EN: You were using your theory of the Gravity Cubit to say "there was no need to invoke the speed of light" in creating a measuring system.
SC: No - more accurately to invoke the use of light (i.e. the sun) but NOT the SPEED of light. How exactly would the ancients have measured the speed of light? Please present a simple technique that would have been accessible to and within the capabilities of the ancients to do this?
EN: So I wanted to see if you had a valid point, you may well have been right but when I read your theory I was a bit surprised to see the term "almost exact" used several times when presenting a theory on the root of an exact measuring system that in my opinion most certainly should not only include light but would be most logical to be based upon it.
SC: But that is where you are wrong, Ed. I was not "...presenting a theory on the root of an exact measuring system..." for I know only too well that we do not know for certain what the exact measurement of the AE cubit was. Several cubit rods have been recovered and all are of slightly different lengths so, on that basis, how could I possibly say with any certainty what the exact length was intended to be? The fact of the matter is - a unit length can be extrapolated using the sun and Earth gravity (i.e. a simple pendulum) that is a close approximation to the average length of the various cubit rods that have actually been found. No need to invoke the speed of light.
EN: I have presented a very logical, exact mathematical formula for the measuring system that includes the speed of light, the sound frequency wave length...
SC: Please demonstrate how the ancients would have been able to access any of this to create the cubit? How could they have physically learned of this information? What simple experiments could ancient people have done that would have unveiled this knowledge to them?
EN: ...and the Great Year, (light, sound and time) that fits with ancient cosmology very accurately.
SC: With respect, Ed, it would fit a whole lot better if you could actually show how the ancients could have obtained access to such knowledge? Showing how this can be achieved using what was available to ancient people will go a long, long way to supporting your theory. Otherwise......
EN: I discovered that formula by following the geometry I am proposing in my work the Giza Template.
SC: And your geometry commences with a completely inexplicable and arbitrary assumption. Imagibe you are the designer of Giza, sitting there with a blank canvass. You place an x,y axis. Okay, no problem there. And then for some inexplicable reason, you then place a completely arbitrary line running from bottom right through the vertical axis. Why? What is the rationale for placing such a line on your blank canvass? You suggest that the causeways of G1 and G2 'hint' at this radius? Well, the causeway of G2 hints at it much more directly since this causeway runs from the centre of the axis to an endpoint, the Valley Temple. Why not simply place a line on your blank canvass here as a radius and draw your circle using this? Please explain why you chose to place on your canvass which, at this point, contains only an x,y axis a completely arbitrary line (a line that will LATER in the design align with Khufu's causeway).
EN: The template can be created using only a compass and straight edge with no need to measure, and does not depend on an "as built" survey or to be more precise, conflicting surveys.
SC: Ed, I can show you unified designs for Giza that start with a blank canvass, that have no need to measure, that are far simpler than what you have presented and which do not even require a compass but need only a straight edge. Your geometrical construction is not unique in that regard.
EN: I want to note here also that I have not yet shown all of the evidence I have for this as I am way behind on my E-Book release due to circumstances beyond my control, so not having some of the evidence to present here is a bit frustrating for me. I did post some images from the book to help and maybe I'll post more.
SC: Alas, evidence is what we need, Ed. If you have any evidence that shows the AEs had a means to discover the speed of light or the length of 1hz that would go a long, long way to assisting your case here.
EN: As far as throwing stones goes I was simply stating that if your are holding me to these high standards, and you very well should be, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", I couldn't agree with you more, but I felt you should hold yourself to those same high standards.
SC: Ed, honestly, I am not too bothered about the accuracy of your scheme per se BUT if you are telling us that this scheme was designed in order to preserve a measuring system which was to be recoverable 5,000 years into the future then I am simply saying that one would expect that it would have been laid down with much more care and precision. I am NOT the one stating that a 'measurement system' was the function of the Gizamids - my own Gravity Cubit is merely demonstrating how it is possible that the AEs could have devised their cubit using the sun and a pendulum. I cannot say x is precisely this or that because you cannot easily obtain the fraction of one swing of a pendulum - thus it is reasonable to assume that a fraction of a swing would have been rounded up to a complete 148 (as opposed to the actual 147.757). THAT is why I am not saying x is exactly this or precisely that.
EN: I feel that the evidence I have presented especially for the measuring system is as close to extraordinary evidence that has been found to date.
SC: I disagree. The accuracy of your presentation has been questioned on this board by various posters. Your starting point has been questioned by me. And, in any case, if you put enough geometric shapes together, given enough time and analysis, you will find you have enough points from which you can extrapolate all manner of 'meaningful discoveries'. That's just math.
EN: There is nothing in my equations that are not exact,
SC: The accuracy of your presentation has been questioned numerous times by various posters. Certainly you can invoke different surveys as a defense but DO YOU know which one is right? Is it not somewhat cherry-picking when you select one set of data for some structures whilst another data set for other structures?
EN: ...they logically fit the cosmology and are encoded within the geometry without taking one measurement from Giza, that is a point you and Don seem to be missing, without taking one measurement from Giza, I think thats worthy of considering very closely.
SC: As I said to you above - your presentation is not unique in that regard. There are other, much simpler, solutions.
EN: So what more can I say except just try to look at this work without any preconceived notions, you seem to not accept that someone or culture could have known these things in ancient times and that is an assumption that I do not adhere to.
SC: No, Ed, that is where you are quite wrong. Show me EVIDENCE that they did, present a MEANS by which ancient people could have obtained such knowledge and then I will be much happier to accept what you are saying.