PROOF OF GOD

You reach this same conclusion with practically everyone you debate with. I think you'd be better served to just keep your focus on the topic of the discussion. Take care of the facts and the issues will take care of themselves.--Percy

You're referring to Message 617, which gives the figures for your LLM claim, and for another LLM claim that appears to be much longer. When can we expect a reply?I also wanted to speak to this a little from Message 627: We know Galileo, Newton and Einstein were geniuses because anyone with sufficient ability can verify their work for themselves. We don't accept that E=mc² because Einstein was a genius. We accept it because we can go back and do the same math Einstein used to derive this equation. And Einstein is esteemed as a genius because he led the way to this and many other insights.It's difficult to see how you yourself could know Rutherford is a genius "from the evidence," since by your own admission the math is inaccessible to you.Rutherford hypothesizes a plan for a non-existent pyramid. Then he makes assumptions about that hypothetical plan that he can't possibly know, such as the angle of the sides. He then deduces measurements of that non-existent pyramid to draw correspondences to the pyramid that's actually there, as if this had any meaning.It also makes no sense to cite Biblical arguments in support of Rutherford's conclusions. If Rutherford is objectively and scientifically correct, then his data will hold up for Christian, Moslem, Hindu and atheist alike.Please respond to the LLM data.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 07-25-2004 08:13 AM

Without referring back to previous messages, I think the most recent open questions for you are:

1. Since Petrie had already discovered the purpose of the socket stones was to serve as footings for the bottom of the casing stones below pavement level, why did Rutherford conclude differently that the socket stones meant a larger pyramid had originally been designed?
   ​
2. Since all he had to go by was the socket stones, how did Rutherford determine the characteristics of the "original design", such as the angles of the sides, the thickness of the casing, and so forth?
   ​
3. Why did Rutherford think there was any connection between calculations on a hypothetical pyramid to the Great Pyramid that was actually built?

We also await your comments on the LLM numbers.--Percy

You didn't answer the first question. Petrie established that the purpose of the socket stones was to serve as footings for the bottom of the casing stones below pavement level, and I asked why Rutherford concluded they had a different purpose. Addressing your answers one by one: This isn't true, they're only a yard or so away. Continuing the casing down at a 53^o angle for only a yard or so below pavement level would bring it in contact with the socket stones. Of course surveyors can do this, but those extrapolations only make sense if the socket stones were part of a different design, and you haven't offered any evidence for this yet. Again, this isn't evidence of a different design. Giving your assertion a name also is not evidence. The rest of your points merely build on the assumption that there was a different design. None of this is evidence.The socket stones are part of the pyramid actually built. There are no socket stones incorporated into the corners of the Great Pyramid. There's only one set of socket stones, and they serve as a footing for the bottom tier of casing stones below pavement level.The second question asked how Rutherford determined the characteristics of the "original design". You answered: This is just an assumption. Where is your evidence that the hypothetical original design was to be of the same proportions as the actual pyramid? You've misread the diagram. The brown slice is the side of the pyramid to add an appearance of three dimensionality to the diagram. Realize that if it were actually the hypothetical "original design" that it has a different angle from the actual pyramid, and you just finished claiming it had the same angle.The third question asked why Rutherford thought calculations about a hypothetical pyramid would have anything to do with the actual pyramid. You answer: That's all very nice for a Christian believer in numerology, but how are you going to convince skeptics, let alone those of other faiths, that an ancient Egyptian architect living before Abraham was directed by the Pharoah, head of the Sun God cult, to design and build a pyramid complex to celebrate the God of a religion not yet invented.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 07-26-2004 09:32 PM

Hi WillowTree!I think the points being raised about the legitimacy of the Pyramid Inch and the Sacred Cubit are valid, as are the questions about the LLM, and you haven't replied to my Message 644 of three days ago. It looks like you have a lot on your plate, so let me briefly summarize that message so you have something shorter to reply to.Petrie says: He actually found the casing stones below pavement level by digging: So Petrie formed a hypthesis about the purpose of the sockets^*, then he found evidence supporting that hypothesis in the form of actual casing stones below pavement level.You need some evidence for Rutherford's claim that the socket stones were actually for a different pyramid that was never built. Christian numerological arguments like your rectification factor are not evidence.If for the sake of discussion we assume the socket stones *do* represent a different pyramid design, then the most important of the remaining questions is how you know the proportions of a pyramid not built? The socket stones are not placed in a true square, and using them yields a slightly awkward pyramid. The angles of the sides are not known. The dimensions of the capstone are not known. The height is not known.A proof of God requires unequivocal evidence.--Percy * Fix typo. --PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 07-29-2004 11:22 AM

It's taken a while to get a clear picture, but concerning just the proportions of the Great Pyramid, I think that WillowTree claims that the Great Pyramid complex is proof of the existence of God because:

1. There was an orginal design of the Great Pyramid that was never actually built. Its proportions were identical to the original proportions of the existing pyramid, its corners lay on the socket stones, and its height to the capstone platform was 5449 inches, the figure one gets if one adds the numbers corresponding to the Hebrew letters in Isaiah 19:19-20.
   ​
2. The difference in heights between the actual capstone platform and that of the hypothetical original design is equal to a rectification factor that is a reference to Christ.

