Hello all,
It would appear that Clive is confused about the difference between fact and hypothesis.
Clive wrote: “
I'm presenting a mathematical fact...I'm not proposing a theory or claiming anything.”
But just previous to this statement he wrote: “Are you aware of what is being mathematically presented?
Do you realize the mathematical odds of this being coincidental...do you have any idea whatsoever? “
He goes on to write: “This illustration, coupled with the previous, indicates a greater understanding of circular measure than even I assumed possible.”
But a greater understanding by whom exactly?
Clive doesn’t say, but by implication he is referring generally to the Ancient Egyptians and specifically to the architect of Khufu’s pyramid.
Clive continues, ‘
If it is by design then it's a remarkable perception and demonstration of mathematical knowledge relating to circular measure. But it must be clearly understood...it's also simple to calculate...nothing complicated here.
However,
if it is coincidental then so be it.
Fortunately,I know it isn't otherwise, if you knew me better, I would have never posted either of these illustrations.
Clive opened this thread with the following:
“My previous illustration used two numerical values converted to degrees and it was discovered that their intersect aligned with the vertical of the King’s Chamber.
Now, using the identical numerical values as previous, and converting all circular measures to a circle of 1000 parts…it is seen how the point of intersect has moved outside of the pyramid structure.
This demonstrates the fact that only a 360 degrees circle can provide the results as previously illustrated.
However, it also introduces the second system
used by the pyramid designers…a 1000 degrees circle…!
So, Clive
is proposing a theory (hypothesis would be more accurate), after all., i.e. that the designer of Khufu’s pyramid used in his plans degrees of the 360-to-a circle variety, and degrees of an extraordinary 1,000-to-a-circle variety in the manner shown in Clive's diagrams.
All of which brings me to the question I should like to ask Clive: if you are not
not proposing a theory or claiming anything, why on earth are you posting these diagrams of yours?
What exactly is it you are trying to achieve with them?
MJ
