Lobo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >But for your clarity....14 rise/ 11 run. The
> units are not important
> >(except for them being the same unit) gives
> the same Seked.
> >As for your math processes requested.
> >
> >14 / 2 = 7
> >11 / 2 = 5.5

>Go read up on AE mathematical processes like multiplication and division.

Well that is always good advice, thanks!


> So why did you divide by 2 a magical guess? You
> say there is no difference but you divided by 2,
> is that not a difference?
>
> From that could I also then,
> 25 / 2 = 12.5
> 13 / 2 = 6.5
>
> And what would that tell me about what the Seked
> is?

>Very little.

I agree!


> > Why don’t you show us (all the steps) the
> ancient
> > Egyptians would need to do to find the Seked
> of
> > rise 25 and run of 13 digits!
>
> >28 * 1 = 28....naturally
> >28 * 2 = 56
> >28 * 4 = 112
> >28 * 8 = 224
> >8(224) + 4(112) + 1(28) = 13(364)
>
> Seked 13(364) are you sure that is right?

>Are you sure my method is wrong?

Never said it was wrong just asked if it was the right Seked, that was a question.


>Who said it was "Seked 13" to begin with?

It was just another question, is that the Seked?



> You don't have a clue about the above do you?

Well that is completely possible I often get confused.
I was expecting something like.

7 * ½ = 3 ½
7 * 1/50 = 1/10 + 1/25

= Seked 3 ½ + 1/10 + 1/25

Oh well !


> >What would your set back be if the Seked was 5
> + 1/3?
>
> You’re the one arguing for the Seked not me. I
> don’t see the need for Sekeds remember. But this
> does help in my argument against them using the
> Seked for real construction.

>What do you think a Seked is?

7 palms rise by x palms run. …. [en.wikipedia.org]

What do you think a Seked is?


> > Also do you have any textual evidence from
> the
> > time of the Giza three or earlier that they
> knew
> > or used the Seked in pyramid design or
> > construction?
>
> >The same question back at ya? You are arguing
> that
> >they used the rise/run values to set the
> courses of the
> >pyramids and then asking me to show evidence
> of them
> >using the rise/run values to set the courses
> of the pyramid.
>
> So I guess your answer is no textual evidence of
> the Seked from the time of the Giza three or
> earlier.


>MY answer was, there's no difference.
>You are arguing against yourself but you can't see it.

I often argue against myself and I often win, but the sad thing is that sometimes I lose.


>I guess they didn't use rise/run either since no textual evidence.
>You can throw out the cubit and digit also since no textual evidence
> for them used on the Giza 3.

I’m not sure rise/run or seked played any part in the planning of early pyramids. As for the cubit, palm and digit if there are no existing physical rods or textual evidence then they would not exist either. Maybe that is why there is so much disagreement about their length. Projecting back that the Seked played any role in the Kings decision for choosing the dimensions he did should be viewed with caution IMO.


>This according to many of the one's arguing for their own
>personal interpretation so as to get their name in the books.

Nope! I don’t have any books or any books planned.

Regards,
RLH