Hi MJ,

How many times are we going to have this conversation?

MJ Thomas 2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sirfiroth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Pistol Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > > How does all this seked (gradient)
> > > conceptualization stack up against G2?
>
> > Since all evidence points to the Ancient
> Egyptian
> > system actually being sexagesimal in nature
> the
> > square-circle-hexagon comes into play the arc
> to
> > chord ratio for a hexagon is 22/21 therefore:
> G1
> > seked divided by the arc to chord ratio
> 22/21
> > gives G2 a seked of 5 1/4.
>
>
> Hello Jacob,
>
> I have to ask: why do you insist on turning the
> acceptably simple into the unnecessarily complex?
> What do you find to be actually wrong with the
> claim that the royal cubit is anthropometric in
> origin?

Actually their system is much simpler and easier to use than our current system, it only seem complicated to you because of the methods you learned. If the cubit were anthropometric in origin the chances of it fitting any known system of measure would be much greater than the chances of winning the lottery. IMHO, in view of the ability of cubit calculating to the radius of an arc second circle the chance of the cubit being anthropometric is less likely than being able to demonstrate the cubit's source concept as a natural derivation from Bohr radius or the speed of light.

> Why do you argue that the Pyramid’s builders used
> inches when there is not a single shred of
> evidence to support it?

MJ, what is more contrived than the current definition of the cubit which is based on an assumption that it is nothing more than a unit of measure. In the Pyramids they used different length cubits which can all be mathematically derived.
They used yards, cubits, feet and inches derived from the arc second circle of 1296000 units defines all above and whole lot more relating to the Pyramids. The cubit mathematical formula in inches is 20 34/55 when divided by 12 inches gives the value of 189/110 feet = 756/440 that is the foot to cubit ratio for G1 base. In feet is a combination of the ratio's (14/11)*(99/70)/(22/21)=189/110 that is Rise-run of a 5 1/2 seked times the square root of two (in rational form) divided by the arc to chord ratio of a hexagon circle which results in purely conceptual unit where geometry used defines unit length.

> Why do you ignore the simple and rather obvious
> explanation that I have given many times in this
> Forum for the apparently different lengths of
> royal cubit found throughout Khufu's pyramid?*

Not so much of an explanation as an excuse. I have seen your assertions, but nothing in the way of mathematics to support these claims. Why are there varying scales on the cubit rods? Why the various lengths? There are also 27, 24, 12, 72 and 360 subdivisions on the cubit rods at Turin Museum, not just 28 digits. So when doing calculations regarding any Ancient Egyptian structure of the how do you know which is which? To use the cubit as a one size fits all is an erroneous assumption when the evidence clearly states this is not the case.

>
> Regarding your comment, ‘Since all evidence points
> to the Ancient Egyptian system actually being
> sexagesimal in nature…’, please can you give some
> unambiguous examples of this evidence.
>
> MJ

The cubit is a natural derivation of sexagesimal system If you haven't caught it by now one more example won't help as everything I have presented is part of the sexagesimal system.

> *Basically, a measurement is taken in inches and
> then divided by what is assumed to have been the
> intended measurement in royal cubits.

The key words in your statement: 'what is assumed to have been the intended measurement'. That the cubit was ever intended as a unit of measure is an assumption, based on measurements, followed by an interpretation based on our current concepts which will never prove Ancient Egyptians intent based on the use of unit fractions and seked.

> Rather surprisingly - to me, at least - Petrie was
> one of the worst culprits for this, resulting in
> his settling for the Great Pyramid’s royal cubit
> being not larger than 20.620” ± 0.005”
>
Petrie was a culprit? His work has proven to be invaluable and astonishingly accurate, his estimate of the cubit is only 1/500 inch off the calculated value,

Regards,
Jacob