Egyptian Royal Cubit is Earth Commensurate

Ice Age:

As Laika explained to you, one does not need a clock (chronometer) to determine true north. One needs a clear night sky, and an unobstructed view of the horizon. Both were present on the Giza Plateau. Over the course of many nights, on the leveled plateau, the rising and setting of the stars could be accurately marked, allowing for the determination of true north, averaged over many observations to give a fairly accurate determination. This explanation fits; do you have some other suggestion as to how they determined true north?

As to my "story", my "story" is just simple arithmetic. I took YOUR number of 1760 Royal Cubits as the base of the Great Pyramid, and multiplied by 20.632 inches (YOUR number, though I doubt that the '.002' in the 20.632 is significant), which gives 36,312.32 inches for the perimeter of the GP. Then I multiplied it by 7200 (again, YOUR number) which gives 2.6145E8 inches as the Earth's radius. Dividing by 12 to reduce to feet gives 21,787,392 feet as the Earth's radius. Dividing by 5280 to reduce to miles gives 4,126.4 miles as the Earth's radius, which is way off from its actual value (slightly under 4,000 miles), which I posted previously. Thus, your inertial assertion that the Base of the GP is the 1/7200th of the Earth's radius is incorrect. What's so hard to figure out about that. It's just simple arithmetic (which I did on a pocket calculator, rather than long-hand). You can check it out yourself, if you bother to read the posts people write in response to you.

Also, I previously wrote that the Royal Cubit was used in construction of the other pyramids, as well as the construction of the Great Pyramid. The scientific cubit (and the scientific inch) was not the commonly used measurements for the construction by the construction workers - the Royal Cubit was, with which they and their ancestors had had centuries of familiarity. Instead, the newly devised Scientific Cubit was 'encoded' within the interior of the GP by making the ramps a certain angle, and by making the Sarophagus a certain length, and by making the antechamber a certain length and a certain distance away from the "King's Chamber".

Clearly, the Great Pyramid was designed to last. It has polished GRANITE for the "King's Chamber" walls, and a hollowed-out block of GRANITE for the Sarcophagus, polished on the interior as well as exterior. Quite a feat of masonry, in its own right. To encode the newly devised Scientific Cubit, by relating it to the customarily used Royal Cubit by use of the number 365.2 (days in the year), was likely a challenge for their architects.

The whole purpose of the GP remains a riddle - clearly it was not used as a tomb (or, at least not in the discovered chambers), since there was no treasure or mummy in the pyramid when it was broken (tunneled) into for the first time by Al Mamoun's men more than three millenia after its construction. The ascending passage was completely undisturbed until they dislodged the covering slab during their tunneling efforts.

You appear to have read extensively regarding possible past civilizations that may have existed during the Ice Ages. You would do well to take your fervor into archaeology. As I've posted previously, I believe that the archaeology of the 21st Century will entail exploring the shorelines as they existed during the Ice Ages, when the oceans were some 400 feet lower than they are now, before all of that rich farmland was inundated circa 18,000 to 10,000 years ago as the glaciers retreated.

The Mediterranean in particular should prove interesting. Was the Strait of Gibraltar a land bridge at that time? (I.e. less than 400 feet in depth today). If so, the Mediterranean would have been a small salty inland lake. We know the Mediterranean has dried up before from cores showing extensive salt deposits under the current sea-floor of the Mediterranean.

Clearly, much of the entire Mediterranean basin was suitable for farming/husbandry, and likely there were many settlements by earlier peoples, possibly even by 'atlanteans' as you've suggested (and have others).

We know that people (true humans) were in Europe during the Ice Age from the Cro Magnon cave paintings. It seems quite plausible that they had begun settling down in the lower lands where agriculture would have been possible, only to be disrupted by the extensive flooding that thereafter took place over several millenia. Our knowledge of that era of human existence is virtually nil - likely because it's buried by 400 feet of water!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

True north can only be determined by knowing east-west distances, and that only by measuring time, and such was supposedly not possible until the 1750's with the invention of Harrison's chronometer, but I have shown how they did it at circa 2500 B.C., by precession time.

If you "can't see" it, then just carry on, there's plenty of other folks, alot smarter than you or I, who do "see" it. Just remember you learned about it first here, and I hope you refer your associates to the finding, they may "see" it and explain it to you.

Precession numbers, derived from the methodology which I described, are prevalent in many ancient legends and cultures, numbers such as 12, 24, 36, 54, 72, 108, and 432, why is that, if not for the mapping methodology which I describe?

Do you think it's a coincidence that 432 is the reduction factor of the GP, and is the factor for the yugas of time in Hinduism? I don't think you're shooting straight.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please explain how you would use distances in the east-west direction to determine north, and what is lacking in the angle bisection method. Why is the direction you would arrive at by this method not necessarily true north?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just google how to determine longitude, or the history of longitude measuring, educate yourself to get up to speed.

 

I understand the principle of determining longitude. It's the reason for the necessity of this information to determine north that I'm looking for. Please, please give a straight answer this time.

