Is Egypt The World's Oldest Book of Astronomy

[Ahatmose 46]

Hi all in this thread I hope to present my evidence that I have accumulated over the last 19 years to show you what I have found. If you are looking for the quick answer to how they may have known this data and how they built the pyramids I am afraid I am still searching for those answers myself however the evidence is in my opinion very strong that all of The 3rd and 4th Dynasty Pyramids.encode the same evidence. It is hard for a lot of people to understand ratios. They think that because Mercury's semi major axis is 57,909,050 km which is simply the average distance Mercury is away from The Sun, that this is not possible. Not only is it possible it is very, very easy. As an example I could simply say the distance of Mercury is ... well let's use 1 or perhaps 12 or how about 220 all three of which I intend to show were included at Giza and elsewhere.  The pyramids I feel that are included in this "map of Our Solar System" are:

The Pyramid at Meidum

The Bent Pyramid at Dashur

The Red Pyramid at Dashur

The Step Pyramid at Sakkara

The Pyramid of Menkarre

The Pyramid of Khafre

and of course

The Great Pyramid of Khufu

I will start with a very basic ratio that i discovered. I noted that if we allow 1/2 the base of G1 (The Great Pyramid) to equal the semi major axis of Mercury then the base of G2 (Pyramid of Khafre) at 411.04 would equal almost exactly the semi major axis of Venus. It was a memorable day for me and as I built on that my hypothesis became very clear. The Giza Plateau is "The World's Oldest Book of Astronomy". Since that initial discovery I have gone on to find the same message encoded at all the pyramid sites. I would be remiss if i were not to thank the person who has made all my work possible. A giant of a man from the late 1880's, Flinders Petrie who meticulously measured not only Giza but Meidum and the two pyramids at Dashur. It is only because of his work I am able to present this evidence to you. There is one other giant to thank, now sadly deceased. His name was Clive Ross and he stood alone many years ago proclaiming to the world that Giza was in fact The World's Oldest Book of Astronomy. I must admit to being very skeptical at first but then I analyzed the evidence and became a firm believer. There is a warehouse of data I have accumulated and presenting it in a coherent and sequential order is very difficult but I will try. In conjunction with 220 cubits = Mercury and 411.04 cubits = Venus I noted that the sides of a projected enclosing rectangle around the three pyramids of Giza and using 440 cubits as Mercury would give us the distance to Mars. .  

Here is a basic first image:

 

and an image to show us the ratio of the planets when Mercury = 1

Cheers

Don Barone

 

 

Edited June 4 by Ahatmose
spelling errors

[Ahatmose 46]

Hi again. Just so we know where I am getting the measurements I am using the measurements as determined by Flinders Petrie in his surveys of Egypt from 1881 to 1883 and as printed in his book published in 1884. Here is an image to see all the measurements in two image. The first in inches and the second in cubits

and cubits using 20.62 inches equal 1 cubit

These are the distances I used as per Petrie's book which can be obtained here online.

http://www.ronaldbirdsall.com/gizeh/petrie/c6.html

Regards

Don Barone
 

 

 

Edited June 4 by Ahatmose

[Ahatmose 46]

A major breakthrough occurred for me when I discovered that the ratio of the base of G1 when compared to the base of G2 was precisely in the ratio of the square root of 3 to Phi. That is to say that if we call the base of G1 sq rt of 3 then G2 will equal Pi.. The mathematical proof can be obtained by simply dividing the base of G1 by the sqaure root of 3 and then multiplying by Phi. Which measurement to use becomes the question and that is where another of my major breakthroughs gives us the answer. In my work, and others, it appeared that the lowly inch was allowing all kinds of things to be discovered but many times it was asked of me how can the inch possibly be involved since The Ancient Builders could not possibly have been using it ... or could they ?  I must confess I thought long and hard over the problem of the inch and then when I was helping Gary Osborn work on his idea of finding the speed of light at Giza I stumbled onto the obvious, at least to me. solution of what this inch was.  It is derived from a "Perfect Square" . An obvious question them becomes well what makes this square special. The answer is that it uses just sq rt of 2, sq rt of 3 and Phi and from this the real measurement of The Great Pyramid is revealed. The inch I discovered is so close to our present day inch that it could actually be the same but I really have no way of knowing since they are so close. Here is the diagram that was the breakthrough for me.  I must admit to being astonished and mesmerized when I saw the results of this diagram and i think you might be was well. Here is the diagram in lieu of the thousand words:

The major thing to notice here is that the red circumference which is simply 1/2 Pi when divided by the sq rt of 3 (1.732050807...) gives us 0.906899682117.... and if we multiply by 10,000 ( I will explain a bit about 10,000 in a moment)  we get 9068.9968.... and almost precisely what was measured for the Great Pyramid. In is my contention that this is why inches seem to work so well at Giza. The inch that was used was not the inch of today but was simply a mathematical inch derived from this "Perfect Square" and the 20.62 inches of The Cubit was simply a way of converting these "Divine Inches" into measurements the actual builders could understand and were using at the time. But just a very quick word on 10,000. It is my contention that the height of The Great Pyramid was EXACTLY 5773.5027 (rounded) inches which is derived easily from the sq rt of 3 by simply dividing by 3 and then multiplying by 10,000. This 5773.5027 divided by 20.62 our inches per cubit yields a value of  299.995 cubits and checking fairly accurately to the 280 cubits that academia seem swilling to accept. So now we can go even further and say that 1/2 base of G1 which is in fact 1/2 sq rt of 3 which we have called Mercury (semi major) or 57,909,050 km or 4534.4984 inches times ratio of Mercury to Venus or 108,208,930 km (semi major axis of Venus)  which is G2 which is Venus and which is .108,208,930 / 57,909,050 = 1.868601 and we get 4534.4984 x 1.868601 = 1.858686 =  8473.170 inches and just a couple of inches either way of a side at G2. But let's check my contention that G1 represents the square root of 3 and G2 represents Phi. We start with 9068.9968 and then divide this by 1.732050807 to arrive at our value for simply 1 and that is 5235.987756 and times Phi to arrive at a value of 8472.00 inches and checking to the north side of G2 to an insignificant 1/10 of an inch.

Based on this it is my determination that the ancient builders meant G1 to represent the square root of 3 and G2 to represent Phi but further to that since 1/2 base of G1 equals Mercury then 1/2 base of G1 = Mercury = 1/2 sq rt of 3 and G2 = Phi and Venus .. like in this image below:

.

Another interesting thing about these pyramids is that if you take the diagonal of G2 which words out to be 411.05 x sq rt of 2 or 531.313 then if we use this as a diameter the resulting circle is 1826.25 and equals in Earth days precisely 5 Earth years.and in a final piece of wizardry if we call this 1826.25 one Earth year then the base of G1 will equal 1826.25 / 440 = 4.15057 and would equal 88 days which is the orbital period for Mercury ! As shown very nicley in my image below:

Cheers

Don Barone

Edited June 4 by Ahatmose
spelling errors

[Kenemet 4,542]

The oldest astronomy books belong to the Sumerians.  The Egyptians did have Star Diagonals (Middle Kingdom and possibly first Intermediate period) but they were fairly poor astronomers.  A look through their astronomical material reveals that they did observations but they weren't that accurate at it.  They thought the sky was the body of a goddess (which doesn't jive with having planetary theory.)

And they couldn't do decimals.

The Babylonians are the first ones credited with a theory of planets (everyone else thought that the moving lights in the sky were something else: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_astronomy#Planetary_theory

 

Edited June 4 by Kenemet

[Ahatmose 46]

21 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

The oldest astronomy books belong to the Sumerians.  The Egyptians did have Star Diagonals (Middle Kingdom and possibly first Intermediate period) but they were fairly poor astronomers.  A look through their astronomical material reveals that they did observations but they weren't that accurate at it.  They thought the sky was the body of a goddess (which doesn't jive with having planetary theory.)

And they couldn't do decimals.

The Babylonians are the first ones credited with a theory of planets (everyone else thought that the moving lights in the sky were something else: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_astronomy#Planetary_theory

 

Hi thanks for the input but please read the article again. Here is what it says: " The oldest surviving planetary astronomical text is the Babylonian Venus tablet of Ammisaduqa, a 7th-century BC copy of a list of observations of the motions of the planet Venus that probably dates as early as the second millennium BC ... We of course know that the pyramids in question were allegedly built from 2600 to 2350 BC.and that is near the front end of the THIRD MILLENNIUM. 

