Sirfiroth Wrote:

> There are two holes one in the north and one hole
> in the south wall were discovered by Sherif el
> Morsi and the Thotic square compass is his find.

Sherif el Morsi did not discover these holes; he/she simply produced a theory about them.
The ‘Thotic square compass’ is an imaginative creation of Morsi’s.

> Maybe you can contact Sher and inform him that you
> can provide evidence demonstrating these two holes
> are naturally occurring and in alignment with true
> north and south is coincidental?

It is patently obvious to all and sundry that these holes, as they now appear, are a natural product.
It is, of course, quite possible that some 4,500 years ago these holes were smaller and differently shaped, and perhaps were originally cut through the walls they are in, with 4.5 millennia of subsequent natural erosion producing what we now see.
It is, of course, down to Sherif and his/her supporters to provide evidence that this is indeed the case.
As for the alignment; again the onus is on Sherif and co to provide evidence for it being deliberate.
The Giza plateau is veritably awash with derelict AE buildings and one would be very hard pushed indeed to not find a host of ‘meaningful’ alignments amongst them.

> I know and you
> know you really have no idea,

Actually, it is because I have a very good idea about what is happening here that I disagree with Sherif’s theory.

> but the theory does
> have a solid foundation and does demonstrate the
> layout at Giza in simple straightforward manner.

No it does not.

> Furthermore the concepts generated by the Thotic
> square compass tie into other findings supporting
> what is already known through other researchers
> work.

And all, IMO, down to ‘creative’ mathematics that bear no relation to what is known about AE mathematics.

> MJ Thomas wrote: Then there's the problem of the
> AEs not measuring in inches...
> The convoluted maths doesn't help matters either.
>
> First the math is anything but convoluted, but
> simple, concise and straightforward,

A matter of opinion, as I am sure you will agree.

> should you
> choose to pay attention to what you have read, you
> might find that I provide very strong evidence if
> not proof the Ancient Egyptians measured in
> inches, feet and statute miles.

I do wish people would not keep falling back on: ‘If you disagree with my theory, then it is only because you do not understand it’.
I do understand what you are claiming, Sirfiroth, and I strongly disagree with it all.

> As I have stated
> previously: if the cubit was a measure established
> by the pharaoh’s forearm then there were no less
> than eight different pharaoh’s involved during the
> building of G1. Is it even understood why there is
> no constancy of length among the different cubits?

That different lengths of royal cubit were used in the planning of the Pyramid is without doubt a complete fallacy.
People have made the simple mistake of measuring a feature in inches (or millimetres, as the case may be) and then converting it into the number of royal cubits (or fractions thereof) that they think was intended.
A good example of this (and it is just one of many found throughout the Pyramid) is seen in the widths of the Queen’s Chamber.
Petrie measured the width of the Chamber’s east wall at 5 different levels and found it to be: 205.63”; 205.79”; 205.72”; 205.6”; 205.67”.
Some theorists have assumed from this that the intended width of the Chamber’s east wall was 10 royal cubits, and concluded that therefore the length of the royal cubit used in the Queen’s Chamber was 20.563” to 20.579” (mean 205.7” +/- 0.1”) - a length appreciably different to the royal cubit of 20.632” found in the King’s Chamber.
My contention is that the length of the royal cubit used in the Queen’s Chamber was exactly the same as the one used in the King’s Chamber, and that consequently the width of the Queen’s Chamber at fractionally less than 10 royal cubits is as intended.
IMO, we should be guided here by what a measurement actually is in royal cubits (and or fraction of) and not by what we think it should be.
It is, I feel, worth mentioning that in the west wall of the Queen’s Chamber we ‘find’ two occurrences of a royal cubit of 20.633”.
Are we to assume from this that two different length royal cubits were used in the same chamber?
If so, then to what end?
Another factor that needs to be taken into consideration is builder error – particularly in the form of the distinct possibility that the measuring devices (such as a royal cubit rod) used on site were not all precisely the same length.
What was planned and what was built can sometimes be slightly different.
IMO, Sirfiroth, there is simply no need for deliberately different lengths of royal cubits in the planning and construction of the Pyramid.

