Advanced mathematics encrypted in Stone-Age and ancient 'artwork'

[jsfisher]

Had Pythagoras invented the Section, he would have been free to cry Eureka and enjoy the prestige from it. He did nothing of the kind however, for the secret of the Section was entrusted him by the temple. That's the simplest explanation.

Wow. You've gone well beyond the bounds of pseudo-science into the land of the mystic. The number, phi, was no more invented than was the number, seventeen.

It may have a few interesting mathematical properties, but in that regard, all numbers are interesting. Overall, phi is rather mundane, even though it has been attributed with significance it may not deserve, e.g. ideal architectural proportions or location of the human navel.

The simplicity with which phi can be constructed with straight edge and compass guarantees the high probability of "uncovering phi" in places there was not explicit intention to put it.

Phi is nothing more than an algebraic irrational with a cute name. Now, seventeen, on the other hand, now there's a number!!....

 

[calebprime]

if you know what i mean

 

[Solus]

And Plato wrote about his astral visit to NYC or some such rot. Someone's been off their meds.

Hey, I took my medication today!



So basically his argument is that aliens created math? Were the aliens illegal?

Ok... I did read some of his posts. So the OP thinks the Egyptians and ancient Greeks were privy to some of kind of secret knowledge.

 

[ReligionStudent]

Rhind Payrus was probably written as a lower level type of manual, a true to the word Applied Mathematics for Dummies and (work)Gang Leaders. We cannot judge Egyptian mathematics from it and by it.
The temples had their secret knowledge, which Greek initiates brought home to Greece.

Show one piece of archaeological evidence that the Egyptians had this secret knowledge

The Golden Section and Pi ratio were no secret to Pythagoras, therefore they were no secret to his Egyptian professors.

That is a completely incorrect assumption. People's teachers obviously do not teach them everything, or else we would not be doing better than stone tools. People develop new thought. Simply put, someone's knowledge of a subject is not proof or even strong evidence his or her teacher had the same.

Remember the claims the Egyptian priest made to Solon as quoted by Plato. The temple had been keeping scientific records since before the end of Atlantis, more than 9,000 years before Solon's time.

It is amazing that no such claims appear anywhere in Egyptian history from the Pre-Dynastic period through the OK. (See Paul Jordan "Esoteric Egypt" in Archaeological Fantasies)

It is significant that Plato's book is also about record keeping, as it is a compendium of various scientific facts and theories, as well as history. It is all evidently meant to be non-fiction in the eyes of Plato.
Some prism points:
Solon and his instructor are near the Mediterranean seashore, and the instructor priest specifies that this sea is a mere puddle in contrast to the great ocean beyond the Pillars of Hercules. In other words, there is absolutely no doubt that the ocean to Plato, Solon, and Egyptians means what it means to us.
The priest continues that this ocean seems surrounded by continents, and yes, across the ocean, there is a true continent, so vast that it surrounds the ocean from the other side.

What about people that assumed Australia was there to balance out the globe. This is not proof that they had seen it or knew it was there, but just a guess. You cannot prove otherwise in this account.

Just one question: Was Plato, Solon, and the Egyptian temple right or wrong about this vast continent?
Of course, he was right. Remember, a lot of reputation was in stake here, as there was no question that Atlantic would be navigated one day in the future.

That isn't true at all. There were quite a few myths/stories of this being impossible

How would we judge Plato and the rest of Timeus and Critias then, if there were no other continental mass out there? Plato definitely encourages exploratory voyages across the Atlantic ocean by promising them America. Would he wish to deceive the future sailors, and have them cursing his name? Columbus himself may have had found a measure of encouragement in Plato to make his big decision.
The Egyptian Temple as the guardian to the secrets of advanced prehistoric civilisation would also be the key to the simplest explanation of the existence of the Great Pyramid. It was possible to build it, because the Egyptian Temple had always known how to do it. Was not Imhotep the pyramid's architect at the same time the highest ranking priest of the temple in Egypt?