Cheers

 

[Ahatmose 46]

Hi again. Another of the things that convinced me of a couple of points, these points being 1) There is a "Creator" and 2) the solar system follows some fairly simple rules was an amazing discovery first mentioned by Clive Ross in his almost impossible to get book 1o6: The Dawn of Man was the strange relationship of the diameters of the planets. What follows is not contrived. The values I used are the accepted values for the equatorial diameters of the 8 planets, Mercury, Venus Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. I will list them below:

Mercury = 4879.4 km

Venus = 12,103.6 km

Earth 12,756.28 km

Mars = 6,794.4 km

Jupiter = 142,984 km

Saturn = 120,536 km

Uranus = 51,118 km

Neptune = 49,572 km

Feel free to check these figures against any posted on the internet but remember make sure you are using the equatorial diameter, that is simply the diameter at the equator.here is the image I derived from these measurements. Some would call it a simple co-incidence and then there are others like myself that believe there can be only one explanation for something of this enormity and that woudl be "A Creation by some sort of intelligence"  and with a sense of humor to boot I might add,

Here is the diagram. make of it what you will:

yes adding all the planet equatorial diameters together gives us 400,744.08 . The value of the diameter of Earth is 12,756.28 km and times Pi equals 40075.04 and times ten we get 400750.4 as compared to the planets themselves and  400,744.08 to cheek to within 0.99998 ... a virtual match. After seeing this I became a believer and became convinced other ratios maybe being found as well and so I went out and looked for them.

Cheers

 

Edited June 4 by Ahatmose

[seanjo 1,959]

The Giza pyramids represent Orion's belt...mebe!

Edited June 4 by seanjo

[Ahatmose 46]

... but our solar system had more secrets to reveal to us and here are but a few. I am going to list a few measurements and their corresponding value in inches. I am then going to show you that Our Solar System defined these measurements we would be using 4.6 BILLION YEARS ago. Impossible ? Well see if you still feel that way after seeing my "proof".

The measurements:

The Foot = 12 inches

The Cubit = 20.62 inches

The Meter = 39.37(007874 rounded - actual 1/0.0254)  

and ratios foot to cubit = 20.62 / 12 =  1.7183333

foot to meter =  3.28084 (rounded)

cubit to meter = 0.52375 (rounded) and inverted = 1.90931135 (rounded)

Now if my contention is correct that the solar system got there first we should find some if not all of these ratios is the heavens. Shall we look ? Here is the net result of all the measuring and figuring and deciphering but before I post the image i have to bring your attention to one more discovery of mine. I discovered that the ratio of Mercury to Earth was almost precisely in the simple ratio 31 to 12. That is if we give Mercury a value of 12 Earth will equal 31 and this ratio is 2.5833333 and one last point before showing the image is that of this 2.58333 Mercury itself is 1 so the balance from Mercury to Earth is 1.583333. Here is the image:

And some mathematical proof.

The semi major axis of Mars is 227,939,100 km and Earth's is 149,598,261 (easily checked) the difference is simply Mars - Earth and we get 78,340,839 According to my diagram this represents 1 cubit. Now above I stated that the ratio between a cubit and a meter was 1.90931135. So if my diagram and assumption is correct then 78,340,839 x 1.90931135 should give us the semi major axis of Earth reasonably closely. Let's multiply: we get 149,577,053 and checking for 0.9999 (rounded) So the top part of the diagram is pretty close. The second line gives a ratio of Sun To Mercury = 1 cubit and from Mercury to Earth we have 1.5833333 cubits. Now a very quick word (for now) on The Megalithic Yard. It is said to equal around  2.72069905 feet or 32.6484 inches (rounded) this is my value and I will show where i get it later. So now we should get when we divide 20.62 into 32.6484 something around 1.58333 and we actually get 1.583336 (rounded) checking to 0.999998 So there you have it folks. Nice and simple and neat.  The measurement systems we use on Earth today already present in The Solar System 4.6 Billion Years ago. I would like to see Sheldon explain that one.

And one last ratio is the ratio of 10 x Pi to 1 cubit and we get 31.4159 to 20.62 and we get 1.523565787 and in the diagram below you can see that I have stated that if Earth is representing 1 cubit then Mars = 10 x Pi here is that diagram:

So thus if 149,598,261 divided by 20.62 x 31.4159 should give us Mars at 227,939,100. Let's do some math.

149,598,261 / 20.62 = 7250158.15 now if we multiply this by 10 x Pi or 31.4159265359 (rounded) we should get ... well let's see what we do get and that is 227,770,436 and checks for 0.9993 (rounded)

Cheers

[Rlyeh 10,558]

2 hours ago, Ahatmose said:

A major breakthrough occurred for me when I discovered that the ratio of the base of G1 when compared to the base of G2 was precisely in the ratio of the square root of 3 to Phi. That is to say that if we call the base of G1 sq rt of 3 then G2 will equal Pi.. The mathematical proof can be obtained by simply dividing the base of G1 by the sqaure root of 3 and then multiplying by Phi.

