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

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

SC: No copyright has been infringed as Ahatmose is indeed Don Barone.

SC

a reply to: Scott Creighton

Then it's curious that Don Barone should push this theory but then has a rival theory posted to his Web page as well: "The Giza Pentagram."



So which theory does he stand by?

If I needed any further convincing that he is just drawing lines over the map of Giza this would be it.

a reply to: Hanslune

However, you appear to be uninterested in any counter-argument, logic, reality, archaeology or anything to do with the ancient Egyptian culture all you seem to want to do is plot dots and do angles - so please go ahead.

Getting into a debate behind Ahat's convoluted theory would be like walking in on Russel Crowe's character from A Beautiful Mind and telling him one of his pushpins was out of place...

originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

SC: No copyright has been infringed as Ahatmose is indeed Don Barone.

SC

Nice to see you Scott. Also nice to see a familiar face and an open mind. Well now that we know who I am why doesn't Hanslune identify him or herself since he/she knew me on another board.

Cheers

Okay I see Tommy and the other children are awake so let's finish our lesson.

Part II: Teaching a 9 year old to build The Solar System and The Giza Plateau

Hi Tommy and those who have decided to follow along. Well we have found a very easy way to remember the distances to Mercury and Earth. Distance to Mercury from our Sun is 1 Giant's Foot. 12 Giant's inches or simply 12 units while Earth works out to be EXACTLY 31 units. That is very interesting but is there anyway we can find the other inner planets (inner planets being Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars with Ceres being on the border) ? Well I thought there might be a way so I started to try a few things. The first logical thing to try was to see if the distance from Mercury to Earth worked into anything and so I took this distance (Mercury to Earth) or 31 inches - 12 inches or 19 inches and tried to see if I could do anything with it. The first step was to draw a 19 inch or 19 unit line 90 degrees to our original line as in the diagram below: (Please remember that clicking on any of the images will give you the larger and true size.)

Now before we go on we have to remember a very simple yet very important mathematical oddity. if you have watched the Wizard of Oz you will have heard The Scarecrow say, on receiving his brain or diploma, the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. This shows symbolically how important this one little thing is and that is that in a right angle triangle, a right angled triangle being a triangle with one angle exactly 90 degrees, that if you square the length of side "A" and then add it to the square of side "B" you will get the square of side "C". It is clearer in this simplest example of this triangle the 3, 4 and 5 unit triangle where 3 x 3 or 9 plus 4 x 4 or 16 is equal to 5 x 5 or 25.

Another way of saying this is that Side C (or 5 in our diagram) is equal to the square root of 25 - (square root simply being that number which when multiplied by itself gives us the number in question: eg. square root of 25 would be 5 ( 5 x 5) and square root of 16 would be 4 ( 4 x 4 ) and the square root of 9 would be (3 x 3 ). In any right angled triangle the small side squared plus the middle side squared WILL ALWAYS EQUAL THE LONGEST SIDE SQUARED ! So in the above diagram 3 would be equal to our 12 while the 4 would equal our 19 unit side. So we need to look at the image below ...

... and try to figure out what our "5" side is equal to. Following our formula of a² + b ² = c² or c = √a² + b² So substituting in our image above we have a = 12, b = 19 and c is unknown at this time. So now all we do is substitute so we get .c = √a² + b² or c = √12² + 19² or c = √144+361 or c = √505 or c = 22.47221 units or inches So the white line in our above diagram is equal to 22.47221 "inches". But having used certain numbers very often I immediately recognized that this number was significant for in a year on Venus there are, wait for it, there are 224.7 Earth Days, This means that Venus orbits or circles The Sun in 224.7 Earth days. I found this very nice that the length equaled the Venus Year in Earth days but could it relate to our drawing of the solar system. Well for this we have to visit NASA where it is said that Mercury is 57,909,050 kilometers on it's semi major axis (remember semi major axis is simply the average distance that a planet is away from The Sun when you take it's closest and furthest approach. Mercury being 69,816,900 km (furthest) and 46,001,200 km (closest) for a total of 115,818,100 and divided by 2 to give us 57,909,050.) Now Venus is 108,208,930. The ratio between them or the number of times Mercury's distance can divide into Venus' distance is simply 108,208,930 / 57.909.0505 and we get 1.868601367. Now since Mercury is our diagram is 12 units Venus would simply be 12 x 1.868601367 or 22.423216406. Not exactly correct but very close. Accuracy would equal 22.423216406 / 22.47221 = 99.78 % Not as close as I would like it to be but heck Tommy is only in grade 3 and I am sure he would get a passing grade. So as a recap now we have:

