Sirfiroth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi MJ,
>
> MJ Thomas 2 wrote: Sixthly and lastly, I find
> Jacob’s formula to be quite nonsensical.
>
> LOL, You are very good at making statements
> regarding things that elude your comprehension.
I find no difficulty whatsoever in comprehending:
60 × 60 × 60 = 216,000
216,000 × 6 = 1,296,000
1,296,000 ÷ 4 = 324,000
324,000 × 7 = 2,268,000
2,268,000 ÷ 11= 206,181.821
206,181.821 ÷ 1,000 = 206.181
What I have a problem with, Jacob, is your un-evidenced assertion that the Pyramid’s architect divided the circle into degrees, minutes of arc, and seconds of arc.
I have a problem also with your multiplication by the number 6 as you do not explain where it is from or what it represents.
Then I find it a problem that you argue that the Pyramid’s architect and builders used a unit of measurement equivalent to the British Inch, but offer no evidence for it beyond a heavily contrived formula of your own creation.
> My hypothesis is much less nonsensical than your
> arbitrary proposal built on opinion, assumptions
> and conjecture, MJ.
I take it you are referring to my contention that a royal cubit equivalent to 20.632” ± 0.004” was used exclusively in the planning of the Great Pyramid and its passages and chambers.
The royal cubit of 20.632” ± 0.004” is known from the King’s Chamber.
The idea that different length royal cubits were used throughout the Pyramid stems from Petrie and others erroneously determining the length of royal cubit by dividing an actual measurement by what the intended measurement was assumed to have been in royal cubits.
The dimensions of the Queen’s Chamber are a good example of how wrong and consequently misleading this method of converting inches into royal cubits is.
> If there is any firm evidence
> stating the length of the cubit please provide
> citations.
Well, there are Petrie’s careful measurements of the King’s Chamber, for a start.
Then there are the royal cubit measuring rods currently in museums.
> I at least used geometric and mathematical
> principles of the 5 1/2 seked as a foundation for
> the starting point and derived a calculated cubit
> 0.00181818 inches shorter than Petrie's estimate
> of 20.62 +/- .005 well within his established
> parameters and you say it is wrong? How?
Interestingly, I use the geometric and mathematical principles of the 5½ seked as a foundation/starting point in my hypothesis on how the Pyramid could have been planned, etc., etc.
It is well known that a pyramid with seked 5½ will produce naturally the phenomenon: the height of the pyramid is to its perimeter at the base as a circle’s radius is to its circumference.
Thus, the Great Pyramid (and, let’s not forget, 2 or more other pyramids) incorporates pi as 3 1/7; question is: was the Pyramid’s architect aware of it?
I say your formula is nonsensical for the reasons I give above – no evidence of degrees, British Inch, etc.
> You say
> the Pyramids contain pi, or as you put it 3 1/7,…
No I do not.
The pi phenomenon appears naturally in pyramids with seked 5½.
You are making the mistake of automatically equating 3 1/7 with pi.
> I
> have clearly stated mathematically how the pi
> aspects are derived from the 5 1/2 seked and that
> is also wrong.
Your explanation is entirely unnecessary, that is all.
Occam’s Razor, and all that.
> How do you think pi was
> incorporated into G1?
I do not know whether pi (at any value) was deliberately incorporated in the dimensions of the Great Pyramid.
I only hypothesise that multiplication and division by 3 1/7 was used extensively in the planning of the Great Pyramid and its passages and chambers and their respective features (e.g. the Niche in the Queen’s Chamber, the sarcophagus in the King’s Chamber).
To give a typical example, the perimeter of the side walls of the King’s Chamber is equal to the length of the walls multiplied by 3 1/7.
I'm currently thinking it vaguely possible that the architect used the number of palms (i.e. 7) in the rise of a seked and the number of palms in the horizontal run of seked 5½ (5 ½), in a manner which could give rise to the 3 1/7 phenomenon.
> Your continually repeated predetermined opinions
> and assumption based arguments presented as facts
> for the sake of argument is laughable.
Hmm, I don’t recall presenting any predetermined opinions or assumption-based arguments as facts.
Would you care to put your money where your mouth is, as the saying goes, and cite some examples of where I have done so?
> As I have
> told you so many times before you are free to
> believe as you wish.
Well, that is very kind and thoughtful of you, Jacob.
MJ