432 shows harmony of Sun, Moon, Earth Design

[ReligionStudent]

Perfectly fallacious thinking on your part, since both species could have picked the same aberrancy at any time after. I say aberrancy, because all that time of breaking the rules was not enough to substantially alter the digestive systems of both species. Check it out, the human tract has all the classic telltale marks of being essentially vegetarian.

Even begining with the teeth, humans have evolved to be omniverous

 

[Jiri]

You have to explain why the lines should be drawn at all. What made you think those lines belong there?

They were originally just exploratory lines. The system they comply with says they belong there.
Common, you didn't read the whole post and digest it too, yet. You see, there is a lot of meat in it..

 

[ReligionStudent]

They were originally just exploratory lines. The system they comply with says they belong there.
Common, you didn't read the whole post and digest it too, yet. You see, there is a lot of meat in it..

I read your post, there is just nothing there to scientifically support your process.

 

[Jiri]

I read your post, there is just nothing there to scientifically support your process.

You could replace thought like yours with some pretty icons. One for every occasion.
Produce to the point specific criticism or stay your tongue.

 

[ReligionStudent]

You could replace thought like yours with some pretty icons. One for every occasion.
Produce to the point specific criticism or stay your tongue.

I have produced it. you have yet to say why we should believe these lines mean anything or why we should even believe there is reason to draw them. The picture does not have instructions that tell you to draw lines on it, and there is no presadence for this type of numerolo...analysis.

 

[jsfisher]

I read your post, there is just nothing there to scientifically support your process.

You could replace thought like yours with some pretty icons. One for every occasion. Produce to the point specific criticism or stay your tongue.

Jiri, ReligionStudent has a valid point. It is valid on at least two counts.

The first is basic scientific process. You have a hypothesis: Mathematical insight and knowledge of an ancient culture can be deduced from the artwork of the culture. (Please, correct that if you feel it misrepresents your hypothesis.) The next step would be experimentation. The most obvious experiments would evaluate artwork of known-mathematical cultures and of known-non-mathematical cultures. You seem to be assuming your hypothesis correct without the pesky work in the middle to validate your hypothesis.

The second is algorithmic ambiguity. Your algorithm for adding lines isn't. (Isn't an algorithm, that is.) The experimenter has too much latitude deciding where lines may be drawn and which lines are to be included. In short, it is an artistic rather than a mechanical process.

Are those specific enough?

 

[Foster Zygote]

The above is a good illustration of your dishonesty in debating. You know that the great pyramids had been stripped of their stone mantles, one could say 'skinned alive'.
Until these despiccable acts the pyramids were reported to look still like new.

How about some citations? I did some research and discovered that Abd al Latif reported that most, not all, most, of the outer casing stones were intact in the 12th century. In other words. while the pyramids still looked pretty good they did not look "brand new".

The fact should surprise no one, since high quality limestone, and granite are very durable.

Again, do a little research. The only granite in the pyramids at Giza was used to line interior hallways.

If you can be so dishonest about pyramid-weathering, it follows that you can be just as dishonest, when discussing my discovery of mathematical coding in some ancient images.

Why did you tell Belz that you could easily produce your line-holders? So far you have answered with nothing but evasion. I have misrepresented no facts. It seems likely that you have.

Meet me at the little place behind Notre Dame tomorrow morning, and bring your pea-shooter. Look out for someone like..

So you'll be the guy wearing nothing but socks, holding a loaf of bread and pointing at your penis?

 

[Paulhoff]

Bogus, anyone here can draw lines anywhere with you so-called method and come up with any pattern. You see a pattern where there isn't any, and your proof is greatly lacking.

Paul



Next we will teach a horse to count.

 

[Paul]

OK let's be specific:

Line confined between edges of an engraved line... snip ...Example: line 'b', 'd', 'e', 'g' in the image shown

b is not confined between the edges and extends beyond the length.
d is not confined to the original engraved line, includes part of a second line with a right angle and is extend past the ends for form an arbitrary junction.
e includes only part of an engraved line, stopping conveniently when the line begins to noticeably curve.
g includes a number of different engraved lines and extends beyond all of them.

.Tangential Points. on bowed lines... snip ...Example: line 'c' in the image shown The example shows that in this case the forced line runs with the edge of the engraved line on one side, instead of meeting a single point.

c appears entirely arbitrary, starting outside the engraved line and in from the end, and extending beyond a point central to the other end. Also, at no point is line c tangent with an arc created by the engraved line.

