Ogygos Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's see what we notice from this periodic table.
> First of all based on wikipedia we can determine
> some important for different reasons metals:

I'm afraid this information doesn't help your case... and in fact rather hurts it. You cite a Wikipedia article but then don't link it to anything or use it in any way. Then...

> Let's thus see how and if these metals are encoded
> in the GP courses. A match is considered in both
> average atomic weight(avg) or most abundant
> isotope atomic weight(iso). Local maximums and
> local minima are considered. If neither average
> atomic weight or most abundant isotope atomic
> weight matches I post the relative isotope that
> matches:

Basically you said that any number will work for any particular course of the pyramid. This simply doesn't work (and it looks like some information was truncated or obliterated.) In order to prove your idea, you have to prove that sophisticated knowledge of the model of the atom existed (knowledge better than ours). The "table of elements" is simply based on one model of the atom -- as I said, you could use Quarks or Gluons or number of electrons and come up with a table that was valid and was completely different.

I'm afraid you haven't shown why an "advanced civilization" (unless you consider ours the ultimate advanced civilization) would decide to encode just ONE pyramid out of all the structures on the planet.


You get off track here...
> There are also other important metals like
> Caesium. Accourding to wikipedia:
>
> Caesium is also used in atomic clocks, which are
> accurate to seconds over many thousands of years.
> Since 1967, the International System of
> Measurements has based its unit of time, the
> second, on the properties of caesium. The
> International System of Units (SI) defines the
> second as 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation,
> which corresponds to the transition between two
> hyperfine energy levels of the ground state of the
> 133Cs atom.

The only reason for a "second" is that it's a convenience. The "second" was invented first and then people hunted around for a way to accurately define it via atomic methods. We could have ended up with a longer or shorter "second."

So it's not a case of "having the atomic model first and then applying it." It's a case of "having the thing first and then picking an atomic model."

>
> The 133rd GP course is a local minimum. Due to
> differences between surveys especially courses
> around the 48th (titanium), the 27th (aluminum),
> and the 197th (gold) should be remeasured.

I'm sure you must feel this is correct, but the measurements are right. It's the concept which does not match with the real data.