Proof Builders of the Great Pyramid had access to a modern computer

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 


oh holy hell. go back and re-read greenglass' first response.

the 'e' that shows up on your (totally ridiculous and unjustified) calculation IS NOT the 'e' as in Euler's constant. the e-13 in your solution translates directly to 1x10^-13. please take a look at the heading "E notation" from the wiki on scientific notation.

it has this to say:


Note that in this usage the character e is not related to the mathematical constant e or the exponential function e^x.



green door was being nice. you ignored him. YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOURE DOING.




posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 01:30 AM
link   
the expression for e i have been working with is explained in my Op. An explanation is also provided at

en.wikipedia.org...(mathematical_constant)

Your reply is very animated and i do apologise if i didnt read his reply in the detail it may deserve as im busy getting ready to go out right now.

I will look into it when i get back. Mabey hes right and then mabeys hes not. Please remember this is thread to examine an idea. If it turns out to be wrong its wrong, but being animated




YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOURE DOING.


will only make me ignore every other post you make.
edit on 1-3-2013 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 


look man. I am not trying to be mean (animated). but you were politely corrected once and arrogantly responded that anyone that tries to dismiss this....you care NOT. such arrogance always deserves a smackdown.

I am glad you're excited about numbers and mathematics. I am too. and I have gone down many dead-ends such as yours here. but you cannot justify your tan, tanh functional (showing you understand neither trigonometry nor calculus) and you cannot properly interpret your solution (the 'e' mistake).

and then you go and get all arrogant about it.

good luck.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 01:55 AM
link   
The beauty of the mathematical constants of nature is that they can be derived non-calculatively by applying their definitions to the world.

For instance, do I need to know pi to draw a circle? Course not, I can use a compass, or I can hold one end of the string as my friend circles me and drags his foot in the ground. Math averted!

Do I need to know the equation of an ellipse to draw one? no, I have my two friends hold either end of the same string from before, and I drag my foot in the sand as I keep the string taut and take every point on the string to its furthest allowable postion away ( and yes, this is how the romans made ellipses). Math averted!

See, math would be irrelavent if it didn't describe our world itself.... so the Egyptians may have found a practical way to derive those measurements that didn't require much calculation, at least not what would guarantee a computer was needed.

Now don't get me wrong, the Egyptians clearly had a profound amount of knowledge about the world from certain important facts about the pyramids (especially one of those at giza, which is positioned on one of the poles of the widest great circle it is possible to circumscribe around the world, the other spot being in the Pacific somewhere- knowing that is a profound feat that can't be explained).

All of that together though, despite the pyramids being inexplicable, I don't see your proof as necessitating a computer per se.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by cody599
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 


Well the title is an oxymoron
And they knew about pi, So nothing new there,
I've seen guys with an abacus do complicated maths faster than a calculator.Great work on the OP but hardly proof.


Excellent point, as an abacus can calculate into fhe billions with only 100 beads in 10 rows of 10. This is oldschool knowledge, and comos werent needed for this, as I can do it with 100 rocks as I have 10 differnet sets of 10 differnt colors or types of stones and base 10 math. It isnt rocket science, it simply requires somone with a natural affinity for math.

Also, the pyramid isnt the size it is because of pi, it is the angle and slope it is because it ks the maximum angle achievable without the vertical weight forcing out the sides and toppling it, think about pouring sand, it achieve about a 33 degree angle before it falls down and makes about a 33 degree angle again. This is a function of gravity, nothing more.

Just for example, they tried building one at greater than 33 degrees, it was obviois it would clapse under its own bertical weight so they angled it in sharply at far less than the origonal angle to correct it before it collapsed.


edit on 1-3-2013 by inverslyproportional because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 04:50 AM
link   
The reason why i wrote this thread because out of curiosity.

I realised the pyramid stones are very accurately cut and aligned. So logically im thinking the Ancients may of made use of limit functions in their measurement accuracy system for lengths.

The TanH function a hyperbolic function Tanh(x) is zero for x = 0, and tends to 1 as x tends to infinity and to -1 as x tends to minus infinity. Therefore thinking along the lines they are using some type of limit function like this, to accurately assess the accuracy of cutting and aligning stone..

Curiosity prevailed so i placed the ratio 0.63687 to a sequence of Tan and TanH. I found a sequence of 10 calculations based on Tan TanH Tan pattern spat an answer out which expresses a sequence of numbers which make up Pi. The other ratio numbers around this didnt, i thought that was interesting.

0.1 - 4.933
0.2 - 9.8666
0.3 - 1.4800
0.4 - 1.9733
0.5 - 2.4666
0.6 - 2.9600
63687 - Pi (3.1415)
0.7 - 3.4533
0.8 - 3.9466
0.9 - 4.44
1 - 4.93

Since tanh x = (ex - e-x)/(ex + e-x) has an expression in terms of e (2.71828), then i consider placing (2.71828) through the sequence expression above. Its gives answer 1.34102.

Comparing 1.3402 value to 3.1415, im wondering if the ancient builders applied use of knowledge of e in mathematical expression to work out angles.

If 1.34102 is a points around a circle where 3.1415 = 360 degrees then 1.34102 = 76.83 degrees
If i multiply (2.71828 x 0.63687) = 1.7311. If 1.7311 is a points around a circle where 3.1415 = 360 degrees then 1.34102 = 99.188 degrees

Start comparinng angles with these angles of great pyramid and it starts to look interesting.

The 5 angles of the Great Pyramid are:
edge to edge of face at apex =76:17:13.2 (degrees - minutues - seconds),
edge to diagonal edge at apex = 96:3:0.0, dihedral or
face to face parallel to base = 112:25:39.4
edge to base = 41:59:50.5
face to base = 51:51:14.3.
edit on 1-3-2013 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 





look man. I am not trying to be mean (animated). but you were politely corrected once and arrogantly responded that anyone that tries to dismiss this....you care NOT. such arrogance always deserves a smackdown.

I am glad you're excited about numbers and mathematics. I am too. and I have gone down many dead-ends such as yours here. but you cannot justify your tan, tanh functional (showing you understand neither trigonometry nor calculus) and you cannot properly interpret your solution (the 'e' mistake).

and then you go and get all arrogant about it.

good luck with your thread i look forward to critiquing it.

good luck.



With all the mathematical geniuses who have analysed the pyramids no one seems to of cracked their mystery. So what if i turn out to totally miss? Ill just join the queue of the rest.

Yes im applying a radical approach of trig, but your trolling is not improving anyones understanding of anything. You are actually doing a great job yourself at being arrogant.

So Look man if my threads upsetting you so much why not go write your own thread, (that is if you think you can do a better job engaging posters interest in your topic).

Good luck with your thread.

edit on 1-3-2013 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 05:48 AM
link   
I wrote a post a while ago in which I proposed that the octal number base was used.




An interesting thing about the height to width ratio of the Great Pyramid is that it suggests the octal number base was used. The pyramid is stated as being 440 "cubits" wide by 280 high. In other words, the height is 0.63636 times the width.

Let's say, instead, that the width is 512 units, which is a power of two number. Using the same sized units, the height would be slightly less than 326 units. Now let's convert these decimal numbers to octal:

512 decimal = 1000 octal
326 decimal = 506 octal, which is close to a nice round 500.

So, defining the Great Pyramid as 1000 octal units wide by 500 octal units high, is within 2% of the published height to width ratio. Given that the original dimensions are not known as fact, it could be perfectly accurate, and would show octal was used.


The height to width relationship could be written as a decimal ratio of 8:5 (10:5 octal) to within 2% accuracy.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 06:29 AM
link   
What makes any one think that the ancients who built the Pyramids were stupid>?
Clearly they were as clever if not cleverer than modern day clever people. I expect that the odd genius engineer designed and built the Pyramids with plenty of help.
You dont need a computer if you are a clever person, Einstein Galileo, Aristotle Newton....blah blah blah

Seems many today think modern humanity is the peak of evolution, in my opinion we are on the down hill side.

The pyramid blocks were not cut, they were poured.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   
there's alot moer to the mathematics of the pyramids as far as I'm aware...

unfortunately I can't remember which video it was that I was watching, but it got into things about how the pyramids related to the radius/circumference of the earth, the time taken for earth to rotate 1 degree, all kinds of crazy stuff.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 


This is pretty fascinating, however math and math constants existed before calculators and computers. Calculators were invented to make doing math easier. All of the math you present does not exist because of the calculator. I guess people back then had no choice but to use their brain to figure this stuff out, whereas modern people have the luxury of modern computing which I contend has led to people de-evolving intellectually because we no longer have to think... the computer does it for us. There are exceptions to this, they are the math geniuses with PhDs and stuff, and they stand out in our society, but back then they would have been average.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 





What is your opinion of this? Do you really believe the main steam ideas of how the Great pyramid was built?


Everyone has their own opinions on questions like these.

It's a complicated tangle of whether or not one trusts accuracy of the conclusions and disclosures of the scientific mainstream all of the time, some of the time, rarely or not at all.

Add to that the certain knowledge that we nor anyone who would claim to be the mainstream have anywhere near the required answers or have discovered nearly enough to make firm conclusions on pretty much anything, apart from the blatently obvious, but rather have only ever theory and educated guesses, or what they consider as an evidence chain based on 'current' understandings, is likely to point to.

This boils down to we only really ever know as much as our last best honestly publicised and disseminated discovery, this is true in all realms of Human endevour and all of science.

My opinion is that it's entirely possible our mainstream has made many wrong assumptions about many of the ancient structures and civilisations discovered thus far, just as it's entirely possible they might have their theories almost right or absoluetly correct.

Dating monuments, studies of the peoples who built them, linear development Vs. cyclic development assumptions, levels of ancient Human intelligence, levels of control over subject populations, could all be very wrong or not.

