Livio C. Stecchini

[SHaYap]

http://www.bibliotec...letmill.htm#top

its interesting, the commentary by John Major Jenkins mentions the Maya, and says 21/12/2012 is just aroud the corner ( not sure if he's talking about the premier),.... he says that in general the book is a bit lacking when it comes to the Americas, especially in the light of recent investigations.

I have that link, I don't like the site, they take take many "liberites" with translations.

There are problems with

Hamlet’s Mill

, but they are more in terms of the book’s organization rather than a faulty reasoning. However, some citations, especially those of

Mesoamerican myth

, are somewhat off the mark. In this case, the reason may have more to do with the embryonic state of Mesoamerican studies in the 1960s. As for other glitches, these hurried flaws can be explained when we consider the context in which the book was written.

Giorgio de Santillana

published a book of his own the previous year and was still lecturing at M.I.T., so his work load during the late 1960s must have been intense. In fact, he was ill at the time. As

William Irwin Thompson

writes:

"Professor

de Santillana

worked on editing

von Dechend

when he was sick and near death, and so this book is not the best expression of their theories. Encyclopedic, but rambling, it is often as chaotic as it is cranky. This weakness, however, should not mislead the reader. The work is very important in seeking to recover the astronomical and cosmological dimensions of mythic narratives"

(Thompson 1982:268-269).

from the commentary page

Ta anyway

Edited February 21, 2013 by third_eye

[Harte]

Parts of a whole? you mean a fraction? ( I know you mean like 2 cubits, 14 fingers right... not 2 and a half.)

Like what part of a whole cubit is one finger.

So what did they lack in the 4th dynasty that Erastosthenes had or knew? BTW, where did Eratosthenes work :- He was the third chief librarian of the Great Library of Alexandria. so as the conjecture goes, who knows what he might have perused in there and attempted to pass off has his own endeavour?

What did they lack? They lacked the Greek method of calculating arcs, which cannot be done without a reasonable version of pi.

You should look into the history of pi.

Regarding the Library, it is extremely unlikely that there was even a single work in Alexandria that dated to the any dynasty in the Old Kingdom, or even the Middle Kingdom. And unlikely that there was even any document of significance from any Ancient Egyptian time period.

The Library was a collection of writings that were physically taken from merchants (mostly) that came to Alexandria under the pretense that the Library wanted to copy them and return them. Typically, the owner got the copy and the Library kept the original.

Obviously, some works were written at the Library and kept there, but note the name of the city and then consider the lifespan of Alexander.

and greek maths etc, is the idea that pythagoras and others studied under egyptian priesthood a fallacy? If you know its not the case, please dish the dirt.

Pythagoras didn't know pi either. The Pythagoreans are often credited with the discovery of the set of irrational numbers, but Pythagoras is not. The very idea runs against Pythagoras' own established ideas of philosophy.

Harte

Edited February 21, 2013 by Harte

[bom shankra]

I don't like the site, they take take many "liberites" with translations.

no worries - buyer beware then!

Why was – and is – Hamlet’s Mill controversial? In The New York Review of Books, Sir Edmund Ronald Leach, a British social anthropologist, wrote disparagingly:

. . . the murky confusion generated by reading any random twenty pages of Hamlet’s Mill is strongly reminiscent of Frobenius. Indeed, the whole operation is not much more than a gloss on two early works of that extraordinary author, Die Mathematik der Oceaner (1900) and Das Zeitalter des Sonnengottes (1904).

