Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,927 Year: 4,184/9,624 Month: 1,055/974 Week: 14/368 Day: 14/11 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   PROOF OF GOD
Lindum
Member (Idle past 3427 days)
Posts: 162
From: Colonia Lindensium
Joined: 02-29-2004


Message 242 of 739 (119098)
06-26-2004 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Cold Foreign Object
06-26-2004 4:50 PM


Location, Location, Location...
Density is 5.515 according to NASA.
The same site gives a figure for polar radius, and some basic math shows the pyramid should be 138.55m using your OP figures. From the many sites Percy has listed, it isn't the case.
Anyway, my main reason for posting is your specified location of the pyramid. Using mapping software, I have located the pyramid at 29 58' 52.67" North, 31 8' 1.37" E, which is just under a mile away from your OP coords. I am willing to investigate your claims of the pyramid being the centre of land mass, longest land meridian and centre of delta coastline quadrant, but we must first agree where the pyramid actually is. Can you verify the position claimed in your OP?
PS: I have a nice map image showing the difference between the two locations, is there an easy way to upload the image to this board?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 06-26-2004 4:50 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 06-26-2004 8:10 PM Lindum has replied

Lindum
Member (Idle past 3427 days)
Posts: 162
From: Colonia Lindensium
Joined: 02-29-2004


Message 245 of 739 (119111)
06-26-2004 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Cold Foreign Object
06-26-2004 8:10 PM


Re: Location, Location, Location...
hope this works...
Image produced using Mapinfo Professional, satellite image from JPL.
My location of the pyramid shown in red, the claimed (post 72) position in blue.
WT writes:
What do you mean "verify".
My sources are not two bit mail order doctors from a fundie university. The claims have been made as fact. They are facts until someone can provide a preponderance of evidence against.
Sorry, I was not clear - I meant verify position as in the position of the pyramid. The only data I have to work with to check these claims is the location of the pyramid. The coords previously posted appear to be incorrect.
Post 230 is what I'm trying to investigate, but it gives me no data. For example, Henry Mitchell must have determined a radius for the delta coast quadrant to find the centre point - what is that radius? What were the coords of his survey points? If I have this info, I can map it to check the claim. Without underlying data, the claims are meaningless. This may sound negative, but consider that accurately mapping this may validate your position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 06-26-2004 8:10 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by NosyNed, posted 06-27-2004 1:02 PM Lindum has replied
 Message 263 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 06-28-2004 5:29 PM Lindum has replied

Lindum
Member (Idle past 3427 days)
Posts: 162
From: Colonia Lindensium
Joined: 02-29-2004


Message 250 of 739 (119309)
06-27-2004 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by NosyNed
06-27-2004 1:02 PM


Re: Location, Location, Location...
ned writes:
Does it really matter? By my calculations the longest meridian is well away from either of these.
I don't think it would make any noticeable difference, but it's best to get the basic facts right. However, any calculation now seems moot, since Pink points out -
Smyth: "...the Great Pyramid's general parallel of 30...".
What's a general parallel? 100 miles each way? Apart from wishful thinking, this doesn't make the location of the Great Pyramid any more special than anything else within the range.
I think there is at least one "centre of land mass" in Africa, but at several hundred miles from the pyramid site. (I may attempt an approx calc if I can work up some enthusiasm!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by NosyNed, posted 06-27-2004 1:02 PM NosyNed has not replied

Lindum
Member (Idle past 3427 days)
Posts: 162
From: Colonia Lindensium
Joined: 02-29-2004


Message 264 of 739 (119642)
06-28-2004 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Cold Foreign Object
06-28-2004 5:29 PM


Re: Location, Location, Location...
WT writes:
You are asserting this.
Personally, I have no idea.
I have sources and their claims. I have posted them.
Your sources are wrong. Terraserver agrees with my location. Hopefully tomorrow, I'll calculate the land meridian from the true location of the Pyramid and see if I can find a longer one. If your sources could provide some actual data rather than just claims, that would make a useful comparison.
[edit: spelling]
This message has been edited by Lindum, 06-28-2004 05:00 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 06-28-2004 5:29 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 06-28-2004 6:34 PM Lindum has replied

Lindum
Member (Idle past 3427 days)
Posts: 162
From: Colonia Lindensium
Joined: 02-29-2004


Message 305 of 739 (120432)
06-30-2004 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Cold Foreign Object
06-28-2004 6:34 PM


Re: Location, Location, Location...
WT writes:
You are asserting that the mile difference has my sources wrong and that your saying so makes it so.
Not just my say so - I gave you a link to Terraserver, did you check it?
Anyway, I've measured a couple of land meridians for you, one through the pyramid and one 331 miles west of the pyramid. You can see the data here, but the result is that the pyramid meridian is shorter by 384 miles. I don't expect you to take my word for it, but I've given you the data so you can either ignore it or have it checked. Do your sources supply any data for this particular claim?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 06-28-2004 6:34 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 06-30-2004 3:32 PM Lindum has not replied

