PROOF OF GOD

Ok - whats the point ?Why refer to metric when the measuring unit is the sacred cubit/inch ?This is rhetorical.This is only done as to refuse to acknowledge the facts of the evidence.

No, I'm actually trying to be helpful to the discussion. I am making no comments regarding any of your evidence. Many in the thread are still not sure if you understand unit conversion or not. Simply because metric is the current universal measuring system used by scientists.Since you understand that 1 sacred inch = 1.001064 British inch = 0.025427 meters, you understand that any measurement made in the metric system can easily be converted to the sacred inch.For example, if I were to argue that the pyramid's original height was 138.6 meters, you probably shouldn't argue with me, since 138.6 meters equals 5449 inches.

Perhaps, if you mean that vandalism allowed the erosion to acclerate. However, if you are stating that no erosion occurred in the centuries prior to vandalism, I'll need some evidence, because that it is a bold assertion.It is logical that any stone structure exposed to the weather for centuries will undergo some degree of weather-related damage. Do you disagree?

But I can do math and measure things on a map. That's all that I need for the part of this I am involved with.I'm skeptical of your claims of course. So I ask for your back up. You don't supply any, I become more skeptical. Makes sense to me.All I've discussed is the defintion and measurements of "longest land meridian", the quartering of the earth's land area and having read over the calculations percy supplied, the concavity or the pyramid faces. My courses in math are quite adequate to understand the simple arithmetic involved here. I don't need to be an archeologist for that.You tread lightly do you? You've been pretty firm on what is and isn't true here. Is that what you consider lightly?I told you up front that my meridian calculations are rough and ready. You didn't supply better ones. We now have what might be better ones (I haven't seen the details) and they still disagree with your sources.This is very easy to settle. It is a matter of arithmetic. Just supply the back up to the assertions and it will all be done with one way or the other.

Ned, I've updated my results page with some brief methodology details.WILLOWTREE: Accuracy. You are, of course, free to believe your sources, however, before you descend into "argument by PhD", bear in mind the sources for the info which my data is based include NASA.Once again, do your sources provide any data regarding the longest land meridian claim? They MUST have some recorded measurements to base their claim on. As Ned has pointed out, this isn't rocket science, just some points on a map and a little arithmetic.

LindumCan you run a Meridian based in the Americas?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This discussion has been very instructive. It is a lesson that has to be learned here over and over again. From the point of view of the participants, debating with someone who's making effective rebuttals is little different from debating with someone who only thinks he's making effective rebuttals.When both sides accuse the other of not comprehending the arguments, then what? Naturally, moderators who understand the topic can step in, but the side deemed to be uncomprehending will naturally claim bias.As long as the participants in this thread find the current situation acceptable (to me, it resembles an impass), I see no need for moderator action, as it would likely cause one side or the other to go off in a huff, thereby ending discussion completely. I encourage both sides to become more imaginative at trying to educate and persuade the other side.There *is* one improvement I would like to see. I would like to see a cessation of accusations of dishonorable behavior. I *will* step in when I observe it happening, and the consequences will be immediate.--Percy

quote:

---

You are, of course, free to believe your sources, however, before you descend into "argument by PhD", bear in mind the sources for the info which my data is based include NASA.

---

Who is NASA ?Answer: persons with Ph.D.'s

quote:

---

Once again, do your sources provide any data regarding the longest land meridian claim? They MUST have some recorded measurements to base their claim on. As Ned has pointed out, this isn't rocket science, just some points on a map and a little arithmetic

---

Lindum:Are you saying the content of post # 72 lacks a "longest land meridian claim" ?The content of post #72 has the coordinates and my source cite.YOU produced your calculations which SAID we are less than a mile apart.I have also posted a map that my sources supplied with their coordinates - a detailed map that backs their claim.You produced two pictures WHICH ADDED your claims superimposed on top - fine.We are a mile apart and my sources SAY that this close proximity cannot be refuted either way. This means the centering and quartering of the worlds land mass, when reduced down to micro levels becomes subjective because a mile's radius is considered the center and a further foci of pinpoint is not proveable. Someone could claim an obscure island mass here and there tilts the claim in their favor.The claim that the Pyramid was built in the center of the world's land mass should be considered true, not only because of the actual evidence, but because of all the other wonders which the Pyramid declares. On this basis, viewing all the evidence as a whole, the honest and intelligent person will conclude the Pyramid is correct and the other sources which SLIGHTLY contradict are incorrect.Even by your own calculations, how did the builders get within a mile ?Anyone who even thinks "lucky" should join the Flat Earth Society.