There are a number of other claims regarding the uniqueness of the Great Pyramid's location that haven't as yet been supported with any quantifiable evidence, though the Longest Land Meridian (LLM) claim appears to have been solidly refuted with numbers. There's no evidence the ancient Egyptians used the Pyramid Inch or the Sacred Cubit, and numerology has no validity that has ever been demonstrated.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 07-30-2004 07:58 AM

What you actually said was: Sounds like numerology to me. Perhaps you can give an example of what you mean.--Percy

Your 286.1 figure is not a fundamental constant like pi, e or h (Planck's constanct). It is a figure of Christian numerologists of no significance that has been demonstrated thus far in this thread.If your claim that the socket stones form the perimeter of a hypothetical original design depends upon the significance of your 286.1 figure, then you will have to first provide evidence that 286.1 has some real significance.Without this evidence, you have nothing to support your claim that the socket stones represent an "original design". Since 286.1 has no meaning that we know of as of yet, the fact that the casing stones eventually meet the socket stones below pavement level is evidence that the socket stones are a key component of the Great Pyramid, and not part of some hypothetical original design. If the socket stones were not there then the base of the casing would have no footing.As further evidence that the socket stones are not the foundation of some other pyramid, they are not placed in an accurate square. That's because the height at which the base of the casing stones meet bedrock varies according to the height of the bedrock at each corner. The deviation from a true square of the socket stones varies by just the amount required for the casing stones to meet them at bedrock level. Just in the name of accuracy I'll mention that describing Petrie as embacing Smyth would be a bit of an exaggeration. He confirmed Smyth's measurement of the socket stone base lengths is about all you can say based on the passage you quoted.But no one here is disputing Smyth's figures. I haven't ever bothered confirming if the difference is 286.1 because 286.1 has no significance that we know of at this point. I am merely asserting the obvious, namely that we have no evidence for what that angle would be. We don't even have any evidence that there's an "original design" yet. Your "original design" theory depends upon whether 286.1 has any significance, and your 286.1 claim requires that there be an original design. No one is disputing this. But your hypothetical pyramid was never built. You can't say what angle they might have used. This is a bit gramatically garbled, so I'm not sure what you're actually saying. To resolve the confusion, here's the diagram again. The brown slice is *not* your full design. It's just the side of the Great Pyramid:
Click for full size image.--Percy

Hi WillowTree,Your points have already been rebutted by others, and I see no need to add anything, though I would like to comment on your claim that you're not making numerological arguments: I'll wait for your response to the rebuttals, as well as for your addressing the issues you said you would.By the way, it is long past the time when you said you would address the specific numbers posted regarding the LLM claim in Message 617. These numbers provided by Lindum show that a meridian through the Great Pyramid does not cross more land than any other meridian. The numbers are either right or wrong. If right then your claim fails. Could you please either rebut or confirm them so we can move on? Here are the numbers again:--Percy

You haven't said anything here that you haven't said before. Especially puzzling is your return to the accuracy issue. I suggest you follow my suggestion of many messages ago and try measuring something on your desk to a 10,000th of an inch. Try measuring the diameter of something circular. If it's small and you have a micrometer you may be able to get as accurate as a 100th of an inch. Let's say the diameter is .87 inches. Now multiply by pi to get the circumference, which would give us 2.73318561. But we only have accuracy to the 100ths of an inch, so the best we can say is that the circumference is 2.73 inches.You can carry the value 2.73318561 forward for other calculations if you like and postpone the rounding to significant digits for the later stages, but you still don't have accuracy beyond 100ths of an inch.It would be helpful if you could move the discussion forward by responding to the rebuttals instead of just repeating your unsupported assertions. We already know what you're asserting. What we're seeking is the evidence supporting those assertions. To the black knight analogy I think I'll now add the "Dave's not here" routine from Cheech and Chong. Your mind too clouded to consider and weigh the counterarguments, you instead just repeat, "It must be divine."--Percy

This is Lemesurier's speculation. What evidence do you have that there was ever an "original design"? What evidence do you have that the socket stones ever served any other purpose than as a footing for the casing stones below pavement level? If we assume an original design for the sake of discussion, what evidence do you have for the proportions of that pyramid. There is no such measurement. This is the supposed height of the capstone platform of your hypothetical pyramid that was never built. You still haven't established that 286.1 has any special significance except in the realm of numerology.--Percy

Hi WillowTree,If no evidence is provided, then it doesn't matter how many times you assert something, or how many people assert something. Your assertions need to be supported with evidence, something you have yet to do.You still haven't addressed these questions:

1. What is your evidence that there was ever an original design?
   ​
2. What is your evidence that the socket stones ever served any other purpose than as footings for the casing stones below pavement level?
   ​
3. Assuming for the sake of discussion that there was an original design, what is your evidence for the proportions of that design?
   ​
4. What is your objective argument for the significance of the 286.1 figure?
   ​
5. What is your argument against the Longest Land Meridian data last presented in Message 718.

