PROOF OF GOD

Smyth's map does not include much of Antarctica, and cuts off about half of Greenland. Perhaps this coincides with the "habitable" qualification?WILLOWTREE - have any of your sources given any calculations behind the claim presented with the map image in post 106, "Lines drawn through the north-south and east-west axis of the Pyramid divide equally the earth's terrain"?I would be nice to see some math behind that assertion - looking at the Smyth map alone is not sufficient evidence for that assertion.For example, placing the intersection of longitude and latitude at Jerusalem or Mecca would give the same overall ("eyeballing it") appearance at the global scale. Why the pyramid at that intersection and not Jerusalem? why not Mecca?Calculations, not a hand-drawn map, are needed to sensibly discuss this claim.

To requote jar's passage: So we are left with any modern measurement of the pyramid as the best estimation surveyors were able to come up with using a number of assumptions.Given these details, not to mention the issues of thermal expansion, erosion, and vandalism - I'm trying to see the point of further effort arguing the height of the pyramid within several inches, let alone thousandths of an inch.This is NOT an attack on Rutherford, since any modern calcuation of the pyramid's height is an estimation.

Hi WILLOWTREE - I haven't been posting in the thread, but I have been keeping up waiting for something interesting to happen. True. Also, a "source" like Smyth's map and accompanying assertions ALSO needs to include "how the conclusion is determined". Otherwise we have no way to examine his "evidence".I agree with Ned and Lindum that the LLM claim should have been examined first, and remains to be evidenced properly - though this should be simple since it is perhaps the simplest claim.Do you have any source that gives exact coordinates for Smyth's rather vague claims? If noone can come up with coordinates that support his claim, then the LLM claim must be dropped, because essentially there is no claim without coordinates.And a clarification: It doesn't matter if the numbers are equated to words or years or religious meaning, it is still numerology.Since the entire work of Rutherford is assigning occult/supernatural meanings to numerical measurements of the pyramid, Rutherford is practicing numerology.Most of your arguments are numerology.And a general remark on various statements you've made in multiple posts:The fact that a measurement is repeated throughout a structure does not equate to the presence of a supernatural or superintelligent designer or architect. You repeatedly mention the 286.1 Rectification Factor as somehow existing as an internal proof of a superintelligent architect.Why isn't the plausible alternative true - that a measurement/number equivalent to 286.1 SI was of some importance to Egyptian measurement, mathematics, philosophy, aesthetics, or spirituality?

WILLOWTREE! You are correct - the issue is not a matter of opinion, but it is also nota matter of assertion or source.The issue of accuracy is basic to measurements and math using measurements - the concept generally taught in high school as "significant digits."Since you do not seem to understand significant digits, I'm including a few links to how they are determined and how they are used in calculations. Hopefully they will help with the issue at hand: These links contain much more information, including sample calculations. Hopefully you will check them out and better understand how real-world measurements effect math.And perhaps read the quote above from the third source listed - it is the leastaccurate measurement that determines the final accuracy, and not the most accurate (pi as claimed by your sources).When Percy is denying the accuracy your sources claim, it is out of basic mathematical concepts, not opinion or assertion.