Ancient and Archaeology听 permalink
Removed
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.听
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 2
Posted by Hossam-Aboulfotouh (U2914961) on Saturday, 24th November 2007
In fact "King Philip" the father of Alexander, was in love with the Egyptian civilization; his contribution made it easy for us to understand who built the Giza pyramids and why they did it?
Some still speak about, who built the Giza pyramids, and about their race and color, without understanding meaning of the term "Copt".Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 3
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 24th November 2007
As a Greek I have an additional advantage of having an insight in the world of Eastern Mediterranean that others do not have - though others might say that I am also somehow more biased (personally I can turn that accusation very easily). Here I have fought for the term Copt and its prevalence in our discussions.
Persians, Greeks and Romans were the people that conquered Egypt but despite the whatever social injustices they largely respected and even loved Egyptian culture and religion. Hence, the Egptian nation with the same language and customs throughout the Hellenistic and Roman period, having changed its religion to christian along with much of the rest of the Empire (though with a lot of egyptian colour) up to the conquest of muslims. The muslim conquest was based as elsewhere largely on the traditional muslim tactic of offering freedom to lower classes and even official posts to local aristocrats that changed their religion to islam. Hence, progressively a great part of Egyptians became muslims and integrated. Another part remained christians and these they were known with their national name Copts (i.e. Egyptians). Due to the prevalence of muslims in the region, Copts numbers dwindled over the centuries. However, as some Egyptian (muslim) politician that I do not remember now, had said, there are no Copts and muslims. We are all Copts, christian Copts and muslim Copts. And I tend to believe he is quite right. I mean the same happened more or less in the Greek regions were a large number of Greeks became muslims and thus much later were renamed as Turks and nowadays people come to us and say "oh you Greeks and Turks look very similar..."... well we do not look like Jenkis Han or Timour Lan isn't it?
Hence, I understand very well who is a Copt.
What I did not understand is your comment about Philip the father of Alexander. We all know the love of Alexander for Egypt but we have never examined the interest of his father.
For the link, unfortunately it does not provide details. I would be interested in reading your text though, despite the fact that I am practically in no position to understand.Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 4
Posted by Hossam-Aboulfotouh (U2914961) on Saturday, 24th November 2007
Copt, Gypt and Egyptians are equal, and indicate the same thing, which means the people of Egypt, and none of them has any relation with any religion. The first is the Arabic pronunciation for the latter two words. Most important to know when that term was first introduced in our country.
Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 5
Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Saturday, 24th November 2007
I agree with E_Nikolaos_E when he says
the link, unfortunately does not provide details.听
In the abstract of your paper you say that it
..proves that the pyramids鈥 designer was able to include the geographic, astronomical and time parameters in one relativistic equation, encoding the date of the design of the Giza pyramids in the tilt of the entrance passage of the great pyramid.听
Can you give us this equation here and some details of its application, please.Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 6
Posted by Hossam-Aboulfotouh (U2914961) on Saturday, 24th November 2007
This paper would show you that the mental and the analytic abilities of the human minds do not change from time to time; there is only one law for creation; the man that was living on earth 5000 years ago did thought about
the concept of relativity, the same way as what Albert Einstein and others did. But, in that time, light and energy were not part of his equations. However, he was able to understand the prim law of life (motion) in our cosmos, that he concluded it in a diagrammatic form, the so-called the Ankh key. The paper show you the idea of constructing that diagram and how he used it to get the relativistic eqations for pyramids design. Sorry, this board, do not support the writing of equations particularly that include the Greek letters, you can find the equations in the paper. The seven relativistic equation in the paper show you every thing about the pyramids design, that you can use any where on earth at any time and also at any other planet too.Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 7
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 24th November 2007
The term Copt or in general the term "Egypt"?
The word Egypt comes to us from ancient Greeks that wrote the name of the country as
A I G Y P T O S (AIGYPTIOS is the man from Egypt)
Today the letter gamma (here I wrote it with G) is pronounced more softly in modern Greek (since Roman times, but it seems even as early as in 4th B.C. for some dialects) much like "French R" but back then it was pronounced more hardly like a "GK" sound, quite close also to "K" sound. The AI is pronounced as "E" in modern Greek (since 6th B.C. times) but in archaic times it was pronounced more as "A-I". Hence, in other languages the word AIGYPTOS was pronounced with relevant variation such as the term Copt.
Ancient Egyptians normally used their own descriptions for their kingdom (and actually used the basic distinction between Upper and Lower Nile). According to ancient writers, Greeks used the 'Aigyptos' term most probably as a relevant pronounciation of a word referrring to the temple of god Ptah in Memphis, a popular touristic site for Greeks, however one of them (do not remember who) had suggested the equally plausible, that Aiguptoz came from Aigeou-uptuos (i.e. down of Aegean), though this is less possible (since uptua is a word though correct, that however seems a bit strange in that sense).
In Hellenistic and Roman times, many Egyptians and especially the hellenistic aristocracy stuck with the 'Egypt' term and thus self-described themselves as Copts. Hence by the 7th century when muslims enterred Egypt, the word Copt was the general term in use for Egyptians by themselves.
It has to be noted that for Arabs and Middle Easterners, the main word was not Egypt but Misour or something like that (in the Ottoman times, the Turks called it Misri or Misiri or Misouri).
Now, since the religion of islam (like early christianity) had an international message it provided with the division of the local population into the Egyptian muslims who were simply names as muslims and the rest (mainly christians or other) who were simply termed as Copts by their national name (but that should not hinder us from realising that the bulk of local muslims were basically ethnically Copts). It also has to be noted that even muslim Egyptians despite the adoption of the Arabic language and the prevalence of a Turkic aristocracy (the Mameluks) they never felt exactly 100% as Arabs - we have for example an Egyptian writer of the 13th century that stressed the continuity of civilisation in the land of Egypt etc.
"Most important to know when that term was first introduced in our country."
However I do not understand to what exactly you refer. To the term 'Aigyptos' made by Greeks at the latest in archaic times and generalised later on? Or to the division between muslim Egyptians and christian ones that remained with the term Copt (that happened from the 7th century and onwards)?Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 8
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 24th November 2007
I am also of the very same view that since Homo Sapiens exists for the last 250,000 years and is using proper language and thus its accompagnied gained mental capacity for at least the last 100,000 years, there were numerous times in this very long history that at hotspots of civilisation there were people in position to capture in their imagination and in their logic the very same things that we (re)captured ages later in our modern times (that commence practically with the (re)discovery of the Americas).
The theory of relativity was visioned by Einstein and many others years before they started publishing about it and that was years before they proved it mathematically (thus scientifically) correct.
There are many many things said and written in ancient texts that show an advanced understanding of the world. Democritos used to talk about atoms without having seen them, Embedoklis used to talk about things that uncunnily sound like DNA (talking even about its compounds!) and Darwinian theories. It is all too striking not to pay attention to or dismiss.
Hence it would not sound strange to me if the architects of the pyramids had built them on certain principles whose knowledge was later lost and rediscovered in our times.
People sometimes find it tiring all these comments about the details of ancient buildings - their orientation in relation to the celestial bodies, their symbolisms and all that since it usually attracts many mumbo-jumbo-crystal-worshipping-new-agers but then at the end of the day these are things most important in our knowledge of these constructions and the way they were conceived and built. For example, a more monitored building like the Parthenon (built by known architects, in a given time for which we have plenty of details) has so many details that seem to pass in the background like the fact that the whole building has no straight lines (despite apparences), that it was built on the ration of 1,64something which is the "ratio of beauty" or the "natural ratio" since is the mathematical ratio that plants follow for their leafes or the fact that the two edge columns are a bit more thick - actually precisely more thick so as to look in the eye exactly the same when the average mediterranean daylight is behind them (since in the edges there is no wall behind, but the sunlight).
