Again thank you for your lengthy reply.
EN: I must say I have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to answer all your questions, I wouldn't mind a bit if you were genuinely seeking the truth to our ancient history, you seem to have preconceived notions and are not even open to logical open debate, ...
SC: Ed, I have been posting here on GHMB for many years. If you trawl through some of my threads/posts you will find I am one of the more open-minded people here, willing to embrace new ideas, new ways of looking at our past. But my mind is not so open that my brain will fall out. I am a constant challenger of mainstream/orthodox thinking and I am sure there are numerous people here on GHMB who will testify to that. So please, no more inferring I am not “...genuinely seeking the truth to our ancient history...”.
EN: I am not trying to de-throne your theory, as I said it could well have merit, I am merely presenting what I have found. If you think that all the pieces I have presented here are all coincidence, then I really don't want to waste my time responding to your posts, but I will continue in hopes that you are an open minded person seeking sincerely to understand our ancient history.
SC: The issue for me, Ed, is that I am aware that if you start a construction with a circle and then divide that circle with even more circles and then you start placing lines here there and everywhere within said circles, you are BOUND to find meaningful values. But finding these meaningful values/proportions is not proof of their INTENTION. These abstract mathematical values are inherent to a circle's proportions. As I said to you in another thread – the Great Pyramid exhibits the Pi, Phi, 3-4-5 proportions but because we then reverse-engineer the structure and find these proportions, does that mean they were intentionally placed there for us to find? Just because we discover such meaningful values/proportions is NOT proof of intentional placement of such values. If a pyramid or a ground plan is designed using a circle (or a number of circles) you will inevitably uncover such meaningful values/proportions because they are inherent to the circle. Such value/proportions will find their way into such designs whether the designer knew of it or not, intended it or not.
So, I am not seeking just proof, I am seeking PROOF OF INTENT; proof that these values/proportions you demonstrate in your geometric construction (or deconstruction) were fully intended and are not simply the result of INHERENT DESIGN.?
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?
ANSWER EN: "within the capabilities of the ancient" there you go again presuming the ancient people could not have known these things, I ask you for evidence that they did not, I am presenting logical evidence they did.
SC: I am presuming nothing of the sort. I am asking you to present proof that the knew of such knowledge and that we are not simply finding such as a result of INHERENT DESIGN. Do you not see the difference?
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.
ANSWER EN: The only logical measuring system would fit together flawlessly and include exactly what I state below, I am presenting it here and you say there is no evidence, what do you think I am presenting, have you studied it enough to see how it all fits together or what, study the evidence before you lash out at everything I present.
SC: No one is lashing out at you, Ed. I am merely asking legitimate questions of your work. I really don't understand why you are being so prickly? I see perfectly what you are presenting. What I DON'T SEE is a means to verify if this is INTENTIONAL DESIGN or INHERENT DESIGN. I would like to think that this was intentional but it could just as easily be inherent. Present proof of intentional design and I will be more able to accept what you are claiming as I am sure, others here will be.
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?
ANSWER EN: There you go again with your preconceived notion that the ancient people could not have know this or to be taught this knowledge, that is just plain closed minded period.
SC: These values are INHERENT to a circle, Ed. Draw a pyramid or a ground plan using circles and you will undoubtedly find such values. Just because these values/proportions are present DOES NOT demonstrate INTENT. I am being entirely open-minded in asking you to demonstrate that such values/proportions were intended. If I wasn't asking you to do that, THAT would be closed-minded. So, Ed, please desist from making such unfounded accusations. We are both simply trying to seek the truth here.
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......
ANSWER EN: There you go again, refer to my previous answer.
SC: Likewise, Ed. See my comments above.
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).
ANSWER EN: My geometry commences with logical basic geometry backed with cosmology and mathematical formulas, if you can't understand that the read a couple of books on the subjects and get back to me.
SC: Now I think you are bordering on being downright rude. There is no need for that, Ed. I understand AE cosmology very well and geometry just as well. So please – quit with the nastiness.
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.
ANSWER EN: Then show it to me I am more than happy to evaluate it fairly without preconceived notions.
SC: It will be presented on this board later in the year as Graham has very kindly invited my co-author, Gary Osborn, and I as his author(s) of the month when our forthcoming book is released. We will be happy to discuss with you then.
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.
ANSWER EN: Alas all I need is time to do that but if I have to keep going over pointless questions with you just because you can't understand basic concepts then I' never get my work done.
SC: I understand the basic concept of PROVING INTENT very well.
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.
ANSWER EN: It is very precise considering the scale and materials used, I don't have to draw an EXACT five pointed star for you to realize I am drawing a star, or do I?
SC: Perhaps not, but YOU DO have to prove intent.
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.
ANSWER EN: If you think all of the evidence that I have presented is al coincidence then I just don't know what to say, show me one flaw in the measuring system and be very specific. I will take errors into consideration and will change whatever needs to or scrap the whole idea if you can show me where I am wrong, so please study it for me and prove me wrong.
SC: Ed, see my comments above about proving intent.
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?
ANSWER EN: I do not have access to all the data I would like to have, I am pointing out there are discrepancies among the surveys. So I am going by all the surveys, my geometry agrees more accurately with the Giza Mapping Project and that is supposed to be the latest most accurate data, unfortunately I only have limited data from that, I have the main pyramid dimensions and they agree with the geometrical and mathematical design of my theory.
SC: The Giza Mapping Project? Don't you mean Lehner's TCP which is only suggestive of these values?
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.
ANSWER EN: Present them to me don't just talk about it, show me.
SC: See my comment above about my forthcoming book. Can't speak about it right now (contract reasons) but will be more than happy to when the book is released and my co-author and I are present here as Graham's AoM.
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.
ANSWER EN: There you go again, ancient people could not have know these things, well I got news for you Scott they did, get over it your not necessarily the the top of the knowledge fountain. What do you think I am showing you here, my evidence.
SC: Once again, Ed. Please demonstrate intent; show us that these values/proportions you unveil are not merely the result of inherent design.
EN: From now on I will only respond to rational questions by rational people,
SC: Now you ARE being downright rude. There is absolutely no need for this, Ed. I am pushing your theory and asking questions of it that are fair and reasonable. What is so wrong with that?
EN: I don't have the time or want to keep going around with you or anyone else that can't discuss thing rationally.
SC: Well, that would be shame, Ed. As I said earlier, we are here here seeking the truth of our history and origins. I am actually more on your side compared to some other posters here on GHMB. I dread to think what you'll be saying to them if and when they decide to join in here.