lobo-hotei Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


>
> Since the lines are a cubit apart that proves they
> are seked based?

No. Nobody claimed that.


> This sounds like the "well the
> numbers fit so Phi is proven" arguments.


Only if you haven't read the other 90% of what we've actually written.


> Guess what? A grid layed out with units of 1
> cubit would have lines 1 cubit apart also.
>


There are no vertical lines.



> You lay out a Sqd 7 slope over a height of 2
> cubits and then lay one out with a 1:1 ratio over
> a height of 2 cubits and see if there is a
> difference.

There isn't. That proves nothing.



>
> You are taking something proven later and
> projecting it back on a situation with no
> supporting evidence for a sqd being used.


That is not true. If you had read what I and others have written, you'd know that.

> No one
> has stated that sekeds weren't probably used only
> that there is no proof that it was absolutely
> sekeds.

No one has stated that the seked was absolutely used.



>
> Try some of that strict logical methodolgy.

I have. It says that the evidence is irrefutable that the seqed was used. That is not the same, however, as saying the seked was absolutely used.

The evidence could be misleading. If we have evidence to show the current evidence is misleading, we will have to adjust our conclusions.

In the meantime, the evidence leaves us no room for whimsical speculations. There is no vacuum of knowledge here.


> It
> appears to be the same as what is later known as
> the seked layout, but it isn't the only
> possibility for the layout so there can't be a
> 100% certainty. A very high percentage certainty
> yes but not 100%.



There is no such thing as 100% certainty of anything.


>
> Unless you can show a beginning date for the use
> of the seked you can't extend it back to cover
> everything that looks similar prior to the
> earliest mention.


Of course not. But when you find an IDENTICAL building convention used as we have here, we have no choice but to conclude it was part of the same system: the Sqd.

> This is the same methodology you
> use with other things, and yes Osiris does apply
> even if you don't think so.


I'm afraid you haven't understood my methodology, then.

Those things that can be demonstrated to have a changing nature cannot be pushed backwards. Those things that have no change and have circumstantial evidence of their existence at an earlier time can logically be projected backwards to a time just before the circumstantial evidence appears in the historical record.



>
> Anything prior to the earliest mention of the
> seked can be thought to be such but can't be
> categorically stated as seked or you are moving
> the earliest date for the seked farther back to
> the point in time that is being discussed.
> IOW you are creating an earlier date to prove your
> argument.

I'm not proving any argument. I am stating that the argument against the facts does not stand up because it relies on special pleading and the willful ignoring of known facts to stand.





>
>
> > only evidence can change this discussion.
>
> So where is the evidence from the time period in
> question to show that sekeds were definitely used
> at the location in question?


At the location in question. This has been asked and answered.


>
> Well there is an absence of evidence that sekeds
> were definitely used, as opposed to most probably
> used, for this location so your claiming it was
> definitely so would be considered hokum?

I don't think I ever claimed they were "most definitely used". What I did say was:

Quote

... the building marks prove the seked was used for practical purposes as well.

I also said:

Quote

Tedder provides no such evidenced replacement, so the Sqd interpretation stands.

There are subtle methodological nuances in the phrases I choose. We are looking at logical proofs here, not absolute statements of fact. The evidence DOES prove the Sqd was used. That is not the same as saying Sqds were definitely and absolutely used.

I cannot honestly say "the evidence suggests the Sqd was used" because that implies there is another possible interpretation based on OTHER evidence. That OTHER evidence does not exist. Until or unless it is demonstrated that such evidence for another interpretation does exist, the logical conclusion, the only logical conclusion, is that the Sqd was used in Dynasty IV.

The evidence for the use of the Sqd is as strong as the evidence that Khufu built the northernmost pyramid at Giza. It is not "highly suggestive" or "quite probable". There is no evidence that REFUTES it known to mankind. What do you do with logic and evidence that strong? Soft-pedal it so there's room for pseudoscientific garbage to make its way into the system? Of course not.

You stand by the logic and hold to your conviction.



>
> Why was the seked invented in the first place? And
> I doubt it was exclusively for constructing
> pyramids.

I give up. Why?



>
> The seked is a "standardized" formula, it only
> works one way. Why is that you think?

Because they only needed it to work one way. They didn't have this obscure obsession with numerology, geomancy and mathematics that afflicts some modern pyramidologists.

Ask an old New England roofer the slope of a roof on his house, and you get rise over run. He can't tell you anything about the angle, but he can give you the rise over run of just about any roof he sees on the street, just by looking at it. I know. I knew a man like that when I was growing up. Didn't need anything more than an eighth grade education to do what he did. And he did it perfectly well.

Egyptian construction was no different. Pi and Phi need not apply. No room for advanced mathematics. These things were worthless to somebody who built angled structures for a living.



Anthony

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.