Sirfiroth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi MJ,
>
> How many times are we going to have this
> conversation?
>
> MJ Thomas 2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > 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.

Fact 1, the Ancient Egyptian method of multiplying and dividing numbers was less simple than the method(s) we use today.
Fact 2, Adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing unit fractions is cumbersome at best.

> 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.

Then perhaps you can explain why the hieroglyph for the royal cubit is a bent arm, and why its various sub-divisions included names such as digit/finger, hand, fist, palm, large hands breadth, small hand’s breadth, shoulder et al.
Is it really just coincidence that 1/24th the distance from the elbow to the tip of the extended middle finger is equal to the average width of the fingers?
Is it really just coincidence that several of these sub-divisions correspond closely to measurements of the human arm (for example, the crook of the bent arm to the tip of the extended middle finger equates to 20 digits (a unit known as the small cubit).
The names given to these sub-divisions of the royal cubit and their seeming direct correspondence to the human arm should not be ignored.

> 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.

Despite your mentioning repeatedly this ‘ability of cubit calculating to the radius of an arc second circle’, you have – as far as I am aware - yet to give a full working of it.
So, how about you starting with a blank sheet of paper and take us step-by-step from it to a line measuring 20.62 British inches or thereabouts?
I haven’t had a formal lesson in maths since I left Secondary school nearly fifty years ago, but even I can see that there is a factor missing here; you have to start with a number but as far as I can recall you have yet to tell us what this opening number is and where it came from, etc.

> > 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.

What prompts you to consider that the cubit was to the AEs something more than a unit of linear measurement?

> In the Pyramids they used different
> length cubits which can all be mathematically
> derived.

This is seriously flawed because it is based entirely on the converting of measurements from inches/millimetres into what is believed to have been the intended measure in royal cubits.

> 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.

In this calculation of yours you begin with ‘The cubit mathematical formula in inches is 20 34/55…’
But you don’t explain the whys and wherefores of 20 34/55, and until you do your formula is essentially meaningless.
If you want folk to take your claims seriously, then you really do need to show them step-by-step how you get from a blank sheet of paper to a royal cubit of approx. 20.62 British inches via ‘the arc to chord ratio of a hexagon circle’, etc.
I do not see how you expect to get away with simply magicking numbers out of thin air.

> > 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.

All that you need to do, Jacob, is read Petrie – specifically Section 136 (p.178) of ‘Pyramids and Temples of Giza’ 1883.

> 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.

There is nothing in this variance that needs to be seen as anything other than a lack of strictly applied standardisation.
Then, an anthropometrical origin also neatly explains these minor variations in royal cubit lengths through the dynasties.

> So when doing calculations
> regarding any Ancient Egyptian structure of the
> how do you know which is which?

I'm not entirely sure that we can ever be certain as to which is which.
However, and fortunately so, we have in the Great Pyramid the phenomenal King's Chamber to go by.

> To use the cubit
> as a one size fits all is an erroneous assumption
> when the evidence clearly states this is not the
> case.

Here you are distorting the truth.
Nobody argues that the cubit or royal cubit stayed the same length throughout its long history.
What is argued is that only one length would have been used in the planning, note planning not building, of a pyramid, temple, standard tomb, etc.
It appears to me that as well as failing to see this practice to convert imperial and metric linear measurements into what the intended royal cubit was assumed to have been, you also fail to consider wear-and-tear.

> > 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.

> 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.

I am not asking for an example as such, Jacob.
All that I am asking of you is for you to demonstrate step-by-step how you get from a blank sheet of paper to a royal cubit of approx. 20.62 British inches via ‘the arc to chord ratio of a hexagon circle’.
If it is as simple as you claim, then it shouldn’t require much time and effort for you to post the demo.

> > *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.

Demonstrate step-by-step how you get from a blank sheet of paper to a royal cubit of approx. 20.62 British inches via ‘the arc to chord ratio of a hexagon circle’ and this claim of yours just might gain some credibility.
As it stands it is un-evidenced and essentially nonsensical – IMO, of course.

> > 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,

My hypothesis on how the entirety of the Great Pyramid could have been planned rests very heavily (but not exclusively) on the measurements published by Petrie in his ‘Pyramids and Temples of Giza’ 1883, so I can only agree that his work is invaluable.
However, this does not alter the fact that contrary to the belief of some, Petrie was in fact a mere mortal, and like all us mere mortals he made mistakes and errors of judgement.
I think it is worth noting that Petrie on occasions deferred to Piazzi Smyth on some of the Great Pyramid’s dimensions, and ignored or left out some measurement details about the Pyramid because they did not strike him as being of any importance (e.g. the Antechamber’s Granite Leaf).

> his
> estimate of the cubit is only 1/500 inch off the
> calculated value,

Surely you meant to write, ‘…1/500 inch off MY calculated value.’?

I now look forward to seeing your simple step-by-step demonstration on how you get from a blank sheet of paper to a royal cubit of approx. 20.62 British inches via ‘the arc to chord ratio of a hexagon circle’.

MJ