Byrd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ahatmose Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > Hi Byrd ... I am very disappointed at the lack
> of
> > input into this hrst1 theory.
>
> In general (or on my part) it's because of the
> lack of supporting evidence from the Old Kingdom.
> What's offered is Ptolemaic era for the most part,
> and that's thousands of years after the first
> cubit rod shows up.
>
> > The first was the Tropic of Cancer coming out
> of
> > the abyss or primal waters (The Nile of course)
>
> No evidence has been presented that they knew or
> marked or understood during the Old Kingdom the
> idea of an invisible delineation of the sky called
> "tropic of Cancer". "Cancer" wasn't any sign they
> knew or used for any group of stars in the sky
> UNTIL the Greeks (with astronomy and astrology
> from the Babylonians) came in around 300 BC.
> There's no evidence that they knew what sign the
> sun "lay in" during previous times or that they
> had an interest in this. It's never mentioned or
> shown in star diagonals, etc, until the time of
> the temple of Dendera (Ptolemies, around 300 BC)
>
> There hasn't been a response along the lines of
> "here's this star diagonal from the First
> Intermediate Period on the coffin of
> StarsTwinkleNightly that shows the sun and a date
> and a major solstice festival about the sun
> directly overhead. When asked about the Stride of
> Ra, it turns out to be a poorly mentioned concept
> from 300 BC and thereabouts.
>
> So there's not much to discuss that we haven't
> already discussed.
>
>
> >but another remarkable coincidence occurred , It
> was also The Helical Rising of Sirius occurring
> just 7 days after this event.
>
> Which doesn't seem to have made any impression on
> the Egyptians. There's no 7 day festival between
> the solstice and the appearance of Sirius. (as you
> can see here on the list of known festivals
> [www.ucl.ac.uk])
>
>
> > (The 7 days of The Creation ? Well maybe in the
> myths) ) So if one reads hrst1's lead in and also
> remembers or re-read the creation myths it makes
> perfect sense.
>
> There's only one cultural group with a 7 day
> creation story in their religious teachings, and
> that religion doesn't begin until around 1500 BC
> or later.
>
> Again, no tie-in to a First Dynasty determination
> of the cubit measurement.
>
> > As I have said of all the theories I have read
> and shredded for their errors this one is
> withstanding my scrutiny.
>
> That's because you're checking the arithmetic
> first and not the history and cultural artifacts.
> I always check for the cultural artifacts first -
> particularly anything they had written down. If I
> ignore cultural artifacts, I could (with a little
> bit of work) "prove" that the Egyptians were the
> first to discover Lie Groups and Lie Algebra using
> things like the lotus columns
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie_algebra) In
> spite of that, I can assure you that they had no
> idea of what a vector space is.
>
> The idea would probably get a harsher reception
> from real Egyptologists, who could cite original
> works by the Egyptians of that time and cultural
> artifacts that I'm unaware of that date back to
> the time of the Predynastic Era.
>
> What would have strengthened the argument?
> * star tables or an observatory from the
> Predynastic Era showing that a particular "sun
> well" was of specific importance such as a temple
> complex similar to Karnak - maintained and
> expanded throughout the lifetime of the Egyptian
> Kingdom that focused on astronomy
> * cubit measurements marked with astronomical
> references that date to the Old Kingdom
> * Big Predynastic solar temples (solar temples
> don't show up until the mid-to-late Old Kingdom)
> * Inscriptions showing that the "Stride of Ra" was
> used in other measurements (like the length of the
> king's run for the Heb Sed festival) and was
> measured in a standard cubit during the
> Predynastic or early Old Kingdom.
> * Standardization of the cubit beginning in the
> early dynasties.
>
>
> We do get people here who present ideas and then
> say "read my paper" or "watch my video" - as a
> grumpy old scholar, I find that an ineffective
> response. When I stood up for Orals at my
> Qualifying Exams, I couldn't say "just read my
> dissertation." I had to respond with "In my
> dissertation I used this argument from this source
> and respond to questions about my source (to prove
> that I understood the sources.) So I want to know
> how an idea is built up and whether the
> foundations hold up for it.
>
> When the response is "read my paper, page xx" or
> "watch my video at timestamp yy" it doesn't really
> answer the question about the foundations. A
> response like "in Section 12.6. Allen says that
> the verb meaning “come, return” has two different
> stems: 3ae-inf (jjj) and 3ae-inf (jwj). Then he
> says “Both verbs behave like 3ae-inf roots in some
> respects … The stem jjj seems to be the base stem
> of this verb and jwj, its geminated counterpart.”
> (which is a copy-pasted line from a real
> discussion this week on hieroglyphs and
> translations) has a lot more weight than "read my
> paper."
>
>
> And yeah, I am a picky critter. I try to not hop
> up and down on people over every little detail. I
> might have those details in mind when I respond
> but I try to not dump a whole dissertation full of
> skeptical and critical comments on anyone.


It is a waste of time for all, explaining, or listening, to those who engage in condemnation without investigation.