The problem is how do we establish the relation between the theory of relativity and the pyramids? I would be curious to read details.Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 9
Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Saturday, 24th November 2007
Sorry, this board, do not support the writing of equations particularly that include the Greek letters, ..听
Do you mean alpha, beta, rho, theta, omega, etc? If you are that clever you can get round the limitations of this board.
The paper show you the idea .... you can find the equations in the paper.听
All a bit pointless, isn't it? We can't access the paper.
... he was able to understand the prime law of life (motion) in our cosmos ..听
Motion is an observable phenomenon, not a physical law. Motion is itself governed by physical laws. Can you explain what role relativity plays in a civil engineering context, the context in which the building of the pyramids was effected. On the small scale level of civil engineering why should a builder need to concern himself with relativistic effects that only become important on the greater scale of the universe? Why won't classical mechanics serve perfectly adequately when constructing a building?Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 10
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Sunday, 25th November 2007
There seems little doubt that ancient man was as intelligent (or moreso) than modern man but there is no evidence that he had as much knowledge. How would it have even been possible to develope complicated learning without writing to give individuals a headstart on learning?
It took 40,000 years of language before writing was invented. If people had so much learning why didn't anyone think of writing? Surely the cave drawings aren't just grocery lists for Igor from the mrs.
No. Man developed on largely a straught line with and we tend to mistake the wonders of life as intelligence and this has always been so.Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 11
Posted by Hossam-Aboulfotouh (U2914961) on Sunday, 25th November 2007
Misr is the oldest name of our country, based on the name of the King Misraiem the first, befor the pyramids era.
But Egypt, was based on the name of the King Gyptem, who came in a latter period.
During, the kingdom of the giants tribale group (the term has no relation with the size of the human body), the name of our country became Misr again, and after the giants, it became Egypt again.
These are the only two famuse names for our country, taking into consideration that Egypt primerly refers to the Nile Delta, whose Governance system cotroled the rest of the land of the kingdom, i.e., the original land of Misr.Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 12
Posted by Hossam-Aboulfotouh (U2914961) on Sunday, 25th November 2007
Civil engineering and pyramids construction, are outside the scope of the paper; the paper speaks about the architectonic design of all the pyramids of the fourth dynasty. When one orders a copy of that International Journal, (Vol 7, No 1), one will see that designing a pyramid for the 2007 AD is different than doing it for 3070BC, also it shows you that the latitude where the pyramid would be located affects its design too. Here we are speaking about a frame of reference for both time and location on earth or on any other planet. In short, the inputs in the equations to design a pyramid in Egypt, now, is different than doing it in South Africa for example.
Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 13
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 26th November 2007
Civil engineering and pyramids construction, are outside the scope of the paper
听
Read: Stop asking me hard questions.
... the paper speaks about the architectonic design of all the pyramids of the fourth dynasty
听
Read: Ask me ones that I can waffle about instead.
When one orders a copy of that International Journal, (Vol 7, No 1)...
听
Read: In fact pay my mates some money before you ask me anything.
... one will see that designing a pyramid for the 2007 AD is different than doing it for 3070BC
听
Read: What with the laws of motion having changed so much in the interim (and if you wish to question that opinion I refer you to the points made above)
... also it shows you that the latitude where the pyramid would be located affects its design too.
听
Read: What with the laws of latitude being different depending on where you're standing (and if you wish to question ... well, you know what I'll say next)
Here we are speaking about a frame of reference for both time and location on earth or on any other planet. In short, the inputs in the equations to design a pyramid in Egypt, now, is different than doing it in South Africa for example.
听
Read: In short, you see?Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 14
Posted by Hossam-Aboulfotouh (U2914961) on Monday, 26th November 2007
Nordmman's reflection images
Read: very old mirror, try new one.Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 15
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 26th November 2007
Hossam-Aboulfotouh's attempt to make a few bob:
Read: Very old scam, try new one.Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 16
Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Monday, 26th November 2007
Civil engineering and pyramids construction, are outside the scope of the paper; ..听
They cannot be since you go on to say that
... the paper speaks about the architectonic design of all the pyramids of the fourth dynasty. 听
I think Nordmann is right - this is just a scam to buy your article/journal.
