1650 replies to this topic

[questionmark]

Scott Creighton, on 15 November 2012 - 07:15 PM, said:

SC: No one doubts this. But it wasn't ONLY RTPW that occurred. It occurred in conjunction with a an actual tilting of the axis. How do you explain why the Earth's rotational axis was inclined at 26.5 degrees ca.2,350 BCE? According to astronomy programs (Stellarium, Starry Night Pro, Red Shift etc), the Earth's axis should be at around 24 degrees at this time and 26.5 degrees is a full 2 degrees beyond what Milankovitch theory can ever allow it. So why did the Earth's axis break Milankovitch theory ca.2,350 BCE?

SC

The inclination of the Earth's according to the gentleman is cyclical shifting  by about 2.4 degrees every 41000 years and back. That is consistent with the historic observations of building pointed to the North Star as northern marker throughout history. The last time the cycle was on its starting point was in 29500 BC (as far as we can tell), which means that since then, give or take 2 degrees, the North star was a known and only reliable geographic marker that existed throughout the ages.

Another good indicator that there were not many variations in known history is the Nebra disk, which also corroborates that the firmament has not changed all that much.


And, last but not least, the Earth axis at this point in time is 23.4 degrees, which all good astronomy programs I know reflect accurately and according to Milankovitch axial tilt the end point is 24.5 degrees, not 26. Something you could find out really fast by googling it. Around 18000 CE we will know whether he he was right.

[cormac mac airt]

 George Dodwell and Axial Tilt.jpg   183.16K   1 downloads

http://articles.adsa...000208.000.html

Of particular interest from this article:

Quote

Dodwell acknowledges that since Halley's time it has become clear a cometary impact would not be sufficient, and postulates the impact of a minor planet. No calculation of the dynamical aspects of such an impact is undertaken, nor is any supporting historical evidence presented.

Needless to say the impact from a minor planet would not go unnoticed in the geological record, assuming for sake of argument there was anyone left alive afterwards to investigate such. And as Steven Dutch (Natural and Applied Sciences - University of Wisconsin - Green Bay) has already mentioned:

Quote

An impact big enough to have even a tiny effect on the Earth's orbit or rotation would almost certainly destroy all life on Earth as well.

http://www.uwgb.edu/...sc/flipaxis.htm

cormac

[cladking]

Atentutankh-pasheri, on 15 November 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

Perhaps first the "event" that caused the "sudden" building of the recovery vaults should be proved. So, what evidence is there of a shift in the axis of the planet that moved Giza 6.5 degrees closer to the equator. If this is the root cause, then this must be proven, or all that follows in this hypothesis falls on it's face.

I don'tbelieve the evidence for a pole shift is as strong as the evidence for recovery vaults. Or to
be more precise while there is evidence for a pole shift there is also strong evidence against it.

There's no reason they should necessarily need any major event to worry about the viability of the
kingdom in a land that was utterly dependent on unpredictable and undependable floods of a river.
It wouldn't take many consecutive crop failures before they had no seed crop and no hope.  Perhaps
pyramids merely represented a second chance.

Why would they suddenly need to build great pyramids as tombs?

[cladking]

cormac mac airt, on 15 November 2012 - 07:58 PM, said:

George Dodwell and Axial Tilt.jpg

http://articles.adsa...000208.000.html

Of particular interest from this article:



Needless to say the impact from a minor planet would not go unnoticed in the geological record, assuming for sake of argument there was anyone left alive afterwards to investigate such. And as Steven Dutch (Natural and Applied Sciences - University of Wisconsin - Green Bay) has already mentioned:



http://www.uwgb.edu/...sc/flipaxis.htm

I agree it's highly improbable that any impact has ever had much affect on the direction of
spin since the planet was first fully formed.  But there are other possible ways that the poles
can change locations including the most likely; relative movement of the crust.

[questionmark]

cladking, on 15 November 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

I agree it's highly improbable that any impact has ever had much affect on the direction of
spin since the planet was first fully formed.  But there are other possible ways that the poles
can change locations including the most likely; relative movement of the crust.

The relative movement of the crust does not change the poles, it just changes the relative position of the continents to the poles.

Besides, the probable movement in historic times of the continents are well studied and known. There is nothing that indicates major changes within the last 10,000 years.

