Anthony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't offer opinions. I offer facts and logic.
> Please don't equate the two, even if it means
> something catastrophic to your theories.
It doesn’t.
> > There are, thankfully, plenty of folks here at
> > Ma'aT and elsewhere who are more than prepared to
> > discuss this topic with an open mind and both feet
> > set firmly on the ground, and not let themselves
> > got bogged down by the 'Scientific Method'.
>
>
> See here:
I’ve read it.
Makes no never mind.
> > If you don't want to believe, for whatever reason,
> > that the mathematics employed in the fine planning
> > of Khufu's pyramid included extensive use of
> > multiplication and division by 22/7 (or equiv.
> > of), that is entirely up to you.
>
>
> I never said for one minute, and you will have to
> prove it to claim otherwise, that 22/7 was not
> used in the planning of Khufu's pyramid.
Odd. In the past you’ve dismissed my claims of the repeated occurrence of 22/7 as coincidence.
Are you now saying it is not coincidence?
> We are discussing the culture in question equating
> that particular ratio with what we know as Pi.
And I’m trying to get you to at least acknowledge that the occurrence of 22/7 in the Pyramid, etc., may have had nothing to do with pi.
> Please cease creating strawman arguments to try
> and salvage your intellectually bankrupt
> "research".
Well, I suppose there’s no real harm in describing information I’ve gleaned from a whole range of books and articles by Egyptologists (past and present), and from several posters to this Forum as “intellectually bankrupt "research".
> > If you don't want to accept, for whatever reason,
> > that in this instance 22/7 (or equiv. of) may not
> > have anything at all to do with the
> > diameter-to-circumference ratio we know as pi,
> > that, too, is entirely up to you.
>
>
> It is not whether I accept it, you accept it, or
> the entire body of the United Nations accepts it.
>
> It matters whether the culture in question ever
> left evidence of their knowledge of the particular
> discovery, and in the absence of said knowledge,
> the methodologically fatal flaw of superimposing
> that unevidenced misconception onto their
> culture.
Why won’t you drop your fixation with 22/7 = pi?
I keep pointing out that I am unsure of whether or not the 22/7 I hypothesise was used by Khufu’s architect was connected to pi.
Its use might have stemmed from seked 5½ without any realisation of this seked’s inherent pi connotation.
> Please stop making this a personal argument, or an
> argument about personalities, and deal with the
> facts that clearly destroy your hypothesis.
You have yet to come up with a single fact that even nudges my hypothesis.
> > Now, if you come up with something actually
> > substantive instead of yet more of this boringly
> > repetitive rhetoric of yours, then I'll take
> > notice of what you have to say; and who knows, I
> > may even entertain the idea of discussing it with
> > you.
>
>
> Facts and logic that refute your findings may be
> boring, but only because I have to keep repeating
> them every time you present your flawed,
> demonstrably incorrect assertions on a forum
> dedicated to finding out the reality of what was
> happening in ancient Egypt 4500 years ago.
Once again, you have come up with no facts or logic.
All that is a fact is that there is no known written record of the AEs knowing the diameter-to-circle ratio we call pi – and everybody here knows that.
Logic says they did know it.
> So, if you want to end the boredom, stop trying to
> misinform people. Stop the strawman arguments.
> Stop the ad hominem attacks. Of course, without
> them, you'd have nothing left to use to defend
> your ideas, since they've all been proven
> irrelevant, meaningless, or entirely false.
> Without your false defenses, you have no defenses
> at all.
What have I said that is misinforming, Anthony?
What strawman arguments?
What ad hominem attacks?
How have you proven any part of my hypothesis irrelevant, meaningless, or entirely false?
What false defences?
All you are doing here is making sweeping comments that amount to nothing.
Please be specific, Anthony.
Better still, I respectfully request that you post what you think my hypothesis says.
As it stands, all your talk about my flawed methodology and intellectually bankrupt "research" (not that you are making ad hominem attacks
) tells me that you don’t really know, and are striking out at it quite blindly.
So, how about it, Anthony.
Why not take this as an opportunity to clear the air?
MJ