Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 59

Thread: Is Egypt and it's Pyramids "The World's Oldest Book of Astronomy" ?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Burlington Ontario Canada
    Posts
    22

    Is Egypt and it's Pyramids "The World's Oldest Book of Astronomy" ?

    Hi all I hope I am welcomed here. What I propose is a continuation of the ideas of Clive Ross, now sadly deceased 2009, who believed with his whole heart that Giza was "The World's Oldest Book of Astronomy". Like most of you are probably doing right now I laughed at the outrageousness of the idea but decided to check it out anyway. These then are the results of those 20 year studies.

    Since most of my discoveries involve math and astronomy the Egyptologists out there were and are hopelessly ill prepared to even consider my ideas. They simply chose to call them all coincidences and were happy to move on but they are there. Who put them there and how they knew is for now a mute point as just because we don't know how they knew does not preclude the evidence from being there.

    Shall we begin ? It may appear at first that astronomy is not involved but please be a bit patient as it will all tie in.

    The first major discovery I made that jump started my research was the amazing fact that The Great Pyramid of Khufu when it's base length is compared to the second largest pyramid, The Pyramid of Khafre is in a ratio of the square root of 3 to Phi. That is that if we assign a value of square root of 3 for the base of G1 then G2 will be Phi, .... EXACTLY ! Proof of that is in the measurements as established by Flinders Petrie who made systematic surveys of these pyramids in the late 1880's. The base of The Great Pyramid is 9068.9968 inches so if we divide this by 1.732050807 and then multiply by 1.618033988 we should get the value of inches in the base of The Pyramid of Khafre. So let's do that. 9068.9968 / 1.732050807 = 5235.9877 inches and now times Phi or 1.618033988 = 8472.0061 inches and Petrie has the north side of The Pyramid of Khafre or simply called G2 as 8471.9. So it appears to be an exact fit. Coupled with that came the realization that the pyramids were also measured in cubits and thus G1 became 440 cubits and G2 became 411.035 cubits when we allowed 20.62 inches to equal one cubit. I suddenly realized that if I took one half the base of G1 and called it the semi major axis of Mercury and multiplied it by Phi I got the semi major axis of Venus. And that's how it all began.

    I now know things I did not know in the beginning such as why this works so well. I suddenly realized that if we allow the semi major axis of Mercury to equal 1/2 of the sqrt of 3 or 0.866025 then Venus will equal Phi (1.618033988). Let's test that out. Mercury's semi major axis is 57,909,050 and Venus' is 108,208,930 and the ratio of these two is 1.8686014. So if we multiply 0.866025 times 1.868601 we shoudl get Phi or something very close. It turns out that doing the math here gives us 1.618256 and checking to Phi for 0.99986. Reasonably close considering you are trying to show both concepts. Sq rt of 3, Phi and the relationship between Mercury and Venus.

    There is much more but I would like to see how this is received before moving on.

    Best regards

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Ahatmose View Post
    There is much more but I would like to see how this is received before moving on.

    Best regards
    Welcome to CQ, Ahatmose.

    I'm sorry to say that you're spouting total nonsense, though. Claiming infinite precision for something measured is absurd, and you should know that. There is no such thing as a perfect measuring stick, so you cannot legitimately claim that any quantity involving measurements is exact. If that's your starting point, I'm afraid this will be a short and painful ATM thread.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Third stone from the Sun, Old Country, the land of Saints, Navigators and Poets.
    Posts
    294
    Ancient Egyptians could write, so of course the best way for an Egyptian to preserve and transmit knowledge would have been....... build rock megastructures using thousands of workers for decades ???
    It's a joke, I hope.....
    Eppur si muove....

    This works
    This DOESN'T work...


    Fatti non foste a viver come bruti,
    ma per seguir virtute e canoscenza

    Ye were not form’d to live the life of brutes,
    But virtue to pursue and knowledge high.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Burlington Ontario Canada
    Posts
    22
    Wow an interesting opening volley. To Geo Kaplan perhaps you are correct claiming exactness is perhaps over stating the case but let's just say it is as accurate as would have deemed possible using normal measuring tools. The part of it all being total nonsense however it totally an unfair judgement since you have only heard about 1/1000th of the evidence. I had hoped I would get a fair hearing here, was I wrong ? And to Untrained Observer, NO it is no joke. So you think it more logical to ... "build rock megastructures using thousands of workers for decades ??? " as a tomb for a King ? However I did not come here to debate who or why or what built the pyramids I am here to present my evidence and having said that I will press on trying to avoid the use of the words exact and precisely.

