Pyramids and the speed of light

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Hadley developed the octant around 1730.
Why not the modern sextant one might ask, the decision to use 8 could have been inspired by the Spanish dollar and pieces of eight.
Arc seconds were first recorded in Babylonian astronomy 3000 BC.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

The real question isn't whether they could do it. It's whether they could do it in 40 years.

I would say they could by the time they'd gotten around to Giza they had about 3 generations of experience building large pyramids and marshaling the logistics to do it, Merer's papyri highlights that. A lot of them were left unfinished perhaps because the Pharaoh died and that might have meant you stopped building.

And then why does it stop?

Civil war and unrest the first intermediate period disrupted the process and the work force and resources were refocused on war and the expertise lost. When they started building them again in was several generations later.

120 years or so until the power of Pharaoh was restored. So in a USA example a similar period in the USA would equal the country falling apart in the 1890's and just now reconstituted itself about 5-6 generations.

en.wikipedia.org...

If the 29.9792° N is not a coincidence, then it significance may be giving basic units of measurements to a grid. How that is interpreted is for guess work. For example, V = s/t, so with V = 299792458
and s = 29.9792 x 60 nautical miles x 1852 metres = 3331288.7
then 299793458/3331288.7 = 90 seconds.
frequency = 1/t = 0.011111
for 360 seconds frequency would be 0.002777

My guess is they were trying to define time interms of cyclic frequency components.

originally posted by: Cauliflower
Arc seconds were first recorded in Babylonian astronomy 3000 BC.

I don't think that's true.
Got a reliable source?

Earliest use of degrees that we know of is Ptolemy. The Babylonians divided a circle into 360 parts, and probably the subdivisions minute and second. But there's no record of them using these to measure angles with.

Unless you have found something.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Hi Harte and Byrd... Great to see you on the boards.

Haven't read the article, i might but i am convinced it's just another guess on maybes about the pyramids.

a reply to: Byrd

Yes Bryd, that is the case now, through time however, there are discrepancies with the math by about 19cm... At the time they were built they were precise measurements.

a reply to: Harte

True, it would be a similar feat for the builders of the great pyramid to dream up the spherical nature of the Earth and use a distance equal to the modern 10,000 kilometers between the poles and the equator. There could be even more secrets beyond base 10 and base 47 if they were kept hidden from public view though.

We lose important historical perspective over time when the original methods and tools from a period are replaced, that almost happened to Archimedes with Newtons calculus. Even in the 20th century for example the invention of the horseless carriage has diminished the allegorical significance of the horse in the public consciousness.

a reply to: AthlonSavage





Registered: 16-4-2012
Location:
Mood:
Member is on ATS now.

7,273 1,357
8,301 78 19





posted on Aug, 11 2018 @ 02:00 AM

link edit quote reply

If the 29.9792° N is not a coincidence, then it significance may be giving basic units of measurements to a grid. How that is interpreted is for guess work. For example, V = s/t, so with V = 299792458
and s = 29.9792 x 60 nautical miles x 1852 metres = 3331288.7
then 299793458/3331288.7 = 90 seconds.
frequency = 1/t = 0.011111
for 360 seconds frequency would be 0.002777

My guess is they were trying to define time interms of cyclic frequency components.


Cos 45 deg Angle = 1/ root 2 = 0.707

conversion to circular time representation.

0.707 x .01111 = 0.0078559

4 x 0.0078599 = 0.03142 (Pi = 3.14159 or rounded 3.142)

a reply to: NJE777

The inaccuracy was probably down to stretch in the string line.

a reply to: blackcrowe

No it was perfect at the time they were built... Over time, 10 thousand years later they have a 19cm discrepancy.

Incredible really, the precision in those days.

a reply to: NJE777

No it was perfect at the time they were built...

How do you know that? Although things can move over a long time.

10 thousand years later they have a 19cm discrepancy.

Your dating seems wrong.

Incredible really, the precision in those days.

Impressive. But they were very skilled workers.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Cauliflower
Arc seconds were first recorded in Babylonian astronomy 3000 BC.

I don't think that's true.
Got a reliable source?

www.storyofmathematics.com...

You've got to figure that only a very tiny fraction of their material survived, though. We're just lucky some of it was on clay tablets that could survive thousands of years intact.

If they'd written it on paper, or skins, or cloth, like most cultures, the we wouldn't have anything at all. So there could be other civilizations contemporary to them or even earlier than them, for all we know.

Earliest use of degrees that we know of is Ptolemy. The Babylonians divided a circle into 360 parts, and probably the subdivisions minute and second. But there's no record of them using these to measure angles with.

Unless you have found something.

Harte

Ptolemy probably got most of his ideas from Babylonian documents, which got them from Sumerian ones.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Maybe the Babylonians best stuff didn't survive history?

The Great Pyramid was built some 500 years later but Newgrange, the Stone Age (Neolithic) monument in the Boyne Valley was dated several hundred years earlier.

mythicalireland.com...

originally posted by: NJE777
a reply to: Harte

Hi Harte and Byrd... Great to see you on the boards.

Haven't read the article, i might but i am convinced it's just another guess on maybes about the pyramids.

Good to see you too.

Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Cauliflower
Arc seconds were first recorded in Babylonian astronomy 3000 BC.

I don't think that's true.
Got a reliable source?

originally posted by: bloodymarvelouswww.storyofmathematics.com...

You've got to figure that only a very tiny fraction of their material survived, though. We're just lucky some of it was on clay tablets that could survive thousands of years intact.

If they'd written it on paper, or skins, or cloth, like most cultures, the we wouldn't have anything at all. So there could be other civilizations contemporary to them or even earlier than them, for all we know.

Yes, I think I said something like that: "there's no record of them using these to measure angles with."
They divided the circle into multiples of 60, but they didn't measure angles using that. In fact, their mathematics shows nothing about angles and their relationships, thought there is a large amount of material about triangles - all of it concerned with the side lengths and none of it about the angles in a triangle.

So it's logical to hypothesize that they had no angular mathematics at all, and thus never "recorded" arcseconds.

It's just that the (semi) modern invention of the arcsecond as an angle measure (such as for analyzing the sky) descends from the Babylonian division of a circle.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

Earliest use of degrees that we know of is Ptolemy. The Babylonians divided a circle into 360 parts, and probably the subdivisions minute and second. But there's no record of them using these to measure angles with.

Unless you have found something.

Harte

Ptolemy probably got most of his ideas from Babylonian documents, which got them from Sumerian ones.

Somebody did. It's thought that Ptolemy's work is based on earlier Greek works now lost.

But there's no doubt that the sexagesimal system used in angle measurement (and in time measurement) originates with Mesopotamian cultures. But no reason to think the Mesopotamians used it to measure angles.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

In math, radians are much easier to use than degrees. Like the metric system, they make sense.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Harte

In math, radians are much easier to use than degrees. Like the metric system, they make sense.

Very true, and a modern invention (1873).

Harte

a reply to: Harte


Pretty hard to think of using arc seconds for ancient astronomy when the best the human eye can discern is something a bit more than half an arc minute.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Harte


Pretty hard to think of using arc seconds for ancient astronomy when the best the human eye can discern is something a bit more than half an arc minute.

Well there you go getting all rational and logical.

[crank_mode] How about if they used midgets with smaller eyes[/crank_mode]

I actually had that said to me once during a similar discussion.

We still had other knowledge through the 1800's.

The indians got pretty pissed at us and put an ignorance curse on us.

It started in california and spread through the world.

Now we do not see reality in the same so the chance of us coming to some verifiable conclusion on matters is null.

It had something to do with ally mcbeal