Discussion in 'Human Science' started by IceAgeCivilizations, Dec 8, 2006.
Of course it does.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Ok, go back to sleep.
So basically you dont have a clue.
I successfully refuted you previously, no need to drill you again.
But I will say this to all, a rate (72 yrs/degree) is time over distance, so in a given amount of time, a measurable distance is covered, distance along the Earth, by the constellations, because of the wobble of the Earth's axis, Nick is dense or obfuscative, or both.
Hmmm..... so the points are stars, except you dont seem to realise that this is not in any way related to the radius of the Earth. Even if the Earths radius was twice the size, the time taken to measure the movement of stars doesnt change.
I think we can safely assume you dont know what the hell you are talking about.
There is no relation between Earths' precession and Earths' radius. Hence calculating one does not lead you to the other.
You are so dense.
Wow what a convincing argument.
That's all you can handle.
IceAge: I took the time to read the two articles at your web site. There is nothing there which supports your claim about the ancients being able to compute Earth radius from precession data.
Other than your claim, you show no citations from other sources indicating that the pyramid builders had precession data collected over some period of time prior to their building the pyramids. Their culture was surely capable of collecting such data, but aside from your assertions, you show no evidence that they actually had such data.
Aside from your assertions, you provide no convincing mathematics to show a relationship between precession & Earth dimensions. Precession data merely describes changes in the apparent position of distant stars, some of which are thousands or millions of light years away. One light year is well over one billion Earth diameters. If the diameter of the Earth were twice or half what it is, no ancient culture could measure a difference in apparent position of a star even 10 light years away. Even if precession data were related to Earth dimensions, the pyramid builders would not have precise enough data to compute the diameter of the Earth.
There is no relationship between precession and the dimensions of the Earth. You cannot compute one from a knowledge of the other. If you claim otherwise, do not post more bulls**t. Instead, post a citiation to some reputable source.
Even if precession data were related to Earth dimensions, the pyramid builders would have to know that the Earth was a rotating sphere orbiting the sun. They did not have a clue about the dynamics of the solar system.
Your assertions on this issue are not sufficient to support your weird notions on this subject.
You cannot provide any citation (other than your own web site and similar crackpot sites) which describe a relationship between precession data and Earth dimensions. Untill you can provide such a citation, I and other knowledgable posters will have no choice but to consider you a crackpot who made up this nonsenes or copied it from another crackpot.
BTW: Smyth also seems to have been a crackpot (or a religious fanatic), Since he was from the 19th century (almost 150 years ago), there is some excuse for his naive views of Egyptian technology. You have no excuse for your weird notions.
IceAge: I just noticed the following question from one of your previous posts.
It requires little more than observation of the North Star over a period of a few months to a year or so to discover that it always indicates True North.
Even cultures without a compass can determine True North via Polaris without having a clue about solar system dynamics, the dimensions of the Earth, or the fact that the Earth is a sphere rotating about an axis.
The concepts appear to be over your head Dino, hang in there buddy.
Dino, that you say that the great distance of the stars from us is a factor in this demonstration of precession measuring reveals that you're way out there too, they measured the precession movement of the Earth sphere within the celestial sphere, they didn't need to know how far away the sphere is, just the rate that it appears to move along the horizon (72 yrs/degree) because of precession. Shake yourself.
You're just an ignorant crackpot who spouts for no good reason, back to the drawing board for you.
That give you a ratio, not a dimension.
Of what ratio do you speak?
How was that ratio arrived at.
By dividing 1 by 360. You can divide the cirlce into as many or as few parts as you wish.
Exactly. So is tells you nothing about the relationship between precession and the Earhs radius, becasue there is none.
Separate names with a comma.