Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
Followers 2

# Cubits

## 6 posts in this topic

Here's how the Egyptian short cubit, AKA; Jewish ordinary cubit and the Jewish sacred cubit were geometrically derived from the Nippur cubit, which is known for certain to have been 518.5 mm or 20.413386" because they found a copper alloy Nippur cubit rod from 2650 BC. This is my own original theory. I just did this today. Before that it was unknown how the Jewish cubit lengths originated, or the Egyptian short cubit.They thought it was somebody's forearm length. Maybe the original Nippur cubit was, but the others came from that one. Personally, I think it's an earth dimensions based unit.

The Egyptian Royal Cubit appears to have been produced by dividing the Nippur Cubit by a rounded off version of sqrt 2. They rounded off 1,414213562 to 1.4. 20.413386/1.4=14.58099. That is the Egyptian "construction Remen". The RC is then derived from the remen by making a square with sides of 1 construction remen, the diagonal is then 1 RC of 20.62063381". So the Nippur Cubit was the original diagonal of a square whose sides could be called a "Nippur Remen". But the Egyptians got their remen from that square by a purely mathematical means by rounding off sqrt2 to an even 1.4. That brings the number 7 into it, if you scale the 1.4 up 10 times to 14, 7x2. This made the units produced "Royal".

Edited by GS1

##### Share on other sites

I guess the Royal Cubit could be, as supposed by most, simply the short cubit plus 1/6th. That would make it 20.62492932 inches, starting from the short cubit length produced by the geometric procedure shown in my diagram. That does indeed tally with the King's Chamber dimensions as reported by Petrie. That is also a simpler and probably more logical method than the one I postulated involving rounding of sqrt 2 to 1.4.

Now the mystery is where did the Nippur Cubit come from. It doesn't seem to be earth dimension based as I assumed previously because it doesn't work out. However, the Sacred Cubit does, as demonstrated before by others. Petrie and others have reported finding the 25 inch cubit in many ancient places, not just Israel. Perhaps the Sacred Cubit came first and the Nippur Cubit was obtained by using the geometric method I described but in reverse.The use of squares and diagonals of squares was obviously because they used the cubits to measure out land area. That would have been done in large squares.

One thing is certain, nobody had a 25 inch forearm, other than maybe Goliath. Since I now postulate that the regular Egyptian cubit of 17.67" was derived from the 25" Sacred Cubit, it was also not based on a forearm length. The fact that it came out similar to a forearm length and the lesser units similar to hands and fingers is probably why they named the units after those body parts. None of the Egyptians were around when the first Sacred Cubit was made so they wouldn't know what its original length came from, so they just assumed that it was from body parts. I'm sure that forum readers can appreciate just how unlikely it is that the short cubit would coincidentally be EXACTLY the length of a side of a square whose diagonal is 25 inches or slightly over. Pretty rare that you get coincidences which are accurate to 2 or more decimal places.

Edited by GS1

##### Share on other sites

I don't think you comprehend the significance of solving the mystery of why the short Egyptian cubit was precisely 17.67851085 inches in length. Scholars knew how long the cubit was but they had no idea of the interconnectedness of the Egyptian cubit, the Semitic Sacred Cubit and the Nippur Cubit.

The equatorial radius of earth is 2510956800 inches, polar radius 2502086400". The Egyptians got their cubit by making a square with a diagonal of the earth's polar radius reduced by a factor of 100,000,000. The cubit was then the length of the square's sides. If they had calculated the polar radius accurately the cubit would have been 17.69242261". The amount they missed by is imperceptible, about 1/50th of an inch, which indeed may simply be due to making rods out of chunks of wood or metal, which was not that precise in those days. For all intents and purposes its exact. They must have had a master one which was exact. And you thought it was just some guy's forearm, dintcha.

Edited by GS1

##### Share on other sites

Here's how the Egyptian short cubit, AKA; Jewish ordinary cubit and the Jewish sacred cubit were geometrically derived from the Nippur cubit, which is known for certain to have been 518.5 mm or 20.413386" because they found a copper alloy Nippur cubit rod from 2650 BC.

On the other hand, there is no evidence that the Nippur "cubit" is even a measuring standard. In fact, this copper bar is quite irregular, and the markings on it are also irregular. An unlikely situation if the bar is actually representing a measurement system,.

The Egyptian Royal Cubit appears to have been produced by dividing the Nippur Cubit by a rounded off version of sqrt 2. They rounded off 1,414213562 to 1.4. 20.413386/1.4=14.58099. That is the Egyptian "construction Remen". The RC is then derived from the remen by making a square with sides of 1 construction remen, the diagonal is then 1 RC of 20.62063381".

In what way does this explain the Egyptian Royal cubits that are 20.8 inches? More "rounding off?"

The Royal cubit, since it predates all other Egyptian cubits, was not derived from shorter versions, which came much later.

Also, the Egyptian Royal cubit rods we have found range in size from 20.6 to 20.8. How do you account for the 6-digit accuracy in your claims, considering the Egyptians themselves didn't make their cubit measuring rods accurate to within even 1/10 of an inch?

Harte

##### Share on other sites

On the other hand, there is no evidence that the Nippur "cubit" is even a measuring standard. In fact, this copper bar is quite irregular, and the markings on it are also irregular. An unlikely situation if the bar is actually representing a measurement system,.

Doesn't matter because they made it from the Egyptian short cubit, which you and others mistakenly believe came later. They just chose to use a version with an extra 1/6th of the common cubit added to it so it would be divisible by 7. Later they dropped that and went back to the common one, which ironically was UNcommon before that.

In what way does this explain the Egyptian Royal cubits that are 20.8 inches? More "rounding off?"

accumulated error of reproduction after the original one was lost in a tragic mishap.

The Royal cubit, since it predates all other Egyptian cubits, was not derived from shorter versions, which came much later.

Says you.

Also, the Egyptian Royal cubit rods we have found range in size from 20.6 to 20.8. How do you account for the 6-digit accuracy in your claims, considering the Egyptians themselves didn't make their cubit measuring rods accurate to within even 1/10 of an inch?

Harte

I'm referring to the RC used in the Great Pyramid King's Chamber. It works out to be accurate to within 1/10th inch over the long wall lengths. The rest of the off-length cubit rods you mentioned are copying errors.

Edited by GS1

##### Share on other sites

Although your method works in approximation, how did Egyptians get the first real world cubit from rounding geometric fractions of the Earth? They needed a real length to draw a square proportional to the earth to begin with in order to get other lengths from geometric means with your method. A real length that could be reprouced over time if the original was lost. Copies of copies produce errors fast. Egyptians may have used this method after later math And geometric understanding came about, but the production of any length cubit does not require it.

In honor of antiquated teachng methods, I'll make a statement that requires you to ask yourself questions that will lead you, if worthy, to answers. This is the only way I can/will help people on this subject.

"There is a way in which a cubit of any known length can be produced in a moment, from thin air. It comes without the use of numbers, compass, straight edge, graduated protractor or ruler of any kind. Although geometry is applied, it is intuitive to the point of not needing to understand the complexity of what you're doing to get a cubit. Once you understand the geometry of it and what a cubit actually is the measure of, you can do things like measure the gravity of the moon, understand that the measure of a man is 3 cubits and that takes about 13 years to grow into a man that can find his own way in the world. You'll understand why your rod and staff is comforting, also understand what the real showdown was between Moses and an Egyptian "ruler's" magicians who supposedly served a different god than Moses yet used the same magic of hissing sticks to see who had the right to rule over semites. In short, the secret of the cubit actually used to make a good "ruler" or an unholy tyrant and the minions who protect and serve for scraps of power."

It's so easy a caveman can do it without aliens, math or graduated tools. Just take off your shoes first, the ground where a first cubit is made is holy and you may need to use part of your shoe to guide you anyway.

Peace and luck

## Create an account

Register a new account