The Great Pyramid's 'Phantom Chamber'

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Hooke

Hooke: Look again, for example, at the "north-east" arrow and the "north-west" arrow: they have not been placed at the same angle as each other.

In order that it can be shown as reaching the middle of the earth's landmass from North America, the north-west arrow has been completely curved round.

The same goes for the south-east and south-west arrows. If they were directions, those arrows would both show exactly the same angle of slope with respect to the equator.

But they don't.

SC: And they don't for a very obvious reason. (Hint: Giza sits at 30°N and NOT at the equator).

But you've missed the point that what is true for the equator is also true for any parallel, including the 30th, which is shown on Piazzi Smyth's map.

(And my apologies: I think I misspelt Charles Piazzi Smyth's name in my previous post).

No. The asymmetrical curve in Smyth's ordinals is a result of them being made on a flat projection of the world (from the 30th parallel). Had they been made from the equator they would then have been symmetrical.

No, this makes no sense.

It could explain an asymmetry between north and south arrows on a Mercator type projection: but not the asymmetry between east and west arrows.

We see for example that the north-east arrow is actually pointing roughly in a north-east direction, while the north-west arrow bends to become almost parallel to the equator...

Okay, I hope this post will put this issue to bed once and for all (though I have my doubts).

First of all, let me address the asymmetrical West / East arrows in the upper quadrants of Professor Smyth's drawing:



As the map states - this is an "equal surface projection" designed and centered on the Greenwich meridian. The GP, however, is ~31° E of the Greenwich projection. In order to compensate for this 31° east-to-west offset from the map's Greenwich-oriented projection requires that, when drawing the ordinals, that they be drawn in the manner that Professor Smyth has presented them.

But let's go back to something more fundamental here. Critics claim that Smyth considered only the cardinal directions (N-S and E-W) and that latitude and longitude of Giza did not have more surface area passing through it than any other latitude/longitude as claimed by Professor Smyth. Critics claim that there are other combined longitude/latitude lines that have more surface area passing through them than Giza (the blue/orange and red/orange lines in the image below).



It has been claimed by Smyth's critics that the blue line in the image above (~27°E longitude) combined with the orange line (50°N latitude) covers more combined land area than a line of latitude and longitude passing through the Great Pyramid at Giza. (The centre of the blue/orange line above is about 200Km west of the city of Kyiv).

The images below measure the length of land passing through the blue/orange line (27°E, 50°N) and the green/black line (31°E/30°N) of these longitudes and latitudes. So, was Professor Smyth correct in his claim? Let's see:



























The above data can be checked by anyone. It shows fairly clearly that the Giza centre does indeed have more land mass passing along its combined lines of latitude and longitude, just as Professor Smyth claimed.

Now, I fully expect that Smyth's critics will now try to fall back on the longitude defined by the red line in the second image above. The problem here, however, is that this longitude line (circle) has two land based centres (i.e. two latitude-longitude intersections), not one. The GP at Giza stands out precisely because it sits on the only land-based centre of its latitude-longitude intersection.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

The choice of 50°N parallel as being the latitude with more land than any other comes from this site:

The parallel going through Giza is also running shorter over land than the parallels to the north going over the whole of Asia. According to my measurements, 50° North would be the best candidate, running more than 2000 km over land than the one trough Giza. The “real” center of the landmasses would then be some kilometers west of Kiev at the Black Sea. In the Ukraine." - (from here).

In researching this further, however, I have found that latitude ~48.5°N actually has more land passing through it than 50°N though still a bit less than the Giza 30°N latitude. If I have time I'll post the measurements later.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

But when did Piazzi Smyth think the pyramid was built?

Does he say anywhere that his chronology goes back as far as 19,000 BP, or any of the other remote dates you've mentioned in the past?

I very much doubt that Smyth's conjectures included pole flipping, or deluges other than the Biblical one. His argument presupposes a geology far more settled than that described in your recent works.

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

...

The GP, however, is ~31° E of the Greenwich projection. In order to compensate for this 31° east-to-west offset from the map's Greenwich-oriented projection requires that, when drawing the ordinals, that they be drawn in the manner that Professor Smyth has presented them

....

Again, this makes no sense.

