-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Newsflash for Doctor

> Femano. Remember those “math” problems you

> did at school? The ones which mentioned trains

> and boats and planes? The trains and boats and

> planes weren’t real.

>

> M.

In my opinion, your attempt to blur pyramids, boats, trains, and planes together generically as "math" problems is a false equivalence.

- We learn about pyramids as

*. The math is all about their*

__theoretical geometric constructs__*spatial parameters such as angles, volume, and lengths.*

__static__- We learn about trains, boats, and planes in physics, not geometry. And within the domain of physics, they represent

*and are not merely theoretical geometries. The "math" is all about their*

__real world exemplary constructs__*in overcoming*

__function__*and is concerned with elevation, acceleration, velocity, momentum, force, etc.*

__physical inertia__- We learn that trains ride on tracks located on hard surfaces, boats float on water, planes fly in the atmosphere. We also learn about rockets traveling through a vacuum too, eh?

- But what do we learn in Rhind about what a pyramid does? Nothing at all. So what real world inferences can we reasonably draw from a pyramid geometry problem?

- And so a "math" question in physics might state,

*"Two trains are facing each other on the same*

**track**. One train is located in**New York City**carrying 223**passengers**is destined to**travel**to**Philadelphia**. The other is located in Philadelphia carrying 347 tons of**cargo**destined to travel to New York City. The trains start out being separated by 97 miles. If the passenger train**accelerates**at 11 miles per second per second for 5 seconds and then maintains its resulting**velocity**the rest of the way, while, at the same start time the cargo train accelerates at 1.2 miles per second per second for 60 seconds and then maintains its resulting velocity the rest of the way, how much total**time**will pass before the trains**collide**?"- Meanwhile, Rhind, Moscow, etc., teach us nothing at all about pyramid function. Other than using a different unit of measurement than "yard" or "meter", it says nothing about the cultural context, technology, functional capabilities, etc. The pyramid "does" nothing. It is static and it is has no physical relation to the real world other than its use as a theoretical shape defined by angles and lengths. There isn't even an implication that such a theoretical construct, as such, actually exists as an exemplary object in the physical world. Does it move? Does it contain something? Does it get hot or cold? Is it a solid? Is it always part of something else? Can a pyramid stand as an isolated object, or does the pyramid geometry serve as an approximation to calculate the dimensions of sand dunes, hills, or mountains? Does a truncated pyramid approximate a plateau? What use is it?

Now, if Rhind included a "math" problem that says,

*"If a*

**royal funerary procession**proceded at a rate of 0.5 cubit per**second**up a 23 degree**inclined passage**within a**pyramid**whose**base**is 30 cubits below the starting point in the passage, how high is the procession above the pyramid base after 47 seconds?"*would be pretty amazing.*

__that__Although that would still be about a millennium after the major pyramids were completed.

*How can any of us ever*

__know__, when all we can do is**think**?Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 21-Apr-17 05:26 by Origyptian.