Egyptian Royal Cubit is Earth Commensurate

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by IceAgeCivilizations, Nov 27, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    How did the ancients determine the length of the "scientifc" cubit, you still haven't said.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    When was the "scientific" cubit supposedly used in ancient Egypt?

    There is vitually nothing on the web about the "scientific" cubit, are you sure you didn't make it up?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,559
    I wish I could take credit for having discovered the scientific cubit.

    It was rediscovered around the mid 1800s as a result of extensive investigations of the Great Pyramid that were then on-going, and adopted by a Christian Prophecy group. They used it in support of their religious prophecies, which apparently served to give it a 'bad name', and it became somewhat obscure again, being resurrected thereafter (though with the Christian prophecy accountrements) by Adam Rutherford in the early 1950s, and written about by Raymond Capt (an AIA architect) and Marshall Austin (a Civil Engineer) in the early 1970s (and again, with the Christian prochecy accountrements, which is likely why those books are so obscure too. Capt's book is The Great Pyramid Decoded, ISBN 0-934666-01-6, Library of Congress catalog number 78-101677 Austin's book (Solved Secrets of Pyramid of Cheops) was apparently only privately published on poor quality binding (my copy's falling apart) Both books draw heavily on Rutherford's work, and have much overlapping information. Capt's book is superior in the amount of information, though Austin's book has some overlooked by Capt.

    As I have stated repeatedly, the Scientific Cubit is only used in the Great Pyramid, and it apparently was forgotten about almost immediately after its length was determined circa 4700 B.C. How and why is also lost in antinquity. The Egyptians did not leave an instruction manual inside the Great Pyramid as to how they determined what the actual length of the Scientific Cubit was. I surmise they used the method of Erathostenes (or, more properly, he used their method), though it is possible that they used some other method. All they left was the evidence of its actual length, in the form of a wide variety of clues centered about the "Kings Chamber", as detailed in my posts above. None of that is original to me, though I have confirmed all of the arithmetic.

    I expect to write a book in greater detail about all of that at a near future time, once I obtain the funding to mount a more serious investigation of the Great Pyramid using lasers for measuring.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Walter, there is no indication of the use of any "scientific" cubit in the GP, the King's Chamber is 20 x 10 ROYAL cubits, did you forget that?

    And the base is 440 ROYAL cubits per side, and 280 ROYAL cubits of height, so write your silly book if you must, but yours is a foolish idea, made up in recent times, get real.
     
  8. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    And I have shown how they arrived at length for the royal cubit, but you, of course, can't say how they supposedly arrived at the supposedly ancient "scientific" cubit.
     
  9. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,559
    And you can't come up with any explanation as to why the slope of the passageway system, when measured out 40 Royal Cubits, gives a rise of 365.24 units that are 1/25 of the scientific cubit (i.e. one scientific inch) as we can now determine accurately to about 1 part per million; nor can you come up with any explanation as to why that same relationship appears in four other locations on the interior of the Great Pyramid. Apparently, though the Egyptians of that day understood; you can't.

    Your mind is stuck in a rut, and can't seem to accept anything that might challenge your pre-conceived notions of your own personal self-aggrandizement. If it doesn't fit, you just refuse to look at it, because it just might mean you'd have to reassess where you are in life, and where you're heading.

    Your efforts to lead yourself astray are none of my concern; your efforts to lead others, particularly the youth, astray, are the concern of every critically thinking individual.
     
  10. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    I'm a critically thinking individual, and you're out to lunch on this one, among others, your "scientific" cubit is nowhere to be seen in Egyptian studies, everyone agrees the Great Pyramid was surveyed using the 20.632 inch royal cubit, except you, lots o' luck, and young people, keep an eye on this nut ball.
     
  11. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,559
    I guess I'm one of the 'everyone', because I too agree that the GP was surveyed using the Royal Cubit (at 20.63 British inches = 1 Royal Cubit), and it has a base perimeter of 440 Royal Cubits, as I've repeatedly stated, over and over and over, and which you repeatedly ignore.

    The Scientific Cubit is seen in quite a few Egyptian studies (I cited the Library of Congress reference for one, but I guess you don't consider the Library of Congress to be a valid data base, 'cause it's got so much information that contradicts your un-baked/half-baked "creationist" agenda), just not the ones you've seen, and you're not willing to look for them even after they were provided. I suppose your motto might be "If it's not on the 'net, it don't exist".

    So kids, watch out - and you decide who's the "nut ball".
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2006
  12. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Did the ancient Egyptians supposedly call it the "scientific" cubit? (This oughta be good.)
     
