Steve B (188.8.131.52)
|Posted on Monday, July 08, 2002 - 07:21 am: ||
As is commonly known, the passageway and chamber system of the Great Pyramid is offset from the North-South axis to the East, and there has been much discussion on this board as to the reason behind this offset. However, in every case that I can find, including many of the established texts on the subject of the Great Pyramid, the authors have made the same glaring error on their drawings, and I include in this list of people Dr Hawass and Mr Gantenbrink.
If you consider a cross section of the Great Pyramid taken through the centre of the passageway system, then this cross section will be (according to the Petrie survey) 287 inches East of the N/S axis, and by definition is NOT below the apex of the pyramid. The cross section will therefore NOT be triangular in shape, but will have the top of the triangle flattened by the appropriate amount.
When the cross section is correctly drawn in this manner, the following diagram shows the detail at the top of the drawing :
What is immediately evident is that the 'missing' apex of the top of the Great Pyramid and the cross section through the passageway centre line coincide down to an accuracy of just a few inches.
I would be interested to hear any comments on this. Is this simply another coincidental piece of the architecture or could it be that the pyramid is not actually missing its upper levels, but has been designed quite accurately in this manner?
Graham Oaten (184.108.40.206)
|Posted on Monday, July 08, 2002 - 10:37 am: ||
In your calculations what upper course do you see as directly under the centerline of the offset passageways.
|Posted on Monday, July 08, 2002 - 04:24 pm: ||
Steve and Graham,
I have the following calculation for the above scenario. If we take the axis as 14 cubits east of pyramid centre, then this axis will intercept pyramid slope, (assuming 14 rise on 11 base)at a vertical height of approximately 262.18 cubits. At this level the dimensions of the missing part would be base 28 cubits and height 17.82 cubits, assuming a height of 280 cubits for completed structure. Therefore the height of the upper course at 262.18 cubits is 5408.77 inches for a cubit of 20.63 inches, this would equate to course 201 which Petrie gives from 5407.9 to 5409.2 inches. Though it must be remembered that Petrie goes to course 203 at a height of 5451.8 inches, with other early explorers stating further courses, though of course earlier explorers are not so reliable as Petries studies.
I would expect many further courses than the 203 noted by Petrie, given the long period of destruction and vandalism with people rolling stones down from the top of the structure. This would appear to rule out the passage axis as defining the original top as described above.
Graham Oaten (220.127.116.11)
|Posted on Monday, July 08, 2002 - 08:55 pm: ||
I obtained the same Keith. I was just curious and tried to find notes of some years ago. When I eventually found them I had course 201 marked down and also noted that Petrie extended his data some two courses and 44 inches above that.
Toldi Mikki (18.104.22.168)
|Posted on Tuesday, July 30, 2002 - 12:57 pm: ||
I see you ,ALL of you have some knowledge,of the piramids...,but can anybody tell me,if IS true?:...that ORIGINALLY on top of the piramids,USE to be a giant chrystal...? Thx.
jd degreef (22.214.171.124)
|Posted on Wednesday, July 31, 2002 - 05:57 am: ||
A few 4th dynasty pyramid capstones have been found, and they're all made of fine limestone. Later ones were on occasion gilded or made of hard stone. Sorry to disappoint you !
John Galt (126.96.36.199)
|Posted on Sunday, September 15, 2002 - 07:24 am: ||
I'm sure many of you have a model of a Pyramid at home. If its made of Plastic, ivory, granite or limestone doesn't mean that somewhere there is a flat topped pyramid lamenting it's loss.
Sometimes I have seen a "capstone" with quite a different angle to it's linked pyramid.
Full marks to Steve B.
Post Number: 247
Posted From: 188.8.131.52
|Posted on Tuesday, October 08, 2002 - 02:09 am: ||
I guess in the end we can't be 100% sure the pyramid ever had a top. What I wanna know is, what kind of world is this where tourists would vandalize at least 2 full layers of blocks by rolling them down the side of the pyramid? Disgusting.
Post Number: 9
Posted From: 184.108.40.206
|Posted on Tuesday, October 08, 2002 - 10:24 am: ||
Am I missing the point here? I was under the impression that the base of the pyramidion of the GP was found a few years ago on the north side of Khufu's satellite pyramid. I have a picture but I don't know how much is original and how much has been restored. Any more information would be very helpful please.
Post Number: 520
Posted From: 220.127.116.11
|Posted on Tuesday, October 08, 2002 - 04:05 pm: ||
This is not believed to belong to the Great Pyramid itself, but to a satellite pyramid, the base remnants of which were discovered in the late 90's while working on the surrounding road.
Post Number: 11
Posted From: 18.104.22.168
|Posted on Thursday, October 10, 2002 - 05:41 am: ||
This is what I had originally thought. The photograph comes from a chapter of Alberto Siliotti's book 'The pyramids' written by Zahi Hawass. The caption with the picture states:
'A large block of limestone found near the satellite pyramid proved to the base of the pyramidion that originally stood on top of the pyramid of Khufu. The pyramidion was restored and completed through the addition of other blocks'
As a pyramid ignoramous I took 'The pyramid of Khufu' to mean the Great Pyramid. Thanks for clarifying this.