Mysteries :  The Official forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
I’m not convinced about the presence of Imperial feet or the metric system at Giza, nor the speed of light being encapsulated in the dimensions, nor do I believe that the AEs were necessarily tenth-of-an-inch perfect in executing their plans, but I do look at the numerical models that appear here from time to time. I was struck by DUNE’s last post on The Giza Plan, and was intrigued by the equilateral triangle he introduced and particularly its angle of tilt.

It struck me that it’s possible to calculate this angle: by taking the half-width of G1 as 220 x 20.6327 inches and the height of the triangle as 31918.6 by calculation then the tilt is 8.176 degrees (Petrie appears to have it at 7.85). This seems a strange angle, but in the process of drawing the plan I was forced to use the 60 degree complement which is 51.824 degrees. It struck me that maybe this was really 51.8428 degrees - the angle represented by the ratio 14:11 and the slope at G1. This then led me to reconstruct DUNE’s figure but with the ratio 1400:1100 connecting the centres of G1 and G3 (hypotenuse of 1780.5).

If G3 has a base of 200 Royal Cubits then the dimensions of the plateau would be 1420 by 1720 RCs. I reckoned that an adjustment to the pure geometry was probably necessary in view of Petrie’s findings, so I slid G2 down the radius a few cubits to make the gaps between it and G1 250 cubits (NS) and 212 cubits (EW).

The north-south and east-west dimensions are in whole numbers of digits fairly consistent with Petrie’s measurements and findings concerning the mean length of the cubits at G2 and G3 (20.67 and 20.78 inches on the upper band at 68%). That is, different cubits may have been used when setting out all three pyramids.

It doesn’t help DUNE’s cause at all, it’s not exactly Orion’s Belt, and the square root brigade will certainly object to it, but it does follow on from DUNE’s work. There’s sure to be an objection that if Petrie indicates that the hypotenuse is 36856.4 inches then By God that’s what it is and that’s what the AEs intended it to be, not 1780.45 cubits. There’s an apparent difference of 10 feet (3m on 936m) when applying a cubit of 20.6327 inches (524mm), or the mean cubit used when G2 and G3 were plotted was 20.7 inches (525.8mm).

Oh, no it wasn’t!

Options: ReplyQuote

Subject Views Written By Posted
Giza Dimensions: DUNE+ 430 gjb 04-Jun-18 15:24
Re: Giza Dimensions: DUNE+ 105 DUNE 04-Jun-18 17:05
Re: Giza Dimensions: DUNE+ 110 gjb 04-Jun-18 18:53
Re: Giza Dimensions: DUNE+ 113 DUNE 04-Jun-18 20:13
Pyramids and Pyramidiots 201 gjb 08-Jun-18 01:08

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.