Page 1 of 19
Pages: 12345
Results 1 — 30 of 567
L Cooper Wrote:

> snip
>
> For proposals like those of Gantenbrink, Legon and
> Miatello it is a big deal to have these exit
> points be at the same elevation. This means
> refuting Petrie's findings, and to do this one
> needs to present an equally as strong and well
> documented case  and this I have
by
RLH

Ancient Egypt
Mark Heaton Wrote:

>
> The important angle, as I see it, is the angle
> between the the hypotenuse and the vertical. This
> angle increases the further you roll the wheel
> ie this angle increases as the seked increases.
>
> Mark
>
Hello Mark
I’m confused by this statement because if we increase t
by
RLH

Ancient Egypt
Kanga Wrote:

>
> Jeremy Potter (DE 51, 2001) gives the tan of the
> angle of the south shaft of the QC as 4/5, giving
> a design angle of 38o 39' 36". I'll stick with
> that for both south and north shafts of the QC.
Hello Kanga
AFAIK Gantenbrink is the only one to provide angle data for the QC so
by
RLH

Ancient Egypt
MJ Thomas 2 Wrote:

> My understanding is that one could have the shafts
> at just about any angle one wanted and still have
> at some time an alignment with a star that the AEs
> found significant – which suggests that we could
> be dealing with nothing more than coincidence.
> And we need to bear in mind that the
by
RLH

Ancient Egypt
Kanga Wrote:

> considering 7*22 = 154 and as 22/7 = 3 + 1/7
>
> You have chosen these two numbers, 7 & 22
> (when in fact you have shown that there are other
> numbers, such as 14 and 11, which work just as
> well to give 154), because you have a desired
> result in mind.
No it's because they equal
by
RLH

Ancient Egypt
Kanga Wrote:

>
> Take the QC northern shaft. It is said to point to
> Kochab, but what is the significance of Kochab in
> AE mythology or religion? I maintain that the
> slope of the QC northern shaft, 11:14, is solely
> made as a reflection of the southern shaft, and
> that both shafts are designed to be perpen
by
RLH

Ancient Egypt
Kanga wrote:
> The measure of 154c is not in and of itself significant. Rather, it is the distance
> between the two exit points, 198c, which is significant.
Considering there are so many who don’t think the AE would ever use math to design a pyramid I probably shouldn’t go there here!
True some may not consider 154 as anything relevant but considering 7*22 = 154 and as 22/7
by
RLH

Ancient Egypt
Not photos but does this help?
And
Regards
RLH
by
RLH

Ancient Egypt
Hello Lee
L Cooper Wrote:

> I am wondering if there has ever been a discussion
> on this board regarding possible reasons why the
> base length of Khufu's pyramid was not made the
> equivalent of 9078 inches  this more closely
> relating to 440 cubits of 20.632 inches per cubit,
> with the 20.632 inch amou
by
RLH

Alternative Geometry and Numerology
Hi Robin,
robin cook Wrote:

> If the casing exhibited the same 'hollowing' we see today
> in the coremasonry, then they surely would have
> remarked upon so singular a phenomenon  what
> might be called 'the equinox apparition'.
The Equinox Apparition, I like that !!! Sounds like that would be a
by
RLH

Ancient Egypt
Hello Robin
robin cook Wrote:

> Good picture, RLH.It does appear to reinforce the
> idea that the core blocks were 'angled in' to
> meridian axes. Whether this was so with the casing
> we do not know (but if so, why would not classical
> authors have remarked upon such a striking
> phenomenon?)
I t
by
RLH

Ancient Egypt
This may help to see it is just a play of light and shadows.
Regards
RLH
by
RLH

Ancient Egypt
cladking Wrote:

>
> I said the vertical lines are evidence of the
> routes of the stones.
>
>
I think you are wrong about the vertical lines being grooves. If you look at the small pyramids in front of G3 and the westside of G3 you can see small piles of sand on top of the core stones. With strong winds and lots o
by
RLH

Ancient Egypt
Hans Wrote:

>
> The final line at that link
>
> The purpose for the concavity of the Great
> Pyramids remains a mystery and no satisfactory
> explanation for this feature has been offered. The
> indentation is so slight that any practical
> function is difficult to imagine.
I believe the answer might b
by
RLH

Ancient Egypt
Hi Jacob
Sirfiroth Wrote:

>
> Are you aware that you started with a value of pi
> (37 5/7 / 12 = 22/7). Actually 28/33 is (14/11 *
> 2/3) the values of sphere (28) to cube (33)
> surface areas.
>
Well yes I did because I reverse engineered the value 28/33 were I had the diameter of 12 and circumference of 3
by
RLH

Alternative Geometry and Numerology
Hello All
I was wondering if there was a way for the AE to have solved for diameter with a known circumference without using (22/7 = pi).
The key to what I came up with is 28/33. I’m not aware of them using this in any EMP’s but then AFAIK none of them required finding perimeter or circumference.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
In my drawing I have on the right side the value of 37
by
RLH

Alternative Geometry and Numerology
Sirfiroth Wrote:

> RLH wrote: I would say considering 22 * 7 for
> area and 22 / 7 for circumference where is the
> need for 14 / 11 or 14 * 11 ?
>
> That would be logical if pi in any form were
> present in any of the papyri or any other AE
> textual documents. It would seem the seked, as
> demonstrated in
by
RLH

Alternative Geometry and Numerology
Sirfiroth Wrote:

>
> Side times diameter = area of the circle
> 11 * 14 = 154
>
> Side squared * 14/11 = area of the circle
> 11^2 * 14/11 = 154
>
> diameter squared / 14/11 = area of the circle
> 14^2 / 14/11 = 154
>
> area of the circle / 14/11 = area of the square
> 154/ 14/11 = 121 or
by
RLH

Alternative Geometry and Numerology
Sirfiroth Wrote:

> Logic would dictate that no matter how it is
> calculated it the result would be equal pi, for
> the ratio of diameter to circumference is
> inherent in all circles like the square root 2 in
> the square. You bring up a good point, but when
> did I ever say they were not cognizant of pi,
>
by
RLH

Alternative Geometry and Numerology
Hi Lobo
Thanks for the excellent reply. I’m ok with 3 1/7 as a possibility but not a fact.
9068.8 / 440 = 20.611
5771.08 / 20.611 = 280
12825.22 / 20.611 = 622.25123 cubits diagonal
C= 2(D+1/9) * (or 99/70)
2*280 = 560+62.2222 = 622.2222 * 2 = 1244.4444 * 1.4142857 = 1760 cubits
If I did that right then nice your + 1/9 works and thanks for that!
Now how would I verify that
by
RLH

Alternative Geometry and Numerology
Hi Sirfiroth
Great reply to my post I always enjoy chatting with you. So please don’t take any of my responses the wrong way.
Sirfiroth Wrote:

>
> Exactly, and it is a pretty slick system, Since it
> is a given that the perimeter of the square is
> equal to the circumference of the circle, they
> already kn
by
RLH

Alternative Geometry and Numerology
Hello MJ
You expressed much of my thinking on this subject.
I’m uncertain how some can say the mathematical papyrus proves the AE did not understand 3 1/7. When for them to use 3 1/7 to find the area of a circle it would require two things, one 3 1/7 as a form of pi and two the radius needed to be squared. If either were unknown then they would have to use a different system and they did. I
by
RLH

Alternative Geometry and Numerology
Sirfiroth Wrote:

> RLH Wrote:
> 
> 
> > Sirfiroth Wrote:
> >
> 
>
> > 
> > >
> > > Problems 48 and 50 of the RMP
> demonstrate the
> > area
> > > of
by
RLH

Alternative Geometry and Numerology
Sirfiroth Wrote:

>
> Problems 48 and 50 of the RMP demonstrate the area
> of a circle, #48 with a octogon, and #50 with the
> (8/9d)^2, but there is nothing in any of the
> papyri that even comes close to pi. One would
> think if pi was as important to them, as it is to
> us, they would have had a hieroglyph to
by
RLH

Alternative Geometry and Numerology
lobohotei Wrote:

>
> That is assuming you are using solid measuring
> instruments. Ropes would/could yield longer and
> shorter measurements depending on tension.
Hello Lobo
Wouldn’t they still need to use cubit rods to measure the ropes?
I don’t think they would use say 220 or 440 cubit rods laid end to end m
by
RLH

Alternative Geometry and Numerology
Pistol Wrote:

>
> as for marking out a base dimension Margins of
> error with these linear measurements typically
> increase distances, not shorten.
> B.A. Hokom
Not if you look at it like this! They had a very level platform on which they placed the measuring rods so placing the rods end to end could make the ov
by
RLH

Alternative Geometry and Numerology
Pistol Wrote:

> RLH wrote: "Having said that thanks for the
> dividing the base length by one half height
> observation".
>
> I only divided the height by 140 because that's
> what I divided the side with. the actual height
> provided by Petrie is 5776"...translated @ 20.62"
> per r
by
RLH

Alternative Geometry and Numerology
Pistol Wrote:

> The Base dimension of G1 is 439.8391 royal cubits
> by 439.8391 royal cubits. (See Petrie, Cole) when
> you divide one side length by 140 you are left
> with 3.1417 royal cubits, thus there are 19,600
> squares of pi in the base dimension of G1.
> interesting in that when you divide the pyramids
>
by
RLH

Alternative Geometry and Numerology
Allan Shumaker Wrote:

> I remember that episode, but don't really remember
> the shape of the item on the truck.
>
I remember now you are right about the shape.
It was square and an extra wide load that took up two lanes.
So probably not the same object.
Don’t know why they would drive it instead of flying unle
by
RLH

Coffee Shop
Page 1 of 19
Pages: 12345