What value is the base of G1?

[Ahatmose 46]

" What value is the base of G1 "

Er ... it's actually in the quote you posted. It represents the square root of 3 or a value of 1.732050807 only when compared to G2 which represents (among other things) the value of Phi or 1.618034 (rounded)

Edited June 4 by Ahatmose

[Sir Wearer of Hats 23,718]

The beauty of numbers is that they can be used to prove anything.

fro example, humans should only live 60 years because we have five fingers on one hand and there are 12 months in a year. 

[Rlyeh 10,558]

25 minutes ago, Ahatmose said:

" What value is the base of G1 "

Er ... it's actually in the quote you posted. It represents the square root of 3 or a value of 1.732050807 only when compared to G2 which represents (among other things) the value of Phi or 1.618034 (rounded)

G1 divided by the square root of 3 will give you 1, multiplied by Phi will give you Phi. How are you getting Pi?

Edited June 4 by Rlyeh

[Ahatmose 46]

3 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

G1 divided by the square root of 3 will give you 1 multiplied by Phi will give you Phi. How are you getting Pi?

Sorry typo should have been Phi NOT Pi

 

I will correct it. Darn I can't.

Edited June 4 by Ahatmose
spelling

[Ahatmose 46]

3 hours ago, Ahatmose said:

A major breakthrough occurred for me when I discovered that the ratio of the base of G1 when compared to the base of G2 was precisely in the ratio of the square root of 3 to Phi. That is to say that if we call the base of G1 sq rt of 3 then G2 will equal Pi..

Hi sorry as pointed by Rlyeh the last word in this quote should be Phi and not Pi ... very sorry

[Ahatmose 46]

36 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

The beauty of numbers is that they can be used to prove anything.

fro example, humans should only live 60 years because we have five fingers on one hand and there are 12 months in a year. 

Yes and an even greater beauty is that they can show the truth when no other way can..

[Gaden 1,444]

5 hours ago, Ahatmose said:

Hi all in this thread I hope to present my evidence that I have accumulated over the last 19 years to show you what I have found. If you are looking for the quick answer to how they may have known this data and how they built the pyramids I am afraid I am still searching for those answers myself however the evidence is in my opinion very strong that all of The 3rd and 4th Dynasty Pyramids.encode the same evidence. It is hard for a lot of people to understand ratios. They think that because Mercury's semi major axis is 57,909,050 km which is simply the average distance Mercury is away from The Sun, that this is not possible. Not only is it possible it is very, very easy. As an example I could simply say the distance of Mercury is ... well let's use 1 or perhaps 12 or how about 220 all three of which I intend to show were included at Giza and elsewhere.  The pyramids I feel that are included in this "map of Our Solar System" are:

The Pyramid at Meidum

The Bent Pyramid at Dashur

The Red Pyramid at Dashur

The Step Pyramid at Sakkara

The Pyramid of Menkarre

The Pyramid of Khafre

and of course

The Great Pyramid of Khufu

I will start with a very basic ratio that i discovered. I noted that if we allow 1/2 the base of G1 (The Great Pyramid) to equal the semi major axis of Mercury then the base of G2 (Pyramid of Khafre) at 411.04 would equal almost exactly the semi major axis of Venus. It was a memorable day for me and as I built on that my hypothesis became very clear. The Giza Plateau is "The World's Oldest Book of Astronomy". Since that initial discovery I have gone on to find the same message encoded at all the pyramid sites. I would be remiss if i were not to thank the person who has made all my work possible. A giant of a man from the late 1880's, Flinders Petrie who meticulously measured not only Giza but Meidum and the two pyramids at Dashur. It is only because of his work I am able to present this evidence to you. There is one other giant to thank, now sadly deceased. His name was Clive Ross and he stood alone many years ago proclaiming to the world that Giza was in fact The World's Oldest Book of Astronomy. I must admit to being very skeptical at first but then I analyzed the evidence and became a firm believer. There is a warehouse of data I have accumulated and presenting it in a coherent and sequential order is very difficult but I will try. In conjunction with 220 cubits = Mercury and 411.04 cubits = Venus I noted that the sides of a projected enclosing rectangle around the three pyramids of Giza and using 440 cubits as Mercury would give us the distance to Mars. .  