[the L]

When I was first time in Egypt I wonder how those people managed to live on 50 C. Then one Egyptian told me that he and his family are awake in 3 in the morning and work till 11. I remembered then stories about crazy ruler in Egypt who proclaims law that people must sleepat day and work at night. I tried to think where pyramids would fitt in that story. They could be Public light?No. Lighthouses? For aliens for Vimanas? No. For travelers. Possible?

[cormac mac airt]

cladking, on 15 November 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

I agree it's highly improbable that any impact has ever had much affect on the direction of
spin since the planet was first fully formed.  But there are other possible ways that the poles
can change locations including the most likely; relative movement of the crust.

An impact from a minor planet, Dodwell's later conclusion, rather negates any idea of the relative movement of the crust, such as some would compare to a loose skin rotating around an orange. The location directly at the point of impact would be obliterated. This would be evident in the geological record, yet we see evidence of no such thing having happened.

cormac

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Scott Creighton, on 15 November 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

With respect, but even if the evidence of this was presented here (and there is much), the naysayers here (and you know who you are) would simply claim it does not present proof as to why the Ancient Egyptians undertook the construction of all these early pyramids even though this is what the early Arab chroniclers tell us (the same Arab chroniclers who wrote down and preserved  the works of Aristotle and Plato which were later brought back to Europe after the 'Dark Ages' via the Arabic writings).

Well, have seen diagrams, 15 exactly, and pages of writing about such. Not being trivial, though I think this information needs to be presented in holographic form. Well, expensive and difficult of course, or at least some type of 3D representation, as lines superimposed on one face of four sided object do not convince sufficiently. This needs visually explaning on a macro scale, to put 3D representation of GP on model of Earth and extend the lines planetwide and into the cosmos, and it needs to be exact, no manipulation. The physical elements, the geometry and star maps all checked by acknowledged experts with no axe to grind or egos to massage. While you still have only lines on a page and a heap of numbers, much the same as many others before in this affair, then yours is just another hypothesis in the crowded world of pyramidology. To me, John Romer's book from 2007 is as definitive about GP as we are likely to get for some time. You want to supplant his book, then you have some work to do, particulary with this axis change.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

cladking, on 15 November 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

Why would they suddenly need to build great pyramids as tombs?

Faith? meglomania? (unlikely), because they could? because they had a vision, an idea, and they had a genius, or perhaps several, who could turn the ideas into reality. Think about why the medieval cathedrals were built (ad majorem Dei gloriam). These all seem reasonable to me. And I think they were not built "suddenly" in the sense you imply. Think of the early attempts as being like a child learning to ride a bike. One day you no longer wobble about and fall off, great!! so next day you show off and ride with no hands on the handles, do wheelies etc. For all the mystical elements strange to us, AEs were still people. Perhaps they just showed off, then with the expense and time involved, got bored, or tired, very tired probably....

[questionmark]

Atentutankh-pasheri, on 15 November 2012 - 08:36 PM, said:

Faith? meglomania? (unlikely), because they could? because they had a vision, an idea, and they had a genius, or perhaps several, who could turn the ideas into reality. Think about why the medieval cathedrals were built (ad majorem Dei gloriam). These all seem reasonable to me. And I think they were not built "suddenly" in the sense you imply. Think of the early attempts as being like a child learning to ride a bike. One day you no longer wobble about and fall off, great!! so next day you show off and ride with no hands on the handles, do wheelies etc. For all the mystical elements strange to us, AEs were still people. Perhaps they just showed off, then with the expense and time involved, got bored, or tired, very tired probably....

The Mega monuments in most cultures coincide with one event: The elevation of the king from mortal to god. No matter where you look before 500 BC, as soon as the kings convinced their gangs that they were gods gigantic constructions pop up, sometimes with funerary purposes, others with symbolic purposes.

From what we know, Khufu was the first Egyptian king with an actual religious cult in his memory.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

the L, on 15 November 2012 - 08:11 PM, said:

When I was first time in Egypt I wonder how those people managed to live on 50 C. Then one Egyptian told me that he and his family are awake in 3 in the morning and work till 11. I remembered then stories about crazy ruler in Egypt who proclaims law that people must sleepat day and work at night. I tried to think where pyramids would fitt in that story. They could be Public light?No. Lighthouses? For aliens for Vimanas? No. For travelers. Possible?