When one orders a copy of that International Journal, (Vol 7, No 1), one will see that designing a pyramid for the 2007 AD is different than doing it for 3070BC,..听
Same pyramid, same design: the only difference might be the means, the method and the materials of construction. This has nothing to do with relativity.
... the latitude where the pyramid would be located affects its design too. ..听
How can one's position north or south of the equator effect the physical design of a building? You must be claiming that you know the mind of the builders which is an old game played by many from Eric von Daniken to David Eicke. I think you must be going further and imputing to the designers/builders 20th century knowledge of relativistic effects, and you must be doing this by extrapolating from the pyramids' structural designs and their position on the globe. Or are there Special and General Relativity papers written on papyrus from the 4th Dynasty? Was Einstein guilty of plagiarism?
The reason I speculate so much is obvious - you are not forthcoming with any information and you are wasting peoples' (and my) time coming here with your unsubstantiated claims. You must think I am a right eejit if you expect me to order a copy of Vol 7, No 1 'of that International Journal'!Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 17
Posted by Hossam-Aboulfotouh (U2914961) on Monday, 26th November 2007
Nordmann's true signal:
read: scepticism, is a good way to start a dialogue of the fourth order.Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 18
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Monday, 26th November 2007
But surely they are all fitted with Firth Brown gear boxes? And the delux velour seat covers so beloved of the pharos and pikeys.
I think you cannot have the knowledge you claim to if in any of your posts or articles there is not even the slightest mention of the lucas lighting system!Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 19
Posted by Hossam-Aboulfotouh (U2914961) on Monday, 26th November 2007
In the branch of Civil engineering we calculate the loads and the stress in all parts of the building under consideration, based on its geometry and weight of building materials; and design the cross sections of all of its carrying elements, in order to ensure the safety of that building during and after construction.
In the branch of construction engineering, " or building construction" we design the methods of erections, using different building materials, stones, bricks, wood, steel, concrete, tents, cables, etc., in addition to the materials for interior designs, sanitation, lightings, etc.
The above is not the scope of the paper. It is on astro-geometrical design of the pyramids, using the principle of relativity, the ancient Egyptian approach for understanding the principle of relativity. So, do not mix it with the approach of these days, i.e., its applications. And I did not say any thing about the general relativity.
As known, most scientific journals, do not give free access to their published articles, and the authors are not allowed to put free version of their papers at their web sites, particularly during the period of publishing the paper prints.
But, if one asked me, what would be the dimensions, surface inclination, and entrance tilt of a pyramid that to be located at any latitude, north or south, on Earth or Mars now, for example, I will run the calculations and tell him, taking into consideration that there are two limits (maximum latitude degrees) for locating a pyramid.
That has no relation with the type of building material or construction technique he will use to erect the pyramid.Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 20
Posted by Rosamund (U10213224) on Tuesday, 27th November 2007
You mention Mars. Do you think, sir, that Man *will* ever again produce such magnificent erections outside (or indeed inside) the Solar System?
(Please forgive a mere woman intruding on this debate, but did not the Prophet say a truly humble woman may sit at the feet of a Master and learn?)Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 21
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 27th November 2007
... taking into consideration that there are two limits (maximum latitude degrees) for locating a pyramid.
听
Says who? Can't Norwegians build one if they want? Or Melbournians? (God knows both could do with one)
Is Mars not outside the maximum latitude degree limits then?
How's the bank account going since you started traipsing around history sites publicising the mag?Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 22
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 27th November 2007
Hi Nordmann,
Can't Norwegians build one if they want听
Come on Nordmann, we both know that the Norwegians would probably make it out of ice, wood and reindeer, and beat each with birch-twigs whilst using it as a sauna.
