The geometric design of the Giza pyramids

[studiot]

3 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

And it turned out that if you go from Giza to the North, you will pass through the capital of the Byzantine and later Ottoman Empire, Constantinople (Istanbul), then through the capital of Kievan Rus, Kiev, the capital of Novgorod Rus, Novgorod, and finally come to the capital of the Russian Romanov Empire, St. Petersburg.

Just to see how wrong this is, here is a calculation using spherical triangles.

This distance from Giza to  St Petersburg is 4903 km and the circumference of the earth is 40075 km

The longitude of the Giza pyramid is 31.1325^oE and the longitude of StP is 30.3609^oE  a difference of 0.772 degrees.

So if we let Giza be vertex A and StP be vertex C of a spherical triangle, and proceed in the direction of StP 0.772^o W this gives us angle A of the spherical triangle.

Now the perpendicular from C to the line due north through A strikes this line at B, giving angle B of 90^o.

Side AC is the distance from Giza to StP and subtends an angle to the centre b = 360 * 4903/40075 = 44.044^o.

So we have two angles and a side of the spherical triangle ABC, which is enough to solve it by the sine rule for spherical triangles.

We only require side a = CB = the offset of C from the true north line (AB)  through Giza (A).

[math]\sin a = \frac{{\sin b\sin A}}{{\sin B}} = \frac{{\sin (44.044)\sin (0.772)}}{{\sin (90)}} = 0.0093670[/math]

Hence a = 0.53669820 leading to distance BC = 59.74 km

So St Petersburg is 60 kilometres off the north line through Giza.

 

Edited May 26, 2021 by studiot

[robincook]

20 hours ago, studiot said:

Over the rather fewer centuries of our civilisation there have been many investigations of the egyptian pyramids, rather fewer comparisons with pyramids in other parts of the world, and many 'egyptologists' and hypotheses, including attempts by modern engineers to recreate ancient building techniques etc.

 

Yes Studiot there have been many investigations of Egyptian pyramids. Have you read them? What have you learned from these investigations?

I have read as much as I have been able to find and am not impressed. You also ask - "So I ask you again which egyptologists ?".

Having been warned that this thread will be closed down if I provide any outside links I am prevented from answering your question.

21 hours ago, swansont said:

Only three pyramids had the pi slope. 

Sorry Swansont, what point are you trying to make?

[studiot]

40 minutes ago, robincook said:

Yes Studiot there have been many investigations of Egyptian pyramids. Have you read them? What have you learned from these investigations?

I have read as much as I have been able to find and am not impressed. You also ask - "So I ask you again which egyptologists ?".

Having been warned that this thread will be closed down if I provide any outside links I am prevented from answering your question.

Sorry Swansont, what point are you trying to make?

 

I have learned from this response that you are not interested in an objective discussion of known facts to sort the supposition from the supportable.

[swansont]

8 hours ago, robincook said:

Having been warned that this thread will be closed down if I provide any outside links I am prevented from answering your question.

!

Moderator Note

That’s not the warning you were given. You were told not to advertise your site, and that material for discussion must be posted here, which is not nearly the same thing

 

8 hours ago, robincook said:

Sorry Swansont, what point are you trying to make?

That you are making contradictory claims.

[Alex_Krycek]

On 5/27/2021 at 12:51 AM, exchemist said:

But this film is worthless. I quote Wikipedia: "The Revelation of the Pyramids (French: La révélation des pyramides) is a conspiracy theory pseudo-scientific documentary directed by Patrice Pooyard and released in 2010."

Well, there we go.  If Wikipedia says it's pseudo-science, case closed.  

[robincook]

On 5/27/2021 at 9:48 AM, studiot said:

 

I have learned from this response that you are not interested in an objective discussion of known facts to sort the supposition from the supportable.

That seems a bit harsh. I am extremely interested in 'an objective discussion of known facts to sort the supposition from the supportable' (aye, back in the ghetto we used to talk of little else). But first the 'known facts' must be presented - which I have tried to do on my website. But since forum rules ban presentation of websites what am I expected to do?  Answer piecemeal questions like on a game show?

The moderators here will have access to my site and therefore in a position to assimilate the data and be able to answer their own questions if they want to.  Anyone else must guess what I'm talking about, even though I have tried to answer queries as best I can. Your comment comes across as a getout dressed up in fancy language. If you are not interested in pyramids, just say so.

18 hours ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

That’s not the warning you were given. You were told not to advertise your site, and that material for discussion must be posted here, which is not nearly the same thing

 

That you are making contradictory claims.

What contradictory claims? could you be more explicit in your responses?

[exchemist]

8 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Well, there we go.  If Wikipedia says it's pseudo-science, case closed.  

Unaccountably, this film does not seem to been reviewed in Nature.😁

I did find this: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2124189/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Edited May 28, 2021 by exchemist

[studiot]

3 hours ago, robincook said:

That seems a bit harsh. I am extremely interested in 'an objective discussion of known facts to sort the supposition from the supportable' (aye, back in the ghetto we used to talk of little else).

