| May 17, 2024, 11:07 am UTC |
 |
| In: The Hall of Maat > Ancient History - Ancient History and Archaeology > Topic |
| Goto: Forum List • Create A New Profile • Log In |
|
Ancient History •
Ancient Egypt •
Laboratory •
Humanities •
Apocalypse •
Paper Lens •
Coffee Shop Exhibitions, Conferences, Lectures, Journals • Alternative Geometry and Numerology |
| September 24, 2001 01:56PM |
<HTML>Hi John,
Again (I'm losing count now), you made comments which have little to do with this attempt at a discussion. I don't understand the reason for this behaviour when I'm trying to have a civil conversation.
Thanks for a least looking at the link to her tables. The problem with Fig1b is that she's only using 8 pyramids from the epoch in question. If you'd bothered to read my rebuttal you'd fing that I'd pointed out missing data from pyramids. In order for Spence's theory to work, you need to use all the pyramids... she'd only used 8, while there are actually 21 or so. In any case, Amenemhat III 's was included on the table with a very accurate measure. See it? That number is impossible, John. I've shown why with the picture. Now, the fact that she <I>did</I> show an arcsec value means she had data of some kind, which in turn means this data <I>must be used in the overall theory</I>. There it is right in front of us to see - going from Fig1a to Fig1b she <I>omits</I> data, ie. removed the 'stuff' that works against her.
This is a serious infringement of scientific practice. Second to that, when the missing data is accounted for, the theory fails rather badly, and completely.
Their are similiar problems with the pyramids she <I>did</I> use, as well as being chosen only because they 'come close' to her idea of alignment practices.
Thank you for the advice about Nature, but I won't be dealing with them. There is a Canadian Magazine and two American ones I am currently dealing with.
Cheers,
Avry</HTML>
Again (I'm losing count now), you made comments which have little to do with this attempt at a discussion. I don't understand the reason for this behaviour when I'm trying to have a civil conversation.
Thanks for a least looking at the link to her tables. The problem with Fig1b is that she's only using 8 pyramids from the epoch in question. If you'd bothered to read my rebuttal you'd fing that I'd pointed out missing data from pyramids. In order for Spence's theory to work, you need to use all the pyramids... she'd only used 8, while there are actually 21 or so. In any case, Amenemhat III 's was included on the table with a very accurate measure. See it? That number is impossible, John. I've shown why with the picture. Now, the fact that she <I>did</I> show an arcsec value means she had data of some kind, which in turn means this data <I>must be used in the overall theory</I>. There it is right in front of us to see - going from Fig1a to Fig1b she <I>omits</I> data, ie. removed the 'stuff' that works against her.
This is a serious infringement of scientific practice. Second to that, when the missing data is accounted for, the theory fails rather badly, and completely.
Their are similiar problems with the pyramids she <I>did</I> use, as well as being chosen only because they 'come close' to her idea of alignment practices.
Thank you for the advice about Nature, but I won't be dealing with them. There is a Canadian Magazine and two American ones I am currently dealing with.
Cheers,
Avry</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.