Originally posted by The Axeman
MaskedAvatar, is this similar to what the brother you spoke of had discovered?

In a word, no, but the youthful s. and r.e. of the day had no objective of selling books, LOL.

Originally posted by dh
Masonry is all about stepping up
The most stay around the ground floors and are quite happy with that degree of power and control, which is mythical
The few chosen get up to the 33 and beyond
With their ever-increasing knowledge of how it all works
Don't you genuinely resent them for that? or are you quite content to stay at the bottom layers of the pyramid, happy that you support the structure and the capstone ultimately

Masonry, in a way is about self improvement and the lessons of the degrees (three basic ones) give a good complete set of messages. All the other degrees (York, and Scottish Rites) are just further explications of the basics.

Then again, I'm sure you've heard this before and there is nothing that I can say that will have you think I'm NOT a dupe. So, have a nice day.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
In a word, no, but the youthful s. and r.e. of the day had no objective of selling books, LOL.

Good point. Do you think that there could be something behind the theory that the Pyramid stands as a Witness? The circumstantial evidence to support it certainly is plentiful.

[edit on 2/14/05 by The Axeman]

The Great Pyramid is built at an angle of approx. 52 degrees, or more accurately 51 51. This results in some interesting non-ACCIDENTAL properties.

The base sides of the pyramid are 9131 Pyramid inches each (a Pyr. Inch being 1.007 or so, I think regular inches). This number times the 4 sides gives 36524, the amount of days in a year to two decimal places (if you add one, duh).

Its height is 5813 Pyr. inches, and if you divide 36524 by 5813, it gives, and this is no accident, 2pi

So there you have one of the most difficult to express, and most important irrational numbers build very exactly into the very architecture, to be decoded.

Further more, to derive Phi (.618::1::1.618), take the slant length (from the tip to the corner) and you get 7387 pyr inches, which if divided by half the base (like if you were making a right triangle out of a face of the pyramid)/ 9131/2 gives you a very good value for the golden ratio, 1.618.

In Egyptian Cubit measurements, the numbers are nice and even.
440 cubits wide
280 cubits tall
356 slant length

It is as tall as a 40 story building! And a perfect example of squaring the circle, a famous principle outside mathematics (in spiritual studies).

*rubs eyes*

Am I hallucinating or was that a seemingly intelligent post?

[edit on 2/14/05 by The Axeman]

Originally posted by akilles


It is as tall as a 40 story building! And a perfect example of squaring the circle, a famous principle outside mathematics (in spiritual studies).

Where do you get a squared circle out of the pyramid? I kwnow how to square a circle but I'm not sure I follow you. And what is the signifigance of its perfect design? Better yet why build something 40 storys high to leave it setting in the desert? Here is a tough one for ya...What walks on four feet at sunrise, walks on two at noon and walks on three at sunset?

What walks on four feet at sunrise, walks on two at noon and walks on three at sunset?

Someones been reading terry pratchett. Pyramids is one of his best. Im not going to ruin it for everyone else.

Originally posted by TgSoe
What walks on four feet at sunrise, walks on two at noon and walks on three at sunset?

Silence, oh strangler! Or would you have the people with swollen ankles here claw their eyes out?

Originally posted by The AxemanPyramid is a Witness to the Bible, By looking at the measurements and proportions of the passages and chambers, as well as the geographical location and orientation of the Great Pyramid at Giza in relation to the scripture, they in some way connect, or match up.

I recall hearing about somewhat similiar research, but instead of the egyptian pyramids and the bible it was the 'universe' and the complexes of aztec temples. I think that the proportions of the various buildings and their interrealations similiarly 'matched up' to proportions of the earth and what amounts to astrological signs (tho I guess it was aztec astrology). I think, if I remember correctly, that it was also scaled, such that at one scale the proportions available for comparasion were to relate to one set of things, at anohter 'higher' scale another 'higher' set of things.

But this was from a documentary and I don't recall the originator of the idea.

Originally posted by Nygdan
I recall hearing about somewhat similiar research, but instead of the egyptian pyramids and the bible it was the 'universe' and the complexes of aztec temples. I think that the proportions of the various buildings and their interrealations similiarly 'matched up' to proportions of the earth and what amounts to astrological signs (tho I guess it was aztec astrology). I think, if I remember correctly, that it was also scaled, such that at one scale the proportions available for comparasion were to relate to one set of things, at anohter 'higher' scale another 'higher' set of things.

