It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# The Solar System at Giza: The World's Oldest Book of Astronomy

page: 2
26
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 08:54 PM

Heard it all before. Fortunately all would have become clearer in the post that was lost but I will add it again and besides I have the umbrella of enlightenment with me so rain never bothers me.

And I use 9 places because we are dealing with astronomical distance of 9 figures or more.

Fantasy math ? Whatever. The Giza Plateau is The World's Oldest Book of Astronomy and The Great Pyramid is a mini version of the plateau. Umberto Eco should have spent his time at Giza instead of that magazine stand he might have learned something other than how to be an idiot. And how much research have you done on Giza ? What's that NONE ? Come back when you know what you are talking about.

edit on 10-10-2014 by Ahatmose because: spelling

posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 09:39 PM
Hi all and I think we had best start at the beginning. I had long wondered why The Great Pyramid and Kahfre's pyramid or G1 and G2 were the sizes that they were. Why were they 440 cubits and 411.04 cubits ? And then one day while I was fooling around with numbers I decided to work with the sqaure root of 3 and Phi and discovered that the square root of 3 divided by Phi is equal to that exact same ratio I have shown in an earlier post of 440.00 / 411.04 = sq rt of 3 / Phi = 1.73205 / 1.618034 = 1.07046626932. So because of this we might well say that G1 is representing the square root of 3 and G2 is representing Phi. Now going back even further in my research it was determined that the Giza Plateau itself is in a ratio of almost the square root of 2 by the square root of 3 or 1417.5 by 1732.50 cubits or basically 9 by 11 and we will explore that theme later. But in an earlier post here I showed that G1 or 440 cubits was equal to Mercury and that 440 divided into 1732.5 or the length of the north south distance at Giza was equal to the ratio of Mercury and Mars in their semi major axis distances from The Sun, semi major axis simply being the average distance away from The Sun in the planet's orbit. Here are the semi major axis for the first 4 planets.

Mercury = 57,909,050 or 1 unit
Venus = 108,208,930 or 1.868601367
Earth = 149,598,261 or 2.583331293 or basically precisely 31 / 12 or 2.5833333333
Mars = 227,939,100 or 3.9361567838

But earlier I had shown that 440 cubits or in fact G1 was Mercury so now we have G1 representing not only the square root of 3 but also Mercury. And to add even more weight to the now obvious fact that G1 is meant to represent the sqaure root of 3 we have the height of G1 in inches equal to the square root of 3 divided by 3 times 10,000 and we get 5773.5027 and divide this by 20.62 (the agreed upon number of inches in a cubit and we get 279.995 cubits (280.00 is the agreed upon height). Could we find the other planets ? Well if Mercury = 1 (or 440 cubits) then Venus would equal 440 x 1.868601367 or 822.18 and if we look we will see that G2 has North side of 411.04 and south side of 411.14 and thus equal 822.18 EXACTLY. So I think it is safe to assume that G2 must be Venus. But we can shorten this equation by simply suggesting 1/2 of 440 or 220.00 or 1/2 of the square root of 3 x 1.868601367 = 411.09 or the average of the north and south side of G2. So a recap has it as G1 = Mercury = square root of 3 and G2 = Venus = Phi but there are a couple of other things lurking here. 1/2 the square root of 3 is 0.8660254038 and if you add 1 comes awful close to the ratio of Mercury and Venus of 1.8686013 67 / 1.8660254038 = .9986

Here is a diagram that shows what I mean:

Larger image: Larger image:

And then we note that 411.04 base of G2 gives us a diameter of 581.298 and then a circumference of 1826.2026 and this yields exactly 5 Earth years of 365.241 days.

Larger image:

edit on 10-10-2014 by Ahatmose because: Spelling errors

edit on 10-10-2014 by Ahatmose because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-10-2014 by Ahatmose because: adding larger images

edit on 10-10-2014 by Ahatmose because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 10:49 PM
You ought to know the ratios in the pyramids don't actually work out to Pi, right? Unless you fudge the numbers.

Then there is the use of numbers to ten decimal places, especially given that the dimensions of the pyramids are only rough averages and in some cases, extrapolations as to the dimensions of the missing parts. When someone says the side of the pyramid is '400 cubits,' well which side? Each side of the pyramid is a different dimension. If you are using an average, then it makes any further mathematical operations carried out to ten decimal places rather moot.

