|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: PROOF OF GOD | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lindum Member (Idle past 3427 days) Posts: 162 From: Colonia Lindensium Joined: |
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?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lindum Member (Idle past 3427 days) Posts: 162 From: Colonia Lindensium Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lindum Member (Idle past 3427 days) Posts: 162 From: Colonia Lindensium Joined: |
ned writes:
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 - Does it really matter? By my calculations the longest meridian is well away from either of these. 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!)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lindum Member (Idle past 3427 days) Posts: 162 From: Colonia Lindensium Joined: |
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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lindum Member (Idle past 3427 days) Posts: 162 From: Colonia Lindensium Joined: |
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?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lindum Member (Idle past 3427 days) Posts: 162 From: Colonia Lindensium Joined: |
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:
Accuracy.
What is your point ? 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lindum Member (Idle past 3427 days) Posts: 162 From: Colonia Lindensium Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lindum Member (Idle past 3427 days) Posts: 162 From: Colonia Lindensium Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lindum Member (Idle past 3427 days) Posts: 162 From: Colonia Lindensium Joined: |
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).
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lindum Member (Idle past 3427 days) Posts: 162 From: Colonia Lindensium Joined: |
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?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lindum Member (Idle past 3427 days) Posts: 162 From: Colonia Lindensium Joined: |
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...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lindum Member (Idle past 3427 days) Posts: 162 From: Colonia Lindensium Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lindum Member (Idle past 3427 days) Posts: 162 From: Colonia Lindensium Joined: |
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lindum Member (Idle past 3427 days) Posts: 162 From: Colonia Lindensium Joined: |
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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lindum Member (Idle past 3427 days) Posts: 162 From: Colonia Lindensium Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024