The Units of the Pyramid

"The inch is the smallest unit universally accepted."

By whom?

Even the kids at the crosswalk can tell you about smaller universally accepted units than the inch.

Thanks for the humor, don't hide any rotten eggs tomorrow.

What would the kids on the corner tell me? Be Bold and tell me something I don't know

The Hobber goes on the offensive.....news at 11

They would probably point out the futility of trying to introduce unconventional ways to think of numbers to a group of old skeptics, such as this forum.

Even the smart guys here seem to have problems following your reasoning.

I can barely add, so I don't count.

Happy Easter, if you celebrate the holiday.

Of course these things have a place in an Engineering forum.

.

Without grasping the possible effects of peoples willingness to believe in unknowable or illogical conclusions about the validity or reality of such things as 'national righteousness' or 'invisible voyeurs in the sky', attempts to engineer a workable solution to a problem may be very difficult.

.

Engineering shouldn't be driven by lingering myths of primitive minds, but that doesn't mean things like religion should be ignored or not mentioned.

.

Take this CR4 article for example....

The units and dimensions of the pyramids are pretty meaningless to kids today. Few are lucky enough to have a stray pyramid on their doorstep to give meaning to these units/dimensions, but are (seemingly) permanently attached to items that give meaning to millimetres, if not microns. I am old enough (and well-travelled enough) to be quite ambidextrous in terms of metric/non-metric units, but have worked for many years in areas where microns (or tenths of thou) are the order of the day, so "The inch is the smallest unit universally accepted." is totally nonsensical. To expand on what Lyn has said, every kid on this side of the pond "can tell you about smaller universally accepted units than the inch." (and will likely pull something from their pocket and shove it in your face to show you!)

G'day Larry, my first thoughts were quite hostile 'till you mentioned your age. As I respect my elders I will hold my tongue. I will however ask you to revisit your assertion that two waist high blocks add up to 90 inches. I know I am short but I doubt that you're 7'6". I get a two block height of approx. 4 cubits. Of course we're talking about "normal" cubits, the "royal" cubit was longer. That said, I don't know off hand if the longer, royal cubit was extant at the time of the pyramid building pharoes.

Jim

'...I will however ask you to revisit your assertion that two waist high blocks add up to 90 inches. I know I am short but I doubt that you're 7'6".....'

.

I think this all depends on where exactly the waist is (for measurement purposes).

I think if you had many different people point to their own waist, you could a wide variation of answers that would span a region somewhere above the hips and below the ribs....

.

You seem to be implying that a persons waist is found at 1/2 their total height. If this is what you are saying, perhaps you could provide a reference?

.

(disclosure: just playing devils advocate.)

The cubits of today are the currency of the Colonial Fleet....

I read it all- didn't understand much and saw little reason for it, but God bless you for your efforts and current career, but next time come down to earth so us idiots can comprehend- Lyn excluded, he is awesome

Okay. This prompted me to do some looking around...

I had never heard of "pyramid inches" before. I think that's what you're referring to. I don't understand the point of your drawing, but that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

I found this, and the entire existence of the pyramids, completely boggles my mind.

http://www.timstouse.com/EarthHistory/Egypt/GreatPyramid/interestingfacts.htm

Interesting info Kramarat. I didn't check every value listed, but I did notice that the mean distance to the sun was not what I recalled from my younger days (93 million miles). I looked it up and verified against several sites the mean distance is 92,957,130 miles (149600000 km). Not a huge difference (about 1.2%), but certainly enough to make the remarkable connection between 8.9008091 seconds of arc and 8.9008 Pyramid inches not quite so remarkable.

The link states:

The Sun's Parallax: The size of the earth as viewed from the Sun and expressed as an angle and generally taken to be 1/2 the diameter at the equator (Solar Equatorial Parallax) is 8.9008091 seconds of arc using 91848,817 miles as the mean distance to the sun and 3,963.4914 miles as the equatorial radius. The distance between the mean socket level and the height of the leveled bedrock is 8.9008 Pyramid Inches.

Is it possible the numbers were tweaked a bit to support the coincidences (or designed in relationships) more impressive? Or were we a bit closer to the sun back then?

It's possible that they were tweaked, but then again, the stuff that we know for sure about the pyramids still boggles the mind. The technology and precision involved, should not have existed back then.

We all missed an incredibly significant point. We were all tricked to see the obvious 90 inch and 90 degree, right. Well, we missed something even more significant. 4 units and a height of 5 = 45. 5 x 9 = 45. 1/2 of 90 degrees is 45 degrees. And here's the kicker 2 ^7 = 128, so 5760"/128 = 45. Whoa! 45 is the key to the pyramid, not 90!

