> Math alone is not enough upon which to hang up an
> entire civilization, and that is what you're
> asking us to do.
This is real jewel of logic.
Egyptologists say the AE did not know what PI was. It hadn't been discovered yet, they could not calculate it, their math wasn't that advanced.
You later said :
If it can't be observed and measured in some way, then it can't be entered into evidence for any theory.
Math is measurement. PI is a measurement, PI is math. Your AE didn't have it, so they couldn't have used it in the pyramids.
PI was used in the great pyramids. It can be "observed" and "measured". So according to your logic, it must be "entered into evidence" as proof that the AE did not build the great pyramids.
Someone, other than the AE, who had advanced math, built the pyramids.
Then there is all the other advanced math used in the pyramids. Math is measurement, therefore math is evidence.
> You're underselling the ancient Egyptians,
> insulting their intelligence, just so you can
> propose an entire lost civilization, for which
> there is no other evidence.
There is no need to put it on a personal level. I am not the one who says the AE didn't have math advanced enough to know PI. The Egyptologists say this. So either they are the ones insulting, or they don't know what PI is and how to find it. My bet's on the latter. When a historian questions the military capabilities of an ancient army, is he "insulting their intelligence"? Of course not. You have put it on a ridiculously emotional level.
> It's just too flimsy, and surely you can't be
> surprised that people are calling it into
Not surprised at all.
Am surprised you do not know of the math required to build the great pyramids.
Am not surprised that you would not question 'authorities'.
Not a bit surprised that you would take the word of pottery experts on the requirements of building a great pyramid. Not a bit surprised that you would fail to see the engineering accomplishments of an age that didn't even have the wheel.
Are you saying advanced math is flimsy? Advanced engineering is flimsy? Or being able to find the math and engineering in a pyramid is flimsy? Are you saying something that can be measured and observed is flimsy?
Yes, the study of pottery is much sturdier than mathematics and engineering. Knowing the type of glaze, neck, handle and rim style, and different shapes requires intensive study versus mathematics and engineering.
I'll go with the evidence that still exists, the math and engineering that can be measured. And you can go with the pottery that requires a whole lot of guessing and assumption.