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). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Warwick wrote:

> 1. I cannot reply here without first referring you to the Hall
> of Ma'at as a site where evidence comes first

Not in my experience Mr Warwick. "evidence" has been presented @ Ma'at and in my opinion ignored or not properly addressed by those that convey a level of knowledge and understanding of the AE above and beyond anybody else that tries to present evidenced data that has the potential to alter orthodox beliefs if not disproven.

> 2. the best site for debunking theory is not on the
> internet..it is your public library.


disagree. Books @ a library are only a snapshot of historical data and understandings at the time of their print. What if new info and data is provided to alter those outcomes? It happens every day.
As we have been observing since the beginning.... history tends to change.

> 3. the most efficient way to debunk a theory is to try your
> hardest to corroborate it.

i don;t disagree with this.

Given the thread topic.
I theorize the ancients not only knew the circle, but embedded the theorem to square the circle within the slope angle 14/11 seked of the GP.

5 new theorems have been developed as a direct result of ancient AE, MAYA*Aztec art and engineering. These are mathematically proven.

this could be your first debunking if you so choose.

Nothing in this data is presented as Occult or anything farther then this data proves the ancients possessed a higher level of knowledge and understanding of our world through simplistic natural design. Something we have veered far from through our history.

I am putting my neck on the line here...so, the second this turns into a name calling experience... is the second the efforts have been wasted. I only request thorough review of the data and any rebuttals....then, we can go from there.

I will paste a partial post here to set the stage:
{snip}
This discussion appears to be stuck on the technicalities of whether or not the ancients knew the concept of Pi. To me “Pi” is just a circle @ a BASE Diameter unit of “1”.
As the circle grows in size, it is defined by the number of Pi's to complete its circumference; via its [D] Diameter. I don’t think there is any argument that they didn’t know the circle. Maybe just Pi as a specific seked or concept.
Through my research, the older we go back through time, the more it appears the ancients made direct ref to this as a concept... As Anthony stated the only concept we can find within the EMP/RMP is the “seked”.
We must define what this means.
A seked is simply a “ratio” or comparison of 2 units to determine proportion in relation to one another.
Thus creating a seked. If we review the very first problem {Rhind#1} after the 2/N fractions. We see clear examples of integral mathematics with the proportional studies of DIAGONALS. Through analysis of the “method to a solution” we can deduce clear understanding that the ancients can only be discussing a square’s diagonal. Furthermore, we can see the ancients are telling us that the seked or ratio of the square’s SIDE in relation to its DIAGONAL is approx 99/70. And, as we move up in size this becomes 140/99…
Now, given what we currently know of convergence {F. Gnaedinger 1996} , the ancients appear to be utilizing variations of a given “seked” to accomplish a solution. Similar to saying Pi = 22/7 when applied here…however, certain cases require a refined Pi= 864/275…etc. This is gauged via comparing the resulting units within any given solution within the EMP/RMP.
Throughout the EMP/RMP we can observe various sekeds or variants of the true irrational concept; which suggests the ancients understood the varying “overall” relationships of proportion...however, they circumvented true irrational via fractions to obtain the ideal solution. Once this concept was understood and the units were graphically mapped into shapes to compare proportions to obtain an understanding of the ranges of their understandings. A system of relational basic shapes was deduced.
That can be viewed within this forum from last year: ] Rhind Papyrus and Khufu GP
through extensive analysis and working direct with Assem Deif; we were able to bind this understanding within a system of basic relational shapes via the true irrational concept that the AE were approximating.
Using Pythagorus’ Perfect Constant combined with its inverse. As a direct representation of:
Outer Pi Diamter : Square SIDE : Inner Pi Diameter.
Once the circle and square were mathematically bound; we were able to build out via root2 variants or sekeds within this model and in relation to the starting unit or BASE unit. Again, this entire concept is gauged much easier through visual representation and simple proportional comparisons versus actual mathematics. Meaning I believe the ancients are showing us much simpler ways to accomplish the same results that we currently exhaust mathematical formulas to obtain. I have found know direct “red flag” making me think they knew “Pi”. However I seriously believe they understood this relational basic shape system of proportion given it sets up two key “sekeds” that not only correlate, but join or link other sekeds that in turn appear to link in other structures more clearly. Without going into detail of how the theorem is obtained….Pi/3 represents the “seked” of any square side to obtain a perfect hyperbolic square.
As Sirfiroth’s data would convey in applying the Pi/3 seked for exploration purposes only…. Many units compare more clear in how they related. Only we believe the ancients would have seen this ratio as 22/21 versus Pi/3. Furthermore, within this relational model of basic shapes. We can observe that the Pi/4 becomes the true hyperbolic squared side. Meaning any square side x 4/Pi will equate to the Circle’s Diameter that this Square actually squares the area. And, or vice versa in the inverse…Again, without going into the details of the theorems mentioned; I will only make ref to the thread within the “AGN” titled 4/Pi & Pi/4 combine to Square the Circle. I have added direct supporting links to some of the re-search and mathematical theorems to support this data.
Now, these are mathematical theorems defined and extracted via reverse engineering the geometric shapes of the architects structure. Nothing within my re-search suggest any occult meaning given the data is right out in the open and embedded within the design for anybody to see.
The ancients would have had to of incorporated some planning of this design and I believe that I have read a consensus towards this understanding. Given the materials available it is a simple a concept for the ancients to have placed a measuring rod straight up stretching 4 {RADIUS} ropes out in the 4 directions concentric from the center poles peak. They would have observed a square BASE rising to a peak of a pyramid. They could have taken any one of those RADIUS ropes and walked in 360 degrees and marked off the boundaries it created. They would have observed a circle circumscribed around the square. And, as evidenced within the EMP/RMP they would have gauged proportion. And, of course I presume they would have expanded these techniques.
Without stretching out this post too long.
The GP squares the Circle via 1/2BASE or Radius x 4/Pi.
“the radius from the middle times the GP seked {14/11} or {4/Pi}” to obtain the height.

