The Celestial Snynodic Ballet - More to be added so check again later

Hi all.

As I continue to study the heavens (as above so below ? ) I marvel at the overall geometry that has been incorporated. Playing a major role as always are the gods Phi and Pi and also the sq root of 2 and possibly 3.

Please observe this one simple example of possibly hundreds but I have just begun my study but this is the one that immediately jumped out at me.


In the diagram below we have a 3, by 4, by 5 right angled triangle which is the building block of geometry and is the ratio of the sides of G2 the pyramid smack dab in the middle of The Giza Plateau. However instead of 3, 4 and 5 I have used 3,500,000 (miles) as our hypotenuse and equaling 5 units of 7,000,000 miles each. Surprisingly as our 4 unit side we have Neptune which is 4 x 7,000,000 miles or 2,800,000,000 miles (actual is 2,798,310,457 miles). This has far reaching ramifications for now when we look at G2 or Khafre's Pyramid we can say that not only does it represent Venus as we have shown many times and also The Sun (which will be for another post) but now we have shown that the height of G2, as in the diagram below, represents the distance to Neptune while the slope or hypotenuse is showing and represents the total distance of all the other seven remaining planets. However if you will remember from an earlier diagram the total distance of all the planets added together equaled the entire perimeter of The Giza Plateau and this has 9 + 11 + 9 + 11 or 40 units making up this 6,300,000,000 (actual 6,298,310,457 miles). This means that one of our 9 units here and at Khafre's Pyramid is equal to 4.444444 or 4 and 4/9th at Giza. There are nine units here simply 5 (3,500,000,000) + 4 (2,800,000,000) while there are 40 at Giza. 9 across then 11 down then 9 across again then 11 up. So we have amazingly the fact that the ratio of Khafre's Pyramid or G2 to the overall structure of the Giza plateau is equal to 4.444444 or 4 and 4/9th (9 to 40) while the height of this self same pyramid is defining the 44.44444 % point in the total distances of the entire solar system. I mean really, what are the odds ?     



In this next diagram we visit this 3, 4 and 5 sided triangle again.The semi major axis of Ceres is about 2.76633 AU from The Sun and once again we will call on our favorite triangle to join in the dance. Please note here that the largest example of this triangle is situated smack dab in the middle of The Giza Plateau. It is of course the 3-4-5 right angled triangle and the pyramid is G2 or The Pyramid of Khafre. Now we have this:



We note that 3 in our triangle represents the distance from Ceres to The Sun in AU's and the 5 side is showing us the number of Earth periods in a rotation of Ceres.and further we note that the entire ballet seems to be playing in Phi - Pi time.

And now one last parting gift. The difference between the orbital period of Ceres at 4.600670 and the orbital period of Mars of 1.880766 in Earth periods is 2.719904 which I immediately recognized and so I simply multiplied by Phi and we get 4.4009 which is interestingly 1/100th of the base of The Great Pyramid in an orbital period to 100 cubit ratio and we note as well that the three ratios of 4.60067, 1.880766 and the synodic period of 3.181283 (synodic period of Mars - Ceres is 1162.4 days and divided by 365.256 we get 3.1824254770) all seem also to be playing in a Phi - Pi ballet of 5, 8 and 13 the Fibonacci number sequence.

This is all posted on a website (not mine) which I will link to a little later but I think it goes to show that such a beautiful ballet of celestial mechanics has been completely forgotten by the vast majority of humanity and what is even more tragic that like so much of the knowledge the ancients knew it is no longer taught at all. Very sad.

Part V - Giza continues and then putting on some "logs"

Hi Nick what am I missing ?

... Well the ratio between the semi-major axes of Neptune and Jupiter is 2798.3101568091 million miles divided by 483.76680187701 which = 5.7844195714788.

I get semi major axis of Jupiter as 778,279,101.84 + or -

How do you get 483.76680187701 ?

Best
Don Barone

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

Author: Nick L (82.4.204.---)
Date:   19-Jul-10 03:04

>>I get semi major axis of Jupiter as 778,279,101.84 + or -

How do you get 483.76680187701 ?<<

Hi Don

I am working solely in miles here, Wikipedia (which is where I took all my data from for consistency) gives 778,547,200 km for Jupiter's semi-major axis. Converting this to miles gives 483766801.877 miles or 483.76680187701 x 1 million.