Before you get carried away with all your ratios and geometry, look up the Pyramid Inch. Where Taylor and Smythe saw Giza as a 'sacred measure of the Earth,' you are seeing it as a 'sacred measure of the solar system.' (and using fuzzy math to do it.)

posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 11:13 PM

Very cool. I've never seen the west of the Nile represent the sky like that. Is there more research into that.

posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 12:09 AM

Pi / 4 is 0.78539816339744830961566084581988

5773.50 x 0.78539816339744830961566084581988 = 4534.4984 inches = 1/2 base

4534.4984 x 2 = 9068.9968 inches

Mean average for G1 is 9068.8 inches. My god I am 2/10ths of an inch out. Call the thought police immediately.

North side of G2 is 8471.9 inches

Sq rt of 3 divided by Phi is equal to 1.070466

8471.9 x 1.070466 = 9068.88 ... Oh no I am now out 12/100ths of an inch.

You have no idea what is there. Sad really. Mouthing off the same old same old crap I have listened to for years. And I am guessing he/she hasn't spent a minute studying Giza.

Argument from ignorance. Same old ... same old.

Larger image:

posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 12:44 AM

originally posted by: Ahatmose

Pi in The Sky
A Sign of Creation ?

The image below shows all planets to scale and 32 (31.4159625) Earths above the rest. A note here that we are using the equatorial diameters of the planets.

This is pretty amazing. I am curious tho where the measurements are from. I wanted to show this to my friends and tried to verify this and could not locate the equatorial diameters that was used in this picture.

## NASA Measurements

Mercury

NASA's Mercury Measurements
NASA Mean Diameter: 4,879.4 km
NASA Earth Units: 0.382512033364168
NASA Total: 0.382512033364168

Venus

NASA's Venus Measurements
NASA Mean Diameter: 12,103.6 km
NASA Earth Units: 0.9488405638042677
NASA Total: 1.331352597168436

Earth

NASA's Earth Measurements
NASA Mean Diameter: 12,756.2 km
Earth Units: 1.00
NASA Total: 2.331352597168436

Mars

NASA's Mars Measurements
NASA Mean Diameter: 6,792.40 km
NASA Earth Units: 0.5324783242658472
NASA Total: 2.863830921434283

Jupiter

NASA's Jupiter Measurements
NASA Mean Diameter: 142,984 km
NASA Earth Units: 11.20898073093868
NASA Total: 14.07281165237296

Saturn

NASA's Saturn Measurements
NASA Mean Diameter: 120,536 km
NASA Earth Units: 9.449209012088239
NASA Total: 23.5220206644612

Uranus

NASA's Uranus Measurements
NASA Mean Diameter: 51,118 km
NASA Earth Units: 4.007306251077907
NASA Total: 27.52932691553911

Neptune

NASA's Neptune Measurements
NASA Mean Diameter: 49,528 km
NASA Earth Units: 3.882660980542795

NASA Total: 31.4119878960819 vs.
Pi * 10 : 31.4159265358979

While 4 digits of Pi * 10 is by itself, very amazing, the picture has it up to 5 digits (31.41543482).

This is by no means to knock this as just that much is really mind blowing. I would just like to see where they got their numbers.
edit on 11-10-2014 by RazielBlaze because: Clarify digits that matched Pi

edit on 11-10-2014 by RazielBlaze because: using underlines instead

posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 02:12 AM

Welcome Ahatmose

In what way does this theory account for the other pyramids, mastaba's and other monuments on Giza? In particular how is G-1d accommodated ?

I have also sent you a PM with a suggestion.

posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 08:03 AM

fficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&e i=Qyk5VMPkAqSC8Qfiv4HIBA

fficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=H yk5VJmhGqSC8Qfiv4HIBA

fficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&e i=5Cg5VNDUMaSC8Qfiv4HIBA

fficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=t ig5VMe8KKSC8Qfiv4HIBA

fficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&ei =LCg5VKnXO6SC8Qfiv4HIBA

fficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&e i=eyg5VOm6EaSC8Qfiv4HIBA

fficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=oSc 5VMKuFaSC8Qfiv4HIBA

Neptune - 49572 - www.astronomyfactbook.com...

Cheers

EDIT: Just noticed you are using the mean diameter while I used the equatorial diameter.

edit on 11-10-2014 by Ahatmose because: Add a bit

posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 08:55 AM
The Egyptians knew Pi as 3.16049, approximately. They did not use decimal places of course, they used 256/81.

