Page 1 of 27
Pages: 12345
Results 1 — 30 of 807
Imhotep's name was also found in a graffito on the enclosure wall surrounding Sekhemkhet's pyramid, so it is believed he designed that pyramid as well.
by
Kanga

Ancient Egypt
This is one of the worst articles ever to have appeared on academia.edu.
Did you get to the part where he figures out that the images of the block at the end of the QCN shaft are a forgery made from the lid of a pizza box?
After that accusation the article takes a bizarre turn. He then goes on to proclaim that the 19th century writers like Taylor and Smyth were right, that the Great Pyrami
by
Kanga

Ancient Egypt
Any design model for the Bent pyramid must take into account the length of the bend line. With the upper part having a height of 110 cubits and the slope 14:15, the bend line is 235c 5p. Note that this is not a whole number of cubits.
The data you give for the lower part supports the thesis that it has a uniform slope of 10:7. Miatello, following on from Legon's model (where the 110c hei
by
Kanga

Ancient Egypt
In my view the base is 201.6 cubits and the slope is 5:4. This creates a whole cubit height of 126 cubits, the same as the height of the 154c level pyramid within Khufu's pyramid. Also the 154c elevation in Khufu's pyramid is used as the base length for Niuserre's pyramid.
by
Kanga

Ancient Egypt
keeperzz Wrote:

> The angle of slope of one of the Bent pyramid's
> sections is most likely due to geometric reasons:
> it is chosen so that the length of the lower slope
> is equal to the height of the upper section.
It's the other way around. The height of the upper section (110c) is chosen so that it is eq
by
Kanga

Ancient Egypt
keeperzz Wrote:

> Hi Kanga,
>
> What is 280c diagonal? Could you create simple drawing?
>
> Alex.
Sorry, I don't know how to post an image.
Just know this. At the 154c level (top of course 104), the horizontal length is 198c cubits. The square at this level has a diagonal of 198c x rt2 = 280c. That is, they
by
Kanga

Ancient Egypt
keeperzz Wrote:

> Hi, Graham.
>
> Your idea about that the dualslope design is
> symbolically connected with the two Enneads (the
> Great (9) and the Lesser (11)) is interesting.
>
> Is there any reliable evidence that Lesser Ennead
> could contain 11 deities? How was it
> pictographically pictured?
&
by
Kanga

Ancient Egypt
GChase Wrote:

> Alex : "There are three puzzling points
> regarding the Bent pyramid:
> 1. Why did the builders change the angle of slope
> (due to structural problems or for geometric
> reasons)? The key point here is the reason for the
> presence of a dislocation in the N. corridor."
>
> As noon
by
Kanga

Ancient Egypt
Chris Tedder Wrote:

> Thank you Alex for clearing up perceived
> discrepancies between Petrie’s and Dorner’s
> surveys. It's reassuring to know that Petrie’s
> survey is reliable as its consistent with Dorner’s
> modern survey. Petrie has an average 189.459m, and
> Dorner, 189.43m for the length of a side  a me
by
Kanga

Ancient Egypt
Mark Heaton Wrote:

> I have looked at my drawing again and observed
> that the inner structure with a side length of 300
> cubits has a base area of 90.000 square cubits.
There is no such inner structure. Waggy has made this clear in his paper. Where there appears to be a disjoint in the N and W passages, the floors of the pa
by
Kanga

Ancient Egypt
GChase Wrote:

By this diagram, the bendline is 236 cubits, but the maths doesn't work out. Given the slope of the upper part as 14:15, the bendline HAS TO BE 235c 5p. Clearly it is not a whole number of cubits.
by
Kanga

Ancient Egypt
Chris Tedder Wrote:

>
> "upon its pavement surface" clearly states where
> Petrie measured his base side length of 189.459m.
> He then used a cubit of 526.3mm to convert
> 189.459m to 360 cubits, ...
No, he didn't. Petrie measured everything in inches; and he didn't use a cubit of 526.3mm either.
by
Kanga

Ancient Egypt
keeperzz Wrote:

> Another difficulty encountered by "bisector"
> methods is that both elongations of the selected
> star cannot be available for observation at the
> same night (one of the elongations will always
> take place in the daytime), ...
... not always. Around the winter solstice, there will be so
by
Kanga

Ancient Egypt
keeperzz Wrote:

> When I try to explain to people my hypothesis that
> the pyramids of the 4th dynasty were oriented to
> the pole star of that epoch  Thuban (when it was
> most closer to the Pole), they tell me: "This
> cannot be true, because it’s known that for
> example the Khufu pyramid was laid out at
by
Kanga

Ancient Egypt
keeperzz Wrote:

> Hi Kanga,
>
> QuoteWhy this shift? Because it creates an
> easily distinguishable horizontal line of length
> 200 cubits, drawing attention to the significance
> of horizontal lengths, especially the length of
> the horizontal line at the 154c level, the course
> above it, which is 198 cubi
by
Kanga

Ancient Egypt
> Much of this discussion has focussed on the question of the Khufu shafts and,
> while the targets of the northern shafts remain uncertain, the alignments to Orion
> and Sirius, first noticed by Badawy and Trimble, are extremely difficult to dismiss...
Badawy and Trimble are responsible for the hypothesis that KCS and KCN target Orion's belt and Thuban respectively. It was B
by
Kanga

Ancient Egypt
GChase Wrote:

> "The final portion of KCN appears to have a
> seked of 11½ palms (31.3°), and points to the
> upper culmination of Thuban in 2552 BCE
>
> I think you can't just pick and choose which part
> of the shaft you like to match your dates.
Why not?
> The overall angle of the shaft had a s
by
Kanga

Ancient Egypt
The elevation of course 103 (top) is 152c 5p. If a new pyramid were built at this height, its dimensions would be: height = 127c 2p; base = 200.02c, virtually 200 cubits. This is the actual level indicated by the KCS shaft exit, but this actual exit is different from Gantenbrink's theorized exit level of 154c. I regard the 154c level as the primary design.
The actual exit is 9 palms belo
by
Kanga

Ancient Egypt
keeperzz Wrote:

> To summarize the last post:
>
> 1. Gantenbrink's theoretical elevation of KCS
> outlet above the pavement (154c = 80,63m) well
> correspond to average angle of 45° for KCS
> proposed by him.
>
> 2. The difference in the elevation of KCS outlet
> to the surface of the pyramid by Ga
by
Kanga

Ancient Egypt
The recent bushfires in Australia have been apocalyptic.
by
Kanga

Apocalypse
GChase Wrote:

> The northern QC shaft is lined up almost with
> Kocab and the southern QC shaft almost with Sirius.
> But they do match exactly on a certain date 2450
> BC and have the same elevation of 9 on 11.
That may be so, but that date conflicts with the date given by the KC shafts. The final portion of KCN app
by
Kanga

Ancient Egypt
GChase Wrote:

> The exits of the KC shafts on the slant faces
> split the height and the faces into the ratio 9 to 11.
Only when you consider Gantenbrink's theoretical exit level for both shafts as being 154c above the base.
> Extending downwards the two shafts would intersect
> under the KC (if they did not go hor
by
Kanga

Ancient Egypt
Neither the QCS nor the QCN shaft has a slope of 9:11. The QCS shaft has a consistent slope of 14:17. The QCN shaft, long thought to mirror the QCN shaft, does not even have a single slope. After the horizontal part, its first sloping segment has a slope of around 33°, and the second sloping segment has a slope of around 40°. Then there is a sharp bend to the west. At this point, the QCN shaft ap
by
Kanga

Ancient Egypt
In their article in MDAIK, Gantenbrink and Stadelmann clearly state the seked of the QCS shaft as 8½ palms. If Gantenbrink has the wrong four digits, it is because he has been careless with the maths.
by
Kanga

Ancient Egypt
Gantenbrink's angle for QCS represents a seked of 8½ palms.
by
Kanga

Ancient Egypt
Jim Alison Wrote:

> ‘The area of one square royal cubit is double
> the area of one square remen. The linear measure
> of one royal cubit is equal to the linear measure
> of the remen times the square root of two.
> Evidence suggests that the remen was the original
> measure, from which the royal cubit was derived
by
Kanga

Ancient Egypt
Jim Alison Wrote:

> I am pretty sure there is a typo in your earlier
> post about the exit heights of the KC shafts with
> over 100 inch difference where the 2 is supposed
> to be a 1. Petrie's diagram gives the north shaft
> at the bottom of 103 and the south shaft at the
> top of 103, and Petrie gives 25 in
by
Kanga

Ancient Egypt
Chris Tedder Wrote:

> Hi Robin,
>
> Thank you for sharing your excellent diagrams 
> they well illustrate how the shafts seem to tie in
> with the overall design of the pyramid  an
> intriguing aspect of the design.
>
> Apart from these compelling stellar links that
> aligned with the upper and lower
by
Kanga

Ancient Egypt
Kanga Wrote:

> The emhotep.net article I read containing the data
> on the QCN shaft was originally published at:
>
>
>
> However, according to the Wayback Machine, that
> page (and I presume most of the pages from the
> Project Djedi site) were erased early last year.
The article, by Keith Payne, refer
by
Kanga

Ancient Egypt
Page 1 of 27
Pages: 12345