Hybrid lines
A line starts out as one type, but ends as another type.
Example line 'a'. It starts out from the bottom as the type 'bouncing between edges' in the first marked segment, and ends as a tangent in the other segment of the engraved line.

a is not tangent with any curve it intersects.

Of course, this line has an alternative based purely on the "bow" technique. It isn't the lone forced line, it is one of two possible forced lines.

alternate a use two separate lines and may even be tangent to one, just before it takes a sharp turn which you ignore.

The two lines dilate at about 1/10th of a degree from the looks of it.

The lines neither dilate, nor are they separated by 1/10^th of a degree. The divergence, measured from your drawing, is approximately 7.2 degrees.

Hopefully someone will know what I mean by bewilderment

Oh, we all know about bewilderment.

In this particular experiment lines a-b-c-d create a small but perfect system in conjunction with the x,y axes. The lines 'a' and 'b' had worked out with the y-axis to a visually exact triangle, found on a regular 5-pointed star.

Your y axis is entirely arbitrary and the orientation of the engraving has been manipulated.

.Tangential Lines

A line can be tangential to two or more arcs occurring on an engraved line, or separately

A line could be, but none of yours are.

 

[calebprime]

Jiri, ReligionStudent has a valid point. It is valid on at least two counts.

The first is basic scientific process. You have a hypothesis: Mathematical insight and knowledge of an ancient culture can be deduced from the artwork of the culture. (Please, correct that if you feel it misrepresents your hypothesis.) The next step would be experimentation. The most obvious experiments would evaluate artwork of known-mathematical cultures and of known-non-mathematical cultures. You seem to be assuming your hypothesis correct without the pesky work in the middle to validate your hypothesis.

The second is algorithmic ambiguity. Your algorithm for adding lines isn't. (Isn't an algorithm, that is.) The experimenter has too much latitude deciding where lines may be drawn and which lines are to be included. In short, it is an artistic rather than a mechanical process.

Are those specific enough?

yes.

 

[CapelDodger]

Perfectly fallacious thinking on your part, since both species could have picked the same aberrancy at any time after.

It is, however, quite improbable, and jimbob made the point that "the hominid diet has probably been omnivorous since before [6 mya]" (my emphasis), so there is no fallacious thinking being displayed. There has been a mis-reading on your part, perhaps because of your eagerness to make a jibe.

I say aberrancy, because all that time of breaking the rules was not enough to substantially alter the digestive systems of both species. Check it out, the human tract has all the classic telltale marks of being essentially vegetarian.

The primate digestive system (with associated elements of the immune system) is essentially carnivorous. (Initially insectivorous, and nocturnal).

Man and chimp do not live by fruit alone.

 

[ReligionStudent]

It is, however, quite improbable, and jimbob made the point that "the hominid diet has probably been omnivorous since before [6 mya]" (my emphasis), so there is no fallacious thinking being displayed. There has been a mis-reading on your part, perhaps because of your eagerness to make a jibe.



The primate digestive system (with associated elements of the immune system) is essentially carnivorous. (Initially insectivorous, and nocturnal).

Man and chimp do not live by fruit alone.

While the statement about primates is true for some species, many are highly vegitarian. (some old world monkies have digestive systems focused on leaves and there are many frugivors and some gumivores etc). However, humans and chimps are certainly evolved to eat meat.

 

[Apathia]

I was a vegetarian from age 16 to 50. I tried the purist vegan thing but found that my body wasn't nutritionally satisfied without the protien from dairy products, so milk and cheese (and Ice Cream!) remained in my diet.

At about 50 I realized I needed a more digestiable source of protien. my aging digestive system is way from the robust consumer it used to be that could break down complex and highly prosessed foods. So I've included some fish and poultry into my diet. I still haven't a desire for steak or pork.

I know a man older than myself who persists in a vegan diet, though he can tell (and so can everyone else) that it's not giving his body what it needs. He openly says he does it for his spirit (His interpretation of Buddhism) though he knows it's bad for his body. People have told him that malnourishing his brain is just as bad for it as muddling it with intoxicants which is clearly against the Buddhist Precepts. But it's a Spirit Vrs. Flesh thing for him, so even maintaining a healthy body for clear awareness is chucked out for the sake of his religious zeal.

 

[Apathia]

Post 1598 is the proverbial "picture worth a thousand words."
Jiri, you are still wondering why we don't see what leaps out to you.
It's simply that we don't see what isn't objectively there.