There was not one temple. There were many, for many gods and pharaoahs. The highest ranking religious figure would have been pharaoah.

For whoever is building the Great Pyramid must have great knowledge. There are techniques to master in using mechanical advantage methods and machines. There are advanced techniques for polishing large expanses of stone to optometrist's standards, techniques for manouvering enormous blocks in confined spaces, techniques for drilling enormous quantities of granite in short time, etc. Then there is the enormous logistical challenge, as Egypt's fate could easily be endangered by wasting its resources on the building.

The symplest explanation for the pyramids is a gradual development over time, as seen in things such as Djoser's pyramid. And the large scale buildings are often noted as a reason, at least in part, that the Egyptian culture was stressed, and they were likely a contribution to the First Intermediate Period.

 

[ReligionStudent]

I would like to put up the following quote from Paul Jordan, "Esoteric Egypt", page 110, in Archaeological Fantasies

Egyptian mathematics really got no further than trial and error and approximation, while their geometry was practical and untheroretical.

 

[Macoy]

Settling in nicely, then, george

Can I be quietly confident while alienated?

Wot do u think?

 

[Slimething]

Hey, I took my medication today!

So basically his argument is that aliens created math? Were the aliens illegal?

Damned math-doin' aliems takin' away work frem math-doin' 'gyptians!! Couldn bild a wal hi enuff fer to keep dem out, no sir. Dem an' deyr flyin' saucers an' thyme machines! Glad dey fin'ley got bord an' flu away but did dey haf to taik da dam wheels n' TV's wid dem? Bastards!

Ok... I did read some of his posts. So the OP thinks the Egyptians and ancient Greeks were privy to some of kind of secret knowledge.

I don't know why I get so upset when I initially meet people like Jiri. In the end, they are extremely harmless. It's very easy to undo whatever damage they do by because their beliefs are so easily disproved, except to themselves. They make life more interesting and they reward us by making us look so much more intelligent.

 

[Jiri]

I would like to put up the following quote from Paul Jordan, "Esoteric Egypt", page 110, in Archaeological Fantasies

Of course, you subscribe to Jordan's drivel, a particularly tasteless diatribe against Egyptian science. Oh, I forgot, like parents send their kids to Oxford, and Harvard, nowadays, affluent Greek families had been sending their kids to Egypt to learn the following:

Egyptian mathematics really got no further than trial and error and approximation, while their geometry was practical and untheroretical.

Solon went to Egypt to learn, how to fix his parents' porch by the world-renowned Egyptian methods of trial & error. ! The mindframe of some scholars is just so Wunderbar.

 

[Jiri]

Originally Posted by Jiri View Post
Can I be quietly confident while alienated?

Wot do u think?

Watt doo Uh think?

 

[Jiri]

Wow. You've gone well beyond the bounds of pseudo-science into the land of the mystic. The number, phi, was no more invented than was the number, seventeen.

It may have a few interesting mathematical properties, but in that regard, all numbers are interesting. Overall, phi is rather mundane, even though it has been attributed with significance it may not deserve, e.g. ideal architectural proportions or location of the human navel.

The simplicity with which phi can be constructed with straight edge and compass guarantees the high probability of "uncovering phi" in places there was not explicit intention to put it.

I've refuted this contention by you a long time ago, but you never responded. Now, I don't remember where it is exactly.

 

[jsfisher]

I've refuted this contention by you a long time ago, but you never responded. Now, I don't remember where it is exactly.

I must have missed that refutation. In fact, you have refused to provide any evidence your "phi spotting" is anything more than discovering coincidence.

Meanwhile, you confirmed your analysis is devoid of scientific process (that being just some distraction to bury you in work). So, where does that leave us? You invented a belief (your postulate -- something assumed to be true without proof), then proceeded to apply it in logic-defying ways.

You are one making claims. Where's the evidence to support them?

