Is Egypt The World's Oldest Book of Astronomy

[Ahatmose]

9 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

I don't want to derail your thread, but I have to respond when I see something like this—which is patently incorrect. Anubis is one of the most ancient deities of dynastic Egypt. For goodness sake, the oldest inscribed stela in the Egyptian exhibit where I work is from Dynasty 3, and contains a prayer to Anubis for the man who owned the tablet. I've translated it.

I won't tale up more time, other than to suggest you look into it if you doubt me. There are images of Anubis going back into the Early Dynastic Period. Look at other objects to see depictions of Egyptian deities from the earliest periods. The famous Narmer Palette, for instance, has a handsome image of the falcon god Horus and the ancient cow goddess Bat.

Prayers to Anubis are found carved on the most ancient tombs in Egypt, and his duties apparently are many. He watches over the mummification process to ensure that all is done properly. He conducts the souls through the underworld, testing their knowledge of the gods and their faith. He places their heart on the Scales of Justice during the Judging of the Heart, and he feeds the souls of wicked people to Ammit.

Know anywhere where I can find images of these these "prayers" ? Interesting that the other source I found seems to be a bit late.

[Ahatmose]

Since this thread is about the mathematical matches I have found among and within the pyramids let's have a look at the two pyramids at Dashur, The Bent and The Red. However a word of warning if you believe that  the bend in The Bent Pyramid was random and was changed because of structural problems I might suggest this post might not be for you. This time we are visiting Dashur and are going to look at the enclosure wall around the Bent Pyramid. I am not sure why I did not do this earlier. Here is John Legon's diagram: John Legon's page on The Bent Pyramid

You will notice that John Legon has the overall distance of the wall (not including the part that surrounds the small pyramid} as 560 cubits .

Here is what Petrie measured ...

Now 560 cubits is equal to 560 x 20.62 or 11547.2 YET PETRIE MEASURED THE OUTER WALL AS 11757.7 OR 570.11 CUBITS IN ERROR TO JUST OVER 10 CUBITS and this would make the wall about 5 cubits thick. Petrie says if we use the inner wall we get 11757 or 570 cubits so it would appear that either Petrie made an error or John Legon has made a serious error.  So should the measurement to the inner wall be 11547 ? Could Petrie have made an error this grave ? Or is his 11757 and 570 cubits correct ?

But anyway we deal only in inches so let's proceed.  let's look at this enclosure like we looked at the enclosure at Meidum ...

Here is the enclosure as Petrie drew it ...

and filling in the measurements ...

So doing the math it does indeed look like the measurements in blue are indeed for the outer wall with the thickness of the wall in Petrie's own words being ...

Okay any objections yet ?

 

 

Edited June 13, 2018 by Ahatmose

[danydandan]

2 hours ago, stereologist said:

But Newton did not create a system focused on what was known. He did make predictions using his methods such as the gravity inside of the Earth.

His work was shown to apply to a wide variety of phenomenon and is extendable unlike the rubbish posted here.

Unlike this rubbish Newton knew that his work applied to phenomenon with a high degree of precision, but allowed for it to be wrong.

Newton did not compare values of different units of measure.

Predictions made by Newton include:

1. That the Earth is not uniformly dense

2. That all parts of an object contribute to gravity

Predictions made by others using Newton's work:

1. Uranus

2. Neptune

Newton's Principia was widely accepted when it was published. It's all his numerology and alchemy that people should dismiss.

Edited June 13, 2018 by danydandan

[Ozymandias]

On 6/4/2018 at 6:55 PM, Ahatmose said:

 HOWEVER it is only this configuration, ...  that leads to the outer red circumference when divided by sq rt of 3 giving us the 0.90689968... ratio.

Yes, I have already acknowledged that fact. However, this relationship, and others that you have presented here, begs a fundamentally important question about the Ancient Egyptians (AE): did they have the mathematics and the knowledge to understand these relationships. I think not, for a number of reasons.

(1) They could not mark out a perfect square upon the ground to represent the base dimensions of the Great Pyramid, for example. T

(2) Their mathematics was not sufficiently developed to understand, express or evaluate irrational numbers like pi (3.14159...), phi (1.618...), the square root of 2 (1.414...) or the square root of 3 (1.732...), even by trial and error. They could only handle rational numbers and did not understand place value or the concept of the decimal point. Somebody already put up a link to the wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_mathematics.   

(3) I cannot see that the AE had the technology, the science or the mathematics to calculate the orbital radii of the planets around the sun in our solar system in order to explore the mathematical relationships you say they encoded into the Giza pyramids.