I think you have a good artist's eye and imagination. As many painters, scupters, and writers share, they find themselves drawn into a unique relationship with their subject in which it presents its "essence" to them. A wood carver sees the figure in the wood, and carves away to get to it. Story writers (including non-professionals such as myself) often find the story writes itself, as if it were waiting out there for someone to come along and give it that service. My best characters contend with me as I'm wrting and protest if I'm not faithful to their character. I could go on and on on this, but my point is that the artistic imagination enters a creative process with the enviornment and draws out what may not be objectively there but is a legit vision in the creative context.

Your mistake is simply that you have mistaken this subjective process for some kind of objective analysis. It's not hard for that to happen. Sometimes the creative vision is so robust to us that it grabs and shakes us to the extent that it seems more real than what we encounter with our mere senses.
My own fiction seems it must be an account of some true story somewhere, and as I give myself over to that in the writing, my readers I share my junk with tell me I've created realistic characters they want to meet. But sometimes I'm carried away, but they aren't. They don't get the picture. Or one does and the others shrug.

We are shrugging here. We are looking for something that you say is objectively there, and even joining the game of chase the lines and connect the dots, we still don't necessarily find the object of beauty that presented itself to you.

I'm not saying there's something wrong with your imagination or your results have no value. But it's an "in the eye of the beholder" thing.

Science is a different discipline. It must offer up what every eye can clearly see to the senses and emperical investigation. Every eye must behold it or it has no use in the Science context.

We began this thread with DavidJayJordan inspired by Mathematics of a Platonic sort that seems to mesh in him with the ideals of his religion.
Ideals can grab us that way. Even hardnosed skpetics can be carried away by an ideology. Some personalities are prone to give ideals the priorty over the empirical. That's why fact after fact doesn't impress them, or cause them to ponder. Ideals, to them, are more real than facts. So it comes to an impass, as the skeptics insist on facts and evidence, and the believers insist on the subjective grasp of ideals.

Yes, I know. This is a simplistic parsing, like saying some people are from Mercury and others from Earth. But a little awareness of cognitive priorities and purposes might help us be a tad more tolerant of each other's process.

 

[Jiri]

OK let's be specific:

Line confined between edges of an engraved line... snip ...Example: line 'b', 'd', 'e', 'g' in the image shown

b is not confined between the edges and extends beyond the length.

The line travels through the engraved line between edges, and with the edges. On its way upwards towards the center of the big x-shape it actually forms the right edge of the engraved line. Later, it starts hitting against the left edge. It is exactly as I describe it above. There is practically only one such line for the purposes here.
Nitpicking Saying that it is some sort of a negative that the "line extends beyond the length" is simply inexcusable. It is only natural to extend the line in order to see it better at the exit points, and to see, where it goes. This kind of argument strikes me as very repugnant - a specious argument for the sake of argument.

d is not confined to the original engraved line, includes part of a second line with a right angle and is extend past the ends for form an arbitrary junction.

The derived line 'd' stays entirely in the black for the entire course through the engraved line 'd'. It travels with the right edge, and it touches the lower (left) edge. Travelling with the edge, in effect smoothing it out, counts as staying in the black, according to the rules of this game.
In fact, this is a very nice example of successful translation. There is only one such line for the engraved line 'd'. You missed again..
And what arbitrary junction? Nothing about the line is arbitrary. Its junction with the x-axis is not arbitrary, then.' Oh, you hate me for extending this line, too.

e includes only part of an engraved line, stopping conveniently when the line begins to noticeably curve.

Again, the extrapolated 'e' is perfectly forced by the engraved line 'e'. It travels with both edges, and within the black. It does not curve. It stops, where another straight line begins. All is within the rules. Just look again.
BTW, line 'e' is also perfectly perpendicular to line 'b'.

g includes a number of different engraved lines and extends beyond all of them.[/QUOTE]
.
The derived line 'g' stays entirely in the black from the top down to where the engraved line splits into a fork. This is easy to verify. Moreover, since in places it runs with both edges, it is the only such line here. It is entirely forced.

[/QUOTE=Jiri]Tangential Points. on bowed lines... snip ...Example: line 'c' in the image shown The example shows that in this case the forced line runs with the edge of the engraved line on one side, instead of meeting a single point.[/QUOTE]

c appears entirely arbitrary, starting outside the engraved line and in from the end, and extending beyond a point central to the other end. Also, at no point is line c tangent with an arc created by the engraved line.[/QUOTE]
.
The fact is that the engraved line 'c' is itself an arc, whose two ends rest on the derived line 'c'. Again, there is only one such line, and thus it too belongs to the forced category. To you however it apears arbitrary. By now, I have lost any faith in your observational powers. I had presumed better for you.

