Further to my thoughts (which covers some ground covered by others already, so they were not all new ideas) about why the great pyramid is not a tomb, let me speculate on what I think it really was.
But before we get there, it is possible that it may be a tomb, but not in the parts that we know about. There may be another entrance on the west wall (i.e. the one away from the Sphinx), with a separate tunnel and room system like the Bent Pyramid. This possibility is strengthened by the fact that there are different stone types used in the lower courses, which make a triangular pattern, with the current known entrance at the apex of the one on the northern side.
Some thoughts on why the Great Pyramid is not a tomb… we’ll get to what it may be in another post.
Various other people have pointed out things about the Great Pyramid which indicate that it was not a tomb. These include:
1. The sarcophagus was empty.
2. It’s a bit small for receiving a king in full burial kit … mummified with layers of cotton wrapping, then assorted nested boxes, gold death mask, etc.
3. The sarcophagus (and the entire pyramid) are devoid of any carvings or inscriptions. There’s absolutely nothing along the lines of “I came. I saw. I built.” or “Here lies King Khufu with his six wives and 97 children. He was The Man” or even “Warning: no tomb robbers (or Englishmen) allowed.” Nil. Nada. Unlike your typical tomb.
Was playing around with the calculator, still exploring exactly what that kink in the alignment of the three pyramids is.
The great pyramid has a designed height of 280 cubits.
The second pyramid has a designed height of 274 cubits.
That’s a difference of 6 cubits. Which is not very interesting until we turn that difference into metres (and you may guess where this is going …)
6 cubits = 6 x π/6 metres = π metres = 3.1415926+ metres ….
Am still pondering difference in height to the third pyramid …. nothing jumping out like π at the moment….
According to the historians, the cubit is an ancient measure based on the length of the arm plus hand, like this:
Cubit and Royal cubit.
where the normal cubit is 6 palms long, and the Royal Cubit 7 palms long. Well, that’s one explanation of the origin. The other is that they got it from the gods, a long long time ago.
Now there are several problems with the common cubit as shown above. In the first place, it’s generally accepted as being 17.6 or 18 inches long. That’s 44.7 to 45.7 cm.
This is not original research, I’m just republishing results found by others, because I find it excessively annoying (as in: This should not be so.) and need to get it out of my system.
We start with the location of the Great Pyramid, thanks to Google Maps (or Earth).
[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: