> DUNE Wrote:
> > Some time ago now i was asked if i could
> > all my posts into some sort of understandable
> > sequence of coincidences that would add up and
> > seen as anecdotal plausible evidence for my
> > hypothesis that Giza has its origins in a
> > preconceived geometric plan, using numbers in
> > various different values of a unit of measure
> > seems to be identical to the modern British
> > and foot, many of the results shown in my
> > reveal numbers that should only be taken
> > ...
> > Im sure there are more square root of three
> > encoding's at Giza but i think the above
> > would now be seen more than just
> coincidences,(for most).
> > DPP
> I’ve attempted to keep up with you because I’m
> a firm believer in trials of this sort when people
> are prepared to undertake them, usually against
> the odds, because archaeologists wouldn't go
> anywhere near them. They declare so much of this
> sort of thing to be nonsense without doing the
> work beforehand, but in my view the suggestion of
> a ratio is a ratio irrespective of the units
> involved, provided the components are present in
> the structure under review (no numbers produced
> out of nowhere).
I agree with with what you say in your above paragraph, specifically why archaeologists fear to go down this road, as the subject of linear measurement of the ancients is rather dry and un-sexy, and what with their dismissal of the premise that Giza is a unified construct kinda puts a block on any thinking along those lines.
> At one point you say the AEs were susceptible to
> error, but here you seem to be presenting an
> argument that they were precision geometers, which
> leads me to wonder whether you might reject an
> approach suggesting they were merely accurate.
I think i can have my cake and eat it, my hypothesis is that there was a Super geometric plan that was drawn up at the very beginning, and as much as they intended to stick to the plans dimensions they kept making mistakes in the actual placing and construction of the pyramids as we can clearly deduce from those changes seen at Giza like G1's so called Trial passage, not so much a Trial but more of a cock up by the site manager, i wonder if he enjoyed a long life, then you have G2's Double entrance, where one entrance is outside the base of the pyramid, again another mistake in placement that when discovered made them move some 98 ft further South, and then G3's placement right on the edge of the Mokattam formation, why there ? , and then another mistake in its size, as there is evidence of it being enlarged after it was discovered it fell short of the plan , although its center position was spot on its base area needed to be extended .
So yes their precision is at odds with what actually took place during construction, but i think it shows that once they recognised their mistake they put it right, no matter what the consequences of putting it right were , which further supports the hypothesis that they were working to a plan, even though it may have been spread over the life span of at least three Kings of that time period.So merely accurate doesn't work for me as im trying to reconstruct the original plan and not necessarily what modern measurements say is there.
> Also, apart from the historical tradition of such,
> what made you first suppose that the AEs
> might have employed a unit approximating to the
> inch? What pressing observation raised your
> suspicion that the base unit was not one of those
> of which we’re aware?
Now that's a hard one to answer
Well i have always had a problem with their body parts units of measure, they may have been ok for general utilitarian purposes for buying goods , ie trading with others , therefore giving a standard for their society to operate on.
But when it comes to building the most exact and symbolic structure of their time with a view to impart some specific information that would travel through time to our day, then the unit of measure they chose would be crucial to imparting whatever information they wanted to encode, of course not forgetting my premise of there being an outside source for the Giza plan, ie my time traveler's who took their every day cubit and used it in their plan for Giza so that when in the 21st century we used our inch to measure Giza it would reveal what was encoded, so it may be right that they did not use a cubit that was equivalent to our modern inch and were completely oblivious of the encoded information they were building into Giza, please bear in mind that this is a work in progress and of course is pure speculation on my part, but due to what i am finding there is no other explanation for our modern inch working so perfectly at Giza.
> You must obviously have realised from the start
> that you’re competing with some fairly simple
> hypotheses: G1 base to height ratio 11:7 on 440
> cubits, or G2 3:2 on 411 cubits. One might also
> argue, at a stretch, G3 81:50 on 202.5 cubits
> (phi), with a suggestion that 89:55 might
> appear in G1. So, maybe the discussion might
> initially be approached on the basis of a choice
> of alternatives.
Of course i have looked at the alternatives to some degree , but because of the overriding square root of three ratio being found at Giza by using the inch is just too powerful to ignore, so to use an alternative ratio and other units of measure would be ignoring what is so blatantly obvious from my perspective, but can any of us avoid the trap, if trap is the right word ,of finding what one is looking for because its what we are looking for .
> Without wishing to cover old ground, let’s just
> assume that there’s a super geometric plan at
> Giza, but what form might it take and have you hit
> on the only option? Like many others, I’ve also
> searched for the square root of three (height of
> an equilateral triangle with sides of 2) at the
> Giza complex, but looking for a ratio as simple as
> 7:4, 12:7, 19:11, 26:15 etc., but I note that
> 97:56 = 1.7321 (that is, your estimate).
> One might observe, from an early observation of
> yours - one side of your Giza Triangle being
> 1732.1 cubits - that the triangle could have
> proportions of sqrt2, sqrt3 and sqrt5 (perhaps, as
> above, based on 56 representing 1) thus being 1422
> (79 x 18), 1746 (97 x 18) and 2250 (125 x 18)
> cubits of 20.5 inches (not that I’m saying this
> is so), but you and many others will tell me that
> this cannot possibly be correct because we
> ‘know’ the cubit wasn’t this length. So,
> drop this hypothesis.
> Of course, as previously observed, the cubits used
> in the parts may have been of slightly different
> lengths (piecemeal development). However, do you
> have any pressing reason why the sides of the Giza
> Triangle could not possibly have proportions of
> sqrt2, sqrt3 and sqrt5 times 1000 cubits of 20.63
> inches (524mm)?
> Calculation and comparison
> sqrt2 x 1000 cubits of 20.63" = 29175 inches
> v. your 29227 (variance -52")
> sqrt3 = 35732 v. 35713 (+19")
> sqrt5 = 46130 v. 46149 (-19")
> Given the distances involved, wouldn’t you say
> that this would be fairly accurate as an
> alternative to your hypothesis? The average cubit
> would be 20.64" based on the numbers you give.
Well they are a fair bit away from Petries determination of the Giza site 52" , 19" & 19" , again im kinda tied into Petries findings so for your figures to work as intended then you would have to give a good reason for why Petrie was so far out from your suggestion.
> I’m suggesting, then, that the sides might
> represent the first three irrational square roots;
> you suggest that just one of them does. You
> suggest the dimensions are in inches; I suggest
> they’re in cubits, potentially that of G1
> (523.5mm to 524mm?)
Well there have been cubits rods found that correlate to your above figure , and one cubit would fit my suggested mean base figure for G1 by 440 is 20.6125" or 523.5575mm , as 440 x 20.6125 = 9069.5"
> So, what is it in the first instance, based solely
> on this triangle, would you say would convince
> people that yours is the better of these two
> competing super geometric hypotheses? That is to
> say, does your hypothesis start at all well
> in comparison?
Well i would say , and i dont think i have said that my hypothesis is solely based on that equilateral triangle, although it does seem a very important aspect of the geometric plan that Giza is based upon , as it forms time related points on that overlayed clock, therefore the triangles purpose may be in fixing the time in relation to the circle and the position of the pyramids base projected lines that correlate to those times on the clock face.
It really does get complex, and i feel others who see worth in my findings would be better equipt to take it further as i feel ive reached my limit in this venture.
So in ending here here,s two more diagrams showing what may have been intentionally encoded into these pyramids by the designers, who seem to have knowledge of a future unit now known as the inch .
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 29-May-16 14:31 by DUNE.