Is Egypt The World's Oldest Book of Astronomy

[kmt_sesh]

44 minutes ago, Ahatmose said:

Well if they were never finished how would you suggest i get the data to analyze ?

 

Sekhemkhet's (Saqqara), Djedefre's (Abu Rowash), and Nebka's/Baka's (Zawyet El Aryan) all have enough of a footprint to determine their approximate foundational dimensions. From that one can extrapolate approximate height. The point is, your approach seems to be cherry-picked. One must not wrest things out of context.

And as Kenemet advised, the Egyptians were never that adroit at astronomy. Your assigning something to an ancient culture that simply never fit in their tool kit.

Moreover, the pyramids you're picking don't represent a perfect succession of building. I'll include the unfinished pyramids in this because they're part of the cultural history, but here's how it went:

• Step Pyramid --> Sekhemkhet --> Meidum --> Dashur (Bent, then Red) --> G1 at Giza --> Abu Rawash --> Zawyet El-Aryan --> G2 at Giza --> G3 at Giza.

[Ahatmose]

9 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

Sekhemkhet's (Saqqara), Djedefre's (Abu Rowash), and Nebka's/Baka's (Zawyet El Aryan) all have enough of a footprint to determine their approximate foundational dimensions. From that one can extrapolate approximate height. The point is, your approach seems to be cherry-picked. One must not wrest things out of context.

And as Kenemet advised, the Egyptians were never that adroit at astronomy. Your assigning something to an ancient culture that simply never fit in their tool kit.

Moreover, the pyramids you're picking don't represent a perfect succession of building. I'll include the unfinished pyramids in this because they're part of the cultural history, but here's how it went:

• Step Pyramid --> Sekhemkhet --> Meidum --> Dashur (Bent, then Red) --> G1 at Giza --> Abu Rawash --> Zawyet El-Aryan --> G2 at Giza --> G3 at Giza.

Interesting argument ... cherry picked.  have not heard that one before. Again I will ask is the data I present correct ? I used to hear the same argument about just using Giza and then I found the same data at Meidum and then at Dashur. It could be at the others you mention I just haven't looked. And again you go back to the standard fall back argument of all who refuse to even look: and that is

the Egyptians were never that adroit at astronomy. Your assigning something to an ancient culture that simply never fit in their tool kit.

and then you say

the pyramids you're picking don't represent a perfect succession of building. I'll include the unfinished pyramids in this because they're part of the cultural history, but here's how it went:

  There is not nearly;y enough of Sekhemkhet pyramid to make a value judgement on height it is one layer of what is guessed to be a step pyramid. Regardless how can the fact that pyramids in a total dilapidated condition nullify the data found in AND AROUND those that are not. So you claim that what I present is not correct because I have not included the other pyramids you mention. How do you figure this ? What is your logic ? 

regards

 

 

[Ahatmose]

10 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

Sekhemkhet's (Saqqara), Djedefre's (Abu Rowash), and Nebka's/Baka's (Zawyet El Aryan) all have enough of a footprint to determine their approximate foundational dimensions. From that one can extrapolate approximate height. The point is, your approach seems to be cherry-picked. One must not wrest things out of context.

And as Kenemet advised, the Egyptians were never that adroit at astronomy. Your assigning something to an ancient culture that simply never fit in their tool kit.

Moreover, the pyramids you're picking don't represent a perfect succession of building. I'll include the unfinished pyramids in this because they're part of the cultural history, but here's how it went:

• Step Pyramid --> Sekhemkhet --> Meidum --> Dashur (Bent, then Red) --> G1 at Giza --> Abu Rawash --> Zawyet El-Aryan --> G2 at Giza --> G3 at Giza.

Not much to go on but I am working on it:

Sekhemkhet

It has been difficult to determine whether the core was originally planned as six or seven steps, but apparently, the pyramid itself was never completed, having only reached a height of about 26 feet. It was built using the accretion layer method with the stones laid inwards at a 15 degree slope. These stones were laid at right angles to the incline. Since the pyramid was unfinished, there was never any casing applied. The pyramid probably had a square floor plan, with sides about 119 meters in length. According to Lehner, if the pyramid was built in seven steps, it would have been higher then Djoser's, rising some 70 meters (230 ft) above its base.

[Ahatmose]

11 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

Sekhemkhet's (Saqqara), Djedefre's (Abu Rowash), and Nebka's/Baka's (Zawyet El Aryan) all have enough of a footprint to determine their approximate foundational dimensions. From that one can extrapolate approximate height. The point is, your approach seems to be cherry-picked. One must not wrest things out of context.