You might want to have a look at Hossam's website "Architectonics - From Cosmic Theories to Urban Development":
I know it's badly designed, but once you're eyes get adjusted to the nightmarish colour scheme, some of it's really, really funny reading. Apart from the erratic use of capitals in the title, I especially like the new addition entitled "The planning model of the ancient Egyptian Atlantis In the Nile delta":
Abstract:
The primary objective of this paper is to prove that the geographic domain of Atlantis kingdom is the Nile Delta; and the remaining lands of the banks of the river Nile, nearly till the current south border of Egypt, was part of this kingdom, forming the ancient Egypt at the time when Atlas was ruling it...听
Cheers,
RFLink to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 23
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 27th November 2007
What scares me is that it says he's in the Architects Union back home. I mean, imagine some poor sod who just wants a little bathroom extension to his Cairo suburban two-up two-down. He rings the first number he finds in the Yellow Pages and along comes the builder, flanked on one side by Albert Einstein in a Cleopatra wig and on the other by a terminal disseminator holding a slide rule, a walkman playing eternal music of the spheres, and a cash register.
It explains a lot about Egyptian toilets that I encountered in any case!Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 24
Posted by Rosamund (U10213224) on Tuesday, 27th November 2007
Hope the Princess of Wales never met him.
Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 25
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 27th November 2007
Might explain a lot about her as well if she did!
Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 26
Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Tuesday, 27th November 2007
Hossam,
I am surprised, and left wondering, why you did not offer me the following link to your website containing the mathematics of your theories. [ I must thank RainbowFfolly (Davros) for that instead. Out of interest I went through it all and was struck by the dependence of your argument on mathematical accuracy (about which you seem to be rather cavalier) and the importance of the numbers 746 and 77.09. Let me explain. All your calculations involve the relationship between the locations within what you call 鈥榯he horizon of Giza pyramids鈥 and you say
鈥 the horizon of Giza pyramids has seven basic elements, which are the three pyramids, the Sphinx, the causeway and two temples. .. Based on studying the exact locations of the three pyramids and the sphinx, 鈥 Through a long process of trial and error, we found that the radius of this horizon equals 746m 鈥 presuming that an imaginary obelisk (746m-height) was standing at the center of the horizon, 鈥μ
But your defined horizon excludes the Sphinx and you do not explain how you arrived at the value of 746m as the radius of this restricted horizon despite the fact that ALL subsequent calculations depend upon this introduced value. You do imply that all your calculations relate to an imaginary obelisk 746m high (nearly half a mile high!) standing at the centre of your horizon complex. No other value 鈥 not 745, nor 747, nor any other 鈥 will do at all. Your first calculation, L1 = 746/tan(thetaV) = 430.07m, illustrates this. The length 430.07m is the distance from the centre of your circular horizon to the centre of the Great Pyramid. Correct, but only thanks to 746.
Your next calculation 鈥 tan(thetaS) = 746/77.09 = 9.6767 鈥 introduces another number, 77.09, whose arrival is accompanied by the announcement that
77.09m (it was measured from a survey map and corrected through trial and error 鈥μ
In any case the result is not 9.6767. However, I believe this must be a typo for 9.677 which is the tan of the angle 84.1degs as you go on to state.
All further calculations are repeatedly qualified by the use of the word 鈥榓pproximately鈥 which undermines your assertion that this pyramid complex was begun in 3053BC based on the following calculation:
From 84.1deg you subtract 60deg to get the angle of obliquity = 24.1deg which differs from today鈥檚 value of 23.44deg. Based on an annual rate of change of this angle of 0.47 of a second of arc per year you say the date that construction commenced is: [(23.44 鈥 24.1)*60*60]/0.47 = [(0.66)*60*60]/0.47 = 2376/0.47 = 5055 years before the present = 3053BC (presumably, the paper was written in 2002).
In the foregoing calculation the 24.1 depends on the 84.1 which in turn depends on two unexplained numbers: 746, the radius in metres of pyramid horizon (or the half-mile high imaginary obelisk) and the number 77.09 both of which you say are the result of trial and error鈥. Are you massaging numbers to suit your theory?
Having said all that the paper I read was interesting as a mathematical game but you have not proved that the ancient Egyptians
.. set the positions of the three pyramids in the horizon of Giza plateau to encode three astronomical information concerning the daily motion of the sun on specific year ..听
And certainly not 3053BC.
Finally, and incidentally, you use two values for the angle of obliquity; 24.1deg in the text and 24.3deg on the diagram in Figure 4. Your 746 seems to be related to the 24.3 value as follows: 746 = L3/sin(epsilon) = 306.99/sin(24.3deg).
Despite these mathematical manipulations how can you say that you have proven that all this was actually in the mind of the designers/builders. There is no evidence that Egyptians knew trigonometry as a calculating tool or that they were aware of the fundamental trigonometric ratios of sine, cosine and tangent. These ratios will arise naturally in any regular construction whether the builders use, or know, trigonometry or not.
Still, I enjoyed reading this article.
However, your website did not convince me of there being any connection between relativity and pyramid building.Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 27
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 27th November 2007
It always amazes me that the ancient Egyptians are claimed to know things like this, and supposedly went to massive expense to build pyramids encoding the data yet never thought to carve it on a wall somewhere. That's really not very flattering of their intelligence. I just can't imagine why they'd do this: "Hi, my names Rameses and I've discovered relativity. It's so important to leave this idea for posterity that I'll design a pyramid to record the data, but I'll do it in a way whish is really hard to discover." It just doesn't make sense.
Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 28
Posted by Hossam-Aboulfotouh (U2914961) on Tuesday, 27th November 2007
Nordmann's wet image:
read: observing the design of toilets is better than observing the design of pyramids; it seems that toilets make some historians more happy.Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 29
Posted by Hossam-Aboulfotouh (U2914961) on Tuesday, 27th November 2007
Some like to speak too on the role of man, i.e., the architect, in the middle of nowhere, outside the solar system. Did we finish the talk about his role on earth?
Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 30
Posted by Hossam-Aboulfotouh (U2914961) on Tuesday, 27th November 2007
Mick,
Read the horizon theory part-2 at this link
and read also the law of numbers and the law of the music of the spheres from the paper at this link:
and then we can continue on why the number 746?Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 31
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 27th November 2007
God love you Mick.
Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 32
Posted by Hossam-Aboulfotouh (U2914961) on Tuesday, 27th November 2007
The maximum latitude for locating a pyramid on earth is 68.327 degrees north or south of the equator.
Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 33
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Tuesday, 27th November 2007
Pyramints! I thought we were talking about the Austen Allegro?
No, theres no secret about the pyramids. Well, there might be if your not an initiate.Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 34
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 28th November 2007
The maximum latitude for locating a pyramid on earth is 68.327 degrees north or south of the equator.
听
Since I don't believe there's much call for pyramids in Northern Siberia, Greenland, the Canadian Tundra regions, the North Pole, or the Antartic, I suppose there's a kind of fuzzy logic to your "rule".
Fortunately your "rule" covers just about every bit of habitable land on the planet with accessible stone. Phew!Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 35
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 28th November 2007
observing the design of toilets is better than observing the design of pyramids听
Too right. Good sanitation keeps people alive - it is part of the bedrock of civilization. What do pyramids do for us, other than entertainment? Nothing. I doubt I'd go on holiday to look at toilets, but I don't need a pyramid every few hours.
Give me a civilization which builds toilets before pyramids any day.Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 36
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 28th November 2007
And a much more exacting science, I would say. Any old eejit can pile a lump if stones in a mound with straightish edges, but place the U-bend too high up on the main effluent pipe behind the toilet bowl and you'll soon see the value of an elementary knowledge of the laws of physics!
