Is Egypt The World's Oldest Book of Astronomy

[danydandan]

Just now, Ahatmose said:

The earliest attested standard measure is from the Old Kingdom pyramids of Egypt. It was the royal cubit (mahe). The royal cubit was 523 to 525 mm (20.6 to 20.64 inches) in length: and was subdivided into 7 palms of 4 digits each, for a 28-part measure in total.

I have taken the average.

So then no there hasn't been a cubit rod discovered with your measurements you just made up the number.

[jmccr8]

3 minutes ago, Ahatmose said:

The earliest attested standard measure is from the Old Kingdom pyramids of Egypt. It was the royal cubit (mahe). The royal cubit was 523 to 525 mm (20.6 to 20.64 inches) in length: and was subdivided into 7 palms of 4 digits each, for a 28-part measure in total.

I have taken the average.

Yup   sure glad you aren't helping me build a house.

. jmccr8

Edited June 12, 2018 by jmccr8
#@&?ING phone

[danydandan]

9 minutes ago, Ahatmose said:

LOL ... that number ten has nothing to do with my ratios, I explained it was simply a short cut I found.

And your argument about whether to divide the perimeter wall  by 6 then multiply by 4 to get the pyramid or  dividing the pyramid by 4 and multiplying by 6 to get the perimeter wall is ... well I hate to overuse a word ... but it is pathetic.

You are wrong on so many levels in that post .

"Has there been a cubit rod discovered with the exact cubit measurement your using?" LOL yeah ... THE GREAT PYRAMID...  LOL  ... 280 cubits high ... 10 cubits = 1 digit ... and you never listed where the adding of 1 took place ... remember ? 

Why is it pathetic, care to elaborate?

 

[Ahatmose]

40 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Yup   sure glad you aren't helping me build a house.

. jmccr8

Don't worry I would never help you.

[Ahatmose]

47 minutes ago, danydandan said:

So then no there hasn't been a cubit rod discovered with your measurements you just made up the number.

 

 

 

 

Strangely I could find none from The Old Kingdom but since you have accused me of making it up I am sure you can point us to at least a couple of examples to prove your point.

 

 

 

 

[Ahatmose]

1 hour ago, danydandan said:

Why is it pathetic, care to elaborate?

 

Well maybe partly because I got it from Petrie ...

 

[Ahatmose]

1 hour ago, danydandan said:

So then no there hasn't been a cubit rod discovered with your measurements you just made up the number.

Almost all Egyptologists will agree that the King's Chamber was designed to be 10 cubits by 20 cubits.

The North Mean of the chamber is 412.4 inches. 412.4 / 20 = 20.62

Shall we move on from this "Magic Bullet" argument.

 

[Tom the Photon]

2 hours ago, Harte said:

Solve this, or shut up criticizing other people's skills in Mathematics.

Harte

42?

[jmccr8]

59 minutes ago, Ahatmose said:

Don't worry I would never help you.

Thanks much appreciated.

jmccr8

[Ozymandias]

On 6/4/2018 at 6:55 PM, Ahatmose said:

 

This diagram from your Message #3 at the start of this thread depicts a square with an inscribed and a circumscribed circle. The mathematical relationships between the sides and diagonals of ANY square and the diameter and circumference of its inscribed and circumscribed circles are always as you state. ANY square object, anywhere, of any size, will exhibit the same mathematical ratios and relationships.  

[Ahatmose]

11 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

This diagram from your Message #3 at the start of this thread depicts a square with an inscribed and a circumscribed circle. The mathematical relationships between the sides and diagonals of ANY square and the diameter and circumference of its inscribed and circumscribed circles are always as you state. ANY square object, anywhere, of any size, will exhibit the same mathematical ratios and relationships.  

Almost correct ... the ratio between perimeter and and the two circles will always be the same and it is this fact that allowed me to help Gary Osborn prove his theory on the speed of light being encoded at Giza ... HOWEVER it is only this configuration, that is the one I have shown,  that leads to the outer red circumference when divided by sq rt of 3 giving us the 0.90689968... ratio.

Cheers

Edited June 12, 2018 by Ahatmose

[Ahatmose]

14 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Thanks much appreciated.

jmccr8

your welcome.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

7 hours ago, Ahatmose said:

You keep saying this. Could you point out how simply dividing and multiplying makes these ratios ... "abominable" and to point out someones spelling error is typical or certain types of posters and to do so is bad form.

Well, as a ratio is a comparator between two values you needed multiply or divide anything unless you’re attempting to create the lowest common ratio.

[Ahatmose]

3 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Well, as a ratio is a comparator between two values you needed multiply or divide anything unless you’re attempting to create the lowest common ratio.

Well if the semi major distance to Mercury is 57,909,050 km and the semi major distance to Venus is 108,208,930 km how would you go about showing or writing what the ratio was between them ?

 

Edited June 12, 2018 by Ahatmose

[Ahatmose]

1 minute ago, Ahatmose said:

Well if the semi major distance to Mercury is 57,909,050 km and the semi major distance to Venus is 108,208,930 km how would you go about showing or writing what the ratio was between them ?

 

ra·tio

ˈrāSHēˌō/

noun

noun: ratio; plural noun: ratios

1. the quantitative relation between two amounts showing the number of times one value contains or is contained within the other.