I think perhaps I was a bit harsh on @Alex_Krycek in my comment when he perhaps genuinely thought he had found a reputable presentation rather than one of those deliberate misinformation sites.
My apologoes if that is the case.

But you have now passed up at least three opportunities to engage in an objective discussion, choosing instead to play the injured martyr.

3 hours ago, robincook said:

But since forum rules ban presentation of websites what am I expected to do?  Answer piecemeal questions like on a game show?

This is not the case and you have

already been told so by swansont.

Why do you think the weblinks from others and even one by yourself have not been removed, whilst another of yours was indeed removed?

Have you read the rules or aksed a moderator for amplification ?

But back to the subject in hand.

3 hours ago, robincook said:

But first the 'known facts' must be presented

I agree, as I have agreed with some of your earlier statements.

But you can you or anybody really claim to be in possession of all the facts ?

This is why I offered you pages of data by another investigator here at ScienceForums.
 

Have you looked into this, you have made no comment about it?

 

This thread is entitled

Quote

The geometric design of the Giza pyramids 

and there has been some discussion about design and the level of knowledge of the 'designers'.

Now a design implies that you know what you want, where you want it and how you want it before you start.

But even to this day constructors acknowledge the difficulties of laying out structures that have a wide horizontal spread and perhaps sloping surfaces.
This has significant implications for the designer and his level of knowledge.

For this reason, I asked you a question about the foundations but you ignored it and did not answer.

The construction of the pyramids was a massive undertaking, by any standards, so much can be deduced from any knowledge of the builders' construction methods.

[swansont]

5 hours ago, robincook said:

But since forum rules ban presentation of websites what am I expected to do?

!

Moderator Note

The forum rules do not forbid this, as I (and studiot) have pointed out. If the information is on your website, I don’t understand what precludes you from posting the salient details here. It’s called copy and paste.

 

[robincook]

Ok, I'll try to summarize.

I must confess that in my youth I was prey to many outlandish ideas which I have now rejected. I accept the conventional Egyptological account and dating. But in one regard I do not - Egyptologists write as if each king built (designed?) his own pyramid.

After first visiting Giza in 1979 I noticed something that set me thinking. Looking at plans of Giza I noticed a pattern related to the central pyramid – the prominent satellite pyramids of Khufu and Menkaure being so placed that they appeared to form parallel alignments to the centre and corners of Khafre – as shown in the first attachment. These alignments are by no means perfect but appear to form a pattern of roots (second attachment). Red 26.5 (diagonal of double square) and 30, blue 45 degrees.

The definitive Giza survey was made by Petrie (Petrie, W. M. F. [1883] 2002. The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh. London: Kegan Paul. https://www.ronaldbirdsall.com/gizeh/petrie/index.htm).  Legon (http://www.legon.uk) converted Petrie's measurements into native units of measure and discovered a plan based on the very same three roots (third attachment). Unfortunately his findings have largely been ignored by Egyptologists.

Nevertheless I remained convinced that the central and most dominating pyramid at Giza sitting on prime real estate,  Khafre,  appeared to act as a reference, or 'mediator', between the other two pyramids, Khufu and Menkaure, which share certain design similarities to each other. (Perhaps evoking the theme of duality said to pervade Egyptian thinking. ) Other geometric elements appear non-coincidentally, like Phi and the Fibonacci series.

As with the ability of the Egyptians to assimilate seemingly contradictory mythologies, the Giza architects appear to have assembled a collection of geometrical and numerical ideas and given them a kind of metaphorical meaning. (Perhaps the mystery so commonly associated with the pyramids is but a distant echo of a hidden tradition.)

But did the builders really believe that this edifice of geometry and cut stone would launch the king to a stellar afterlife? Or is it possible that shrewder minds existed within the priesthood that we might perhaps identify as philosophers or scientists?

A picture is worth a thousand words. My work is visual, containing over a hundred illustrations, and it would be a pointless chore to try to describe them in words. But here is a final diagram showing arcs which can be drawn to the corners of Khafre (fourth attachment). Serendipity?

I hope this brief summary will help to answer your question. In the fullness of time my site may become more accessible and only then will a real discussion become possible.

 

Robin

[SergUpstart]

From the above photo, it can be seen that the base of the pyramids is not a square, but an octagon, or rather a four-pointed star

[swansont]

37 minutes ago, robincook said:

Legon (http://www.legon.uk) converted Petrie's measurements into native units of measure and discovered a plan based on the very same three roots

!

Moderator Note

The link doesn’t work, and links need to go to the specific information. Not just to the top-level page of a site (IOW, don’t make people root around for the information)

 

[studiot]

@robincook

Thank you for beginning to take an interest in discussion and the photograph and diagrams.  +1

Since you have been to the site and I have not perhaps you could clear up two questions please.

1) I can see the lines SergUpstart refers to on the photo. Is he correct in saying the four sloping sides are not in one plane but made of two inwardly slanted planes ?

2) Can you state the length (in metres) of the blue line in the photo and perhaps the lenght of one of the four sides of the larger pyramids ?