Hello Jim,

The question of latitude has occupied my attention for many hours.

Some years ago, I arrived at the conclusion that a length of 12,000 cubits can be regarded as a significant arc of the meridian.

I had no idea, until now, that this length has a historical aspect.

My determination was, however, based on a modern determination of the size of the planet.

This puzzled me, because it suggested that the cubit was based on the size of the planet, but I didn't give way to the idea AE had somehow managed to achieve a precise determination of the size of the globe.

My model is certainly correct, having checked it many times, still shocked by the coincidence which is, of course, how my model would be regarded in academic circles, with no proof that it was ever contemplated, yet now we have a historical dimension to my theoretical proposition.

I didn't look for a connection to the division of the great circle of the globe into 360 parts.

It is possible that AE may have spotted a coincidence, just as I have, but in their case the cubit may have been extended from 24 digits to 28 digits, then tweaked with an extra long digit, never forgotten as apparent from ceremonial rulers.

In practice, I think artisans and surveyors would have divided the final chosen length of the cubit into exactly 7 palms of 4 digits, so 28 digits of the same length, but I now have a tenable reason for an extra long digit, tenable that is to those who think it is not necessarily impossible that AE achieved a precise determination of the size of the globe.

It follows that it is tenable that latitude, possible to measure without considering Earth as a sphere, was considered in the same way as is now known to be the case, but it still doesn't seem likely to me.

Mark



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 06/04/2022 02:57PM by Mark Heaton.