hyzer

afdave

Define "advanced knowledge"

FatherMithras

I award Red Dave the FatherMithras reward of awesome.

That´s all.

RED DAVE

If nominated, I will not run.

If elected, I will not serve.

However, send the award money to my PayPal account!

RED DAVE

Mike PSS

Dave,
I asked you this at RD.net yesterday and you have not acknowldged it.

Here it is again at IIDB.
And to add to that observation.

What NEW knowledge was gleaned from the Magic Pyramid that was not known before Smythe published his work.

Occam's Aftershave

Oh boy, here we go again!

First afdave trotted out this "Aryan non-egyptians (Shemites) built the pyramids to store advanced knowledge, because the black Egyptians (Hamites) were too stupid" nonsense over at ATBC, where he got his ass handed to him on a platter. Then he moved his circus over to RD.net, where he repeated the nonsense and got his ass handed to him even worse. When Dave got tired of looking like a fool there for all the questions he couldn't answer, he set off to find a new audience for his bigoted preaching at IIDB.

Sorry Dave, this is the Internet, ya know? Your history will follow you, and you can't erase it.

To the IIDB regulars - be kind to Dave. He's has a rough year, being publicly embarrassed and run off two other boards.

Now where's the 'popcorn' smilie? :grin:

ericmurphy

This is incredibly fun, watching Dave's antagonists chase him across multiple discussion groups. You can run, Dave, but you can't hide—except on your own blog, where you've blocked comments.

BWE

Dear me Dave, would you please show us your math for this growth rate?

You see, not that I am an expert in population dynamics or anything, but I do have do deal with them some at work and none of the software I use can give me your numbers with anything close to 2%. Are you using a simple Malthusian exponential growth rate formula? Because, er, that isn't reality. Reality requires inputs of calorie requirements, competition for resources and quite a few other things. And, on top of that, you would need a few data points. Are you claiming that Chinese architecture from the period is not really from the period?

Pappy Jack

Dave, I am sure Dean will deal with this far more effectively than I can, but for the umpteenth time, the pyramid-inch is a fiction, 'found' by Smyth as a piece of the self-fulfilling evidence needed to prove the baggage of pre-formed theories he went to the Great Pyramid determined to establish. You can check out a brief introdution to the history of English measurement (including the inch) here:

http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/custom.html

(BTW, you may be interested to know that the French used to measure in inches. The French word for inch is 'pouce'. Do you know what this means and what it says about the derivation of the word as a measure?)

So Davidson's measurements may agree with Smyth, but so what? No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney. In the diagrams you posted, Davidson's 'New Construction' plan is anyway out-and-out wrong: he assumed the concavity in the core structure would be repeated in the casing, for which assumption there is no evidence whatsoever as what casing remains is quite flat; see:

http://www.catchpenny.org/concave.html

Dean Anderson

The diagram you have included says nothing about the relevant measurements of Smyth. You brought Smyth's measurements up as support for your mid- 22nd century BCE date for the pyramid's construction. His "evidence" for this is based on alleged symbolism that he claims is inherent in the lengths of the internal passages, and is nothing to do with the external dimensions of the pyramid.

For a detailed discussion of what is wrong with these measurements, I suggest reading this thread, where WILLOWTREE gives the case for Smyth's numerological claims (including that date for the pyramid's construction) and I analyse and refute them.

So even if Davidson's diagram was correct, it would provide no support for Smyth's dating of the pyramid, and therefore no support for your case that there was a 600 year gap between the flood and the building of the pyramid.

Having said that, Davidson's diagram is not correct.

Petrie's methodology is as follows:

1) Take the current corner-to-corner dimensions of the pyramid (8991") as accurate. Ignore the slight concavity of the sides, since this most likely due to a few millenia of slight subsidence.

2) Add on 34" at each side for the width of the casing stones (this width is taken from the few casing stones that still exist).

3) Therefore, the original width of the pyramid (with casing stones) was 9059 (8991 + 2x34) inches.

Davidson's methodology, on the other hand, is:

1) Take Petrie's corner-to-corner measurement as accurate.

2) Assume that the 36" of concavity of the sides is not due to subsidence, but is a deliberate design feature put there by God (as hypothesised by Smyth).

3) Add the 36" of concavity to the 34" thickness of the casing stones to arrive at a value of 70".

4) Add this 70" to the corner-to-corner width of the pyramid, to arrive at a final corner-to-corner measurement of 9131".

5) Multiply this 9131" figure by 4 to arrive at a figure for the perimeter of the pyramid that can then be claimed to have "cosmic significance".

But there is absolutely no justification for this finagling of the numbers. Rather than reconcile Petrie's and Smyth's values, all he is doing is replacing Petrie's values by reproducing Smyth's invalid values starting from the common point of the four corners of the caseless pyramid.

What Davidson is doing is taking the correction needed in order to make the midpoints of the concave sides properly square (as the pyramid would have been when built), but then assumed that the pyramid is concave by design, and added those corrections to the corners of the pyramid.

But - and this is the key issue - the corrections are only there because the pyramid is assumed to have had a square design. If the pyramid is concave by design (as Smyth and Davidson assume) then those corrections do not represent anything and should not be used for anything.

So not only is Davidson applying a correction to something it should not be applied to, he is doing so despite the fact that in his model of the pyramid's design that correction does not exist.

And all this is done in order to artificially inflate the size of the pyramid in order to make the numbers fit Smyth's "cosmic significance".

Davidson has no grounds for fiddling the numbers the way he has, and by doing so he has demonstrated that he is either incompetent at best or fraudulent at worst.

Most decidedly NOT.

Yes, it seems logical. But Davidson is trying to have his cake and eat it, by assuming that the casing follows the core - but also adding the correction needed when one assumes that the core originally followed the casing.

I can't comment on this without more information - but even if this is the case, it would not mean anything in relation to the age of the pyramid.

Yes, he was. I didn't know when Davidson wrote. However, the calculations used by both are pretty identical - so it looks like LeMesurier used Davidson as a source (as they both used Smyth) rather than the other way around.

Yes, this is correct.

This is where you go wrong. Crow is explicitly not saying that our ancestors were healthier and longer lived than us because they had better genes.

He is saying that they acquired the same genetic problems that we do and at the same rate, but they would have suffered and died in ways that we can prevent with modern medicine - which would have (in a rather brutal way) kept those problems in check.

In other words, they were unhealthier than we are, and lived (on average) shorter lives - the very opposite of what the Bible says.

Your inference is not only completely unsupported, it actively goes against the thing that you are inferring from.

In fact, I would suggest that far from inferring that scenario from the data, you actually believe that scenario purely through faith - and you are trying to impose it onto the data rather than getting it from the data.

They do not quote that number directly, but it is the result of a simple calculation based on the numbers that they do quote.

Alpha Draconis was above the pole in approximately 2650-2600 BCE (from their page).

Precession moves us 360 degrees in 25,750 years (also from their page). This means we move approximately 1 degree every 71.66 years (although from our perspective, it appears that the stars move 1 degree every 71.66 years in the opposite direction).

There are about 450-500 years between the date when it was above the pole and your date of 2150 BCE. Moving 1 degree every 71.66 years means that in 450-500 years the star would have appeared to move (450/71.66)-(500/71.66) degrees, or 6.279 - 6.977 degrees.

Pappy Jack

PS to my last post...
Dave, I forgot to comment on this, but as you were comprehensively shown at the Flood Debate Commentary thread at richarddawkins.net that it is wrong, you'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath on this one. Please tell me that we don't have to revisit pi-ramidology all over again..... :devil1: