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

A simple scale could of been constructed something like this:
A graduation of scale of 100 units equates to one 1 metric cubit (were refer to as 0.4572 metres)

Beneath this scale a length rule the same length but graduated equidistance in 6 parts ( each part represents 60 Degrees around circumference.

Beneath this scale the same "length of rule" but graduated with 600 units. There are 100 units aligned inside each of the individual 6 part.

Beneath this scale on the same length rule but graduated with 628 units. The 628 value determined from taken an actual measurement. They could of done the actual measurement using alternating layer string made specifically to multiple units of 100 cubit centimetres. They take the measurement on circle constructed with radius 100 cubit centimetres. Therefore they find an additional 28 when laying the string around circle wheel circumference. .

Then on the chart of scales have table of increments. The table has two columns the first is radius and the second column Circumference. The use addition instead of multiplication to make the increments.

Radius Length ::: :::: Circumference Length
100 (cubit centimetres) , 628 (cubit centimetres)
100 + 100, ::: 628 + 628 (1256)
100 + 100 + 100, ::: 628 + 628 + 628 = (1884)
100 + 100 + 100 + 100, ::: 628 + 628 + 628 + 628 (2512)
100 + 100 + 100 + 100 + 100, ::: 628 + 628 + 628 + 628 + 628 ( 3140)
100 + 100 + 100 + 100 + 100 + 100, ::: 628 + 628 + 628 + 628 + 628 + 628 ( 3768)

The circle the rope is measuring has the 60 degree intervals marked on the circumference so they can work out a table for fractional solutions by counting directly from rope the number of alternating layed increments in a 60 degree span. They would find using a 100 cubit centimetres graduated layered rope they are getting a value which could be 104 or 105 counts at the first 60 degree mark.


The accuracy of this scale is determined for example on how may alternating layers they can condense into rope. So llets they can manufactured a rope get down to 1000 graduations which represents cubit millimeters and now they can count 1046 graduations
Degrees ::::: Circumference Length
60 ::: 1046
60 + 60, ::: 1046 + 1046 (2092)
60 + 60 + 60, ::: 1046 + 1046 + 1046 (3138)
60 + 60 + 60 + 60, ::: 1046 + 1046 + 1046 + 1046 (4184)
60 + 60 + 60 + 60 + 60, ::: 1046 + 1046 + 1046 1046 + 1046
60 + 60 + 60 + 60 + 60 + 60, ::: 1046 + 1046 + 1046 1046 + 1046 + 1046

The second table is annotated with note saying that for sycnchronising table 1 and 2 for radius fractional solutions add 0 at end of table 1 number selected to produce solution in cubit millimetres.

Using tables i constructed in half hour using simple proportions as an example i want to know the circumference is for a radius of 3 + 1/2 ( half of one) cubit metres

They go to first table and go third row down and obtain 1884
Then they go to second table third row down and obtain 3138
The read the annotated note and add the to 18840

They add the values 18840 + 3138 to obtain 21978 cubit millimetres. As they know One of their cubit metres contains 1000 cubit millimetres.

Hows that compare to
C = 2X Pi X R
= 2 x Pi x 3500 = 21991
error 0.0597 percent


Therefore know one on here use the argument of they didnt know division or subraction because i didnt have to use it, no are decimal points used in their system, it can be done all with adding and subtracting using scales and tables as demonstrated above. It only took simple though logic in my head without referring to any books to produce this system in 1 hour. They knew about Pi no doubt about it.

a reply to: AthlonSavage

All that is a pointless exercise. You can establish the length of any shape by stretching a rope around it and then measuring the rope. In fact that is exactly what Egyptians did, they had a special profession called "rope stretchers" who measured and recorded plot sizes, be they any shape.

What we lack is any evidence Egyptians used the circumference of a circle as a part of an equation to establish its area. They simply did not use circumference in this manner. They used a grid of squares to approximate a circle's area. That's it. This is proven in the corpus of mathematical papyri from ancient Egypt.

People have laid all manner of geometrical grids over the pyramids to attempt to "prove" they correspond to some cosmological significance, but it is all "pi" in the sky conjecture. The OP shares the same sort of predilection as this blogger who believes that every angle of the pyramids - not just those as Giza - can somehow represent every facet of the solar system.

(Image: even the Bent Pyramid - built at the same angle and modified during construction after the collapse of Sneferu's other pyramid at Meidum, is subject to pointless theorizing it represents hidden geometry of the solar system...)

Does this really indicate what the AE were thinking when they built these structures? Absolutely not.

Picking up on what Hanslune said much earlier in this thread:



Why would they build a pyramid to represent the positions of the Earth and Mercury, but then leave Mars and Venus plotted over empty dirt?

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
a reply to: Harte

They had the mathematics ability of division and multiplication because They would need it to be able to create measurement scales and the ability to not only create, the scales but to use them, and convert from one scale to next. You need scales when building just like the would use a sun dial to measure angle of sun from length of shadow. They fully understood angles and scales.

Of course division is actually only a form of multiplication

1 lot of Unit A = 2 lots of Unit B

Halve of B = Unit A

or alternatively twice of Unit A equates to Unit B.

Of course they understood the principal of multiplication and division, and anyone with analytical capability who understands the principals needs will be capable of multiply or subdivide. Hey but people should believe what ever they feel most comfortable with, but for me its not the main stream taught ideas.

And what part of what whole is 0.9549?

Sorry, no, they didn't know how to do this. Please note:

In mathematics, ancient Egyptian multiplication (also known as Egyptian multiplication, Ethiopian multiplication, Russian multiplication, or peasant multiplication), one of two multiplication methods used by scribes, was a systematic method for multiplying two numbers that does not require the multiplication table, only the ability to multiply and divide by 2, and to add. It decomposes one of the multiplicands (generally the larger) into a sum of powers of two and creates a table of doublings of the second multiplicand. This method may be called mediation and duplation, where mediation means halving one number and duplation means doubling the other number. It is still used in some areas.

This is Ancient Egyptian multiplication from the Rhind papyrus. Show us how to derive the properties of division and rational operations from that.

Harte

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
Picking up on what Hanslune said much earlier in this thread:

Why would they build a pyramid to represent the positions of the Earth and Mercury, but then leave Mars and Venus plotted over empty dirt?

LOL Classic misdirection I have already stated that this is an early image I thought was possible but deemed it wrong very early in my research, You and Harte are being totally dishonest.

Here is a true image of what was eventually discovered.

.

a reply to: Ahatmose

LOL Classic misdirection I have already stated that this is an early image I thought was possible but deemed it wrong very early in my research, You and Harte are being totally dishonest.

You posted that 10 days ago, so how is commenting on it being "totally dishonest"???

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
You posted that 10 days ago, so how is commenting on it being "totally dishonest"???

It isn't being dishonest, in any way. But remember, you're trying to use logic and reason to disprove someone who is so stubbornly convinced of their own ignorant, irrational fantasies, that they're blind to logic and reason. No matter how many holes you find in their premise or how much evidence you put forth showing where and how they have erred, they will never admit they're wrong.

He has read this website yet still he lies about this image . Oh well I guess that is all the argument he has got to use.

As I said totally dishonest bordering on outright lying.

.

.

originally posted by: Ahatmose
He has read this website yet still he lies about this image . Oh well I guess that is all the argument he has got to use.

As I said totally dishonest bordering on outright lying.

.

LOL, OP your theory isn't worth doggy-doo. Did you not take into any consideration that the Giza plateau is not a flat, planar surface? How can any of your dimensions be remotely accurate, when one considers the elevation changes between Menkaure's pyramid and Khufu's?

You show these dimensions on a perfectly flat 2D model. There is nearly a 15-20 M elevation change between Menkaure's and Khufu's.

The GPMP rendered wire frame models help illustrate changes in heights between pyramids.

Wireframe Topo map
Giza model

In this thread and on your site, ALL of your measurements do not take into any account elevation changes, rendering them all inaccurate.

a reply to: Ahatmose

LOL Classic misdirection

Like bull fighting, the bull needs to see the Toreador not the cape.
I think you are right about the way the ancient Egypt observations built on one another evolving the system.
It would be similar to surveyors chaining off a known reference distance to use prior to calculating elevations.
So many of the planetary occultations, eclipses and transits would appear completely relative in the beginning.
There is an inscription in one of the pyramids that *might* be a clue.

The White Crown goes forth, having swallowed the Great One, the tongue of the White Crown gulped down the Great One, but the tongue was not seen.

With not much more than a hollow reed tube and the suns corona I think it is possible the Egyptians could have invented arc minutes with arc second accuracy. The Meter still looks like a later kludge but who knows?

Inscriptions describing the 19 year Metonic cycle were found at Newgrange Ireland dating from 6000 BC.
They used the same math for the Antikythera turnkey system developed in Rhodes 80 BC.

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer

originally posted by: Ahatmose
He has read this website yet still he lies about this image . Oh well I guess that is all the argument he has got to use.

As I said totally dishonest bordering on outright lying.

.

LOL, OP your theory isn't worth doggy-doo. Did you not take into any consideration that the Giza plateau is not a flat, planar surface? How can any of your dimensions be remotely accurate, when one considers the elevation changes between Menkaure's pyramid and Khufu's?

You show these dimensions on a perfectly flat 2D model. There is nearly a 15-20 M elevation change between Menkaure's and Khufu's.

The GPMP rendered wire frame models help illustrate changes in heights between pyramids.

Wireframe Topo map
Giza model

In this thread and on your site, ALL of your measurements do not take into any account elevation changes, rendering them all inaccurate.

LOL are you really this much of a simpleton ? In surveying, which by the way I did for about 8 years. elevation corrections are always made and the tape is always held horizontally. Only an idiot or someone who did not have a clue would assume Petrie, and myself, would not have considered that. Try again laddie.

.

a reply to: Ahatmose

Then you know perfectly well that the horizontal distance between each of these points is not the actual distance, when taking into account vertical rise or fall in terrain. You want us to believe the Egyptians built this "solar system model," in 3D, but somehow decided to show these orbital ratios strictly in 2D in plan only.

The mere fact you chose to ignore these actual distances is enough to regard your "theory" as devoid in any factual basis.

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: Ahatmose

Then you know perfectly well that the horizontal distance between each of these points is not the actual distance, when taking into account vertical rise or fall in terrain. You want us to believe the Egyptians built this "solar system model," in 3D, but somehow decided to show these orbital ratios strictly in 2D in plan only.

The mere fact you chose to ignore these actual distances is enough to regard your "theory" as devoid in any factual basis.

LOL When they measure a street with a very large incline do you seriously think they put down on the map the slope distance ? Surely you can't be that stupid ?

Can you ?

.

LOL When they measure a street with a very large incline do you seriously think they put down on the map the slope distance ? Surely you can't be that stupid ?

You are the one who previously in this thread calculated to 20 decimal places the distance between two of these points on the plateau. Now you say the slope between two such points is "no big deal."

That speaks volumes about the ridiculousness of your "theory."

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: AthlonSavage

After doing the calculations it could be Pi or Phi or 7/11.

If they had the mind to calculate a accurately a 7/11 base and height ratio on 3D object that's actually shows a clear comprehension of ratios, and fractions and the analogy of C/R = number would of clearly crossed their minds. The general viewpoint taken by skeptics is because they didn't find Pi written down anywhere therefore they didn't know bout it. I think their is enough evidence displayed in the ingenious geometry constructed to indicate they were aware of the ratio C/R = number.

The problem with this is that the Egyptians never considered their ratios as fractions, or even ratios.

The only "fractions" they knew were parts of whole, such as seven palms per single cubit. They had no mathematical system for doing operations with fractions in general.

Harte

Just to sort of play devils advocate even though I think the OP is wrong in his conclusion. The papyri found would be the equivalent of contemporary academic or eengineering papers. I work in construction and prints will give an arc radius for trim pieces set over a rectangular window. It will give a dimension for trthe desired height front the center of the center arch dowb to the window also. Since many of tthe windows .ae too close to tthe ground to use a string to create the corrct arc the simple way to solve the problem is to utilize a flexible straight edge and three nails to achieve a uniform arch over the window. The same can be done with fractions. If you need 1/2 use a string the overall length, walk one end back to the other and pull the now shorter string taut again. Both if these methods utilize principles in math that we have names for today and may have been utilized by actual laborers completing tasks set to them without their actual understanding of the principles behind what they did. So while the official academic papers preserved show now evidence of using certain principles that does not mean the actual laborers didn't employ technologies taking advantage of those principles.Honestly I think that continues even today with the education afforded people in mamist developed countries. How many workers in America sit and watch a machine knowing raw material goes in and something expected comes out yet can't be bothered to learn what principles actually guide the mechanical processes in between the raw material and end product. It is stick wire in one end and a rivet comes out tthe other. They aare trained what adjadjustments to make if a certain variation occurs but little if any trading on the actual principles behind the process.

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer

LOL When they measure a street with a very large incline do you seriously think they put down on the map the slope distance ? Surely you can't be that stupid ?

You are the one who previously in this thread calculated to 20 decimal places the distance between two of these points on the plateau. Now you say the slope between two such points is "no big deal."

That speaks volumes about the ridiculousness of your "theory."

LOL *louder*

Just curious try this thought. I hope it doesn't short circuit your brain. How much does the slope matter at Giza OR ANYWHERE when viewed from directly overhead ?

LOL

By the way could you point us to a map that shows distances along a slope.

.

Closed for Staff review.

We expect civility and decorum within all topics.

Community Announcement re: Decorum

Terms and Conditions of Use--Please Review