We have papyrus which demonstrate the extent of Egyptian mathematics, such as the Moscow Papyrus (circa 12th/13th Dynasty), the Ahmes Papyrus (or Rhind Mathematical Papyrus), which its scribe attributed to a much older copy possibly dating to around 2000 BCE.

What these papyrus textbooks do is illustrate the level of mathematics development in ancient Egypt. They knew how to calculate areas. They understood basic geometry. They were good at fractions. They derived a working form of Pythagoearn's Theorem by areas and not lengths of sides. What they did not know was how to take square roots. They never developed any form of calculus. They never developed the concept of zero. Trying to suggest they had knowledge of the outer planets, much less the Copernican- or Newton-like ability to calculate their orbital distances is fantasy.

Ahmes Papyrus, New and Old Classifications, covers the full extent of this papyrus and Egyptian mathematics.

Refer to Simpson's Paradox. You have two sets of data. One from the Giza plateau. One non-corresponding set based on planetary orbits. You fudged the math to make them appear to correspond. As I mentioned earlier, Umberto Eco wrote a passage on this type of fantasy drivel, Aesthetics and Information Theory (Estetica e teoria dell’informazione, Bompiani 1972), this was during the height of new age fads when everyone wanted to recognize golden ratios and sacred geometry in any and all things, from pyramids to NY magazine stands.

I noticed what you are doing in your mathematical gymnastics is finding any surface, edge, or point among the hundreds (if not thousands) available on the Giza Plateau to correspond (vaguely) to a completely unrelated set of data points - in this case, the planetary orbits. I could substitute the Washington Mall or the Nazca Lines in Peru in place of the Giza Plateau and also find a number of surfaces, edges, or points that work out to be the same ratio as the planetary orbits. This does not mean that the builders of these structures ever had planetary orbits in mind when building these structures.

IF the ancient Egyptians really wanted to build a model of the solar system then why wouldn't they simply lay out a line of pyramids in which the pyramidion (its center point) corresponded precisely with the orbits of the planets. Why would they use the edge of one pyramid and the corner of another to represent these? (And given your premise, even these would have to be factored.) Again, Giza contains a vast number of potential data points consisting of edges, surfaces, and points from all the contained edifices (11 pyramids and a multitude of funerary complexes). You could find any number of ratios to correspond to just about anything, and golden ratios galore.

posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 09:32 AM

I started to reply but your rebuttal has more holes in it than Swiss Cheese so I am going to simply throw you in amongst the orthodox brain dead and sheeple like Egyptologists who sadly never had an original thought in their lives.

You have not read the posts and your claim that I am finding any surface, edge, or point among the hundreds (if not thousands) available on the Giza Plateau to correspond (vaguely) to a completely unrelated set of data points - in this case, the planetary orbits. is totally without merit.

And as I say to all those like you who would bury their head in the sand. if it is that easy why don't you show us how easy it is at Giza and find some of your own in fact why hasn't anyone been able to find any of their own ratios.

Sorry but the pyramids at Giza and The Giza Plateau are The World's Oldest Book of Astronomy and I am truly sorry that you are so stubborn and set in your own personal fantasies that you can not see it.

Oh and by the way for the record what data have I fudged ? (You wrote - You fudged the math to make them appear to correspond.)

posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 10:44 AM

originally posted by: Ahatmose

I started to reply but your rebuttal has more holes in it than Swiss Cheese so I am going to simply throw you in amongst the orthodox brain dead and sheeple like Egyptologists who sadly never had an original thought in their lives.

Not every "original thought" has value, though I feel absolutely certain that you are utterly unaware of any Egyptologist's thoughts at all, much less the original ones.

originally posted by: Ahatmose
You have not read the posts and your claim that I am finding any surface, edge, or point among the hundreds (if not thousands) available on the Giza Plateau to correspond (vaguely) to a completely unrelated set of data points - in this case, the planetary orbits. is totally without merit.

Stating that this characterization of your post(s) is "without merit" without demostrating how it is without merit is the equivalent of "Nuh-Uh!!"
BM characterized exactly what you are doing. In what way is his post in error?

originally posted by: AhatmoseAnd as I say to all those like you who would bury their head in the sand. if it is that easy why don't you show us how easy it is at Giza and find some of your own in fact why hasn't anyone been able to find any of their own ratios.