(I'll resist referring to hassouf's law of "motion" just to get a cheap laugh)
(no, on second thoughts - it was such a stupid claim - "the law of motion" - that I'll do it anyway)Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 37
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 28th November 2007
Apologies Hossam, I had you down as a Hassouf. It's the law of senility, you know, which unfortunately applies regardless of latitude (a commodity your claims require a great deal of, I think, in the credibility department).
Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 38
Posted by Rosamund (U10213224) on Wednesday, 28th November 2007
Nordmann,
You can mock, but I'm beginning to think the man's a genius. His Section 4 on the shaft and entry design is amazing. Such a clear exposition. All a bit much for me to take in at my age, I must admit, but still fascinating.
I like the poem, too.Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 39
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Wednesday, 28th November 2007
So where does the Allegro fit into all of this?
In any event your all wrong the pyramids are infact large stockpiles of stone gathered by the eygptians in case of shortages.
Apart from the little one. that was the worlds first mcdonalds.Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 40
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 28th November 2007
<quote>
His Section 4 on the shaft and entry design is amazing.
<quote>
Yes, but it is overly ornate. My version (based on the hieroglyphics by the entrance, and from personal experience) is much easier to follow:
1. Open door to shaft.
2. Go in.
3. Mind your head, bloody low ceiling in there!Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 41
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 28th November 2007
Did you like my visual representation of the relative sizes of the shaft sections as seen from the doorway in my last post?
I think I shall call it my "shaft theory of relativity" (since the term can mean anything these days, apparently. Einstein should have patented it).Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 42
Posted by Rosamund (U10213224) on Wednesday, 28th November 2007
Nordmann,
An approach sadly lacking in subtlety and finesse, I fear. You have much to learn from the young Egyptian master.Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 43
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 28th November 2007
And he has much to learn about warning people to duck.
And toilets, come to think of it.
And probably toilet ducks, when all comes down to all.Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 44
Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Wednesday, 28th November 2007
Hossam, you said:
Mick,
Read the horizon theory part-2 鈥nd read also the law of numbers and the law of the music of the spheres 鈥 and then we can continue on why the number 746听
I did and none of it answers my questions. It does not even mention the number 746. I won鈥檛 be reading any more of your speculations. I have given you the benefit of the doubt and you have not done me the courtesy of answering me on this forum. I am with Cloudj when he says:
It always amazes me that the ancient Egyptians are claimed to know things like this, and supposedly went to massive expense to build pyramids encoding the data yet never thought to carve it on a wall somewhere. 听
I have already stated that:
Despite these mathematical manipulations how can you say that you have proven that all this was actually in the mind of the designers/builders. There is no evidence that Egyptians knew trigonometry as a calculating tool or that they were aware of the fundamental trigonometric ratios of sine, cosine and tangent. These ratios will arise naturally in any regular construction whether the builders use, or know, trigonometry or not.听
Alexander Thom and others have engaged in this kind of mathematical speculation based on selected points at various ancient monuments in Britain and elsewhere. The idea that ancient man, Egyptian or otherwise, understood and used trigonometry has not yet been proven by anybody, never mind higher maths or relativity!
Unless you can prove to me here on this history board that the ancient Egyptians knew of, and used, the mathematics you seem to ascribe to them then there is no need of further discussion. The maths is interesting in itself but I take issue with your original claim that
..the paper; it shows the relativistic analytic approach of the pyramids designers of the three pyramids in Giza plateau as well as the Red and the Bent pyramids in Dahshur; as the designs of these five pyramids follow the same relativistic theory (showing the seven basic but relativistic mathematical equations for pyramids design); the ancient model of relativity.听
I built my own wooden garden shed a couple of years ago with nothing but my two hands and the materials in front of me. The only calculations I made were to estimate the amount of the materials I required. Although I made measurements I did not use trigonometry, number theory or any other higher form of maths, and yet I am confident that there are enough locations (points) on, around and within the structure to base a theory that I encoded 鈥榮pecial鈥 information into the shed for the good of posterity. I will let you have the benefit of this knowledge in due course (I need to go back and take some measurements first).Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 45
Posted by Hossam-Aboulfotouh (U2914961) on Wednesday, 28th November 2007
Nordmann鈥檚 brain infection;
Brain scan result: something unknown resides in the left side of the brain.
