Jammer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's pretty well documented the cubit was made up
> of "palms" and "digits".

Absolutely, there are 7 palms and 28 digits, can you explain the significance of dividing by 7 and then 4? Not only did they do this with the cubit, but all measures were divided by 7 and 4.

ie G1 440 / 7 = 62 6/7 cubits or (20 pi) 62 6/7 / 4 = 15 5/7 (5 pi)
Bent Pyrmaid 360 / 7 = 51 3/7 cubits...51 3/7 / 4 = 12 6/7 cubits
Sphinx 140 / 7 = 20 cubits...20 cubits = Kings chamber


Jammer Wrote:
> It's documented the dimensions of these digits
> varied from cubit to cubit IN THE ACTUAL EXAMPLES
> WE HAVE RECOVERED (acknowledged years after
> 3rd-4th dynasty)
>
> I'm personally sure the digit involved isn't ET's
> "phone Home" finger.

Agreed

Jammer Wrote:
> I have hypothesized in several posts it MAY have
> been based on the Pharaoh's or Chief Builder's
> actual digit.

It is possible to demonstrate the cubit length is determined by the G1 itself. That is the subject of a thread I will start in the near future if there is interest in such.

Jammer Wrote:
> Culturally the AE used fractions, not decimals. So
> they wouldn't decide a cubit is "this long", and
> than divide it into digits.

Not just fractions but unit fractions as demonstrated here:
<[www.hallofmaat.com];

Jammer Wrote:
> I believe they would decide what a digit measured,
> and than seen what 28 of them cumulatively
> measured.

That is the same as asking which came first the chicken or the egg?

Jammer Wrote:
> I would love to see your research on 3rd and 4th
> dynasty cubits, as long as it's based on something
> culturally appropriate. (ir NOT how far a stone
> falles on Ceres, etc.)

The cubit is based only on the concepts contained within G1 defining the dimensions of G1, no preconceptions! But like the c-14 data it will open a new controversy that will have to be explained.