 

[ReligionStudent]

Of course, you subscribe to Jordan's drivel, a particularly tasteless diatribe against Egyptian science. Oh, I forgot, like parents send their kids to Oxford, and Harvard, nowadays, affluent Greek families had been sending their kids to Egypt to learn the following:



Solon went to Egypt to learn, how to fix his parents' porch by the world-renowned Egyptian methods of trial & error. ! The mindframe of some scholars is just so Wunderbar.

Um, its not tasteless. The culture that Greeks would have sent their children to would have been much different than the Egypt of the pyramids, its basic context and chronology.

I really cannot believe the absoletelly pointless and low methodology that pseudohistorians like you take and attack scholars and such, because their years of actual work and research show things contrary to your afternoon of reading Graham Hancock and von Daniken.

The only reason this scientifically and archaeologically based work is "tasteless" to you is that it illustrates the blatent flaws of your poorly researched and haphazardly thrown together theories.

 

[ReligionStudent]

I must have missed that refutation. In fact, you have refused to provide any evidence your "phi spotting" is anything more than discovering coincidence.

Meanwhile, you confirmed your analysis is devoid of scientific process (that being just some distraction to bury you in work). So, where does that leave us? You invented a belief (your postulate -- something assumed to be true without proof), then proceeded to apply it in logic-defying ways.

You are one making claims. Where's the evidence to support them?

I would like to point out that a large portion of Jiri's work is the fact that numbers which appear adjacent to eachother somehow represent values. Like a side of 3 next to one of 14 means 3.14.

Or one that is 3, then one of 16, then one of 14 still means 3.14

Its terrible cherry picking and has no basis.

I still challenge the validity of using millimeters as well.

 

[jsfisher]

I would like to point out that a large portion of Jiri's work is the fact that numbers which appear adjacent to eachother somehow represent values....

Maybe not a large portion, but, yes, he's grasping at the arbitrary and claiming it meaningful. The real problem, though, is that Jiri is very invested in the result. He's put significant time and effort into this house of cards. But he hasn't pursued it as a scientific quest for knowledge, just a self-consistent fantasy, so now his ego won't let him admit the cards have collapsed.

 

[ReligionStudent]

Maybe not a large portion, but, yes, he's grasping at the arbitrary and claiming it meaningful. The real problem, though, is that Jiri is very invested in the result. He's put significant time and effort into this house of cards. But he hasn't pursued it as a scientific quest for knowledge, just a self-consistent fantasy, so now his ego won't let him admit the cards have collapsed.

The problem is that now that they have all fallen he keeps dropping that top one in place, and won't admit he needs to go rebuild the bottom first.

 

[wollery]

That is what the Greeks said. Are you saying they lied?

What exactly did the Greeks say?

How did they know about it? Were they told by Egyptians?

According to you it's what Plato said Solon said the Egyptians told him! That's third hand hearsay. Nothing more than anecdote, with no evidence to back it up. I'm not saying the Greeks lied (although it's possible), but the Egyptians may have, to make themselves look better to the Greeks.

Both Einstein and his professors had comparable educations and mathematical knowledge.

Nope. Einstein worked in a period when huge advances were being made in maths and physics.

Same goes for Pythagoras and his Egyptian instructors. Had Pythagoras invented the Section, he would have been free to cry Eureka and enjoy the prestige from it. He did nothing of the kind however, for the secret of the Section was entrusted him by the temple. That's the simplest explanation.

It's an explanation, and a reasonable one, but that isn't the point. You claimed that they must have known about them because he did. That's flawed reasoning. He could have learned it somewhere else, or discovered it and not said so.

Strawman.

No, the logical conclusion from your statement.

You want us to believe that the Egyptians couldn't have built the pyramids without maths and engineering given them by Atlanteans, who in turn got it from someone else (aliens?). Isn't it simpler to believe that they just worked out how to do it over several hundred years of trial and error?

Plato, Aristoteles, or Pythagoras didn't write myths, they wrote and taught science.

Plato certainly wrote myths, or at least, essays with mythic content, and a lot of what Aristotle and Pythagorus wrote was just plain wrong.

