Anthony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lobo-hotei Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
>
> >
> > Since the lines are a cubit apart that proves
> they
> > are seked based?
>
> No. Nobody claimed that.

Quote

Because the method they used with Sqds (lines on the wall spaced 1 cubit apart) remains the same.

Then please clarify what you meant with the above. The method reads as "lines on the wall spaced 1 cubit apart" and this method is proof that they are identical(i.e. seked based).



> > 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.

Well since I have read the whole thread this is obviously false.


> > Guess what? A grid layed out with units of
> 1
> > cubit would have lines 1 cubit apart also.
> >
>
>
> There are no vertical lines.

Doesn't necessarily have to be, well unless there is the argument that a grid has to be the same all the time. I would only need to measure/mark the lines for height. The horizontal lines would be sufficient to measure along for the run until I get to the length necessary. After that just align the points(X,Y) and draw the "slope" line.

> > 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.

Only if you refuse to accept any other possibility. It does prove that the seked isn't the only way to achieve the "slope" line. If there is another reasonable, possibility then the seked argument can't be absolute, only probable to a certain degree.


> > 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.

Other than the lines look exactly like a later(after seked mention) case what is the evidence used to prove it couldn't be any other possibility? And please don't put up one of the "aliens" lines.


> > 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.

You have read the whole thread right? Absolutely does mean the same as definitely.


> > 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.

That is what is being argued here, however you want to type it out. The discussion is between the seked "Definitely" used at the location in question vs. the seked "probably" used. By stating "The evidence is irrefutable that the seqed was used" is stating that the seked was absolutely used, well until/unless some new evidence comes aorund then it will change.


> The evidence could be misleading.

No only the interpretation.

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

IF we find evidence that clarifies what the other evidence actually means the conclusion has to be adjusted.


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

The evidence is incomplete so there are gaps. Of course your use of such words/phrases as above are wrong, as well as a weak attempt to deny any other possibilities other then the one you support.
There is a vacuum of knowledge or we would have all the blueprints and "how-to" manuals for the AE.


> > 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.

I'm 100% certain I'm alive at the time I am typing this post. Any other statements to try and confuse the meaning of what I said?
Sekeds are the most likely(high percentage) but, with a daily update papyrus stating "I have maintained that the seked in use is still within tolerances" the certainty would be 100%.

> > 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.

Then you are assuming that the seked was around then and you will obviously having independant evidence, from the time period in question, to prove the lines in question are of the same system as in use hundreds of years later?
As you have already confirmed above there is no difference between a sloped lines drawn with the correct seked or correct ratio.


> > 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.

You are ok with using seked evidence from several hundred years later yet refuse to allow for Osiris possibly being 50-100 years earlier.
Funny how it works with this case but not others.


> 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.

So 700 years is "just before" but 50-100 years is too long and can drastically change the PTs ?
Ok then, show me the evidence that Sekeds were originally created to allow the AE to start constructing buildings. There had to be something prior to the Seked being standardized, I think. If so then there has to be a point in time of the change over from pre-Seked to Seked. An 11:14 ratio is the same as a 5.5 Seked.

> > 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.

Nobody has ignored anything that I have seen. Some say definitely while others say it can't be "definitely" due to no supporting/corroborating evidence at the time in question. You come along and decide 700+ years is not that far afterwards to use as evidence while maintaining that 50-100 years is too long for the PTs(important enough to be carved in stone) to relate to the same period of time(Dyn. IV).

So again ...... "Definitely vs. Probably".
Any other system, that they used, that could include 1 cubit lines and create the same slope line........... ratios(1:1,11:14) vs. Seqds.(7,5.5)



> > > 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.

Horizontal lines 1 cubit apart are not "definite" proof, only "very/highly likely" proof.


> > 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

Because the method they used with Sqds (lines on the wall spaced 1 cubit apart) remains the same.

Unless you can show this method was definitely used with something OTHER than Sqds, there is no logical argument.

You definitely relate the method with the Seked. Thereby claiming that what is used is the seked so "most definitely used" fits the situation.
So again, without evidence, from the time in question, to support that "sekeds" were definitely used here then the claim could be considered hokum.
Not that I believe such, as I do believe the seked was used but it isn't the only possibility at the time and so can't be considered definite.


> 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.

By making the statement underlined above, you are stating that the seked was definitely used at this location/time or else the statement is useless/meaningless.
It only proves that Sekeds might have been used as the line techniques are alike.


> 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.

Well there is another possiblity so ........


> 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.

So strongly as to be partially blind to other possiblities that makes such declaritive statements wrong? There hasn't been any "pseudoscientific garbage" proposed in this discussion of "definitely" vs. "probably" but only brought up like the boogey man.


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

LOL! I was asking you if you knew. Of course using ratios could get you two different interpretations eh? There's a problem that needed a solution, don't ya think?

> > 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.

Well I would state it as "They needed it to work only one way!"

> They
> didn't have this obscure obsession with
> numerology, geomancy and mathematics that afflicts
> some modern pyramidologists.

Nor did they have an obscure obsession with always being right in an argument as to start throwing around personal labels which they hold as negative.



> 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.

Actually you would probably get the pitch/cut which can be stated either as a ratio or as a single fractional value(like seked). You could have how many inches per the standard 1 foot rise(obviously different for metric) or how many inches to inches(units the same) rise/run.

I knew a few roofers too as I worked with them for awhile constructing "play homes" on the lake for out-of-town doctors/lawyers/etc. and one thing is certain in roofing, sawdust is dangerous to the roofer.
The thing is, this is a standardized term/system which helps eliminate confusion on the construction site. It doesn't necessarily mean it is the only way. I can say give me a 3/4 pitch/cut or I can say give me an 18-12 pitch/cut. It works out the same.

Now the question for your "old New England roofer" would be which version of the pitch/cut did the designer designate for the roof he is looking at and estimating? Did the designer use the 3/4 fraction(seked) or the 18-12(ratio) version?


> Egyptian construction was no different.

Nope it sure wasn't. They had both at their convenience and both could get the job done though I imagine the men doing the actual construction preferred the seked for insurance of no one confusing the ratio incorrectly as opposed to the head hocho laying it out either way they felt like.

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

All well and good but again, it hasn't been brought to bear in this discussion between "definitely" vs. "probably" except as a distraction.

Regards,
Lobo-hotei
lobo

Treat the earth well, It was not given to you by your parents, It was loaned to you by your children.
Native American Proverb