Re: Geometry and G-d...
Why generalize that ALL Americans can't operate a manual transmission?
No offence intended. It's one of the few bits of nationalism/xenophobia/pride that I allow myself. I know it's not true of all Americans, but there's a high proportion of 'merkins that seem to act as if driving a real car is a skill that's hard enough to be on a par with brain surgery. It's not it's just learning to co-ordinate your right foot with your left foot.
So, I know it's not necessarily true, but it's something I find amusing. Just joshing, and I'll happily apologise for any offence.
Also, I don’t know if you have to sit in traffic, needing two hours to travel 30 miles, but a manual transmission becomes somewhat of a torment. Moving 3 feet every few minutes really becomes a drag.
Actually, yeah I have. The last 3 months I've been driving between 1 1/2 hours and 2 3/4 hours in to work every day, and the same back. There's a lot of changing gear for corners, as this is through the countryside, and it was often through heavy rush-hour traffic. One moring it took me 1 hour to move one mile.
I'll still take a real car over a dodgem any day.
I realized that most of your replies/posts are extremely general in nature. When it was brought up about a civilization having knowledge of mathematics I would assume that you realized we arent speaking about the general population.
Neither was I. I meant at all.
If, as you say, the Egyptians had certain knowledge that they didn't write down, then the evidence that they didn't write down doesn't exist.
Again, I'm not saying that they necessarily didn't know that, I'm saying that there is no evidence that they
did.
Are you seeking a textbook written by an ancient mathematician?
Well, that's exactly what the two papyri that I've mentioned are. And, yes, I'm saying that they are evidence that the Egyptians knew what is written in them.
If my irrational number example wasn't convincing enough, how about another example. The Moscow Papyrus gives the formula for calculating the surface area of a semi-cylinder or a hemisphere. This, to me, proves that the Egyptians knew the formula for calculating the surface area of a semicylinder or hemisphere. The existence of the pyramids has nothing to do with that whatsoever.
You might be able to make a case for the pyramids being evidence that they knew the formula for measuring the volume of a truncated pyramid, but I'm not sure how convincing that argument would be, as this is not knowledge that is necessary for the building of a pyramid, truncated or otherwise.
So, yes, in other words, I am hanging out for direct evidence of specific knowledge that the Egyptians had before saying with 100% certainty that the Egyptians possessed that specific knowledge.
Trollface, I actually couldn't care less about what a woman looks like.
While I agree with you on general principles, for encounters with real-life women, when it comes down to ogling girls on TV, you have little to go on except surface appearences and maybe body-language. So while I agree in general, I'm certanly not immune to the charms of acres of bare flesh and a certain amount of jiggling. I'm not looking to
marry Stephanie McIntosh, but I'll happily look at her on TV and go "phwoar!"
I imagine that your confusion stems from the fact that 475BC is actually earlier than 330BC - dates that are marked "BC" count down, not up.
Cute. But you'll notice that I said that in response to CAT's assertation that Euclid lived further back in time than Pythagoras, which is not true. What I was saying here ties into what I've said many times about the reliability of the history of the time, the confabulation and adoration that went with it, and the way that not all discoverys attributed to the people they are necessarily actually being discoveries by them. We call Pythagoras' Theorum that because the best evidence that we have states that he discovered it - he certainly was the first to document it. But that doesn't mean that the Theorum itself actually has anything to do with him. In fact, there is quite a bit of evidence that this formula was known before Pythagoras. It's just a name, in the same way that I can call a Dyson a Hoover, and everybody would know I was talking about a vacuum-cleaner, not necessarily anything to do with the company Hoover.
Now, the point is we know from Egyptian archetechture that they had ways of measuring and creating right-angles. There are several ways to do this, but one of them is simply to make a triangle with sides that measure 3, 4 and 5 units. There is some evidence that the Egyptian builders did do this, although that evidence is highly specious. What I'm saying is that it is perfectly possible to use this method to create a right-angled triangle without knowing anything about the squares of the sides - you don't even have to know what squaring a number
is. However, I am not discounting the possibility that the Egyptians
did know the formula that has come to be known as "Pythagoras' Theorum".
I thought I'd made that perfectly claer, and I'd hoped that you'd credit my intelligence enough not to automatically assume I was stupid. A rose by any other name, and all that. As it is, I have found only one name for this formula that doesn't invoke Pythagoras, and that's the Chinese name "Gougu". I believe that that would have been a less appropriate name to use, as it's an entirely different region, and I suspect that you wouldn't have known what formula I was talking about. However, if you do know a common name that doesn't invoke Pythagoras, then please share.
I am surprised that you would argue this point, in any case, as are you and Rainman not arguing that the pyramids themselves are evidence that the Egyptians
did know this formula and others like it? so, by your arguments, the formula would have preceeded Pythagoras. Before arguing against my points, it's possibly a good idea to see if they align with yours or not as if you argue against the things that I'm saying that agree with what you're saying, then it makes it harder to discern a coherent argument from your side.