Mercury = 12 "inches"
Venus = √505 inches
Earth = 31 inches

So now Tommy (or anyone for that matter) can draw the solar system TO SCALE by using just these three simple numbers.

and drawing the orbit

What's that Tommy ... yes you can go out and play now ...

.

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: Hanslune

Now you are ignoring what is known about AE astronomy can you show any evidence that they knew anything about the solar system? Their religion told them that the world was not round and moving but fixed. How do you resolve this contradiction?

The OP also wants us to believe the ancient Egyptians understood the heliocentric nature of the solar system. The AE believed the sun was a supernatural being that traveled across the sky in a celestial boat, this is evidenced throughout their history in a vast number of depictions and writings. The OP wants us to ignore all that and have us believe the AE built a model with the sun at the center. There's a reason pyramidiots have earned that nickname.

Okay as anyone who is in the alternative field knows a usual attack method of any debunker is to misdirect and get people arguing about non related items. A classic example was the magic bullet and how people argued for years about it and took their minds off of any real research. In the above quote this is written:

The AE believed the sun was a supernatural being that traveled across the sky in a celestial boat, this is evidenced throughout their history in a vast number of depictions and writings.

Perhaps Blackwater (how aptly named, after "the good guys" in Iraq and a member of Halliburton I presume) can show us all this information THAT PREDATES or is conjunction with the date of the alleged building of the pyramids. Perhaps he would like to prove this to us by quoting 3rd or 4th dynasty writings to prove this point. To the best of my knowledge there is no such writings from the 3rd and 4th dynasty nor is anything written in 3rd and 4th dynasty pyramids nor is there one single image of The Egyptians building the pyramids. So perhaps Halliburton can show us with proof that the builders of The Pyramids believed this myth about Ra or The Sun with contemporary sources.

And it is claimed I believe in fairy tales ... yeah right. LOL

I fail to see the point of arguing with anyone who claims that the Giza Pyramids can not be enclosed by a rectangle. perhaps Blackwater can show us his proof of why this is not possible. but he won't he will come back with another question totally leading away from answering the questions I have put to him and this is why I ignore him and the others. If they want to question my research fine but all my measurements are accurate and based on the latest stats I could find. So perhaps they can show us why the rectangle is in error and my ratios are in error. The semi major axis of a planet is an important marking of any orbiting body and is listed in every single page of statistics on any planet. To ague that this average is meaningless simply shows one of two things. The people doing the arguing are ignorant when it comes to astronomy or as I always suspect they are simply trying to misdirect.

So why don't you prove to us that the Giza pyramids can not be enclosed by a rectangle.

Can you see what is happening here folks we are about to embark on an entire discourse about how to enclose the three pyramids in a rectangle when all one has to do is look at this image.

Classic misdirection.

Perhaps he will try this argument ... been there done that .

Okay so again I ask PROVE TO US THAT A RECTANGLE CAN NOT BE DRAWN AT GIZA ... or please shut up.

And while you are at it show us how Petrie's diagram and measurements are wrong.





.

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: Scott Creighton

Then it's curious that Don Barone should push this theory but then has a rival theory posted to his Web page as well: "The Giza Pentagram."

So which theory does he stand by?

If I needed any further convincing that he is just drawing lines over the map of Giza this would be it.

