Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ericmurphy · 06-22-2007, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

Indeed, the very fact that you are concentrating on trying to prove minor points of Smyth's that are not connected with his dating, rather than presenting evidence for the dating itself gives us the - possibly erroneous - distinct impression that you are aware of how little support Smyth's dating has, and you are trying to do a bait-and-switch by trying to convince us that some other measurements of his are correct and then saying "Now that we have proved Smyth correct..." as if his dating would have also been proved correct by this.

Here's what Dave's whole point boils down to: if Smyth's spatial measurements of the GP are correct, than that's evidence that his figure for the date of construction of the GP. It's the same sort of irrational illogic that leads him to argue that since Genesis talks about some things that can be verified, all of it (including the creation myth and the global catastrophic flood) must also be true.

ericmurphy · 06-22-2007, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

According to A Brief History Of Pi (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Petr Beckman, the Egyptians used a figure of 256/81 for pi.

I don't have a quote to hand, but Wikipedia agrees with this value, saying...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The value of pi has been known in some form since antiquity. As early as the 19th century BC, Babylonian mathematicians were using pi = 25⁄8, which is within 0.5% of the true value.

The Egyptian scribe Ahmes wrote the oldest known text to give an approximate value for pi, citing a Middle Kingdom papyrus, corresponding to a value of 256 divided by 81 or 3.160.

These particular examples are both from after the pyramid was built, of course, but it shows that claims of an ancient Egyptian knowledge of pi are not extraordinary (like a claim of ancient Egyptian knowledge of quantum physics would be).

And neither of these approximations are particularly accurate 256/81 = 3.1605, and 25/8 = 3.125. Neither is as accurate as 22/7, which is 3.1428, closer to the actual value of 3.1415.

Not very impressive, Dave.

Dean Anderson · 06-23-2007, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steviepinhead

My memory tells me that you've asserted that the pyramid was designed by some fellow named Philitis (or variations thereon) who, for some reason that's less than clear to me, you apparently believe was an Israelite.

One of your sources for this was that eminent historian Herodotus. As you'll no doubt recall, dave, Herodotus states that the Egyptian priests of his time, whom he consulted, refused to call the Great Pyramid by the name of the pharoah usually associated with it, because they greatly disliked that pharoah, and would not let his appellation cross their lips. So, instead, they referred to that pyramid using the name of a shepherd, one Philitis, who grazed his flocks near the pyramid.

There's nothing in this account by Herodotus to suggest that Philitis was other than a simple shepherd, that he lived at any other time than the self-same priests who were Herodotus's contemporary sources, and certainly nothing to suggest that Philitis was either--in his leftover time from herding his flocks--a world-class pyramid-designing marvel, much less an Israelite.

Here's what Herodotus actually says (Macauley translation):

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herodotus

This Cheops, the Egyptians said, reigned fifty years; and after he was dead his brother Chephren succeeded to the kingdom. This king followed the same manner of dealing as the other, both in all the rest and also in that he made a pyramid, not indeed attaining to the measurements of that which was built by the former (this I know, having myself also measured it), and moreover there are no underground chambers beneath nor does a channel come from the Nile flowing to this one as to the other, in which the water coming through a conduit built for it flows round an island within, where they say that Cheops himself is laid: but for a basement he built the first course of Ethiopian stone of divers colours; and this pyramid he made forty feet lower than the other as regards size, building it close to the great pyramid. These stand both upon the same hill, which is about a hundred feet high. And Chephren they said reigned fifty and six years. Here then they reckon one hundred and six years, during which they say that there was nothing but evil for the Egyptians, and the temples were kept closed and not opened during all that time. These kings (i.e. Khufu and Khafre) the Egyptians by reason of their hatred of them are not very willing to name; nay, they even call the pyramids after the name of Philitis the shepherd, who at that time pastured flocks in those regions.

(Emphasis mine)

Note that Herodotus explicitly says that Cheops and Chephren (i.e. Khufu and Khafre) were the builders of the pyramids, not Philitis - and this also matches the archaeological evidence that we have.

I would be interested to see any argument that the pyramid was actually built by Philitis...

Dean Anderson · 06-23-2007, 01:05 AM

I've done a bit of digging, and it seems that afdave is repeating the "theories" of Joseph A Seiss, who wrote a book called "The Great Pyramid of Egypt: A Miracle In Stone".

Seiss was 19th century Dispensationalist Millennialist in what grew into the Evangelical movement, and made all sorts of outrageous claims.

Although a contemporary of Smyth, he took Smyth's dubious numbers at face value, but disagreed with Smyth's prophecies and put forward his own instead. He goes much further than Smyth when it comes to alleged 'evidence' to support his theories, and makes many claims that are simply unsupported by any evidence.