Hybrid lines
A line starts out as one type, but ends as another type.
Example line 'a'. It starts out from the bottom as the type 'bouncing between edges' in the first marked segment, and ends as a tangent in the other segment of the engraved line.

a is not tangent with any curve it intersects.[/QUOTE]

I am not sure what you are trying to say here as being a tangent precludes intersection with the same, but in general the extrapolated line 'c' is tangential to the curve between 'a' and 'd'.

Of course, this line has an alternative based purely on the "bow" technique. It isn't the lone forced line, it is one of two possible forced lines.

alternate a use two separate lines and may even be tangent to one, just before it takes a sharp turn which you ignore.
The lines neither dilate, nor are they separated by 1/10^th of a degree. The divergence, measured from your drawing, is approximately 7.2 degrees.

7.2 degrees, eh? Something tell me we are not looking at the same second line .

Your y axis is entirely arbitrary and the orientation of the engraving has been manipulated.

This is just low of you. The y-axis is part of the so called Cone & Square formation. It is the Square's diagonal, and it is our y-axis for the entire engraving. It never changes, it remains constant throughout my study of the engraving. You must have known that. If not, you had no business involving yourself in this discussion.
And what about your "the orientation of the engraving has been manipulated"? What kind of slander is that? You don't like the fact that I prefer working with the engraving in this orientation? It does not matter, how you twist and turn the engraving - the geometry remains the same.

I was very disappointed by your critique's low level of contact with reality. In fact I was offended by it, because it is so partisan, and antagonistiac. Back on ignore you go, Paul.

 

[Jiri]

I was a vegetarian from age 16 to 50. I tried the purist vegan thing but found that my body wasn't nutritionally satisfied without the protien from dairy products, so milk and cheese (and Ice Cream!) remained in my diet.

At about 50 I realized I needed a more digestiable source of protien. my aging digestive system is way from the robust consumer it used to be that could break down complex and highly prosessed foods. So I've included some fish and poultry into my diet. I still haven't a desire for steak or pork.

The desire for pork and red meat must have left you for ever, I imagine, as it left me a long time ago (26 years).
I can't imagine however what is not easily digestible about let's say millet, which has all the proteins we need, or beans, and tofu, grains. Too much protein and you overload your kidneys, two ounces of pure protein a day should suffice.

I know a man older than myself who persists in a vegan diet, though he can tell (and so can everyone else) that it's not giving his body what it needs.

.
Most strange, he should be a glowing beacon of haleness. Maybe he turned vegetarian late in his life, and his intestines never recovered their natural functions like producing vitamin B12, etc, which are all disabled in human meat-eaters. Perhaps he should take supplements.

He openly says he does it for his spirit (His interpretation of Buddhism) though he knows it's bad for his body. People have told him that malnourishing his brain is just as bad for it as muddling it with intoxicants which is clearly against the Buddhist Precepts. But it's a Spirit Vrs. Flesh thing for him, so even maintaining a healthy body for clear awareness is chucked out for the sake of his religious zeal.

What's with his body? Isn't he obese like most his peers? Is he down to one chin?

 

[Jiri]

While the statement about primates is true for some species, many are highly vegitarian. (some old world monkies have digestive systems focused on leaves and there are many frugivors and some gumivores etc). However, humans and chimps are certainly evolved to eat meat.

Not really, they are evolved to eat things, to which meat bears remote resemblance, such as things with high concentration of protein. Man is kidding himself.

 

[Jiri]

Bogus, anyone here can draw lines anywhere with you so-called method and come up with any pattern. You see a pattern where there isn't any, and your proof is greatly lacking.

Paul, you have a problem, if you don't see the geometrical order in the picture you chose as the example above. This particular picture just shows how what we derived from the torso lines fits right into the greater system, how it is part of that system.

Paul



Next we will teach a horse to count.

Actually, I have it straight from the horse's mouth that you take him for a foal. What counts is hay.

 

[wollery]

Then why do so many primates have canines, the only real use of which is to pierce animal skin, and rend animal flesh?

 

[Darat]

Then why do so many primates have canines, the only real use of which is to pierce animal skin, and rend animal flesh?

Fashion - in a few million years we'll just have a circular opening for the food straw to be pushed into.