Sorry if I sound grumpy, I'm very tired and ill. I'm not meaning to come accross as curmudgeonly as I probably am.
RainmanTime said:
Right. The pyramids are JUST evidence that the builders had at least as advanced as the technology we have today.
No, they're not (and this is a point which is somewhat out of left-field with regards to this discussion, but whatever). There was a documentary/reality series on the BBC maybe two years ago, maybe even a bit longer, where they took modern-day engineers to Egypt, gave them a local workforce of about a hundred and the tools available to the Ancient Egyptians and told them to make various things. One had to make and erect a monolith, one a pyramid and so on. And you know what? They did it. All of them.
How did they carve sandstone blocks? By going to a place made of sandstone and repeatedly hitting the stone with stronger stones, effectively wearing it down. It took a long time and a lot of manpower, but they replicated the blocks exactly.
Interestingly enough, do you know what these engineers discovered? The stone that the pyramids were made from was not brought down the Nile, but came from the plateau directly below where the pyramids were built. Big logistical probloem solved, right there.
I believe that you're making the mistake of looking at Ancient Egypt with a modern mindset. It's simply the wrong paradigm. Did you look at that page I linked that proffers a corroborrated account of how the pyramids could have been aligned to True North with very, very simple equipment? Maybe modern engineers would use a complicated high-powered system, but that doesn't mean that that is
necessary. You have to think within the mindset of ancient Egyptians, not of modern Americans. This is the most common mistake made by people when talking about Egypt and pyramids, and it frustrates every Egyptologist I've ever spoken to no end.
It tells me that these people were every bit as smart, if not SMARTER, than people are today.
Again, you're attributing sentiments to me that I simply do not hold. I have never even so much as insinuated anything about their intelligence. You should know that knowledge is not the same as intelligence, in any case.
One of the programmes I've recently been working on had a set builder who was an ex-Taiwanese monk shipbuilder. He made absolutely amazing sets out of all natural things that he found in the forrestand rope, using age-old Taiwanese ship-building techniques. He was able to construct absolutely huge, impressive sets by himself with no help in a staggeringly small period of time. Because he was using simple and ancient methods with no help from modern technology, are you insinuating that this made him stupid? Of course not. So why would you assume that I was saying that about the Egyptians?
Becuase it is quite true that we are now discovering that the key to energy manipulation is, indeed, non-linear amplification effects. No doubt about that little fact.
I have no idea what you mean by this. Can you explain what you mean by "non-linear amplification"? Non-linear amplification is compression, and is very, very commonly used in my job. In fact, you find me a recording studio, radio station, or TV postproduction/transmission house that doesn't have a Compressor and I'll give you a prize. As for energy manipulation, that is done by billions of people every day. Hell, digestion is energy manipulation. Dropping a ball is energy manipulation. Certainly, on the more technical side, amplification itself is manipulation of energy.
I'll have to assume that you mean somethig differnet by that terminology, so can you explain what? In fact, I suspect that you're not necessarily using the general scientific definition of "energy", here, so can you define that within this context, too, please? And how it ties in to Egypt?
It is just about what I interpret you as saying.
This is why I ask you not to assume or interpret, but to address what I do say. If you're addressing what I don't say, then it has no chance of being constructive for either of us.
In reality, it is evidence of an advanced civilzation before us.
I have done nothing but agree with this entirely. I think that the Egyptians (and the sumerians and the Myans, and so on) were a remarkable society. What I have said, and have said repeatedly, is that the pyramids themselves are not proof that the Egyptians had specific knowledge that wasn't required in the construction of pyramids. also, that if it was, then the exact same case could and should be made about the Sumerians. And, furthermore, that if they were evidence of that,then that is evidence
against the Semites being the source of all mathematical knowledge, rather than
for it.
That is the sum total of what I have said on the subject. Anything further you have inferred from this is the product of your mind, not mine.
And here I definitely agree with you, Troll, that having that kind of control over a speedy car is sheer brilliance.
Not even necessarily a speedy car, any car. I don't understand how people can drive automatics. They're just horrible. Different situations call for changing gears at different revs. You can never get as smooth a change through an automatic, either.
I guarantee that if you came to live and work here, and have to drive the 405 every day, you and your left foot would be screaming for the relief of an automatic.
See my reply above about traffic and driving to work. I will never,
ever prefer an automatic to a manual.
OvrLrd again:
I don't know how many times they would be moving ahead of us, then fall back when shifting.
They just need more practice. Blame the driver, or that specific gearbox. A manual gearbox, used properly should be smoother and faster than an automatic every time, no matter what the auto gearbox is. In fact, this is exactly why manuals should beat autos in drag races every time.