    As I stated earlier I had discovered thanks to G1 and G2 that Mercury and Venus were in a square root of 3 divided by two to Phi ratio relationship. There are three major pyramids at Giza and it is possible to enclose them in in rectangle. If you were to allow the base of G1 as the semi major axis of Mercury then the semi major axis of Mars would be about equal to the north south distance of the north face of G1 to the south face of G3. The actual ratios of the enclosed rectangle are interesting as well as they are in a square root of 3 to square root of 2 configuration with north south being square root of 3 and of course east to west being square root of 2.

    Oh dear I had a very long post finished and clicked the wrong button and it is now gone. It had auto saved an earlier version I thought i had discarded so I will try again. Very frustrating as it is never as good the second time around.

    This "Giza Rectangle" as I dubbed it is not quite in a sq rt 3 to sq rt 2 configuration but according to Petrie is in a 35713.5 by 29228 inch size which is closer to a 9 by 11 configuration. In my calculations I noted that the diagonal seemed to be equaling Earth's semi major axis and took note that it seemed to be equaling the square root of 5. So here is what we have now for the three inner planets as ratios:

    Mercury = 1/2 sq rt 3 = 0.866025
    Venus = Phi = 1.618034
    Earth = sq rt 5 = 2.2361

    Nice and simple for anyone wanting to portray it simply and easily.

    Also to note is that one of the sides of G2 is according to Petrie 8475.8 inches and this gives us when divided by 20.62 (inches per cubit) a value of 411.05 and if allow this to be the side of a sqaure we get as a diagonal 581.31 and a circumference with this as it's diameter equals 1826.25 and extremely accurately portrays 5 Earth years when 1 cubit is equal to 1 day.

    I then noted that Earth and Mercury are in a very interesting relationship of their own. They are in a ratio of 31 to 12, that is Earth is 31 and Mercury is 12 and this checks extremely closely.

    Earth = 149,598,261 km = 31
    ----------------------------- = 2.58333
    Mercury = 57,909,050 km = 12

    Now this ratio has some interesting properties of it's own. If we take this ratio of 2.58333 to the power of Phi squared we get 11.998 or very nearly the lower of the two numbers that created the ratio and then if we take the ratio 2.58333 to the power of phi squared + 1 or 3.618034 we get 30.994 or very nearly the larger of the two numbers that created the ratio. One last thing this teaches us is if we dived 2.618034 by 3.618034 we get 0.7236 and the ratio of Venus to Earth is 0.7233 and so it could be said in a "rounding world" that Earth is equal to Phi squared + 1 and Venus is equal to Phi squared.

    And as a final image for now I would like to post this image of my discoveries of our solar system. I doubt you will find this in any text book.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	final_merc_venus_Earth_Mars_ratio_100.PNG 
Views:	41 
Size:	130.5 KB 
ID:	23367

    This all based on my discoveries at Giza.

    Regards

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Ahatmose View Post
    Proof of that is in the measurements as established by Flinders Petrie who made systematic surveys of these pyramids in the late 1880's. The base of The Great Pyramid is 9068.9968 inches
    Can provide a reference that shows how these measurements were made to an accuracy of 1/10,000th of an inch? And how that is possible given that the roughness of the stones being measured is several orders of magnitude larger than that.

    8472.0061 inches and Petrie has the north side of The Pyramid of Khafre or simply called G2 as 8471.9
    So you start with 4 significant figures and then accept an error 1000 times larger as being "exact". This is pretty shoddy, even by the standards of numerology.

    Reasonably close
    Not "exact" then?

    There is much more but I would like to see how this is received before moving on.
    I dunno. What's the punchline? Is it worth waiting for?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,020
    Quote Originally Posted by Ahatmose View Post
    Proof of that is in the measurements as established by Flinders Petrie who made systematic surveys of these pyramids in the late 1880's. The base of The Great Pyramid is 9068.9968 inches
    As others have pointed out, that's an impossible measurement accuracy, as Flinders Petrie himself explained:
    The difficulty in measurement results from the Arab destruction of nearly the whole of the fine sloping blocks of casing, about 3 feet thick, thus leaving the inner core of masonry in steps, and further, the banking of the ruins up to 20 or 30 feet against the faces, which obstructs the base.
    We have no idea, to within several feet, of the exact dimensions of the Great Pyramid, because parts of it are missing.

    Grant Hutchison

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    9,300
    What's the "significance" of the square root of 3?
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Burlington Ontario Canada
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    As others have pointed out, that's an impossible measurement accuracy, as Flinders Petrie himself explained:We have no idea, to within several feet, of the exact dimensions of the Great Pyramid, because parts of it are missing.

    Grant Hutchison
    Totally not correct ... read it for yourself.

    http://www.ronaldbirdsall.com/gizeh/index.htm

    https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/di...887/0038/image

    https://openlibrary.org/authors/OL27...linders_Petrie

    Others have come after Petrie and have confirmed his measurements. And Strange use 9069 inches if you don't like 9068.9968. I will show where it came from in later posts.

    And just a note here. Many have objected to my using several decimal places but since we are eventually dealing with the semi major axis' of the planets I feel it is necessary. Also it is no good if we claim matches to orbital dimensions if we round everything off to two decimal places. It then proves very little. The final result we can but not the numbers that get us there.

    Cheers
    Don Barone

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Burlington Ontario Canada
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    What's the "significance" of the square root of 3?
    Hi cougar I will show this in future posts. It is quite fascinating actually.

    Cheers
    Don Barone

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,020
    Quote Originally Posted by Ahatmose View Post
    Totally not correct ... read it for yourself.
    Totally correct, I'm afraid. In the absence of most of the fine surface blocks, which are "about" three feet thick, and in the presence of subsequent erosion, it's simply impossible to generate a true measurement of the original dimensions of the structure to the precision you use.
    The onus is very much on you to justify the precision of the measurement you've given, for a structure that doesn't exist anymore in its orginal form.

    Petrie's early work is here (17MB pdf) giving measurements to a tenth of an inch on page 11, but pointing out again:
    And it must always be remembered that this very small mean error of the casing, .65 inch and 12 [seconds of arc], is that found through measurements of the rock sockets, and not that of the finally adjusted, and now destroyed, casing.
    Measurements on the existing structural core of the pyramid, no matter what the precision quoted, are irrelevant to the dimensions of the original structure, except to the nearest foot or two.

    Grant Hutchison
    Last edited by grant hutchison; 2018-May-29 at 02:56 PM. Reason: Second para

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Burlington Ontario Canada
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Totally correct, I'm afraid. In the absence of most of the fine surface blocks, which are "about" three feet thick, and in the presence of subsequent erosion, it's simply impossible to generate a true measurement of the original dimensions of the structure to the precision you use.
    The onus is very much on you to justify the precision of the measurement you've given, for a structure that doesn't exist anymore in its orginal form.

    Petrie's early work is here (17MB pdf) giving measurements to a tenth of an inch on page 11, but pointing out again:
    Measurements on the existing structural core of the pyramid, no matter what the precision quoted, are irrelevant to the dimensions of the original structure, except to the nearest foot or two.

    Grant Hutchison
    Hi Grant I am not going to waste valuable time and energy and bandwidth debating with you on how Petrie measured The Great Pyramid. There are literally no people who argue that Petrie is several feet out so I can only assume you have come here to derail the thread. Here is how Cole measured it ...

    http://www.ronaldbirdsall.com/gizeh/...e%20Survey.pdf

    Seems every time I start a thread somewhere someone comes along with some inane argument to derail it but I have learned and I am not going to play your silly game. The readers can go to the sites I linked to and decide for themselves.

    The measurements are accepted by all ... well except you maybe and well let's move on shall we.

    db

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,289
    Quote Originally Posted by Ahatmose View Post
    Hi Grant I am not going to waste valuable time and energy and bandwidth debating with you on how Petrie measured The Great Pyramid. There are literally no people who argue that Petrie is several feet out so I can only assume you have come here to derail the thread. Here is how Cole measured it ...

    http://www.ronaldbirdsall.com/gizeh/...e%20Survey.pdf

    Seems every time I start a thread somewhere someone comes along with some inane argument to derail it but I have learned and I am not going to play your silly game. The readers can go to the sites I linked to and decide for themselves.

    The measurements are accepted by all ... well except you maybe and well let's move on shall we.

    db
    Ahatmose,

    Grant Hutchison is raising serious and appropriate questions. You are encouraged to present data refuting his statements, but you will not accuse him of playing games or derailing your thread. If you have concerns about another member's post, you can Report that post (black triangle with a ! in the lower left corner of every post) and let the Moderation Team deal with it; you are not to play moderator yourself.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,020
    Quote Originally Posted by Ahatmose View Post
    The measurements are accepted by all ... well except you maybe and well let's move on shall we.
    Let's not, actually.
    I've given you two references in which Petrie clearly stated that the facing blocks are missing, and his best estimate of their thickness is "about three feet". Cole actually measured distances (to the nearest millimetre) between brass rods cemented to the remaining structure in various plausible locations.
    Please show how Petrie, Cole (or you) can have made an accurate measurement of the missing structures, to derive the original dimensions of the pyramid.

    Grant Hutchison

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Ahatmose View Post
    Hi Grant I am not going to waste valuable time and energy and bandwidth debating with you on how Petrie measured The Great Pyramid. There are literally no people who argue that Petrie is several feet out
    Apart from Petrie himself.

    Unless you can provide a reference showing this is not the case, you don't have much of a leg to stand on.

    If you have a more recent measurement, why are you using Petrie's figures?

    So, these measurements show a variation of 10s of centimetres. Still no justification for you using the ridiculous levels of accuracy you have done.

    Seems every time I start a thread somewhere someone comes along with some inane argument
    You mean, pointing out your errors?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Burlington Ontario Canada
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    What's the "significance" of the square root of 3?
    Hi Cougar you asked on the significance of the square root of 3 and I will try to explain it. It involves many avenues but I will start at the most predominant and that is The Great Pyramid itself. Most if not all of the world suggests that The Great Pyramid is in the ratio of 5.5 to 7 or 220 cubits to 280 cubits. These are accepted "facts" by almost all of academia. We also have realized that a cubit is equal to 20.62 inches (although some would argue that there were no set ratio, I tend to disagree) Given these two "facts" we have height of 280 cubits and 1 cubit equaling 20.62 inches so it is a simple matter to multiply 280 x 20.62 to get the number of inches possibly in the height and we find after doing the math that the height is 280*20.62 and equal to 5773.6 inches. This number is extremely close to the square root of 3 / 3 then times 10,000 which would give a value of 5773.5 and only 1/10th of 1 inch off. So I have taken the liberty of calling the height of The Great Pyramid:

    sq rt of 3
    --------- = 5773.5 inches
    0.0003

    This leads to another discovery of mine where I noted that "The Megalithic Yard" if it exists and I believe it does and was used in the following way.

    The Megalithic Yard is equal to the sq rt of 3 * 2 * Pi divided by 4

    sq rt 3 * 2 * Pi
    --------------- = 2.720699 FEET OR 32.648 INCHES
    4

    32.648 divided by 20.62 (inches in a cubit) gives us the answer of 1.583333333

    Now the ratio of Earth to Mercury was such that it gave us a ratio of 2.5833333 however of this 2.583333 Mercury itself is 1 so that means that from Venus to Earth is in the ratio of 1.5833333 and thus as nearly as reasonably possible the solar system system has seen fit to define both the cubit and The Megalithic yard by the placement of the semi major axis' of it's planets. In other words from The Sun to Mercury is the cubit or 20.62 units or simply 1 and from Venus to Earth is 20.62 x 1.5833333 and is 32.648 or The Megalithic Yard.

    As seen again in this image.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	final_merc_venus_Earth_Mars_ratio_100.PNG 
Views:	29 
Size:	130.5 KB 
ID:	23368

    This image also shows us another remarkable feat of our solar system. The best accepted measurements so far has the semi major axis of Mars at 227,939,100 km and Earth at 149,598,261 km. The difference between them is 227,939,100 - 149,598,261 = 78,340,839 km The relationship of this number to Earth's semi major axis is 149598261 / 78,340,839 = 1.90958206. This shows us to a high degree of accuracy several things ...

    1) The ratio of The Meter to The Cubit is 39.3700787 inches to 20.62 inches = 1.909315167

    2) It is also the ratio of Volume of the cube to the enclosed sphere

    3) It also the ratio of The Base of The Red Pyramid (8660.25 inches) compared to 1/2 the base of The Great Pyramid (4534.5) (8660.25 / 45434.5 = 1.90986

    Thus the ratio of all these things are shown simply by using the semi major axis of Earth and Mars.

    And lastly although it really isn't the correct time for this if we allow the fact that the semi major axis of Mars represents the square root of 3 then the distance between Mars semi major axis and Ceres semi major axis is almsot exactly the square root of 2. Also if Mars = 1 then difference = 0.8165

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	YY3dUd.png 
Views:	29 
Size:	20.0 KB 
ID:	23369

    Ceres is 414,001,200 and Mars is 227,939,100 so difference is 186,062,100

    So if Mars is sq rt of 3 we divide sq rt of 3 by 227939100 and then multiply this by 186,062,100 and we get

    1.732050807 / 227,939,100 = 7.5987437-9th x 186,062,100 = 1.413838 (sq rt of 2 = 1.414214)

    I hope this helps a little on why the square root of 3 is so important.

    Cheers
    Don Barone
    Last edited by Ahatmose; 2018-May-29 at 07:28 PM.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,020
    Here are the results of Glen Dash's 2015 survey, which also gives a good description of the difficulties involved in making such measurements. Dash appropriately gives 95% confidence intervals for his measurements, which spans around 10cm (impressively tight, but based on some subjective judgements described in the article).
    And, interestingly, not one of Cole's 1925 measurements actually falls within Dash's modern confidence intervals.

    Grant Hutchison

  17. #17
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Burlington Ontario Canada
    Posts
    22
    On last confirmation of Petrie's measurements.

    https://www.academia.edu/3385375/New...?auto=download

    Why am I using Petrie's measurements because I believe his to be the most accurate. And before anyone suggests errors have been made depending on the angle used as a north point be aware that distance between the pyramids will not change.


    And in Petrie's own words in his book:

    But there is another test of this arrangement, which it ought to satisfy. Given four diagonals, as defined by the socket corners; and given four points near the middles of the sides of the Pyramid, as defined by the existing casing: if we start from one diagonal, say N.E.; draw a line through the E. casing to S.E. diagonal; from that through the S. casing, to the S.W. diagonal; and so on, round to the N.E. diagonal again; there is no necessity that the line should on its return fall on the same point as that from which we started : it might as easily, apart from special design, fall by chance anywhere else. The chances are greatly against its exactly completing its circuit thus, unless it was so planned before by the diagonals of the socket corners being identical with those of the square of the casing.

    On applying this test to the diagonals of the sockets, we find that the circuit unites, on being carried round through these points, to within 1 inch far closer, in fact, than the diagonals of the sockets and the line of the casing can be estimated.

    This is, then, a conclusive test; and we only need to compute a square that shall pass through the points of the casing found on each side, and having also its corners lying on the diagonals of the sockets. This square, of the original base of the Great Pyramid casing on the platform, is of these dimensions:—


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	great_pyramid_petrie_01.png 
Views:	24 
Size:	6.1 KB 
ID:	23370

    http://www.ronaldbirdsall.com/gizeh/petrie/c6.html

    Regards
    Don Barone

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Ahatmose View Post
    And lastly although it really isn't the correct time for this if we allow the fact that the semi major axis of Mars represents the square root of 3 then the distance between Mars semi major axis and Ceres semi major axis is almsot exactly the square root of 2. Also if Mars = 1 then difference = 0.8165

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	YY3dUd.png 
Views:	29 
Size:	20.0 KB 
ID:	23369

    Ceres is 414,001,200 and Mars is 227,939,100 so difference is 186,062,100

    So if Mars is sq rt of 3 we divide sq rt of 3 by 227939100 and then multiply this by 186,062,100 and we get

    1.732050807 / 227,939,100 = 7.5987437-9th x 186,062,100 = 1.413838 (sq rt of 2 = 1.414214)

    I hope this helps a little on why the square root of 3 is so important.
    Hmmm, your claim says that the ratio of Ceres semimajor axis to Mars semimajor axis is the square root of 6, divided by 3, plus 1.

    That doesn't seem too remarkable. Especially since it's not exact.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Burlington Ontario Canada
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    Here are the results of Glen Dash's 2015 survey, which also gives a good description of the difficulties involved in making such measurements. Dash appropriately gives 95% confidence intervals for his measurements, which spans around 10cm (impressively tight, but based on some subjective judgements described in the article).
    And, interestingly, not one of Cole's 1925 measurements actually falls within Dash's modern confidence intervals.

    Grant Hutchison
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screenshot - 5_29_2018 , 12_27_50 PM.png 
Views:	26 
Size:	22.4 KB 
ID:	23371

    Dash:

    North = Min = 9065.2 --- Mean = 9068.1 ---- Max = 9070.9 ======== PETRIE NORTH IS 9069.4

    East = MIN = 9066.85 --- Mean = 9068.3 ---- Max = 9069.8 ======= PETRIE EAST IS 9067.7

    South = Min = 9068.1 --- Mean = 9070.2 ---- Max = 9072.4 ======= PETRIE SOUTH IS 9069.5

    West = Min = 9070.0 ---- Mean = 9071.1 ---- Max = 9072.3 ======= PETRIE WEST IS 9068.6
    ================================================== =============================

    Average for Dash = 9069.4 ........................ AVERAGE FOR PETRIE = 9068.8 ...................

    AND ACCORDING TO ME WAS MEANT TO REPRESENT sq rt of 3 / 0.0003 x 10,000 then times Pi then divided by 2 to give us ... 9068.9968211710892529703912882108

    Interesting that our attention was brought to the fact that Cole does not check yet no mention was made to the fact that Petrie checked to 0.6 or 3/5ths of an inch.

