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.
originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: Ahatmose
I really want all to notice the level of expertise of my detractors
You couldn't even recognize the Egyptian sun god Ra.
Suggesting that the ancient Egyptians used a modern metric meter or had knowledge of it makes your theory imbecilic. They couldn't even standardize the cubit.
And the Foot is based on an old roman measure. Read how the English determined the foot: "You take 16 men as they enter church. You have each one put one foot down on the ground in a line. You then take 1/16th of that line to be your 'foot. " That's not made up, that was how they got a "foot" in lieu of any standardized measurement.
So when you produce an equation that adds one meter to one cubit to get feet - well, that is just bad practice.
Now, at the level of these measurements, 5407.9 at N.E., or 5409.2 at S.W., above the base, the edges of the casing (by the angles of the N. and S. side found above) will be 285.3 ± 2.7 on the North, and 30I.6 on the South side, from the vertical axis of the centre. Thus there would remain for the casing thickness 60.8 ± 3 on the N., and 86.6 on the S.; with 77.6 for the mean of E. and W. Or, if the angle on the S. side were the same as on the N., the casing thickness would be 69.2 on the S. This, therefore, seems to make it more likely that the South side had about the same angle as the North. On the whole, we probably cannot do better than take 51º 52' ± 2' as the nearest approximation to the mean angle of the Pyramid, allowing some weight to the South side. The mean base being 9068.8 ± .5 inches, this yields a height of 5776.0 ± 7.0 inches.
They would not still be teaching the "method of squares" for approximating the area of a circle if they had already understood Pi.
originally posted by: Cauliflower
They would not still be teaching the "method of squares" for approximating the area of a circle if they had already understood Pi.
So the Earth was flat till Copernicus published the heliocentric theory in 1540 AD or was that just the year the church allowed the knowledge be understood by the common man?
a reply to: Harte
Nothing Copernicus ever did had anything to do with showing the Earth is round, since he (and everyone else with any education) knew that already.
originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
The papyrus date from around 1850 BCE and are copies of texts thought to be from around 2000 BCE. Khufu reigned 2589–2566 BCE.
If they understood Pi during Khufu's reign then it would stand to reason it would still be used (and written in their math texts) later. They would not still be teaching the "method of squares" for approximating the area of a circle if they had already understood Pi.
A text from 2000-1850 BCE is far more contemporary as to what Egyptian mathematics were than anything you are conjecturing over.
You've blinded yourself to the actual design of the GP in favor of your fantasy.
As we see, the GP is one pyramid out of many that have a seked of 5-1/2. Snefru, Khufu, Djedefre, Niuserre, Djedkare all have the same seked of 7:5-1/2. There are several scholarly texts on academia that discuss the sacredness of such numbers, 7, 11, 14... etc. Whether or not this was intentional or not we'll never know.
The papyrus date from around 1850 BCE and are copies of texts thought to be from around 2000 BCE. Khufu reigned 2589–2566 BCE.
If they understood Pi during Khufu's reign then it would stand to reason it would still be used (and written in their math texts) later. They would not still be teaching the "method of squares" for approximating the area of a circle if they had already understood Pi.
You've blinded yourself to the actual design of the GP in favor of your fantasy.
As we see, the GP is one pyramid out of many that have a seked of 5-1/2. Snefru, Khufu, Djedefre, Niuserre, Djedkare all have the same seked of 7:5-1/2. There are several scholarly texts on academia that discuss the sacredness of such numbers, 7, 11, 14... etc. Whether or not this was intentional or not we'll never know.
originally posted by: Ahatmose
And be able to ascertain an angle of 51°50'35
When this is the data given:
Height 65 metres (213 ft) (ruined)
(From base to summit: 93.5 metres (307 ft))
Base 144 metres (472 ft)
Slope 51°50'35
since tan of an angle is 1/2 base divided by height we get:
72 / 93.5 = 0.77005347594
and this yield an angle of 52.402
So say again who has not done their homework.
By the way, you have your calculated tangent upside down. It should be opposite/adjacent, where, for your angle, the opposite site is the height, not half the base.
Could you enlighten us to the evidence that they are copies from 2000 BC ?
The Rhind Papyrus (also called the Ahmes Papyrus) is named after the British collector, Rhind, who acquired it in 1858. It was copied by a scribe, Ahmes (or Ahmos), (~1650 BC) from another document written ~2000 BC, which, possibly in turn, was copied from a document from ~2650 BC (the time of Imhotep?). The Rhind Papyrus is located in the British Museum, and contains mathematics problems and solutions. All the problems below are translations.
Papyruses, Mathematical
extant mathematical works of ancient Egypt, dating from the period of the Middle Kingdom (c. 21st century to c. 18th century B.C.). The most famous are the Rhind Papyrus, now in the British Museum (London), and the Moscow Papyrus, now in the A. S. Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts (Moscow).
The Rhind Papyrus, named after its owner, the Egyptologist H. Rhind, was first studied and published in German by A. Eisenlohr; it is also called the Ahmes Papyrus, after its compiler, the scribe Ahmes (c. 2000 B.C.)
'The apparent placement of these other sites in relationship to the meridian of the Great Pyramid becomes even more understandable when we recognize that the Great Pyramid was located at 30* north latitude (currently 29° 58' 51"). At first glance it appears that the builders made an error of 1' 9" in its location. However, without a correction for atmospheric refraction, 29° 58' 22" north latitude appears to be exactly 30*, based on purely astronomical observation. Thus there could instead be an error of 29" in the other direction. Or, there could be an error of only 20" if, as Piazzi Smyth suggests, they had intended to split the difference and try for the intermediate value of 29° 59' 11". This idea becomes more plausible when one realizes that the atmospheric error is in the opposite direction for an alignment based on solar observations, and thus it would make sense that they might have used an intermediate value between the solar and stellar calculations. It is equally likely that they simply could not place the Great Pyramid any farther north, and still remain on their prime meridian bisecting Egypt, because the Giza Plateau ends. As it stands, the Great Pyramid is closer to the cliff at the northern edge of the Giza Plateau than many engineers would have thought feasible. It is even remotely possible that the earth's crust has shifted slightly over the intervening 4500 years and the Pyramid was originally placed at a minutely different latitude. In any case, the precision with which it is placed is astounding, certainly more than accurate enough to prove both their intention and their ability'. (5)
originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: Ahatmose
Could you enlighten us to the evidence that they are copies from 2000 BC ?
EGYPTIAN MATHEMATICS PAPYRI (and contents exhibited) (buffalo.edu)
The Rhind Papyrus (also called the Ahmes Papyrus) is named after the British collector, Rhind, who acquired it in 1858. It was copied by a scribe, Ahmes (or Ahmos), (~1650 BC) from another document written ~2000 BC, which, possibly in turn, was copied from a document from ~2650 BC (the time of Imhotep?). The Rhind Papyrus is located in the British Museum, and contains mathematics problems and solutions. All the problems below are translations.
Here we see the dating goes back even further, possibly to the very time of Khufu himself. How is that for relevant, slick? The scribe himself (Ahmes) declares it is a copy of a text from 2 centuries earlier. (source)
And: Papyruses, Mathematical (dictionary.com)
Papyruses, Mathematical
extant mathematical works of ancient Egypt, dating from the period of the Middle Kingdom (c. 21st century to c. 18th century B.C.). The most famous are the Rhind Papyrus, now in the British Museum (London), and the Moscow Papyrus, now in the A. S. Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts (Moscow).
The Rhind Papyrus, named after its owner, the Egyptologist H. Rhind, was first studied and published in German by A. Eisenlohr; it is also called the Ahmes Papyrus, after its compiler, the scribe Ahmes (c. 2000 B.C.)
None of the mathematical papyrus from Egypt ever - EVER - demonstrated a working formula for calculating Pi as a ratio between circumference and diameter. They only got as far as approximating a circle's area by the "method of squares" shown earlier.
