Ogygos Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The dimensions
> of your own planet are not arbitrary. If one lived
> on various planets moving from one to another then
> it might.

<blink>
You seem to be seriously stating that a state of arbitrariness depends upon one's living location?
You also appear to be discarding the 'shrinking/expanding earth' theories?

I would assert that *any* measurement by a human faculty should be considered arbitrary.
One could claim that the size of a hydrogen atom shouldn't be, but I'd point out that only by precisely defining same (ie to exclude ions/etc and at a specifici temp to boot) could you approach a non-arbitrary measurement.




> The electron trajectory size is irrelevant to the
> unit of length used. It doesn’t shrink or expand
> depending on whether we use British feet or royal
> cubits. Bohr computed it’s value. We can thus
> derive the length of a circle(perimeter) with it’s
> radius, simply by multiplying by two pi:

Now here you have truly lost me. How can a unit of length be irrelevant in to any measurement of 'size' ???


> r0 = 5.2917720859 × 10^-11 m
> r0 x 2 x pi = 5.2917720859 × 10^-11 m x 2 x
> 3.14159… = 33.249184619 × 10^-11 m =>
> r0 x 2 x pi = 33.249184619 × 10^-11 m =>
> 0.9974755 × 10^-9 m/3 = (0.9974755 × 10^7) x
> 10^-16 m/3 = (one quadrant of Earth’s perimeter) /
> 3 / 1000000000000000

Again, I see you using 'm' as a measurement... normally that's 'meter' and I've disputed it above.
In addition you appear to not be using the full equation (but then again, I am easily confused and may just be mistaken as to what you've written.)

[en.wikipedia.org]

The proper Bohr Radius is given by this formula:

(Compton Wavelength of the Proton) + (Compton Wavelength of the Electron) / (2 x PI x (the fine structure constant))

Also, in your calculations above, you've used a hydrogen atoms Bohr Radius value. You should note that a) This is seemingly an arbitrary choice of atom to pick, and b) that Bohr's calculation is *not* an accurate modeling of the atom.



> As one can see we don’t have a 1.000 value we have
> a 0.9974755 value. We can thus compute the
> equivalent perfect sphere planet radius:
>
> R = 4 x 0.9974755 × 10^7 / pi / 2 = 6,350,127 m
>
> The actual polar radius of the Earth is 6,356,752
> m. The error is 6.6 km or 0.1%.
>
> >>No idea what you are talking about here.
> Reference/citation please?<<
>
> I think Schwaller found the meter being used in
> ancient Egypt structures. Also I noted that the
> Amenemimpt cubit is divided in such a way so that
> if one omits the “practical finger” on the edge he
> ends up with exactly half a meter.

Hmm The usage of the meter in AE is quite debatable, there are a *VERY* large number of topics here in the Hall regarding that subject matter. Even a few discussing Schwaller, IIRC. That said, I believe even the Cubit has been discussed multiple times in those threads. I don't feel the need to re-enter the discussions here, but I feel somewhat safe in stating that it has been found that your assertions re: the meter and the cubit in AE are false.
Regardless, I'm still not seeing a valid connection unless you mean to imply that the AE knew the Bohr Radius of the Hydrogen Atom and used the same definition of Meter (via longitude/lattitude) that we do today with the metric system?? That's a whole seperate topic from your original post, although quite interrelated.



>
> >>Not of monumental proportions perhaps, but
> precious few sites exist that had any importance
> to neolithic societies, have been discovered by
> Arc's, and haven't been subjected to some kind of
> theoretical reconstruction (ie this building here,
> that well there, etc)
> So you casually dismiss all such sites from your
> accounting?
> I understand if the only remnant is pot sherds,
> but there are a number of levels above that that
> you seem to be excluding.
> Perhaps you can include them in the chart with
> some rigorously defined level of sophistication
> for each entry in the chart (ie why it is
> included) along with a 'cutoff' level and a
> description of same with a reasoning as to why it
> is left off?<<
>
> OK I post 30 Neolithic sites in Britain and
> Ireland which are found in Wikipedia - no chery
> picking. The 'cutoff' level here is Wikipedia’s
> judgment on which are important enough to be
> included in it’s web site. Note: Some are close
> together so there are bound to be multiple
> correlations once one if found.
>
>
>
> Distances in 100 or 50 round kms with an error
> margin of +-5 km.This is an arbitary range but I
> think it is logical if one takes into acount
> divergances like Earth's geometry, contintal drift
> and other errors in measurent. In the chart
> distances are rounded to the closest killometer.