    As I have said the evidence is all there.

    db

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Ahatmose View Post
    As I have said the evidence is all there.

    db
    The evidence is that you have fallen -- hard and deep -- into the pit of numerology. You began this thread by claiming exactness (in capitals, no less). As has been shown, that claim is absurd.

    Having been shown that your claim of exactness was wrong, you now retreat into the sadly predictable act of offering a set of random calculations which, again, cannot be exact. By ignoring that truth, you then correlate these inexact numbers with exact ones, assigning some deep significance to the correlations. But you must understand that one can do this with just about any set of random numbers of finite precision. One can always say that these are "close to" just about any combination of exact quantities you wish. You may be impressed by the ability to identify a point within a finite interval of real numbers, but it won't move the needle here, sorry.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Burlington Ontario Canada
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    Hmmm, your claim says that the ratio of Ceres semimajor axis to Mars semimajor axis is the square root of 6, divided by 3, plus 1.

    That doesn't seem too remarkable. Especially since it's not exact.
    Hi Grapes and please forgive the long string of numbers after the decimal as it is important to counter your claim that it is not too accurate.

    Using your numbers of sq rt of 6 which is 2.4494897427831780981972840747059 we divide by 3 to give us 0.81649658092772603273242802490196 and then add 1 to give us 1.816496580927726032732428024902

    The Wiki distance for the semi major axis of Mars is 227,939,100. I we multiply this by 1.816496580927726032732428024902 we get 414,050,596

    The latest figure for the semi major axis of Ceres after the rendezvous is now tagged at 414,001,200 thus it is of an accuracy of

    414,050,596 / 414,001,200 = 0.99988 accuracy 12/100,000ths

    Since we only have best guesses to the planets what sort of accuracy were you looking for ?

    Regards
    Don Barone

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,020
    Quote Originally Posted by Ahatmose View Post
    Interesting that our attention was brought to the fact that Cole does not check yet no mention was made to the fact that Petrie checked to 0.6 or 3/5ths of an inch.
    Yes, interesting. I picked Cole (data that you provided) to help show that different methodologies unsurprisingly produce different results. A meta-analysis might therefore have to either widen Dash's confidence intervals, or reject some of the measurements that have been offered over the last century.

    The point being that it is nonsensical to believe that there is a precise and correct value for the length of any side of the existing Great Pyramid, let alone a single precise value that characterizes the length of all four sides, let alone a single precise value for its now largely vanished original surface.

    Grant Hutchison

  23. #23
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Burlington Ontario Canada
    Posts
    22
    At Giza the builders wanted to show The Solar System and they used an interesting number to measure it. Many think it was "The Cubit" but it was not. In my estimation The Builders used an interesting number ... they used what we now call "an inch". It was not one of our inches but was derived from a simple and perfect square and has everything to do with mathematics. Many have asked why I am so adamant that the design that was meant for The Great Pyramid was this mysterious unwieldy number 9068.9968... its discovery was accidental when I was trying to solve another geometrical problem for a friend. The problem ? Oh he was trying to prove that the speed of light was encoded in the pyramid. From this work which I did solve for him on a theoretical basis came this diagram. What I did was started with a sqaure ... but a special square, a square that had sides of sq rt of 2 / 4 or 0.3535534. This would make the inner circumference 1.1107207... the perimeter would equal the sq rt of 2 or 1.41421356... and the outer circumference would equal 1.570796 or simply Pi/2 !

    From this diagram comes the realization that if one divides the outer circumference or simply Pi/2 by the square root of 3 the result is my number of "inches" or .90689968... and when multiplied by 10,000 gives us 9068.9968... . So exactly what am I saying here. I am saying that the inches we use are either identical or very close to what this mathematical diagram gives us. It is impossible to really tell as we have nothing precise to go by. We can only assume it is close as the mean of The Great Pyramid is 9068.6 and I like 9068.9968 but there are other numbers in the base as well so it isn't as easy as simply dividing 9068.9968 / 9068.6 and getting a ratio. It is my contention that this is partly why The Great Pyramid was built to the size it has been. It has laid out the scale we are to use when looking at the other ancient pyramids of Egypt and I have always found it strange that it matches our present inch so closely.

    And what of the cubit ? In my estimation it was the transition number that took the theoretical inches of The Great Pyramid and turned them into a working unit The Ancient Builders could use.

