> Origyptian Wrote:
> We are world's apart here.
Yes, apparently for the foreseeable future, at least on the star alignment front, so we need to agree to disagree.
> > And I'm sure you understand that if a
> > monument at the 30N latitude was intended to point
> > to the celestial north, the passage would be built
> > at a 30 degree angle and not at 26.5 with the
> > hopes of catching a brief glimpse of a nearby star
> > during its off-axis excursion.
> If they built it at this time and this is where
> Thuban was they would have little choice other
> than to align it this way. Also, as I said before,
> an interesting thought is this "divine angle" as
> it were was derived at Abydos/Thinis which the
> celestial pole would have been c. 26.5. And,
> again, its not a "nearby star", just "any 'ol
> star" as you keep trying to make it out to be, its
> the pole star. This is significant.
It's called the "pole star" only because it's the star that's the closest (ergo most "nearby") to the pole, but it was not aligned with the pole. In fact it wasn't even the closest to the pole at that time (not for a couple more centuries would it be the closest it would get to the north pole). So I still don't understand why the builders would be interested in Thuban at its lowest excursion at 26.5 degrees (a full 3.5 degrees off-axis) rather than focus on the celestial north pole at 30 degrees. Surely if they could calculate the cardinal points without a physically visual delineation of them, they certainly should have been able to calculate the celestial north pole without needing an "X" star to (sort of) mark the spot (and how did they measure that, exactly?). After all, G1 is only 2'28" off exact cardinal alignment. That's only 0.04 degree error which is 2 orders of magnitude higher precision than the huge 3.5 degree off-axis tolerance provided by Thuban, so it seems clear that they did not need a visual north star but, instead, were quite capable of calculating the true north pole.
So why point at Thuban only at the time of day when it's specifically at 26.5 degrees above the horizon since, in the course of a single day, it would have revolved a full 360 deg around the north pole in a circle that varies from 26.5 degrees to 33.5 degrees above the horizon. Why not pick any other angle within that excursion rather than the actual pole angle of 30 deg? By the way, a 3.5 degree off-axis error circumscribes a path that's about 1.5" in diameter measured at arm's length against the sky. That's a significant error, according to known G1 engineering precision.
In my opinion, this entire narrative clearly reveals a hypothesis in which (for reasons unknown to me) the builders would be far more interested in the position of that off-axis (by 3.5 degrees) star at a specific time of day than they were in the north pole angle. So what's so important about Thuban that they wanted to capture that position during that specific time of day when it was at that particular angle in its excursion around the north polar axis rather than just capture the north polar axis itself? And how were they able to somehow capture that star position (presumably at night), capture it mathematically or structurally such that they could spend an untold number of years constructing a passage over 100m long (presumably during the day), much of which goes into bedrock. I still need a bit more rationale to understand the motive behind that very complex engineering project before I can give it the credibility you seem to think it deserves.
Abydos is at latitude 26.18, Thinis is at 26.33; neither are at 26.5.
> > Well, that may be one logic, but then when you
> > consider that many pyramid causeways are at the
> > same 4.6 degree incline, what so you suppose is so
> > "logical to conclude" about what they are
> > pointing at?
> No, I don't as the causeways were set at this
> angle to achieve a certain rise and run and have
> no implied stellar function regardless. You are
> attempting to create a circular argument that if
> we apply this logic to one set therefore it must
> apply to all which depending on their function
> there is no reason to believe they were designed
> for the same purpose.
> And the only reason why you make these arguments
> is because once again it implies a date you do not
> want. If the LC built the pyramids hundreds of
> thousands of years ago do you not think it
> possible they too used stellar markers to align
> the pyramids and DP? Regardless of when, it seems
> obvious they did.
And once again, please stop trying to visit my intentions and just mind the words being posted. You keep insisting you know what I "want" but you do not. It is as if you are the one who "wants" me to want a different scenario, and perhaps that's because it's difficult to find the logic that would justify the star alignment scenario in the first place.
My only point is that since there are other consistent angles throughout ancient Egyptian architecture, it seems like cherry-picking to claim that one angle necessarily "points to" something in the sky while other angles do not, without providing a logical rule that discerns a reason for that discretion. I haven't seen anyone present such logic yet. In fact, we've already heard arguments regarding the possibility of a friction-related function for passage angle which has nothing to do with star alignment.
> > I hear you, and I disagree with that notion. Why
> > point at the closest star rather than the
> > celestial pole itself?
> Its the closest fixed point to sight a line.
But it's not a fixed point at all. An off-axis star is in constant motion as it circumscribes the north pole. It makes a complete 360 degree revolution about that pole every 24 hours. Thuban would have been a moving target during every second of every day. And considering that when Thuban may have been visible during apart od the day in 3000 BC, it would have been a full 3.5 degrees off-axis in its excursion (30N lat vs. 26.5 deg DP), that's quite a large movement for such an allegedly "fixed point". How do you think the builders were able to capture the position and angle of that "fixed point" during that specific time each day and during the many years it likely took to build that passage? Surely no one believes Thuban would have been visible as a "fixed point" in that same position in the sky during the entire construction of that 100m passage.
> > Again, many things are designed to tilt at a
> > certain angle, but that doesn't necessarily mean
> > they're all designed to "point at" something.
> Then you understand the point I make above about
> the causeways.
I do not. Sorry. Just because the DP is steeper than those 4.6 degree causeways does not mean it is pointing to something while the others are not. So what is the rationale that makes you believe the DP is pointing at something?
> > Aside from all those causeways at 4.6 degrees,
> > modern stairways often show a standard incline
> > between 30 and 37 degrees, so what are they
> > "pointing at"? A standard ramp for a wheelchair is
> > about 5 degrees; what's it pointing at?
> > What's the GG/AP pointing at? What do the inclined
> > gabled roof blocks point at? what do the walls of
> > the pyramids point at?
> > Where do you draw the line at whether something is
> > "pointing at" something vs. has an inherent
> > function that simply requires that level of incline?
> Like this you mean:
No idea what you mean by that. I see no reason to believe the incline in your diagram is necessarily intended to point to anything in particular.
> There are many aspects of the construction of G1
> in particular that are seen to encode certain
> "sacred geometry", calendrical data, earth
> measures, ect which coupled with the extreme
> precision of some aspects of its construction
> imply they did little by accident which would
> include the various angles of the shafts and
> passages. While some of this may in fact just be
> practical, again, the DP is a feature found in all
> the great pyramids, aligned in the same direction
> towards the celestial pole with roughly the same
> angle in which all are aligned to the cardinal
> points with G1 in particular being unusually
> accurate for the latter. It is more than
> coincidence or just its size and scope that G1
> inspires the imagination the way it does.
> > So, do you prefer Orion over Cygnus?
> Sorry, for what? Without even knowing what your
> point is I would automatically choose Orion
> because this is favored not just by the AE but all
> ancient cultures. Anyone can look up at the sky
> anywhere in the world and see it sticking out like
> a sore thumb so it is no wonder why ancient
> peoples would have been fascinated by it.
I'm talking about Collins' Cygnus correlation.
And I beg to differ about your take on Orion's visibility. In a very clear sky, you'd be hard pressed to see many or the most common consetllations. The sky is simply too full of stars to discern most of those constellations. You actually need a polluted sky to (even if just water vapor) to visualize them, otherwise they become too obscured with the background star noise.
If we are "worlds apart here", it's because I do not yet understand:
- ...the fixation of the builders on the star that's close to, but not quite at, the celestial north pole
...the fixation of the builders on the star closest to the north pole, but not at a time when the star would be the closest it would ever get to the north pole (a few hundred years into the future)
...the fixation on Thuban during the time of day it is in that particular angle during its 360 deg excursion around the polar axis (during which Thuban would be as high as 33.5 degrees above the horizon).
...the method used by the builders to capture that position at that time of day (presumably at night?)
...the method used by the builders for using that position (captured during night time) as a guide to construct the passage (presumably during the day)
...the method used by the builders to capture Thuban's position during the untold number of years required to build that passage and maintain such inexplicable precision along its 100m length from entrance to deep into bedrock.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 24-Feb-17 17:51 by Origyptian.