Author: Nick L (82.4.204.---)

Date: 21-Jun-10 04:04

Anyone who read Don's original thread on the Giza Solar System found here: http://www.grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=283962&t=283962

will have seen an incredibly accurate model of the mean orbits of the inner planets of the solar system develop, from Mercury to Mars and even accounting for Ceres. All defined by nothing more than the corners of the 3 pyramids, but whose ultimate foundation is the underlying √2 x √3 rectangle which encloses the pyramids, and its √5 diagonal. The scale of the model was determined ingeniously by Don when he observed that if the base length of G1 at 440 cubits was taken as Mercury's orbital radius, then Mars' orbital radius was equal to 1732 cubits, or the north-south length of the Giza rectangle. Drawing the diagonal of the rectangle then allows for the simple plotting of Earth and Venus via a compass, and Ceres' orbital diameter is found to be the enclosing rectangle itself - a neatly packaged and original inner solar system map, derived from monuments that are thousands of years old. It seems that only myself and Don and one or two others can appreciate the implications of all of this, so this update is for those insightful few.

The thread became bogged down when we tried to account for the orbits of the outer planets, this is not surprising really as these become increasingly big and are therefore difficult to plot using the scale for the inner orbits. We tried different scales but nothing really worked well, though in the process we did discover some intriguing geometrical ratios between the orbits, when using Ceres as a base unit. Eventually we left it, though it continued to niggle me. How could such a perfect map exist for the inner planets at Giza, yet without any reference to the outer? I believe I can now provide an answer. There is a duality inherent in the solar system, with 4 small and rocky planets separated from 4 large gaseous planets by an asteroid belt. The key is to examine their orbital distances in miles. All values were taken from Wikipedia, which employs NASA's JPL ephemeris and elements calculator, so they should be pretty accurate:

(million miles)

**MERCURY = 35.983046508389**

VENUS = 67.237911844823

EARTH = 92.955817401371

MARS = 141.6347903245

JUPITER = 483.76680187701

SATURN = 890.70414404871

URANUS = 1787.4855108664

**NEPTUNE = 2798.3101568091**

We have already established the importance of the enclosing √2 x √3 rectangle in defining the inner solar system model. Whilst the planetary orbits can be derived from a pure √2 x √3 rectangle, without any pyramids in place even, at Giza we find a slightly larger value for the √2 - about 1417.5 cubits. The √3 value is spot on, at 1732 cubits. This gives an overall perimeter of 6299 cubits. How curious then that when we sum the above values for the orbital radii of all 8 planets we get 6298.0781796803 million miles, just 1 out from the Giza perimeter! Even more curious however is the fact that the innermost and outermost planets, Mercury and Neptune in bold above, sum to:

35.983046508389 + 2798.3101568091 = 2834.2932033175

and 2834.2932033175 = 2 x 1417.1466016587, thus defining the short sides of the Giza rectangle.

This means that the 6 planets between Mercury and Neptune have a combined orbital distance of:

6298.0781796803 - 2834.2932033175 = 3463.7849763628, and this equals 2 x 1731.8924881814, thus defining the long sides of the Giza rectangle. Quite incredible.... but there is more!

It should be noted here that there are only 8 planets in our solar system using current astronomical definition, but more importantly in my view, only 8 which are mirrored about the asteroid belt 4 by 4. How much of a coincidence must it be that their combined mean orbital radii match the Giza rectangle perimeter, in such a manner, especially seeing as the same rectangle and the pyramids it contains plot the inner planets beautifully into the bargain? Quite astronomical I would have thought. People always like to accuse researchers of cherry picking data from Giza to suit their theories, but there can only be one rectangle which encloses the 3 pyramids giving only one option! The fact that it not only invokes the geometrical ratios of square, triangle and cube but also all of the planetary orbits is astounding. It could be argued that the apex to apex distances of the pyramids would also be key, if a predetermined site plan was employed. Here we have only 3 options, so again no cherry picking. According to Petrie:

G1-G2 = 19168.4 inches, which converts to 929.68430335097 cubits of 20.61818 inches. This distance therefore mirrors Earth's orbital distance from the Sun, since it is 92.955817401371 million miles. Hmm imagine that.

G1-G3 = 36856.7 inches which converts to 1787.5824514991 cubits. This just happens to mirror Uranus' orbital distance, since it is 1787.4855108664 million miles. Only 8 possible orbital distances to choose from, and the first 2 of 3 apex to apex distances give near perfect matches. Onto the 3rd then.