Beacons for starships that will return after the second great fracture, also, with the great light that shines miles up into the sky, as beacon for the survivors to head for. Then there is the question of the lights from the obelisks, the dark light that is also bright. Khonsu/Horus, fracture, death, dark. Was before, now comes again. Siberia is not high enough, Midgard (Omsk) will drown........

Edited by Atentutankh-pasheri, 15 November 2012 - 08:53 PM.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

questionmark, on 15 November 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

The Mega monuments in most cultures coincide with one event: The elevation of the king from mortal to god. No matter where you look before 500 BC, as soon as the kings convinced their gangs that they were gods gigantic constructions pop up, sometimes with funerary purposes, others with symbolic purposes.

From what we know, Khufu was the first Egyptian king with an actual religious cult in his memory.

And had thought of the tomb of the first Emperor of China, which is supposed to be a re-creation of the world. Pity they won't let excavation take place. But if it is true about the lake of mercury......

[samspade]

Scott Creighton, on 15 November 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

This is not to say, however, that these early pyramids might not have been later appropriated as tombs (intrusive burials) or that the much later, inferiror pyramids were built in imitation of the originals for the purpose of burial--I think this is possible.

Scott clearly in the 3rd dynasty and Warwick will tell you as well, the pyramid of Huni has been deemed to be a cenotaph.
A Cenotaph is a tomb, basically a tomb with no physical body remains  in it.
So we seen that even in the 3rd Dyn we see pyramids being used as a tomb.

Your beliefs thinking the great pyramid is representing 1 of the belt stars of Orion is terribly wrong, nothing personal but its the truth, whether you chose to believe it or not. There is more truth in  me by the Great Pyramid coming across the rejected stone of the builders that jesus talked about.

regards, a pal from Egypt 2008.

Edited by samspade, 15 November 2012 - 09:30 PM.

[cladking]

questionmark, on 15 November 2012 - 08:08 PM, said:

The relative movement of the crust does not change the poles, it just changes the relative position of the continents to the poles.

Besides, the probable movement in historic times of the continents are well studied and known. There is nothing that indicates major changes within the last 10,000 years.

The line along which the planet spins is effectively a vector sum total.  If there were separation
between the crust and the core of the planet then the pole would move very little relative the core
but the change relative the crust could be more substanntial (dependent on direction of slippage).
Since we all live on the crust this is the only thing that would be of much importance to us.  Even
the smallest slips could have huge impacts on climate in some places.  Even small slips could pro-
duce a great deal of damage to locations on the surface of the earth.

Slips like this would not be expected to show up very dramatically and the little evidence could easily
be misinterpreted.  This isn't to say I believe it has happened but it is curious that some ancient peo-
ple seem to believe it did happen.  I don't support in any way the belief of some people that there have
been massive changes in the spin because this would necessarily leave evidence and it doesn't exist.
Such huge changes would require massive energy which also would leave evidence.

[cladking]

Atentutankh-pasheri, on 15 November 2012 - 08:36 PM, said:

Faith? meglomania? (unlikely), because they could? because they had a vision, an idea, and they had a genius, or perhaps several, who could turn the ideas into reality. Think about why the medieval cathedrals were built (ad majorem Dei gloriam). These all seem reasonable to me. And I think they were not built "suddenly" in the sense you imply. Think of the early attempts as being like a child learning to ride a bike. One day you no longer wobble about and fall off, great!! so next day you show off and ride with no hands on the handles, do wheelies etc. For all the mystical elements strange to us, AEs were still people. Perhaps they just showed off, then with the expense and time involved, got bored, or tired, very tired probably....

They started right out with great pyramids.  They didn't warm up with 75' or 100' pyramid
and there are certainly no 150' pyramids.  There's nothing in the entire culture that would
lead us to believe they had the technology to lift stones to great height until the suddenly
"got religion" and built a 200' tall great pyramid.  This isn't logical.  It's apparent there was
a technological breakthrough that allowed them to build a great pyramid right on top of an
existing mastaba.

Why assume that this breakthrough entailed building tombs?  It's not impossible they were
tombs but why assume they were.  Modern science can answer these questions but people
are so wrapped up in the assumptions that they won't even consider science.  We are more
moribund than the pyramid builders or any mummy we believe might have been in them.