New data suggests a design flaw on the great pyramid

originally posted by: Phage
It's a construction flaw, not a design flaw. Unless...

Come on you number fiddlers!

It must be intentional. I bet the offset corresponds to the cube root of the ratio between the distance between Giza and Rome divided by half the distance to the Sun.

Or something.

Lol exactly...

It was probably a result of settling into position as they piled tons upon tons of weight onto the raised plateau (and an issue they undoubtedly caught if it occurred at the time of construction)...
If it was caught,the architect would've addressed it when the limestone cover was installed...the Egyptians were borderline ocd when it came to measuring...

I remain forever in awe of the kings chamber...

Sidenote: obelisks throughout the kingdom are so underrated...it still enraptures me as I imagine the artisans slowly and methodically carving those spectacular monoliths day after day, month after month, year after year.....and then moving them...WOW...

-Christosterone

They probably used light and shadow technique to keep the side running straight.
The light beam could not be exactly parallel or it would cast no shadow.

originally posted by: Sparta

New measurements by the Ancient Egypt Research Associates found the west side of the pyramid ended up slightly longer than the east side, making its base an imperfect square. The east side originally measured between 755.561 and 755.817 feet (230.295 to 230.373 metres), but the west side of the pyramid originally measured somewhere between 755.833 and 756.024 feet (230.378 to 230.436 metres). So the west side may have been off by up to 5.5 inches (14.1 centimetres).

Emphasis mine.

Just one point I`d like to add, It never was a perfect square because it doesn't have four sides, it has eight.
www.catchpenny.org...

a reply to: gps777

good point. very observant, though they still have to pull out a square to split the difference to find the middle of each side. or a circle over the square, maybe. either way theres still got to be a datum in the exact centre.

Too bad the historical records got all messed up with the loss of the Library of Alexandria under Hypatia.
As Phage may have alluded too many of the earlier astronomical foundations were eventually credited to the better known historical players like Aristarchus of Samos and Copernicus.

Back in the 60's all they taught us about SAMOS is that it was a missile program and we had to hide under our desks when the CD siren sounded. Duck and cover, stare up at the bottom of your school desk. 20 minutes we would never get back again.

a reply to: Sparta
Thanks for the info but the title is a bit misleading, for someone to point out a design flaw doesn't it suggest that whoever found the flaw also knows what the object or structure was designed for? Was it a tomb, a power plant, a transmitter, a weapon, a resurrection machine, a time portal etc. Shouldn't the title be "The Great Pyramid's Base is Not Exactly Squared (It's off by 5.5 inches at so and so sides)"

It's like saying that one of the most beautiful woman in the world has a slightly thicker left eyebrow. She's not perfect if symmetry is our yardstick.

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
It's like saying that one of the most beautiful woman in the world has a slightly thicker left eyebrow. She's not perfect if symmetry is our yardstick.

Well no, its not fashion or beauty, but architecture, and symmetry is extremely important in all ancient world monuments,

a reply to: Marduk
It's a metaphor and I'll admit it's a bad one but do we have to ascribe perfect symmetry to all the ancient megalithic structures around the world, like it's not already mind boggling how they achieve such feats?

Oh come now, deep down we all know that the Great Pyramid is a space ship with the aliens taking a siesta inside. It's just parked there for a while, any year now they will wake up, have a coffee, and take off again. The wider side is so they could differentiate the front of the spaceship from the back. Or it might have to do with the propulsion system.

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
a reply to: Marduk
It's a metaphor and I'll admit it's a bad one but do we have to ascribe perfect symmetry to all the ancient megalithic structures around the world, like it's not already mind boggling how they achieve such feats?

Well yes, we do ascribe symmetry to them because they are all symmetrical.
Ideas don't trump facts.
Surely you realise that they were aiming for a perfectly symmetrical pyramid...

a reply to: Marduk
That's an even mind blowing idea, I'm aware of it but now that you pointed that out, I just realized it... so, kudos.

I don't want to split hair and get tied up in semantics but when we say "perfect" symmetry does it mean that a hundredth of a degree or a thousandth of an inch error still won't cut it right? Or do we have to have a realistic concept of perfection with a set of figures for margins of error? A tolerance for perfection or a perfection tolerance, a non sequitur?

Gobeklitepe was 3d scanned with a laser by the German archeologists but I can't find anything on line about it's actual measurements, maybe they scanned the site just for an accurate virtual recreation of the original site? Christopher Dunn measured an Egyptian statute and found out that it's perfectly symmetrical. The stone spheres of Costa Rica was said to be, there it goes again, "perfect" spheres.

Thank you for adding the word perfect to my ever increasing list of words that give me fits. Words like nothingness, infinity, consciousness, energy etc. that we sometimes if not most of the time use arbitrarily.

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
a reply to: Marduk
That's an even mind blowing idea, I'm aware of it but now that you pointed that out, I just realized it... so, kudos.

I'll take that as brilliant sarcasm and give you a star for it

originally posted by: MaxTamesSiva
Gobeklitepe was 3d scanned with a laser by the German archeologists but I can't find anything on line about it's actual measurements, maybe they scanned the site just for an accurate virtual recreation of the original site? Christopher Dunn measured an Egyptian statute and found out that it's perfectly symmetrical. The stone spheres of Costa Rica was said to be, there it goes again, "perfect" spheres.

They just scanned a few of the pillars. not the entire site...

a reply to: Sparta

Darn aliens cant even get that right.

originally posted by: neo96

What are we saying ATS, is this research going to change opinion? That the builders were susceptible to human error?

Means aliens didn't built it.

Or maybe they were just hung over from the welcoming party the night before.

a reply to: Sparta

I'd just like to point out that 14.1cm discrepancy is the difference between the two extremes of the measurements, if we take the difference between the two nearest measurements it's only 5mm out... That's some very precise accuracy over some 230 meters!

Further why do we have two sets of measurements presented in the first place? Is it not possible with modern surveying equipment to measure the sides of the pyramid precisely? I seem to recall there being a slight difference on the North and South sides as well, why is the focus only on the East and West? I'm not getting this research.

a reply to: Sparta

It is still an impressive feat.
We still work within tolerances now.
Overall. Its accurate as it needs to be.
The string line is used to work to a straight edge.
You wouldn't just have it pegged in 2 places over such a long distance. It would have had many pegs. So, would remain tight. C'mon you lot. It wasn't rocket science.
It was a very basic design. Very well engineered.
But, there's nothing special about them.
The effort to make them is really what's impressive.