A circle with same DIAMETER as the SQUARES DIAGONAL creates the section of the circle or ARC that squares the SIDE. Times 4 to see the CIRCLE that squares the SQUARE.
220 x (14/11) = 280
Its labeled a Pyramid
We can break this down to
Pi
Ra
Mid
I have located 4 representations of ancient’s hieroglyphs that would be all that would be required to
Understand the above concepts.
N9 :
S21 : {2:1 Diameters}
X6B :

Z15 :

Z18 :
Z26 :

How can we conclude coincidence when the very seked itself embeds the theorem to square the circle given the strategic placement of this seked within the 4 angles of the 4 sides making up the square base
Of the rational structure? ...which does "allude" to the circle given this knowledge and we do find supporting "sekeds" that appear to support this concept.

I cannot conclude any specific reference to any specific value to Pi within my research, However, I see all kinds of signs that there was understanding of variants of the “concept” we understand as Pi. They simply could have just viewed it as a circle and the various sections and how they related to the square etc when "Sectioned" or compared for proportion via the many aspects of the two base objects. We certainly see signs within the units within the GP that couldveryeasily correlate.

at least we have an easier way to do math now for the circle and square!
Sorry for the long winded post. I'll remain objective... I just need feedback for some of this data.
{/snip}

Post to Ma'at that gives an overview:
[www.grahamhancock.com]

REF/THEOREMS {proofed by Professor Assem Deif}
Binding the Circle & Square within SQRT2/1:1:1/SQRT2 model.
[www.2dcode-r-past.com]

Displaying evidence that the AE understood this SQRT2/1:1:1/SQRT2 model....only rationally as evidenced within the EMP/RMP
[www.2dcode-r-past.com]

Theorem of the hyperbolic square side = Pi/3
Hyperbolic's:
[www.2dcode-r-past.com]


The GP embeds the {ancient theorem} to square the circle via it's own 14/11 seked.
[www.2dcode-r-past.com]