Here is a basic first image:

 

and an image to show us the ratio of the planets when Mercury = 1

Cheers

Don Barone

 

 

 Ho hum, just another in the endless examples of someone with too much time on their hands. Just for the record, there are more than 100 pyramids in Egypt, your theory is without merit simply because you picked the ones that suited you.

[Ahatmose 46]

 Ho hum, just another in the endless examples of someone with too much time on their hands. Just for the record, there are more than 100 pyramids in Egypt, your theory is without merit simply because you picked the ones that suited you.

Actually you are very wrong The Pyramids of The 3rd and 4th Dynasty are unique and all those that came after them and crumbled into dust are but pale imitations of what was created at that time.Just curious how may of the hundred have you studied ? But believe as you will, we wouldn't want you learning anything..

 

Edited June 4 by Ahatmose

[Kenemet 4,542]

5 hours ago, Ahatmose said:

Hi thanks for the input but please read the article again. Here is what it says: " The oldest surviving planetary astronomical text is the Babylonian Venus tablet of Ammisaduqa, a 7th-century BC copy of a list of observations of the motions of the planet Venus that probably dates as early as the second millennium BC ... We of course know that the pyramids in question were allegedly built from 2600 to 2350 BC.and that is near the front end of the THIRD MILLENNIUM. 

Except that there's no evidence the Egyptians knew that they lived in a solar system.  They didn't calculate the orbit of Venus and their own star tables show that they didn't measure the sky very accurately.  So your saying that they knew the major and semimajor axis of planets doesn't make sense.  And trying to say that they could calculate to tens of thousandths of decimal places is something that doesn't make any sense.  They couldn't possibly cut anything to that tolerance.

Plus, the pyramids aren't identical, nor were the temples and walls surrounding them identical.

Astronomy doesn't suddenly show up one day like Venus, perfectly formed and adult.  If they were tracking the sky that accurately, we'd see accurate observatories and tools dating to before the 3rd Dynasty... and it wouldn't have taken until 500 BC for someone to discover that the Earth is round.  Not only that, but their calendar would have been more accurate than it is.

And finally, that's just a trivial bit of information.  Why would any group do a 100 year project to show the proportions of the solar system - a but of knowledge that does nothing for them.  It doesn't improve crops, make for better timekeeping, allow for better navigation (theirs wasn't that good, frankly), it doesn't improve medicine or increase trade between nations or bring about social justice.  It doesn't change their religion because nothing in their religion required any information from the planets.  And they didn't even use Phi in proportions in drawing or anything else.

Spending 100 years making a huge complex to celebrate a trivial bit of information that does nothing for the society makes no sense.  Spending 100 years to make tombs for four god-kings makes sense.

[jaylemurph 5,370]

2 hours ago, Ahatmose said:

 

 

Actually you are very wrong The Pyramids of The 3rd and 4th Dynasty are unique and all those that came after them and crumbled into dust are but pale imitations of what was created at that time.Just curious how may of the hundred have you studied ? But believe as you will, we wouldn't want you learning anything..

 

Right back atcha, guy.

We routinely get new posters here who claim to have "discovered" -- and what they mean is uniformly "made up cherrypicking data" -- amazing new things. Seriously. Like weekly. After hitting serious objections to their ideas (as here) or otherwise not having their genius sufficiently praised, they also uniformly leave, whining about how closed-minded and ignorant people are here.

You've hit the point of deriding people who disagree with you pretty early, so it's important to ask: what do you want here? Are you looking to actually discuss the pros and cons of your theory? (If so, you've already made an impression to the contrary, as above.) Or, as the past and present seem to confirm, are you looking for us to fall at your feet praising your genius? If so, you won't get that, so you might just want to go ahead and let loose with the theatrical footstamping and leave taking.

--Jaylemurph

[Ahatmose 46]

Except that there's no evidence the Egyptians knew that they lived in a solar system.  They didn't calculate the orbit of Venus and their own star tables show that they didn't measure the sky very accurately.  So your saying that they knew the major and semi major axis of planets doesn't make sense.  And trying to say that they could calculate to tens of thousandths of decimal places is something that doesn't make any sense.  They couldn't possibly cut anything to that tolerance.

No evidence ? I beg to differ. The Pyramids are the evidence. I actually prefaced this entire thread by saying I was not going to debate how they  knew, I was simply going to post the evidence that they knew.. As to calculating to thousandths and several decimal places this was explained in the post about  the perfect sqaure. Strange how many people do not seem to read what is written. As to me using many decimal palaces well since we are using and calculating semi major axis to about 10's of thousands there has to be at least 7 decimal places to validate any match.