Wait... why are you accepting these now, but not in the arbitrariness of the meter? By this logic, our 'meter' and the AE 'Cubit' you reference above should also be different, yes?
What differences in Earth's geometry?
How much continental drift per time unit? It's a measured value, IIRC?



>
> In a value range 20% of total [(5+5+5+5)x100%/100]
> we have 60% of the sites for Knossos, 30% of the
> sites for Tell al-Ubaid, 6.7% of both, and 83% of
> either one. An interesting outcome statistic wise
> - both quantitively but more so qualitively.

You mean within an error range of 20%? 1 in 5?
That's quite broad, isn't it? Early you mentioned 1/5 of the quadrant of earth... given this degree of error margin... that's a bit of an issue isn't it?


> >>Vinca culture is characterized by 'tell'
> sites. These are easily landmarkable, in my
> opinion, and I'd like to know why a) you say they
> leave only potter sherd positions, and b) why you
> would leave their distinctive settlement pattern
> off?
> <<
>
> I didn’t leave it out I just didn’t understand at
> the time what I was seeing due to the non
> prominence of the site as seen from space – Google
> Earth. Eureka:
Sooo.... there's a criteria for prominence from space as seen in google earth?



>
> An important length is the distance of 10 degrees
> or one ninth of Earth’s one quadrant of perimeter.
> The same holds for 1 degree. Now here is the fun
> stuff. Due to the fact that Earth is not a perfect
> sphere but an ellipsoid. 1 or 10 degrees do not
> have the same length at different positions of the
> globe(different latitudes). Thus this is different
> at Giza or Knossos or Vinca. Using the latest
> ellipsoid model one has the following lengths for
> 10 degrees at different latitudes:
>
> 0-10: 1105.855 km
> 10-20: 1106.511 km
> 20-30: 1107.747 km
> 30-40: 1109.416 km
> 40-50: 1111.318 km
> 50-60: 1113.226 km
> 60-70: 1114.908 km
> 70-80: 1116.159 km
> 80-90: 1116.826 km
>
> Using Earth’s Meridian this value is:
>
> Mean = 1111.329 km = 1,111,329 meters
>
> Thus this is the length one would find at a
> latitude centered at 45 degrees latitude(40-50
> range above). But the latitude of Vica is
> 44.7595°! Very close to 45 degrees.
>
> What is it’s difference from Knossos? We would
> expect it to be 1111.329 km. It is not, actually
> it is now(remember continental shift over 9000
> years or so):
>
> Knossos - Vinca = 1119.215 km
Again, tectonic shift has been measured and forecast back to the 10kya mark. I don't have the reference handy, but it does exist.
Given that source, you can solidify this claim more concretely.


>
> So this is actually showing us the geometry of the
> North Pole. If the continents have shifted 2
> kilometers in 9000 years or 0.6 mm a day then this
(it's a bit less than that actually -- ~2cm in a year for the last few decades)

> could have easily have been exactly 1117 km the
> distance between 80 and 90 degrees longitude. We
> know Crete and Europe are on different continental
> plates.

When you are citing the exact distance between cities in kilometers, you are creating a vaguity, not a precision.
From what point within a city are you measuring? City sizes change over time as well, so you'd best be using the center of the city.
Then there's the question of how are you measuring the distance? to what accuracy? You've already accepted a 20% margin of error elsewhere. Allowing that I'm sure I could fit a whole lot more into your theory as to city locations depicting the geometry of the Earth.
You wouldn't even need continent drift anymore at that point

>
> I have referred to the error margin which varies
> depending on Google Earth or Wikipedia
> coordinates, on whether the right position is
> spotted in Google Earth, on continental drift etc.
> One thing is for sure, if one has correct GPS
> reading of a site, at these distances GPS errors
> are minute and should not be taken into account.

(confusion) correct GPS readings of a site contain errors that should not be taken into account???