Breakthrough in understanding Giza pyramids

Well, I took this discussion to the Ma'at board. There is not sufficient interest in the matter here, although understanding my research would give many some of the answers they are looking for in other areas like UFOs, and advanced ancient civilisations.

Bye guys, or see you on Ma'at, and elsewhere.
Jiri

Jiri's thread at the Egyptian forum at Hall of Ma'at

reply to post by Jiri Mruzek


www.scottcreighton.co.uk...

SC

reply to post by Scott Creighton



Howdy Scott

How does Jiri's idea compare with your idea?

reply to post by Hanslune

Hello Hans,

Hans: How does Jiri's idea compare with your idea?

SC: Jiri's work provides a solution for the pyramids as we find them today at Giza. My solution - based on Orion's Belt as the underlying design impeartive - presents a solution whereby the middle pyramid (representing G2) is slightly offset in terms of G2's actual position on the ground. All three base dimensions are correct but G2 is slightly offset. At Giza, however, there is evidence to suggest that G2 was indeed originally intended to have been placed slightly further north and east of where it stands today, thereby agreeing with the solution I present. Why the builders offset G2 in this way from the plan is entirely open to speculation. The Orion Geo-Stellar Blueprint also offers an explanation for the siting of the 2 sets of Queens.

In saying all this I should add also that I do not necessarily see what I present as being mutually exclusive with any other mathematical solution. I see an underlying design imperative i.e. the Orion Geo-Stellar Fingerprint - and then a layer of measures applied afterwards during the scaling-up and implementation of the plan on the ground at Giza. What I mean by this is to ask the question: what came first - the cubit or the plan? Was the cubit "invented" in order to introduce specific "meaningful numbers" into the plan?

By way of example, the street where I live is 400 metres in length. I have just invented the "Creighton Cubit" and based on this new measure my street is now 3.142857 Creghton Cubits in length. This is why it is important - as much as possible - if we are to seek meaning in numbers (if such exists) that we do so from simple and obvious ratios (e.g. height to base ratio of GP) rather than discreet measures. Ratios will always be true to their meaning (if such was intended) regardless of the measure system being used whereas a specific measurement system can be used to derive a "meaningful measure" but change the measurement system and that "meaningful measure" becomes meaningless.

Hope this helps answer your question.

Regards,

SC

reply to post by Hanslune


Hello Hans,

Further analysis of the Orion Geo-Stellar Blueprint can be found here:

www.dudeman.net...

Regards,

SC

Well Scott that sure is a lot of numbers, lines and stuff.

Question is did the Egyptian do all that? I didn't find a compelling explanation of why Orion and the Pyramids don't line up. I may have missed it in all the chaff.

I got to "oct 6" I presume it will be finished at some point. Let us know when it is.

It reminds me of something my Senshi use to say, "The truth is always simple."

Regards and keep us informed of your progress

reply to post by Hanslune


Hello Hans,

Hans: It reminds me of something my Senshi use to say, "The truth is always simple."

SC: The Orion Geo-Stellar Blueprint is eminently simple - there's no complex math involved, just simple geometry. How others wish to then analyse that simple geometry and over-complicate it is another matter but the Orion G-SB is simple straight lines, occasionaly doubled, occasionally placed at 90* or 45* angles - very simple indeed. All you require is to measure the belt stars accurately, place them on the ground and the dimensions of the three Gizamids takes care of themselves using the geo-stellar fingerprint technique I have shown.

One thing that has come out of the deeper analyse being done by others on the (simple) solution I present is that the offset of G2 from its position in the Orion Geo-Stellar Blueprint has been found to be 44 x 14 cubits. This can, of course be reduced to 22 x 7 - an approximation of the Pi constant.

I think you are correct, however. The true answer will most likely be the simplest. I have yet to see any solution that is simpler to that which I offer.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

Suggestion get a map that shows the Giza plateau elevations.

reply to post by Hanslune

Hans: Suggestion get a map that shows the Giza plateau elevations.

SC: I already have one. Is there a point to this?

Regards,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Scott Creighton


I must have missed it, could you link to it? Do you think the shape and direction of that plateau had anything to do with the placement of the pyramids?

reply to post by Hanslune

Hello Hans,

I must have missed it, could you link to it? Do you think the shape and direction of that plateau had anything to do with the placement of the pyramids.

SC: Here's the Giza Plateau Mapping Project hi-res relief map of the Giza plateay:

www.scottcreighton.co.uk...

In answer to your other question I would say that anyone planning to lay down three large pyramids aligned 47*/43* to SW/NE would have found Giza ideal (more or less) for that purpose. So I would say this had to have figured largely in the planning from the outset.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Hello Hans,

Hans: How does Jiri's idea compare with your idea?

SC: Jiri's work provides a solution for the pyramids as we find them today at Giza.

Bravo! This marks the second positive response to my Giza layout solution. The first was by Jim Alison :"Nice results you are getting from squaring the 1732 cubit NS distance. "

Although an outsider might consider these two responses somewhat tepid, next to the rest they loom like the two biggest pyramids at Giza. Hans thought that I'll get discussion at the Hall of Ma'at, and he was right but only for a while. Some posters wanted to deal with my solution from the position that all such solutions are essentially the same since they employ geometry. My suggestion that it is possible to judge between these solutions by the simple criterium of how close they come to what is generally accepted as a very accurate plan of Giza (just the three pyramids) by Petrie, was glossed over in two coats of paint.
The primer coat was put on by skeptics, who flat out refused to account for, or even acknowledge that my solution duplicates ten of the altogether twelve sides of the Big Three exactly. Here "Exact" means under the radar scanning for errors, and in most cases also "Microscopic agreement".
The final whitewash was put on by afficionados with their own solutions, who declared all such solutions more or less equal, because of the element of uncertainty. So, the fact that my reconstruction duplicates Petrie's basic plan exactly, and that it seems to determine clearly the value of the cubit used for Giza, all that is not considered remarkable.
Cole's, and his measurements are cited as a proof that Petrie was wrong. I took a look at Cole's article, and found various potential problems with his measurements, which to me confirm that Petrie was right after all. After I posted my observations a lull in posting activity took over for more than a day. Why don't you guys take a look yourself:
www.hallofmaat.com...,489403,489999#msg-489999

Here is a cite from Cole: " These differences in azimuth are due to the fact that the new azimuths are found from the actual directions of the sides determined from the excavated pavement, whereas those of Prof. Petrie are of a hypothetical base obtained by computing “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."
My observation here was with regards to the fact that Cole published his survey in 1925 But since when did it become known that the pyramid sides are slightly concave? Post 1925 would seem likely, and so Cole didn't take this factor into account.
In contrast, Petrie's method took him safely past this peril. in my opinion he was also correct in assuming that since there were square sockets at the pyramid corners then the pyramid sides must have met on the diagonals of those sockets. This assumption had worked in his favor.
Because of the slight concavity of the sides, obviously the builders had a perfect chance to measure a clear line of sight between any two adjacent corners. So of course could Petrie, who was very good at it. We don't know if the concavity was still in effect after installation of the casing, but if so, then Cole's method of establishment of lines along sections on the side would have been problematic.

If the precision and accuracy evident from the surviving casing blocks, and the same qualities so evident in the Grand Gallery and the King's Chamber are any indication, then the Egyptian surveyors had been quite capable of the same accuracy when laying out the pyramid. We should expect it to be more regular and compatible with Petrie's observations. Cole's markedly more divergent observations do not correspond to the big picture

Oops, reached a limit on characters.
Scott, I am interested in your comment re: this potential problem with Cole's measurements - the concave pyramid faces.

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by Hanslune

 

Hello Hans,

Hans: How does Jiri's idea compare with your idea?

... In saying all this I should add also that I do not necessarily see what I present as being mutually exclusive with any other mathematical solution. I see an underlying design imperative i.e. the Orion Geo-Stellar Fingerprint - and then a layer of measures applied afterwards during the scaling-up and implementation of the plan on the ground at Giza.

An interesting perspective - an imperative element of design - to introduce resemblance between the Orion and the pyramids. Indeed, it may have been imperative, perhaps it was a wish by the pharaoh, but the heavy emphasis on purely mathematical and mensuration aspects of the design indicates that it was the scientist-priests - Imhotep, and his followers, who had their way. The Orion resemblance may have been imperative, but it was not an over-riding concern.
Technically, the laying-out of the three pyramids must proceed just as described in my study, simply because this gives the desired results, and more. This pretty well eliminates the possibility of another simple method giving as good a result, and closes the opening chapter. The basic design must come through the gateway of the original golden rectangle.
The final adjustments, which changed the ideal squares of the pyramid bases into quadrangles should continue from this basic design. Other elements of the situation, such as the Orion alignment may also be better understood through the experience of the basic reconstruction. For instance, the Great Pyramid is the first pyramid in the recreation as well. But the process then goes on directly to the third pyramid, and then back to the first one. The second pyramid is entirely passive (at least so far) in creating the basic plan. Could this 2+1 concept be related to our astronomical knowledge about Orion somehow? I don't know, but some astronomer might.

... what came first - the cubit or the plan? Was the cubit "invented" in order to introduce specific "meaningful numbers" into the plan?

That could not be done, because it does not work backwards. Any existing design has its original goals, and thus can hardly be forced to correspond wholesale to any post factum ones. After working with Petrie's inches, testing Legon's cubits was like a miracle. Obviously, the system was designed in the same cubits from the get-go.

reply to post by Jiri Mruzek

Hello Jiri,

SC: Jiri's work provides a solution for the pyramids as we find them today at Giza.

JM: Bravo! This marks the second positive response to my Giza layout solution.

SC: Jiri - my statement above needs some clarification. You have offered a solution to the the Gizamids as we find them today. I have not examined the specifics of your work. The work I present (see link below) provides a design soultion for the Gizamids as they SHOULD have been laid out. It is my contention - and this is supported by some evidence - that an "error" (possibly deliberate) was made in the placement of G2 on the ground at Giza. Given this, how does this affect your calculations?

The work I present shows how the base dimensions of the main 3 Gizamids are "naturally" formed out of the Orion Belt asterism - no measurements involved (except for observing the belt star asterism and accurately transposing the three star centres onto a plan). The proposal I present uses only elementary geometry - nothing convoluted and is achieved in a consistent, systematic manner. Indeed, with the belt stars of Orion placed accurately on a blank sheet of paper, you simply cannot fail to (proportionally) reproduce the three bases of the main Gizamids using the simple technique I describe. Furthermore, the plan I describe also allows for the placement of the two sets of so-called 'Queens Pyramids" (precessional markers).

Scaling this plan up would, of course, require a measuring system. I see no reason why the AE would not have deployed the cubit for this purpose.

You also asked about G1/G3. There is a clear connection between these two structures. Some sources believe they were originally intended to have the same slope gradient of 51.84*. They also are unique in having concave faces that you also mentioned. It is my view that the 3 main Gizamids are symbolic of the belt stars (as are the 2 sets of Queens). One set of Queens (Menkaure - G3) symbolises the precessional setting of the belt stars at minimum culmination c.10,500BCE. The other Queens (G1 - Khufu) marks the precessional rising of the belt stars at maximum culmination c.2,500CE. Thus the 2 sets of Queens present to us the precessional half-cycle of the Belt Stars i.e. the precessional pendulum swing of the Belt stars.

You can see this here: www.scottcreighton.co.uk...

Interpreting the so-called 'Queens Pyramids' as precessional markers, might help us to understand why the Pharaoh Khafre (G2) - who reputedly had 5 Queens - has no Queens Pyramids. You need only mark the rising and setting, max and min culmination of the sttars - hence why Khafre may have no "Queens Pyramids".

It may also be, however, that the common features of G1 and G3 may also symbolise the Belt Star, Mintaka, rising (G1) and setting (G3) thus:







There is little doubt in my mind that the pyramids were designed and built as symbolic "terrestrial stars". On that basis, I see no reason why the designers would not wish to use - to the fullest extent - those very same stars in the design and placement of their symbolic terrestrial counterparts - the Gizamids.

Kind Regards,

Scott Creighton

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by Jiri Mruzek

 

Hello Jiri,

SC: Jiri's work provides a solution for the pyramids as we find them today at Giza.

JM: Bravo! This marks the second positive response to my Giza layout solution.

SC: Jiri - my statement above needs some clarification. You have offered a solution to the the Gizamids as we find them today. I have not examined the specifics of your work. The work I present (see link below) provides a design soultion for the Gizamids as they SHOULD have been laid out. [/quot]

Very well, that leaves only Jim Alison with a positive comment on my work, and that was a one-liner.. Given your interests, I am a bit surprised that you didn't check those specifics.

It is my contention - and this is supported by some evidence - that an "error" (possibly deliberate) was made in the placement of G2 on the ground at Giza. Given this, how does this affect your calculations?

My calculations cannot be effected since they are an exact solution to the position of the pyramids as they were built. I find the situation perfect as it is, and needless to say, I find no indication of errors on the part of the builders. To the contrary, my observations indicate an absolute success for the builders translating the exact layout into reality. This success extends to Petrie's mesurements. Overall, I see an uninterrupted bee-line of perfection from start to finish - from the original plan to the reading and recreation of it.
Due to its unqualified success in explaining the three unmovable mountains of Giza, my solution has acquired the attributes of an irresistible force, of course, with the exception of man, who choose to be unmovable-mountains themselves.

The work I present shows how the base dimensions of the main 3 Gizamids are "naturally" formed out of the Orion Belt asterism - no measurements involved (except for observing the belt star asterism and accurately transposing the three star centres onto a plan).

Yet, this did not happen.

The proposal I present uses only elementary geometry - nothing convoluted and is achieved in a consistent, systematic manner. Indeed, with the belt stars of Orion placed accurately on a blank sheet of paper, you simply cannot fail to (proportionally) reproduce the three bases of the main Gizamids using the simple technique I describe. Furthermore, the plan I describe also allows for the placement of the two sets of so-called 'Queens Pyramids" (precessional markers).

Somehow, I missed it, but now you seem to claim that you can reproduce the layout of the Giza Three accurately. Do you have such exact data about the three stars - their diameter measured in millions of cubits, for instance? I would say not since stars are hardly measured that accurately being far away in space. They are usually given by "brightness" as the measuring indicator, and not size.

continued in the next post

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by Jiri Mruzek

 

.. It is my view that the 3 main Gizamids are symbolic of the belt stars (as are the 2 sets of Queens). One set of Queens (Menkaure - G3) symbolises the precessional setting of the belt stars at minimum culmination c.10,500BCE. The other Queens (G1 - Khufu) marks the precessional rising of the belt stars at maximum culmination c.2,500CE. Thus the 2 sets of Queens present to us the precessional half-cycle of the Belt Stars i.e. the precessional pendulum swing of the Belt stars.

You can see this here: www.scottcreighton.co.uk...

Good God! 14.50008.. Check out this calibrated number. I was going to once more suggest to you that you use your theory on my model, which is exact. Rejecting your premise on Queens I took the position that for precessional matters the line of centers between G1 and G3 should be key as either a radius or diameter. I took the exact distance in cubits from my reconstruction : 1787.57546891 and divided the duration of the precessional cycle in years [25,770] with it to see if one of those special effects occurred. This was to no avail, and so next I tried 25,920 as in years of the Zodiac.

Try it yourself: 25,920 / 1787.57546891 = 14.50008..