 

You say that you can find true north with your method, so you supposedly can find longitude, but you can't.

Just go do a little reading, to get you up to speed, the info is easy to find, you can do it.

 

Laika, you show intellectual laziness in not finding these answers to get you up to speed, you can't be spoon fed everything, gets tedious.

 

That's nonsense. Determination of longitude does not necessarily follow from determination of north.

That's a cop-out.

 

Laika:

He's like all the others of that type. He avoids the uncomfortable questions, like when I (twice) showed that simple arithmetic shows him wrong about his assertions regarding the perimeter of the GP.

You're right, he's wrong. There is no reason that bisecting the angle formed between the observer and the points of star-rise and star-set by the rising and setting of stars does not give true north - no need to determine latitude or longitude (provided you're far enough away from the poles to get good readings). You do need a good chronometer to determine longitude, and the history of the British development of such in their pursuit of conquest of the seas, the contest and reward offered to create such a marine-accurate timepiece, etc., is intriguing reading and well documented. The first such chronometer is located in a museum at Greenwich, I believe.

Apparently, he has an agenda, and he's not going to let something simple like facts get in his way. You can check out his agenda at his web site, given on the page about the poster (click on IceAgeCivilizations two posts above, if you've not done that before).

Remind me not to send my kids to Dartmouth.

 

If the ancients could measure east-west distances your way, then why do the experts say it wasn't possible until the 1750's with the invention of Harrison's chronometer?

Walter, your agenda is to have your head in an ostrich hole, but that's ok, you're one of many.

And Laika, just do a little reading, it won't hurt you, and that way, you'll show that you really do have interest and curiosity, this way, you look very insincere.

 

Walter, first you say that Laida's method can determine east-west distances (longitude), then you say you have to measure time to measure east-west distances (longitude), you can't even get your story straight, you need to do some reading to get up to speed as well.

 

Obviously you don't comprehend very well what people write here.

Neither Laika nor I said that 'her' method (bisecting the angle of the rising/setting stars) can be used to determine longitude. It cannot. It does determine north.

To determine longitude one needs a clock ("metallurgically manufactured chronometrically calibrated instrument"). [Fancy words seem to impress some people, so maybe that will convey the message.]

Your turn Laika.

 

Yeh, yours is an extremely crude and inaccurate method, mine explains how they measured east-west distances (longitude) accurately (within 0.5%), and yours can't find true north with any accuracy, so what in the world is your point?

 

You haven't explained what your method is for determining true north (with or without a clock). How does it work?

 

Walter, if you were up to speed, you know the head of the thread explains it, never mind, go back to sleep.

 

Oh that; mixed in with your clear error about the base of the GP being the 1/7200th of the radius of the Earth. Gives me great confidence in your method. But doesn't that depend upon observations of the stars? How would that give any greater accuracy than the method described by Laika?

That's not to say the Egyptians didn't know about the Earth's wobble. They likely did, according to other source's I've read, and it would have been observable over the course of years, and since they were there for millenia making records, they likely discovered that too.

You still haven't had the courtesy to admit you were wrong on your post about the base of the GP being the 1/7200th of the radius of the Earth.

 

By the way, I googled Yarmuta and Sidon, and yes underwater cities off Lebanon have been identified with those sites. They are about 1/2 mile off shore, in about 10-30 feet of water. Likewise with Herakleion and Alexandria in Egypt, which are known to have sunk below the waves following major earthquakes. The depth of those two sites (Yarmuta and Sidon), and their proximity to the existing shoreline, supports subsidence as the reason why they are underwater.

However, that having been said, it is possible that there might have been a slight additional amount of sea-level rise after that last 50 foot rise circa 10,000 years ago that flooded the Black Sea. After all, the Dutch began battling a flooding sea several millenia ago, and that may be partially attributable to a few feet in rise of the sea, in addition to subsidence.

However, I have yet to see any of your megalithic references that are some 300-400 feet below the sea, as they should be if they were monuments during the height of the last ice age. Even if there were monuments erected before that last 50 foot push that flooded the Black Sea, but after the close of the vast majority of the ice-age meltdown, we should have photographic evidence readily available, particularly if you are asserting they existed during the Egyptian era of civilization and were flooded circa 2,000 B.C. I've googled and not found it. Why not give me the cites you claim to have; or is that just more BS.

 

Herakleion and Menouthis went under, supposedly because of earthquake, when?

Subsidence? Ahahahahahah.

You'll just have to research more dillegently, that should be no problem, since you feign an interest in this subject.

 

Walter, old chap?

IceAgeCivilisations
Join Date: 11-27-06
Posts/Total Posts: 237 (75.93 posts per day)

Referrals: 0

.... If the rest doesn't tell us what the rest of us need to know, the referrals total says it all.

 

It says that he hasn't sent any of his crackpot buddies to join the forums to back him up. Other than that it really doesn't say much, does it?

The post count is pretty damned high though.
But, he's got a message!
Heh.