Egyptian Royal Cubit is Earth Commensurate

His issue, I believe, was never over the accomplishments of the Egyptians, but rather your calculations which seemed to be quite erroneous.
Now, it appears that instead of sloppy calculation, you simply have sloppy language.

You might think about clearing up your language in order to prevent future misunderstandings of this type.

This whole thing has apparently been a semantic discussion about your improper use of the term 'radius of the Earth'.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He doesn't know what he's referring to. He keeps changing it.

That's not to say he doesn't have some of his facts right. The pyramid is made of stone, for example. The pyramid is aligned with north. The pyramid's base is 440 RC.

The whole point is apparently he'll ignore his errors any time his errors are pointed out, and then go on to some other topic, hitting upon various ideas, but without really saying anything important.

Maybe the Egyptians did use a hexagonal device. His postings however have certainly detracted from the validity of such an assertion, by making so many errors.

And, there are good explanations already in existence for aligning the pyramid with North (as per Laika's posts), and for calculating the radius of the Earth (as clearly evidenced by the interior geometery that they knew), likely using the method of Erathostenes.

So, what we can get out of this post is that maybe the Egyptians used a hexagonal device, in conjunction with their knowledge of the wobble of the Earth's tilt deduced from the star risings and settings, to gain a rough value for the radius of the Earth, instead of using Erathostenes method.

And then, because he wants us to believe in his logic so much, he'll then try to convince everyone that all facts in support of evolution are bogus, because he knows so much better, as exemplified by his postings above. Just keep doging the bullets by not replying, and throw out something new.

Makes sense to me, that's what most lawyers tend to do.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Glad you admitted it finally, Walter, now on to DARWINIAN evolution!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A pity you refuse to admit your sloppy language.

As to Darwinian evolution, I suppose you're a proponent of Lamarck?

 

I didn't look closely at Walter's numbers, and forgot the .14 correction factor, but I thought you guys would easily see the simplicity and logic of the geometry and astronomy involved, not so though, but now it's all straight.

 

I believe evolution, per se, not Darwinian evolution, where goo supposedly morhped into you.

 

Why would you think that anyone would think that the term 'radius of the earth' didn't really mean 'radius of the earth'?

That's obvious.
More evidence of your sloppy communication skills.
You not only have sloppy language, but also are unwilling to read the responses to your posts.

Why should anyone then respond to you in any meaningful way?

You dragged this argument out for pages when all you had to say was that you didn't really mean 'the radius of the earth'.

The fault is yours, not his.

 

He likes to use sly language too. If the glove dont' fit, you gotta acquit.

 

Obfuscation is a common practice amongst a certain set.
By extending this semantic argument in such a fashion, he attempts to make it appear as if he's won some type of victory.
He's done no such thing.

 

Walter knew he was losing, the radius deal was his only hope, sorry I didn't correct it early, but it's all fixed now.

 

Done no such thing? Then how did the Egyptians measure the circumference of the Earth to within about 100 nautical miles if not by the precession/hexagon methodology which I describe?

 

Done no such thing.
As in you've proven nothing. Won nothing.
Your conjecture is interesting, but hypothetical to say the least.

The only thing you've accomplished is that you've finally gotten past the semantic obstacle of your misuse of the term 'radius of the earth'.

I won't say you did it on purpose, necessarily, but it is a common con man trick. A bit of the old quick change.

 

The Egyptians got it to within about 1 part per 1,000, actually, as I've shown in my posts. Well detailed in the interior work of the GP. They likely used the method of Erathostenes, which if done well and with precision, could obtain such result.

By the way, what was I losing? An argument with you? Hardly. You've finally grudgingly admitted you were wrong by saying "sorry I didn't correct it early, but it's all fixed now."

 

the precession bit is a coincidence.

 

this is also a coincidence.
the nautical mile is 1 degree of longitude at the equator.

 

I'm glad you see that it makes sense, it'll soon be in all the textbooks, just a matter of time, the word is spreading, but of course, it takes much away from those who think the knowledge about how to measure the Earth must have come from ET's, but they'll get over it.

And mainstream scientists don't want to acknowledge it's obvious validity, because then they'll have to admit that the ancients were accurately navigating the globe.

 

Walter, you're ridiculous.

 

Ice Age, you're a name-caller. That's what people do when they run out of argument.

 

And, this thread has had nothing to do with whether people knew how to navigate in ancient times.

There is excellent evidence that the Phoenicians reached South America millenia ago, and that the Indians (of India) were travelling far and wide, etc.

Even the British, without being able to calculate longitude (before they got their first marine clock), were excellent navigators. To improve their navigational skills, it was apparent that a marine clock was called for.

So, what's your next 'agenda'?

 

Bait and switch?