    Here is the image. So just to be clear this is the theoretical number of inches that is meant to be in The Great Pyramid. Obviously we can't measure to those tolerances ... but this is what was designed into it as best they could. And from this design many interesting things develop which we will look at next time.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Tsaxqn.png 
Views:	30 
Size:	165.3 KB 
ID:	23372

    Regards
    Don Barone

  24. #24
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Ahatmose View Post
    Hi Grapes and please forgive the long string of numbers after the decimal as it is important to counter your claim that it is not too accurate.
    Weird. I said "not too remarkable"
    Using your numbers of sq rt of 6 which is 2.4494897427831780981972840747059 we divide by 3 to give us 0.81649658092772603273242802490196 and then add 1 to give us 1.816496580927726032732428024902

    The Wiki distance for the semi major axis of Mars is 227,939,100. I we multiply this by 1.816496580927726032732428024902 we get 414,050,596

    The latest figure for the semi major axis of Ceres after the rendezvous is now tagged at 414,001,200 thus it is of an accuracy of

    414,050,596 / 414,001,200 = 0.99988 accuracy 12/100,000ths

    Since we only have best guesses to the planets what sort of accuracy were you looking for ?
    Numerical results like these are common, even in random data. There's no special reason needed for the coincidence.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Burlington Ontario Canada
    Posts
    22
    So we now see that all my ratios are based on what I deem to be the correct and meant to be distance of the base of The Great Pyramid namely my 9068.9968... and that is why I can say that the base of The Great Pyramid is EXACTLY in the ratio of sq rt of 3 to Phi in reference to G2 or The Pyramid of Khafre. To us it measure 9069 inches to 8472 inches because we can not measure to the tolerances we have to ... but we know they are there. But now back to The Great Pyramid and it's base in cubits. Before I go on I think it is important to note that none of the three major pyramids at Giza have two sides the same. All four sides are different. This tells us that each side may have a story to tell and that meeting at an apex would be tricky business to say the least so I contend that these pyramids never had a point at the top. They were never totally completely finished but that story is best left for another day. Now back to G1.

    The Great Pyramid of Khufu or simply The Great Pyramid is of the dimensions of base 440 cubits and height 280 cubits or having a slope of 5.5 / 7. Now in these seemingly innocent number an interesting story can be told. You have seen my proposal for the base in inches and now I propose that the base of 440 was no accident. If we use a square of 440 sides we get as it's diagonal 440 x sq rt 2 and we get 622.254 (rounded) Now let's go back to the planets for a moment. If we divide Earth by Mercury semi major axis' we get 2.5833333 now conversely if we go 12 / 31 we get 0.387097 and thus is the ratio of Mercury to Earth when Earth equals 1. Now I have to interject here that knowing a bit of Kepler's Third Law would be helpful here. First we take the square root of 0.387097 and we find that it gives us 0.622171 (rounded) now interestingly this is very close to equaling the diagonal of The Great Pyramid in cubits. We have 0.622171 and 622.254 so we have a unique thing happening here that if we multiply 0.622171 which as we see is the sq rt of 12 / 31 times 1,000 we come close to equally the diagonal of 622.254. So it could be suggested that the diagonal of The Great Pyramid in cubits is the ratio of Earth to Mercury squared. Following Kepler if we now cube this we get ... 0.2408404 (rounded) which thanks to Kepler we know is the ratio of the orbital periods or time of a year in Earth days. Proof is simply 87.969 for Mercury divided by 365.25 for Earth and we get ... 0.240846 very close. To be "exact" we would need to have 0.622176 (rounded) . This actually also hides another extremely interesting thing ... The ratio of Mercury to Earth in days of the year is indeed 0.240846 BUT when we reverse it we get how may Mercury years are in an Earth year and we get 1/240846 or 4.15213 (rounded) and wouldn't you just know it that the base of G3 or The Pyramid of Menkarre that small often forgotten about little pyramid in the south of Giza happens to be 4152 (+ or -) inches in size. And that will be our next stop ...

    Regards
    Don Barone

  26. #26
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Burlington Ontario Canada
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by grapes View Post
    Weird. I said "not too remarkable"

    Numerical results like these are common, even in random data. There's no special reason needed for the coincidence.
    Just curious how you know it is a coincidence ?

    db

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    16,020
    What we need here is some idea of the extent of the hypothesis landscape. How many pyramids are considered to be fair game for this exercise? How many dimensions of these pyramids may be used? How many competing measurements of these various dimensions? How many planetary ratios may be explored, looking for matches? What mathematical operations may be deployed in order to bring the various numbers into alignment? How precise must the agreement be before a match is declared?

    It seems to me the potential hypothesis landscape here is essentially endless, and any matches found are only striking because all the failed matching attempts go unmentioned.

    In medicine, we set up a thing called a clinical trials register, in which researchers are required to record their planned investigation before they carry out the trial. Turns out, once you do that, a lot of apparently remarkable results turn out to be merely the product of suppressed negatives. Coincidences, selectively published, in other words.

