RED DAVE

Let's continue with the basics.

From afdave:
I am unable to find, online, Rohl's dynastic sequences; however, it is my impression that it refers to later dynasties.

If you have this data, please share it, so we can see when in Egyptian history, according to Rohl's system, the flood occurred.

So far, according to your guesstimate and the standard chronology, it occurred during the Second Dynasty.

RED DAVE

mung bean

Would also attract wolfhounds, which are much bigger and hairier than flies. Would be a bugger trying to lay out a pyramid with the Pharaoh's wolfhounds gnawing on your surveying ropes.

Boom tish.

mung bean

T'other poster was me.
Recapping, we have:
"Measurements of Pyramid of Khufu
The great pyramid was originally encased in polished white limestone, but the outer casing
was removed long ago for other construction projects. Therefore, the exact dimensions of the
original limits cannot be determined with certainty The measurements shown here are to the
sockets as defined by Petrie. (Goodman, Personal Communication) For a structure that was
231 meters square, the largest discrepancy is 30cm between the north and west sides, but the
difference between the north and east sides is only 6cm."
The 15mm discrepancy referred to how far out of level the GP's base was.

Now AFDave, the explanation for the ratios of the GP was included in this post:
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/...=225098#225098

Note that it gives an extremely close approximation to pi without requiring any knowledge of pi. This is coincidental, Dave.

So, you have several problems.
The first is that Smyth's claimed measurement precision is, to say the least, suspiciously good. In fact let's be honest here.
Smyth was obviously making up the numbers he wanted to see. He could not possibly measure the GP to an accuracy of 0.01 inches with late 19th century surveying instruments.

The second problem is that regardless of Smyth's accuracy there is a perfectly acceptable explanation, consistent with what we now know of ancient Egyptian mathematics, that allows an extremely close approximation of pi to be coincidentally built into the GP without any actual reference to pi itself.

The third problem is that measurements of the GP with modern survey equipment show that the north and west sides differ in length by one foot.
Accordingly it is ridiculous to even attempt to extract any ratio to extreme precision, based on measurements of the GP as actually built. This, of course, also ties in with your first problem and is further evidence (if any was needed) that Smyth was economical with the truth.

Your fourth problem, which ties in with the OP, is that since it can be conclusively shown that Smyth's statements on the proportions of the GP cannot be trusted what makes you think his assumptions on chronology are any more reliable? Sure, they may be accurate but proving this would require an alternative source of evidence. Smyth himself cannot be relied upon.
Bear in mind your post from RDF that I quoted earlier. You accept Smyth's dates because he derived them by averaging a variety of dates which you accept were all wrong. This is not good methodology.

Mike PSS

Thanks for dredging that up Mr. Bean. I had forgotten the relevant page number. I searched in the 380's and above and forgot how fast that thread moved.

Dave,
Here's one reference for the description of pyramid slopes. Two of these pyramids are dated BEFORE the GP. How do you explain these pyramids anyway?
Here's a description about the PI value in the pyramid.

And here's what I asked you at RD.net oh so long ago (which you never responded at all)...
So here's some MORE information about the pyramids, pi, Smyth, and the Egyptians.

Got anything else, or can we throw Smyth's conclusions out with the bathwater yet.

deadman_932

I'll be happy to take on Rohl...Dave's so far not answered what I asked at RD's, so I may as well get answers here.

RED DAVE

I wish you would. There's no one timeline for his results that I could find, especially for the early dynasties.

RED DAVE

Calilasseia

Any chance that at some point you will point to specific strata and:

[1] Identify precisely which, according to you, are pre-flood and post-flood strata;

[2] Demonstrate that these strata exist uniformly around the entire planet and exhibit the same physical features regardless of which part of the planet they are sampled from?

Because until you can do this, those "billions of dead things" will continue to be regarded, by those of us with critical faculties intact, as having been deposited over many hundreds of millions of years, not least because the rock strata can be independently dated.

Furthermore, returning to Egypt, you are still required to explain how an entire civilisation managed to be covered by 9,000 metres of water and carry on as if nothing happened.

BWE

Dave, distubing. Your ideas continue to morph into stranger and more fantastic delusions as you keep up this attempt to use rhetoric to defeat reason. Your last debate post on dendro here accusing a scientist of perpetrating a massive fraud almost 40 years ago that cascaded into a now universal acceptance of radiometric dating illustrates a shift into more extreme tools to maintain your denial in the face of reality. I'm sorry but your world will come crashing down in one fashion or another if you continue to examine reality.

Egyptology is fun because there are so many unknowns but honest scientists do not hide the unknowns nor do they entertain paranoid delusions of people who try to point to long discredited sources.

Sorry. So, how's that working out for you then?

Pappy Jack

And do you, Dave, accept Rohl’s evidence and chronology uncritically? If yes, why? If not, what parts of it do you reject and why? Your claims are the extraordinary ones and despite what you might think, Rohl is not a ‘get out of jail free’ card for Smyth’s ideas about the Great Pyramid. Even the extreme revision of 350 years proposed by Rohl is not enough to rescue Smyth. Nor does Rohl offer any succour for YEC Biblical literalists, proffering no support that I can see for a <10,000 year-old Earth. Furthermore, Rohl’s conclusions are considered doubtful by several critics, for example Walter Mattfield here (links provided to other critics), and Dennis Forbes and, to a lesser extent, Aidan Dodson here (Dodson is mostly concerned with reviewing Peter James’ Centuries of Darkness, which also argues for a revision of the Dynastic Egyptian chronology). You might want to consider some of these before you hail Rohl’s work as conclusive.

As you are well aware, it was I who categorized Mike’s posts on pi and the GP as ‘overwhelmingly convincing.’ I would point out once again that your (and Smyth’s) argument is the extraordinary one and requires extraordinary evidence independent of the circular ones inherent in your postings about pi. Mike’s links lead you to reasoned explanations of how pi could be incorporated in the GP without resort to anachronistic invokings of ‘advanced scientific knowledge’. You need to explain how Smyth’s unsupported theory is more convincing than these considered arguments.

Finally, the idea I tried to explain to you about the implications of using cylindrical/circular measuring devices is another entirely rational explanation of how pi might appear ‘accidentally’ in the GP’s measurements. I still believe it is a valid idea, although after some further research I agreed with Mike that the evidence for its actual implementation is at the moment lacking.

Mike PSS

Pappy Jack,
DON'T be tempted by the dark side and succumb to the WWRRIC (worldwiderollerrulerinternationalconspiricy). Keep your sanity and integrity together and help me, a lowly engineer, continue to confront and fight for everything sane and wholesome.

Roller Rulers are E-e-e-e-e-v-v-v-v-v-i-i-i-i-i-l-l-l-l-l-l!!!!1111!!!11oneone!!!11