And as Kenemet advised, the Egyptians were never that adroit at astronomy. Your assigning something to an ancient culture that simply never fit in their tool kit.

Moreover, the pyramids you're picking don't represent a perfect succession of building. I'll include the unfinished pyramids in this because they're part of the cultural history, but here's how it went:

• Step Pyramid --> Sekhemkhet --> Meidum --> Dashur (Bent, then Red) --> G1 at Giza --> Abu Rawash --> Zawyet El-Aryan --> G2 at Giza --> G3 at Giza.

Not much to go on so I will not swear to this diagram but it is the best I could get with the data supplied.

Data supplied by this site:

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/sekhemkhet.htm

regards

Edited June 5, 2018 by Ahatmose

[Ahatmose]

8 minutes ago, Ahatmose said:

Not much to go on so I will not swear to this diagram but it is the best I could get with the data supplied.

Data supplied by this site:

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/sekhemkhet.htm

regards

And a special note here is that 119.03 meters = 227.27 cubits at 20.62 inches per cubit and the reciprocal of 227.27 = 0.00440

regards

[danydandan]

Isn't there better evidence of direct astronomical observations from Mayan, Chinese, Indian and even Celtic sources.

[Ahatmose]

2 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Isn't there better evidence of direct astronomical observations from Mayan, Chinese, Indian and even Celtic sources.

Yes there are but not at the dates in question. 2650 BC to about 2300 BC

regards

[Ahatmose]

Well apparently my scaling is not too accurate. Here is the data as listed on the site I linked to but no source is given.

Technical

Perimeter wall: 262m x 185x

After enlargement: 500m x 185m

I will try to track down who measured it.

regards

[danydandan]

15 minutes ago, Ahatmose said:

Yes there are but not at the dates in question. 2650 BC to about 2300 BC

regards

The Celtic sites in Co Meath Ireland are older. In particular Newgrange which is build from a direct result of observering the winter and summer solstice. It's dated to around 3000 bc. The pyramids have no direct observations that suggest they were built from astronomical observations. Only very convoluted hypotheses that suggest there positions may have astronomical relevance.

Edited June 5, 2018 by danydandan

[Ahatmose]

16 minutes ago, danydandan said:

The Celtic sites in Co Meath Ireland are older. In particular Newgrange which is build from a direct result of observering the winter and summer solstice. It's dated to around 3000 bc. The pyramids have no direct observations that suggest they were built from astronomical observations. Only very convoluted hypotheses that suggest there positions may have astronomical relevance.

No argument there but I would not consider Newgrange to be a Book of Astronomy becasue yes it may show the summer and winter solstice but as far as I know does nothing to trace the planets or attempt to show their relationship to Earth and it's orbit. Likewise Stonehenge is in the same boat. Could they track the planets ? probably yes  but I do not think anyone has ever looked for this information within the stone circle(s)

Cheers

[Ahatmose]

29 minutes ago, Ahatmose said:

Well apparently my scaling is not too accurate. Here is the data as listed on the site I linked to but no source is given.

Technical

Perimeter wall: 262m x 185x

After enlargement: 500m x 185m

I will try to track down who measured it.

regards

Here are some additional data results:

The enclosure wall was 340x183 m. then enlarged to the size of 523x194 m;

As is typical in Egyptology it is near impossible to get sites to agree.Here is the site where this was found:

http://xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/dyn3-Sekhemkhet.htm

Cheers

[danydandan]

11 minutes ago, Ahatmose said:

No argument there but I would not consider Newgrange to be a Book of Astronomy becasue yes it may show the summer and winter solstice but as far as I know does nothing to trace the planets or attempt to show their relationship to Earth and it's orbit. Likewise Stonehenge is in the same boat. Could they track the planets ? probably yes  but I do not think anyone has ever looked for this information within the stone circle(s)

Cheers

While there is evidence that Egyptian's did observe and track some planets. There is zero tangible evidence to support that these had any relevance or impact to where the pyramids were built or how they were built. Other than convoluted hypotheses.

But if you take Newgrange for example we have tangible evidence that this was built as a result of astronomical observations. Ie you can go to Newgrange and observe the sun illuminating the chamber on the solstice. The pyramids show nothing like this.

Edited June 5, 2018 by danydandan

[Ahatmose]

1 minute ago, danydandan said:

But if you take Newgrange for example we have tangible evidence that this was built as a result of astronomical observations. The pyramids show nothing like this.