  13. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    does it make his logic and math invalid?
     
  14. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,559
    I seriously doubt the Egyptians of 4700 years ago spoke English, which did not come into existence until after the Roman conquest of the Anglos of England, and which was highly modified into what we might nowadays recognize as true English within a few centuries following the Norman Conquest at the Battle of Hastings of October 14, 1066 A.D. followed by William the Conqueror's crowning at Westminster Abbey on Christmas Day, 1066 A.D.

    As I referenced before, the term "Scientific Cubit" was the name I gave to that unit of measurement, since I have no idea what they called it, since as I wrote before, they left nothing in writing regarding it, other than the cold hard stone itself in the interior of the GP. In the literature I cited, it was referred to as the "Sacred Cubit", due in part to the Christian Cult influence of those authors who wrote about it whom I referenced, who also did not know the name the Egyptians called that unit of measurement. I rejected using any religious references in referring to that unit, and since it was relatively little known, took the liberty of giving it my own name, hence the "scientific cubit" and "scientific inch", because it has a similar scientific basis of origin as does the scientific meter, and because it relates back to the Royal Cubit, and the English Inch, respectively.
     
  15. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    Wikipedia refers to the pyramid inch and considers it disproven and in disfavor.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_inch

    "The greatest blow to the theory was dealt by the great Egyptogist Flinders Petrie (1853-1942), who had initially been a supporter. When Petrie went to Egypt in 1880 to perform new measurements, he found that the pyramid was several feet smaller than previously believed."

    Personally, I have no knowledge of this, but it seems rather tentative to me. Bordering on numerology.

    Also, it's been too long since I've taken the proper math courses and so don't know how to perform the calculations, could someone check IceAge's contention about this "Earth Hexagon" and 7200 times the size of the base perimeter?

    Should be a relatively simple calculation if you're conversant with the proper geometric and/or trigonometric functions. (I really need to take a refresher course one of these days. Unfortunately, if you don't use it, you lose it.)
     
  16. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,559
    Invert:

    I am aware of those criticisms. Essentially they arose due to the "Christian Cultists" adopting the "pyramid inch" in their prophecies, as well as varous other numerologies that arose associated with it. Also, some of the claims for the dimensions of the GP advanced by those Christian Cultists did not pan out. However, the RC does turn out to be 20.63 British inches, as they claimed, and that alone is sufficient to verify the scientific inch geometry, using the GP's "King's Chamber" as being 20 RC long and 10 RC wide, as posted above.

    However, the basic five places where I have cited the scientific cubit and the scientific inch as being on display, in the interior of the GP in proximity to the "Kings Chamber", relating to the number 365.2, are irrefutable, based on the physical dimensions of the GP. As I mentioned, I have several sources, all giving essentially the same dimensions for the interior ramps (variations are well less than 1 part per 1,000), and several written sources giving the RC as being 20.63 British inches (including even Ice Age!). It is only a simple matter of looking up an encyclopedic reference to the polar Radius of Earth (usually given to four or five significant digits via satellite measurement), and from there just doing the arithmetic.

    If we're not careful, the modern day "Christian Cultists" might do for evolution what the 19th century ones did for the scientific cubit!

    If you don't want to trust my arithmetic - do it yourself and you'll see!

    As for Ice Age's contention that 1760 RC (4 X 440 RC), which is in fact the base perimeter of the GP, is also the 1/7200th of the Earth's radius, that contention is totally false as we've demonstrated earlier in this thread. It's off by about 5%.

    Anyone else reading this thread is invited to duplicate the arithmetic I posted above, to verify it and post their verifications (except Ice Age, who can't do arithmetic).
     
  17. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    Like I said, I can't say anything about the validity of the pyramid inch or scientific cubit. I will say that numerical coincidences could be just that. The human mind is quite adept at interpreting the world in such a manner as to bring order to chaos.

    But, there's always the chance...

    It seems, from the wikipedia article, that the leading criticism is inaccurate measurements. So, the question is how accurate are the measurements?

    Anyway:

    Yes. It was established quite strongly that the perimeter of the pyramid doesn't equate to the Earth's radius, however, he then spoke of the "Earth hexagon".

    Something about a hexagon inside a sphere, I think. The sphere being the earth. The hexagon's sides having some relationship to some aspect of the pyramid as well... I forget what and don't care to go back and pore over his posts to find out.


    So.
    Let's put it to IceAge to stop being sloppy and to provide a definitive definition and declaration of exactly what he is trying to say.

