It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: AthlonSavage
a reply to: Harte
They had the mathematics ability of division and multiplication because They would need it to be able to create measurement scales and the ability to not only create, the scales but to use them, and convert from one scale to next. You need scales when building just like the would use a sun dial to measure angle of sun from length of shadow. They fully understood angles and scales.
Of course division is actually only a form of multiplication
1 lot of Unit A = 2 lots of Unit B
Halve of B = Unit A
or alternatively twice of Unit A equates to Unit B.
Of course they understood the principal of multiplication and division, and anyone with analytical capability who understands the principals needs will be capable of multiply or subdivide. Hey but people should believe what ever they feel most comfortable with, but for me its not the main stream taught ideas.
In mathematics, ancient Egyptian multiplication (also known as Egyptian multiplication, Ethiopian multiplication, Russian multiplication, or peasant multiplication), one of two multiplication methods used by scribes, was a systematic method for multiplying two numbers that does not require the multiplication table, only the ability to multiply and divide by 2, and to add. It decomposes one of the multiplicands (generally the larger) into a sum of powers of two and creates a table of doublings of the second multiplicand. This method may be called mediation and duplation, where mediation means halving one number and duplation means doubling the other number. It is still used in some areas.
originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
Picking up on what Hanslune said much earlier in this thread:
Why would they build a pyramid to represent the positions of the Earth and Mercury, but then leave Mars and Venus plotted over empty dirt?
LOL Classic misdirection I have already stated that this is an early image I thought was possible but deemed it wrong very early in my research, You and Harte are being totally dishonest.
originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
You posted that 10 days ago, so how is commenting on it being "totally dishonest"???
originally posted by: Ahatmose
He has read this website yet still he lies about this image . Oh well I guess that is all the argument he has got to use.
As I said totally dishonest bordering on outright lying.
.
LOL Classic misdirection
The White Crown goes forth, having swallowed the Great One, the tongue of the White Crown gulped down the Great One, but the tongue was not seen.
originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
originally posted by: Ahatmose
He has read this website yet still he lies about this image . Oh well I guess that is all the argument he has got to use.
As I said totally dishonest bordering on outright lying.
.
LOL, OP your theory isn't worth doggy-doo. Did you not take into any consideration that the Giza plateau is not a flat, planar surface? How can any of your dimensions be remotely accurate, when one considers the elevation changes between Menkaure's pyramid and Khufu's?
You show these dimensions on a perfectly flat 2D model. There is nearly a 15-20 M elevation change between Menkaure's and Khufu's.
The GPMP rendered wire frame models help illustrate changes in heights between pyramids.
Wireframe Topo map
Giza model
In this thread and on your site, ALL of your measurements do not take into any account elevation changes, rendering them all inaccurate.
originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: Ahatmose
Then you know perfectly well that the horizontal distance between each of these points is not the actual distance, when taking into account vertical rise or fall in terrain. You want us to believe the Egyptians built this "solar system model," in 3D, but somehow decided to show these orbital ratios strictly in 2D in plan only.
The mere fact you chose to ignore these actual distances is enough to regard your "theory" as devoid in any factual basis.
LOL When they measure a street with a very large incline do you seriously think they put down on the map the slope distance ? Surely you can't be that stupid ?
originally posted by: Harte
originally posted by: AthlonSavage
After doing the calculations it could be Pi or Phi or 7/11.
If they had the mind to calculate a accurately a 7/11 base and height ratio on 3D object that's actually shows a clear comprehension of ratios, and fractions and the analogy of C/R = number would of clearly crossed their minds. The general viewpoint taken by skeptics is because they didn't find Pi written down anywhere therefore they didn't know bout it. I think their is enough evidence displayed in the ingenious geometry constructed to indicate they were aware of the ratio C/R = number.
The problem with this is that the Egyptians never considered their ratios as fractions, or even ratios.
The only "fractions" they knew were parts of whole, such as seven palms per single cubit. They had no mathematical system for doing operations with fractions in general.
Harte
originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
LOL When they measure a street with a very large incline do you seriously think they put down on the map the slope distance ? Surely you can't be that stupid ?
You are the one who previously in this thread calculated to 20 decimal places the distance between two of these points on the plateau. Now you say the slope between two such points is "no big deal."
That speaks volumes about the ridiculousness of your "theory."