Of course I understand unit conversion.I also undersatnd the reason why this non sequitor is being promoted.To confuse the fact that the sacred inch was the measuring unit used by the builders. This fact so infuriates a world which THOUGHT the metric unit superior. This is equivalent to fundies refusing to acknowledge an old Earth.You can convert a measuring unit into any other unit, but the point of my topic is that the British inch was used by the ancients, and the fact that it is based upon the straight polar axis of the Earth exposes the irrelevance of the metric in this subject.The constant focus on the metric is the actions of the defeated, and proves no matter how much plain evidence is produced the wrath of God sense removal declared in Romans 1 is evidenced to be absolutely true.

You two seems to have missunderstood eachother quite a bit.WILLOWTREE, he wants to know if you can agree on where the actual pyramid is located. He seems to have missunderstood your post 72 to say that the coordinates given (by your unverified sources) were the exact location of the pyramid. It says that they are off by a bit, and says that this is might be due to the time span involved.He wants a number that everyone can agree upon is the actual exact location of the pyramid. He will then use this location to see if the claim is correct or not.This is to make sure that you don't come along later and start arguing about the location of the pyramid.So the blue circle is the claim of YOUR sources. This is what he is going to check up. Are your sources correct or not? Why are you so opposed of him actually testing this?

They didn't get within a mile - you may have misread my recent posts. The pyramid is 331 miles away from a significantly longer land meridian. 331 miles is more than a slight contradiction.

There can only be a "center of the world's land mass" at the surface of the Earth IF the Earth is flat. OR, you need to use a flat projection of the planet. The common, Eurocentric, projection is being used in the discussion - but another projection would result in a different "center". On a Pacific-centered map, the "center" is far from Egypt. This is a matter of logic (please ignore the fact that Hawaii is red): A polar projection would give another "center": However, given our Earth, which is three- dimensional and spheroidal, the true center of land mass would be inside the planet.The single-center concept is inherently flawed, unless you choose a point within the spheroidal Earth.

The "mile apart" is the difference in supplied locations for the great pyramid. It has very little to do with the measure ment of the longest land meridian (since measureing on either will produce pretty close to the same result.)What Lindum showed you was that over 300 miles west of the great pyramid is a land meridian longer by hundreds of miles than the meridian through the great pyramid.Your post 72 and everything else you have supplied does not show the calculations involved. It doesn't even give the length on land that it thinks the pyramid meridian is. So far we have your souces asserting that the pyramid meridian is the longest land meridian without given the method used to detemine that or even the length that they calculated.Lindum was asking about the longitude of the pyramid simple to get that little discrepancy out of the way. It doesn't seem to make any significant difference to the meridian lengths.Your sources seem to be out by hundreds of miles in both the length of the meridian and where it is located. And we haven't even looked for other ones that may be out there and longer yet. The 'other wonders' have absolutely nothing to do with it. It is either the center of the land mass or not. It is either on the longest land meridian or not. This can be measured.I have no idea how you sources calculated the "center of land mass" I suspect that they, in fact didn't.We also have no information on your sources calculations of the longest land meridian. We have done some calculations that suggest that they are wrong.What I'm becoming pretty sure of now is that they didn't measure anything at all. They eyeballed a map. It is possible that the longest land meridian is within "eye balling" of the pyramid and they went from there. However they are wrong.I think that they may also have eyeballed the land mass center bit. If they didn't use an equal area projection then they would easily be way off on that one too. "... all the evidence... " -- but there isn't any evidence on your side yet. Just an assertion that it is on the longest land meridian. No idea of how that was measured. No idea of how long they think that is. And we have a meridian that is longer."all the evidence" that we have says your soucce is wrong. And this is your misunderstanding. They didn't.

No, I don't believe that anyone here is trying to do that.Wasn't the original height of the pyramid 138.6 meters (5449 sacred inches)? I'm not arguing with you about anything here, I'm not stating that the Sacred Inch is flawed, or that it wasn't used by the builder(s), I'm just clarifying a point on unit conversion. Please try to not be so defensive.The sole reason the metric system cannot be made "irrelevant" to this discussion is that modern measurements are made with the metric system. Comparisons to modern measurements can be made using unit conversion. I'm saying nothing more on this subject.

I'm guessing here, big foot, but I think what the sources mean by land mass of the earth is that the area of the earth is divided into 4 quadrants by the meridian and parallel runing through the pyramid. They seem to be saying that if you take the area of land within each quadrant it is equal. (of course there is another point on the other side of the earth too -- if this actually paned out I'd beinterested in seeing what's at that point )However, there is as yet no reason to think this is true. In fact, given the quality of the other assertions I'd be startled if it was.