Best
Nick

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

Hi Nick yeah thanks sometimes switching back an forth you miss it HOWEVER it does bring up an interesting point on why I missed it.

The distance from The Sun to Neptune IN MILES (2,798,310,156.81) equals almost exactly the distance from The Sun to Uranus IN KILOMETERS (2,876,679,082)

I guess if you were going to create something and show two different measurement system this would be an ideal way of doing it. Make the last planet the same distance as the second last planet when converting to the two different measurement system you wanted the people to use or the two measurement systems you used in "The Creation"..

Most interesting indeed.

Best
Don Barone

Edit October 3rd, 2013: Actually the ratio is not close at all. Really about 97.25 %

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Nick playing around with that theme, that theme being that the difference in the measurements was deliberately encoded into the Solar System we can come up with this:

If we allow the distance to Neptune as 4,50,000,000 kilometers PRECISELY we would get 2,796,170,365.07 miles

If we take the square root of this we get 52878.827 if we divide by 10 we get 5287.8827. If we allow this to equal inches we get 440.65 very nearly the base of The Great Pyramid in cubits.

So let us now work backwards from 440 even. Multiply by 12 gives us 5280

5280 x 10 = 52800

52800 squared = 2,787,840,000 (Neptune = 2,798,310,156.8)

However if we allow 440 cubits or as Petrie states 9068.4 inches we can arrive at this. Simply divide by two to get 4534.2. If we then multiply by a million we get 4,534,200,000 - Is this the true distance that Neptune is from The Sun in kilometers ?

Not sure but close enough maybe to warrant further investigation.

Regards
Don Barone

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author: Nick L (82.4.204.---)
Date:   21-Jul-10 16:31

>>Nick L "there can only be one rectangle which encloses the 3 pyramids"

Not true actually.
You have the far NE corner and the far SW corner as starting points.
With these several rectangles are possible.
I favor root 2 x 1735<<

According to Legon's interpretation of Giza which is the template I work from there is only one viable option. If you have found something else that works for you then that's cool.

>>What evidence is there of knowledge of the English mile in AE times ?<<

That depends upon what you consider "evidence." Personally I am happy enough at the moment just to point out the patterns and relationships which emerge from studying Giza, which to my mind constitute evidence - at least once an accumulation thereof begins to challenge the notion of "coincidence." This public study has only scraped the surface of these issues. However, whether or not intent by the AE or pyramid builders can ultimately be proven is neither here nor there really, since there is a far more important story which emerges from all of this which can in fact be verified by anyone with a calculator. I am talking here about the proportions of the solar system. If you look closely at the table below you may detect some patterns, ie. the first 5 prime numbers, consistent multiples of the number 5 with square roots and pi, and consistent accuracies of no less than around 99.92% to current data. The precise values for the square roots and pi are employed here, no approximations.

The base length of G1 is 40 x 11 cubits and Legon found multiples of the first 4 prime number square roots with 250 in the spacings between the pyramids. Ultimately that is irrelevant though, as this table stands perfectly by itself without any reference to Giza required, as in fact do the solar system maps. However the fact that the maths and geometry of this table and the solar system maps can be seen to tie in rather neatly with Legon's and indeed Clive Ross' interpretation of Petrie's Giza survey should give any conscientious thinker pause for thought in my opinion.

And here's what we get when the first planet of the outer solar system is assigned the number 11:

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

Author: Graham Chase (82.14.33.---)
Date:   21-Jul-10 18:02

Nick L : "According to Legon's interpretation of Giza which is the template I work from there is only one viable option"

You are working from a wrong interpretation as Legon assumes that the rectangle is root 3 by root 2 - which it isn't, as well you know, as have stated so above. From false premise all that follows is wrong.

The table above that approximates the orbits using square roots is not consistent in its method. It just demonstrates that it is possible to approximate to any number using square roots and other factors.

Graham Chase

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author: Graham Chase (82.14.33.---)
Date:   21-Jul-10 18:24

I don't think that my comment about the table has been addressed.

The table above that approximates the orbits using square roots is not consistent in its method. It just demonstrates that it is mathematically possible to approximate to any number using square roots and other factors.

Graham Chase

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Nick I had seen that before. It starts with an error by assuming that the satellite pyramids are in a straight line which they are not. After such a simple error I did not take a great deal of notice on what else it said.

Anyway I have read a bit more of Clive Ross' book: "1o6: The Dawn of Man" and he has introduced A FOURTH MEASURING SYSTEM or at least another way of measuring. 

Here is what Clive says on Page 268 of "1o6: The Dawn of Man" after talking about gravity and the need to find the velocity and acceleration of a falling body: "... Newton was a very clever mathematician, and he theorized the true motion (acceleration) of one body falling toward another body. To develop the theory he had to use logarithms and this type of mathematics was "developed" by The Greeks in Alexandria, Egypt.

Logarithms sound difficult to understand but in reality it is a simple way to multiply and divide by adding and subtracting. "

Clive goes on to explain how logarithms work in a very condensed version and then makes this brilliant insight after explaining that Newton calculated the force of gravity of 9.8 meter per second per second equals 18.76 cubits per second per second

He then again brilliantly noted that  18.76 is Log 1.2734

And his final in your face observation for now was that "the tallest pyramid on this planet has an angular slope equal to 4/Pi and this ratio equals 1.2734 ! "

One has to wonder just how clever Clive really was ...

Cheers and more later for indeed there is more to come ...

Best
Don Barone

PS: Please note that when I checked it I got 4/Pi = 1.27324

I also got 18.72 as the force of gravity in cubits per second squared. Can anybody figure out the log of 18.72 ?

 Log site






And for the exact match we have this ....



And anti log of Pi is ...



 1.3854557314e+3 or 1385.4557314 and surprisingly almost precisely what the diameter of The Sun is in kilometers divided by a thousand (1,392,000 / 1000 = 1392.00.

Hmmm ... we shall have to study this more closely ....

However Clive noted that the diameter of Mars was 6 794.4 km (my measurement ! ) and Earth was 12,756.28 km (my measurement) for a ratio according to Clive of 1.876 while I get currently 1.8775 ...

so did "God" use logs ?

Hmmm ....

We will have to re-examine Giza using logs to see what we find. :o)

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

Author: Nick L (82.4.204.---)
Date:   23-Jul-10 20:19

Hi Don, Elizabeth, Derek...

That's an excellent observation by Clive there Don, seems very relevant. A good angle to pursue. I have done a fair bit of study with the base of natural logarithm e (2.7182818...) which is a very important number in mathematics. Just in regard to logarithms and Elizabeth mentioning time circles, if we sum the synods of the inner planets as viewed from Earth, ie. Mercury, Venus and Mars, we get 1479.72 days. If we sum the synods of the 4 outer planets we get 1514.2 days.
Taking 1479.72 as a great circle of days, and using 22:7 for pi, the diameter of the circle will be 470.82 days. This is √3 x 271.828 days, or 100 x e. Now taking 1514.2 days as a great circle, again using 22:7 for pi we get a diameter of 481.79090909091 days. This is √pi x 271.821 days, once again approx 100 x e. Of course e minus 1 is 1.7182818, which is a good value for a royal Egyptian cubit in feet. I have a lot of notes on this sort of stuff, after reading Richard Heath's "Matrix of Creation" some years ago which addresses the geometry of time in the solar system I became fascinated by the subject.

I have to run on here, I'm getting away for a couple of days for a bit of fresh air and relaxation. Happy hunting everyone and have a nice weekend.

Cheers
Nick

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don posts:

Just starting to try a few things.

Anti Log of Phi to 12 places = 41.498651903383

Anti Log of Phi to 2 places = 41.50

Altitude north of step of Queen's Chamber 41.51 cubits (21.74)

Wow this is fantastic

Height of The Kings Chamber is 82.09 cubits

Log of 82.09 is .... and this is really going to knock your socks off ... I can hardly believe what my eyes are showing me ... Log of 82.09 is .... 1.914

1.914 ... This is the angle (x 100) at Giza between the three pyramids and is the distance in degrees traveled by Mars in it's orbit around the Sun in one Earth year.

This is beyond astounding ... I am spellbound and speechless.


 And finally this beauty for now ...

1411.32 is the distance down from center of G1 to center of G3

Log of 1411.32 ( or 1411.25) is 3.1496 ...

THIS IS EXACTLY AND I MEAN EXACTLY ONE HALF THE PERIMETER DISTANCE AT GIZA DIVIDED BY 100  (6299.2 / 2 = 3149.2 / 100 = 3.1496).

This is astounding.















.

The diameter of The Earth is 12,756.28 kilometers.

The diameter of Mercury is 4 879.4 kilometers.

The ratio of these two is 2.61441981

THE ANTI LOG OF 2.61441981 is ....

