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

a reply to: Hanslune

You know the silliness of this image is that Menkaure's Pyramid is not orthogonal to Khufu's. In plan view it does not form a perfect rectangle with Khufu's as being shown here, but I guess that is just part and parcel with the other fudging taking place by the OP to get to his magic ratios.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Hey BM

You know I was wondering about the blue images myself and whether they were accurate. I'm also wondering what is actually at the locations for Atahmose's Mars and Venus positions.

Edited to add:

Took a look Mars appears to be just south of the Menkaure cause way leading to the valley temple and also near the Tomb of Queen Kherikawes.

Venus is just below a IV dynasty mastaba

If this was so important that they would spend decades building those huge structures - and then not mark what the 'result' was? odd

a reply to: Hanslune

I'm guessing an outhouse at the Mars location and a canopic jar of Khufu's toenail clippings buried in the sand at the Venus location.

Doesn't it seem odd, that according to Atahmose's theory the locations of Mars and Venus in his "Giza as a map of the solar system" should be left utterly devoid of any monuments? You have to interpolate the sides of two pyramids to arrive at some blank spot in the desert floor to deduce the orbits of two out of the five planets he believes are mapped there. Hmmm.

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: Hanslune

I'm guessing an outhouse at the Mars location and a canopic jar of Khufu's toenail clippings buried in the sand at the Venus location.

Doesn't it seem odd, that according to Atahmose's theory the locations of Mars and Venus in his "Giza as a map of the solar system" should be left utterly devoid of any monuments? You have to interpolate the sides of two pyramids to arrive at some blank spot in the desert floor to deduce the orbits of two out of the five planets he believes are mapped there. Hmmm.

That was why I was talking non math, with the math you can get all weird but applying the map to the real world makes it look - odd. Walked over the area where Venus would have been on the map many times, I don't recall anything there - I'm trying to remember where the scrap of the black stone 'flooring' was that use to cover the whole area, it might have been near there. I remember also walking the proposed causeways to the temple and don't recall anything in that general area - perhaps a corrugated tin building that was there in the 80's but I think is now removed.

It is also not leveled so Mars would be at a lower elevation.

When we look at the measurement systems we use in contemporary times there is broadly two opinions at ends of the scale they are arbitrary selected units, and the other view carefully thought with inherent purpose. My view is the later .

Here I am going to demonstrate how well the Ancients thought out the application using a 100 based counting system within a 360 cycle measurement system.

360 degrees. (which people have in past said probably derived from what they (Ancients) calculated as average number Revolution of earth around sun)

360/100 =3.6
The 360 degrees measurement scale has its single degrees been broken down in divisor of 60.
so that 360 x 60 = 21600nautical miles

1852 metres = 1 x nautical mile

Now I will convert 1732 cubits into metres

1732 cubits = 791.8704 metres

791.8704/1852 = 0.4275758 fraction (dimensionless value)


Now in 1.732 nautical miles there are 3207 metres.

in 3207/791.8704 = 4.049905 fraction (dimensionless value)

0.4275758 x 4.049905 = 1.73166 ( the square root of 3 again)

Please note Im not taking sides in this debate just enjoying myself with the maths play but if you want to know my view i can sun it as follows. My view is simply this the numbering/ measurement system we use today is inherited from an ancient designed numbering system which was designed with careful meticulous purpose to fulfil a specific Ancient purpose, a purpose conventional (publically) communicated knowledge doesn't recognise or know about.

a reply to: AthlonSavage

Please note Im not taking sides in this debate just enjoying myself with the maths play but if you want to know my view i can sun it as follows. My view is simply this the numbering/ measurement system we use today is inherited from an ancient designed numbering system which was designed with careful meticulous purpose to fulfil a specific Ancient purpose, a purpose conventional (publically) communicated knowledge doesn't recognise or know about.

Don't be shy start a thread here and tell us about it - not in this thread as it might be deemed off topic.

Heck, use Euler's Number in place of Phi and divide it into the square root of 8 -

√8 = 2.8284271247461900976033774484194

Euler's number = 2.7182818284590452353602874713527

Ratio = 2.8284271247461900976033774484194
/ 2.7182818284590452353602874713527 = 1.0405201900457777927163048866327

This is close to 440 / 411.04 and √3 / Phi ? I suggest you learn how to divide. LOL

What a maroon.

Apparently some people on this board do not take the time to read a post carefully. An image is being attacked and yet here is what I said about it.

Below I did a quick scale job and thought that this was correct but after checking the actual measurements from Petrie's data it showed it was in error. It looked good but was wrong.

And just curious 1 meter + 1 cubit = 5 feet was called bull**** ... just curious what it equals then.

For the impatient in the crowd.