Again classic misdirection. We are not arguing my Giza Pentagram Theory we are arguing whether The Giza Plateau and the three major pyramids are showing us our solar system in stone or are simply the result of some quirks of a 9 by 11 rectangle or that they are one and the same. If you want to argue my Giza Pentagram Theory by all means open another thread otherwise and I know this is difficult for you, concentrate on the solar system.

And since you obviously have never done any original research or you would know this, and have no idea of the process, theories generally evolve.

.

Okay maybe a little explanation of what I am doing, why i am doing it and what I feel I am finding.

If you were to go and ask any top astronomer or physicist or mathematics professor why the planets orbit where they do and why they are the size they are they would be unable to tell you because they simply don't know. The Titius-Bode law came very close to explaining distances but no one has ever tried, or least published something that I could read on why the planets are the sizes they are. I believed in The KISS Principal to "keep it simple stupid" and because of legends in The Bible and other sources that the stars and planets and luminaries were placed in the sky so that we could tell time with them. Well doesn't it seem just a bit odd that this story would be placed in legends so far in our past. This led me to believe that perhaps the answers were simpler than we imagined and this started me on a search to find some answers. If you don't believe me write to NASA as I did and ask them two simple questions. 1) why do the planets rotate in the orbits that they do and 2) why are they the sizes that they are. I was told they honestly did not know. But in ancient legends there are all kinds of stories of the Gods, the planets and I felt all we had to do was to decipher these legends to get a bit closer to the truth. I also felt that IF, note here I said IF there was a "creation or Creator" then the legends may have been true and the answers were in the planets and the stars so i set about to see what I could find. Since The Ancient Builders had totally unpolluted skies and all the time in the world and we know they studied the skies religiously then perhaps they figured out the simple math that I have found. So everyone jumps on me and says I am wrong but no one ever offers an alternative solution to why Mercury orbits at 57,909,050 and Venus at 108,208,930 . I show a simple method to figure this out using what we have been left, The Giza Pyramids, and it is immediately dismissed because the preconceived notion is that in the 3rd and 4th dynasty this was not known but no one ever offers proof FROM THE 3RD AND IVTH DYNASTY to prove it. They always use later sources. Anyway think what you will but that is basically the background of why I pursue the course I do and did. If they had been able to answer my questions I would not have needed to turn to the past and Giza to find the answers revealed to me. Why only to me and a couple of others ? Well pretty simple really, We were the only ones who looked.

But moving on ....

Part III: Looking for Mars - Teaching a 9 year old to build The Solar System and The Giza Plateau

Hi again all. Today we are going to try to find Mars. This is going to be the beginning of an interesting exercise and it may be a bit advanced for the average reader but I will try to make it as simple as possible. At the moment we have:

Mercury = 12 units (exactly)
Venus = √505 or 22.47221
and Earth = 31 units (exactly)

What will Mars equal ?

The diagram I have started has some unusual properties which we will discover later but for now let's do another one of those right angled triangle calculations. This time we are going to use the distance from The Sun to Mercury added to the distance from The Sun to Venus. This gives us 12 (Mercury distance) plus √505 or 22.47221 (Venus distance) and we get 34.47220505. This will be our "B" side. Our "A" side will be 19 units so we will have this configuration: Our "B side is in red and our "A" side is in baby blue.

So our long side is remembering our formula of c = √a² + b² or C = √34.47220505² + 19² so doing the math we find that our C side is equal to √1549.33292130186 or 39.361566550403727100264412305514. Forgive the long number here but it is imperative to show the accuracy of my next point. Here is the diagram:

Okay now it is back to NASA for the correct distance to Mars. Checking their website (NASA's) we find that the semi major axis (remember just the average of furthest and closest) of Mars is equal to 227,939,100 km. Now a by product of this diagram is a very interesting relationship. We find that if we take 5/6ths of Mercury's inches or 10 inches we find this:

Mars is 227,939,100 km
Mercury is 57,909,050 km
The ratio ( or the number of times Mercury's distance can be divided into Mars distance) is 3.9361567837842272

And now if we divide 10 (our new distance for Mercury) and divide it into our pink line above of 39.3615665504037271 we get 3.93615665504037271

On checking for the accuracy of this we find this:

3.9361567837842272 / 3.93615665504037271 = 0.999999967 or 33 billionths or a virtual match !