(4) There seems to be no agreement regarding the definition of units used in these calculations.  

Edited June 13, 2018 by Ozymandias

[Ahatmose]

1 hour ago, Ozymandias said:

Yes, I have already acknowledged that fact. However, this relationship, and others that you have presented here, begs a fundamentally important question about the Ancient Egyptians (AE): did they have the mathematics and the knowledge to understand these relationships. I think not, for a number of reasons.

(1) They could not mark out a perfect square upon the ground to represent the base dimensions of the Great Pyramid, for example. T

(2) Their mathematics was not sufficiently developed to understand, express or evaluate irrational numbers like pi (3.14159...), phi (1.618...), the square root of 2 (1.414...) or the square root of 3 (1.732...), even by trial and error. They could only handle rational numbers and did not understand place value or the concept of the decimal point. Somebody already put up a link to the wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_mathematics.   

(3) I cannot see that the AE had the technology, the science or the mathematics to calculate the orbital radii of the planets around the sun in our solar system in order to explore the mathematical relationships you say they encoded into the Giza pyramids.

(4) There seems to be no agreement regarding the definition of units used in these calculations.  

Well in your own thread seems that all four of these arguments have been answered. I don't agree with many of them but heck it certainly proves my point that what i found is there., 

[Ozymandias]

11 minutes ago, Ahatmose said:

Well in your own thread seems that all four of these arguments have been answered. I don't agree with many of them but heck it certainly proves my point that what i found is there., 

Well, maybe they could mark out a square to a high degree of accuracy but what about my other three points which I will repost again:

(2) Their mathematics was not sufficiently developed to understand, express or evaluate irrational numbers like pi (3.14159...), phi (1.618...), the square root of 2 (1.414...) or the square root of 3 (1.732...), even by trial and error. They could only handle rational numbers and did not understand place value or the concept of the decimal point. Somebody already put up a link to the wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_mathematics.   

(3) I cannot see that the AE had the technology, the science or the mathematics to calculate the orbital radii of the planets around the sun in our solar system in order to explore the mathematical relationships you say they encoded into the Giza pyramids.

(4) There seems to be no agreement regarding the definition of units used in these calculations.  

[Ahatmose]

12 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

It's not necessarily a con. (I mean, if it were, it would be an awful one, as only one person here seems to think the OP is right.)

The OP could just be *SNIP*. I'm not saying he IS, just mentioing that it's an open possibility.

*How about saying really misinformed and honestly believes in it?*

--Jaylemurph

Here is what Harte has to say about sq rt of 3, sq rt of 2 and Phi from another thread,

"Regarding the 90 degree angle, if I may quote Harte,

"The AE's knew the square root of 3 indirectly. Same with the square root of two.

If you make a diagonal in a rectangle twice as long as the short side of the rectangle, the rectangle's long side is equal to the square root of 3, taking the short side as one.

Also, for a one by one square, the diagonal is equal to the square root of 2.

Pi and phi they didn't know, but they probably knew how to construct the "golden rectangle." You can do it with compass and straightedge (two strings and some stakes.) Takes about three steps.

Harte"

Thank you Harte.

[Ahatmose]

7 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

Well, maybe they could mark out a square to a high degree of accuracy but what about my other three points which I will repost again:

(2) Their mathematics was not sufficiently developed to understand, express or evaluate irrational numbers like pi (3.14159...), phi (1.618...), the square root of 2 (1.414...) or the square root of 3 (1.732...), even by trial and error. They could only handle rational numbers and did not understand place value or the concept of the decimal point. Somebody already put up a link to the wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_mathematics.   

(3) I cannot see that the AE had the technology, the science or the mathematics to calculate the orbital radii of the planets around the sun in our solar system in order to explore the mathematical relationships you say they encoded into the Giza pyramids.

(4) There seems to be no agreement regarding the definition of units used in these calculations.  

Sq rt of 3 in pictures

 

 

There is of course an easier way ... simply start with any base and using it as your marker or distance scribe arcs above the line from each end and the resulting vertical line is the square root of 3. If they could bisect a 90 degree angle I shoudl think they could do this as well.

[Hanslune]

Sorry folks Don '10 decimal places' Barone known here as Ahatmose got out of his pen at the Hall of Ma'at. We have to keep him away from people or he bites them with convoluted math.

He ventures out at times and gets reminded that his ideas are 'in house only' and don't travel well.

http://www.hallofmaat.com/list.php?8

Good to see all the old names. Keep up the good fight

 

Adieu

 

 

 

 

 

[Ozymandias]

23 minutes ago, Ahatmose said:

Sq rt of 3 in pictures

 

 

There is of course an easier way ... simply start with any base and using it as your marker or distance scribe arcs above the line from each end and the resulting vertical line is the square root of 3. If they could bisect a 90 degree angle I shoudl think they could do this as well.

I have never intimated that the AE could not draw a 1 : 2 : sqrt3 righ-angled triangle, but how would they compute the VALUE of sqrt3, an irrational number, in order to know and EQUATE it as part of the ratios and proportional relationships you have claimed.

Have you looked at how the AE expressed sqrt3 or used it im multiplication by itself to get 3?

Edited June 13, 2018 by Ozymandias

[Ahatmose]

20 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

(3) I cannot see that the AE had the technology, the science or the mathematics to calculate the orbital radii of the planets around the sun in our solar system in order to explore the mathematical relationships you say they encoded into the Giza pyramids.

Hi "O' ... I have to admit that i have searched for a possible way they could know this, I have yet to find one although I have an idea but since it would only be ridiculed and beaten to death on this thread it is best left alone for the time being. Let us assume for a moment that The Ancient Builders DID NOT KNOW the ratios of the planets this in no way nullifies the fact that the mathematical ratios I have found are encoded in the pyramids namely sq rt of 3. sq rt of 2. sq rt of 5 and Phi and Pi  To deny this is simply wrong. So many claim I am wrong in suggesting that The Ancient Builders knew that the planets matched these ratios. It could all be one giant co-incidence but to deny that the ratios are there is simply being totally dishonest.It could simply be one giant coincidence that the planets match the ratio of sq rt of 3, sq rt of 2 sq rt of 5 and Phi  ... but the ratios are there like it or not . You can call my interpretation of the data wrong but don't deny what is front of your face.  ... as to finding sq rt of 2 it is simply making a 90 degree angle going equal distance in both directions and joining the line. every A frame shown with a hanging plumb bob shows you the sq rt of  2 as to sq rt of 5 that is simply drawing your 90 degree angle and going double the distance in any one direction and then joining the line of a 1 by 2 by sq rt of 5 triangle. the math is extremely simple. If you concede that they could bisect a straight line then all things mathematical and geometrical become possible.

 

[Ahatmose]

9 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Sorry folks Don '10 decimal places' Barone known here as Ahatmose got out of his pen at the Hall of Ma'at. We have to keep him away from people or he bites them with convoluted math.

He ventures out at times and gets reminded that his ideas are 'in house only' and don't travel well.

http://www.hallofmaat.com/list.php?8

Good to see all the old names. Keep up the good fight

 

Adieu

 

 

 

 

 

LOL and who let you out ?

[Ahatmose]

38 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

I have never intimated that the AE could not draw a 1 : 2 : sqrt3 righ-angled triangle, but how would they compute the VALUE of sqrt3, an irrational number, in order to know and EQUATE it as part of the ratios and proportional relationships you have claimed.

Have you looked at how the AE expressed sqrt3 or used it im multiplication by itself to get 3?

Actually they wouldn't have to ... just use as building blocks. 1 cubit and 2 cubits and the resulting distance is 2.2306 cubits and they could have simply used that as a measuring stick, likewise Phi and sq rt of 2. It is all about the ratio,  And to match that to our solar system is pretty easy and self explanatory and you do not need to know the actual distance. .It is simply sq rt of 3 = Mercury and 2 x Phi = Venus ... actually very simple..

 

Edited June 13, 2018 by Ahatmose

[danydandan]

9 minutes ago, Ahatmose said:

Actually they wouldn't have to ... just use as building blocks. 1 cubit and 2 cubits and the resulting distance is 2.2306 cubits and they could have simply used that as a measuring stick, likewise Phi and sq rt of 2. It is all about the ratio,  And to match that to our solar system is pretty easy and self explanatory and you do not need to know the actual distance. .It is simply sq rt of 3 = Mercury and 2 x Phi = Venus ... actually very simple..

 

Where does x2 come into this. Why is there?

[Ahatmose]

9 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Where does x2 come into this. Why is there?

Er ... if you are asking me why Mercury and Venus are in the ratio of sq rt of 3 to 2 x Phi I have to admit I don't know.  Perhaps you should ask "The Creator"

[danydandan]

15 minutes ago, Ahatmose said:

Er ... if you are asking me why Mercury and Venus are in the ratio of sq rt of 3 to 2 x Phi I have to admit I don't know.  Perhaps you should ask "The Creator"

No I'm asking why choose to multiply phi by 2. Cherry picking.