The theme of Hamlet’s Mill is that once upon a time (when or where is not very clear, but 4000 B.C. somewhere in the Middle East seems to be what the authors have in mind) there was an archaic civilization whose members had a sophisticated theory of the relations between time and astronomy. This theory rested on an understanding of the annual cycle of the constellations of the Zodiac and a recognition of the precession of the equinoxes, knowledge of which had been incorporated into a coherent cosmological schema expressed in the language of myth. Later mythological systems whether recorded in Greece in the fourth century B.C., in Scandinavia in the twelfth century A.D., or North Africa, or Guiana, or Polynesia at the present day, are all truncated remnants of this ancient astrological-astronomical mythology, and close attention to these “relics, fragments and allusions that have survived the steep attrition of the ages” will allow part of the ancient knowledge to be reconstructed.⁴

In response, Dr. de Santillana wrote concerning this “specialized scholar”:

Mr. Leach, the English anthropologist chosen to review my book, is cited by you as the author of several books dealing with the tribal relations of primitive villages, especially of the Far East. Dr. von Dechend and I, co-authors of Hamlet’s Mill, are historians of science, to which anthropology is a recent and very “step” relation. Moreover, ten years of specific studies in technical astronomy, ancient and archaeological history and myth lie behind the writing of Hamlet’s Mill. Mr. Leach was assigned by your publication a whole page in which to evaluate the book for an American audience innocent of his lack of authority—a lack of authority which is not suggested in his own comment except for his kind allusion to the reputation of the authors. The review itself, couched in irrelevant and inapplicable terms, nonetheless implies an expert knowledge in the field of the book and is made none the more graceful by its offensively jocular tone.

In the publishing of over twenty books in my career, I have never before written to protest an adverse review. This one was so totally unjustified that I must ask you to give this letter of protest equal space and prominence with Mr. Leach’s review.⁵

Edited February 24, 2013 by bom shankra

[bom shankra]

Like what part of a whole cubit is one finger.

What did they lack? They lacked the Greek method of calculating arcs, which cannot be done without a reasonable version of pi.

You should look into the history of pi.

Regarding the Library, it is extremely unlikely that there was even a single work in Alexandria that dated to the any dynasty in the Old Kingdom, or even the Middle Kingdom. And unlikely that there was even any document of significance from any Ancient Egyptian time period.

The Library was a collection of writings that were physically taken from merchants (mostly) that came to Alexandria under the pretense that the Library wanted to copy them and return them. Typically, the owner got the copy and the Library kept the original.

Obviously, some works were written at the Library and kept there, but note the name of the city and then consider the lifespan of Alexander.

Pythagoras didn't know pi either. The Pythagoreans are often credited with the discovery of the set of irrational numbers, but Pythagoras is not. The very idea runs against Pythagoras' own established ideas of philosophy.

Harte

I've been exploring the idea of measuring latitude using cad to illustrate: I drew a gnomon, or obelisk ( I made it 32 meters, and assumed a mid day shadow on equinox of 4 meters, you can use cubits or whatever you prefer...)

so what I am proposing is a great circle be drawn in sand using string attached to a stake (lets say its 1:1 scale), then draw a vertical from center to the circumferance (rope pulled tight for a straight edge). next draw the 4 meter perpendicular line representing extent of shadow. connect the end of this line to the center.

final stage, I thought I would divide into 50 ( I thought we could use multiples of 5 as we've established, the A.E.'s could produce a golden rectangle, but what ever takes your fancy, the division is not the point)

so from this If we knew that the distance from Syene on the tropic of cancer where the noon sun on the equinox is directly over head was 800km away from our obelisk at Alexandria, and the shadow there is represented roughly as in the above sketch, then we can say that the polar circumference of the earth is that distance (800km) times by 50. (i.e.40 000km). no angles or fractions, and not so much as a slice of Pi.

The other idea casually proposed by stecchini is measurement of longitude at a given parallel, It can be done by observing the rising of a Zenith star rising in the east, and simultaneously signaling to an observer out just over the horizon in the western desert, the time elapsed till the star rises on the observers horizon times by distance he is away gives the basis for establishing the circumferance of the parallel.

