it. Mind you, Greaves got the measurements wrong to further add to this mess.

We learn from the Talmudists and Josephus, that the Jews used the measure of four sacred Palms instead of the Greek Cubit. The Greek Cubit therefore approached nearer to 4 Jewish Palms than to 5 or 3; that is, it was less than 412 Palms, and greater than 312. Hence it follows, that the sacred Cubit of 6 Palms was less than 247 Attic Feet, and greater than 2 Attic Feet. The stature of the human body, according to the Talmudists (f)[6], contains about 3 Cubits from the feet to the head; and if the feet be raised, and the arms be lifted up, it will add one Cubit more, and contain 4 Cubits. Now the ordinary stature of men, when they are bare-foot, is greater than 5 Roman Feet, and less than 6 Roman Feet, and may be best fix'd at 5 Feet and an half. Take the third part of this, and the vulgar Cubit will be more than 20 Unciæ, and less than 24 Unciæ of the Roman Foot; and consequently the sacred Cubit will be more than 24 Unciæ, and less than 2845 Unciæ of the same Foot.

Nevertheless, even Newton considered that the Great Pyramid's design was originally in Egyptian cubits, which nevertheless came from the "Orgyiæ of the Greeks"

From the Pyramids of Ægypt accurately measured by Mr. John Greaves, I collect the length of the antient Cubit of Memphis in this manner. The side of the first Pyramid was 693 English feet. It is very probable, that at first the measure of it was determined by some round number of Ægyptian Cubits. Ibn Abd Alhokm, quoted by Mr. Greaves, tells us, that the measure of each side was an 100 Royal Cubits of the antient times. But it is probable, that the Ægyptians learn'd, from the Orgyiæ of the Greeks, their measure of four Cubits of Memphis, and gave it the name of the Royal Cubit. Thus the side of the Pyramid will be 400 <409> simple Cubits, or four Arouræ; and the Cubit of Memphis will be equal to 17321000 of the English Foot.

All of this turned out to be complete nonsense. Cult of personality is not the right way to investigate, David. Even Newton could be way off. But again, my focus isn't your Stonehenge analysis and I actually think Thom was onto something. My focus is your attempt to link the foot to the Great Pyramid. Your argument in that regard is not me anyways. A lot more thorough proof is needed than what you have delivered so far.

Options: ReplyQuote

Subject Views Written By Posted
Understanding Michell's Canon and Thom using n/(n-1) 787 DavidK 10-Jun-18 09:11
The n/(n-1) ancient systems 120 DavidK 11-Jun-18 06:24
the ancients are laughing at us 139 DavidK 11-Jun-18 06:57
Stonehenge using 561/560 135 DavidK 12-Jun-18 06:25
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 138 magisterchessmutt 16-Jun-18 06:26
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 117 DavidK 17-Jun-18 06:27
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 146 Manu 17-Jun-18 17:04
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 119 DavidK 18-Jun-18 12:34
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 108 rodz111 18-Jun-18 19:02
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 104 Manu 18-Jun-18 19:56
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 122 DavidK 18-Jun-18 22:13
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 115 Manu 19-Jun-18 03:19
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 113 DavidK 19-Jun-18 05:38
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 97 Manu 19-Jun-18 07:04
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 106 DavidK 19-Jun-18 10:42
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 135 Manu 19-Jun-18 18:11
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 196 DavidK 20-Jun-18 19:12
Understanding “n/n-1” 124 Dr. Troglodyte 11-Jun-18 16:50
Re: Understanding “n/n-1” 132 DavidK 11-Jun-18 18:35
Re: Understanding Michell's Canon and Thom using n/(n-1) 280 rodz111 12-Jun-18 19:48
Re: Understanding Michell's Canon and Thom using n/(n-1) 116 DavidK 13-Jun-18 07:08
Re: Understanding Michell's Canon and Thom using n/(n-1) 127 DavidK 13-Jun-18 07:30
GP perimeter using n/(n-1) 132 DavidK 13-Jun-18 13:38
The sekhed using n/(n-1) 146 DavidK 13-Jun-18 09:14
Re: Understanding Michell's Canon and Thom using n/(n-1) 132 Sirfiroth 19-Jun-18 00:17
Re: Understanding Michell's Canon and Thom using n/(n-1) 110 DavidK 19-Jun-18 20:17
Re: Understanding Michell's Canon and Thom using n/(n-1) 111 Sirfiroth 20-Jun-18 03:12

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.