Edited June 13, 2018 by danydandan

[Ahatmose]

14 minutes ago, danydandan said:

No I'm asking why choose to multiply phi by 2. Cherry picking.

Because that is what the ratio is ...

Amen

 

[Ahatmose]

4 hours ago, Ahatmose said:

Since this thread is about the mathematical matches I have found among and within the pyramids let's have a look at the two pyramids at Dashur, The Bent and The Red. However a word of warning if you believe that  the bend in The Bent Pyramid was random and was changed because of structural problems I might suggest this post might not be for you. This time we are visiting Dashur and are going to look at the enclosure wall around the Bent Pyramid. I am not sure why I did not do this earlier. Here is John Legon's diagram: John Legon's page on The Bent Pyramid

You will notice that John Legon has the overall distance of the wall (not including the part that surrounds the small pyramid} as 560 cubits .

Here is what Petrie measured ...

Now 560 cubits is equal to 560 x 20.62 or 11547.2 YET PETRIE MEASURED THE OUTER WALL AS 11757.7 OR 570.11 CUBITS IN ERROR TO JUST OVER 10 CUBITS and this would make the wall about 5 cubits thick. Petrie says if we use the inner wall we get 11757 or 570 cubits so it would appear that either Petrie made an error or John Legon has made a serious error.  So should the measurement to the inner wall be 11547 ? Could Petrie have made an error this grave ? Or is his 11757 and 570 cubits correct ?

But anyway we deal only in inches so let's proceed.  let's look at this enclosure like we looked at the enclosure at Meidum ...

Here is the enclosure as Petrie drew it ...

and filling in the measurements ...

So doing the math it does indeed look like the measurements in blue are indeed for the outer wall with the thickness of the wall in Petrie's own words being ...

Okay any objections yet ?

 

 

Since no one has objected to Petrie's data I will go on.

Edited June 13, 2018 by Ahatmose
spelling

[danydandan]

24 minutes ago, Ahatmose said:

Because that is what the ratio is ...

Amen

 

It's not a minor detail when most of your ratios are inclusive of you appearing to select the correct number to input into your equations without reason. So it appears you only selective whenever you need to be. Ie like the above example. Why did you choose two other than it suited your outcomes. It's called cherry picking and confirmation bias.

I'm not arguing your ratios are wrong or your maths are wrong, I'm arguing you appear selective in your choice of numbers for no other reason than it's necessary to prove your point.

All people want to know is WHY you selected the numbers you selected. Considering your whole hypothesis hinges on these numbers you seem so easily dismissive of, I believe it's very relevant.

Edited June 13, 2018 by danydandan

[Ahatmose]

10 minutes ago, danydandan said:

It's not a minor detail when most of your ratios are inclusive of you appearing to select the correct number to input into your equations without reason. So it appears you only selective whenever you need to be. Ie like the above example. Why did you choose two other than it suited your outcomes. It's called cherry picking and confirmation bias.

I'm not arguing your ratios are wrong or your maths are wrong, I'm arguing you appear selective in your choice of numbers for other reason than it's necessary to prove your point.

All people want to know is WHY you selected the numbers you selected.

Sigh ... I will try again ... Since G1 and G2 are the largest pyramids on The Giza Plateau and it was The Giza Plateau I was studying and since I was looking for any meaningful relationships between the pyramid. Forgive me but it seemed a VERY LOGICAL STEP . I was not looking for a specific ratio or relationship, just to see if there was one. It turned out that G1 / G2 (god I feel like a broken record) was extremely close ( I dare not say precisely lest we start that all over again)  to the ratio of sq rt of 3 / Phi. Now since Clive Ross had suggested that Giza was The World's Oldest Book of Astronomy it seemed a next logical step would to be calculate what those ratio would be and since it was suggested on this site that .using Mercury as 1 seemed to reveal many things I used Mercury as 1 to figure out my ratios.  Here is the site in question: https://www.solargeometry.com/

The ratios as found were

Mercury = 1.0000

Venus = 1.868601

Earth = 2.58333

Mars = 3.93616

Ceres = 7.14916

Now that I knew what the ratios were. the next logical step was to see if any measurements or ratios between the pyramids matched any of the ratios i had calculated from the know data as posted on various scientific web sites and Wiki and NASA. While playing with the numbers I noted that 440 / 411.04 = 1.070455 and then noted WHILE TRYING VARIOUS METHODS THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN USED. 411.04 / 220 (HALF THE BASE OF G1 ) equaled 1.86836 and that this was extremely close to the ratio of Mercury to Venus. NOW SINCE WE HAD CALCULATED THE THE RATIO OF G1 TO G2 WAS THE SAME AS SQ RT OF 3 TO PHI I simply called G1 sq rt of 3 and G2 BECAME PHI and since 1/2 of G1 divided into G2 gave us the ratio of Mercury and Venus i simply used 1/2 G1 as 1/2 of the sq rt of 3 and G2 remained at Phi. 