I note here that you are so invested in the idea of some overarching plan of "ratios" for the Giza Plateau that you can only think to challenge others to come up with their "own ratios." You omit from thought the idea that no such ratios were used in the layout at Giza.

originally posted by: Ahatmose
Sorry but the pyramids at Giza and The Giza Plateau are The World's Oldest Book of Astronomy and I am truly sorry that you are so stubborn and set in your own personal fantasies that you can not see it.

"Fantasy?" What about evidence that the Egyptians knew the average distance of Mercury (or any other planet) from the Sun? If you can't provide it, it is you that is indulging in fantasy here.

originally posted by: Ahatmose
Oh and by the way for the record what data have I fudged ? (You wrote - You fudged the math to make them appear to correspond.)

The question has been answered several times here, yet you have the nerve to say Blackmarketeer doesn't read the posts?

You are using the average length of a pyramid side, a length which itself has been rounded.

You are using the average distance to the Sun for the various planets you mention, and those averages have also been rounded.

You are using rounded measurements for the rectangle you note at Giza.

For the problems (fudging) with using such methods, you should look into the concept of significant figures.

One of your posts fudges the value of a ratio you (or your source) invented to make it come out closer to pi.
For that problem, you should consider your source as suspect (if the number comes from a source.) If the number came from you, then you should consider not complaining when someone catches you in a lie.

Harte

posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 11:53 AM

And then one day while I was fooling around with numbers I decided to work with the sqaure root of 3 and Phi and discovered that the square root of 3 divided by Phi is equal to that exact same ratio I have shown in an earlier post of 440.00 / 411.04 = sq rt of 3 / Phi = 1.73205 / 1.618034 = 1.07046626932. So because of this we might well say that G1 is representing the square root of 3 and G2 is representing Phi. Now going back even further in my research it was determined that the Giza Plateau itself is in a ratio of almost the square root of 2 by the square root of 3 or 1417.5 by 1732.50 cubits or basically 9 by 11 and we will explore that theme later.

Aside from approximating the numbers above, you arbitrarily chose the square root of 3 to be divided by Phi. I suppose that is because √3 is the only number that gets you close to the ratio you were looking for.

As evidenced by the ancient papyrus the Egyptians did not know about square roots or Phi. They never attributed anything important to the numerical value of the square root of 3. Egyptian math was decidedly based on fractions and then utilized a significant rounding factor.Some whole numbers were considered sacred. If Pi (and not Phi) creeps into the ratio of a single pyramid (and it does) it is likely the use of the wheel and circle in laying it out that contributed to its presence.

posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 01:45 PM

originally posted by: Hanslune

Welcome Ahatmose

In what way does this theory account for the other pyramids, mastaba's and other monuments on Giza? In particular how is G-1d accommodated ?

I have also sent you a PM with a suggestion.

While my question does not deal with mathematics I believe it has merit. You appear to have dismissed a number of key structures from your key calculations.

Of what 'value' or purpose would their have been to the AE of such a convoluted and complicated set of calculation?

How would they have known about Nepture and Uranus and why is Ceres not included?

posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 05:54 PM
The North to South less East to West distance is also a close approximation to pi x 100: 1732 - 1417.5 = 314.5
3.145/ actual value Pi = 1.001084

Actual value Pi /100 x 1.001084 =

The maths indicates a 0.03145% percent error which itself is even interesting the error tolerance margin set is a fractional value close to a Pi divisional

The North to south S distance of 1732 cubits add the East to W distance of 1417.5 cubits equals 3149.5 cubits, again the value Pi emerges

I think Giza represents and holds everything scientifically known by human race at that time in history. When was that is a debate question just are the purposes for their construction. The OP has highlighted some interesting mathematical ideas definitely worth further exploring in a rationale unemotional and unbiased way.

The main stream taught views have a polarization towards explaining the Pyramids a result of bronze age technology practices.

In my view the reason why they made it in stone logically is likely due to several reasons. I hold that belief because no one in their right mind would carry out work on that scale unless there were several good paying off reasons e.g,

- Astrological map
- measurement map system of units
- Frequency Map

Sherlock Holmes says something along the lines of eliminate everything that something cant be and whatever is left must be what it is; whether it fits with the paradigm you like or not.
edit on 11-10-2014 by AthlonSavage because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 06:11 PM

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: Hanslune

Welcome Ahatmose

In what way does this theory account for the other pyramids, mastaba's and other monuments on Giza? In particular how is G-1d accommodated ?

I have also sent you a PM with a suggestion.