Okay but what can we find still using Mercury as 12 inches. Well really the only thing I could come up with to find a close match was to take the distance from The Sun to Earth or 31 inches and add 51 divided by Pi to it. Why it works I don't know at the moment but we really are just teaching Grade 3 here. So 51 / Pi = 16.2338042 and if we add this to Earth or 31 inches we get 47.2338042 inches. if we divide this by our Mercury base of 12 we get 47.2338042/ 12 or 3.936150349614444. since we already know what it should be from above (The ratio ( or the number of times Mercury's distance can be divided into Mars distance) is 3.9361567837842272) we get a ratio or accuracy rating of:
3.936150349614444 / 3.9361567837842272 = 0.99999837 or 1.7 millionths ! So now we have the four inner planets easily drawn and easily remembered. They are as follows:

Mercury = 12 units or inches
Venus = √505 units or inches
Earth = 31 units or inches
Mars = Earth + 51/Pi or 31 + 16.2338042 or 47.2338042 units or inches

And we arrive at this image:

I hope this has made it easy for you and you should now be able to remember and draw our solar system with no trouble at all.

But this diagram shows us so much more and this we will discuss in our next posting.


.

Okay let's get way from solar systems and pyramids for a while and just study a very simple diagram. It is a diagram that has on it a circle with radius of 12 units and another with radius of 31 units and a point on a third circle using 19 (31 - 12) as a base and we get this very simple diagram.

The radii of the three circles are 12, √505 or 22.472205054244231864598140445491 and 31

But surprisingly within this apparently simple diagram lives some very interesting things.

After we do this to the diagram surprisingly, at least to me, the angles we arrive at are doubles of each others or twice another angle. Here is the configuration we arrive at.

For example read this:

Okay at this point a very quick lesson on trigonometry and incorporating what you learned about before. Right angle triangles have a second guiding principle and that is that if the sides are in ratio to each other the angles will always be the same and the tan or the ratio between side A and side B will be the same as well. For example we are going to use side 19 and side 12. The ratio between 12 and 19 is 12/19 or 0.631578947368. the neat thing about right angled triangles is that any ratio that agrees with this for example 24 / 38 or 48 / 76 or even 18 / 28.5 will yield the ratio of 0.631578947368 and this we call "the tan " of the angle. A "tan" of 0.631578947368 can and does yield only 1 possible angle. So even though all these ratio have different numbers the ratio remains the same and then so does the angle. So in the old days we would have to either figure out the angle or consult a book but now most calculators have the function built in so we would simply key in 12 / 19 up would come 0.63157894736842105263157894736842 you would then press inverse tan and we would get an angle of 32.2756443 degrees. It is that simple.

Now another thing we have to know is that all triangles when their interior angles are added together ALWAYS EQUAL 180 DEGREES So in the triangle of 12, 19 and 22.47220505 we have an angle of 90 (by definition of right angled triangle) and 32.2756443 so this would mean the other missing angle HAS TO EQUAL 180 - 90 - 32.2756443 or 57.724355685422368135731924931312. Again forgive the long number but it is imperative to prove a point. Since 90 degrees is always a given it is quicker and the norm to simply take the one angle from 90 degrees for example 90 - 32.2756443 = 57.7243556... So to sum up a tan (or cotangent) is simply the ratio of the small side into the medium side (or reverse) Every angle has a tan and an inverse or cotangent and they are always different except for the only exception and that is 45 degrees where they are the same.