You cannot see the difference, but I can.

Of course, you're the only person who can tell the difference.

I know the difference between myth and science extremely well. I work in a field that started as a combination of myth and science, and progressed to drop the myth (like most of them).

 

[Jiri]

Originally Posted by Jiri View Post
Rhind Payrus was probably written as a lower level type of manual, a true to the word Applied Mathematics for Dummies and (work)Gang Leaders. We cannot judge Egyptian mathematics from it and by it.
The temples had their secret knowledge, which Greek initiates brought home to Greece.

Show one piece of archaeological evidence that the Egyptians had this secret knowledge

.
There are lots, read Schwaller de Lubicz, for example. The "Abydos Helicopter" is another example, which I discovered myself.
http://www,vejprty.com/abyhelic.htm

The Golden Section and Pi ratio were no secret to Pythagoras, therefore they were no secret to his Egyptian professors.

.

That is a completely incorrect assumption. People's teachers obviously do not teach them everything, or else we would not be doing better than stone tools. People develop new thought. Simply put, someone's knowledge of a subject is not proof or even strong evidence his or her teacher had the same.

You don't sound logical. A professor's knowledge of mathematics is the proof that his teachers had essentially the same knowledge. There is PARITY between them. He has to stand on the shoulders of others.

Remember the claims the Egyptian priest made to Solon as quoted by Plato. The temple had been keeping scientific records since before the end of Atlantis, more than 9,000 years before Solon's time.

.

It is amazing that no such claims appear anywhere in Egyptian history from the Pre-Dynastic period through the OK. (See Paul Jordan "Esoteric Egypt" in Archaeological Fantasies)

.
It is even more amazing how such claims correspond with the probably prehistoric Egyptian achievements, such as the Sphinx, the Osireion, the Valley Temple, or possibly even the Baalbek platform, and trilithon.
http://www,vejprty.com/baalbek.htm

It is significant that Plato's book is also about record keeping, as it is a compendium of various scientific facts and theories, as well as history. It is all evidently meant to be non-fiction in the eyes of Plato.
Some prism points:
Solon and his instructor are near the Mediterranean seashore, and the instructor priest specifies that this sea is a mere puddle in contrast to the great ocean beyond the Pillars of Hercules. In other words, there is absolutely no doubt that the ocean to Plato, Solon, and Egyptians means what it means to us.
The priest continues that this ocean seems surrounded by continents, and yes, across the ocean, there is a true continent, so vast that it surrounds the ocean from the other side.

.

What about people that assumed Australia was there to balance out the globe. This is not proof that they had seen it or knew it was there, but just a guess. You cannot prove otherwise in this account.

Proof? I am content to be able to make things fit logic.
Quoting myself:
Just one question: Was Plato, Solon, and the Egyptian temple right or wrong about this vast continent?
Of course, he was right. Remember, a lot of reputation was in stake here, as there was no question that Atlantic would be navigated one day in the future.
.

That isn't true at all. There were quite a few myths/stories of this being impossible

You are being illogical again. Since the technology to sail across the Atlantic had long been there, according to the story of Atlantis, clearly the Atlantic could be sailed again in the future to come. Is that not the clear implication behind Plato's words? "Sail to discover the vast continents across the ocean!"
There were myths,yes, and the alleged mud left from the sinking of Atlantis was typical of them. Sailing into the ocean may have had been temporarily more perilous than usually following the violent demise of Atlantis, hence the stories.
Quoting myself:
How would we judge Plato and the rest of Timeus and Critias then, if there were no other continental mass out there? Plato definitely encourages exploratory voyages across the Atlantic ocean by promising them America. Would he wish to deceive the future sailors, and have them cursing his name? Columbus himself may have had found a measure of encouragement in Plato to make his big decision.
The Egyptian Temple as the guardian to the secrets of advanced prehistoric civilisation would also be the key to the simplest explanation of the existence of the Great Pyramid. It was possible to build it, because the Egyptian Temple had always known how to do it. Was not Imhotep the pyramid's architect at the same time the highest ranking priest of the temple in Egypt?