While my question does not deal with mathematics I believe it has merit. You appear to have dismissed a number of key structures from your key calculations.

Of what 'value' or purpose would their have been to the AE of such a convoluted and complicated set of calculation?

How would they have known about Neptune and Uranus and why is Ceres not included?

While my question does not deal with mathematics I believe it has merit. You appear to have dismissed a number of key structures from your key calculations. There really are only 3 of interest for me at the moment. I ask that you be a bit patient as there is much, much more evidence to present.

Of what 'value' or purpose would their have been to the AE of such a convoluted and complicated set of calculation? Convoluted ? It is simply dividing and multiplying and using ratios. Valid question and one that again i am working on. If it was left to show their knowledge they would have known that before we could decipher it we would have had to reach their level of knowledge or it may have been left as a warning. If the three pyramids represent the 4 inner planets then they probably show them at a specific time and this could be a warning in stone of a possible cataclysm at this specific time but I have been unable to even begin to figure that out so far.

How would they have known about Nepture and Uranus and why is Ceres not included I am working on finding out how they might have got the information for the outer planets and Ceres will be involved in due time. As I said there is much, much more to come.

Next up showing how the meter and the megalithic yard and the cubit is all clearly shown and defined in the heavens.

Cheers

posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 06:15 PM

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
The North to South less East to West distance is also a close approximation to pi x 100: 1732 - 1417.5 = 314.5
3.145/ actual value Pi = 1.001084

Actual value Pi /100 x 1.001084 =

The maths indicates a 0.03145% percent error which itself is even interesting the error tolerance margin set is a fractional value close to a Pi divisional

The North to south S distance of 1732 cubits add the East to W distance of 1417.5 cubits equals 3149.5 cubits, again the value Pi emerges

I think Giza represents and holds everything scientifically known by human race at that time in history. When was that is a debate question just are the purposes for their construction. The OP has highlighted some interesting mathematical ideas definitely worth further exploring in a rationale unemotional and unbiased way.

The main stream taught views have a polarization towards explaining the Pyramids a result of bronze age technology practices.

In my view the reason why they made it in stone logically is likely due to several reasons. I hold that belief because no one in their right mind would carry out work on that scale unless there were several good paying off reasons e.g,

- Astrological map
- measurement map system of units
- Frequency Map

Sherlock Holmes says something along the lines of eliminate everything that something cant be and whatever is left must be what it is; whether it fits with the paradigm you like or not.

The North to South less East to West distance is also a close approximation to pi x 100: 1732 - 1417.5 = 314.5
3.145/ actual value Pi = 1.001084

Very, very, very cute. I had missed that. Good job !!!!!!!!

I think Giza represents and holds everything scientifically known by human race at that time in history.

I agree and will post some interesting other ideas other than the solar system later on.

posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 07:20 PM
Move evidence for our solar system:

Hi all for many years many have pondered on why do we use the measurement system that we do, why do we use the meter and the inch and the yard and the cubit. Well the scholars would argue that they are based on body parts and sizes and that is why they are used. I on the other hand would offer proof that the EXACT SAME RATIOS are to be found in our solar system and thus the measurements could have originated there for if there was a "Creator" and he created all things especially "Man" in his image we would agree with what is in our solar system since the same force using the same blueprint created both. On the other hand maybe the solar system and the universe .... IS THE CREATOR and thus that is why we follow it's example. But enough speculation let's see what I am talking about.

Here is a map of the inner planets to scale distance wise:

Larger image:

Part of "Man's" problem is that he has always used himself and Earth as a reference but when one uses Mercury, "the messenger of The Gods (planets), many new ratios are shown Here are these ratio and values. Mercury is base unit 1 and represents Mercury's semi major axis of 57,909,050 kilometers.

Larger image

Here is a diagram with the semi major axis distances added for clarity.

Larger image

From the image above we see that Mars is 227,939,100 km from The Sun and Earth is 149,598,261 (149,597,870.7 is an AU or astronomical unit) and difference is 78,340,839. Okay so what ? Well ...

