So terribly confused now.
Still fascinated by this concept (rather, by the intellect that spawned it)

Questions below...

Ogygos Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >>Query: Of the ten scientists that came up...

>
> First of all in Newton’s case I did not measure
> the Polaris angle from where he was born, and the
> time he was born.
<blink> but you say you did while here you say you didn't ??

> I was lead to Newton when I
> searched for when Polaris aligns with Khufu’s
> North King’s chamber air shaft - as one looks at
> the sky from Giza.
As in time, or as in latitude? And how did that lead you to Newton?
If time, was it because it hit his b-day?
If latitude, was it because it hit his location at birth?
In *either* case, how can you correlate it with your statement above?

> So Newton’s location of birth
> is not important. Off course the same correlation
> does not apply for the place where Newton was born
> – this is because Giza latitude is significantly
> different from Newton’s place of birth.
Utter confusion. His birth location isn't important, but the correlation doesn't apply?


>When you
> say margin of error are you referring to the
> accuracy which witch the software can make
> calculations? I don’t know.
The accuracy to which his birthdate, birthplace can be known, along with what stars were available to see through the giza shafts at that time. Errors in precision in there somewhere?

>
> >>Query: What were your google search terms
> that resulted in that list with Newton as the
> first?<<
> I don’t remember the exact enrty. It was something
> like: 10 greatest scientists of all time
Okay with not remembering, but surely you could duplicate the search?
Or does the attempt result in a new list of ten?
Is there a reason why you did not cite all 10 with angles?

>
> >>Query: Are only astronomers to be
> considered for your theory?<<
> No, but astronomers would certainly be more suited
> to relate to star pointing air shafts.
Do you have any examples to cite of non-astronomers that fit your theory?

>
> >>Request for clarification: Leibner was
> born in Saxony. Newton in Lincolnshire. Using
> approximations from wiki for their respective
> birth locations, I see Newton at 52.48.38 N,
> 0.37.47W, and Liebner at 61.1.37N and 13.21.32E.
>
> With the GP at 31.131N, 29.97E, it would appear
> that Liebner was closest to the pyramids.
> So please explain your comment: "Also Newton being
> from England was in a region of latitude that
> related to pyramid slopes."<<
>
> What I meant is that the Giza pyramid slopes are:
>
> Khufu: 51.866 deg
> Kafre: 53.14 deg
> Mankaure: 51.09 deg
> Woolsthorpe Manor latitude = 52.809 deg
>
> Leibniz latitude is too large. Hellas and England
> have compelentary latitude figures, the first
> pointing to the apex and the second to the slope.
> Also we have the Egypt - Hellas - England path.
So because there is a match in numbers for Newton, but not Liebner, you pick Newton and claim he was greater/of more import?
You are aware that Newton's theories were founded, in part, on Liebner's concepts?

>
> >>Request for clarification: You appear to
> have used Dec 25, 1942 for Newtons birth. Wiki
> lists it as 1943, and further clarifies that it is
> an assigned date of birth as England did not use
> the Gregorian Calendar at that time. Why use Dec
> 25 instead of the adjusted date from the original
> calendar in use at the time of his birth? Why the
> year discrepancy? Why does the image you used in
> the OP show Jan 4 1943?<<
>
> In the software I used the original calendar in
> use at the time of his birth. Calculations were
> made with this date since this is the calendar the
> software uses. But the fact is that when Newton
> was born is certain places in the world where the
> old calendar was used it was Christmas day. It
> seem like God liked the old calendar more.
Can you name this software? I'd love to see it as I've not seen any piece of astronomy software use a non-gregorian calendar!
As for the rest of your statement, I'm confounded at your connection to Christmas Day. In the corrected calendar, it's Jan 4. In the old Julian calendar, which was notoriously inaccurate, it was Dec 25. Dec 25 is irrelevant as it is only the day on which an important christian holiday is celebrated, but isn't important to anything otherwise. And btw: less than 50% of the world population celebrates that day (There's a statistic with no proof... suspicious?)


>

> >>Request for clarification: You list Newton
> at 32.6018. Then you list Liebner at 32.584.
> Given a less than 2 year difference in their
> birthdays (btw: how close do you come to sqrt(2)
> when you convert that difference into years?),
> does the star wonder that much from year to
> year?<<
>
> Yes, but I don’t think this difference is so big.
If the star wanders that much from year to year, then how can you precisely date the star's location into a precise year before the written calendar? In other words, how can you precisely pick a specific year in the distant past and know where the star was?

>
>
> >>If so, then how can you accurately project
> backwards in time to the specific year of Jesus
> and the specific year in which to take a reading
> on the slope of the pyramid to point at the
> star?<<
>
> The degree of change is not related to the
> accuracy in computing it’s true altitude. Its true
> that the more back in time we go, the more errors
> in estimating these types of figures could grow.
> But I don’t know how much.
>
Yet aren't you the one citing where the star was thousands of years ago? How do you explain the margin of error if you can't predict it?

1913.
Interesting.
19-13=6
Ogygos = letter count 6
Number of repeats: 2
Number of non-repeats:2
Our math is 10 digits base, so expressing those answers in 10 base is 62.2
Using 10 as a margin of error means 52.2, +/- 2.
Compared to the slopes of the pyramids...

Just a little reminder of the number game where anything can be shown to be related, but not proven.