There was not one temple. There were many, for many gods and pharaoahs. The highest ranking religious figure would have been pharaoah.

You call yourself what, and you don't realize that all those gods were of the same Pantheon? The sum of all the temples is the Egyptian Temple. Greeks went to learn to more than one temple in Egypt, so obviously these temples had a lot in common with each other. The Pharaoh was a symbolic head of the Temple while a guy like Imhotep had risen to the top by the virtue of his scientific prowess, which was the main selection criterium, it seems, since Pythagoras, too, had risen to the very top in the Egyptian Temple while being a foreigner. Neither Egyptians nor Greeks could have had been too orthodox, and fanatical about their religion since they agreed that their respective pantheons were essentially the same thing, the same gods. Since the people making that decision were priests of the temple, they had to be very tolerantly and progressively minded. Solon was a philosopher, and yet he apparently also rose to a prominent position within the Egyptian temple. This history is just extraordinary.
Quoting myself:
For whoever is building the Great Pyramid must have great knowledge. There are techniques to master in using mechanical advantage methods and machines. There are advanced techniques for polishing large expanses of stone to optometrist's standards, techniques for manouvering enormous blocks in confined spaces, techniques for drilling enormous quantities of granite in short time, etc. Then there is the enormous logistical challenge, as Egypt's fate could easily be endangered by wasting its resources on the building.
.

The symplest explanation for the pyramids is a gradual development over time, as seen in things such as Djoser's pyramid.

Yes, but they had been developped long time before Zosser. He probably just didn't devote enough funds and effort to his pyramid.

And the large scale buildings are often noted as a reason, at least in part, that the Egyptian culture was stressed, and they were likely a contribution to the First Intermediate Period.

Stressed, but not broken. If they did pyramid building by brawn, they'd be bankrupt financially and physically ere long.

 

[ReligionStudent]

Originally Posted by Jiri View Post
Rhind Payrus was probably written as a lower level type of manual, a true to the word Applied Mathematics for Dummies and (work)Gang Leaders. We cannot judge Egyptian mathematics from it and by it.
The temples had their secret knowledge, which Greek initiates brought home to Greece.


.
There are lots, read Schwaller de Lubicz, for example. The "Abydos Helicopter" is another example, which I discovered myself.
http://www,vejprty.com/abyhelic.htm

You, who has not studied in Egypt, or actually gone through any archaeological training at all.

Or Schwaller de Lubicz a mystic and self claimed alchamist?

Neither is a reliable source for this information. All I am asking is for some artifacts that be allowed to speak for themselves.

You don't sound logical. A professor's knowledge of mathematics is the proof that his teachers had essentially the same knowledge. There is PARITY between them. He has to stand on the shoulders of others.

Yes, but he can make new ideas on those sholders, so there is no proof that one's teachers had all of one's ideas

It is even more amazing how such claims correspond with the probably prehistoric Egyptian achievements, such as the Sphinx, the Osireion, the Valley Temple, or possibly even the Baalbek platform, and trilithon.
http://www,vejprty.com/baalbek.htm

The Sphinx and Osireion are clearly historic, the Valley Temple as well. Please show dates, or at the very least sources if you are going to be making these claims.
Baalbek is in Lebanon.

Proof? I am content to be able to make things fit logic.
Quoting myself:
Just one question: Was Plato, Solon, and the Egyptian temple right or wrong about this vast continent?
Of course, he was right. Remember, a lot of reputation was in stake here, as there was no question that Atlantic would be navigated one day in the future.
.


