Talk:Pseudoscientific metrology

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep.

R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate (needs to be verified)

Charles Piazzi Smyth, in his book Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid (1864), claimed that the measurements he obtained from the Great Pyramid of Giza indicated a unit of length, the pyramid inch, equivalent to 1.001 British inches, that could have been the standard of measurement by the pyramid's architects. From this he extrapolated a number of other measurements, including the pyramid pint, the sacred cubit, and the pyramid scale of temperature.

Development of the accuracy of measurement of the circumference of the Earth

See: http://www.algonet.se/~sirius/eaae/aol/market/collabor/erathost/ -- Egil 15:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The meter is the Devil himself

This quote is really marvellous, although not suitable for the article proper:

The metric system is indeed based on the Sumerian cubit, because like many other weapons in the Devil's arsenal, it originated with Semiramis and Nimrod. Consult Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons if you would know more.

This should be enough reason to abandon the meter once and for all! It was made by Smerdis of Tlön, taken from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Standards of measure in the Near Eastern Bronze Age.

Suggested rename

The term Stecchini uses for his flavor of historic metrology is comparative metrology [1], and I've seen it used by others too. I suggest a rename accordingly, which hopefully would make the title less provocative to some. It seems like it would also fit the megalithic yard and its followers that relate it to Life, the Universe and Everything, because that MY is obtained from Stonehenge et al in somewhat the same way the old Smyth-gang measured the Kheops pyramid and extracted measures from it. Nay-sayers can express their opinion below. -- Egil 11:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be a good idea but it is less descriptive maybe even misleading. Jimp

Historical measures as seen by pseudoscience

I've just stumbled on this page. Is there a reason that we've got two so similar articles? Should they be merged? Jimp 14Sep05