So now let's solve for our diagram and calculate the angles involved in the diagram. I am first going to label the angles as so:

Angle a would simply be tan of 19 /12 or 1.5833333 or angle of 57.724355685422368135731924931312

Angle c is 90 - 57.724355685422368135731924931312 or 32.275644314577631864268075068688

Okay now let's solve for B. Angle b would be tan of 19 / 34.472205054244231864598140445491 or 0.55116868706548588761042844449951 and we find that this relates to angle 28.862177842711184067865962465656

Angle d is 90 - 28.862177842711184067865962465656 or 61.137822157288815932134037534344

On the surface this doesn't seem overly important but it is showing us an amazing thing. The two angles off of the main line of 34.7422 are EXACTLY in the ratio of 1 to 2. That is that angle 57.724355685422368135731924931312 is EXACTLY double the angle of 28.862177842711184067865962465656 2 x 28.862177842711184067865962465656 = 57.724355685422368135731924931312

THEY ARE EXACTLY DOUBLE OR 1/2 OF EACH OTHER. SO IN OUR LITTLE DIAGRAM WE HAVE MANAGED TO FIND A WAY OF SHOWING HOW TO DRAW ONE HALF OF ANOTHER ANGLE.

Angle a = 57.724355685422368135731924931312
Angle b = 28.862177842711184067865962465656

Angle "a" is exactly and I mean exactly twice angle "b"

But I then found this ratio and diagram in the most unusual of places and that will be for our next posting.

.

PS: And I am afraid this diagram is neither wrong or contrived. I guess all The Nay Sayers will be able to say to this post is ... so what and then their true ignorance will be shown.

PSS: Se we have a solving of doubling or halving an angle. In any right angle triangle if we add the hypotenuse to the short side and join the vertex at where the middle length side and the hypotenuse meet the resulting angle will be precisely 1/2 of the original angle opposite this point. Very neat .

PSSS

Angle c = 32.275644314577631864268075068688
Angle d = 61.137822157288815932134037534344

And Angle c + Angle b = Angle d

.

.

a reply to: Ahatmose

Perhaps Blackwater (how aptly named, after "the good guys" in Iraq and a member of Halliburton I presume) can show us all this information THAT PREDATES or is conjunction with the date of the alleged building of the pyramids. Perhaps he would like to prove this to us by quoting 3rd or 4th dynasty writings to prove this point. To the best of my knowledge there is no such writings from the 3rd and 4th dynasty nor is anything written in 3rd and 4th dynasty pyramids nor is there one single image of The Egyptians building the pyramids. So perhaps Halliburton can show us with proof that the builders of The Pyramids believed this myth about Ra or The Sun with contemporary sources.

And it is claimed I believe in fairy tales ... yeah right. LOL

What makes replying to your rants is how disjointed your thought process appears to be. Since the above diatribe was in response to my statement that the Egyptians believed the sun represented Ra, then perhaps it would interest you to know that the son and immediate heir to Khufu's throne was Djedefre, whose throne-title was Sa-Rê, the “Son of Ra.” Ra was of major importance in the 4th and 5th Dynasties, as was his abode/cult center in Heliopolis - in which the leading theory is that the Giza necropolis, Abusir acropolis, and Saqqara all align to.

a reply to: Ahatmose

Again classic misdirection. We are not arguing my Giza Pentagram Theory we are arguing whether The Giza Plateau and the three major pyramids are showing us our solar system in stone or are simply the result of some quirks of a 9 by 11 rectangle or that they are one and the same. If you want to argue my Giza Pentagram Theory by all means open another thread otherwise and I know this is difficult for you, concentrate on the solar system.

Your Pentagram theory is germane to the discussion. It shows how geometric patterns can be used to instill a false belief they had anything to do with the planners of Giza's intentions. You applied the same "logic" (and I hate to call it that in your case) to "prove" Giza was designed according to some pentagram geometry, then you produced a contradictory theory that Giza was designed according to the Solar system geometry. Two opposing theories, both made by you, using an overlay of geometry and trigonometry that had nothing to do with the ancient Egyptians.

a reply to: Ahatmose

So why don't you prove to us that the Giza pyramids can not be enclosed by a rectangle.