Seiss's puts forward the following arguments:

1) The pyramid was constructed 600 years after the flood, in 2170 BCE
2) The pyramid was built by Philitis (although he calls him 'Philition').
3) The pyramid was the first pyramid built, and all the others were built afterwards and were cheap imitations of it.
4) Smyth's numerical calculations are accurate and significant, but his interpretation of prophecy isn't.

Do any of these arguments sound familiar? (Hint: We have seen them all on this thread...)

So, Dave, are you a fan of Seiss's work? Do you agree with his other conclusions?

Pappy Jack · 06-23-2007, 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean Anderson

.....I would be interested to see any argument that the pyramid was actually built by Philitis...

Dean, the actual post here was:

Quote:

Also, "NO", I did not write that that "black" people (Egyptians) were not smart enough to build the pyramids......I was writing about the Great Pyramid as an example of the high technology which existed shortly after the Flood. I mentioned that Piazzi Smyth presents evidence in his book on the GP that it was not the Egyptians who built the GP (he does believe the Egyptians built the other pyramids I think). Smyth favors, but is not dogmatic, that the GP architect was one called "Philiton", of a people group called the Hyksos or Shepherd Kings. Smyth writes,

Quote:

For Herodotus further states:--

(128) "The Egyptians so detest the memory of those two kings [Cheops and Chephren], that they do not much like even to mention their names. Hence, they commonly call the Pyramids [the Great and the Second] after Philiton [or Philitis], a shepherd who at that time fed his flocks about the place."

Seldom has a more important piece of truth, than this touching Philitis, been issued in a few words. Sir G. Wilkinson, in his note to that passage, allows at once the Hyksosian, or Shepherd-royal, character of a stranger who could be so distinguished in connection with the greatest of the monuments of Egypt; and is only anxious to guard his readers as to the particular personage alluded to, having really lived in the early fourth dynasty; and not having been one of those later, better known, but totally different indivciduals who figured as the Shepherd Kings in the 15th, 16th and 17th dynasties. While Mr. Rawlinson, in another note on the same page, seems equally to allow,--not only that Philitis was a Shepherd Prince from Palestine, and perhaps of Philistine descent, but so powerful and domineering, that it may be traditions of his oppressions in that earlier age, which mixed up afterwards in the minds of the Theban Egyptians with the evils inflicted on their country by the subsequent Shepherds of the later, better-known dynasties; and lent so much of actual fear to aliment [sic] their religious hate of "Shepherd" times and the Hyksos name.

If this theory of Mr. Rawlinson's be correct, we may learn something further of the Great Pyramid's fourth dynasty, Shepherd-Prince, Philitis--by attending to certain things which Manetho has written of the subsequent Sheperds; and especially eliminating therefrom certain features which cannot by any possibility be true of those men such as they were in that later day. For thus wrote the Sebennyte priest: [the high priest of the idolatrous temples of Egypt in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus]

"We had formerly a king whose name was Timeus. In his time it came to pass, I know not how, that God was displeased with us: and there came up from the East, in a strange manner, men of an ignoble race, who had the confidence to invade our country, and easily subdued it by their power without a battle."

This, it will be observed, is a very peculiar phrase; and lends much colour to the suggestion that Philitis was enabled to exert a certain amount of mental control over king Shofo and his Egyptian people; not by the vulgar method of military conqust, by by some supernatural influence in connection with the service of the one and only true God.

"All this invading nation," Manetho goes onto say, "was styled Hycsos, that is Shepherd Kings; for the first syllable, Hyc, in the sacred dialect denotes a king: and Sos signifies a shepherd, but this only according to the vulgar tongue; and of these is compounded the term Hycsos: some say they were Arabians."

Yet if they were Arabians, why did they not return to Arabia, when they afterwards, "to the number of not less than 240,000, quitted Egypt by capitulation, with all their families and effects"? And went--where to? "To Judaea, and built there," says Manetho, "a city of sufficient size to contain this multitude of men, and named it Jerusalem." (P. Smyth, The Great Pyramid: It's Secrets Revealed, Crown Publishers, 1978 reprint, pp. 527-529)

I queried this, not least on the grounds that, as far as I was aware, the Egyptian term for pyramid was mer (or more correctly mr), but the thread was locked before a response came. Hope this is of interest.

Pappy Jack · 06-23-2007, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pappy Jack

I queried this, not least on the grounds that, as far as I was aware, the Egyptian term for pyramid was mer (or more correctly mr), but the thread was locked before a response came. Hope this is of interest.

Of course, Herodotus may have been trying to suggest that the pyramids in question were called Philiton's Great and Second Pyramids, rather than the Egyptian term for pyramid somehow being derived from Philiton, but you pays your money and takes your choice in this realm of nonsense.