So if it's done on the 30th parallel, and the observer is 6km away, the elapsed time will be approx 15 seconds. (1 degree at 30th parallel= 96.49km, * 360 = 34736.4km circumference of parallel)

24 hours * 60 minutes = 1440 minutes

34736km / 1440 minutes = aprox 24km per minute, or 6km in a 1/4 minute (15 sec)

please dont repeat again to me the A.E.s didn't use Deg,min,sec or hours min,sec. Thats only relevent to the Stecchinis theory that the dimensions of the G.P. represent the northern hemisphere to scale, and that is a totally seperate argument! substitute for whatever units you like, it only matters that you have a scale of time based on a revolution of the earth, and for distance use whatever you like.

[Harte]

so from this If we knew that the distance from Syene on the tropic of cancer where the noon sun on the equinox is directly over head was 800km away from our obelisk at Alexandria, and the shadow there is represented roughly as in the above sketch, then we can say that the polar circumference of the earth is that distance (800km) times by 50. (i.e.40 000km). no angles or fractions, and not so much as a slice of Pi.

True, pi isn't used there.

However, you are using proportions. Proportions are ratios that are equal. Ratios are fractions.

It'd be a trick for the AE's of the Old Kingdom to measure 800 km (or however many cubits that is) so, were they to somehow and for some reason use this method even without knowing what a proportion was, they'd likely use a shorter distance.

Let's also note that the Old Kingdom Egyptians actually believed the entire world to be a flat disk. So, apparently they never tried this since any noticeable variation in the shadow length at noon would indicate to anyone that the Earth has curvature, at the very least.

Harte

[bom shankra]

True, pi isn't used there.

However, you are using proportions.

proportions???~ surely your just being intentionally obtuse!!! Be specific harte, or I can't answer.

If the A.E.s could lay out a near perfect square for the base of the pyramid, they could do what I'm suggesting. Its all just straight edge and dividers construction.

And the method proposed by Eratosthenes would have had exactly the same problem with distance. (BTW, Stecchini believed that the A.E's new the length of their land down to the last cubit, and he also has alot to say about Eratosthenes 'amazing calculation")

Let's also note that the Old Kingdom Egyptians actually believed the entire world to be a flat disk.

Any solid proof? (because that would blow stecchinis theory that thy G.P. is a representation of the northern hemisphere out of the water, and we could put this thread to bed, and all go home and not worry any more).

So, apparently they never tried this since any noticeable variation in the shadow length at noon would indicate to anyone that the Earth has curvature, at the very least.

how could they have failed to notice the shadow lengh, it was within their kingdom for the begining of their history after all!!

Do me a favour and read, (or re-read or whatever) Stecchinis work presented here http://www.metrum.or...easurements.htm, and then come back with a solid critique that will really convince me. What doesn't convince me are one sentence throw away remarks.

thanks anyway.

Edited March 2, 2013 by bom shankra

[SHaYap]

If the Pyramids are to be considered geometrically 'true' why can't the maths/measurements that it reflects be considered 'true' also if not 'precise' ?

if the numbers are 'precise' enough to be a 'true' pyramidal shape, why isn't the pyramids true enough to be 'precise' prismatoids.?

Even normal 'true' pyramids are not easy to build today.

[Harte]

proportions???~ surely your just being intentionally obtuse!!! Be specific harte, or I can't answer.

If the A.E.s could lay out a near perfect square for the base of the pyramid, they could do what I'm suggesting. Its all just straight edge and dividers construction.

And the method proposed by Eratosthenes would have had exactly the same problem with distance. (BTW, Stecchini believed that the A.E's new the length of their land down to the last cubit, and he also has alot to say about Eratosthenes 'amazing calculation")

Any solid proof? (because that would blow stecchinis theory that thy G.P. is a representation of the northern hemisphere out of the water, and we could put this thread to bed, and all go home and not worry any more).

how could they have failed to notice the shadow lengh, it was within their kingdom for the begining of their history after all!!

Do me a favour and read, (or re-read or whatever) Stecchinis work presented here http://www.metrum.or...easurements.htm, and then come back with a solid critique that will really convince me. What doesn't convince me are one sentence throw away remarks.

thanks anyway.

You're welcome.