The projection used by Piazzi Smyth is a Mercator projectio: north at the top of the map, south at the bottom, east to the right and west to the left.

Whether it is centred on the meridian of Greenwich, on that of Gizeh, or on any other meridian, there should be perfect symmetry with respect to the equator and to the meridian chosen for the centre of the map, if this is indeed a matter of directions.

The two red arrows on the map I provided point perfectly distinctly to the north-east and north-west. This is not the case with Piazzi Smyth's arrows at all.

originally posted by: Hooke

originally posted by: Scott Creighton

...

The GP, however, is ~31° E of the Greenwich projection. In order to compensate for this 31° east-to-west offset from the map's Greenwich-oriented projection requires that, when drawing the ordinals, that they be drawn in the manner that Professor Smyth has presented them

....

Again, this makes no sense.

The projection used by Piazzi Smyth is a Mercator projectio: north at the top of the map, south at the bottom, east to the right and west to the left.

Whether it is centred on the meridian of Greenwich, on that of Gizeh, or on any other meridian, there should be perfect symmetry with respect to the equator and to the meridian chosen for the centre of the map, if this is indeed a matter of directions.

The two red arrows on the map I provided point perfectly distinctly to the north-east and north-west. This is not the case with Piazzi Smyth's arrows at all.

On a Mercator projection it is fine drawing cardinals using straight lines (though on some mercator projections even the lines of longitude can be curved). When placing the ordinals you cannot draw a simple straight line as you have done - it needs to be a sine curve as Smyth has done. As I explained to you before, the flattening of the curve in the NW quadrant is due to the projection of the map being centered on Greenwich i.e. Greenwich is 0 degrees, the prime meridian.

If you look at the map's lines of longitude at the top they are not even i.e. there are more lines of longitude to the east of the map than there are to the west, resulting in a compensatory skewing of the sine curves in the northern quadrants relative to each other (to compensate for the map's asymmetrical projection).

However, insofar as your original contention goes, the point here is now surely moot. Based on your own argument that the ordinals were not considered by Smyth and that he considered only the cardinals then, as shown in my previous images with measurements, Smyth's contention is correct.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Where did Smyth claim to have drawn a sine curve?

originally posted by: Hooke
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Where did Smyth claim to have drawn a sine curve?

Seriously?

You really do have a proclivity to ask a lot of questions of others you disagree with but not too willing to answer any questions posed to you.

You're just wasting my time (again).

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton


this is nonsense. regarding the gods, newer research shows that in the 4th dynasty at Khufus times the figure of Osiris has not yet appeared as a mayor force, neither Isis.
Instead, the three most important deities were Horus, Hathor and Re.

originally posted by: anti72
a reply to: Scott Creighton


this is nonsense. regarding the gods, newer research shows that in the 4th dynasty at Khufus times the figure of Osiris has not yet appeared as a mayor force, neither Isis.
Instead, the three most important deities were Horus, Hathor and Re.

Alas, matters are not as clear cut as you seem to imagine.

“...while there is every likelihood that the Osirian material in the Pyramid Texts derives in part from a much earlier date, so far it has not proved possible to track down the god or his symbols tangibly to the First or Second dynasty...” (emphasis mine).

"...alhough there is a strong likelihood that the cult of Osiris began in or before the First Dynasty in connection with the royal funerals at Abydos, archaelogical evidence hitherto does not tangibly date the cult to an era before the Fifth Dynasty.” (emphasis mine).

- J.G. Griffiths, The Origins of Osiris and his Cult p.44

“…the myth of Osiris seems to be an echo of long forgotten events which actually took place.” (Emphasis mine).

- Walter B. Emery, Archaic Egypt(1961), pp.122-123

“…much points to the conclusion that Osiris’s story was cloaked in the veil of distant antiquity even at this [5th dynasty] early date. The discovery at Helwan of a very early Djed symbol and the ‘girdle of Isis’ (Isis being his female counterpart) shows that during the Archaic Period (Dynasty 1 and 2) Osiris’s cult already existed.” – Jane B. Sellers, The Death of Gods in Ancient Egypt, Revised Edition 2007, p.6

But yeah - believe what you will.

SC