411.5474 ... This is PRECISELY the base distance of G2 in cubits when we use Perring's measurements of 707.10 feet

Simply astounding !

Eerie ....

Diameter of Mercury = 4 879.4 km

Diameter of Saturn = 120,536 km

Ratio = 1 to 24.7030373

Log of 24.7030373 = 1.392750354

Multiply by a million and we have 1,392,750.354

Reversing back in order to get 1.392 precisely we need 24.660393372 as the ratio or 24.660393372 x 4 879.4 or 120327.92

Diameter of Saturn = 120,536 km

Our value = 120,328 km

Difference = 208 kilometers

Not bad when considering we are measuring the diameter of a gas giant with no real surface to use.

More interesting madness from "The Log House at Giza"

The distance from the south side of G3 to the south side of G2 is equal to about 630.95 cubits
 Well what do you suppose the log is of 630.96 ?

Well amazingly it is ... 1/100 of the height of G1 in cubit ... yes that is correct it is 2.80000

 
















 If we use 631 even we get ...  2.8000293592 or 280.003

Weird ... truly weird.

Part IV - continuing Giza

Author: Nick L (82.4.204.---)
Date:   12-Jul-10 21:07

I wish to draw attention here to Kepler's Third Law of Planetary Motion, one of the cornerstones of modern astronomy. It should be noted that this Law relates specifically to the special case of circular or mean planetary orbits:

Kepler’s Third Law of Planetary Motion: The Harmonic Law

The square of the orbital period is proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis, or P-squared = a-cubed.

In other words this remarkable orbital Law which reconciles both distance and time is entirely dependent on the ratio of the numbers 2 and 3 (termed sesquiplicate) - the same numbers whose square roots provide for a map of the mean orbits of the inner solar system, as found at Giza but mathematically independent thereof. Kepler was of course convinced that the solar system was founded upon geometry and developed his famous model from the 5 platonic solids - shapes whose proportions derive from the square roots of 2, 3 and 5 and which can each be encompassed perfectly by a sphere. Whilst his model was found to be flawed the geometrical and mathematical principles behind it are evidently not. He was also noted for his admiration of the phi proportion and the Pythagorean right angle triangle formula - which can be said to define the 1st and 2nd pyramids at Giza, albeit approximately in the case of phi/G1. Two square root 2-3-5 right angle triangles define the Giza pyramid's enclosing rectangle and phi is the key to unlocking the positions of Mercury and Earth in our solar system map, without the pyramids in place.

I am currently striving to do Don's and my own findings the justice I feel they deserve hence my lack of time to actively participate here - I hope to have a book finished by the end of the year which will address these issues and much more besides. 

By Me - This just noticed:
 

We have this peculiarity. The distance from center of second to center of third  equals 17873.2 inches ... this amazingly is equal to 10 times the distance from  centre of first to center of third (1787.5 cubits) when measured and converted to cubits.

Further more amazingly when we divide 36857.7 inches (from center of first to center of third) by 17873.2 inches (distance from center of second to center of third)  we get 2.0622 which unbelievably equals 1/10th the number of inches in a cubit.

Difference in total inches between first to second + second to third (19168.4 + 17873.2 = 37041.6) as compared to first to third (36857.7) is a difference of 183.9 inches

Now this number when divided by 20.622 gives us (183.9 /20.622 = 8.9176607506546406750072737852779) and this believe it or not is the distance in miles ( + or -) from The Great Pyramid to The Step Pyramid at Sakkara and is approximately the diameter of a circle with circumference of 28 units.



If we note that the east-west distance between center of first and center of third (22616.0) divided by the east-west distance of center of first to center of second ( 13165.8) equals 1.717784 and interestingly if we multiply this by 440 (cubits) we get 755.825 (feet) almost precisely what The Great Pyramid shows us.

And then lastly we have this. Not quite as accurate but perhaps it has meaning nonetheless. We have NS distance between center of first and center of third of 29102.0 inches and NS distance between center of second to center of third of 15170.4 This when divided gives us a ratio of 1.91834 and this is almost the angle of deflection (actual is 191.4) divided by 100 between the three pyramids and is the number of degrees that Mars travels in it's orbit in one Earth year. (actual is about 191.4 )

Giza remains an interesting place to measure :o)



 Author: Nick L (82.4.204.---)
Date:   18-Jul-10 23:19

This is rather extraordinary I feel. I took another look at the ratios of the outer planet orbits in terms of G1 and found something we had missed previously. Don noted that if the base of G1 (440 cubits) equals Merucry's semi-major axis then Mars' semi-major axis is equal to 1000 x √3. Well the ratio between the semi-major axes of Neptune and Jupiter is 2798.3101568091 million miles divided by 483.76680187701 which = 5.7844195714788. Multiplying this by 440 or G1's base length gives 2545.1446114507 cubits. This number doesn't appear significant until divided by 2, which gives 1272.5723057253 cubits, 1000 x √phi!

In other words then, if we take the semi-base of G1 (220 cubits) as Jupiter's semi-major axis, then Neptune's is equal to approximately 1000 x √phi cubits.

I then found that Uranus' semi-major axis was plotted by subtracting the G2 semi-base (205.5 cubits) x √5 from the Neptune distance of 1000 x √phi, meaning both G1 and G2's semi-base lengths are involved in this scheme.

Saturn can be plotted by dividing Neptune's semi-major axis by pi, since this is the ratio between them: 2798.3101568091/890.70414404871 = 3.141683. 1272.5/pi = 405.

Given that the Great Pyramid can be defined according to both the 3.142857 pi approximation of base perimeter to twice height, and the 1.272727 √phi approximation of height to semi-base, I find it remarkable that these ratios combine with G1's semi-base length to plot Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune, and that G2's semi-base allows for Uranus to be plotted... especially in light of the inner solar system map Don discovered, and which I helped develop. Others shall beg to differ no doubt, everyone is entitled to their opinion of course :-)

The accuracy here is given below, and a diagram I knocked up to better demonstrate this. I give 2 choices of ratio for Neptune to Jupiter, true √phi and the 1.2727 approximation - take your pick.

Semi-major axis (millions of miles)
Jupiter - 483.76680187701
Saturn - 890.70414404871
Uranus - 1787.4855108664
Neptune - 2798.3101568091

Ratio of Neptune to Jupiter = 5.7844195714788
220 (G1 semi-base) x 5.7844195714788 = 1272.5723057253
√phi x 1000 to 220 = 5.7819075178918 = 99.957%
1272.72727 to 220 = 5.7851239669421 = 99.988%

Ratio of Neptune to Saturn = 3.1416831003944
pi to 3.1416831003944 = 99.997%

Ratio of Neptune to Uranus = 1.5655008892647
(√phi x 1000) - (205.5 x √5) = 812.50768455999
(√phi x 1000) to 812.50768455999 = 1.5655478441722 = 99.997%

One could also use the full G1 base length of 440 cubits as Jupiter's semi-major axis, and the full G2 base length of 411 x √5 to plot Uranus. Neptune would then be 2000 x √phi but this would take us out of the Giza enclosing rectangle.
However it is worth noting that a square with sides 2000 x √phi cubits will have a diagonal 3597.8148924034 cubits. If we take the base length, height, slope length (apothem) and corner slope length (arris) for each pyramid and sum them (using 201.5-125 for G3 base-height, 411-274 for G2 and 440-280 for G1), we get a grand total of 3598.1686491421 cubits, merely a third of a cubit of a difference.
3598.1686491421/√2 = 2544.2894516612
2544.2894516612/2000 = 1.2721447258306
1.2721447258306 squared = 1.6183522034586

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

By Don: October 3rd, 2013
 

So to make it clear let's do the math. The square root or Phi which is sine of 18 degrees x 2 + 1 or 0.30901699437494742410229341718282 x 2 = 0.61803398874989484820458683436564 + 1 = 1.6180339887498948482045868343656 and then square root is 1.2720196495140689642524224617375 times 1000 = 1272.0196495 Now this time instead of 220 being Mercury and 57,909,050 we are going to cal it Jupiter and going to call it 778,547,200 km so therefore 220 divides into 1272.0196495 and we get 5.7819074978 or 778,547,200 x 5.7819074978 = 4,501,487,893. Neptune's semi major axis is 4,503,443,661. So we can say that if we allow Jupiter to be 1/2 base of The Great Pyramid or 220 cubits then Neptune has a value of 1000 times the square root of Phi to an accuracy of 4,501,487,893 / 4,503,443,661 = 0.99957 Sorry Nick likes to work in miles I like to work in kilometers however the ratios remain the same.

