Ogygos Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So did Hellenic numbering systems like Linear B
> but that didn’t stop Pythagoras from considering
> 10 symbolically and not from a strict mathematical
> sense as the largest number.

Uhmmm... Pythagoras is Greek, not Egyptian and he lived thousands of years after the first Egyptians arose. He did not study the ancient Egyptian culture (or have any contact with it directly.) I'm fairly certain that he didn't work in Linear B, either.

What he believed or philosophized had nothing to do with the thought processes of the Egyptians of 3,000 BC. His ideas were not founded on things carried forward in that culture and given to him.

> You obtain a decan by dividing a circle into 36
> not 10 pieces. The fact that a decan is 10 degrees
> takes as a given that a degree angle division is
> used. But the Egyptians based the Solar Earth year
> on 360 days plus some extra days. This means that
> they were aware of the degree angular division.

No, it means they were aware of the length of the year. This is a pretty easy thing to count.


> >>They didn't use 360 degrees. That's a
> Babylonian development.<<
> It doesn’t matter who discovered it first or to
> whom it was first passed down, see above.

Yes it does, because not everything happens at once or is communicated to the whole world at once.

> It’s a Pythagorean philosophical notion expressed
> in mathematical form it is not a strict
> mathematical equation.

You now seem to be claiming that they were Pythagoreans *and* gematria-ists thousands of years before either concept was developed (and hundreds or thousands of miles away from where they were developed.) This doesn't make any sense. Cultural artifacts are carried forward but they leave traces in the culture that originated them and that carries them forward.

> The Hellenic code was
> used in ancient Hellas – Ionic numbering
> system(the Athenians originally used the
> acrophonic numbering system).

What's your source for the "Athenians used gematria" claim?

> The word gematria has 8
> letters and:
> GEMATRIA = 460 = OKTO(eight) = 2 x 230(GP base in
> m)

This does not elevate any of your comments beyond the realm of coincidence and into the realm of science.

> That’s the issue it makes no difference what the
> units are, I just pointed out that this shape
> agrees perfectly with Khufu pyramid’s slope – and
> the encoding of pi.

So does the shape of my cat's ear. Do we then conclude that he was designed by gematria or that aliens constructed him to include the concept 'pi'? What do we make of the idea that my other cat's ears don't agree perfectly with Khufu pyramid's slope?

> But as I showed the ten number
> relates to the base length of the GP – in Egyptian
> not Hellenic but using a Hellenic gematria system.

Which makes this not the study of Egypt.

> Today it is well established that the alphabet
> originated from Egypt, so this in no way strange.

Which alphabet? What's your proof? My sources say the Roman alphabet originates in the Middle East and the Phonecians.

> As I have pointed out the pyramids and other
> structures were planned by a very advanced
> civilization. They set out the same secret code
> shaping it accordingly to meet the needs of the
> local language and ways.

You've attempted to point this out using a very small sample of things. None of them are convincing. We can easily prove the "null hypothesis" by showing that other structures fail this test.

> >>(sigh) Just because YOU think it's more
> suitable doesn't mean that the people of 5,000
> years ago thought it was more suitable.<<
> It’s common sense. Philosophic ideas and physical
> measures are not necessarily anthropocentric. A
> rock or idea is not necessarily masculine or
> feminine.

That depends on your language and culture.

> Maybe Egyptians did not evolve enough to
> understand this,

Do you have proof that they had an unevolved (whatever that means) form of intelligence, given all the poetry and art and so forth they leave behind? Does "un-evolved" mean "not using gematria?" If so, you will have to conclude that almost everyone in the world is "un-evolved" and therefore almost every single structure in the world is "un-evolved".

> but the fact is that the
> architects of the pyramids who were the entities
> that planned the alphabet code knew this.

Again, unproveable. you're using YOUR alphabet and YOUR words to define "evolution" and finding examples to support your theory by encoding.

Besides, the "alphabet" has different symbols in different languages (there are over 400 symbols in what would be considered an Egyptian alphabet.

> >>You can derive what you like, but it makes
> no sense.<<
> What do you mean, that it means nothing in
> Egyptian?

The Egyptians didn't use it.

> But the fact
> is that if they wanted they could use the gematria code the same way.

There's no evidence that they did.

> Thus using the same alphabet
> and a different language they could encode similar
> or the same information – or even different
> information – all depending on their language and
> the fine tuning performed by the priests or
> initiated

There's no evidence of the priests coming in and dictating fine tunings of the language to match things in Greek or gematria. In fact, if you examine a large set of words you will find counterexamples galore. Just look at any anagram server.

– see Pythagoras reshaping alphabet
> letters – one can imagine why.. ge(o)matria
> literally.

There's no evidence that he reshaped the alphabet's letters.

> >>That wasn't the 12th letter in their
> alphabet.<<
> Do you know the order?

Somewhere there are word lists. Just because YOU alphebetize things as "a b c d" doesn't mean other languages do (see [www.rostra.dk] (which is in German but is a good article anyway.)) I'm sure someone will have a link. In dictionaries they are "alphebetized" by categories. Chinese and Japanese are not arranged according to the Roman alphabetizing system.

> We don’t really know who did it and under which
> circumstances so anything goes. It’s easier to
> reverse engineer than to dig up all the evidence
> archeologically.

But you then have to prove it was reverse engineered. You have not done so.


-- Byrd
Moderator, Hall of Ma'at