Can't make it any clearer than that.

 

[danydandan]

13 minutes ago, Ahatmose said:

Sigh ... I will try again ... Since G1 and G2 are the largest pyramids on The Giza Plateau and it was The Giza Plateau I was studying and since I was looking for any meaningful relationships between the pyramid. Forgive me but it seemed a VERY LOGICAL STEP . I was not looking for a specific ratio or relationship, just to see if there was one. It turned out that G1 / G2 (god I feel like a broken record) was extremely close ( I dare not say precisely lest we start that all over again)  to the ratio of sq rt of 3 / Phi. Now since Clive Ross had suggested that Giza was The World's Oldest Book of Astronomy it seemed a next logical step would to be calculate what those ratio would be and since it was suggested on this site that .using Mercury as 1 seemed to reveal many things I used Mercury as 1 to figure out my ratios.  Here is the site in question: https://www.solargeometry.com/

The ratios as found were

Mercury = 1.0000

Venus = 1.868601

Earth = 2.58333

Mars = 3.93616

Ceres = 7.14916

Now that I knew what the ratios were. the next logical step was to see if any measurements or ratios between the pyramids matched any of the ratios i had calculated from the know data as posted on various scientific web sites and Wiki and NASA. While playing with the numbers I noted that 440 / 411.04 = 1.070455 and then noted WHILE TRYING VARIOUS METHODS THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN USED. 411.04 / 220 (HALF THE BASE OF G1 ) equaled 1.86836 and that this was extremely close to the ratio of Mercury to Venus. NOW SINCE WE HAD CALCULATED THE THE RATIO OF G1 TO G2 WAS THE SAME AS SQ RT OF 3 TO PHI I simply called G1 sq rt of 3 and G2 BECAME PHI and since 1/2 of G1 divided into G2 gave us the ratio of Mercury and Venus i simply used 1/2 G1 as 1/2 of the sq rt of 3 and G2 remained at Phi. 

Can't make it any clearer than that.

 

If you can't see the cherry picking in your response then, I have nothing else to say.

[Ahatmose]

1 minute ago, danydandan said:

If you can't see the cherry picking in your response then, I have nothing else to say.

Perfect because I feel the same way. If you can't see what is right before you eyes I have nothing more to say to you either.

[Ahatmose]

It is truly amazing how little most people remember or know about ratios. 

If one line is 1000 meters and a second line is 100 meters the ratio is 1000 to 100 then it is just as correct to call this 10 "units" to "1" unit

if another line is 1500 meters and a second line is 100 meters the ratio is 1500 to 100 and it is just as correct to call this 15 "units" to 1 "unit" 

It is simply all about the ratio.

Now if one line is 1732.05 and another line is 1618.03 meters the ratio is 1732.05 to 1618.03 it is just as correct  to call this 1000 x sq rt of 3 to 1000 x Phi and it is just as correct to call it as a ratio sq rt of 3 to Phi

If a line is "X" units and a second line is y units and the ratio between them is the same as sq rt of 3 to Phi then it is quite permissible to call "X" sq rt of 3 and y is Phi. It is the ratio we are dealing with,. the actual units is totally not important.

I find it amazing and actually frustrating and comical all at the same time that supposed scholars have no idea what this means. They can not see this and so of course my theories go  whizzing over their heads. Perhaps if they stood atop The Great Pyramid it might hit them in the head.

 

 

Edited June 13, 2018 by Ahatmose

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Hang on .... are yuo saying the Egyptians knew of the existence of Ceres now? We only discovered it 200 years ago!

[Ahatmose]

11 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Hang on .... are yuo saying the Egyptians knew of the existence of Ceres now? We only discovered it 200 years ago!

From examining the data of The Bent Pyramid the ratio of Ceres compared to Mars is to be found within it's measurements.  is that what they intended for us ? Don't know but the ratio is there.