Lindum
Member (Idle past 3427 days)
Posts: 162
From: Colonia Lindensium
Joined: 02-29-2004


Message 320 of 739 (120621)
07-01-2004 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 319 by NosyNed
06-30-2004 7:14 PM


Re: meridians
Ned writes:
{To WT} I told you up front that my meridian calculations are rough and ready. You didn't supply better ones. We now have what might be better ones (I haven't seen the details) and they still disagree with your sources.
Ned, I've updated my results page with some brief methodology details.
WILLOWTREE:
WT writes:
What is your point ?
Accuracy.
WT writes:
I will side with my sources based on their honesty to admit that other calulations that slightly disagree cannot be refuted and neither can theirs. But when you account for all their other claims and the evidence thereof this becomes a preponderance to side with the Ph.D's and their evidence.
You are, of course, free to believe your sources, however, before you descend into "argument by PhD", bear in mind the sources for the info which my data is based include NASA.
Once again, do your sources provide any data regarding the longest land meridian claim? They MUST have some recorded measurements to base their claim on. As Ned has pointed out, this isn't rocket science, just some points on a map and a little arithmetic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by NosyNed, posted 06-30-2004 7:14 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by jar, posted 07-01-2004 9:56 AM Lindum has not replied
 Message 323 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-01-2004 3:26 PM Lindum has replied

Lindum
Member (Idle past 3427 days)
Posts: 162
From: Colonia Lindensium
Joined: 02-29-2004


Message 326 of 739 (120866)
07-01-2004 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by Cold Foreign Object
07-01-2004 3:26 PM


Re: meridians
WT writes:
Even by your own calculations, how did the builders get within a mile ?
They didn't get within a mile - you may have misread my recent posts. The pyramid is 331 miles away from a significantly longer land meridian. 331 miles is more than a slight contradiction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-01-2004 3:26 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-01-2004 7:25 PM Lindum has replied

Lindum
Member (Idle past 3427 days)
Posts: 162
From: Colonia Lindensium
Joined: 02-29-2004


Message 375 of 739 (121290)
07-02-2004 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 372 by Percy
07-02-2004 5:35 PM


Re: One more summary
Percy writes:
So I'd like to see NosyNed complete his area calculations. I'd like to see the land meridian calculations posted, if they haven't been already. It doesn't look like anyone is going to check my radius calculations, so I'll look for an opportunity to take another route to making the same calculation.
Percy, my meridian calcs are currently here (I'd post them directly if I could get the HTML table to work!). I'd like to to check one more meridian - Jar's request through the Americas (I think this could be longer than anything through Africa) - and there is also the outstanding claim of longest land parallel from Willowtree's post 72, which I will also examine.
Glad to see Ned taking on the largest land area claim - this one is a sod to measure! I've also had a quick look at the pyramid concavity claim - need to double check things before I post anything solid on it, but it appears the chord length would be too small to accurately measure for WT's desired result. Will get back with more info soon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by Percy, posted 07-02-2004 5:35 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-02-2004 7:11 PM Lindum has replied

Lindum
Member (Idle past 3427 days)
Posts: 162
From: Colonia Lindensium
Joined: 02-29-2004


Message 376 of 739 (121291)
07-02-2004 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by Cold Foreign Object
07-01-2004 7:25 PM


Re: meridians
WT writes:
Then you are suddenly changing your interpretation of the picture you posted showing the blue and red ?
I think Ned has already explained the confusion. Your sources claimed a longest land meridian passing through the pyramid, this is what the 331 miles refers to.
The "mile" issue is nothing more than a "dirty fork". Please do me the minimal courtesy of reading my posts, following the links therein, and address the issue of the longest land meridian (your post 72 made this claim).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-01-2004 7:25 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Lindum
Member (Idle past 3427 days)
Posts: 162
From: Colonia Lindensium
Joined: 02-29-2004


Message 378 of 739 (121308)
07-02-2004 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by Cold Foreign Object
07-01-2004 10:20 PM


Re: Talk about confused !!
WT writes:
Now he is changing his story because you all have had private email exchanges to convert him to pick up with YOUR longest land meridian claim - a claim that I or my sources did not make.
My posts were consistent. Read them and you'll see. Your source did make the claim (post 72 - again).
WT writes:
He even has an obviously disfigured world land mass map posted. He chops the continents to fit his new theory (your old theory).
Please show where I've posted a world land mass map. I haven't. Also, your reference to distorted/fisheye maps demonstrates a clear lack of understanding regarding map projections. You've made great claims about a position on the globe, yet you seem not to appreciate the techniques involved in presenting such information.
For the umpteenth time of asking, do you have anything to back up the longest land meridian claim?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-01-2004 10:20 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Lindum
Member (Idle past 3427 days)
Posts: 162
From: Colonia Lindensium
Joined: 02-29-2004


