It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Great Pyramid: King's Chamber Reveals Unusually Accurate Values for π and Φ

page: 3
32
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: jeep3r
when applying our metric system, .


Total fail
you don't understand Egyptian measurements
you don't understand Egyptian culture
you don't understand Egyptian architecture
you don't understand why your comment above is complete crap
try to understand, we'd all like you to smell the coffee at some point



Why so excited? Have you even read the OP? Did you actually understand it?

Of course that's only possible when not being dogmatic about Egyptology for a while ... so relax and read the OP, then we can have a coffee and discuss!




posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   
the best thing about the GP is
you can simply walk in and read all the inscriptions
on the wall exalting Pharoh and clearly explaining that it was a tomb




posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: jeep3r

Why so excited? Have you even read the OP? Did you actually understand it?


I responded to it on the first page
try to stay awake

edit on 6-10-2015 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: UnderKingsPeak
the best thing about the GP is
you can simply walk in and read all the inscriptions
on the wall exalting Pharoh and clearly explaining that it was a tomb



I have compiled a list of 4th dynasty pyramids with inscriptions for you below

here it is :-

None

If you would like a list of fifth dynasty pyramids where the tradition of inscriptions began, just let me know



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: somungho
Light

The speed of light (at 299,792.458km/s) is encoded in the latitude of the great Pyramid. At its center the pyramid is 29.9792º north of the equator . The statistical chance for the Great Pyramid to be centered on the latitude of the Speed of Light is almost beyond reason of doubt. It’s so close that if you go a few feet up or down off of the center of the great Pyramid the equality of the latitude with the speed of light is lost. The margin of error is less than 0.01%.

The meter itself is based on the circumference of the earth. We define it by dividing the polar circumference (through Paris) into 40,000,000 meter units. The second is defined as the length of a day divided into 86,400 units of time.

There is good reason to believe that the Great Pyramid’s architect knew the radius of the earth as well. To make my point I will divide the width of the great Pyramid (756 feet) into 360 units which I will call cubits. The radius of the earth contains 10.000.000 of these cubits to within a margin of 0.4-0.5%. I believe this summarily dismisses any other speculation about what kind of cubit the Great Pyramid builder’s architect used.

Additionally the architect of the Great Pyramid did not seem to find it arbitrary to find yet a third measure (besides the meter and cubit) by which to measure the earth, for reasons I don’t presently fathom. The Great Pyramid has a slope angle of approximately 51 Degrees, 50 Arc Minutes and 40 Arc Seconds. These add up to about 186,640 arc seconds (51*3600 + 50*60 + 40). The speed of light as measured in miles per second is approximately 186624 Miles per second. The difference is less than 0.02%.

I have already shown that the Speed of Light is encoded in both meters per second (in its latitude) and miles per second (in the slope angle). There is another way in which the pyramid encodes the number of light and why shouldn´t it? It was the king of all pyramids in all the earth and probably shone the brightest. The circumference of the earth, divided by the circumference of the great pyramid is ~43,460. The sun has a radius of 432,687 miles. The difference (besides a decimal point) is 0.4%. The difference would be even smaller if the pyramids had not been defaced.


It is worthy to note that we have divided our day into 43,200 * 2 seconds. This is more than logical as the sun and its light is what gives us our sense of time.

Another worthy thing to note is that the speed of light can be derived from 432 * 432.
432 * 432 is only 0.18% higher than the currently accepted measure of the speed of light at 186,282.397 Miles/s. Is it any wonder people marvel at the Great Pyramid?

Finally there is another way in which the speed of light was encoded in the Great Pyramid. Draw two circles on the base of the pyramid. One circle touching the edges, the other touching the corners. Subtract the circumference of the smaller circle from the circumference of the bigger circle. The result is about 299.8173 meters. This is less than 0.009% off of our current speed of light.
All this goes to show that the Architect of the Great Pyramid knew the following facts or concepts:

The Speed of Light in meters and miles per second.

The Circumference and radius of the Earth and the roundness of the earth.

The definition of the Meter, Cubit, Mile and Second.

The size of the Sun

To measure the Circle in 360º and 60 arc minutes and 60 arc seconds. Just a nice tid-bit to add here.



Obviously this was where they got the idea for the 153 fish in the gospel according to John.
Math could have been done thousands of years before it was incorporated in the GP.
Some of the astronomical observations were probably chosen later to fit.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   
I had no idea light traveled at only 299 meters per second.

Harte



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: somungho
Light

The speed of light (at 299,792.458km/s) is encoded in the latitude of the great Pyramid. At its center the pyramid is 29.9792º north of the equator


Wrong actually!

www.metabunk.org...


In order to make the connection we have to actively include various options that fit the original claim, and exclude the many that doesn't, even though they are still fully valid options. A matching sequence of five digits is not particularly strange or extraordinary. People have won the lottery matching far longer sequences than just five digits. Sometimes numbers simply match up without any connection whatsoever. So because this argument require some forcing we can conclude that this is likely nothing but a coincidence.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 08:20 PM
link   
I think some of these coincidences can be explained by the phenomena Nietzsche wrote about back in the 1880's. He tried to explain a gateway he called "the moment", an eternal recurrence of path. Went right over my head the first time I read it, but later when the CIA put their Kryptos puzzle out into the public domain it started to make sense. There is a clear symbolic mathematical link between pi, geographical latitude and the calendar. That was probably meant to be self evident to those that were good at math before calculators.

What the CIA wants people to know about the sculpture at their "old CIA building" they have linked on their website.

www.cia.gov...

Perhaps if the paradigm was not so dated and esoteric, more people could enjoy the puzzle?



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 09:33 PM
link   
archaeologists/historians always seem to error on the side of younger, and they hold to it even when evidence points to much older, maybe because they don't like the idea of having taken us so long to get from then to now, that what they know is not much different from what academics knew thousands of years ago



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 05:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: BobbyFontaine
archaeologists/historians always seem to error on the side of younger, and they hold to it even when evidence points to much older...

Are you simply talking here, or can you provide specific examples of this?

Please indicate exactly what evidence you believe "points to much older" dates than the mainstream proposes.

Harte



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Harte

Are you simply talking here, or can you provide specific examples of this? Please indicate exactly what evidence you believe "points to much older" dates than the mainstream proposes.


I guess he was thinking of the many megalithic sites where mainstream archaeology has put forward many theories of how they were constructed, but where no final conclusion can be drawn as to how construction actually went about.

Examples for this could be Giza, Sacsayhuaman, Baalbek, Easter Island etc., the usual suspects I guess. Cases, where megalithic architecture is attributed to cultures that undoubtedly settled there in the past, but without leaving behind irrefutable evidence that they were in fact the engineers and architects.

Seen from the mainstream perspective, this of course rules out any lost cultures because we don't find much to substantiate their existence, with the exception of these enigmatic, megalithic structures.



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Good example of that is the Newgrange Ireland site, some believe it was an ancient astronomical observatory over 5000 years old.

www.mythicalireland.com...

There is evidence that would support knowledge of the metonic cycle which was incorporated into much later works, from the Med pyramids to Homers odyssey.

When I first saw those carved swirls I thought they might be a gateway to phi and spirit gravity. Now I'm told they were just copying snail shells. They could have done that in the Philippines!


edit on 8-10-2015 by Cauliflower because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Specific methods can never be known for certain. That doesn't mean that some lost technology had to be used to cut and stack stones.

Besides, he specifically mentioned evidence pointing to older dates. That's what I was asking about. I doubt the existence of such "evidence."

Harte



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Harte

The Redating of the Great Sphinx could be something to look into then. Conservative estimate: 7.500 years old, possibly even 10.000-12.000 years (according to R. Schoch).

I know your opinion about his theory from another thread, but it's interesting how he explains the erosion patterns on the sphinx enclosure in relation to the possible construction date (from a geological point of view).



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: jeep3r

I do not think "Conservative estimate" means what you think it means..



originally posted by: jeep3r
I know your opinion about his theory from another thread, but it's interesting how he explains the erosion patterns on the sphinx enclosure in relation to the possible construction date (from a geological point of view).


What's interesting is that pretty much every other Geologist on seeing the same erosion said it was clearly wind and salt crystallization combined with haloclasty. Whereas Schoch originally came up with his idea at the prompting of Graham Hancock (who holds no qualification but journalism) and John Anthony West

The idea was originally proposed by R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz in the 1950s, you get nothing original with pseudo historians

edit on 8-10-2015 by Marduk because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-10-2015 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk
a reply to: jeep3r

What's interesting is that pretty much every other Geologist on seeing the same erosion said it was clearly wind and salt crystallization combined with haloclasty.


I wouldn't dismiss R. Schoch's qualification as a geologist so easily.

When looking at the different types of weathering patterns in the link I referenced, one realizes that he considers salt crystalization in recent times as a possible explanation (although dismissing it when looking at the bigger picture).

I can't recall that his claims have been debunked ...



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: jeep3r

I can't recall that his claims have been debunked ...

His claims have never been proven, they don't need to be debunked
His claims in fact are still an unproven hypothesis, which creates more questions than it answers
I have been discussing Schochs work for over a decade, thanks, I am more aware of his claims than you are.
But even his unproven hypothesis has been completely debunked so many times that I am surprised that you aren't aware of it
Here is August Matthusens rebuttal
www.catchpenny.org...



The link you referenced was written by Schoch, this is known as circular reasoning, its a logical fallacy in which the reasoner (i.e. you) begins with what they are trying to end with
en.wikipedia.org...

Try this link instead, it tells you why Schoch is wrong in easy to understand terminology
www.catchpenny.org...


I will add "knowing how science works" to the list of things you have shown you don't understand in this thread

edit on 8-10-2015 by Marduk because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-10-2015 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: jeep3r
a reply to: Harte

The Redating of the Great Sphinx could be something to look into then. Conservative estimate: 7.500 years old, possibly even 10.000-12.000 years (according to R. Schoch).

I know your opinion about his theory from another thread, but it's interesting how he explains the erosion patterns on the sphinx enclosure in relation to the possible construction date (from a geological point of view).


Eight years ago (or so) I wrote the entry for Schoch's theory on ATS' "Tinwiki."
The Tinwiki articles are all gone now, as far as i can tell, but I can offer you this - me referring to mine. link

Since you can't read my article, I suggest you read Schoch's paper carefully and note exactly how he arrived at his date range, or at least the most recent end of it.

I'd say I've investigated that particular claim more than enough.

Not at all convincing.

Harte



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk

Try this link instead, it tells you why Schoch is wrong in easy to understand terminology
www.catchpenny.org...


Larry Orcutt gave me permission to use the bird's eye view drawing at that link in the Tinwiki article I mentioned.

Harte



posted on Oct, 18 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk

I will add "knowing how science works" to the list of things you have shown you don't understand in this thread

You can add whatever you want to that list, but do keep in mind that this is a conspiracy board rather than a science forum. And if you really do want to enlighten us about how science works, then I wouldn't jump to conclusions as you did in the above quote because it doesn't necessarily serve your credibility.



His claims have never been proven, they don't need to be debunked

Yeah, right. But then again there are occasional attempts to debunk or discredit, like in the following section from one of your links:


"The work of Schoch and West on the Sphinx is highly flawed. For one thing they ignored the severe local atmospheric industrial pollution in the last century which has severely damaged the Giza monuments and fast, too. This is well known by the Egyptologists. I won't get in to that story, you probably are up to date on their work and the many thorough refutations from well-qualified people."


Such recent erosion caused by industrial pollution would affect every exposed area in a similar way. It wouldn't explain the heavy precipitation-induced weathering of the enclosure, so that would be the least influential factor. Interesting that this is even mentioned in connection with Schoch's hypothesis, since it wouldn't explain the millennia old erosion patterns in any way. So why add this information? To stress how "highly flawed" Schoch's methodology is?



Try this link instead, it tells you why Schoch is wrong in easy to understand terminology
www.catchpenny.org...

What's irratating about that link is that L. Orcutt says Schoch fails to consider the different strata the Sphinx is made of, whereas the distinction is clearly made in his analysis of geological data. Did he even read Schoch's essays? Again, I still don't see how his hypothesis is refuted given the erosion patterns on the enclosure and body of the Sphinx, suggesting an earlier date of construction.
edit on 18-10-2015 by jeep3r because: text







 
32
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join