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.
SC:
Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by Harte
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harte: The Egyptians had two measures, hands (or fingers) and cubits, that they used to measure angles. Angles were measured similar to the way we measure slopes today. The Egyptians built the Great Pyramid at an angle of 22 hands up for every cubit in. A cubit to them equaled 28 hands. They always measured angles as number of hands up versus one cubit in.
Every single pyramid that remains together enough to measure has been shown to measure at a slope that is a whole number of hands up per 28 hands (one cubit) in.
SC: The AE had a number of intermediary measures from their base unit of digits and palms, to wit:
4 digits equaled a palm, 5 digits a hand.
12 digits, or three palms, equaled a small span.
14 digits, or one-half a cubit, equaled a large span.
16 digits, or 4 palms, made 1 t'ser.
24 digits, or 6 palms, were a small cubit.
28 digits made a Royal Cubit.
Harte: Thanks for correcting my misplaced nomenclature.
Please allow me to point out that, since the royal cubit was used, my argument of ratios still stands.
Originally posted by Sargoth
Here's an article I first read about 1997. I think there is a lot of truth in it.
Many researchers claim there is a city under the Giza plateau.
www.bethcoleman.net...
[edit on 7-4-2009 by Sargoth]
In similar fashion, the SIRA radar was deployed in Egypt as early as 1978, mapping an extraordinary subterranean complex beneath the Egyptian pyramids. Arrangements made with President Sadat of Egypt, resulted in three decades of top secret excavations to penetrate the system.
Originally posted by Scott Creighton
SC: No it doesn't. You are arguing that a whole number was used. Seked 5.5. is NOT a whole number of palms. A whole number of palms (4 digits) would give multiples of 4,8,12,16,20, 24,28 digits: 1 cubit. The Great Pyramid, for example uses seked 5.5 i.e. 5 palms and 2 digits. I don't see what is "whole" about 1 royal cubit rise to 5 palms and 2 digits run. Why the odd 2 digits? Why not just a nice round 5 palms run (or 6 palms)? There is no practical reason for such an unusual selection of seked which has brought a number of commentators to consider that the angle of slope of 51.84* was the underlying design imperative. The desired angle of slope resulted in the "odd" (as opposed to "whole") seked number that was used i.e. 5.5.
The height can be derived from the chosen base, angle of slope and Phi (1.618) thus:
Solve for G1 (Khufu)
Side 1 = 440 cubits (base)
Side 2 = Slope (Hyotenuse) = 440/2 = 220 * 1.618 = 355.96 cubits.
PS - The angle of slope of the Great Pyramid (G1) is simply the inverse of the Queen's Chamber shafts, targeted on two stars, thus:
Originally posted by Scott Creighton
SC: No it doesn't. You are arguing that a whole number was used. Seked 5.5. is NOT a whole number of palms. A whole number of palms (4 digits) would give multiples of 4,8,12,16,20, 24,28 digits: 1 cubit. The Great Pyramid, for example uses seked 5.5 i.e. 5 palms and 2 digits. I don't see what is "whole" about 1 royal cubit rise to 5 palms and 2 digits run. Why the odd 2 digits? Why not just a nice round 5 palms run (or 6 palms)? There is no practical reason for such an unusual selection of seked which has brought a number of commentators to consider that the angle of slope of 51.84* was the underlying design imperative. The desired angle of slope resulted in the "odd" (as opposed to "whole") seked number that was used i.e. 5.5.
Byrd: May I gently remind you that you're doing allthis math on a pyramid whose outer casting was planned AND has been stripped away? We don't know the exact-to-the-inch finished dimensions.
SC: The height can be derived from the chosen base, angle of slope and Phi (1.618) thus:
Byrd: Which is not a number that the Egyptians could derive, if you remember. No decimal points.
SC: Solve for G1 (Khufu)
Side 1 = 440 cubits (base)
Side 2 = Slope (Hyotenuse) = 440/2 = 220 * 1.618 = 355.96 cubits.
Byrd: And there's actually (in the cubit system) no way of measuring .04 cubits. So it's not convincing until you can show the math in cubits and palms and fingers and so forth.
SC: PS - The angle of slope of the Great Pyramid (G1) is simply the inverse of the Queen's Chamber shafts, targeted on two stars, thus:
Byrd: I'll bite. Show me how they did the inverse of a function using palms, cubits, fingers and so forth.
SC: You miss the point, Byrd. Let me make it clearer – we are discussing RATIOS, PROPORTIONS.
SC: Byrd – a base to height ratio of 440:280 (AE cubits) will create a fractional hypotenuse value as a natural consequence of the height to base ratio involved, entirely irrespective of the measurement system in use.
SC: PS - The angle of slope of the Great Pyramid (G1) is simply the inverse of the Queen's Chamber shafts, targeted on two stars, thus:
Byrd: I'll bite. Show me how they did the inverse of a function using palms, cubits, fingers and so forth.
Originally posted by reugen
So what happened to those excavations, i havent found anything on the web related to the below statement, there is a reference to Dr. Hurtak making a movie but he is a "social scientist, comparative religionist" according to wikipedia and not an archaeologist. I tend to look a lot at Zahi Hawass site for updates on the egyptian pyramids (www.drhawass.com...), anywhere else you can recommend ?
SC: You miss the point, Byrd. Let me make it clearer – we are discussing RATIOS, PROPORTIONS.
Byrd: . My question is, what's the command given to the quarrymen and stone dressers and so forth that tells them whether they're on track?
Byrd: And how do you know that they were trying for this ratio instead of nice round numbers?
Whilst the use of the seked, as indicated in RMP, can be clearly perceived in the design of a number of pyramids it cannot be conclusively shown to have been used in all. It is most likely that variations were used for specific reasons. With very few exceptions the ratios do not fit with basic building practice which would normally prefer to work with primary palm ratios such as 7 to 5. Instead we find the use of part palm ratios in almost all known pyramids. The only conclusion is that the symbolism of the ratio was more important than the ease of building practice. As has been demonstrated sekeds of 5.25 and 5.5 incorporate the 3 : 4 : 5 triangle and a relationship to circle respectively. It is therefore likely that it was these symbolic or cultic aspects that were deemed to be important in the design of the pyramids. - David Furlong
Byrd: How would they measure something that was .04 off of a full cubit when that point was hundreds of feet above their heads? They didn't have trigonometry and didn't use sextants.
SC: PS - The angle of slope of the Great Pyramid (G1) is simply the inverse of the Queen's Chamber shafts, targeted on two stars, thus:
Byrd: I'll bite. Show me how they did the inverse of a function using palms, cubits, fingers and so forth.
SC: Using a set-square.
Byrd: Uhm... Scott, your drawings are creative and filled with symbols, but that's not what a set square looks like. This is what one looks like:
www.touregypt.net...
It's used to find a true perpendicular.
Byrd: Assume I'm a very dimwitted foreman who must find the "Inverse of the Queen's chamber shafts". I would dearly love to know how you propose that I use that tool to find an "inverse
Many credit Sir Isaac Newton with discovering (or rediscovering) the unit of measure that many refer to as the “pyramid cubit”. Others attribute the discovery (or rediscovery) of the unit many call the “pyramid inch” or true earth inch to John Taylor and others attribute this to John Herschel. Regardless, all three came to almost the same conclusions through their own separate studies.