> MJ Thomas wrote: BTW, the height of the Grand
> Gallery's north wall is recorded by Smyth as
> 344.2", but this is partly an estimate and the
> actual measurement could be several inches greater
> (the problem is with the individual heights of the
> top four corbels).
>
> Perhaps you have me confused with some one else,
> since I have not yet put forth any theory, nor
> have I given a dimension on the height or any
> other dimensional aspect of the Grand Gallery.
[snip]

You mentioned the Grand Gallery earlier in this thread and I am merely pointing out one of many problems concerning the Gallery’s actual dimensions.

> The only problems I see here are your cherry
> picked objections stemming from your lack of
> understanding of the basic concepts employed.

Oh dear, back we go again to ‘If you disagree with my theory, then it is only because you do not understand it’.

> I
> will offer that it is you and only you who keeps
> the Ancient Egyptians tucked in a 2 dimensional
> world, of pi and rectilinear geometry,

I am not convinced that the ratio we know as pi was employed in the planning of this pyramid; I am minded that the seked 5½ is the source of the number 3 1/7, or 22/7, or some other as yet unidentified equivalent value.
As for this 3D business, the entire Pyramid and its passages and chambers are three dimensional - they have length, width, and height.
So what exactly is your point?
Are you saying that a sphere is more three dimensional than a rectangular box?
As for spheres, the jury is still out on the question of whether or not the AEs were able to calculate accurately the area and or volume of a sphere (that darned EMP basket...)

> confining
> them to the geometry junkyard because you can
> envision no other perspective.

Why do you and others here feel that not crediting the AEs with advanced mathematics denigrates them?
As I have said many times before, the Great Pyramid could have been planned in its entirety using only basic arithmetic and rectilinear geometry, and all without recourse to a unit of measurement other than the royal cubit (and its parts), seked 5 1/2, or any geodesic or astronomic data.
Why this should be seen as belittling the people and culture behind this magnificent, awe-inspiring structure (just one of many throughout AE) is completely beyond me.

> This is due to
> learned prejudice and preconceived ideologies
> based upon assumptions and conjecture creating a
> false consensus, that states: they could not have
> possibly known this information.

Yet again, but under a slightly different guise this time, we bump into: ‘‘if you disagree with my theory, then it is only because you do not understand it’.

> I know because I
> was in your same position some 12 years ago

I have never been in that ‘same position’, but never mind.

> I was asked this question by a fellow researcher
> and will ask you the same, In simple concise terms
> please explain why they could not have known this
> information?

I do not argue – and never have argued - that the AEs could not have known ‘this information’ (I presume you refer to advanced mathematics, astronomy, etc.).
However, there is no unambiguous evidence that they did know it.
Then, of course, there’s the question: how do you prove a negative?
What is needed here is for proponents of these ‘the AEs had advanced mathematical skills, astronomical and geodesic data’ based theories to explain how the AEs came to know about it all – other than the copout answer ‘they were taught by people from a lost advanced civilisation, of course.

Lastly (for now), re your:
> ...the calculated height of
> the Grand Gallery on the north end when using the
> 360 foot circumference circle, 360 * 7/88
> (1/(4*22/7)) = 28 7/11 equal to 343 7/11 inches,
> or 343.636363…inches.[snip].
> Hence Kepler’s formula for cubic and hexagonal
> sphere packing (22/7) / (3 * 99/70) divided by
> (14/11) = 110/189 inverse of the Royal Egyptian
> Cubit. So expressed in proper and vulgar fractions
> the figures as the AE would have calculated in
> rational form: (22/7) / (3 * 99/70) =
> (20/27)…0.740740740…(20/27) / (14/11) = 110/189
> (110/189 * 12 = 440/63 inches)

I reckon that simple formulas such as ‘Dimension A = half Dimension B’ and ‘Dimension A = dimension B multiplied by X’ were much more the order of the day.

MJ



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/28/2011 01:13PM by MJ Thomas 2.