Hermione Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anthony Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> You provided quotes ... but they didn't really say
> what you said they said.
In their context, they meant exactly what I said they said. He has used mathematics to make claims about the designers intent. See the list of claims he makes below.
>
>
>
> Yes, but by "design", I think MJT actually means
> "method" ... not "motivation, reason for" (which I
> think is what you mean by "design").
But he said "design", and based on that, he made several claims about the designers' intent, as he derived it from his mathematical analysis.
That means "design", as in "motivation, reason for". If he takes away the concept of an overarching design intent, then he cannot make any claims regarding further design elements, such as sequence or additional elements, including a fourth chamber.
>
> In various other posts, he said the following:
>
>
> MJT:
> I have - entirely unexpectedly, I assure you -
> found what appears to be the methods (maths-based)
> Khufu's architect used to establish the size of
> the Pyramid and the sizes and shapes its passages
> and chambers and their various features.
>
> I remind you that I hold the view that the general
> layout was probably based on religious and
> traditional factors combined with the king's
> personal wants.
>
> (Hermione) You see, this isn't saying that the GP
> was designed solely in accordance with a sequence
> of ratios and measures, is it ??
Check out the timestamps on those. You'll find he has been changing his stance very recently on this issue after having been called on it. He has been making his mathematical claims for over four years. These new qualifiers are only a few weeks old.
>
> But, notwithstanding this, you say:
>
> AS:
> No, your hypothesis is that the maths dictated the
> dimensions the priests selected, and by examining
> those maths one can divine the true intent of the
> builders.
>
> MJT:
> Let me try again; what I am saying is that maths
> was used in the planning of the Pyramid in the
> manner of, for example, the length of the KC was
> made equal to the width multiplied by 2; the
> height of the KC doorway was made the height of
> the KC walls divided by 5; the vertical distance
> between the base of the Pyramid and the Scored
> Line was made equal to the horizontal distance
> between the apex and a side at the base divided by
> 10; and so on and so forth.
> If this is maths driving the design, then I'm a
> dutchman.
>
> I'm astonished that you cannot see that from this
> very simple application of basic arithmetic and
> rectilineal geometry it is possible to work out
> the sequence of the designing of the Pyramid's
> passages and chambers.
>
> (And again):
>
> MJT:
> For the record, I do not assume "that maths were
> the driving motivational force behind the design
> elements we find in the pyramid,"
> This is purely Anthony's persistent
> misinterpretation of what I am actually
> hypothesising.
>
> I do not believe or even suggest that "we can
> divine the true meaning of the design by simply
> crunching numbers again and again until we find
> (or create) a pattern."
> What I do believe is that in knowing how Khufu's
> architect went about designing the Pyramid's
> passages and chambers we can gain a better or
> wider understanding of the thinking behind it.
> For example - and a very simple one at that - in
> my hypothesis the King's Chamber was designed
> first, and therefore adds weight to the view that
> this Chamber was the Pyramid's single most
> important internal feature.
>
> I do not argue or even suggest that maths
> influenced directly the design of the Pyramid* and
> its interior - the overall design being down to
> religious and traditional needs, no doubt with a
> few suggestions from the king thrown in to the mix
> (IMO this is particularly true until
> standardisation crept in).
>
> ***
>
> From this, it is clear that MJT's present position
Key word: "Present". I am not saying he currently holds the position as stated repeatedly over the last several years, and if you read my posts, I say as much. What I'm saying is I am not wrong in having exposed his methodological error for what it was, as he seems intent on suggesting.
> is that he is not arguing that "maths drove the
> design of the GP". He seems to be suggesting that
> his work can throw some insight on the sequence in
> which the various structures and measurements were
> implemented.
Not logically possible unless we accept the unevidenced speculation that the maths drove the design, and not vice versa.
At most he can tell us what system of measurements were used to make the pyramid. But, we already know that: seqeds and cubits, in a scaled fashion. Gantenbrink showed that years ago.
As soon as he steps beyond that simple analysis, and into a suggestion of sequence (whereby one set of measurements DICTATED, or LEAD TO another dimensional selection) he has succumb to the methodological error of ascribing design intent to the mathematics, and not the mathematics to the design intent.
> The conclusions to which this line
> of thinking leads him are diametrically opposed to
> your own, of course, but that's just the way the
> cookie crumbles.
It doesn't matter where it leads if he starts off on such flawed footing. If it lead him to agree with me unequivocally, I'd be arguing just as hard against it because the grounds are fatally flawed.
Anthony
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.