Mark Heaton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

And here we get into the issue of "WHICH cubit?"

> 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.

I can measure the distance between my cat's ears (1.2 inches) and with some fairly simple math come up with the diameter of the Earth (based on the size of my cat's ears) and if I multiply or divide by other cat-ly measurements (like the angle of her ears or her age or the length of her tail or the size of her paws) I can come up with the measurements for the Great Pyramid, for Stonehenge, for the Washington Monument, for the clock face on Big Ben.

However, this is not proof that she was involved in any of those (being that she's only 7 years old.)

> 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.

Only if you've got documents from a particular time period that show the Egyptians knew it was a globe (and WHEN they knew this) and that they used it. We've got documentation from the time of Pythagoras that show all this.

> 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.

You also have to show that this is the only explanation.

> 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.

It seems less likely when you look at their maps.

-- Byrd
Moderator, Hall of Ma'at