Have a great Easter!

'...4 units and a height of 5 = 45. 5 x 9 = 45. 1/2 of 90 degrees is 45 degrees. And here's the kicker 2 ^7 = 128, so 5760"/128 = 45. Whoa! 45 is the key to the pyramid, not 90!...'

.

Where did the '7' come from for '2^7'? It might just have easily been '6' right?...which would lead us back to '90'...whatever that means.

.

Beyond that, what ties us to 360 degrees in a circle. Seems rather arbitrary to me.

Truth, Oh no! Look at his diagram. The 4th row down (4 comes from the 4 in 45), there are 7 white spaces. Since the square root of 4 is 2, then 2^7 = 128.

Now we look at 90. The logic doesn't work if you use 90.

The aliens who designed the pyramids knew about the magic number 45. When they abduct humans, they let them know about '45', but they erase their minds before returning them to Earth. Their propulsion system is based on water molecules at 108 degree bond angles.

Of course their civilization is far advanced and we can thank them for the George Foreman Grill, Shamwow, AMC Pacer, Dianetics and the Betamax. As you can see, they are a far advanced race.

Take care and Nanu Nanu!

How could I have missed that?

Are they all wrong who say thatthe Great Pyramid is 280 cubits high with the cubit being 524mm or 20.63"? and the base 440 cubits?

You are making the assumption that an average person's waist height is 45". It's really more like 35". Other than that, I don't see where you are going with this. Can you tell us what it is you wish to discover about pyramids? This could be an interesting discussion if we know what we are looking for.

Yes, ronseto. The fact that much has been written and theorized as to the date and construction of the Great Pyramid, could lead to, at least, some reactions here on more than just numerical ratios of the structure. I dabbled in some of those writings in the '70s but can't piece together the threads that seemed "piece-able" back then.

It occurs to me that somewhere on the Internet, someone has probably written a thorough summary of these "threads," in a manner of presentation rather than arguing on their behalf. Finding it might require a bit of time. If I can find such an article I'll post it to stir the pot, so to speak.

I can stir the pot, anyway, with just a couple of the ideas and references. One of these is a perspective held by a credentialed scientist, questioning a more orthodox view.

There is "a" camp that places the construction between ~11,000 and 10,000 BC. The builders in that perspective were Atlanteans (), of which we have no proof -- but not due to a lack of propositions. If one wants to jump into that cavern and explore, this site seems as good as any for a take-off point -- a mix of rationale and irrational ideas. (Plenty of hyperlinks there.)

There is some evidence (and certainly it is controversial) interpreted such that the Sphinx might be much older than, currently, generally accepted theories, would allow for. That heretical view is postulated by the geologist, Robert M. Schoch.

I am not endorsing any of the information, but think it is interesting enough to be an enjoyable excursion, if approached as "what if." Like attending a movie, some suspension of belief allows one to be "taken on the ride." Then after viewing the movie one decides how much "could be" possible. Imagination is a part of childhood that, in its innocence, gives wonder to living. Surely, we have "grown up" with science, but there is still much to figure out; dark matter and dark energy just being a couple -- and I would argue not necessarily the most significant. (Most "science fiction" movies I've seen in my life are no less fanciful than tales of Atlantis; heck some have been about Atlantis. Despite the incredulity, they can still be enjoyed. It does annoy me, though, that spaceships still make noise in space. I appreciated "2001: A Space Odyssey," for its accurate portrayal of space vacuum in that regard.)

As a side note to the fanciful... recent revisiting of Nikola Tesla's life made me remember an instance (according to Tesla) that certainly seems fanciful, but enjoyable as imagination. The tales of an old, minimized inventor? Just like the Sphinx and Great Pyramid, we still don't know what really happened? The enjoyment is in the imagining.

No takers to my provocation? I guess I'll consider silence as Golden.

I posted what I did, because ronseto raised the question of what the OP was leading to, asking, or if he was leading to anything in particular.

Mathematical analysis of the the Great Pyramid structure can be very interesting. But implied in that analysis is that finding meaningful ratios/numbers means they were preplanned. And that leads to the question of why it was built, as well as how. Surely, not to just be encoded math relationships. Any smaller version could have easily done that and still be large enough to probably withstand the elements, providing for a long term existence, as a monument. It's the scale that is puzzling.