Moving a bit quicker than I wanted to I will now show you a little clearer how it all relates.

If G1 is representing the sqaure root of 3 then sq rt of 3 = 440 and 1/2 sq rt of 3 = 220 = 0.86602540378443864676372317075294

But the ratio of Mercury and Venus is 108208930 / 57909050 = 1.8686013671438229430460351188631
But base of G2 equals 220 x 1.8686013671438229430460351188631 or 411.09 so G2 is probably representing Venus and Mercury can be 0.866025 but let's get a little larger .

Let's use north-south distance as a representation of square root of 3 or about 1732.5. If we do this then Mercury could equal half that and be equal to 866.25 cubits and we would have this diagram.



Larger image

Okay can we find the other two ? Venus and Earth ? Well ...

Measurements of the Giza Rectangle is about 1417.5 by 1732.5 cubits and thus this would make the diagonal the square root of 1417.5 squared plus 1732.5 squared and this gives us 2238.50 cubits. From earlier we know that the ratio between Mercury and Earth is 149598261 / 57909050 = 2.58333 ... so what do we get when we divide 2238.50 / 866.25 ? We get 2.58412 close to about .9997 . Thus we have this diagram next.



Larger image

But now where is Venus ? Well I will let you try to find it.

.

a reply to: Hanslune

Don't be shy start a thread here and tell us about it - not in this thread as it might be deemed off topic.

I think this type of topics and derivations from which my last post makes reference to always inevitably attracts posters from two opposite extremes of the scale. The first extreme is the ones who will die in a ditch with the newton/Hawkins view of the world and the other extreme is the ones who want to tie Aliens and Ufos into the ancient accomplishments. I will not start a separate thread because from past experience it leads into an arguments, and any points that were raised of meaning get lost in the noise.

a reply to: Ahatmose

√8 = 2.8284271247461900976033774484194

Euler's number = 2.7182818284590452353602874713527

Ratio = 2.8284271247461900976033774484194
/ 2.7182818284590452353602874713527 = 1.0405201900457777927163048866327

This is close to 440 / 411.04 and √3 / Phi ? I suggest you learn how to divide. LOL

What a maroon.

The only 'maroon' here is the one going off the deep end of pareidolia.

Given the "averages" being used for the Giza monuments and mean averages for orbits, that number gets you as close as any. Your "map" does not accurately represent the plateau. Overlay it on an image of the plateau and see how inaccurate it is.

Regarding your plateau image:

Below I did a quick scale job and thought that this was correct but after checking the actual measurements from Petrie's data it showed it was in error. It looked good but was wrong.

Then explain why you used it? And continue to use it? You admit it is wrong.

a reply to: Ahatmose

OP I think this is some amazing work and I only
mean to compliment you for your post. At the same
time, it is slightly amuzing that you had to ask how to post
a pic. Not a bad thing at all to be both amazing and amuzing.

SnF by all means.

a reply to: AthlonSavage

Discussion IS the point of this forum but I understand your reluctance

I think it would been better done with cubits, such a short length would have been easier to break down into points. (a cubit being the length of ones arm from the tip of the middle finger to the elbow, I think).

Here is how significantly the OP's version of the Giza plateau strays from the actual plateau:



The image of the plateau in the background is from the GPMP mapping project (Lehner, et.al.).

The dimensions given by the OP for his plan are 1732 cubits x 1417.5 cubits. This appears to come from the work of John A.R. Legon. He cites Petrie as his source. Petrie's survey (1880's) has been superseded by the GPMP survey. Legon AFAIK is the only person to transcribe Petrie's survey numbers into a reconstruction of the plateau albeit containing all of Petrie's surveying errors.

The ratios produced by the OP can't be produced by the actual dimensions of the plateau. They are simply fantasy.

AERA GPMP map.
Oriental Institute GPMP map.

I have been looking for the Lehner-Goodman 1984 survey and it appears the report was never publically published. I did however find this report which compares Lehner-Goodman 1984 survey with Petries survey.

glendash.com...

I don't have time to read the full thing but will get around to it. . Anyone who is going to knock the accuracy of Petries results place the comparative survey data up results here for all of us to see please.

A quote from report indicates that Petrie survey achieved remarkable accuracy against the modern survey result

I can also use this data to calculate
the length of the Pyramid’s sides and its
angles. The Lehner-Goodman estimates
for the casing lengths compared with
that of Petrie, Cole, and Dorner are
in the table on the right. Petrie’s and
Dorner’s measurements fit comfortably
inside the Lehner-Goodman ranges.
Lehner-Goodman and Petrie differ in
the mean of all four sides by only 1.8
centimeters (0.75 inches). One of Cole’s
measurements, however, falls outside
the Lehner-Goodman ranges (in italics).

