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
    Multiply 20.632 inches by 440 by 4 by 43,200, convert the result to feet, and tell me if that's within 0.5% of the circumference of the Earth.

    They knew it would take 4,320 years for the constellations, because of precession, to move 1/6th of the way around the Earth, so they marked that distance, divided it by 7,200, and that by 1,760 (440 x 4) to establish the length for the royal cubit.

    Now ask the bonehead Darwinite how they supposedly calculated the length for the "scientific" cubit, and he'll say "I don't know, the Christians made me not know."
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    So.
    You're just going to forget everything you said earlier about the radius of the earth and the earth hexagon and blah blah?
    This thing about the circumference of the Earth is something that has been known for a while now.

    But, amazingly enough, it has nothing to do with what you've spoken of before.

    So. When you're presented with numbers that don't agree with the crap spewing from your mouth, you simply change your story and pretend that you never mentioned it.

    You.
    Lose.
    Go.
    Away.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    This is what I've been saying all along, inverto, the only problem was the 3.14 rather than 3.0 situation, to multiply the diameter by to get the circumference, the hexagon is a practical matrix for this kind of thing, to measure distances by a rate, as you acknowledge, I just applied the work of Hancock (precession numbers), Ellis (Pi = 22/7, times 40/40 = 880/280), and Miller ("Celtic Cross" for the measuring), to make sense of it all, to show that the length of the royal cubit is a subdivision of the circumference of the Earth, so they could measure east-west distances, longitudes, accurately.

    I didn't change my story, you're full of crap, nexoid, so just ferment away.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    2,520
    Perimeter of Great Pyramid = 440 X 4 Royal Cubits = 1760 X 20.632/12 feet =

    3026.03 feet

    Multiply by 43,200: 3026.03 X 43,200 = 1.3072 E8 feet

    Diameter (D) of Earth at Equator = 7927 miles (Webster's Dictionary at Earth)

    Pi = 3.1415927...

    Pi X D = 7927 X 3.1415927 = 24,903.405 miles; multiply by 5280 to convert to feet: 24,903.405 X 5280 = 1.3149 E8 feet

    Compare: 1.3149E8/1.3072E8 = 1.0058905, or nearly 0.6% different; i.e. accurate to a little better than 6 parts per thousand.


    NOW, lets do this for the "Kings Chamber" (as I did in an earlier post)


    Width of King's Chamber = 10 Royal Cubits = 206.32 British inches.

    Convert to "scientific inches" where the "scientific inch" is found by taking the polar radius (3949.89 miles), converted to inches (3949.89 X 5280 feet/mile X 12 inches/foot = 2.5027E8 British inches) and divided by 25 X 1E7; or one "scientific inch" = 2.5027E8 British inches/2.5E8 = 1.00106 British Inches

    Thus, the width (W) of the "King's Chamber" at 206.32 British inches is slightly smaller in number as measured in "scientific inches", or W = 206.32 British inches X 1 scientific inch/1.00106 British inches = 206.10 scientific inches.

    Using the Width (W = 206.1 scientific inches) as the radius of a circle, compute its area, and then find the length (L) of the side of square with that area;

    Thus, (W^2) X (Pi) = L^2, or L = W X radical Pi

    206.1 X radical Pi = 206.1 X 1.7724538 = 365.30, off by less than 1/1000 [off by 1.6 parts/10,000; it comes out right at 365.25 if one uses the RC as being 20.629 British inches, which my references give, rather than 20.632 as Ice Ages references give].

    Now perhaps that is just a coincidence?

    And perhaps the other four areas (posted earlier) where the number 365.2 can be calculated out using the scientific inch as the measuring stick is also just a coindicence. I tend to believe not.

    So, since I'm apparently the bearer of bad news, so far as Ice Age is concerned, he feels it necessary to deem me a "liar" because the facts I report to him simply do not agree with his pre-conceived notions of the world, and in particular his notions regarding the GP.

    Maybe Ice Age's problem is he's using the number 22/7 for Pi, which is only a very crude approximation.
     
  8. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    22/7 x 40/40 = 880/280, they used 22/7, you'll have to take it up with them, Walter.

    And you are a liar, Walter, you acted like we hadn't sorted out that 3.14/3.0 thing, you're just a grandstander with a johney-come-lately "theory," which is laughable, the "scientific" cubit, oh brother, give it a rest Walter, and but, good luck with your book, you'll need it.
     
  9. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    You say 22/7 is a "crude approximation," well how 'bout Erasthosenes method to measure the Earth, which is what you say was used to measure the "scientific" cubit, two thousand years before Erasthosenes figured out this crude method, is Erasthonsenes the best you can do? Yes.
     
  10. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,520
    We have yet to hear you state that the Base Perimeter of the GP (1760 RC) is NOT the 1/7200th of the Earth's radius, as you were initially REPEATEDLY claiming and disparaging my assertions that you were wrong.

    I have made no comment about your supposed 'correction', the "3.14/3.0 thing", because I'm still waiting for your admission that the Base Perimeter of the GP is NOT the 1/7200th of the Earth's radius, as you repeatedly claimed and I repeatedly refuted early in this thread.

    Once you have done so, I will consider your "3.14/3.0 thing" 'correction', which I haven't even bothered to review until I receive your acknowledgement that you were wrong when you said the Base Perimeter of the GP is the 1/7200th of the Earth's radius. Then maybe I'll take a look at your other 'arguments' regarding precession, which I believe the Egyptians were well aware of.
     
  11. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    The 3.14/3.0 was the correction, as you allowed previously, now you say it's still a problem for you, so I don't know what to tell you except get with the program, stop being foolishly "forgetful," or whatever you're trying to feign.

    And 22/7 (pi) was used for the GP because they wanted to embody the dimensions of the Earth with a manmade structure, what fraction would you have chosen, Walter? And of course, you realize that the precession mapping methodology allowed the Egyptians to flesh out the dimensions of the Earth, reduced by a factor of 43,200, by using 22/7 x 40/40 for the numbers of royal cubits, and their length, but oh, that's right, you "haven't even looked at the arguments for precession." Why should anyone take you seriously with that kind of disingenuousness?
     
  12. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,520
    So I take it then that your 'correction' was your admission that you were wrong in your previous assertions, in which you also so heatedly engaged yourself in name-calling activities.

    As I've indicated previously, I believe the Egyptians were well aware of precession, and it indeed may be possible that they used a device as you've indicated - so what? There certainly is no proof, when the (corrected) evidence you now present suggests they were only accurate to about 6 parts per thousand, though we know they were capable of measuring astronomy far better than that.

    And no one has answered my previous query, to which I do not readily have the answers, and I repeat it here:

    What were the systems of measurement of length in the other ancient civilizations, including (but not limited to):

    Japan
    China
    India
    Malaysia
    Mesopotamia
    Greece
    Rome

    To recaptulate the systems discussed above:

    1 Meter = 100.000 centimeters (cm) = 1/4 Earth's Circumference X 1E-7

    1 SC = 25.000 SI = 63.567 cm. = Earth's Polar Radius x 1E-7

    1 Yard = 36.000 BI = 91.440 cm.

    1 RC = 52.405 cm. = 1/440th of the Base Side of the Great Pyramid

    1 Egyptian Mile = 4 X 440 RC = Base Perimeter of Great Pyramid

    1 British Mile = 4 X 440 Yards

    Where RC = Royal Cubit, SC = Scientific Cubit, SI = Scientific Inch, BI = British Inch
     
  13. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    With what method did they supposedly measure astronomy better than 0.6%?
     
  14. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,520
    My Encyclopedia Britannica shows, using Eratosthenes method, that he obtained a value that was off by about 4%, using the Stadium as the unit of length (about 154 meters; though also reported as other values up to about 215 meters). It's not known how accurate or inaccurate he was, because it's not known exactly the length of the Greek Stadium that he used, which apparently was their unit of length. The major source of error for his estimate, in addition to the varying references to the length of the stadium, was that he likely used a camel-ride to estimate the distance between Alexandria, where the shadow was cast, and Syene, where the well was located that had no shadow at noontime.

    By eliminating that source of error (i.e. actually measuring that distance with a measuring rope, which the Egyptians could readily have done), and by using both a tall pole to cast a shadow and a deep well at high noon that cast zero shadow, much greater accuracy could be obtained. Whether the Egyptians got lucky by getting it to 1/1000, when the technique might only have given them a possible, say, 3/1000 error is not known; What is known is as discussed in my earlier posts. I suspect they actually did measure it accurately to 1/1000, however.

    I'm open to any other suggestions as to how they might have obtained the Earth's radius accurate to 1/1000; including an improvement on your suggested technique.
     
  15. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    My method entails the prediction of stars' locations in the future, yours entails measuring shadows, your on your own pal.
     
  16. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    You were saying what?

    You're trying to say that this your statements that the base perimeter of the pyramid is equal to 1/7200th of the radius of the Earth is the same thing as the base perimeter of the pyramid being 1/43200th the circumference of the Earth???

    And you expect people to believe that?

    You're a liar and a bad one at that.

    Just shut up.
    You're too dumb to be crazy.

    So. Radius = circumference.
    And 1/7200th = 1/43200th.

    You're seriously stupid.
     
  17. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    It was corrected with the 3.14 for the 3.0, you probably "don't remember" that though, 'cause you gotta have something to whine about, next.
     
  18. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    Nothing was corrected. I showed you in my lengthy post earlier how the numbers don't match.
     
  19. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Sure, go ahead, whatever.
     
  20. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Nexo, any 9th grader who knows simple geometry and astronomy can grasp this finding, why can't you?
     
  21. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    That's funny.
    Because I used 9th grade geometry to show that your contention about the Earth Hexagon and the radius of the earth is crock of shit.
    It seems that you need a remedial course in 9th grade geometry?

    I posted a long post showing my math.
    You've never shown anything.

    You revel in obfuscation, yes?

    I'd think you're a troll if it weren't for you web site. So, you must simply be stupid.
     
  22. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    No. I would argue that he's stupid in a very complex, deep, and intractable way. So stupid it's bordering on genius-level stupidity.
     
  23. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Thinking is not your strongest suit.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page