According to almost all sources the present meter has 39.37 inches in it and a Royal Cubit has 20.62 inches (much argument and conjecture on this) If we calculate a simply ratio of Meter to Cubit we get 39.37 / 20.62 = 1.90931135

Okay let's go to "my solar system diagram" and we get distance to Earth = 149,598,261 and we can represent that by a meter. Next we go to the difference between Mars and Earth and we find that that ratio is equal to 149,598,261 / 78,340,839 or as in my diagram 1.9095821 if we use 20.618034 inches in a cubit we get 39.37 / 20.618034 = 1.90949341 - accuracy to 1.90931135 is 0.99991

Larger iamge

Okay so that brings in meters and cubits but what about The alleged English system of feet and inches ? Well I believe the diagram below is self explanatory we have a very simply equation to remember:

1 meter + 1 cubit = 5 feet

Larger image

So to add these together we have

1 meter + 1 cubit = 5 feet
39.37 inches + 20.62 inches = 59.99 inches (should be 60 ... oh well )

So this shows us a few things.

1) Ancient man probably used the solar system to base his measurement on or someone familiar with the heavens set up these measurements

2) that is why all measurement system work here at Giza because it is the solar system in stone ( a scale model) and all measurement types are found in our solar system.

Cheers

edit on 11-10-2014 by Ahatmose because: Clarify a point

posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 07:43 PM
Someone posted this earlier:

Aside from approximating the numbers above, you arbitrarily chose the square root of 3 to be divided by Phi. I suppose that is because √3 is the only number that gets you close to the ratio you were looking for.

LOL what a statement. I was looking for the significance of 440 and 411.04 and you have thankfully proven my point perfectly. Out of your own mouth comes this ... "you arbitrarily chose the square root of 3 to be divided by Phi. I suppose that is because √3 is the only number that gets you close to the ratio you were looking for"

I will rest my case thanks to you. LOL Actually it is not close is is pretty well exact. And I will prove to you that your stupid and arbitrary use of the word arbitrary to label my research will be proven to be just what it is ... rubbish.

√3 = 1.7320508075688772935274463415059

Phi = 1.6180339887498948482045868343656

Ratio = 1.0704662693192697958259095291383

9068.8 inches / 8471.9 inches = 1.0704564501469564088339097486986

accuracy = 1.0704564501469564088339097486986 /1.0704662693192697958259095291383 = 0.99999082720063694188740478207161

Is this better ?

edit on 11-10-2014 by Ahatmose because: spelling

posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 08:24 PM

Your claims are as irrational as the numbers you fantasize the ancient Egyptians had knowledge of. The square root of three was not known to them nor was Phi. You picked Phi as a divisor then rummaged around to find a suitable numerator that gets you close to the same number as the ratio of G1/G2. Let's pretend you had used Pi as a divisor instead. You could just as easily use the square root of 11.3 as a numerator and also come up with the same ratio. What would be the significance? Heck, use Euler's Number in place of Phi and divide it into the square root of 8 - that too gets you close to the ratio of G1/G2. Pi, Phi, √3, √8 - all meaningless unknown numbers to the AE.

You then proceed in this topic to arbitrarily mingle modern Metric units with ancient Egyptian cubits. "1 meter + 1 cubit" is utter horse****.

In addition to reading up on Simpson's Paradox you should study the Pyramid Inch. You are stumbling down the same path of failure.
edit on 11-10-2014 by Blackmarketeer because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 11 2014 @ 08:27 PM

originally posted by: Ahatmose

While my question does not deal with mathematics I believe it has merit. You appear to have dismissed a number of key structures from your key calculations. There really are only 3 of interest for me at the moment. I ask that you be a bit patient as there is much, much more evidence to present.

Of what 'value' or purpose would their have been to the AE of such a convoluted and complicated set of calculation? Convoluted ? It is simply dividing and multiplying and using ratios. Valid question and one that again i am working on. If it was left to show their knowledge they would have known that before we could decipher it we would have had to reach their level of knowledge or it may have been left as a warning. If the three pyramids represent the 4 inner planets then they probably show them at a specific time and this could be a warning in stone of a possible cataclysm at this specific time but I have been unable to even begin to figure that out so far.

Again don't look at the math look at the final result, you have positioned the planets in a meaningless order. two not even associated with the pyramids at all. Why would you do this? This is what your math ends up providing

How are dots on a look down map helpful?

A warning? A warning of what and if they wanted to represent the inner planets why not do so clearly instead of hiding it amongst tombs in a necropolis?

You did not address why the other monuments and pyramids on the Giza plateau are left out?

How would they have known about Nepture and Uranus and why is Ceres not included I am working on finding out how they might have got the information for the outer planets and Ceres will be involved in due time. As I said there is much, much more to come.

How many years or decades have you been working on this now?

edit on 11/10/14 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

top topics

26