   "the ratio of men's jobs to women's is 8 to 1"

   synonyms:

   proportion, comparative number, correlation, relationship, correspondence; More percentage, fraction, quotient "the fat ratios in American diets are dangerously askew"

   • the relative value of silver and gold in a bimetallic system of currency.

Origin

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

1 minute ago, Ahatmose said:

Well if the semi major distance to Mercury is 57,909,050 km and the semi major distance to Venus is 108,208,930 km how would you go about showing or writing what the ratio was between them ?

 

You’d have to boil one of those figures down to “1” and apply the same equation you used to create “1” to the other figure giving you a comparison of how many times Mercury creates a whole figure relative to how many times Veunscdoes so in the same amount of time.

given Mercury is the smaller figure it would be:

57,909,050 / 57,909,050 = 1

and

108,208,930 / 57,909,050 = 1.868013671.

 

which is a ratio of 1.868013671:1, rather close to the golden ratio.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Thank you, by the way, I enjoyed the mental exercise of working that out.

[Ahatmose]

8 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

You’d have to boil one of those figures down to “1” and apply the same equation you used to create “1” to the other figure giving you a comparison of how many times Mercury creates a whole figure relative to how many times Veunscdoes so in the same amount of time.

given Mercury is the smaller figure it would be:

57,909,050 / 57,909,050 = 1

and

108,208,930 / 57,909,050 = 1.868013671.

 

which is a ratio of 1.868013671:1, rather close to the golden ratio.

Er no offense but how many times have I posted 1.868601 as the ratio between them and before you argue anymore with me perhaps this might silence you:

A ratio may be either specified by giving both constituting numbers, written as "a to b" or "a:b", or by giving just the value of their quotient "",^[2] since the product of the quotient and the second number yields the first, as required by the above definition.

Edited June 12, 2018 by Ahatmose

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Care to tell us the important of that quotient then rather than crowing from the high ground?

because the quotient of the ratio between the pyramids is a different value altogether. 

[Ahatmose]

8 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Care to tell us the important of that quotient then rather than crowing from the high ground?

because the quotient of the ratio between the pyramids is a different value altogether. 

Base of G1 is 9069 inches

Base of north side of G2 is 8471.9

1/2 base of G1 is 4534.5

8471.9 / 4534.5 = 1.8683

I know only correct to 1.868601 /  1.868321 = 0.9999 (rounded)

LOL ... give it break and read the thread.

Totally ridiculous how this thread gets derailed over the silliest arguments. How many posts wasted over what a ratio is. ... simply sad, very, very sad.

Arlen Specter would be proud of you.

 

Edited June 12, 2018 by Ahatmose

[Ozymandias]

1 hour ago, Ahatmose said:

Almost correct ... the ratio between perimeter and and the two circles will always be the same and it is this fact that allowed me to help Gary Osborn prove his theory on the speed of light being encoded at Giza ... HOWEVER it is only this configuration, that is the one I have shown,  that leads to the outer red circumference when divided by sq rt of 3 giving us the 0.90689968... ratio.

Cheers

I have to give you that, Ahatmose. 9069/20.62 nearly equals 440 cubits, the side of the Great Pyramid.  !!

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

No, you’re measuring different quantities again, half a base versus the base of the north side.

Why didvyuo decidevto halve the G1? Why not use its north face value? Why not half the G2? Why not all of the G1 to all of the G2? You’re arbitrarily picking numbers and finding arcane meanings in those numbers that ONLY work in a base 10 counting system and ONLY if you possess a 21st century understanding of planetary dynamics. AND possess a conceptualisation of both zero and decimal numbers. 

For the record, the first recorded reference to a figure equating to a “null value” like zero was in Mesopotamia in the 3rd century AD and the decimal point in the 1600s (also AD).

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

In effect, you’re equations are beautiful works of mathematics, be proud of that. The problem is they’re not applicable to ancient Egypt. You’ve found a series of wonderful coincidences. But history is littered with conincidences.

the Egyptians believed the sun went around the Earth and was rolled by a scarab. Did they conceive of other planets? Kenemet? Kit sheesh??

thry didn’t possess a concept of a mathematical zero.

they didn’t possess the concept of a decimal point.

they could not have known about any more than the five visible to the nsjee eye planets because they didn’t possess telescopes.

yuor use of mathematics while elegant is also arbitrarily not comparing equivalents, but rather massaging the factors in order to get the desired equation.

[Ahatmose]

2 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

No, you’re measuring different quantities again, half a base versus the base of the north side.

Why didvyuo decidevto halve the G1? Why not use its north face value? Why not half the G2? Why not all of the G1 to all of the G2? You’re arbitrarily picking numbers and finding arcane meanings in those numbers that ONLY work in a base 10 counting system and ONLY if you possess a 21st century understanding of planetary dynamics. AND possess a conceptualisation of both zero and decimal numbers. 

For the record, the first recorded reference to a figure equating to a “null value” like zero was in Mesopotamia in the 3rd century AD and the decimal point in the 1600s (also AD).

Oh come on and get real ... I have always maintained  Mercury was half the base of G1 ... It appears obvious now you are just trying to be disruptive and unless you ask some reasonable questions that have not been answered before ... well General Zod will know what to do

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Just now, Ahatmose said:

Oh come on and get real ... I have always maintained  Mercury was half the base of G1 ... It appears obvious now you are just trying to be disruptive and unless you ask some reasonable questions that have not been answered before ... well General Zod will know what to do

Why half? If you’re mystically encoding things into thr pyramids why not the whole base?