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
debunking alternative theories 378 Titus Livius 02-Jul-09 19:10
Re: debunking alternative theories 289 cladking 02-Jul-09 19:55
Re: debunking alternative theories 236 drew 02-Jul-09 23:11
Re: debunking alternative theories 268 Scott Creighton 02-Jul-09 23:52
Re: debunking alternative theories 238 survivalcell 03-Jul-09 00:01
Re: debunking alternative theories 257 cladking 03-Jul-09 01:37
Re: debunking alternative theories 265 survivalcell 03-Jul-09 18:18
Re: debunking alternative theories 247 cladking 04-Jul-09 00:07
Re: debunking alternative theories 322 Susan Doris 04-Jul-09 07:14
Re: debunking alternative theories 271 cladking 04-Jul-09 07:26
Re: debunking alternative theories 306 Susan Doris 04-Jul-09 07:31
Re: debunking alternative theories 283 Rob Miller 04-Jul-09 07:31
Re: debunking alternative theories 257 Titus Livius 03-Jul-09 17:10
Re: debunking alternative theories 299 cladking 03-Jul-09 22:56
Re: debunking alternative theories 264 papalou 05-Jul-09 22:27
Re: debunking alternative theories 280 Susan Doris 06-Jul-09 06:34
Re: debunking alternative theories 339 carolb 06-Jul-09 18:13
Re: debunking alternative theories 264 Susan Doris 06-Jul-09 20:34
Re: debunking alternative theories 255 papalou 06-Jul-09 23:29
Re: debunking alternative theories 330 carolb 07-Jul-09 16:43
Re: debunking alternative theories 251 NetWorkAngel 07-Jul-09 16:51
Re: debunking alternative theories 273 Bobajot 08-Jul-09 03:49
Re: debunking alternative theories 200 Andy McCallum 02-Jul-09 22:40
Re: debunking alternative theories 264 Archae Solenhofen 02-Jul-09 23:18
Re: debunking alternative theories 235 Scott Creighton 03-Jul-09 00:03
Re: debunking alternative theories 275 Archae Solenhofen 03-Jul-09 03:17
Re: debunking alternative theories 283 Scott Creighton 03-Jul-09 10:23
Re: debunking alternative theories 274 Titus Livius 03-Jul-09 17:20
Scott 272 Warwick 03-Jul-09 17:54
Re: debunking alternative theories 287 Archae Solenhofen 03-Jul-09 18:13
Re: debunking alternative theories 282 cladking 03-Jul-09 23:08
Re: debunking alternative theories 271 Archae Solenhofen 03-Jul-09 23:59
Re: debunking alternative theories 277 cladking 04-Jul-09 01:34
Re: debunking alternative theories 282 Archae Solenhofen 04-Jul-09 18:18
Re: debunking alternative theories 284 cladking 04-Jul-09 18:54
Re: debunking alternative theories 252 papalou 05-Jul-09 22:47
The coiled serpent 253 Morph 06-Jul-09 13:58
Re: debunking alternative theories 272 Susan Doris 06-Jul-09 07:03
Re: debunking alternative theories 266 cladking 06-Jul-09 21:46
Re: debunking alternative theories 312 Susan Doris 07-Jul-09 07:18
Re: debunking alternative theories 276 Titus Livius 03-Jul-09 17:16
Re: debunking alternative theories 305 Archae Solenhofen 03-Jul-09 18:47
Re: debunking alternative theories 268 Morph 02-Jul-09 23:22
Re: debunking alternative theories 268 drew 02-Jul-09 23:25
Re: debunking alternative theories 277 Titus Livius 03-Jul-09 17:48
Re: debunking alternative theories 238 Warwick 03-Jul-09 18:08