In your Message 711 you said, "I will shortly be providing additional evidence about the socket stone perimeter and the 286.1 differential figure." Your Message 179 was just more assertion, so you haven't done this yet.You said you would get to the socket stone issue, but all you offered was Lemesurier's speculations, so you haven't done this yet, either.You said the dimensions of the capstone of the unbuilt original design were known and that you described how this is so in Message 572, but this message only contains more assertions based upon the unsupported assumption that the unbuilt pyramid had the same proportions as the one actually built. You first need evidence that there was an original design, then you need evidence for it's proportions. You have neither so far.Supporting contentions in a legal proceding is similar to supporting your assertions in a scientific discussion. You need to have an unbroken chain of evidence. Imagine if you were the prosecuting attorney and said, "I have here the gun used to murder the victim, and it proves the accused is guilty." But if you haven't linked the gun to the accused or placed the accused at the scene then all you have is conjecture.That's what you have now with your Great Pyramid claims, conjecture. You have to begin connecting the dots of conjecture with evidence.--Percy

This is the same mistake I made the first time WillowTree cited those figures. As far as I can tell, WillowTree is confused about the concavity, and I think you should ignore his comment about it.The smaller figures are the sides of the actual Great Pyramid. The larger figures are the sides of a square marked at the corners by the socket stones. WillowTree believes the socket stones are actually the cornerstones for an "original design" of a larger pyramid that was never built. The 5449 figure is the height to the non-existent capstone platform of this non-existent pyramid. The difference in heights of the capstone platforms of the actual pyramid and the non-existent pyramid represents his rectification factor, 286.1.I've verified the figures for the actual pyramid and they check out. I haven't verified the figures for the non-existent pyramid - I'll wait until WillowTree presents some evidence that there was ever an "original design" before I put in any effort on this.--Percy

Hi WillowTree,You need to provide evidence, not just repeat your assertions. You are providing measurements for a non-existent pyramid. You cannot know whether it would have had concave sides, or if it did, what the depth of the concavity would have been. On an objective level, your 35.762 figure only represents the distance between the outside of the pyramid and the outside of the socket stones.The difference in perimeters between the original Great Pyramid and a perimeter drawn around the socket stones appears to be the only place where your 286.1 figure occurs. Every other occurrence is based upon comparisons with a non-existent pyramid that was never built and for whose plans you have no evidence.Here's the list of open issues again:

1. What is your evidence that there was ever an original design?
   ​
2. What is your evidence that the socket stones ever served any other purpose than as footings for the casing stones below pavement level?
   ​
3. Assuming for the sake of discussion that there was an original design, what is your evidence for the proportions of that design?
   ​
4. What is your objective argument for the significance of the 286.1 figure?
   ​
5. What is your argument against the Longest Land Meridian data last presented in Message 718.

Concerning the last point, it shouldn't be taking such a long time for you to examine the LLM data, so let me help you. Starting with the meridian through the Great Pyramid, please let us know if you agree with the first line of the table from Message 718: This figure happens to correspond to the distance from the Great Pyramid north along the 31.134458 meridian to the Mediterranean coast of Egypt. I've checked it on a map, though not as accurately as Lindum, and I agree with this figure. Do you agree with this figure? Please let me know and we'll move to the next line in Lindum's table.--Percy

Your 5449 height is for the non-existent capstone platform of a non-existent pyramid that was never built, but that you claim was originally designed before the Great Pyramid. The open issues remain as follows:

1. What is your evidence that there was ever an original design?
   ​
2. What is your evidence that the socket stones ever served any other purpose than as footings for the casing stones below pavement level?
   ​
3. Assuming for the sake of discussion that there was an original design, what is your evidence for the proportions of that design?
   ​
4. What is your objective argument for the significance of the 286.1 figure?
   ​
5. What is your argument against the Longest Land Meridian data last presented in Message 718? Here is the data from the top line of the first table from Message 718:
   ​
   Longitude: 31.134458
   Latitude Start: 29.978810
   Latitude End: 31.595859
   Distance (miles): 111.73
   ​
   Do you agree with this figure? Please let us know so we can move on to the next line of the table.

We're looking forward to your answers to these issues.--Percy