I'm not really trying to convince you. I'm just placing other information in the thread nearby to your posts.

These things come up on google. That's how I started posting at forums in the first place.

Why should Ancient Egyptians notice differences in shadow lengths at noon? It's not as if those shadows are near each other.

Besides, with a flat disk Earth, you'd still get some differences in sunlight angles, if you thought the Sun was south of you (IOW, you must be on the northern half of the flat surface.)

Harte

[Michael Collins]

Hello Bom Shankra in NZ, Stecchini noticed that the internal capacity of the stone coffer in the Grt Pyramid is exactly 8 cubic cubits, = 2744 cubic hands. So what? Well someone else [Wm Gleeson in 'Before the Delusion'] noticed that 2744 is 14 cubed, thats 3 sets [a trinity] of the legendary 'body of Horus'. Gleeson explains the significance of all that in a radical and convincing account of the function of the pyramid. Worth reading

cheers, Michael

[Esoteric Toad]

Psycho Nut, but one that has profited from it. JMO.

[bom shankra]

Hello Bom Shankra in NZ, Stecchini noticed that the internal capacity of the stone coffer in the Grt Pyramid is exactly 8 cubic cubits, = 2744 cubic hands. So what? Well someone else [Wm Gleeson in 'Before the Delusion'] noticed that 2744 is 14 cubed, thats 3 sets [a trinity] of the legendary 'body of Horus'. Gleeson explains the significance of all that in a radical and convincing account of the function of the pyramid. Worth reading

cheers, Michael

cheers for the input michael, I looked him up, and was able to find a clip of him speaking. I think he sounds level headed, will see how it goes.

yes stecchini does note the 8 cubic 'royal' cubits (40 artabas), actually, stecchini is saying the figure is 2745.72 cubic hands, but seems satisfied that the inten was 2744. he says the royal cubit cubed = 5 artabas, and concludes that calculation was indeed intended to be by artabas. his cubit in reference to this is 526.3231, not the one of 524.1483 that features in the kings chamber and the g.p. base.

thats all I have time to comment on for now. 14 cubed is interesting.

can you explain more about body of horus?

[bom shankra]

Psycho Nut, but one that has profited from it. JMO.

I wasn't aware of him having profited greatly from his published work, he seems to have been injured by his defence of velikovsky, and his work on the G.P. is only an appendix...unless your talking about the previous poster bill gleeson?

[SHaYap]

I know how to build my pyramid .... I just don't know how to build it as fast as they say the AEs did ........

[bom shankra]

^{snippit from wiki page on stacchin 'talk' section, I've highlighted the alternative editors comments (a person identyifying himself as Reckt>)}

^{disputed item}

• ^{1. "Stecchini's work had many elements of pseudoscience."(The first sentence gives him quite excellent academic credentials. Nothing he said is actually proven wrong in the article. What grounds are there other than misinformed speculation and opinion for slandering his reputation?}
  

• 
  

• ^{2. "He complained he was ignored by fellow scientists." Is that grounds for calling himn a pseudoscientist?}
  

• ^{3. "His defence of Immanuel Velikovsky did of course nothing at all to help in this respect". How does Stecchini defending Immanuel Velikovsky against speculative, opinionated, slander make Stecchini a pseudo scientist? Does it make me a pseudeo scientist that I say those charges have no legs to stand on that are mentioned in the article?}
  

• ^{4. "His work on metrology, despite an impressive amount of factual knowledge, ends in pure pseudoscietific conclusions." Such as what?}
  

• ^{5. Stecchini's analysis to the geometry and methods for constructing the Great Pyramid were interpreted for a popular audience in Peter Tompkins' Secrets of the Great Pyramid with Stecchini's "Notes of the Relation of Ancient Measures to the Great Pyramid," in an appendix to the book. Stecchini allowed his impressive amount of factual knowledge to be included in an appendix to a popular book. To lable him a pseudo scientist because his work is included as an appendix to a history of more than a millenia of explorations of the Egyptians tombs and temples which includes all of the explorations NPOV is simply guilt by association. I dispute that there is any substantive reason to resort to a misinformed speculitive opinionated polemic against a reputable scholar who taught for decades with distinction at Harvard and MIT}
  

