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 324 Titus Livius 02-Jul-09 19:10
Re: debunking alternative theories 252 cladking 02-Jul-09 19:55
Re: debunking alternative theories 199 drew 02-Jul-09 23:11
Re: debunking alternative theories 206 Scott Creighton 02-Jul-09 23:52
Re: debunking alternative theories 196 survivalcell 03-Jul-09 00:01
Re: debunking alternative theories 207 cladking 03-Jul-09 01:37
Re: debunking alternative theories 213 survivalcell 03-Jul-09 18:18
Re: debunking alternative theories 204 cladking 04-Jul-09 00:07
Re: debunking alternative theories 282 Susan Doris 04-Jul-09 07:14
Re: debunking alternative theories 233 cladking 04-Jul-09 07:26
Re: debunking alternative theories 270 Susan Doris 04-Jul-09 07:31
Re: debunking alternative theories 225 Rob Miller 04-Jul-09 07:31
Re: debunking alternative theories 207 Titus Livius 03-Jul-09 17:10
Re: debunking alternative theories 245 cladking 03-Jul-09 22:56
Re: debunking alternative theories 201 papalou 05-Jul-09 22:27
Re: debunking alternative theories 239 Susan Doris 06-Jul-09 06:34
Re: debunking alternative theories 291 carolb 06-Jul-09 18:13
Re: debunking alternative theories 218 Susan Doris 06-Jul-09 20:34
Re: debunking alternative theories 227 papalou 06-Jul-09 23:29
Re: debunking alternative theories 281 carolb 07-Jul-09 16:43
Re: debunking alternative theories 205 NetWorkAngel 07-Jul-09 16:51
Re: debunking alternative theories 192 Bobajot 08-Jul-09 03:49
Re: debunking alternative theories 147 Andy McCallum 02-Jul-09 22:40
Re: debunking alternative theories 206 Archae Solenhofen 02-Jul-09 23:18
Re: debunking alternative theories 194 Scott Creighton 03-Jul-09 00:03
Re: debunking alternative theories 235 Archae Solenhofen 03-Jul-09 03:17
Re: debunking alternative theories 236 Scott Creighton 03-Jul-09 10:23
Re: debunking alternative theories 220 Titus Livius 03-Jul-09 17:20
Scott 230 Warwick 03-Jul-09 17:54
Re: debunking alternative theories 237 Archae Solenhofen 03-Jul-09 18:13
Re: debunking alternative theories 240 cladking 03-Jul-09 23:08
Re: debunking alternative theories 220 Archae Solenhofen 03-Jul-09 23:59
Re: debunking alternative theories 235 cladking 04-Jul-09 01:34
Re: debunking alternative theories 236 Archae Solenhofen 04-Jul-09 18:18
Re: debunking alternative theories 237 cladking 04-Jul-09 18:54
Re: debunking alternative theories 206 papalou 05-Jul-09 22:47
The coiled serpent 209 Morph 06-Jul-09 13:58
Re: debunking alternative theories 236 Susan Doris 06-Jul-09 07:03
Re: debunking alternative theories 217 cladking 06-Jul-09 21:46
Re: debunking alternative theories 247 Susan Doris 07-Jul-09 07:18
Re: debunking alternative theories 225 Titus Livius 03-Jul-09 17:16
Re: debunking alternative theories 260 Archae Solenhofen 03-Jul-09 18:47
Re: debunking alternative theories 225 Morph 02-Jul-09 23:22
Re: debunking alternative theories 218 drew 02-Jul-09 23:25
Re: debunking alternative theories 221 Titus Livius 03-Jul-09 17:48
Re: debunking alternative theories 198 Warwick 03-Jul-09 18:08
Re: debunking alternative theories 252 richarddullum 03-Jul-09 05:50
