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
Go to: Forum HomeBoardNew Topic

Current Page: 3 of 6
Results 61 - 90 of 169
1 year ago
gjb
molder Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I have wondered for a long time if Thom's MY is really 2.75 imperial feet. > Hi Jim It’s odd you should suggest this because I do wonder why Thom’s value for the megalithic yard has become so enshrined. The common backlash at suggesting that Thom may have been wrong in certain respects militates against
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
gjb
molder Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > For some reason I thought you had read this. > Hi Jim I hadn’t seen the paper, thanks for the link. One point I make in my book is that the Bronze Age units of measure appear not to have been passed down into the Iron Age. I suggest that maybe we’re looking in the wrong place - the Iron Age units are p
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
gjb
molder Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Burl mentioned 2 measures 13.2 and 12.96 and he made the Aubrey circumference 891 feet. > > The idea that everyone had different measures that were not connected is wrong. Trade made them do it. So the very beginning 13.2 inches a British measure is also an Indus Valley measure. Hi Jim That Aubrey circum
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
gjb
molder Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Quote ' At this, the diameter would be 29.7m (97.4 feet)' > > I don't know where your getting this from but the above figures are not correct. > > Sarcens diameter 97 feet 6 inches. And this Burl writes p.52 agrees with John Aubrey 'with his 32 yards 1/2' Jim I’m sorry to say that this observat
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
gjb
The argument for the subdivision of the megalithic yard can be much simplified, as follows. It goes without saying that every circle with an integer number of metres on the circumference will have that same number of an apparent unit of 1m/pi (318.3mm) on the diameter. In the same way, any circle having an integer number of units with a length of 2.6m on the circumference will have that
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
gjb
There’s an interesting stone circle at Hastevadet, Sweden, that appears to pose some questions concerning design, execution and intent. I don’t know if the monument has been restored (badly?), but taking it at face value it appears not to be circular at all, but a potential square. However, the sides appear not to be straight lines, and present the following possibility - a demonstration of squar
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
gjb
We may always be groping in the dark as to accuracy and intent. Who could possibly guarantee that the AEs didn’t use two different cubit lengths at Giza and that they never made a mistake in measuring out?
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
gjb
Sirfiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > you are so dead set on finding items like pi ... that simply do not exist in the Pyramids of Giza. > Jacob And dare one ask just how you intend to prove conclusively that pi is not present at all at Giza? I fail to understand why there’s this big-end v little-end dispute about the presence of pi, or lack of
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
gjb
DavidK Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Jacob > Please don't tell me the AE didn't know how to > divide ten cubits by 66 even if there is no > evidence they ever did. Dave 10 cubits=70 palms. Divide 70 by 66. 66 x 1 = 66: 70-66=4 66 x 1/22 = 3: 4 - 3 =1 66 x 1/66 = 1. No remainder 1 + 1/22 + 1/66 palms 10 cubits = 280 digits.
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
gjb
Sirfiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > DavidK > Rossi's words have failed to register a number of > individuals of which evidently you are one. In the > first paragraph of Part II the the first sentence > on page 87 reads: As I have shown in Part I, > concepts like л or Φ did not belong to ancient > Egyptians mathematics and theref
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
gjb
I appreciate where you're coming from, but occasionally you give the wrong impression. For example, in fairness, you should point out that the AEs were not limited to Eye of Horus fractions. In the Rhind Papyrus (RMP) we have 8 + 2/3 + 1/10 + 1/2190. A four-digit concluding denominator allows for some fairly hefty modern-day fractions, even when keeping the expression to the sum of four unit
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
gjb
I have suggested that the megalithic yard, where it appears on the diameters of stone circles, might be a consequence of a unit actually on the circumference, this unit being a fraction of 1MY x pi = 2.6m. From an analysis of a few hundred stone circles I have concluded that this circumferential unit might be taken to be 162.8mm (6.41 inches) which when divided by pi is 1/16th of a megalithic
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
gjb
One thing was intentionally not covered in the OP. Without knowledge of the area formula pi.(r squared) how would the AEs have worked out that a circle with an area of pi square units has a diameter of (approximately) 2 units? My reasoning is as follows: They would likely square the circle from pi = 19/6 by making the denominator a square (81) thus making the numerator a square (256). The s
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
gjb
DavidK Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am not going to explain why because the reasons are obvious to anyone studying ancient metrology, the imperial system is the key. Dave This smacks a bit of the Emperor's New Clothes! Could we possibly step back a bit? I’ve followed many of the numerical arguments presented here by you and others, and I’m int
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
gjb
The practice of turning a criticism of a hypothesis into a negation seems to be a favourite with self-styled ‘experts’. There seems to be a failure to consider that we’re dealing with people, and that people sometimes do strange things - they also make mistakes. Clearly, when such occurs, it might be difficult to prove certain hypotheses. The stand is that if people in the past failed to do
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
gjb
Adding to the list of hypotheses concerning the placing of G2, I’ve now loaded my Giza analysis onto my web site: Giza Plateau: Layout Design and Dimensions I’ve provided the plan below because I appear to be hitting some technical problems. The hypothesis is that G2 may have been positioned within a G1-type pyramid layout at the centre of the Giza design. The main difference with this plan
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
gjb
Dave Thanks. I honestly don't recall ever having seen any suggestion that the AEs derived the eight-ninths circle area formula in the way I suggest - in fact, I have books stating that it is not known how they did it. In the tradition of Dr. T, could you please direct me to the pertinent publications! The fact that 256/81 is mentioned with respect to the circle area problem and the fact tha
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
gjb
I think you're missing the point. I see absolutely no mention of this in anything you referenced.