• ^{Here is what Stecchini has to say about Petrie who was a highly respected archaeologist and egyptologist know for making careful measurements of a wide range of Egyptian monuments, tombs, temples, mastabas and other structures; actually one of the less contraversial egyptologists who studied the pyramids of egypt. It doesn't seem to show him as a pyramidiot.}
  

^{"Petrie realized that units of length are fixed with extreme precision and appear very stable, but could not explain this precision by referring to the units of weight. If he had accepted the link between weights and length, there would not have been any problem, since he submitted as one instance of precision of weights that a group of Arab sample weights of the eighth century A.D. differ from each other of not more than a third of gram. Since it is easy to compare and preserve weights, and the units of length vary in the inverse cubic ratio of the weights, it is easy f or supporters of the old school to explain the precision and permanence of standards of length. Petrie was forced to present the absurd theory that the length of the Egyptian royal foot was determined by the length of the pendulum that swings 100,000 times in a day at latitude 30° (latitude of Memphis). This pendulum of 740.57 mm. Is the diagonal of a square the side of which is the Egyptian royal cubit of 523.62. Petrie was truly a man endowed with supreme skill as an observer and classifier of empirical data, but as a theorist he never was able to free himself from the influence of his father who directed him to the study of Egyptology and metrology in order to uphold the pyramidite cause. In one of his weak moments, Petrie also intimates that the Egyptians had the telescope; as a result there is today in the United States a particular conventicle of pyramidites dedicated to prove that the telescope was used in Egypt. In general followers of Petrie have gone back to the purity of pyramidite faith, as exemplified by A. E. Berriman in his Historical Metrology (London, 1953) and in his recent article in the Journal of Egyptian Archeology (41 ( 1955 ) , 48-50 ) . This proves how careful one must be in separating the gold from the lead in Petrie’s writings.}

^{In order to prove that the Egyptian royal foot originally had a length of 523.62 mm. determined by the pendulum, Petrie introduced the theory of progressive lengthening. The length would have become 524 mm., in the Fourth Dynasty, when the Great Pyramid was built, to arrive at the value of 525 in the following Fifth Dynasty, But Petrie himself presented evidence of the use of a cubit of 525 mm. in the First Dynasty and also in predynastic times. It is true that the Great Pyramid was constructed by a cubit of about 524 mm., but, unless one is a pyramidite, there is no reason to believe that the standard of this construction must be taken as the official standard of Egypt. For pyramidites, the Great Pyramid is even more than the official standard of Egypt; it was erected by divine dispensation to be the standard prescribed for mankind; it is usually understood that it is the standard used in Creation and the English standard, According to some pyramidites the great pyramid should also prove that the Fahrenheit thermometric scale, used in Anglo-Saxon countries, is the only one in agreement with divine will." Rktect 19:37}

^{also, the 'history of measurement' - 'talk section" part II is quite contentious, and worth a look}

^{snippit here}

but in practical arithmetic and meteorological skills the ancient Egyptians were true masters.

Their skills included developing a system of calculation based on unit fractions

Their system was still in use in the middle ages and included

formulas for the divisions of 2 by the odd numbers 3 to 101

unit fraction tables

division of the numbers 1-9 by 10

formulas for the area of a rectangle

formulas for the area of a triangle

formulas for the area of a circle

formulas for the volume of a cylindrical granary

equations of the first and second degree

geometric progressions

arithmetric progressions

formulas for the seked of a pyramid

formulas for the volume of a truncated pyramid

formulas for the surface area of a semicylinder

formulas for the surface area of a hemisphere

squares and square roots

the pythagorean theorem

continued fractions

Edited March 13, 2013 by bom shankra

[bom shankra]

I know how to build my pyramid .... I just don't know how to build it as fast as they say the AEs did ........