As to the rest of your post. I am here simply to post the evidence as I have found it not to debate on why it was done.  

 

[Ahatmose 46]

2 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

Right back atcha, guy.

We routinely get new posters here who claim to have "discovered" -- and what they mean is uniformly "made up cherrypicking data" -- amazing new things. Seriously. Like weekly. After hitting serious objections to their ideas (as here) or otherwise not having their genius sufficiently praised, they also uniformly leave, whining about how closed-minded and ignorant people are here.

You've hit the point of deriding people who disagree with you pretty early, so it's important to ask: what do you want here? Are you looking to actually discuss the pros and cons of your theory? (If so, you've already made an impression to the contrary, as above.) Or, as the past and present seem to confirm, are you looking for us to fall at your feet praising your genius? If so, you won't get that, so you might just want to go ahead and let loose with the theatrical footstamping and leave taking.

--Jaylemurph

I was not deriding you I was simply commenting on your apparent arrogance and apparent ignorance  in claiming that all of the pyramids of Egypt are equal. That is of course nonsense. Any Egyptologist will attest to the fact that the 7 pyramids I have mentioned as being very special and never again duplicated. So judging from this post your argument is that I have cherry picked the data. Care to clarify this. I really have no time for shallow arguments and ad hominems. As I previously stated do as you will but I must ask that you counter with some intelligent arguments rather than saying I cherry picked the data and that there are 100 pyramids in Egypt. And again i ask, how may pyramids have you studied ?. .    .

[jaylemurph 5,370]

1 minute ago, Ahatmose said:

I was not deriding you I was simply commenting on your apparent arrogance and apparent ignorance  in claiming that all of the pyramids of Egypt are equal. That is of course nonsense. Any Egyptologist will attest to the fact that the 7 pyramids I have mentioned as being very special and never again duplicated. So judging from this post your argument is that I have cherry picked the data. Care to clarify this. I really have no time for shallow arguments and ad hominems. As I previously stated do as you will but I must ask that you counter with some intelligent arguments rather than saying I cherry picked the data and that there are 100 pyramids in Egypt. And again i ask, how may pyramids have you studied ?. .    .

Not a one.

However, I am trained in historiography, which means I can competently critique your historical methodology. Or lack thereof. Your inherent argument -- you never say this specifically, but it is implicit in your words -- is that the Giza pyramids are superior to at least the 97+ other pyramids referred to. But you do not provide us with the guidelines you use to arrive at that conclusion, whether it be aesthetics, historical relevance, construction methods, [site] preservation, geographical situation, or anything else. All of these criteria could provide a sense for the "superiority" of the Giza pyramids, but any one set of historiographic evaluation techniques/criteria could conflict another set, rendering the idea of Giza pyramid superiority remarkably moot.

If you're going to pick methodological fights with professional historians, come prepared.

--Jaylemurph

[Ahatmose 46]

Actually again you show that you have not read my posts correctly. I listed 7 pyramids from The 3rd and 4th Dynasties that showed the evidence. Not sure where you got the idea it was only Giza and yes they are superior by far to the other 93. Consult any book of Egypt and they will concur. Actually it was in my first post ...

Hi all in this thread I hope to present my evidence that I have accumulated over the last 19 years to show you what I have found. If you are looking for the quick answer to how they may have known this data and how they built the pyramids I am afraid I am still searching for those answers myself however the evidence is in my opinion very strong that all of The 3rd and 4th Dynasty Pyramids.encode the same evidence. It is hard for a lot of people to understand ratios. They think that because Mercury's semi major axis is 57,909,050 km which is simply the average distance Mercury is away from The Sun, that this is not possible. Not only is it possible it is very, very easy. As an example I could simply say the distance of Mercury is ... well let's use 1 or perhaps 12 or how about 220 all three of which I intend to show were included at Giza and elsewhere.  The pyramids I feel that are included in this "map of Our Solar System" are:

The Pyramid at Meidum

The Bent Pyramid at Dashur

The Red Pyramid at Dashur

The Step Pyramid at Sakkara

The Pyramid of Menkarre

The Pyramid of Khafre

and of course

The Great Pyramid of Khufu

 

 

 

[Ahatmose 46]

Here is a picture of the first pyramid built after the 4th Dynasty. I post this only to re-emphasize the importance and uniqueness of the major 7 pyramids of The 3rd and 4th Dynasty.

...

[kmt_sesh 26,524]

What of the contemporary pyramids that were started but never finished, such as Saqqara and Abu Rawash?