Personal opinion, when we as the public speculate as we are, has to come into the equation, and usually equally in personal points of view and in mainstream circles, once a theory becomes dominant it is usually supported vigorously and sometimes ruthlessly defended, for various reasons - ego not being last on the list i suspect.

Copernicus and others of a similar 'maverick' or challenging mainstream personality, would have known a lot about that sort of thing in their own times, and ironically it's important to realise that without those who opposed the prevailing and believed to be correct assumptions throughout history, modern science as it is thought of today, would probably not exist at all.

The irony is of course, that science and the percieved knowledge gleaned from the scientific methods employed that lead to current established assumptions and prevailing theories, is most often used to dispell unconventional or antidogmatic thinking and ideas that brought about mainstream science and the scientific method in the first place!

With the above in mind, in answer to your question, no, while i listen to and follow science with careful interest..i don't believe science has as many answers as it tends to think and teach that it does, and in time, mavericks and visionaries will continue to challenge prevailing dogma in similar ways to Copernicus, and will show that currently we really don't know much of anything at all, including our origins, our celestial environment, our history and our potential, other than the obvious basics.

One poster asked about the whereabouts of ancient power sources for an ancient equivalent of a modern technology based computer?

I would answer that by asking if in his honest opinion, he is 100% sure if modern mainstream science would be honest enough to reveal and make public discoveries that would dismantle centuries of linear prevailing theory and turn science on it's head overnight?

And if he answers no, he is not 100% sure that such shattering honesty and disclosure would be forthcoming, how then can any of us outside of the upper echelons of the mainstream, ever be reasonably be sure such devices and associated discoveries have not already been made?

The same thinking can be applied to every aspect of mainstream dogma.

We can only make judgements on what is likely, a la Occam's razor, based on what we are exposed to and taught about...if those that are responsible for our exposure are not being completely honest, as in a situation like the thought experiment above, our 'likely hypothesis' becomes worthless as it would only ever be based on what the mainstream decide the dogma should be, as opposed to what the truth of the matter may actually be.

That only leaves what we know to be basic truths and that which we can see, touch, measure, analyse and theorise upon for ourselves, and this i feel is what the OP is doing.

The more people that display creative and independent thinking, the more 'Copernicus like' figures there will be for future generations to be grateful for.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 


I am not a mathematician.
But I am curious to know, what is the mathematical mystery that you refer to?



With all the mathematical geniuses who have analysed the pyramids no one seems to of cracked their mystery.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 09:19 AM
link   
I don't see how this would prove they had modern computers in era when the great pyramid was built. I can go in my backyard and build a pyramid without knowledge of advance mathematics. Isn't it possible to build a small pyramid and scale it up into a giant size? Couldn't the math just be an expression of the form rather than a tool in its design?



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus
I don't see how this would prove they had modern computers in era when the great pyramid was built. I can go in my backyard and build a pyramid without knowledge of advance mathematics. Isn't it possible to build a small pyramid and scale it up into a giant size? Couldn't the math just be an expression of the form rather than a tool in its design?

I agree.
If they had computers, one would think that they could have managed to make a spirit level to use instead of digging a moat around the base to indicate that the base was level before they commenced to build the structure(if they had computers, why not a laser level?).



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   
No...here is the deal. They used mathematics but they used such a simple formula. We on the other hand work way to hard to figure out a simple formula. In my nerd voice "let's see here we take pi (push up my glasses and maybe snort a little) and divide it by the square root of infinite...yep that's our answer (snort snort)"



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 
I would perhaps re-phrase it to 'Proof Builders of the Great Pyramid had access to complex/advanced calculus/computing algorithms' and not necessarily a 'modern computer'. And generally in a Kingdom, there were limited few who knew the technology (wizards) and had the knowledge about advanced mathematics and computations. It wasn't until the invention/usage of paper/books/palm/copper/bamboo/leaves etc that knowledge was preserved and/or passed on to the next generation.
LINK1
LINK2




edit on 1-3-2013 by hp1229 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   
You dont have to have electricity to make a computer. (they did google bagdad battery, all those clay pots wear battery's.)
A computer is a programmable machine. This means it can execute a programmed list of instructions and respond to new instructions that it is given.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Did it ever dawn on you that the basis for our measurements may be derived from their way of measuring? Things will fit better into perspective if you look at it this way. They had some pretty accurate tools for working with numbers and angles those days. They were similar to a sliderule but much more diverse. they had the abacus, Antikythera mechanism, and some other disk shaped thing like a slide rule.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 


Another cool thing, if you take the original height of the great pyramid which is 146.63 meters, and you compare that to the shortest distance between the earth and the sun, which is 147 million km, you will see that the original height of the pyramid is exactly 1/1,000,000th the distance between the earth and the sun at it's closest point to us.
I learned this in a book I found called Light From the Sanctuary of the Royal Arch, it was written by a 33rd degree mason, Charles Snodgrass, and the first chapter is called "Ancient Mysteries". It continues on to say that even the exact density of the great pyramid is exactly 1/1,000,000,000th that of the entire Earth.





new topics
top topics
 
18
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join