Ultrasonic results: the same thing but we hear some odd signals.
Philosophical description of that case from Plato鈥檚 Timaeus:
".. But when reason is concerned with the rational and the circle of the same moving smoothly declares it, then intelligence and knowledge are necessarily perfected. And if any one affirms that in which these two are found to be other than the soul, he will say the very opposite of the truth. "
The result of concentration test: he is not able to observe his mistakes, even with the help of others.
The main causes of minimum level of concentration as defined by Al-Jahiz, in the book of "The Animal", staying for ten days in a toilet without fresh air.
Meeting such a case in life is rare and indeed a moment that includes drama and comedy in the same time, particularly, when one believes wrongly in his ability to understand the true history of the Egyptian Civilization better than the one who have direct and continues access to its original sources. The funniest thing, he supports in indirect way the naive opinion of some posters who we can read his post as: Herodotus did miss the opportunity to entertain some demanders, because he died before writing on the relation between civilizations and the Kings toilets.
he said he is a historian, but because he was infected, if you analyze the way he responds to such post particularly that includes some geometry or math, it give you an idea about how he read the term history; he observes it from right to left: "Yrotsih鈥." His answer to my next question will show you his ability in the field that he mostly likes and do not want any one to speak on subjects other than that he thinks he knows better than any body on earth. We will see; the subject is not difficult, and would show us to what extent his brain was infected by the unknown. To him I say, do remember you are meeting a man from the Canton of Sais.
Tell me what is the birth day of Moses?
If you are not able to answer that I can give a better one
Nordmann, welcome to my Horizon.Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 46
Posted by Hossam-Aboulfotouh (U2914961) on Wednesday, 28th November 2007
Mick;
Is it possible that you mention here what is your scientific field or background: Engineering, Physics, Mathematics, etc?Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 47
Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Wednesday, 28th November 2007
I have third level and post-graduate qualifications in arts (specialising in history) and in science (specialising in engineering). I make my living teaching engineering but my abiding passion is history. Had I been able to earn a crust making a career in history I would have. Alas, I had to jump horses and qualify in a discipline (science/engineering) that allowed me to earn a decent living.
Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 48
Posted by Hossam-Aboulfotouh (U2914961) on Wednesday, 28th November 2007
Mick,
The number 746 is mentioned in section-3 in my paper on the horizon theory part-iiLink to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 49
Posted by Mick_mac (U2874010) on Wednesday, 28th November 2007
The number 746 is mentioned in section-3 in my paper on the horizon theory part-ii 听
Indeed it is, but all you say is:
the author proved in part-I that the radius of the horizon of the site plan of Giza pyramids plateau equals 746m 鈥 听
You proved nothing of the kind. In Part 1 the only thing you said about 746 was that:
鈥 Through long process of trial and error, we found that the radius of this horizon equals 746m 鈥 听
You just introduced the number 746 as above and went on to use it in all your subsequent calculations, directly or indirectly. In scientific terms you pulled the number out of a hat! All of the mathematical content of this paper stands upon this number which you arrived at through 鈥榯rial and error鈥. There is no proof of anything. A radius of 746m drawn on the desert at Giza is totally arbitrary. Why not 745m or 743, or any other radius?
You keep referring readers from one paper to the other in a circular argument. None of it is founded on empirical proof which is the foundation stone of all science and the scientific method.Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
-
Message 50
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 28th November 2007
Nordmann, welcome to my Horizon.
听
Nah, you can keep it. And your whole planet as well.Link to this forum: Giza Pyramids & the Theory of Relativity
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 听to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
主播大秀 iD
主播大秀 navigation
主播大秀 links
主播大秀 漏 2014 The 主播大秀 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.