G2-G3 = 866.86111111111 cubits. This is approximately half of 1732, doesn't seem to match anything precisely though... ah wait this just happens to be 17873.1 inches, again mirroring Uranus and reaffirming the relationship between the planets, the cubit and the Imperial Measures.

So why should Earth and Uranus orbital distances be highlighted so? Lets sum them:

92.955817401371 + 1787.4855108664 = 1880.4413282678 million miles.

Remember the inner solar system map is from Mercury to Mars (planet wise) and it is a final (need to get some kip!) curious fact that the ratio of Mars orbital period to Earths is 687:365.2422 days or 1.8809436587558, therefore approximately 1000 millionth of the combined Earth and Uranus orbits combined.

For those who think the pyramids at Giza were solely intended as tombs, or that all of this is some kind of coincidence, I would suggest that you are seriously deluding yourselves - taken as a whole this goes way beyond what one could seriously expect to find as chance occurrences. There is no doubt in my mind that these monuments were intended to mirror our solar system - if we rule out scientific knowledge then the builders must have been spiritually inspired - a different kind of wisdom altogether.

Bye for now

Nick

Author: Ahatmose (---.141.93.0)

Date: 21-Jun-10 05:47

Very nice Nick but I will have to take some time to analyze the data but very quickly ...

*MARS = 141.6347903245*

East to west at Giza = 1417.28

NEPTUNE = 2798.3101568091

Height of Great Pyramid = 280 cubits + or -

===============================================

Adam died at 930 years old - First patriarch

Shem died at 500 year sold - 11th patriarch

-----------------------------------------------------------

930 / 500 = 1.86

=================================================

Mercury = 35.983046508389

Venus = 67.237911844823

67.237911844823 / 35.983046508389 = 1.8686

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe ....

Regards

Don Barone

Author: Ahatmose (---.141.93.0)

Date: 21-Jun-10 05:56

*.... We have already established the importance of the enclosing √2 x √3 rectangle in defining the inner solar system model. Whilst the planetary orbits can be derived from a pure √2 x √3 rectangle, without any pyramids in place even, at Giza we find a slightly larger value for the √2 - about 1417.5 cubits. The √3 value is spot on, at 1732 cubits. This gives an overall perimeter of 6299 cubits. How curious then that when we sum the above values for the orbital radii of all 8 planets we get 6298.0781796803 million miles, just 1 out from the Giza perimeter! Even more curious however is the fact that the innermost and outermost planets, Mercury and Neptune in bold above, sum to: ....*

6298.078179680303 total of all planets in miles

Actual measurements at Giza using the 9 by 11 Giza Grid are 1417.32 and 1732.28 or for the rectangle 6299.2 only about 1 cubit out. Very nice and I will do a diagram of this tomorrow .

Best

Don Barone

Author: Ronald1 (84.194.103.---)

Date: 21-Jun-10 07:52

Nick L wrote:

> Anyone who read Don's original thread on the Giza Solar System

> found here:

> http://www.grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=283962&t=283962

> will have seen an incredibly accurate model of the mean orbits

> of the inner planets of the solar system develop, from Mercury

> to Mars and even accounting for Ceres. All defined by nothing

> more than the corners of the 3 pyramids,

There is no correlation whatsoever between the Giza pyramids and the inner planets of the solar system. The Ancient Egyptians simply had no need to incorporate such correlations into their tombs. It's all in your and Don's head.

It's not because pyramids are geometrical bodies and that on the Giza plateau we have a cluster of such geometrical bodies, that all kinds of ridiculous and far fetched 'correlations' with no matter what were incorporated by this Ancient culture.

Ronald.

Author: Elizabeth Newton (121.221.1.---)

Date: 21-Jun-10 12:03

Hi Nick

I quite agree with your excellent conclusion here -

<For those who think the pyramids at Giza were solely intended as tombs, or that all of this is some kind of coincidence, I would suggest that you are seriously deluding yourselves - taken as a whole this goes way beyond what one could seriously expect to find as chance occurrences. There is no doubt in my mind that these monuments were intended to mirror our solar system - if we rule out scientific knowledge then the builders must have been spiritually inspired - a different kind of wisdom altogether.>

If I have one criticism of your conclusion is your assumption that Giza mirrors the solar system. With no evidence at all regarding who or how or when Giza was built, it is just as logical to conclude that the solar system is based upon Giza.

Kind regards

Elizabeth

Author: Ahatmose (---.141.93.0)

Date: 21-Jun-10 16:29

DISTANCE UP TO SOUTH SIDE OF G2

SIMPLY ASTOUNDING AS ALWAYS.

__PLEASE NOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!__DISTANCE UP TO SOUTH SIDE OF G2

__IS PRECISELY 1/10TH OF TOTAL PERIMETER__.SIMPLY ASTOUNDING AS ALWAYS.

**Author: Nick L (82.4.204.---)**

Date: 22-Jun-10 00:30

Here we go, simple geometry which takes us to the outer limits of the solar system:

Note that the hypotenuse of the triangle is very close to Uranus' mean orbit so the triangle therefore references Uranus twice and Earth once - precisely what we find at Giza with the 3 apex to apex pyramid distances.

Nick

Author: Ahatmose (---.141.93.0)

Date: 22-Jun-10 14:52

Posted elsewhere and answering an inquiry

The numbers we are employing are the semi-major axis of the planets. Here is a definition of this term:

Definitions of Semi-major axis on the Web:

* The major axis of an ellipse is its longest diameter, a line that runs through the centre and both foci, its ends being at the widest points of the shape. The semi-major axis is one half of the major axis, and thus runs from the centre, through a focus, and to the edge of the ellipse. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-major_axis

* Half the distance across an ellipse measured along a line through its foci.

www.astunit.com/tutorials/glossary.htm

* Either of the equal line segments into which the major axis of an ellipse is divided by the center of symmetry.

www.csa.com/discoveryguides/planetary/gloss.php

* The semi-major axis of the orbit of the extra solar planet, in Astronomical Units (AU).

heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/W3Browse/star-catalog/exoplanets.html

In other words it is basically halfway between the closest and further approach of a planet to The Sun. Example for Mercury:

Aphelion (furthest point) 69,816,900 km 0.466 697 AU

Perihelion (closest point) 46,001,200 km 0.307 499 AU

Semi-major axis (average) 57,909,100 km 0.387 098 AU

You are correct in implying that we should be able to map the ellipses of these planets and I have found tantalizing evidence that it is there but first things first. We search for the semi major axis first then we will try to expand the search.

**I found that adding the diameters of all the planets together yields Pi x 10 Earth diameters or 31.4159 times the diameter of The Earth. An interesting "co-incidence" and now Nick has found that changing the distances to miles yields the total distances of the 8 planets from The Sun being equal to the perimeter of the rectangle as defined at Giza using the pyramids and which is basically of a 9 x 11 grid and using a 1 cubit to 1 mile scale. Regardless whether you wish to accept that this was encoded deliberately at Giza or not, it is there. Personally I think it is showing us the simplistic nature of the geometry that makes up our solar system.**

__On a website of mine__The Giza Plateau is built apparently on a rectangle of a modified square root of 2 (x 1000) by square root of 3 (x 1000) cubits. This is refined to equal exactly a 9 by 11 grid where each unit is equal to 157.48 cubits. It can further be reduced to a 36 by 44 grid in which case each unit is 39.37. Since The Great Pyramid is 440 cubits (+ or -) we have this (440 cubits) equaling 3.937 of the overall height as defined by our 44 grid units. And amazingly this corresponds precisely with the fact that if one takes the NASA accepted distance of Mercury from The Sun and multiply it by 3.937 we get the distance to Mars.

Although it could just be a fluke that Giza shows this the fact remains that the math is correct. Mars is 3.937 Mercurial distances from The Sun. This was found using a simple 9 by 11 grid as inspired by The Giza Plateau. So whether you wish to accept that Giza was planned to show this or not the fact remains that our solar system seems to be built on some very simplistic geometrical designs and for now we are just starting to observe what they might be.

Best Regards

Don Barone

Author: Nick L (82.4.204.---)

Date: 22-Jun-10 20:57

>>Although it could just be a fluke that Giza shows this the fact remains that the math is correct. Mars is 3.937 Mercurial distances from The Sun. This was found using a simple 9 by 11 grid as inspired by The Giza Plateau. So whether you wish to accept that Giza was planned to show this or not the fact remains that our solar system seems to be built on some very simplistic geometrical designs and for now we are just starting to observe what they might be.<<

Good post Don, thanks for clarifying these issues.

I have to say this site has to be the first time I've encountered the suggestion that evidence should be dismissed simply because someone has actually taken the time to re

**search**it - is that not the point of any kind of inquiry?! These facts don't just magically appear out of nowhere given enough time - they either exist or they don't. The issue is whether one is prepared to face the facts or not. Many aren't and/or can't for various reasons... pride being quite high on the list I would wager. Ah well sometimes life's a bitch lol :-)

Best regards

Nick

uthor: Ahatmose (---.141.93.0)

Date: 23-Jun-10 14:55

In the chart below:

Large view: http://donbarone.selfip.net/solar_system_graph_giza_01.png

... we notice that Mars distance from The Sun as a percent of the total distance of all distances from The Sun for the eight planets is equal to 2.2489 percent of the total. We can also note that Neptune divided into this total is equal to 2.25. It appears that there could be a geometrical link between the fourth and eight planets. However Saturn is the big surprise here.

Large view: http://donbarone.selfip.net/solar_system_graph_giza_02.png

We can note here that is is 14.142475 percent of the total and of course many will see immediately that this is 10 times the square root of 2. But what isn't as obvious is the percent that Saturn is of the total distance. It is 27.187381 and interestingly, and it is only seen because I have come across this number before, it is seen that this number is 1/10th of 271.87 and 271.87 is .... 440 (base of Great Pyramid in cubits)

__divided by Phi !!!__And finally for now Mercury divides into the total distance 175.02 times.

And let me leave this post with this simple statement:

*... Flinders Petrie was the first Egyptologist to establish the facts of its (Pyramid of Meidum) original design dimensions and proportions. In its final form it was 1100 Cubits of 0.523m around*

**,**__by 175 Cubits in height__Giza is only the beginning ...

Author: Ahatmose (---.141.93.0)

Date: 23-Jun-10 15:38

Please note:

Jupiter is 7.68 percent of total distance and can be divided into the total distance 7.666 times

Nice.

Author: Nick L (82.4.204.---)

Date: 23-Jun-10 19:48

Good work on those percentages Don. Of course Mars is the last planet of the inner solar system and Neptune is the last outer planet. Examining their orbital distances further we find this:

These pesky "coincidences" just keep cropping up! :-o

Author: Ahatmose (---.141.93.0)

Date: 25-Jun-10 21:13

Hi Nick ...

I was just going over some of my older notes and thought I would post this for you in case you has not seen it.

1 meter = 39.3700787 inches

44 meters = 44 x 39.3700787 inches = 1732.28 inches

So because of this strange fact The Giza Plateau enclosing rectangle can be said to be 44 meters by 36 meters where 1 cubit (actual) is equal to 1 inch (scale).

We have already seen where if we allow Mercury's distance from The Sun on it's semi major axis as being 1 unit we get Mars being precisely equal to 1/10th of 39.37 or 3.937 units. But there is more.

It is argued by me that "The Creator" used the exact blueprint for everything be it The Universe, The Solar System or Man. If this is true then would be not see a perfect harmony between the three or at least the two, Man and The Solar System ? Well I think it is there if we only look a little deeper.

There are ABOUT 20.618034 inches in a cubit and thus a cubit is 0.523699111 of a meter or conversely a meter is 1.909493408 cubits

And by the biggest coincidence I have yet run across this is in perfect harmony with The Heavens. Please observe perfection and harmony and As Above ... So Below in action:

In the image below if we use the distance from Mercury to Venus as a base unit of one we get the totals for the first three planets as 3.00 (actually 2.99). If we use the distance between Venus and Earth as a base unit of 1 we get 3.6 (actual 3.59)

But I have saved the best for last. It is I think proof positive that all measurements from the macro to the micro are all interconnected and it is for this reason that all measurements are interrelated since they are all based on "The Creators" strangest project, Man.

In this image below please not that the distance from Earth to Mars if assigned a value of one unit will yield a value of (141.6347903245 - 92.955817401371 = 48.678972923129) 92.955817401371 / 48.678972923129 = 1.9095682 for the distance from The Earth to The Sun.

How could the ancients have known that the ratio between the cubit and the meter (which they did not know existed supposedly) matched almost exactly the orbital positions of Mars and Earth in relation to their distance from The Sun ?

And further that the distance of Mercury at Aphelion is 69,816,900 km and precisely

**and that at Perihelion 46,001,200 km it is precisely 33.3333 times the diameter of The Sun, the diameter of The Sun being 1,392,000 km. We thus have the orbit of Mercury matching precisely the distance between the other three planets that make up the first four as shown by the fact that from Mercury to Venus is**

__50 times the diameter of The Sun__**and from Venus to Earth is 41.6 (1/2 of 83.3333) million kilometers.**

__50 million kilometers__

**Man has used his smallest digit, his finger, to begin his measurements of all he surveys and it can now be seen that since The Universe and The Solar System is but an extension of himself, the measurements have to correspond.****So no matter what system is used, Metric, English or Ancient Egyptian, since they are all based on man himself they will all find a common denominator when used to survey anything created by ... "The Creator" and this certainly includes one of his grandest designs, Our Solar System. A classic solution to As Above ... So Below**
## No comments:

## Post a Comment