The Ahmes papyrus states it is a: "thorough study of all things, insight into all that exists, knowledge of all obscure secrets." - Odd, don't you think, it would completely omit something as groundbreaking as the concept of Pi (or Phi, or Trigonometry, and so on...)
Another method devised is to approximate a circle by overlaying a 3x3 grid on it and constructing an octagon and determining the area of the octagon in place of the circle. Crude, but workable.
Now ask yourself, if Pi was so fundamental to making the Great Pyramid, and the GP was a part of the Giza "solar model" as you claim, then why are Khafre's and Menkaure's pyramids not also make using Pi? Why do their slopes diifer? Khafre used a seked of 7:5 versus Khufu's 7:5-1/2 and Menkaure used 7:5-3/5.
That does not mean the person who makes the square base or the circle that fits in it knows about pi.
originally posted by: Ahatmose
By the way, you have your calculated tangent upside down. It should be opposite/adjacent, where, for your angle, the opposite site is the height, not half the base.
LOl What great input into the discussion. I left out a step too bad I thought everyone would see it but for the slower members of the audience allow me to put it simply for them
originally posted by: Ahatmose
93.5 / 72 (1/2 base) = 1.2986111111
Tan of 1.2986111111 = 52.40
originally posted by: Ahatmose
now would you care to explain why all published reports place the angle at 51°50'35 and as a matter of fact almost all numbers quoted in Lehner's "book" have wrong angles from the given data yet no one bothers to check and those that do never bring it up. Actually all of Egyptology is like that.
originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: Ahatmose
Could you enlighten us to the evidence that they are copies from 2000 BC ?
EGYPTIAN MATHEMATICS PAPYRI (and contents exhibited) (buffalo.edu)
The Rhind Papyrus (also called the Ahmes Papyrus) is named after the British collector, Rhind, who acquired it in 1858. It was copied by a scribe, Ahmes (or Ahmos), (~1650 BC) from another document written ~2000 BC, which, possibly in turn, was copied from a document from ~2650 BC (the time of Imhotep?). The Rhind Papyrus is located in the British Museum, and contains mathematics problems and solutions. All the problems below are translations.
Here we see the dating goes back even further, possibly to the very time of Khufu himself. How is that for relevant, slick? The scribe himself (Ahmes) declares it is a copy of a text from 2 centuries earlier. (source)
And: Papyruses, Mathematical (dictionary.com)
Papyruses, Mathematical
extant mathematical works of ancient Egypt, dating from the period of the Middle Kingdom (c. 21st century to c. 18th century B.C.). The most famous are the Rhind Papyrus, now in the British Museum (London), and the Moscow Papyrus, now in the A. S. Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts (Moscow).
The Rhind Papyrus, named after its owner, the Egyptologist H. Rhind, was first studied and published in German by A. Eisenlohr; it is also called the Ahmes Papyrus, after its compiler, the scribe Ahmes (c. 2000 B.C.)
None of the mathematical papyrus from Egypt ever - EVER - demonstrated a working formula for calculating Pi as a ratio between circumference and diameter. They only got as far as approximating a circle's area by the "method of squares" shown earlier.
The Ahmes papyrus states it is a: "thorough study of all things, insight into all that exists, knowledge of all obscure secrets." - Odd, don't you think, it would completely omit something as groundbreaking as the concept of Pi (or Phi, or Trigonometry, and so on...)
Another method devised is to approximate a circle by overlaying a 3x3 grid on it and constructing an octagon and determining the area of the octagon in place of the circle. Crude, but workable.
Now ask yourself, if Pi was so fundamental to making the Great Pyramid, and the GP was a part of the Giza "solar model" as you claim, then why are Khafre's and Menkaure's pyramids not also make using Pi? Why do their slopes diifer? Khafre used a seked of 7:5 versus Khufu's 7:5-1/2 and Menkaure used 7:5-3/5.
originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
Your images aren't working