Never said that. I said Petrie's survey map never enclosed the three pyramids in a perfect 9x11 rectangle. And realistically, Menkaure's pyramid is not orthogonal to the rest. But I see you "tweaked" that to get your perfect rectangle.

a reply to: Ahatmose

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

So how could the Egyptians know what the modern Meter would be? What is the point of mixing Meters, Feet, and Cubits into a single equation? The cubit is not a standard of measure - it ranges from 20.6 to 20.8 inches.

Why would you write "but what about The alleged English system of feet and inches ?"

There's nothing "alleged" about it. It actually exists.

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 )

Why do you criticize others for an answer that is 0.03 off, when your own answers are off by 0.1? How did you decide the cubit is 20.62 inches? Was that done to make your equations work? In other words, that number was picked by you to give you your desired outcome and not based on any factual evidence from Egypt.

The difference between 59.99 and 60 blown up to the scale of the solar system would be huge.

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.

"Ancient man probably used the solar system to base his measurement" - nonsense.
"or someone familiar with the heavens set up these measurements" - so this is an ancient aliens premise.
"that is why all measurement system work here at Giza" - nonsense.
"because it is the solar system in stone ( a scale model) and all measurement types are found in our solar system" - nonsense.

OP don't' concern yourself so much with Astrology. Stick to Cosmology. Don't think about Sirius. Think about Venus. The stars were simply used later on to depict where the planets resided in our skies (after they had gone from view).





Take the Egyptians literally in the beginning. They have no reason to lie. But just remember they are trying to explain the events happening in the skies through the experiences of man down here on the ground.

Sorry if i'm sounding really retarded but the Egyptians did worship Ra the *sun* God.
That being said a pyramid probably was themed after the sun and its motion.
Details like the Solstice and equinox would have been noticed.
There were Egyptians that could easily calculate pi to 9 places using the prime number 73.
We have pages and pages of serious replies from people on ATS who STILL don't have a clue what pi is!!
This would be hilarious if it were not so sad

a reply to: Cauliflower

There were Egyptians that could easily calculate pi to 9 places

They used an approximation of pi, the closest they ever got was 256/81. They did not use decimals so "9 places" has no bearing.

originally posted by: RancorXXX
a reply to: Ahatmose

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

So how could the Egyptians know what the modern Meter would be? What is the point of mixing Meters, Feet, and Cubits into a single equation? The cubit is not a standard of measure - it ranges from 20.6 to 20.8 inches.

Why would you write "but what about The alleged English system of feet and inches ?"

There's nothing "alleged" about it. It actually exists.

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 )

Why do you criticize others for an answer that is 0.03 off, when your own answers are off by 0.1? How did you decide the cubit is 20.62 inches? Was that done to make your equations work? In other words, that number was picked by you to give you your desired outcome and not based on any factual evidence from Egypt.

The difference between 59.99 and 60 blown up to the scale of the solar system would be huge.

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.

"Ancient man probably used the solar system to base his measurement" - nonsense.
"or someone familiar with the heavens set up these measurements" - so this is an ancient aliens premise.
"that is why all measurement system work here at Giza" - nonsense.
"because it is the solar system in stone ( a scale model) and all measurement types are found in our solar system" - nonsense.

Honestly I am really very surprised at the apparent total close mindedness on this hoard. I really should not give this reply the time of day as again it must have come from Switzerland but I guess it can only serve to see the level my detractors are at.

So how could the Egyptians know what the modern Meter would be? What is the point of mixing Meters, Feet, and Cubits into a single equation? The cubit is not a standard of measure - it ranges from 20.6 to 20.8 inches.

Well obviously this diagram went right over your head.



Larger image of above

1 meter represents the distance from The Sun to Earth
1 cubit represents the distance from Earth to Mars
5 feet or 1 meter + 1 cubit = distance from The Sun to Mars.