Dave Hawkins · 06-23-2007, 05:06 AM

REGULAR, HOLLOWED FACES OF GREAT PYRAMID CONFIRMED BY PETRIE

Once again, my interest in the GP is two-fold ... I want to know if Smyth's measurements were vindicated. If so, then Smyth's careful scholarship is demonstrated and the Smyth-bashers refuted. They may still bash him for his prophetic inferences, but they cannot bash him for his careful measurements, and for his recognition of the advanced scientific knowledge of the builders. Then, if Smyth's scholarship is vindicated, we should not lightly dismiss his astronomical dating of the GP. True, we cannot say "Smyth's measurements were correct, therefore his GP date is correct." This does not necessarily follow. But we can say "Smyth was a careful scholar who got many things right. He was also an eminent astronomer who achieved some agreement from other eminent astronomers of his day in saying that the GP was probably built c. 2170 BC. Let us investigate this claim in detail." Dean Anderson dismisses Smyth's astronomical dating of the GP, but has not yet provided details as to why we should dismiss it. Dean has studied the GP, but it appears that Petrie is his primary source. Has he read the original works of Proctor and Herschel on this topic? I have not. How can we dismiss their theories without first reading their work? And while Dean has studied Petrie, it appears that he missed the part about the hollowed faces.

Dean Anderson wrote ...

Quote:

Yes, that picture [Aerial photo by P.R.C. Groves] does stretch credulity somewhat.

The perfect "shadow" on that picture contradicts both Davidson's diagram and other aerial photography of the pyramid (such as in Google Maps.

Personally, I think that it has been airbrushed to give a false impression. Don't forget that even according to your description, the angle of the concavity of the pyramid is much less than half a degree - and would not show up on such an aerial photograph.

It seems that in all your study on the GP, you have not run across this photo before. Is this correct? Several lines of evidence contradict your conjecture above ...

1) Petrie's own statements ...

Quote:

26. With regard to the casing, at the top it must—by the above data—average about 71 ± 5 inches in thickness from the back to the top edge of each stone. Now the remaining casing stones on the N. base are of an unusual height, and therefore we may expect that their thickness on the top would be rather less, and on the bottom rather more, than the mean of all. Their top thickness averages 62 ± 8 (the bottom being 108 ± 8), and it thus agrees very fairly with 71 ± 5 inches. At the corners, however, the casing was thinner, averaging but 33.7 (difference of core plane and casing on pavement); and this is explained by the faces of the core masonry being very distinctly hollowed.

p 44 This hollowing is a striking feature; and beside the general curve of the face, each side has a sort of groove specially down the middle of the face, showing that there must have been a sudden increase of the casing thickness down the mid-line. The whole of the hollowing was estimated at 37 on the N. face; and adding this to the casing thickness at the corners, we have 70.7, which just agrees with the result from the top (71 ± 5), and the remaining stones (62 ± 8). The object of such an extra thickness down the mid-line of each face might be to put a specially fine line of casing, carefully adjusted to the required angle on each side ; and then afterwards setting all the remainder by reference to that line and the base.
http://touregypt.net/petrie/c6.html

So Petrie acknowledged that this "hollowing in" is on all four sides, and describes it as a sort of groove down the middle of each face. He asserts that the casing was thinner at the corners, but notice that this is inferred. To my knowledge the only extant casing stones are at the middle of each side. See Petrie (p. 37)

Quote:

20. p. 37 The materials available for a discussion of the original size of the base of the Great pyramid are :—

(1) the casing in situ upon the pavement, in the middle of each face;
(2) the rock cut sockets at each corner;
(3) the levels of the pavement and sockets;
(4) the mean planes of the present core masonary.
[same link as above]

Now why Petrie talks about a "sudden" increase in casing thickness, I do not know. The hollowing in seems gradual from his other data. Davidson shows it as slightly trapezoidal ... how he infers this, I do not know. From the photo, the hollowing in does not appear sudden, but gradual as Davidson's diagram indicates.

2) Dean says that this hollowing in would not show up in an aerial photo because it is so small, but this is not true. I have seen this lighting phenomenon many times myself. The roof of my house has slight deviations from a perfectly flat plane and these can only be seen when the sun angle is just right so that the suns rays almost parallel the planar surface. In this brief moment of time, the higher slopes in the roof surface will cast a shadow and the lower slopes will not, even though the slopes are minute. You can also see this effect with an old, not-too-flat table by sighting across it when the sun is low in the sky.

3) Dean says that my descriptions contradicts the diagram from Davidson I posted earlier. Not true. Davidson's diagram on the left is greatly exaggerated and is clearly annotated as such so that it can be seen. The feature in the unexaggerated diagram on the right cannot be seen.