    Draw a diagram. Provide measurements. Show the math. Allow the calculations to be double checked.

    Something like this:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Now. Is the radius as shown? It can't be. It must instead be the radius to one of the sides. Thus the radius is smaller than the Earth's radius.

    So. IceAge, let's see some numbers.
     
  18. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    this what you need invert?
     
  19. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    Ah.
    Yes.
    That means that the sides of the hexagon is the radius of the Earth.
    The question is the equatorial radius or the polar radius?

    The calculation could be performed for both quite easily.
    I just frankly can't remember the correct way to do it.
    Is it the arc?
    Trig was long ago.

    Hmm.
    Actually, I can do this with geometry.
    The Pythagorean Theorem.

    The hexagon is composed of equilateral triangles. The sides of the equilateral triangle would be the earth's radius.

    The equilateral triangle is actually two right trangles with one leg being half the Earth's radius. The hypotenuse being the Earth's radius. The remaining leg should, according to IceAge, equal the base perimeter of the pyramid.

    Right?

    And to solve for b I'd subtract a^2 from c^2, then take the square root, right?

    Ok.
    Numbers:

    Earth's Radius:

    3,443.917 nautical miles at the equator.
    3,432.370 nautical miles at the pole.
    (According to Wikipedia.)

    So.

    Equatorial calculation:

    a=1721.9585
    c=3,443.917

    11860564.302889 - 2965141.07572225 = 8895423.22716675

    Take the square root for:

    2982.5196105250925910465812110499

    Multiply by 6076.1155 to get feet:

    18122133.634565478231393293318464

    Divide by 7200 to get what IceAge claims to be the base perimeter of the pyramid:

    2516.9630048007608654712907386755

    2516.96 for the equatorial radius.

    IceAge claims:

    3026 feet...

    Nope. That didn't work out.

    Let's try the polar radius:

    a=1716.185
    c=3,432.370

    11781163.8169 - 2945290.954225 = 8835872.862675

    Square root:

    b=2972.5196151875936779924004995973

    Multiply by 6076.1155 to get feet:

    18061372.507895373354551633557811

    Divide by 7200:

    2508.5239594299129659099491052515

    2508.52

    Nope. That was even worse.


    My maths are right, yes?

    If a^2 + b^2 = c^2 then b^2 = c^2 - a^2.

    Right?

    I used nautical miles as IceAge seems to have indicated that these are the units that he has used.

    I'll try the equatorial calculation with regular miles just to see:

    a=1981.5945
    c=3,963.189

    15706867.049721 - 3926716.76243025 = 11780150.28729075

    Square root:

    3432.2223539990456160288732693732

    Multiply by 5280 to get feet:

    18122134.02911496085263245086229

    Divide by 7200:

    2516.9630595993001184211737308736

    2516.96

    The same answer as with nautical miles. I suppose that is right. After all, we've converted to feet so the answer should be the same for both calculations.

    Very far from the predicted 3026 feet.


    Everything kosher?
    All my preconceptions correct?
    The radius of the circle circumscribed by the hexagon as shown in the image above is equal to the sides of the hexagon? This does mean that the hexagon is composed of six equilateral triangles? This does mean that each equilateral triangle is composed of two right triangles with one leg half the length of the radius of the circle and the hypotenuse with the radius of the circle?

    Did I err somewhere? It's quite possible. As I've said, many moons have gone by since I've performed calculations of this sort. Even simple ones as this seems to be.
     
  20. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    This reminds me of a book I was reading which showed that ancient Egyptian use of the golden ratio was unlikely, based on variations in the measurements taken of some interior space or other (I forget).

    It will be interesting to see how/if Ice Age's results can be reconciled with Invert's here.
     
  21. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Walter, I explained that the arc of the circle of the Earth, from Earth hexagon point to Earth hexagon point, causes that length to be a bit longer than the straight line from point to point, but you act as though I haven't, so you are a liar, and you are a liar because you can't try to win this any other way, you're toast, liar.
     
  22. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    By the way, Walter, you and your ilk have caused severe damage to kids in forcing them to believe that goo morphed into you, you should be ashamed of yourself.

    You want kids to believe that crap 'cause you hate the Bible, why don't you try to disprove the Bible rather than tell kids that they morphed from lowly goo? You can't disprove the Bible, so you resort to mindless Darwinian evolution, you gotta be nuts, and so, now the kids are walking around thinking they have no purpose 'cause they're the spawn of swamp muck, way to go Walter.
     
  23. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    You have every opportunity here to explain your findings, so let's stay on track here.
    Please explain your numbers again in light of invert's.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page