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
gjb
I’ve reported elsewhere my suggestion that the circle area formula in the Rhind Papyrus (deduct one-ninth from the diameter and square the result) may well derive from squaring the circle using 256/81 as pi. What then becomes apparent is that this could be a key to the formula (pi.r) squared. Take any diameter, perform the calculation and divide the answer by pi as 256/81: Diameter 6, a
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
gjb
Jim It's a question of interpretation. You were struck by this, I was struck by something else. If the G2 cubit be 528mm, as I suggested might be possible from the exterior dimensions, then 103.68 inches might be 5 cubits. The width, at 41.97 inches, would be just over 2 cubits. The average is 528.5mm. As you know, Petrie averages his measurements. For instance, he provides a mean passage w
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
gjb
DavidK Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This means that between 3.125 and 22/7 lies real pi even if it was never known it is built into the design. Dave If they divided the indentation into quarter cubits then the closest they could get conceptually is 1759/560. I imagine they probably knew 22/7 was closer to pi than 25/8, though I agree it would be
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
gjb
By way of explanation, I was led to wonder if G2 might have a pi ratio of 25:8 because I’d imagined that this ratio might be present in G1 as well as 22/7. The thought is that the central indentations on the faces might be a consequence of this second pi ratio. The diagrams are exaggerated, but it may be appreciated that with a height of 280 cubits and with pi as 25/8 there would be scop
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
gjb
That's some powerful argument based on some powerful data :) The Great Pyramid is said to have a pi ratio in its dimensions. No other pyramid in this table has this ratio. Therefore, the Great Pyramid doesn't have this ratio! Nice! Even conceding the presumed accuracy of the data, I'll never quite think of 'unique' the same way again!
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
gjb
Hi Jaboc It was very kind of you to let me know about this Eyes of Horus business. I doubt that very many people interested in AE math will have come across it. It’s probably far too complex for the likes of me, with my confused thinking, which is why I try to do all my calculations using whole numbers. You’ve got to hand it to these AEs to be able to express 22/7 in Eye of Horus fractions.
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
gjb
Jim I tend to use Petrie's measurements because this seems safe (some people seem to swear by them!) I was struck by the south face at 4157.8 (200 x 528mm = 4157.5) but I do have a note of the mean you provided. However, I do feel that the discrepancy with Edwards is perhaps too much to be comfortable with in this case. The main point I wished to draw attention to is the potential for a pi rat
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
gjb
Just to round things off, with a cubit of 528mm G3 would have a base of 200 cubits and a height of 128 cubits with pi as 25/8. Base 4157.5 inches, height 2661 inches, ATN(32/25) angle 52 degrees. I believe that this would be in accordance with Petrie’s measurements and the limestone casing blocks. Internal dimensions are consistent with a cubit of 528mm.
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
gjb
Now for the howls of protest! It's generally held that the dimensions of G1 make good sense with respect to the observed ratios. However, this does not apply well to G2 as I’ve described it above. Should this specification be correct then it might be suggested that a height of 272 cubits and a base of 408 cubits would be more in keeping with the design. However, this would suggest a G2 cubit o
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
gjb
While contemplating the dimensions of G2 (the way you do) it struck me that the pi relationship at G1 would be present at G2 if using the diameter of the circumscribed circle and pi as 25/8. This is because with a base of 6 the radius would be 3.125 (25/8). Incidentally, this is on a (7, 24, 25) triangle. In both cases, AB = 2AC / pi. I previously postulated on the board that 25/8 might
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
gjb
cloister I've tended to move away from pure construction to measured geometrical forms, which is why I look for approximations to trigonometric ratios for the common constructional angles. My thought on the diagram in question has for some time been that this may have been one case that the ancients perceived that perhaps led them to formulate a hypothesis for a general rule applicable to r
Forum: Mysteries
1 year ago
gjb
In another thread (The 47th Problem), molder wrote: > People said I was dreaming if I thought the ancients used Trigonometry. I’d go one step further and venture that some people might say he was mad to do so. However, I have some sympathy with his view, but feel that the matter might be more simple than Jim suggests. In my analysis of stone circles, I have noticed that, in addition t
Forum: Mysteries
Current Page: 3 of 6