You are being illogical again. Since the technology to sail across the Atlantic had long been there, according to the story of Atlantis, clearly the Atlantic could be sailed again in the future to come. Is that not the clear implication behind Plato's words? "Sail to discover the vast continents across the ocean!"
There were myths,yes, and the alleged mud left from the sinking of Atlantis was typical of them. Sailing into the ocean may have had been temporarily more perilous than usually following the violent demise of Atlantis, hence the stories.
Quoting myself:
How would we judge Plato and the rest of Timeus and Critias then, if there were no other continental mass out there? Plato definitely encourages exploratory voyages across the Atlantic ocean by promising them America. Would he wish to deceive the future sailors, and have them cursing his name? Columbus himself may have had found a measure of encouragement in Plato to make his big decision.
The Egyptian Temple as the guardian to the secrets of advanced prehistoric civilisation would also be the key to the simplest explanation of the existence of the Great Pyramid. It was possible to build it, because the Egyptian Temple had always known how to do it. Was not Imhotep the pyramid's architect at the same time the highest ranking priest of the temple in Egypt?

But it does not fit at all logically. The only evidence that would logically support their knowledge on building such ships or crossing the atlantic is actual physical boats, maps, etc, or texts describing them. There is no Pre-Dynasic or Dynastic evidence of this at all

You call yourself what, and you don't realize that all those gods were of the same Pantheon? The sum of all the temples is the Egyptian Temple. Greeks went to learn to more than one temple in Egypt, so obviously these temples had a lot in common with each other. The Pharaoh was a symbolic head of the Temple while a guy like Imhotep had risen to the top by the virtue of his scientific prowess, which was the main selection criterium, it seems, since Pythagoras, too, had risen to the very top in the Egyptian Temple while being a foreigner. Neither Egyptians nor Greeks could have had been too orthodox, and fanatical about their religion since they agreed that their respective pantheons were essentially the same thing, the same gods. Since the people making that decision were priests of the temple, they had to be very tolerantly and progressively minded. Solon was a philosopher, and yet he apparently also rose to a prominent position within the Egyptian temple. This history is just extraordinary.

Do you know anything about Egyptian religion? There were many different pantheons at the same time, and countless competing developments. The Memphite religion? Akhenaton? How many different ways did they say the sun moved accross the sky, scarabs, boats, chariots (post Hyksos only). Saying that it was all one pantheon is like saying that there is only one faith of the bible and it includes Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Parsis. Probably actually more inaccurate than this actually

Quoting myself:
For whoever is building the Great Pyramid must have great knowledge. There are techniques to master in using mechanical advantage methods and machines. There are advanced techniques for polishing large expanses of stone to optometrist's standards, techniques for manouvering enormous blocks in confined spaces, techniques for drilling enormous quantities of granite in short time, etc. Then there is the enormous logistical challenge, as Egypt's fate could easily be endangered by wasting its resources on the building.
.


Yes, but they had been developped long time before Zosser. He probably just didn't devote enough funds and effort to his pyramid.

That is just pseudoarchaeological woo that has nothing to do with any supported theories at all. His was a developmental step in the process of pyramid building, not a monetary failure.

Stressed, but not broken. If they did pyramid building by brawn, they'd be bankrupt financially and physically ere long.

That is exactly the theory as to why they stopped building pyramids during the OK.

 

[wollery]

There are lots, read Schwaller de Lubicz, for example. The "Abydos Helicopter" is another example, which I discovered myself.
http://www,vejprty.com/abyhelic.htm

You mean this? http://www.catchpenny.org/abydos.html

 

[Jiri]

Um, its not tasteless. The culture that Greeks would have sent their children to would have been much different than the Egypt of the pyramids, its basic context and chronology.

I really cannot believe the absoletelly pointless and low methodology that pseudohistorians like you take and attack scholars and such, because their years of actual work and research show things contrary to your afternoon of reading Graham Hancock and von Daniken.

The only reason this scientifically and archaeologically based work is "tasteless" to you is that it illustrates the blatent flaws of your poorly researched and haphazardly thrown together theories.

More tasteless diatribes, this time from you to me. I am not a pseudohistorian, if anything, you could say 'revisionist historian' , or armchair archaeologist. The more I talk to you the more it appears that you know nothing, and have nothing to say. Your posts appear ideology driven.