Why would you write "but what about The alleged English system of feet and inches ?"
There's nothing "alleged" about it. It actually exists.

Seriously ? Well if they were using these "English" distances 2500 or more BC then they could hardly be called English now could they since I do not believe England was around at that time.

Why do you criticize others for an answer that is 0.03 off, when your own answers are off by 0.1? How did you decide the cubit is 20.62 inches? Was that done to make your equations work? In other words, that number was picked by you to give you your desired outcome and not based on any factual evidence from Egypt.

The difference between 59.99 and 60 blown up to the scale of the solar system would be huge.

I really want all to notice the level of expertise of my detractors here as he subtracted 59.99 from 60.00 and got 0.1 and suggested that I criticize people for being 0.03 off. Firstly that is 99.97 % and I hardly would criticize that and not only is 60.00 - 59.99 NOT 0.1 BUT IS 0.01 and yields an accuracy rating of 59.99 / 60.00 = 99.9833

So this is the level of intelligence of the person who wrote:

"Ancient man probably used the solar system to base his measurement" - nonsense.
"or someone familiar with the heavens set up these measurements" - so this is an ancient aliens premise.
"that is why all measurement system work here at Giza" - nonsense.
"because it is the solar system in stone ( a scale model) and all measurement types are found in our solar system" - nonsense.

Now what was The Scarecrows favorite line ?

.

The Egyptian knowledge of Pi is still esoteric.
Archimedes polygon method for approximating pi is a good thought experiment for children.
When I was 5 years old the missing triangle in the Vitruvian man puzzled me?
You might wonder if the ancients had built a calculator based on something like standing waves in a pool of water in an attempt to factor pi.

The Vatican commissioned works of art by Artists such as Da Vinci to historically document some of these achievements.
Turns out that calculating pi to 9 places in base 10 is a somewhat rare mathematical feat that can be accomplished with the necessary intelligence.

So were the Egyptians just the first culture to enshrine the sun god Ra with a four sided pyramid?

If you discovered the secret 10,000 years ago who would be around to understand?

Or how about 3 billion years ago?

en.wikipedia.org...

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.

a reply to: Cauliflower

The Egyptians did not know Pi - they never recognized the ratio between circumference to diameter.

They approximated Pi using area. They used the "method of squares," as shown below (this is sourced from Derek Hitchin's blog): visit his blog to understand how this method worked. In the image below, the green and blue areas are equal.



The "method of squares," as the Egyptians give in the Rhind papyrus:

Q: A circular field has diameter 9 khet. What is its area?

A: Subtract 1/9 of of the diameter which leaves 8 khet. The area is 8 multiplied by 8, or 64 setat.

πr2 = 63.61725. Using the "method of squares" gives 64, a pretty good approximation, without using Pi.

Hitchin's blog goes into the details of how they determined the use of 1/9th of the diameter to get an approximation of the area. Once they got an area, they could get a volume of a cylinder by simply multiplying it by its height. They could confirm this approximation by then filling the cylinder (or silo) with grain.

The GP never used Pi to determine its slope. It used a seked of 7 to 5-1/2, or expressed in whole numbers, 14:11. From Hitchin's blog:

The proportions relate to angles as follows. Take Khufu's Great Pyramid with a ratio of 7:5-1/2, or 14:11, vertical: horizontal. If we take the inverse tangent of 14/11, we get 51.84 degrees, or 51 degrees 50 minutes and 34 seconds. That's 6 seconds off from the usually-quoted figure of 51 degrees, 50 minutes and 40 seconds. Pretty close.

The "squaring the circle" of the GP, used to bolster the claim the Egyptian's knew of Pi, results in an incorrect angle of 51 degrees 51 minutes. The seked gives the more accurate slope. (BTW, Egyptians never expressed angles in degrees, they expressed them as a measure of vertical rise to horizontal run, the seked, and each pyramid had a different seked. After the disaster at Snefru, which had a seked of 7:5, the architects of Khufu's had to tone it down, to a gentler 7:5-1/2.)