Jon_B Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> either way your remark is obvious rubbish.

Not really Jon:
If you think about the number of squares per circle then you will realize that a plan was in the making.
The artist had a problem setting the 33rd tile into place and if you study carefully you will see the quadrant that it fits into. The second disk, having only a few remaining tiles, was also of a 33 count.
Another clue is the size of the tiles...they're all identical.
So ask again...why 33-26-17 and remind yourself of the written language developed at the time this piece was created...a language that could "not" describe mathematical notations. Knowledge had to be express through their art work...and to think that artists continued this technique up to and including the Renaissance. It's amazing how many famous artists also studied astronomy...I think DaVinci was the greatest master at disguising his knowledge of astronomy in his work...if only his superiors had known.
The world's most famous example using the same system is 39-27...I'll let you figure that one out.

> I built and used two reflecting telescopes...

Nice.

> I spent many nights viewing the sky and
> photographing the planets which involved a very
> good understanding of planetary motion as I used a
> powered drive to track them.

Hmmmmmm....did you track sidereal ?

> How about you, any actual practical knowledge of astonomy or are you
> just an another armchair exponent?

Ohhhhh yes...did all my calculations before visiting Giza and explaining to Hawass of the Orion Belt six years before Bauval wrote his book. Unfortunately...the stars did not fit the Giza site layout...I scraped the concept. But I do concur that Giza "implies" the belt stars but not for the reason presented by Bauval.

As for tracking planets...I have spent several years with my avid astronomer friend who also built his own scope (20cm I believe)...not my bag of tea, but I sure enjoy viewing the Moon's of Jupiter and distant star clusters. He was surprised when I explained how the majority of astronomers (all levels) fail to realize the simplicity of calculating orbital periods for the visible planets. Taught him how the AE did it...the easy way.

> Four years at Art College, same as you apparently.

That's great Jon...then you must agree that what I stated regarding math and art is true?

BTW...I dropped art, architecture and civil for electronic engineering...more challenging.

Best.
Clive