4) Dean says that Groves' photo contradicts the Google map photo, but it does not. Again, the sun angle is the key. Since the hollowing in is so small, the proper sun angle is required to see the effect, and the Google photo obviously does not have the right sun angle.

5) Davidson is not the only investigator to write about the hollowed in feature. There have been several. See http://www.catchpenny.org/concave.html

Dean asks if I have visited the GP. No I have not. But again, my visiting would not allow me to see this hollowing in feature unless the sun angle happened to be just right. I can envision an experiment, however. I wonder if anyone taken night photos with some strong artificial lighting positioned at the edges of the GP? Hmmm ...

Pappy Jack · 06-23-2007, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pappy Jack

Quote:

Originally Posted by Withered

....Given what we now know about how the pyramids were constructed, ......

Kurt Mendelssohn, The Riddle of the Pyramids (or via: amazon.co.uk), London 1974 and 1976, provides an interesting analysis in.....What this 70,000 labour-force says about the overall population of Egypt is another question, but at least provides a starting point.

Withered, further to the above, if you're interested in information on Dynastic Egypt demography, there is a brief discussion here.

Pappy Jack · 06-23-2007, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

.....Once again, my interest in the GP is two-fold ... I want to know if Smyth's measurements were vindicated. If so, then Smyth's careful scholarship is demonstrated and the Smyth-bashers refuted. They may still bash him for his prophetic inferences, but they cannot bash him for his careful measurements, and for his recognition of the advanced scientific knowledge of the builders. ...

It matters not one whit if Smyth's measurements were accurate or not (and, indeed, I am happy to agree Smyth's was probably the most accurately measured record of the Great Pyramid until Petrie's more precise survey, and Smyth should be credited for this at least), but - and I don't know how many times this needs to be or can be said - it is the absurdity of the conclusions he drew from these figures that is the point at issue. I can do little other than re-refer you yet again to Gardner's biting observation that, if you have enough data on hand and are prepared to spend enough time contriving relationships amongst them, you can produce any results that you wish.

Dave Hawkins · 06-23-2007, 05:27 AM

RE: J.F. CROW AND THE INFERENCE OF GENETICALLY SUPERIOR HUMAN ANCESTORS

I do not see how anyone could miss this inference from Crow which corresponds well with Biblical statements about the initial "good" state of mankind, the subsequent Fall & Curse which brought death and degeneration.

Not only is Crow's statement about our stone age ancestors quite clear to me, but his statement about the future of the human race is also clear. He refers to the mutation accumulation problem as a "bomb with a long fuse." Even if we lay aside the stone age comments, a simple extrapolation backwards in time from the "bomb" statement argues strongly for the Biblical view of "Good at first" followed by "worse and worse as time goes on." In this regard, Kondrashov has an eye-catching title ...

Quote:

A.S. Kondrashov. 1995. Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: Why have we not died 100 times over? J Theor. Biol. 175:583-594.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00004/art00167

IOW, why have we not died 100X over given the present Darwinian view that H. sapiens has existed on earth for ~200K years. [My answer to his question: H. sapiens has not been on earth for 200K years. He's been here for <10k years.]

Last year I discussed these papers with a microbiology professor (I think that's what he was) named Dr. Russell Durbin ("Russell" at AtBC). The context was the same as the present discussion. We were discussing accumulating mutations and he said this ...

Quote:

How many times do we have to point out to you, davy, that the huge majority of species that ever existed have gone extinct? And that Homo sapiens is almost certainly going to join that group? Link here

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-23-2007, 01:05 AM	#274
Dean Anderson Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Brighton, England Posts: 6,947	I've done a bit of digging, and it seems that afdave is repeating the "theories" of Joseph A Seiss, who wrote a book called "The Great Pyramid of Egypt: A Miracle In Stone". Seiss was 19th century Dispensationalist Millennialist in what grew into the Evangelical movement, and made all sorts of outrageous claims. Although a contemporary of Smyth, he took Smyth's dubious numbers at face value, but disagreed with Smyth's prophecies and put forward his own instead. He goes much further than Smyth when it comes to alleged 'evidence' to support his theories, and makes many claims that are simply unsupported by any evidence. Seiss's puts forward the following arguments: 1) The pyramid was constructed 600 years after the flood, in 2170 BCE 2) The pyramid was built by Philitis (although he calls him 'Philition'). 3) The pyramid was the first pyramid built, and all the others were built afterwards and were cheap imitations of it. 4) Smyth's numerical calculations are accurate and significant, but his interpretation of prophecy isn't. Do any of these arguments sound familiar? (Hint: We have seen them all on this thread...) So, Dave, are you a fan of Seiss's work? Do you agree with his other conclusions?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.