And I contend that is because nobody has ever looked for it. I have looked and I feel I have found the data necessary to prove my point. Before Newgrange was studied no one woudl have guessed it was set up to show the solstices and Stonehenge was the same. If the data is not analyzed then how would anyone know what is there ? But of course then the mainstream go back to their ace in the hole and that is that in their studied opinion The Ancient Builders could not have known the data ... a nice neat circular argument that I have dealt with for the past 19 years and will forever keep what The Ancient Builders really knew in the dark.. But I continue to try. The pyramids may well have been used for tombs but  seriously doubt it. The question is raised why build it in stone and so large ... well we are still looking at them 4500 years later aren't we. That would show that they chose the correct way to guard the data. . 

Regards

[Kenemet]

1 minute ago, Ahatmose said:

And I contend that is because nobody has ever looked for it. I have looked and I feel I have found the data necessary to prove my point. Before Newgrange was studied no one woudl have guessed it was set up to show the solstices and Stonehenge was the same. If the data is not analyzed then how would anyone know what is there ? But of course then the mainstream go back to their ace in the hole and that is that in their studied opinion The Ancient Builders could not have known the data ... a nice neat circular argument that I have dealt with for the past 19 years and will forever keep what The Ancient Builders really knew in the dark.. But I continue to try. The pyramids may well have been used for tombs but  seriously doubt it. The question is raised why build it in stone and so large ... well we are still looking at them 4500 years later aren't we. That would show that they chose the correct way to guard the data. . 

Regards

You haven't answered my question, which is why they would spend 100 years building a monument to information that is so trivial as to be useless... information that (according to everything we see) was not used in any way at all.  

They never used cycles of the planets (unlike the Mayans) to time anything or set any feasts or holidays.  The planets have virtually no mention in Egyptian literature (compare this to the Babylonian and Sumerian works) and we don't see a lot of observatories (Mayans, Sumerians, Chinese had many, however.)  So what's so important about this set of numbers that they would be compelled to nearly bankrupt the entire country and spend 100 years building a monument to these numbers... and what about the other structures we know are there on Giza? 

[danydandan]

4 minutes ago, Ahatmose said:

And I contend that is because nobody has ever looked for it. I have looked and I feel I have found the data necessary to prove my point. Before Newgrange was studied no one woudl have guessed it was set up to show the solstices and Stonehenge was the same. If the data is not analyzed then how would anyone know what is there ? But of course then the mainstream go back to their ace in the hole and that is that in their studied opinion The Ancient Builders could not have known the data ... a nice neat circular argument that I have dealt with for the past 19 years and will forever keep what The Ancient Builders really knew in the dark.. But I continue to try. The pyramids may well have been used for tombs but  seriously doubt it. The question is raised why build it in stone and so large ... well we are still looking at them 4500 years later aren't we. That would show that they chose the correct way to guard the data. . 

Regards

They were, like every culture that worshipped the sun, built to be as close to the sun as possible. That's why they are so large, just like Celtic burial tombs being build on mountains, the closer to the sun the better and in the case of Newgrange to celebrate the sun's light.

I'm not going to make an argument about what your stating as there are loads more people better qualified than me on these forums. However if you use logic snd ockhans razor the evidence your putting forward is not making sense. They were able to write, why not just write down their observations?

[Ahatmose]

1 minute ago, Kenemet said:

You haven't answered my question, which is why they would spend 100 years building a monument to information that is so trivial as to be useless... information that (according to everything we see) was not used in any way at all.  

They never used cycles of the planets (unlike the Mayans) to time anything or set any feasts or holidays.  The planets have virtually no mention in Egyptian literature (compare this to the Babylonian and Sumerian works) and we don't see a lot of observatories (Mayans, Sumerians, Chinese had many, however.)  So what's so important about this set of numbers that they would be compelled to nearly bankrupt the entire country and spend 100 years building a monument to these numbers... and what about the other structures we know are there on Giza? 

And again I will answer as I did in my opening statement I am not here to decide why it was done or even for that matter who did it. I am simply analyzing what is there. I will leave the speculation of the why to others..

[Ahatmose]

2 minutes ago, danydandan said:

... the evidence your putting forward is not making sense. They were able to write, why not just write down their observations?