    Grant Hutchison

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Ahatmose View Post
    So we now see that all my ratios are based on what I deem to be the correct and meant to be distance of the base of The Great Pyramid namely my 9068.9968...
    You are "deeming" it on insufficient evidence.

    To us it measure 9069 inches to 8472 inches because we can not measure to the tolerances we have to ... but we know they are there.
    So it is just a matter of faith?

    Before I go on I think it is important to note that none of the three major pyramids at Giza have two sides the same. All four sides are different. This tells us that each side may have a story to tell
    Or the Egyptian builders were not as supernaturally accurate as some cranks would have you believe.

    and we get 622.254 (rounded)
    Gosh. Not exact? Disappointing.

    now interestingly this is very close to equaling the diagonal of The Great Pyramid in cubits.
    It appears to be approximately 1,000 times smaller. Presumably you mean millicubits?

    So it could be suggested that the diagonal of The Great Pyramid in cubits is the ratio of Earth to Mercury squared.
    Or, and this might be a bit implausible, it is just a coincidence.

    You are typical of numerologists: you claim an EXACT match (by fiddling some numbers) and then say "and that is approximately magic". Nah.

    another extremely interesting thing ...
    Has there been one interesting thing yet?

  29. #29
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Ahatmose View Post
    This actually also hides another extremely interesting thing ... The ratio of Mercury to Earth in days of the year is indeed 0.240846 BUT when we reverse it we get how may Mercury years are in an Earth year and we get 1/240846 or 4.15213 (rounded) and wouldn't you just know it that the base of G3 or The Pyramid of Menkarre that small often forgotten about little pyramid in the south of Giza happens to be 4152 (+ or -) inches in size. And that will be our next stop ...
    So, you've got the number of Mercury years in an Earth year, multiplied by 1000, and you get the number of inches in that pyramid?? The ancients encoded a measurement in kiloinches, is that what you're claiming?

  30. #30
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Burlington Ontario Canada
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by grant hutchison View Post
    What we need here is some idea of the extent of the hypothesis landscape. How many pyramids are considered to be fair game for this exercise? How many dimensions of these pyramids may be used? How many competing measurements of these various dimensions? How many planetary ratios may be explored, looking for matches? What mathematical operations may be deployed in order to bring the various numbers into alignment? How precise must the agreement be before a match is declared?

    It seems to me the potential hypothesis landscape here is essentially endless, and any matches found are only striking because all the failed matching attempts go unmentioned.

    In medicine, we set up a thing called a clinical trials register, in which researchers are required to record their planned investigation before they carry out the trial. Turns out, once you do that, a lot of apparently remarkable results turn out to be merely the product of suppressed negatives. Coincidences, selectively published, in other words.

    Grant Hutchison
    Hypothesis - Egypt is The World's Oldest Book of Astronomy

    How many pyramids are considered to be fair game: Major pyramids of 3rd and 4th Dynasty, namely Sakkara, Meidum, The Red Pyramid at Dashiur, The Bent Pyramid at Dashur, and the three major pyramids at Giza, The Great Pyramid of Khufu, The Pyramid of Khafre and the Pyramid of Menkarre

    To find any meaningful ratio between orbital periods of the planets, ratios of their semi major axis and possibly ratio of gravity, ratios of diameters

    How many dimensions of these pyramids may be used: Height, width, diagonal, slope and their ratios to each other and other pyramids.

    What mathematical operations may be deployed in order to bring the various numbers into alignment?: Dividing. subtraction, multiplying, square rooting, cube rooting [use calculus if you know it, I don't ] power to: Phi, phi squared, Phi squared + 1, square root of 2, square root of 3 and square root of 5

    How precise must the agreement be before a match is declared?: I prefer to use as a lower end 0.99936 or 99.94 % a match

    Since I have already stated what I am doing namely trying to find ratios of the planets the rest of your post does not apply here.

    And since mast people insist on minimal decimal point numbers if I called it correct to 1 decimal point it would all match so I have decided that what is reasonable is to 5 decimal places ( but this is just a minimum)

    " ... It seems to me the potential hypothesis landscape here is essentially endless, and any matches found are only striking because all the failed matching attempts go unmentioned. ... "

    Hmm seems to me that the scientific way is trial and error or doing a number of experiments. Now just so I understand this. I am supposed to know which ratios I am going to find and where ? Seriously the only way to find hidden ratios is to explore all avenues.

    For note I have found all planets and their ratios and their semi major axis' at Giza. I tend to concentrate on the inner ones from Mercury to Jupiter as they seem to be the most obvious and seem to be the easiest to find. I have worked on this for 20 years so there is a bit of data to sift through and post.

    db

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •