April 26, 2024, 5:37 pm UTC |
In: The Hall of Maat > Exhibitions, Conferences, Lectures, Journals - Brief notifications > Search - Brief notifications |
Goto:  Forum List • Create A New Profile • Log In |
Hi C Wayne, In order to be properly compared, the pictures really need to be placed side by side. However, I'm not sure if you're getting the same circles intersecting with the same points on the subsidiary pyramid.by Hermione - Ancient History
Hi C Wayne, > > Part of the irregular look is due to the terrain > and the way these three pyramids were built. The > terrain slopes south and east. The pyramids are > not built on a platform; the sides extend down to > ground level. Thus, the direction of each base > side is determined by the slope. > > Another factor contribuiting to the irregularity &gby Hermione - Ancient History
Graham Chase Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Warwick, > > Please explain about Ockam's razor. > > I thought it said that "the simplest theory is the > best. Parts that are not part of the theory should > be shaved off as they complicate the basic simple > theory" Here are two links that might be of interest:by Hermione - Ancient History
C Wayne Taylor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Using the "quarter-bases", circles with centers on > the NE corner, SW corner, and mid-point of East > base fix G1c SW corner, and intersect center and > NE corner One can't help wondering why, though, the subsidiary pyramids don't appear to be aligned to the same grid as Khufu&by Hermione - Ancient History
C Wayne Taylor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Don, > > I don't know what you are talking about. I do have to say that you're not the only one, Wayne.by Hermione - Ancient History
Graham Chase Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wayne > > Yours "Will you please post your verification so > that we may critique it? " > > Sure. > > But I was hoping that the evident geometry would > be accepted first. > > Some arguers are under the impression that if they > dislike a part of the stellarby Hermione - Ancient History
Don Barone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ... Giza is not a temple, but a collection of > funerary complexes. ... > > On this score I think you 100% in error and that > is part of my future work to show what this temple > consists of. Each funerary complex had its own boundary wall.by Hermione - Ancient History
Don Barone Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > (Allow me to remind you of the example of > Anthony's bathroom). > > Did you ever confirm the measurements ? > > No ? > > I thought not. Well, Don, have you ever been to Giza to confirm the measurements there?by Hermione - Ancient History
Hi C Wayne, > > That's why I included the note: " (This is only a > partial graphic.)" One wonders why the orientation of the subsidiary pyramids, relative to the main pyramid is so ragged-looking, though. They don't appear to have been designed on the same grid.by Hermione - Ancient History
Chris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Many of the wrings at Temples refer to events in > the past. For example at Denderah the writings > refer to the building being re-built by Thotmes > III according to its ancient design. > Thotmes was long dead - Does this make the scribe > a pious faker in your opinion? It depends, to some extent,by Hermione - Ancient History
Chris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > >>The so-called Imhotep codex was originally > quoted by Scott (sorry, don't have the link) as > support for the GOCT theory. However, it was > subsequently pointed out that the quote referred > to temples such as Eedfu, Denderah, etc. > > >>Giza is not a temple, but a collectionby Hermione - Ancient History
Graham, > When two variables correlate to over 70% > coefficient we say "they probably have a common > cause" and, as you rightly say not 'A causes B.' > > In this case we have 100% correlation. This means > they probably describe the same thing. Well, there isn't a 100% correlation because you've omitted most of the relevant structures.by Hermione - Ancient History
Joe, I appreciate that you're using posts here as evidence to argue your point, but I wonder if you could in future find some slightly more general examples?by Hermione - Humanities
Whilst this is a very interesting subject, it's rather off topic for this thread. Could we possible move it on to it own topic/thread? Perhaps Creig could open a new topic ... ? Thanks,by Hermione - Ancient History
Hi C Wayne, > > Correct. They are all points that can be used to > define the locations and sizes of the pyramids. > > I submit that the odds of two circles with a > common center and with their position and radii > defined by an external source intersecting this > number of points is very small. They only define the position of one point on each of the subsby Hermione - Ancient History
Hi Don, > > I don't know about Graham but I tired of the > ridiculous circlular arguments your side uses. > > The obvious points are: > > 1. You've claimed to have a mathematical proof. > However, you can't show how it would fit any of > the definitions on the Wikipedia page. > > This is of no value whatsoever in explaining a >by Hermione - Ancient History
