Thursday, November 6, 2014

From Giza to Dashur: The Real Story of The Old Kingdom Pyramids Part II

Please read Part I first by clicking here

Well here we are at Dahshur and for those who have lived in a bubble and do not know what The Bent Pyramid looks like here is a picture of it.

As you can see there appears to be two pyramids and here is the sketch we will be using.

John Legon did a lot of great work on these things in the mid 80's but his main fault I feel is that he insisted that The Giza Plateau was in the ratio of the square root of 2 to the square root of 3 rather than trying a more simple and accurate 9 by 11 rectangle. It is because of this fact that most of his work at Giza is in error and does not fit. If we allow 20.62 inches to a cubit then The Giza Rectangle works out to be 1417.5 cubits wide or 29228.85 inches by 1732.50 cubits or 35724.15 inches. These are the facts and the distances as presented by Petrie and I am not sure why John would have insisted that they were not correct. Maybe I will ask him. Anyway after experimenting with 110 for the top and 90 cubits for the bottom pyramid height I finally decided to take the advice of John Legon and use 110.1 cuibts for the upper height. Here are the break downs according to Petrie and Dorner. Again borrowing from Johm Legon's website. Let us look first at the break downs for the two heights.

 But before we do any of this we have to decide on the angle of the upper portion and so I am going to go with The Master Builders and use the angle they left us at Giza of 43.3637 and the tan ratio of 0.94445 . So to start with let us assume that they copied (oh wait they were first) , that they used for a top height the distance of 110.1 cubit what would that give us. Well it reall is a simple matter. one only has to take 110.1 and divide it by 0.94445 to get 1/2 the base of the upper portion and thsi gives us  110.1 / 0.94445 and equaling 116.576 and tiems 1 we have a base of  233.152 cuibts for the upper base. Here is a diagram to illustrate this.

And finally showing the contained angle.

Just a note here that we match Dorner measurement of 110.11 within 1/100th of a cubit. Keep that in mind as we solve for the bottom angle and distance. of base.

The next stage was to figure out what the base dimension was. Was it 360 cubits as some ahd proposed or was John legon correct with his guess of 362 based on explantions which are available on his website. I felt that the answer like all the answers I was now finding had it's roots at Giza and so began to experiment with various base. First I took 360 / 2 = 180 - 116.576 = 63.424 and divided into 89.9 (as per Johm Legon's plan of Giza) I got  1.41744 and an angle of 54.797 and with a base of 180.75 or 1/2 361.50 I got 64.924 / 89.9 = 1.3847 Neither of these reaslly di anything for me and then I decided to sqaure the base add on or 64.924 and got 4215.13 and that gave me an idea. What if we went back to G3 again and took the square root of the base this time and so I did this and got square root of 4153.6 or 64.4484. Now earlier I had multiplied 944.45 by 1.4 and got  1322.23 but this time I decided to use what we had at Giza and instead of multiplying by 1.4 I decided to multiply by 1.39361 (13,936.1 inches north south between G1 and G2) and got this number 64.448 x 1.39361 equals 89.815 and virtually identical with what Dorner had for the lower height AND what he had for the total height of 199.92 as we get 199.916. So by using the measurements at Giza we have arrived at a probable correct solution for The Bent Pyramid. the only remaining thing we need to do is justify the total base of 116.576 + 64.448 or 181.024 and times 2 we get 362.048. But this is such an odd number. Why not 360 or 362 even why on Earth 362.048 ? Well ... But first a word on the ehight that we arrived at. We got 104.71 meters or 199.92 cubits probably doesn't mean too much to most but an interesting "co-incidence" has the ratio of the mass of Jupiter or Ju P(i)tah [Jupiter = Ptah] equalling:

One solar mass M= 1,047.56 Jupiter mass (MJ)

and woudn't you just know it that 1,047.56 meters = (this is a punch line so get ready) 1,047.56 meters = 2000.12 cubits and just to keep this rolling since some would have The Red Pyramid with a base of 420 cubits ... well wouldn't you just know it that 440 cubits / 1.047.56 = 420.02 cubits so we are muddying the waters again but this time we have Jupiter involved instead of The Sun. But jsut found another one ... 1047.56 x 12 inches_ = I think this might be another punch line ... 104.756 cubits =  2160.07 inches and diameter of Moon in miles exact would have it:

Equatorial radius of Moon = 1738.14 km  (0.273 Earths) x 2 = 3476.28 / 1.60934 = 2160.07 Scoring an absolute direct match. 

... to be continued

From Giza to Dahshur: The Real Story of The Old Kingdom Pyramids - Part I

Hi all. Well to say I have been busy would definitely be an understatement. I have been working on a few projects such as figuring out how to tell angles using just the pyyamids (it is quite easy once you know how) and figuring out the connection between the pyramid fields at Giza and at Dahshur which is what this posting is about. Now this is extremely convuluted and I will try to make it as easy as possible and for those who are mathematically and geometrically challenged I apologize for this is quite a lot to handle but also quite elelgant and beautifully simple.

The Bent Pyramid at Dahshur

   Most researchers including myself have spent their lives studying The Giza Pyramids and have basically ignored the pyramid field at Dahshur which includes The Red Pyramid and The Bent Pyramid. I think it is partially because data for these two pyramids are not as easily found yet I think I have finally deciphered the true measurements and it is quite elegant. First of all I would like to state that I have had 9/11 on the brain and kept thinking that The Bent Pyramid had to be in an 11 by 9 ratio, that is the top was 11 units and the bottom 9 units. However there was one thing that kept nagging at me as I went over and then worked on overhauling my theories on The Bent Pyramid and this was the single fact that at Giza the distance from the north face of The Great Pyramid to the south face of G2 was not 1100 cubits as one would have expected but was 1101 cubits !  John Legon used this fact to conclude that the top portion of The Bent was not 11 units but actually 1101 or not 110.0 cubits but 110.1 cubits. I kep thinking he was wrong but the more I looked at it the more I came to realize that yes this was indeed the same measurement and was probably meant to be the same and then I wondered well maybe there would be other matching similarities as well and so for the very first time I decided to try to tie in my measurements at Giza to what I knew of Dahshur and The Bent Pyramid. It was an amazing ride. I found it hard to believe that to solve for The Bent I had to start at Giza but that was how it turned out. Firstly I think I need to post a map of The Giza Plateau with the measurements we will be using. It is an abridged version of Petrie's diagram with adjustments made to make the south side of The Great Pyramid run directly east-west. I will post both for you to compare.


And now the corrected version:

Now I had in past research realized that the angle formed from a line between the centers of G1 and G2 gave us almost the same angle as at The Bent (upper portion) but I had been unable to do anything with it. This was to change quite dramatically this time around. I am not going to post a bunch of references but suffice it to say that the concensus of the angles for The Bent have the top portion at around 43 degrees 22 minutes while the bottom ranges from about 54.3 to 55 degrees. Below I have joined the centers for you and have marked in the angles for you to see. Observe below: We get 43.3637 and 46.6363 as the two angles and that is the beginning of a very strange voyage we are about to take and when it is over I hope you will see the pyramid builders in a completely new light.  

   Now what I am about to present, in my opinion goes way beyond the bounds of coincidence and has to be proof it was planned from the outset, and that includes all three pyramids at Giza and probably all the Old Kingdom IVth dynasty pyramids as well. Stay tuned .... Nov 6th, 2014 @12:59 AM

Okay it is Thursday morning Nov. 6th and onward we go. Now what led to this latest round of insights was the fact that I chanced upon a diagram I had made around a year ago and although I thought it unique I did not pursue it. Here is the diagram from around September of 2013.

So I took this diagram below and did the same thing.


Now some might wonder how I figured out the angles on the diagram above but it is really quite simple geometry and trigonometry. In any right angled triangle the small side divided into the large side (not the diagonal) will yield a ratio or a number and this is called the "tan" of the angle in question so dividing 13162 by 13936.1 will give us the tan of the angle and the ratio turns out to be  0.9444536 and this is precisely what the distance is from the center of G2 to G3 along the horizontal multiplied by 10,000 ! Now I mean really think about that for a moment. Of all the measurements that randomly could have resulted from placing G3  on the plateau what do you think the odds are of placing it precisely 10,000 times the ratio of the distances between G1 and G2. Now we have met 10,000 here at Giza before when we realize that The Great Pyramid is representing the square root of 3 and the height of this pyramid in inches is precisely, or was projected to be, the square root of 3 divided by 3 times 10,000 and we get 5773.50 inches. But after coming to terms with this latest coincidence one then would need to try to explain the following. What follows was pointed out by me last year but it is within a better framework that I offer it this year.

There have been many arguements on whether The Ancient Builders knew Pi and/or decimals and all I can say is how the heck could they have left the distance between G2 and G3 the exact DECIMAL VALUE or ratio of the distances between G1 and G2 if they did not know decimals ? I mean really how long can "they" keep yelling ... COINCIDENCE !

There are 4 different measurements at The Great Pyramid for the sides and as I have suggested in the past this is becasue I feel that there is probably at least 4 different solutions  But let's deal with just one scenario. Let us assume that The Pi angle was meant and used here at The Great Pyramid how would you prove to vistors to your pyramids that you had used Pi espeiclaly when 5.5 by 7 and Phi were so close. So how would you do it ? Well I am going to show how The Master Buidlers showed us !

In earlier posts I showed my reasoning for calling The Great Pyramid the square root of 3 and it is from that base that we branch out. The Pi angle is the ratio of Pi divided by 4 and so if the angle intended at Giza for G1 was indeed The Pi angle then 1/2 the base would be [(Pi / 4 ) times 5773.50] inches and we get  0.7853981634 times  5773.5026919 and we get 4534.4984 inches and multiplied by 2 gives us 9068.9968 or rounded off to 9069 inches well with the distances allowed at Giza which are as follows:

So we will stick with 9069 inches which is within one half of one inch to what is measured by Petrie. Now we can not forget about G3 which was miraculously placed precisely at the tan of the angle between centers of G1 and G2 but what of it's size ? Well here is what Petrie has for G3  ...

 North - unavailable
East = 4149.2 inches
South = 4157.8 inches
West = 4153.9 inches

Mean is 4153.6 icnhes

 So let us start with the mean and round up to 4154 inches. If we add this to G1 we get G3 + G1 = 4154. + 9069.0 = 13223 inches and would it not be somewhat convincing if this number in some way showed us Pi given the numbers we have already been using well how about this. 4154 / Pi = 1322.26 this checks to 4/10ths of one single inch and has convinced me that they intentionally encoded their understanding of this ratio. But as always at Giza there is always one more proof and so I offer this. One of the sacred measuremtns used at Sakkara for their arches or curves was the ratio 0.7 or 1.4 ratio and so what do we get when we use 4154 and 1.4 with a little help from our friend Pi ... do I really need to do the math ... well it is none other than  [(4154 / Pi) / 1.4 =  944.47 and again showing us our angle tan decimal of 9445. So what we have is G1 + G3 equal to 1/Pi  x 10 or 3.183098862. If we allow this then G3 is equal to precisely 1 unit and G1 is equal to [(1/Pi  x 10) - 1] or 2.183098862 and that is indeed what the numbers work out to. Are these just more coincidences ? I think not. In order to be a perfect fit we would only need 2/10th of an inch or 9069 / 2.183098862 or 4154.19. Proof I would suspect of intent. But we are not nearly done yet. Here is a diagram that illustrate this concept a bit better using 9068.8 and 4154.

But wait this post is supposed to be about The Bent Pyramid at Dahshur so maybe we should head on over there. see you there in a while ... to be continued.