So here again are Nick's values:

Semi-major axis (millions of miles)
Jupiter - 483.76680187701
Saturn - 890.70414404871
Uranus - 1787.4855108664
Neptune - 2798.3101568091

Now Saturn (890.70414404871) will divide into Neptune ( 2798.3101568091) = 3.1416831004
Pi is 3.14159265 so it checks to Pi for 3.14159265 / 3.1416831004 = 0.99997

This means that the circumference of a circle using as it's diameter Saturn's semi major axis or 890,704,414.405 miles will equal the semi major axis of Neptune.

Now ratio of Uranus to Neptune is equal to:
2798.3101568091 / 1787.4855108664 = 1.5655008892647

 √Phi x 1000 - 205.52 (1/2 base of G2 in cubits) x √5
1272.0196495141 - 459.55669073576 = 812.4629587783
1272.0196495141 / 812.4629587783 = 1.56563402155200

Checks for 1.5655008892647 / 1.56563402155200 = 0.99992

 

Part III - continuing our Giza Solar System studies.

Once again we have Nick writing from the last post: Summing the perihelion of the 4 outer planets gives 5776.2826654833 million miles. √3 divided by 3 = 0.57735, and the height of the Great Pyramid equals 5773.0909 inches. Now a lot of water has gone under the bridge since that post and we have learned a great deal and some of us have concluded that the height of The Great Pyramid is showing us inches and have come to the conclusion that there are 5773.50 of them or the square root of 3 divided by 3 x 10,000 which gives us the needed 5773.50 inches. For Nick to observe that in this number is the total perihelion of the 4 outer planets is nothing short of brilliant and I am surprised I missed the significance of it before. However surprisingly he missed an even more in your face measurement produced by these 4 outer planets and their perihelions. Although he is correct and they do total 5,776,282,417 miles what he failed to note was THE TOTAL KILOMETERS INVOLVED.  The number of kilometers is 9,296,025,450  This number is so important as to be beyond understanding how it could have occurred at Giza but occur it does. Firstly for those who have not recognized this number yet we have in our faces, the total miles that our own Earth is from The Sun. So let's try to grasp what we have here but first what it the number of miles that Earth is from The Sun. It is 149598261 / 1.609344 = 92,956,050 So we have the total of the 4 outer planet's perihelion IN KILOMETERS equaling, and this goes way beyond co-incidence, the total distance that Earth is from The Sun on average IN MILES of  92,956,050 miles times 100 ! It is simply astounding ! Clive found it at Giza in a most unexpected way. Giza just won't stop amazing and surprising me.

From the vaults of Clive Ross - the original "seer" and pioneer and originator of The Giza Solar System

 

and in this following image this 929.7 is equal to and equated to Pi.

And in this image we see how it all ties together at Giza. Using various distances found at Giza for Earth we can find many other things. I will just post the image for now and expand on it later.

The fact that Clive found the formula for ratio of a volume to a sphere at Giza of approximately 1.91 and that is so closely approximates the ratio of a cubit and a meter (39.37 to 20.62) and the distance between Earth and Mars to Earth (149598261 / 78340839) leads me to conclude beyond a shadow of a doubt that not only is our reality intelligently and geometrically designed but so was The Solar System at Giza !


But you know it gets even more amazing and I really don't know what to conclude about it all for now we have thanks to Nick the idea that in the height of The Great Pyramid lies the 4 perhelions of the 4 outer planets of our solar system but I have shown that this is also equal to the distance that Earth is from The Sun in miles. So again let's try to grasp what we are being shown here. In the height of The Great Pyramid there is 5773.50 inches which we have shown equals the distance of the 4 outer planets in kilometers in a ratio of 1 inch =  1,000,000 miles. it is mind blowing stuff but it now gets even more amazing for this height also I have shown equals in kilometers if we allow each inch to equal a million miles we get  5776 x 1.609344 (exact ratio of kilometer to a mile) and we get 9296.0258499995559552 million kilometers and this equals 100 times the distance that Earth is from The Sun so in fact not only is The Great Pyramid the Earth AND Mercury but it now appears that is also is showing us the distance that Earth is from The Sun AND ALSO SHOWING US the total of the outer 4 planets and their perihelion.



So we have height of The Great Pyramid in inches to mile (5776.05 x 1 million ) equals the total of the 4 outer planet perihelion and when we convert.to kilometers we get 9,296,025,450  which is 100 times further than Earth is from The Sun on average.

So here is the simple equation to remember.

(√3 / 3) x 10,000,000,000 (10 billion) = total of 4 outer planet's perihelion

{[(√3 / 3) x 10,000,000,000] x 1.609344} / 100 = semi major axis of Earth in miles.

NOTE: 

Using the value that Nick obtained of 5776.2826654833 x 1,000,000 and inserting it in our formula above we get 149605034.3 and this checks to 99.995 % 

And from Petrie we have this:

Now, at the level of these measurements, 5407.9 at N.E., or 5409.2 at S.W., above the base, the edges of the casing (by the angles of the N. and S. side found above) will be 285.3 ± 2.7 on the North, and 30I.6 on the South side, from the vertical axis of the centre. Thus there would remain for the casing thickness 60.8 ± 3 on the N., and 86.6 on the S.; with 77.6 for the mean of E. and W. Or, if the angle on the S. side were the same as on the N., the casing thickness would be 69.2 on the S. This, therefore, seems to make it more likely that the South side had about the same angle as the North.

On the whole, we probably cannot do better than take 51º 52' ± 2' as the nearest approximation to the mean angle of the Pyramid, allowing some weight to the South side.

The mean base being 9068.8 ± .5 inches, this yields a height of 5776.0 ± 7.0 inches.

Giza: Never a dull moment !

Cheers. Don Barone October 3rd, 2013

Part II: The Giza Solar System: Findings of Interest - a Continuation

Continuing on ...

Just a small addendum:

EARTH = 92,955,817.401371 miles
MARS = 141,634,790.3245 miles

In my last diagram we have 1 meter plus 1 cubit = 5 feet

This is a classic equation showing all three measurement system and breaks down this way.

MARS = 141,634,790.3245 miles is equal to 5 feet or 60 inches.

1 inch = 141,634,790.3245 / 60 = 2360579.83874167

EARTH = 92,955,817.401371 / 2360579.83874167 = 39.378 inches

Balance is 60 - 39.378 or 20.622 inches or one cubit

Best
Don Barone

Author: Nick L (82.4.204.---)
Date:   26-Jun-10 00:38

Hi Don

Excellent observations. Your Giza grid convinced me some time ago not to overlook the meter there. Indeed I did some investigations of my own and these further aroused my curiosity. I will see what I can dig up tomorrow, as well as look at your findings in more detail then.

I was taking a cursory look earlier myself at the closest (perihelion) and furthest (aphelion) distances of the planets from the Sun and found Mercury, Uranus and Neptune to be of particular interest. As I noted previously the G1-G3 distance is 1787.58 cubits (from Petrie's survey) which mirrors Uranus' mean orbital distance in miles (from Wikipedia). The G2-G3 distance is 17873.1 inches so again a mirror. In cubits this distance is 866.86 cubits and amazingly these digits are mirrored in the aphelion of Uranus which happens to be 1866.8598534557 million miles, rounding off gives 1866.86 x 10^6.

The perihelion of Uranus is 1708.1111688985 million miles and this is the circumference of a circle whose radius is 271.85433588067, a number which you commented on in relation to phi and the Great Pyramid base length. It is also familiar to myself as the base of natural logarithms or e, a number which I have come across before in relation to Giza. For example the combined north-south spaces between the 3 pyramids equals 250+429.5 = 679.5 cubits which is 250 x 2.718. The combined heights of the 3 pyramids = 679 cubits which equals 250 x 2.716. Summing the distances between the apexes of G1-G3 and G1-G2 we get 2717.267 cubits, approx 1000 x e and 10 times the pyramid heights and north-south spacings. The 20.61818 cubit = 1.718 feet too.

866 is of course half of 1732 (√3 x 1000) which is one half of the overall north-south distance between the pyramids. The aphelion of Neptune is found to be 2829.6911598762 million miles, dividing this by 2000 gives 1.4148455799381, a good approximation of the √2. The overall east-west distance between the pyramids gives a slightly larger value for the √2 - as I noted summing the mean orbital distances of Neptune and Mercury provides for that. Dividing Mercury's perihelion into Neptune's aphelion we find:

2829.6911598762/28.583820488347 = 99 (rounded)

99:70 gives a good approximation of √2 (1.4142857) and so accordingly multiplying Mercury's perihelion by 70 we get 2000.867.

Mercury's aphelion is 43.382210391314 million miles and dividing this by 25 gives 1.7352884156526, the first 3 digits mirroring the √3. John Legon noted that the first 4 prime number square roots are found in the spacings of the pyramids, in multiples of 250 cubits. The distance from the center of G1 to the east side of G2 = 433 cubits.

Summing the perihelion of the 4 outer planets gives 5776.2826654833 million miles. √3 divided by 3 = 0.57735, and the height of the Great Pyramid equals 5773.0909 inches.

For me Giza is geometrical and mathematical poetry and it constantly chides: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Best
Nick

October 3rd, 2013

Here is a diagram I just did to try and show the great work and insights of Nick. L.simplified.

Nick also writes "Mercury's aphelion is 43.382210391314 million miles and dividing this by 25 gives 1.7352884156526, the first 3 digits mirroring the √3." As interesting as this is we must also note that the polar radius of The Moon is 1735.97 kilometers and we must also note that the angle of the diagonal that joins G2 to G1 is 13156.8 / 13931.6 = 0.9450314393 and using this as a tan we get an angle of 43.381194054864 amazingly close to the furthest that Mercury gets from The Sun in miles. However we would be remiss if we did not at this time at least introduce the Bent Pyramid and The Red Pyramids where the angle is said to be 43°22' (upper) (Wiki) and The Red (sloping at 43 degrees 22') see this site:    Needless to tell you that 43.382 equals 43°21' 42" ... close enough to warrant more than a passing look and examination for sure.

I regards to what Nick wrote about the Aphelion (furthest point away from The Sun) I had not noted what he wrote before but it is amazingly important. Firstly 1,866,859,853 miles = 3,004,419,704 kilometers. The distance 3,004,419,704 other than obviously suggesting 3/4ths or maybe even 3/5ths also yields as Nick should have pointed out that .866859853 is extremely close to 1/2 the square root of 3 or 0.86602540378 and we can also note that if we use it as a base decimal and use 1.866859853 times Mercury's distance from The Sun of 57,909,050 we get 108108080.57036965 or  ≈ the semi major axis of Venus of 108,208,930. The 3,004,419,704 kilometers is important because if we remember in an earlier post I showed that the total distance adding up the equatorial diameters of the first six planets is equal to, surprisingly, almost a total mirror of the furthest distance that Uranus gets from The Sun.. See diagram below:

Here we see that the total of all the equatorial diameters of the first six planets up to and including Jupiter equals 300,054 or  ≈ 10,000 times smaller than the Aphelion (furthest point away from The Sun) of Uranus and we have many times had to multiply by 10,000.

I would have to agree with Nick when he writes: For me Giza is geometrical and mathematical poetry and it constantly chides: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

The Giza Solar System: Findings of Interest - First of an untold number of pages

 Hi all this post and some future ones will include posts made in reaction to some of what I proposed on a couple of message forums. Nick L was an amazing inspiration and came up with many new ideas while we both attacked the problem of The Solar System at Giza. I have put it in this format so that credit is given where credit is due and none will think I stole anyone's ideas.

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





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.

On a website of mine 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.

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 research 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 50 times the diameter of The Sun 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 million kilometers and from Venus to Earth is 41.6 (1/2 of 83.3333) 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

Some geometric fun with the 1, 2 and sq rt of 5 triangle

.



.



.



.



.



.



.



.








I hope this is a little clearer.

The question mark is on the page because I do not have the mathematical proof of those measurements. They are scaled and surmised from logic.

It may be that is will show that it is exactly in the ratio of 7 to 5.5.

Regardless it is a pretty solid diagram to show how one could have designed The Great Pyramid with simply a marker, straightedge and compass.

It all starts with this image found on this website: http://goldennumber.net/phiformulageometry.htm



Cheers and of course solution to follow and when I post it you will never look at The Great Pyramid in the same light again. It is I think, as close as I will ever come, short of finding the work book of the builder, in proving the mathematical design of this pyramid.

I will, I hope, show that rather than 440 cubits being the designed base unit, the base of 440 cubits was only a by-product of the designed height which itself was simply a by product of the simple 1, 2, and square root of 5 triangle found everywhere at Giza and most importantly in The King's Chamber itself.

 




I hope this is a little clearer.

The question mark is on the page because I do not have the mathematical proof of those measurements. They are scaled and surmised from logic.

It may be that is will show that it is exactly in the ratio of 7 to 5.5.

Regardless it is a pretty solid diagram to show how one could have designed The Great Pyramid with simply a marker, straightedge and compass.