Graham, > > The 45 degree line passed through four mid-points, > two on G1 and two on G3. > Draw two parallel squares on a piece of paper at > random. > The only way to get them to line up this way is > deliberately. But there are so many structures at Giza aligned to the cardinal points that this is hardly surprising. Look at this, for example. Again: the mby Hermione - Ancient History
Graham, > > You mean did they use the same equations ? > We can't know for sure > The second one is simple enough. > The first one could have used sekeds as you say. > There are other ways such as scale drawings or > models. But you quoted those equations as part of your proof. So, if you don't think that the AEs used them, why did you quote them? I hby Hermione - Ancient History
Graham, > > Yours "why would the AEs have, or want, a "plan" > at all?" > > Isn't that what the interpretation of the geometry > will focus on ? I think you've missed the point. You have to be able to show - even though you haven't so far - that the theory had its roots somewhere in AE culture. So back to the question: why wouldby Hermione - Ancient History
Graham Chase Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Warwick, > > You are also now going into intent before we > decide the content which are the 2 proposed rules > of geometry. > > Of course I have a fully supported theory for the > intent, but we can debate that later. You say that you have a fully supported theory for the intent.by Hermione - Ancient History
Graham, > A geometric relationship has been proven at Giza. > Your simple theory is obviously too simple as it > no longer fits the data. > Ockamm's razor warns of this danger. But all you've demonstrated is that it's possible to make A fit B. We shouldn't forget, either, that C. Wayne Taylor's posts show that there are serious problems with your aby Hermione - Ancient History
Graham, > > You are again arguing about the interpretation of > the 45 degree line, rather than what exists at > Giza. > > But, regarding your quote about a rectangle one Km > east to west and presumably shorter north to > south. The later obelisk is near the south west > corner. Chop off the bit for the canal, Chop off > the northern half which was notby Hermione - Ancient History
Hi C Wayne, > > Here is more evidence that the pyramids were > designed using what I am calling the "Quater-base" > method. (This is only a partial graphic.) But your circle goes through the apex of one pyramid, a corner of the next, and a different corner of the third ...by Hermione - Ancient History
Graham, > > It is not measured between diagonals but between > the east side of G1 and the West side of G3 at 45 > degrees - from Petrie's data. But there's a diagram here that shows the 45 degree line extending between the diagonals. It makes even less sense if the 2000 cubit measurement is supposed to connect the east side of one pyramid with the west side of anby Hermione - Ancient History
Graham, > > The angle of 37.715 did not need to be measured. > It was created automatically when the pyramids > were built to plan. > > Please explain what the article says the shafts > were about . I'm afraid that you're still not dealing with the questions that I asked. The concern was not with measuring the 37.715 degrees. Instead, the question reby Hermione - Ancient History
Graham Chase Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Agreed Warwick, > > But let's agree the content first before we move > on to the intent. Well, no, I don't think that I do agree with that. The intent - as shown by contemporary cultural support - should come first.by Hermione - Ancient History
Graham, > Yours ">>2. Why should there be a "plan", > and why should it involve the pyramids alone?" > > Mine : The question of 'should' is a tricky one. > For many years researchers hoped to find a simple > and logical relationship between the pyramids and > it seems we have a breakthrough. > The pyramids alone had the tombby Hermione - Ancient History
Chris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > >>The source is probably the Edfu building > texts, which are Ptolemaic. Imhotep was not > deified until a very long time after his death, > and all sorts of things were attributed to him. > So, not only is the quote misrepresented, as it > has nothing to do with Giza, but the text is a > (veby Hermione - Ancient History
Chris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > >>2. Why should there be a "plan", and why > should it involve the pyramids alone? > > In the thread below you specifically refer to the > Imhotep codex relating to Temples! The so-called Imhotep codex was originally quoted by Scott (sorry, don't have the link) as support for the Gby Hermione - Ancient History
Graham, > > What is proposed is a geometric model of reality. > It was tested to see if was able to predict other > parts of the reality which it did. > If it did not it would be rejected. > It stands until someone is able to prove an > inconsistency > This is the empirical scientific method. I'm sorry, Graham, but what you're saying still makes absolby Hermione - Ancient History