I'd definately get yourself a diamond saw, if you had to use copper saws and quartz sand to cut up granite, it would take you forever and a day, at least try and get some wrought iron tools to split the granite with.

Don't forget the decending passage has to be done by a single person at a time, so allow time for that too. (make sure you've got a lot of spare copper chisels at hand for that, as they're not not going to last more than a few 'blows'.)

btw, I like the theory that the decending passage points to alpha draconis, the pole star circa 3000bc. It aligns when the star is at the low culmination point below the celetial pole; using the low culmination saves work because it still provides a reference without being deeper and steeper than need be.

[bom shankra]

Why should Ancient Egyptians notice differences in shadow lengths at noon? It's not as if those shadows are near each other.

Besides, with a flat disk Earth, you'd still get some differences in sunlight angles, if you thought the Sun was south of you (IOW, you must be on the northern half of the flat surface.)

Harte

I don't know for sure if they would notice the shadows. having gnomons and obelisks could trigger the realization i'd say. I don't know the history quite well enough to make any ascertations ...

-the flat disk can be explained in an alternative way. The flat disk is the plane of the ecliptic, and often there is the reference to the four pillars in antiquity :-( out of laziness, heres a quote from Hamlets mill ;-)

Meanwhile, it is necessary to explain again what this "earth" is that modern interpreters like to take for a pancake. The mythical earth is, in fact, a plane, but this plane is not our "earth" at all, neither our globe, nor a presupposed homocentrical earth. "Earth" is the implied plane through the four points of the year, marked by the equinoxes and solstices, in other words the ecliptic. And this is why this earth is very frequently said to be quadrangular. The four "corners," that is, the zodiacal constellations rising heliacally at both the equinoxes and solstices, parts of the "frame" skambha, are the points which determine an "earth." Every world-age has its own "earth." It is for this very reason that "ends of the world" are said to take place. A new "earth" arises, when another set of zodiacal constellations brought in by the Precession determines the year points.

Keep it coming Harte, I'm examining lots of assumptions on account of your posts

[SHaYap]

Konark Temple

Located on the shoreline, now a little over 3 km from the sea, the temple takes the form of the chariot of Surya (Arka), the Sun God, and is heavily decorated with stone carving.^[3] The entire complex was designed in the form of the God's huge chariot drawn by seven spirited horses on twelve pairs of exquisitely decorated wheels at its base.^[4] The huge wheels carved at the base of the temple are one of the major attractions. The spokes of the wheels serve as sundials and the shadows cast by these can give the precise time of the day. The pyramidal roof soars over 30 m (98 ft) in height. The temple complex also contains erotic sculptures similar to the temple in Khajuraho.^[5]

here

nobody pays enough attention to this little ancient plaything

The special feature of this temple is that the shrine wholly erected in the form of a huge chariot. This chariot is placed on twelve pairs of splendidly carved wheels and drawn by seven dynamic horses. According to one saying, these 12 pair of wheels symbolizes 24 hours in a day, while the other say, these wheels represent 12 months of the year. Seven days of the week are said to be the representation of seven horses. The wheels of this chariot have an interesting fact behind their formation. Each wheel has a set of eight spokes and these spokes serve as sundials. The shadows made by these sundials give exact time of the day.

http://www.culturalindia.net/indian-temples/konark-temple.html

[bom shankra]

what age is that #3i? gnomons are supposedly in evidence since 3500 bc.

[bom shankra]

^{just stayed up half the night reading "look no diamond saw" thread here in A.M, and in the interest of staying on topic, I'll point attention to the fact that I am having a bit of 'fun' with 3#i on the subject, i.e. being light hearted .}

Edited March 13, 2013 by bom shankra

[SHaYap]

what age is that #3i? gnomons are supposedly in evidence since 3500 bc.

you see a picture .... I see a machine made of stone

The special feature of this temple is that the shrine wholly erected in the form of a huge chariot. This chariot is placed on twelve pairs of splendidly carved wheels and drawn by seven dynamic horses. According to one saying, these 12 pair of wheels symbolizes 24 hours in a day, while the other say, these wheels represent 12 months of the year. Seven days of the week are said to be the representation of seven horses. The wheels of this chariot have an interesting fact behind their formation. Each wheel has a set of eight spokes and these spokes serve as sundials. The shadows made by these sundials give exact time of the day.