Re: debunking alternative theories 318 richarddullum 03-Jul-09 05:50
Re: debunking alternative theories 264 Titus Livius 03-Jul-09 17:38
Re: debunking alternative theories 291 cladking 03-Jul-09 23:36
Re: debunking alternative theories 278 Titus Livius 04-Jul-09 11:57
Re: debunking alternative theories 307 cladking 04-Jul-09 19:14
Re: debunking alternative theories 247 Titus Livius 05-Jul-09 10:22
Re: debunking alternative theories 268 cladking 05-Jul-09 20:18
Re: debunking alternative theories 306 Susan Doris 03-Jul-09 07:36
Re: debunking alternative theories 317 Susan Doris 03-Jul-09 07:43
Re: debunking alternative theories 256 Scott Creighton 03-Jul-09 10:58
Re: debunking alternative theories 249 Essan 03-Jul-09 08:52
Re: debunking alternative theories 243 Laird Scranton 03-Jul-09 15:05
Re: debunking alternative theories 278 Warwick 03-Jul-09 17:47
more scholarly feedback 200 Warwick 03-Jul-09 18:00
Re: more scholarly feedback 262 cladking 03-Jul-09 23:45
Re: debunking alternative theories 370 Rob Miller 03-Jul-09 18:42
actually.. 278 Warwick 03-Jul-09 19:08
Re: actually.. 243 Rob Miller 03-Jul-09 19:17
Re: actually.. 258 Warwick 03-Jul-09 19:39
Re: actually.. 291 Rob Miller 03-Jul-09 19:43
Re: actually.. 286 Warwick 03-Jul-09 19:50
Re: actually.. 255 Rob Miller 03-Jul-09 19:56
Re: actually.. 246 Warwick 03-Jul-09 20:13
Re: actually.. 233 Rob Miller 03-Jul-09 20:33
Posturing.. 266 Warwick 03-Jul-09 20:46
Re: Posturing.. 275 Rob Miller 03-Jul-09 20:54
Re: Posturing.. 262 Warwick 03-Jul-09 21:01
Re:Opinion Alert! 282 Sirfiroth 04-Jul-09 06:03
Re:Opinion Alert! 279 Warwick 04-Jul-09 17:58
Re:Opinion Alert! 232 Sirfiroth 04-Jul-09 19:49
Re:Opinion Alert! 233 Rob Miller 04-Jul-09 20:03
Re:Opinion Alert! 249 Warwick 05-Jul-09 18:45
Re:Opinion Alert! 272 Sirfiroth 05-Jul-09 20:21
Re:Opinion Alert! 316 Warwick 05-Jul-09 21:05
Re: Posturing.. 285 Rob Miller 04-Jul-09 08:15
Re: Posturing.. 253 Warwick 04-Jul-09 18:10
Re: Posturing.. 253 Rob Miller 04-Jul-09 18:33
Re: Posturing.. 254 Warwick 04-Jul-09 19:09
Re: Posturing.. 312 Rob Miller 04-Jul-09 19:27
Re: Posturing.. 274 cladking 04-Jul-09 20:01
Re: actually.. 331 Warwick 03-Jul-09 20:15
Re: debunking alternative theories 273 drew 04-Jul-09 03:24
Titus 271 Warwick 03-Jul-09 20:34
Re: debunking alternative theories 252 Diomede 05-Jul-09 22:39
Re: debunking alternative theories 319 Susan Doris 06-Jul-09 06:49
Re: debunking alternative theories 272 Laird Scranton 06-Jul-09 14:56
Re: debunking alternative theories 284 Titus Livius 06-Jul-09 18:39
Re: debunking alternative theories 311 Laird Scranton 06-Jul-09 20:40
Re: debunking alternative theories 291 bookwise 06-Jul-09 15:24
Re: debunking alternative theories 256 Laird Scranton 06-Jul-09 15:47
Re: debunking alternative theories 240 Diomede 06-Jul-09 20:11
Re: debunking alternative theories 259 bookwise 06-Jul-09 20:49
Re: debunking alternative theories 284 Susan Doris 07-Jul-09 07:38
Re: debunking alternative theories 301 Titus Livius 08-Jul-09 18:34
Re: debunking alternative theories 226 Warwick 08-Jul-09 19:03


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.