The result created a classic special effect - a highly calibrated number. This type of calibration is TYPICAL for my solution of the Giza layout.
The question now is what to do next. It is beyond question however that your instinct was right and there is some connection here to the precessional cycle. I believe it because I am tasting it already. It will now be just matter of time before this subject will work to perfection. Look, Scott, it didn't take me long, just minutes to complete a preliminary inquiry into your problem using my system, and look at the perfect result! Perhaps, this will show you that your program won't get anywhere without my operating system. Unless you believe that what you just saw was another accident of coincidence.
Jiri

reply to post by Jiri Mruzek

Hello Jiri,

JM: Good God! 14.50008.. Check out this calibrated number. ....Try it yourself: 25,920 / 1787.57546891 = 14.50008.

SC: Please excuse my ignorance but what is this number (14.50008) calibrated to?

JM: The result created a classic special effect - a highly calibrated number. This type of calibration is TYPICAL for my solution of the Giza layout.

SC: Sorry - but I am not clear what "special effect" you are referring to here? Please explain.

JM: Look, Scott, it didn't take me long, just minutes to complete a preliminary inquiry into your problem using my system, and look at the perfect result!

SC: I didn't actually realise I had a problem with the solution I propose - however. I'm still unclear about this "perfect result" so I shall hold off commenting until further explanation.

JM: Perhaps, this will show you that your program won't get anywhere without my operating system. Unless you believe that what you just saw was another accident of coincidence.

SC: I wouldn't necessarily describe the Orion Geo-Stellar Blueprint I present as a "program". I think what we have at Giza is simply a grand device for demonstrating the precessional max and min culminations (the pendulum swing) of the three stars of Orion's Belt - a "Precession Wheel". The question that really has to be considered here I don't believe is one concerning mathematics although I do believe there is an element of math involved in the design that allows us to determine more accurately the past and future dates encoded into the "Precession Wheel".

Simply though, through the placement and arrangement of the so-called "Queens Pyramids", we are presented with these culminations of Orion's Belt - we have to ask "why"? Why are the max and min culminations of Orion's Belt being presented to us so plainly at Giza? What's the significance of this? What is it the ancient designers are trying to say to us with this "schematic"?

I look forward to your reply.

Kind regards,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Jiri Mruzek


Hello Jiri,

JM: Somehow, I missed it, but now you seem to claim that you can reproduce the layout of the Giza Three accurately.

SC: I am saying that - using the Orion Belt asterism - I can reproduce the actual "blueprint" for Giza with a very simple geometric process I call geo-stellar fingerprinting. I think it is likely that the designers of Giza used this simple technique to draw up the plan for Giza and the dimensions of the main strcutures.

Essentially any three points (such as, for example, three stars in the night sky) can be used to produce three squares of particular dimensions / proportions - i.e. the star group's geo-stellar fingerprint. Using this simple systematic, geometric technique I can - with the Orion Belt star asterism - reproduce three squares whose dimensions proportionally match the dimensions of the 3 main Gizamids almost perfectly. I say 'almost perfectly' because - as I am sure you well know - none of the Gizamids are exactly square. Given the error to exact square in each case is so tiny, I do not consider it unreasonable to suggest that the original blueprint consisted of exact squares of particular dimensions.

What I have (re)produced may represent the goal - the method by which the original plan was conceived. In executing this plan the AE would have to scale it up and, in so doing, introduced some minor errors (e.g. pyramids not exactly square, G2 slightly offset from the plan etc) but that is only to be expected in implementing such a monumental building program. The Orion Geo-Stellar Blueprint was the plan - Giza was the result; the implementation of the Orion Blueprint.

JM: Do you have such exact data about the three stars - their diameter measured in millions of cubits, for instance? I would say not since stars are hardly measured that accurately being far away in space. They are usually given by "brightness" as the measuring indicator, and not size.

SC: I do not need exact data of the three stars i.e. their diameter, their brightness etc. I need only accurately record the belt star asterism i.e. the three points of light in the night sky to (re)produce the blueprint. The Orion Blueprint I present recreates the Gizamids from the spatial distances between the three points of light of the Orion Belt stars. It's a remarkably simple technique that explains the positioning of the main pyramids and their Queens and also the dimensions of the main pyramids. All done with just 3 points of light in the night sky:





www.scottcreighton.co.uk...

Kind Regards,

Scott Creighton