| Author | Message | ||
     Steve B (62.7.92.235) |
Dear All, Before getting to the main subject of this posting, may I make a couple of comments based on my experiences on this web site over the last 16 months. 1) There is no point at all in posting wild theories regarding the Pyramids in Egypt without first making substantial efforts to prove what you're talking about. If it is just plain nonsense that you wish to post, post it elsewhere and allow the people who use this board for research purposes to communicate. 2) Egyptologists do themselves no favours at all by ridiculing those people who suspect that there is more to the Pyramids than meets the eye. If we do not learn from our history, then we are doomed to repeat it and part of our recent history is the following quote from the German scientist Albert Einstein "Imagination is more important than intelligence". This quote comes from the time before sound bites were important, and is a statement full of meaning. Now on to my posting..... I have spent the last 16 months following my own advice, and pulling my own scientific analysis of the Great Pyramid to pieces to see if it stands up to the test. The following algebraic equation may be of interest to anyone who is really interested in the subject of the pyramids The distance from the block at the end of the lower southern shaft to the lateral dislocation in that shaft is given by.... 2 x Pyramid Base Length x SQR(f) / ( 5 x Pi ) where f is the ratio of the Earths equatorial and polar diametres see : http://dgfi2.dgfi.badw-muenchen.de/geodis/REFS/grs80.html f = 1.00336408986 Since the pyramid is a purely mathematical construction based on the exact shape of the Earth, any point or angle in the pyramid can be specified using similar mathematics (once you've worked it out of course, and that has taken me 16 months) To prove the point, I can quite happily supply the mathematical formula to most parts of the Great Pyramid, and all angles of shafts and corridors. Try me...... Steve B and P.S. - before writing replies to this posting, have another read of points 1 & 2 above. | ||
| Erik Calero (200.76.234.3) |
Hi Steve, Maybe I miss something, but according with Rudolf Gantenbrinck measurements of the Great Pyramid, the lenght of the lower southern shaft from the block to the lateral dislocation is about 57 mts. From your formula : 2(230x4)*sqrt(1.0033640896)/(5*3.1416)= 117.334 or if "Pyramid Base Lenght" must be taken as pyramid base side lenght = 230 mts. then : 2(230)*sqrt(1.0033640896)/5*3.1416) = 29.3337 I think, there some wrong with the formula (maybe a 2 is surplus) Best Regards Erik Calero | ||
| Steve B (213.123.57.91) |
Dear Erik, Your maths is fine, the second of the two equations that you have worked out is the intended one, and the length is indeed 29.3337 m when based on a 230 metre base. It is the total length of the shaft from the southern chamber that is the approx 57 mtrs that you quote. Just an additional note - For the precision in this monument we need to use exact details of lengths, and you would probably be better suited using 9068.8 inches (230.3475m) as the base length from the Petrie survey. Look forward to hearing from you again Steve B | ||
| Helmut (195.93.34.167) |
Steve, You say: "Since the pyramid is a purely mathematical construction based on the exact shape of the Earth. . ." Is this not in violation of your point 1 or where is the proof that it is "based on the exact shape of the Earth. . ."? Furthermore, assuming your calculations are right, what do you deduce from them? The simple fact that a distance between any two points in the GP matches a formula doesn't mean anything in itself. Regards, Helmut | ||
| Steve B (213.123.12.108) |
Dear All, Another example: the height of the entrance passageway above the pavement floor is given by the following formula (shown as a fraction where the top line should be divided by the bottom) Work it out using the previously supplied value of f. Regards Steve B | ||
| Steve B (213.123.12.108) |
Helmut, I would agree with your second statement that
However when all the points in the pyramid fit into the same mathematical model, it definately does mean something. | ||
| Steve B (213.123.12.108) |
Appologies, The value of 'e' in the second equation is half of the pyramid's base length ie 9068.8 / 2 inches. Steve B | ||
| Erik Calero (200.76.234.3) |
Hi Steve, Sorry for the misunderstanding, I was in the belief that the lateral dislocation was the change of angle at the shaft (from the horizontal). After review the cyberdrawings at Gantenbrink's site, I have notice of the called "lateral dislocation" at the lower southern shaft. From the measurements at this cyberdrawing the ending block is at about 59.45 mts. and the lateral dislocation is at about 30.25 mts., so the distance between this 2 points is : d = 59.45 mts. - 30.25 mts. = 29.2 mts. (very close with 29.378045 mts. from your formula) Ok, What's next ? Erik Calero P.S. Without a clear base mathematical model, from these formulas can be derived, I found them disassociated and very complex. May you show this mathematical model to us? Thanks in advance. | ||
| Steve B (213.122.247.87) |
Dear Erik, The following evaluation programme will prove invaluable if you have Auto CAD and want to convert DWF to DWG formats http://www.intelcad.com/pages/dwfin/ Once the original Gantenbrink drawing is converted over to CAD format, you will find that it needs scaling down on the CAD system by 1.23 ie 100 cm on the original drawing is shown by 123 units. (Don't ask me why, thats just how it was drawn/published). From here one can use the measuring tools on autocad to get exact distances off the drawings. The distance that we are talking about for the lower southern shaft is 29.287295 metres according to Mr Gantenbrink. The difference between this measurement and the formula measurement is 9.075 cm, which I am currently assuming is the width of the end block of the shaft. However 1) Notable by its absence on the Upuaut website is any reference to error in the measurements. ie one would expect angles and lengths to be followed by +/- factors. 2) The length of the pyramid base on the Upuaut drawing is 231.000813m,giving 9094.52 inches as the base length. I can find no reference to this figure in any survey ie Petrie gives this length as 9068.8, and can only conclude that the Upuaut drawing is not reliable on the detailed measure. If anyone can argue against this statement, then please do, as I find it hard to believe that the drawing contains errors. Hope this clarifies this subject of the length, and, as to the question of the rest of the model. You are obviously adept at mathematics, and can see into this work. Since I can't see your profile on this board, could you send me an e-mail before we go any further? Best Regards Steve B | ||
| Pope (217.230.69.251) |
Hi! I have a few comments, if you don't mind. 1. You've tried your model on various points of the pyramid I suppose. What was the error margin? 1%? 5%? Does the deviation fluctuate? I'm not a mathematician, but a consistent (percentual) error margin makes sense to me. If the deviation (between your model and reality) varies constantly, would that emply, they were sloppy architects? 2. You're obviously using the modern (9 digit?) value for PI. Do you have any knowledge on what value the Egyptians used? For your model to work, you'll of course need the original value. I found this on the web: The Babylonians found the first known value for Pi in around 2000BC. They used (25/8) The Egyptians used Pi = 3 but improved this to (22 / 7). They also used (256/81). 3. I'll use my imagination and what I come up with is that (if your model is right) "f" could be ratio of volume of two bananas. Or the weight ration of Khufu before and after supper. f = 1.00336408986 Furthermore, this number tells us, the difference between max. longditude and max. latitude is less than 0.34%. Noone without advanced technology is capable of measuring the earth to such precision ... unless you're saying, they had help from "outside". Well, it's a neat idea. Spock and Cpt. Kirk came to earth, Spock helped out with the pyramids, Kirk fell in love with some Egyptian chick ... yeah, that's probably what happened. Or maybe it was God after all? What's the difference ... | ||
| Graham Oaten (210.49.169.191) |
Steve B You are not alone in questioning the measurements of our good friend Gantenbrink. There are many more and if I can find my notes I'll post them shortly. | ||
| Steve B (213.123.37.162) |
Dear Pope, Taking the last two lines of your posting first, may I politely suggest you re-read point 2 in the first of my postings. If you wish to start a trivial slanging match then perhaps this forum is not the appropriate place. On your more serious points, 1) To analyse the accuracy of the mathematical model it would be appropriate to look at the surveying of the pyramid as a starting point. Due to the 'plug blocks' in the ascending passageway, and the lengths of all the slopes inside the Great Pyramid, it can be deduced that the most accurately surveyed part of the GP is the entrance passageway. In comparision to the shaft angles, which have been measured by electronic tilt devices inside Gantenbrinks robots and averaged out , the surveying of the entrance is by far a more accurate and reliable measure. Since the outside of the Pyramid is largely destroyed, none of the estimates of angles of slope from here can provide any sort of reference data. So, the mathematical formulae will be best tested when compared against the angle of the entrance passage, and the deviation against this measure taken as the error margin in the calculations. From the outstanding work of Sir William Petrie (chapter 7 section 36), the angle of this entrance passageway was measured as being 26º 31' 23" +/- 5", which by anyone's standards is a highly accurate measure. To translate this into more understandable terms, if you were to draw a two lines from Berlin to London both with a length of 920km and seperated by this error margin then, the distance between the two lines at the London end would be 22 metres. This is close to the accuracy of the guidance system of a modern missile, and is a particularly accurate measure. So, what does the mathematics of the monument say about this angle? Well, the formula for the entrance passageway is the most difficult of all the angles on the pyramid to work out and is given by the formula (shown as a fraction top line / bottom) giving a resultant angle of 26º 31' 26.00 However the mathematics is based on a starting formula which, to simplify the algebra, has an inherent error of 0.0002115% which is the actual accuracy of the mathematics that I am putting onto this board at present. (I am currently working on the more complex start formulas which have no error margin at all but are significantly more complicated to calculate.) The angle of the entrance passage therefore from the algebra shown above is 26º 31' 26" +/- 0.2" This error is the same for all of the formulae - angles and points, however the surveying errors on the monument vary dramatically, and so the difference between the mathematical model and the surveyed details does not remain constant. 2) I have copies of the Rhind and Moscow papirii on my hard drive, and have spent considerable time studying the mathematical knowledge of the Ancient Egyptians from these texts. It is quite obvious that the Ancient Egyptians didn't have the first idea about the value of pi. However, if you start looking at a problem by first assuming the answer then your study is doomed to failure. ie if you start analysing the construction of the GP by assuming that the architects were mathematically inept, then you will be biasing your study from the outset. 3) I agree that the value of 'f' could be arbitrary, and this is the very challenge that all scientific analysis is about. The trick is to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the value of 'f' is not arbitrary, and with the GP this can be done. For example, you can accurately predict the positions of the Second and third Pyramids at Giza using this number, and the two pyramids at Zawiyet El-Aryan. You are completely correct in your assumtion that you cannot know the value of 'f' without a substantial knowledge of modern science - in fact to be more precice you must have access to space and satellite radar techniques to measure the earth's shape to this accuracy, or at the worst radio telescope interferometry. In conclusion Pope, you are going to have enormous problems with this work because, unlike previous stabs in the dark regarding the dubious origins of the Pyramids of Egypt, I can back up and prove beyond any doubt that it is impossible for these monuments to have been designed without knowledge of an extraordinarily advanced level. I do not and would not question the work of the Egyptologists who have so carefully studied the subject over the centuries - I would be a fool to do so - and I happily accept the fact that the pyramids were built by the AE's (unless of course you guys are all wrong, which I seriously doubt). However I can prove that there is no way that they designed them. Am I suggesting that they had help from the 'outside' ? - no. I am telling you that they did and can prove it ! However, keep on questioning my mathematics, and the moment that you can show me an error in the thinking or working, I will happily back down and concede defeat. Before replying please read again point 2 of my original posting otherwise this topic will draw to a premature close on this board. | ||
| Pope (217.230.69.251) |
Thank you for answering all my questions in such detail. As I said, I'm not the mathematician. I wish you good luck! Over and out. | ||
| Steve B (62.7.87.184) |
Pope, Thanks for the civilised response and the good luck message. Nice to see that two people from opposite sides of the great divide can hold a sensible chat. If you ever wish to discuss the difference between God and star trek in more detail just get back to me.J Best Rgds Steve B | ||
| Erik Calero (200.76.234.3) |
Hi Steve, I sent you two mails but they were returned to me. It seems that your mail server have some troubles or it is in a failure state. Erik Calero | ||
| cthemont@itxpress.com.au (203.221.68.169) |
Hi Steve B, If you care to visit: http://www.horatech.com You may find what your looking for on the 231m bit Regards, Monty J. Bowen. | ||
| Christian Koussiounelos New member Username: cck97 Post Number: 9 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 160.83.32.30 |
There hasn't been a posting here in ages but, I need to ask something. Steve, could you please share the model from which all these formulae are derived? By e-mail if need be. A couple of isolated formulae are no use without the framework from which they are derived. Thank you in advance. Christian | ||
| Andrew Moderator Username: guardian Post Number: 510 Registered: 01-1997 Posted From: 216.78.249.3  |
Please do this by e-mail thanks! |