Message 380 of 739 (121316)
07-02-2004 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 377 by pink sasquatch
07-02-2004 7:11 PM


Re: One more summary
Interesting link Pink - the red line is almost exactly what I intended to check next.
Pink writes:
Is it more correct to use the pole-to-pole meridian that covers the most land, or to use an extended around-the-globe meridian that covers the most land, as suggested at the above link?
I've used an around-the-globe measurement so far - a quick check reveals that a pole to pole measurement is actually even worse off for the pyramid location. I'd like to see what Willowtree thinks of this, since it could save me some more time-consuming measurements...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-02-2004 7:11 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-02-2004 7:53 PM Lindum has not replied

Lindum
Member (Idle past 3427 days)
Posts: 162
From: Colonia Lindensium
Joined: 02-29-2004


Message 410 of 739 (122212)
07-05-2004 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 409 by pink sasquatch
07-05-2004 6:18 PM


Re: LLM definition
It's not a problem to do both - the results so far give the same basic result. The Smyth map is not clear on what is claimed - it appears to me to be just the 180 deg measure, but we can do both to be sure.
Of greater concern is the somewhat woolly land-mass claim. If it is land "mass" above mean sea-level, we could do a crude calculation. If it is land "volume", a slightly less crude calc, and land "area" a less crude still measure. At best, given the means I have, they would not be very accurate calculations. Is "habitable" habitable in the time of the pyramid construction? How did Smyth know what this was? Was it in Smyth's time? What was that? Today, all land should be considered habitable?
I would be VERY interested to see what (if any) calculations Smyth made to make these claims considering the limitations of technology and global mapping available in his time. I don't consider these claims valid without the methodology to investigate them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-05-2004 6:18 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 412 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-05-2004 9:15 PM Lindum has not replied

Lindum
Member (Idle past 3427 days)
Posts: 162
From: Colonia Lindensium
Joined: 02-29-2004


Message 579 of 739 (125322)
07-17-2004 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 577 by Percy
07-17-2004 6:33 PM


Re: The Height and Concavity of the Great Pyramid
A note on accuracy:
The accuracy of the height calculation is dependant upon the accuracy of the base length measurement and angle of inclination. Also, it so far appears that it is assumed the peak would have been exactly concentric with the base in order to use a right angle tri to calculate from. Further, the concavity of the faces produces a variable angle of inclination across the faces, so it would be necessary to make calculations from each corner and from the centre of each face at minimum to determine a reasonably accurate height using trig.
An error of 0.1 degrees from the stated inclination figure equates to about 20PI error on the height calc.
An error of 0.1 degrees from concentric at the base mid-point to the peak (ie from 90 degrees) equates to about 12PI error on the height calc if the inclination figure is correct.
A few inches are of little consequence to the pyramid for most people, but they would affect the initial claim. I hope Rutherford covered these issues in his measurements, which is all the more reason for us to see his data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 577 by Percy, posted 07-17-2004 6:33 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 581 by Percy, posted 07-17-2004 7:45 PM Lindum has replied

Lindum
Member (Idle past 3427 days)
Posts: 162
From: Colonia Lindensium
Joined: 02-29-2004


Message 583 of 739 (125328)
07-17-2004 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 581 by Percy
07-17-2004 7:45 PM


Re: The Height and Concavity of the Great Pyramid
Yeah, you're right We can then use the measured angle from each corner of the face and the base length. I'd prefer this method since it doesn't assume concentricity as with the right angled tri. This is, of course, dependent on what can be measured of the remaining casing stones as Jar indicates. The margin of error, however, remains about the same, probably more.
Still like to see what Rutherford actually measured...
{edit: atrocious spelling}
This message has been edited by Lindum, 07-17-2004 07:31 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 581 by Percy, posted 07-17-2004 7:45 PM Percy has not replied

Lindum
Member (Idle past 3427 days)
Posts: 162
From: Colonia Lindensium
Joined: 02-29-2004


Message 597 of 739 (125777)
07-19-2004 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 596 by Cold Foreign Object
07-19-2004 7:09 PM


WT writes:
This shows the casing stones and their easily determined angle.
Easily!!??
You realise that due to the concavity, the angle of the casing is necessarily variable along the base?
You realise that it is an assumption that the angle is consistent from base to summit? Or that a mean angle is estimated rather than measured?
You realise a very slight error in measuring the angle results in a much larger error when calculating the height?
What did Rutherford actually measure? So far you've only produced conclusions. Both methodology and observations are required before you can claim these figures as evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 596 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-19-2004 7:09 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024