Sirfiroth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I do not have time for you to convince me that
> what I have presented is either contrived or a
> coincidence!

I am not trying to convince you about anything, Sirfiroth.
I merely point out the problems with your theories, and provide alternative - and hopefully plausible - explanations.

> Prove the mathematics in error!

It is not a question of whether or not your mathematics is in error (I don't believe it is). It’s the question of whether or not the Pyramid's builders used the mathematics you present, and possessed the (anachronistic) astronomic and geodesic knowledge you choose to credit them with.

> You
> believe as you wish and I will continue my work
> elsewhere devoid of your time wasting excuses.

I do not see pointing out the major fault with your idea that different length royal cubits were used in the planning and building of the Pyramid, offering a simple explanation (seked 5 1/2) for the Pyramid's base and height dimensions, and questioning your unsubstantiated theory that the AEs used the inch when designing the Pyramid as being in any way 'time wasting excuses'.

> After all there is a dearth of information on what
> the priestly class knew!

Frustratingly, there's quite a dearth of information on most of the 4th dynasty and earlier right across the board. I think it was Hawass who recently commented that 90% of Ancient Egypt is still under the desert sands.

> You have offered only
> excuses and opinions formulated in ignorance in an
> attempt convince me I am wrong and we all know
> what opinions are worth.

Excuses, definitely not; opinions, yes – and carefully considered ones, at that.
Formulated in ignorance?
Not at all.
If there is one thing I am far from ignorant about it is the AE pyramids (Khufu's in particular) and at least some of the culture behind them - one cannot spend 30 plus years studying and analysing a subject and not pick up a fair amount of knowledge of it - and I'm quite good at maths...

> If you magically produce
> some ancient papyrus that proves me wrong then I
> will listen, but until then have a good life!

I have a much better idea, Sirfiroth; you produce some ancient papyrus that proves you right.
Meantime, would you care to comment on the points I raised about your assertion that different length royal cubits were used in the planning of Khufu's pyramid?

MJ

p.s.
Re my comment to Sirfiroth, ‘…offering a simple explanation (seked 5 1/2) for the Pyramid's base and height dimensions …’
I’ve just realised that Sirfiroth and I touched on this not on this forum but on the GHMB Mysteries forum.
I think it is worth copying into here.

Sirfiroth wrote:

> Hi Sher,
[snip]
> I want to know what,
> besides ego of the Pharaoh, determined the size of these
> ancient megaliths?

In the case of the Great (or Khufu's) Pyramid the answer is very simple.
The height is in royal cubits ten times the number of digits in the rise of seked 5 1/2 = 28rc x 10 = 280rc.
The horizontal distance between a side at the base and the apex is in royal cubits ten times the number of digits in the run of seked 5 1/2 = 22rc x 10 = 220rc.
It can't get any easier.
Unfortunately, when it comes to the Pyramids, etc., a lot of folks prefer complexity to simplicity (presumably it makes AE history more interesting to them); consequently, they reject the seked 5 1/2 theory.

MJ






Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/28/2011 11:42PM by MJ Thomas 2.