I might suggest that the number of writings in any form from the 3rd and 4th Dynasty are virtually nil. The pyramids however still stand.

regards

[danydandan]

9 minutes ago, Ahatmose said:

I might suggest that the number of writings in any form from the 3rd and 4th Dynasty are virtually nil. The pyramids however still stand.

regards

I agree, however if you look at civilizations from around the same time period, in particular the Chinese there are a vast number of astronomical observations written and recorded. Also I would say, I'm by no means an Egyptologist so maybe my opinion is moot but I think it's relevant. As there are loads of examples of hieroglyphics within each pyramid, would you not think, if observation of planetary movement was so culturally important that they built the pyramids based on these observations that the hieroglyphs would allude to these. I'm not aware of any that do.

Edited June 5, 2018 by danydandan

[Ahatmose]

Just now, danydandan said:

... As there are loads of examples of hieroglyphics within each pyramid, would you not think, if observation of planetary movement was so culturally important that they built the pyramids based on these observations that the hieroglyphs would allude to these. I'm not aware of any that do.

And that is the major problem. There is zero, absolutely nothing written in any of these 3rd and 4th Dynasty pyramids. The writings within the pyramids ONLY BEGAN IN THE 5TH DYNASTY. Even though tombs from this era did have drawings and writings on the walls the pyramids themselves are totally bare. A curious fact that has puzzled Egyptologists for many years. Starting in the 5th Dynasty are The Pyramid Texts and I feel that jumbled in among these almost undecipherable verses lies a jumbled version of what the pyramids tell us. Therefore I feel that whatever knowledge the 3rd and 4th Dynasty builders knew the 5th Dynasty did not understand it at all. Why ? I don't know and remember I am no Egyptologist either ... But please I have to remind everyone i am not here to decide who or what built the pyramids, or why,  I am simply analyzing the data and would very appreciate if you could do the same. Please analyze my data and tell me where if anywhere i have made errors. Just because I can't tell you who put the data there does not dismiss the data presented..

Regards

[Kenemet]

24 minutes ago, Ahatmose said:

And again I will answer as I did in my opening statement I am not here to decide why it was done or even for that matter who did it. I am simply analyzing what is there. I will leave the speculation of the why to others..

If you have no proof why it was done, then you can't prove the proportions are just manipulated coincidence.

Either they had a purpose for it and there are other clues about it, or your findings are simply the result of tweaking a lot of numbers to come up with a conclusion that you think is correct.

[danydandan]

It certainly feel like confirmation bias is a driving force behind this hypothesis.

I will say this, they didn't use metres to measure anything back then. The actual measurement for a cubit is variable and thus all attempts to manipulate numerical data based on cubit measurements are very erroneous.

Edited June 5, 2018 by danydandan

[Ahatmose]

15 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I agree, however if you look at civilizations from around the same time period, in particular the Chinese there are a vast number of astronomical observations.

Earliest Chinese astronomy data dates from The Shang Dynasty and the dates for the:

is  the Shang ruled from 1766 to 1122 BC

well after the dates in question in Egypt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_astronomy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shang_dynasty

regards

 

[Ahatmose]

1 minute ago, danydandan said:

It certainly feel like confirmation bias is a driving force behind this hypothesis.

I will say this, they didn't use metres to measure anything back then. The actual measurement for a cubit is variable and thus all attempts to manipulate numerical data based on cubit measurements are very erroneous.

The cubit that I use is 20.62 inches per cubit. It fits the data from all seven pyramids very nicely. To call a  cubit 20.67 inches to fit a preconceived and erroneous distance as Petrie did at Meidum is shoddy at best. He had no idea what the numbers really meant. He was a very great surveyor and Egyptologist but when it came to numbers he was not on his best game. 

regards

[danydandan]

4 minutes ago, Ahatmose said:

Earliest Chinese astronomy data dates from The Shang Dynasty and the dates for the:

well after the dates in question in Egypt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_astronomy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shang_dynasty

regards

 

Classic of history is from 2100 bc give or take, it records the earliest ever solar eclipse. Around the same time, can not remember the document but it describes Jupiters orbit around the sun.

[Ahatmose]

8 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

If you have no proof why it was done, then you can't prove the proportions are just manipulated coincidence.

Either they had a purpose for it and there are other clues about it, or your findings are simply the result of tweaking a lot of numbers to come up with a conclusion that you think is correct.

I have never said I don't why it was done For heavens sake my entire argument is that it was done to show the planets and their orbits and their periods and the mathematical relationships between the planets.. What I did say is that i am not sure on exactly who did it.and the why is obvious ...  to keep the data safe.