I had read somewhere before about a theory that the blocks were actually poured into place -- cast. I just found info. that gives credence to that theory. The pop-sci. version is at LiveScience here. The actual paper is here. (If you don't get access to it, the abstract is here.) So, casting as one alternative to the how, is plausible and helps explain the seams being so closely fitted. But the why still remains. And that, too, makes the size seem to be overkill. If only to honor a pharaoh, or be associated with certain religious beliefs and rituals, it seems outrageous. Again, a structure even half that size would be impressive. Why the size that was built? Why not 90%, 80%, 67%, etc., of the size it is? Maybe the search for mathematical relationships needs to be on a grander scale.

One line of reasoning (inspired, no doubt, by its mention in the Cayce "readings," which I recall reading about in my youth) is, it was a power plant of sorts. Christopher Dunn began to investigate along these lines. A short discussion of the idea is here. Incredulous? Yes. Still, an interesting and fun hypothesis to consider. One book review of Dunn's "The Giza Power Plant," ties a lot of threads together, hypothetically, which may or may not be in the book. One of note is the reference to Tesla. Dunn's web site is here.

To demonstrate that unintended (?) mathematical relationships can be derived from disparate places (math seems to lend itself to that) here is one analysis regarding the pyramid and DNA. Or is it that mathematical ratios that are meaningful to the human brain are part of Nature? Pythagoras recalled, I suppose.

More musing...

As long was we think in terms of "hidden" information (most who love math, also love puzzles; both making them and solving them -- are we products of the force, "survival of the most curios?") possibly being encoded in the "math" of the Great Pyramid, maybe the means of it's construction is encoded, as well -- a la the movie, "Contact," in which case the structure could have both a practical use (machine of some sort) and a theoretical one (containing encoded information). Not such a stretch. Seeking the information would come under the heading of "reverse engineering." If that were the case, it would be very unlikely that anyone would easily stumble onto the key -- i.e., if there is any relationship between the fundamental forces of physics/nature that we don't yet understand (and that is, generally the idea behind the Unified Field Theory, after all, which most physicists "feel in their gut" must exist), we might not know what information to look for. Most attempts would be down blind alleys. It reminds me, though, of the sculpture that has been discussed here on CR4 before -- Kryptos. (Played any Beatles tunes backwards, lately?)

Speaking of Unified Field Theory, String Theory is one attempt at discovering it. One web site, cosmosgenics, devotes its efforts to the grand pursuit/adventure. If one could discover a "linkage" between forces, they would then appear similar to phases of matter, whereby one could convert from one to the other, as in an algebraic sense. Extracting energy out of thin air, so to speak, might become a reality. Isn't it fun to imagine?!

So maybe there was a kingdom-wide contest to see who could solve the Great Pyramid puzzle. Is there any evidence for such a playful attitude in Egyptology? A cosmic "hide and seek" game?

I can't remember if I've ever referenced the book, "The Magic Numbers of Dr. Matrix," but it is definitely a fun book for math lovers. Dr. Matrix was a fictional character/device which Gardner used to present numerological ideas. Some here may remember Mr. Gardner's columns from Scientific American. He "debunked" something he actually presented in the book, as mysterious, which played into the intent of the book. It is a curious characteristic of the human mind to look for patterns.

An overview of this type of musing, is the fact that even famous scientists, such as Newton, had "Dark Secrets." (Alternate, YouTube viewing here.) And his "secrets were encoded. (A, still, very rational mind recognizes when it is indulging in what is considered irrational by the majority of other minds surrounding it.) Reminiscent of Tesla, DaVinci, and others, I would submit that the ability to think without constrictions has led to what scientific knowledge we have. Why did Einstein's "gut feeling" propel him to pursue a Unified Field Theory for the remainder of his life? And those who picked up that mantle, came up with String Theory. The bias of any accepted perspective can obscure patterns/relationships from being recognized. So dream away!

(Talking to oneself is a sign of something... ?)

(Straggling ink alert.) Here's one physicist's attempt to, verbally, tie together some of the grander ideas that pyramid "type" discussions (or any cosmological topic) can lead to. There's more freedom to air one's "secret" (as it would have been considered in the past) musings in today's world. Being considered a crackpot isn't as injurious as it once was.

(Disclaimer/fine print: Search for the hidden sanity test on the Internet, take it, and submit for grading; where is part of the puzzle. Be watchful for a graded version to be returned in some form.)

I get all of my pyramid information from this guy. Nothing else makes sense.

Recently I was reading about pyramids and was not following a verbal description of the passageways, etc, at all in what I was reading and it occurred to me there must be a virtual tour of pyramids. I found a relatively short video of such on YouTube (which doesn't require installing a 3D player/software) and was looking for a thread to post it. This seems to be one of the most recent. So I'm putting the link in this thread.

Cool!

But I wish it was filmed instead of being an animation.