Re: debunking alternative theories 211 Titus Livius 03-Jul-09 17:38
Re: debunking alternative theories 216 cladking 03-Jul-09 23:36
Re: debunking alternative theories 235 Titus Livius 04-Jul-09 11:57
Re: debunking alternative theories 254 cladking 04-Jul-09 19:14
Re: debunking alternative theories 207 Titus Livius 05-Jul-09 10:22
Re: debunking alternative theories 224 cladking 05-Jul-09 20:18
Re: debunking alternative theories 251 Susan Doris 03-Jul-09 07:36
Re: debunking alternative theories 279 Susan Doris 03-Jul-09 07:43
Re: debunking alternative theories 202 Scott Creighton 03-Jul-09 10:58
Re: debunking alternative theories 207 Essan 03-Jul-09 08:52
Re: debunking alternative theories 199 Laird Scranton 03-Jul-09 15:05
Re: debunking alternative theories 229 Warwick 03-Jul-09 17:47
more scholarly feedback 174 Warwick 03-Jul-09 18:00
Re: more scholarly feedback 203 cladking 03-Jul-09 23:45
Re: debunking alternative theories 328 Rob Miller 03-Jul-09 18:42
actually.. 229 Warwick 03-Jul-09 19:08
Re: actually.. 197 Rob Miller 03-Jul-09 19:17
Re: actually.. 207 Warwick 03-Jul-09 19:39
Re: actually.. 252 Rob Miller 03-Jul-09 19:43
Re: actually.. 250 Warwick 03-Jul-09 19:50
Re: actually.. 196 Rob Miller 03-Jul-09 19:56
Re: actually.. 203 Warwick 03-Jul-09 20:13
Re: actually.. 188 Rob Miller 03-Jul-09 20:33
Posturing.. 226 Warwick 03-Jul-09 20:46
Re: Posturing.. 235 Rob Miller 03-Jul-09 20:54
Re: Posturing.. 218 Warwick 03-Jul-09 21:01
Re:Opinion Alert! 224 Sirfiroth 04-Jul-09 06:03
Re:Opinion Alert! 235 Warwick 04-Jul-09 17:58
Re:Opinion Alert! 194 Sirfiroth 04-Jul-09 19:49
Re:Opinion Alert! 193 Rob Miller 04-Jul-09 20:03
Re:Opinion Alert! 215 Warwick 05-Jul-09 18:45
Re:Opinion Alert! 223 Sirfiroth 05-Jul-09 20:21
Re:Opinion Alert! 277 Warwick 05-Jul-09 21:05
Re: Posturing.. 247 Rob Miller 04-Jul-09 08:15
Re: Posturing.. 195 Warwick 04-Jul-09 18:10
Re: Posturing.. 210 Rob Miller 04-Jul-09 18:33
Re: Posturing.. 203 Warwick 04-Jul-09 19:09
Re: Posturing.. 253 Rob Miller 04-Jul-09 19:27
Re: Posturing.. 213 cladking 04-Jul-09 20:01
Re: actually.. 285 Warwick 03-Jul-09 20:15
Re: debunking alternative theories 225 drew 04-Jul-09 03:24
Titus 223 Warwick 03-Jul-09 20:34
Re: debunking alternative theories 196 Diomede 05-Jul-09 22:39
Re: debunking alternative theories 267 Susan Doris 06-Jul-09 06:49
Re: debunking alternative theories 226 Laird Scranton 06-Jul-09 14:56
Re: debunking alternative theories 232 Titus Livius 06-Jul-09 18:39
Re: debunking alternative theories 270 Laird Scranton 06-Jul-09 20:40
Re: debunking alternative theories 245 bookwise 06-Jul-09 15:24
Re: debunking alternative theories 218 Laird Scranton 06-Jul-09 15:47
Re: debunking alternative theories 196 Diomede 06-Jul-09 20:11
Re: debunking alternative theories 202 bookwise 06-Jul-09 20:49
Re: debunking alternative theories 247 Susan Doris 07-Jul-09 07:38
Re: debunking alternative theories 239 Titus Livius 08-Jul-09 18:34
Re: debunking alternative theories 188 Warwick 08-Jul-09 19:03


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.