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but seeing a set of hypothetical calculations carried out to ten decimal places based the Giza pyramids is pure fantasy. The Great Pyramid is not a perfect pyramid, from a mathematical point of view. It's peak is off center. It's four sides do not form a perfect square.

I don't want to make rain on festive marches either but pretty sure the Great Pyramid has been shown to have six sides, designed to be see above during equinox.

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
Here is how significantly the OP's version of the Giza plateau strays from the actual plateau:

The image of the plateau in the background is from the GPMP mapping project (Lehner, et.al.).

The dimensions given by the OP for his plan are 1732 cubits x 1417.5 cubits. This appears to come from the work of John A.R. Legon. He cites Petrie as his source. Petrie's survey (1880's) has been superseded by the GPMP survey. Legon AFAIK is the only person to transcribe Petrie's survey numbers into a reconstruction of the plateau albeit containing all of Petrie's surveying errors.

The ratios produced by the OP can't be produced by the actual dimensions of the plateau. They are simply fantasy.

AERA GPMP map.
Oriental Institute GPMP map.

From another board:
LOL the image I use is an auto cad version of The Giza Plateau. It is precisely in accord with Petrie's measurements as it is an auto cad version of this plate.

The fit of the 1978 topographic map with Petrie is not good, surprisingly with regard to the proportions of the rectangle formed by the centres of GI and GII. Using Petrie's measures we have 1 : 1.058, about the same on the satellite photo, but 1 : 1.016 on the map.There are various other peculiarities. For example, GIII is 15' east of north and this seems to have been greatly exaggerated by whoever drew the map.I can only conclude that the published GPMP map was assembled from various excavation reports. Whatever the source of GPMP pyramid positions they do not coincide with Petrie, who remains our most authoritative source.

Link to above

Link to entire thread

It is very interesting that an argument is being raised about a diagram. It is the measurements that are all that is important. The GMP map is not accurate or correct. And it is interesting that after 15 years (1999) the data HAS STILL NOT BEEN RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC.

And interesting enough disinformation is being spread on this thread. I did not state that the measurements were 1417.5 by 1732 that was AnthlonSavage. Here is what I posted as the size:

"Measurements of the Giza Rectangle is about 1417.5 by 1732.5 cubits "

IT IS ALMOST A PERFECT 9 BY 11 RECTANGLE AND I WILL SHOW YOU HOW AND WHY THAT IS SO IMPORTANT however it is very disquieting how there seems to be a systematic attempt to derail this thread with nonsensical arguments. But not to fear I have been through it many, many times and am quite secure in my work, my drawings and my conclusions.

Next up we are going to build our solar system using just a 9 by 11 rectangle and the three main pyramids at Giza.

It is a very extraordinary example of the simple showing the difficult.

Coming up soon.

It absolutely amazes me how people can be so desperate to hold on to their fantasies. The ancient Egyptians didn't know anything about the measurements of the planets' orbits, modern units of measurement (meters, cubits, and feet? Really?), or half the mathematical concepts used to produce these numbers, which aren't even correct, since they're based on averages, approximations, and magical pixie dust. The ancient past is fascinating as it is, without all the unicorns, magic, aliens, or fudged math.

To the more educated members (you know who you are) trying to show the OP why his numbers don't work, I hate to say it, but I think you're just wasting your time...

edit:

originally posted by: Ahatmose
IT IS ALMOST A PERFECT 9 BY 11 RECTANGLE AND I WILL SHOW YOU HOW AND WHY THAT IS SO IMPORTANT

Ahatmose, do you see any problem with this?
I believe this pretty much sums up the sort of flawed thinking behind 'theories' like this.

Introducing 9/11

Hi all the main theme of all of this so far has been that there may be a very simple formula for the layout of our solar system. With a major contribution by Nick L. we came up with this design. First a very quick image to show you where we get the 9 by 11 rectangle at Giza.



Larger image

Here is the same diagram but setting up the "9" portion of our next lesson. I want you to note that the base of The Great Pyramid is 440 cubits and it's height is 280 cubits. Add these together and we get 720 cubits. If we allow this to equal "9" then "1" would equal 80 (9 x 80 = 720 cubits so one side of our 9 by 11 rectangle could be made up of Base + Height of The Great Pyramid.) Figuring out which is which the base would be 5.5 x 80 (440) and the height would be 3.5 x 80 (280) and we get something like this.



Larger image

For this exercise we are going to use a triangle ! However I have to emphasize here that our base unit of 440 and 9 were given to us large as life from The Giza Plateau where the height of The Great Pyramid is 280 cubits and thus will be 3.5 of our 9 units and 440 will be the other 5.5 units remembering of course the ratio is 7/5.5 or 3.5 (280 cubits) / 2.75 (220 cubits or 1/2 440)

Here is our first tentative line drawing of our next lesson. We are going to draw the 9 by 11 triangle using what Giza has given us. 440 cubits (base of The Great Pyramid) and 280 cubits (height of The Great Pyramid) and 5.5 (440) and 3.5 (280) and 11 (2 x 440 or 2 x 5.5)



Larger version

Now one of the things I have advocated over and over again is that not only is The Great Pyramid representing Earth but it is surely representing Mercury as well. More proof of this will follow in later posts. So in keeping with the simplistic view we are building of our solar system I am going to allow the base of The Great Pyramid or 440 cubits to represent the distance to Mercury. I have already shown a direct link between G2 or center pyramid and Venus and G1 or Great Pyramid as Mercury by showing that 1/2 of 440 or 220 x the ratio of Mercury to Venus or 1.8686 = 411.08 and the base of G2 but that is for another lesson. Suffice it to say that there is some powerful evidence to suggest using Mercury as 440 cubits and The base of The Great Pyramid. So let's relabel our diagram with this in mind.



Larger image

Now before going on we need a recap I think in ratios and the planets so here they are again

Mercury = 57,909,050 kilometers but we use 1.00000000 units
Venus = 108,208,930 kilometers but this is 1.868601 times Mercury or 1.868601 units
Earth as we know (or hopefully we remember) is 31/12 or 2.58333333 units or 149,598.261 kilometers
and Mars is 227,939,100 kilometers and is 3.93615678 units or 3.93615678 times Mercury

And now that we have learned the way to figure out the third side of a triangle that is right angled let's solve for our solar system triangle. This one is pretty straight forward it is simply the square root of 9 squared plus 11 squared or square root of 81 + 121 or square root of 202 or 14.212670403552 units 14.212670403552 x 80 = 1137.014 and here is the diagram labelled.



Larger image

Now interestingly if we divide 1137.0136 cubits which is the long side or hypotenuse of our 9 by 11 triangle by 440 cubits which we have also designated at the distance to Mercury we find that we get 1137.0136 / 440 = 2.58412181818182 and if we further multiply 57,909,050 which is the semi major axis of Mercury we find that we get 57,909,050 x 2.58412181818182 or 149,644,040 kilometers, This shows an accuracy of 149,598,261 (actual semi major axis of Earth) / 149,644,040 = 0.9997 So amazingly with this very simple diagram we have plotted Mercury and Earth to a degree of accuracy of 99.97 % ! We find that we get the following:



Larger image

Well that is nice but it would be better if we could find Venus as well and so I tried this:



Larger image

Now wouldn't it be nice if we could find Venus in this image. I figured the logical place for Venus would be where the diagonal lines cross and so I set about calculating the distance to it. Here is that image.



Larger image

Now I have to admit to scaling these distances as for the life of me I couldn't think of a way to calculate it exactly and here is what I got. The lime green diagonal calculates out to be 3.9874427 units or 318.9954 cubits. This was solved by first scaling to get 202 cubits or about 10.1 squares on the diagram where each square is equal to 20 cubits then using what we learned about right angled triangles and tan I divided 11 by 9 and got 1.222222 and then multiplying this by 202 we arrive at 246.888 cubits or 3.08611 units (2.525 x 1.2222) for 202 by 246.888 is just a mini version of 9 by 11.
Then to get the long side or hypotenuse we just use what we already learned about a² + b² = c² and we get c = √a² + b² or c = √2.525² + 3.08611² or c = √6.375625 + 9.5240749321 or c = √15.8996999321 or c = 3.9874427810 So now let's go back to our overview image and fill in the details and the sizes:



larger image

Okay now to see if it fits to Venus. Well as we know by now that ratio of Mercury to Venus is 1.868601 or 108,208,930 (semi major axis of Venus) / 57,909,050 (semi major axis of Mercury) so to be exact we would need 440 or 5.5 units x 1.868601 and this would give us 822.18444 or 10.2773055

We have 818.02 and 10.23 for an accuracy rating of 99.49 not one of my better efforts but as I said I had to scale the distances. Still it certainly would be close enough if you were going to draw the circles now using these distances. To work out exactly we would need diagonal to equal 3.9353649 instead of 3.987427 this would make our other distances 3.045804 and 2.49502

So is it close enough to draw in Venus ? Well I think so. Now is there an easier way to draw our solar system ? I would think not.



Larger image

And now let's draw our circles and complete this lesson.



Larger image

And all that is left is to add our Giza Rectangle to the image:



Larger image

I mean really could it be any easier ? Could they have made it any easier to find ?

Cheers

Next lesson will be "Teaching a 9 year old how to draw the correct ratios of the planets"

Don't miss it.