[Michael Collins]

Stecchini demonstrated that the AEs measured a degree of latitude fairly exactly - according to us. Did it take much science to do that? Conventional archaeology/anthropology says the population of Middle Eastern region were scattered primitive hunter-gatherers up until about 12,000 BC, then the Sumerians appeared suddenly from nowhere, and their cousins in AE knew how to measure latitude. How did that happen by evolution?

Mike

[Harte]

Stecchini demonstrated that the AEs measured a degree of latitude fairly exactly - according to us.

No such thing has ever been demonstrated. If you start from a false pretense, you can "prove" anything.

Your pretense is false.

Harte

[bom shankra]

hatres right no such thing has been adequately demonstrated, the reason I started the thread was because the subject of stecchini, and his labarythyine hypothesis on ancient metrology intruiged me. The single fact that the perimeter at the base of the pyramid according to the best survey we have corresponds to the degree of latitude taken at the equator by a factor of 120:1 (i.e 1/2 minute of a degree), with a accuracy that = 1 in 150000. Stecchini didn't invent this, he noticed it, and he didn't invent accounts from ancient greece that attested to the relationship of the G.P.'s perimeter and apothem to geographical measures ( 2 * perimeter = 5 stadia, and 1 stadium for the apothem)

Alot of people hold Petrie up to be inscrutable, but as has already been demonstrated, he was indeed flawed in certain aspects, where as Stecchini, an accoplished and seasoned academic, a proffesor, a life long researcher is universaly tagged as a pseudo scientist, but on fairly unsubstantiated grounds IMO.

The problem is to demonstrate why the modern system of Degrees, minutes and seconds bears relation to stadia and geographical feet (if it indeed they do - NPOV shoul be prority number one, otherwise, as harte says, we'll end up proving anything - even if only to our own satisfaction).

Babylonian were using sexagesimal systems, and were in neigbouring territory, but quoting your first post Mike, so what! = wheres the actual pudding? (BTW, welcome to the site, you have to soak plenty up here, but don't be put off, stick to your guns )

I'm a spare time entusiast, and only get a minute here, and a minute there to investigate anything. I already posted some B.S. here in haste, to try and counter what I felt was narrow mindedness, but ho-hum, the threads still going, the problem is it's only going round in circles !

I have been meaning to present some of my own concerns about stecchinis hypotheses, but I keep getting side tracked.

- for example, his reference to the land of nortern egypt being called To-Mehu (commonly held to mean the land of papyrus), but from which stecchini digresses, and suggests that it means 'to fill up", i.e. nortern egypt- the land which fills up the dimensions of Egypt" so, northern egypt corresponds to the seventh hand added to the cubit. - he goes on from here to demonstrate that beggining in pre dynastic times there has been an evolution that has led to a geodetic system that enabled the early dynasties to accurately plan and measure the extent of their lands, establishing and transforming the land into a stylised, and symbolic representation of their core cultural belief systems, and their fledling mastery of the arts and sciences. There is a great deal of detail contained in the slim appendix stecchin allowed to be published, but I will serialize it for the readership here as the opportunity arises.

look forward to feedback

Edited March 14, 2013 by bom shankra

[SHaYap]

~snip

I'm a spare time entusiast, and only get a minute here, and a minute there to investigate anything. I already posted some B.S. here in haste, to try and counter what I felt was narrow mindedness, but ho-hum, the threads still going, the problem is it's only going round in circles !

~snip

look forward to feedback

patience ....... there are still bigger and more circles to round

[bom shankra]