But this was from a documentary and I don't recall the originator of the idea.

I'll try to remember to bring the book in to work tomorrow and I can post some tidbits, it really is an interesting theory. I need to read it again anyway. I mean it's only a little more than 100 pages. Pretty compelling stuff if you go into it with an open mind.

I think the Aztecs were more than likely onto something as well, but I haven't studied that much. I'll have to look into it. If you can remember any details about where you read or saw that, maybe we can find some online resources. I may post it in the Religion forum however, because it really doesn't fit here but when I do I'll post a link in this thread. Might be a day or two though.

[edit on 2/17/05 by The Axeman]

Draw a square.

Draw a circle with equiv. area from center of square (meaning, circle and square share a center).

Draw a triangle up from the center of the square (on both sides), and connect it to the top of the circle.

You have just constructed the angle of the Great Pyramid, and if you were able to, squared the circle!
Thank you and good night.

Originally posted by akilles
Draw a square.

Draw a circle with equiv. area from center of square (meaning, circle and square share a center).

Draw a triangle up from the center of the square (on both sides), and connect it to the top of the circle.

You have just constructed the angle of the Great Pyramid, and if you were able to, squared the circle!
Thank you and good night.

I am a draftsman by trade, and I think either you are completely full of it (most likely), or you are not explaining yourself very well (can't imagine that ).

The top quadrant of the circle would be the exact same point as the midpoint of the top side of the square, if the diameter of the circle matched the length of the sides of the square. If the square and circle share a center, the line from center to top quadrant would pass through the midpoint of the top side of the square, regardless on the size of the circle.

Try again. And remember, I will be drawing in AutoCAD so I will get the angles down to a very precise measurement.

Don't be ignorant.




Its different positioning based on whether you compare the area or the perimeter of the Square and Circle, but you should be able to find the same degrees I found in Photoshop, if not more exact.

Its really just easier to divide the slope (356) by half the base (220), but its your life. Cos inverse, and boo yah. I DID the hard work, but you'll still think I'm misled, even though you have no idea what my 'direction' is.

Originally posted by akilles
Don’t be ignorant.

First of all, you’ve got a lot of nerve to be saying that anyone else is being ignorant.

It’s different positioning based on whether you compare the area or the perimeter of the Square and Circle, but you should be able to find the same degrees I found in Photoshop, if not more exact.

Not exactly.



I’ll give you that with the perimeter being equal, the lesser angles come out to close to 52°, but your other figures are, well, WRONG.

Its really just easier to divide the slope (356) by half the base (220), but its your life. Cos inverse and boo yah.

Where did you get those numbers?

I DID the hard work, but you'll still think I'm misled, even though you have no idea what my 'direction' is.

No, you’ve got some incorrect information sprinkled with some correct information. I’m not bustin’ your balls for once, I’m actually interested in your ideas on this. As far as your “direction”? Nope. No idea. Why don’t you enlighten me?

JeZeus Christ man.

With a common area you need to place the square intersecting with the bottom of the circle!

What is 51.85 degress, hmm? Times .85 x 60 to get how many minutes? 51?
Yes. Very good.

356 cubits for the slant height of the Pyramid, 220 for half the base in Cubits. I outlined it clear enough in my last 3 posts!

You've spent so much time nitpicking I have tired of the topic.

Alright so you know your math, or at least, you were right about the angles. But still what the hell does that have to do with "squaring the circle"?

You can spout off figures all day but unless you elaborate on what you think it means, it's an utterly pointless excersise. Of course if I were you I would quit while I was ahead, because I think this is the first thread you have actually made any sense in. Keep it rolling, or don't. You've got my attention, now do you have anything further, or does wittle akilles not want to pway anymore?

It figures the one time you post something worthwhile you ruin it by saying "I'm taking my ball and going home! *raspberry*".

So what does it mean? What's your theory? You obviously know something about it, why don't you take the opportunity to atone for some of your trollish posts by having an intelligent discussion for a change? I'm man enough to admit I was in error, are you man enough to have a discussion, or are you too "bored with the topic"?

Originally posted by The Axeman
I'm man enough to admit I was in error, are you man enough to have a discussion...

Well I guess not... Go figure.