So as I’m watching the video referenced in Metre, cubit, foot, megalithic yard, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33dKFtCXEFA), and this image pops up on the screen:
Stonehenge 1
Which is a view of how the first version of Stonehenge looked. And I say, “Hang on a mo, that looks familiar …. ” and indeed it is … that’s the same arc from the Nebra Sky disc:
So I’m watching a video on megalithic building, and they introduce the concept of a megalithic yard:
The length was apparently found via careful measurement of existing structures, as well as finding cross-referenced methods using astronomical means.
They claim it to be 2.72 feet or 0.83m, although the Wikipedia editors generally are sceptical of the whole idea.
Be that as it may… I just found the correlation between this 0.83 metre (or 0.8296 if you want to be more precise), and the sum of the cubit + foot of 0.8319m (they’re both 0.83 if you work to two decimals) as discussed on the Origin of the Foot page, to be rather curious.
The close similarity is hard to ignore, and cubit+foot may make a more compelling origin argument than arguing for a circle divided into 366 degrees instead of 360.
[Note: I’m not entirely convinced that my “average year” calculations are correct. I was looking for a way to get 364.75 and since it is tantalizingly close to 365.25 I was looking for a way to get there from that. It may be better to just use 365.25 – 0.5 … now need a Reason Why.]
I was playing around with the calculator and stumbled across this curious sum.
Let’s start with how long a year is. As you should know, it’s 365.25 days for a solar year. If however, we measure against the background stars, it’s about 364.25 days.
From Wikipedia: “Both the stellar day and the sidereal day are shorter than the mean solar day by about 3 minutes 56 seconds. ”
If we take those 3 minutes 56 seconds == 236 seconds, and work out the difference over a year (x 365), we get 86140 seconds, which is 23.927777 hours, effectively one day.
So if we take the average of a solar year and stellar year, we get (365.25 + 364.25)/2 which is 364.75 days, or more precisely, 364.7436921 days.
Now we do this sum.
(continues from Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3)
When I started this exercise I was hoping to find “interesting” alignments between the centres of the three pyramids, in part to explain the curious “kink”. So in that regard I failed spectacularly (so far).
What I did find was a whole host of other interesting alignments. The table below summarizes the best ones, those that are within 0.5° of the correct angle.
Continues from Part 1 and Part 2.
The first two parts dealt with more important mathematical constants, and or otherwise interesting alignments. This part has “the rest”, which are either not so important mathematically (well, in terms of what we expect the pyramid builders to know) or less-accurate alignments, but are posted here “for the record’. There is minimal exposition.
The Nebra disc video (see The Irrational Mathematicians of Giza) points out that not only does the disc encode the metre, but also the inch. Which is of course rather disturbing, as the disc is thousands of years old and predates the Romans, from where the Brits got the inch.
So I’ve stumbled across the origin of the foot, and it dates all the way back to Ancient Egypt. This also might explain the whole concept of “pyramid inches” which some researchers came up when measuring things in the Great Pyramid.
The maths works like this:
In Part 1 we dealt with numbers and ratios that were not unknown in the ancient world, even if we still think it was the Greeks that invented π and φ and the whole Pythagoras theorem etc.
Now we introduce ℯ (2.71828…), the base of the natural logarithm, which is defined as the limit of (1 + 1/n)n as n approaches infinity. There is no evidence that the Egyptians knew of this number, but here it is:
Nature sometimes plays interesting tricks. Perhaps you have heard of the face on Mars, or at least The Man in the Moon.
Back down on earth, there is a curious feature in Canada known as the Badlands Guardian, which, seen from far out in space, looks like an indigenous face:
Badlands Guardian
Well, not to be outdone, we down here in Sunny South Africa have our own version, also an indigenous face, seen from space:
Southern Africa indigenous face
If you’re having trouble spotting it, here’s a cut-out:
Face cut-out.
I guess we can dub this The Guardian of the Cape.
And yes, a little to the right of the neck in the bigger picture, is the mask from Scream ….
Changelog is at end of part 3.
The Giza plateau is one of the most studied places on Earth, while curiously some parts remain off-limits and unexplored. Various people have studied both the pyramids themselves, and the layout of the site, in great detail, which led to various different ideas about the site plan, which are summarised/detailed here:
1. The Orion alignment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_correlation_theory
2. The Cygnus alignment: http://www.andrewcollins.com/page/articles/Cygnus_Orion_Giza.htm
3. A possible method of how it was planned: http://members.home.nl/peregrine/The%20Geometry%20of%20Giza.html
4. Another way of drawing the site: http://www.vejprty.com/gizaplan.htm
5. Another analysis: http://home.hiwaay.net/~jalison/Art3.html
6. Online book with analysis: https://www.greatpyramidexplanation.com/en/index.html
7. Edward Nightingale’s analysis: https://grahamhancock.com/nightingalee1/
8. Golden ratios on the site plan: https://www.goldennumber.net/great-pyramid-giza-complex-golden-ratio/
9. [placeholder for another site with lots of maths, can’t find at the moment.]
I’ve done some analysis of my own, kicked off by looking for phi circles/arcs, which I learned about when I watched a documentary about the Nebra disc…
While playing around and researching things, I came across a curious alignment of two sites. The first is the pyramids at Giza, the second is Göbekli Tepe in Turkey. Currently Göbekli Tepe is the oldest megalithic site discovered, and its discovery forced historians to rewrite the history books and rethink their timeline for civilization. The site dates back to around 9000 BCE, which is long before the copper, bronze or iron ages, which would have provided some tools needed for building the monuments.