Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Al Nitak, GP Queen's Southern Shaft and the Golden Ratio


Scott Creighton

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Variations of the images below were presented in another thread but I think this particular observation  is deserving of a discussion of its own.

First, some assumptions (I should add here that if you do not accept the assumptions given below, then probably best that you simply skip this thread).

1) The Giza Pyramids are symbolic of Orion's Belt (as per Cocteau, Trimble/Badawy and Bauval).

2) The Great Pyramid is symbolic of the star Al Nitak (Zeta Orionis) within the Belt.

3) The mean angle of the QCS shaft was created in order to 'record' Al Nitak at a very specific altitude (and probably also the other shafts). 

4) The mean inclination of the Queen's Chamber Shafts (as per Gantenbrink) is ~39.3° and that this was the intended angle the builders had for each of the QC shafts (see images below). The error margin of the QC shafts from this mean value is very small.

Given the above assumptions, we then find that the QCS shaft (at ~39.3°) 'aligns' with Al Nitak when that star reaches the Golden Ratio point within its precessional cycle i.e. ~39.3 altitude.

Is this simply a curious coincidence or is there perhaps something deeper that we're being 'shown' here by the ancient builders of the GP?

image.thumb.jpeg.acbdbde3ba45d5692d143c5b394d99ba.jpeg

Figure 1.

image.thumb.jpeg.53e7c05f005a25662e68fd7db62cd754.jpeg

Figure 2.

image.thumb.jpeg.0851259f855d74ed5f6fe43fb3ba5f39.jpeg

Figure 3.

image.thumb.jpeg.415ee456c1fab80ea2752eafc9810509.jpeg

Figure 4.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OCT treats the sky as if it's a painted thingy above our head that never changes... and not an evolving starscape as the Earth turns.  Orion would be at  ~39.3 altitude for at best half an hour each night during some of the time that it's visible.  

Of course, you'd see some other artifacts if this was true... for instance, there would be a certain date in the calendars when the observation was made and they'd have to use the right calendar (their calendars were a bit of a mess at times.)  That date would have a specific feast associated with it and) the feast day would have to correspond with Sah himself. 

I have not encountered any feast days associated with Sah.  As for Osiris, his feasts occurred at the end of the harvest season (https://anefest.spbu.ru/en/articles/ancient-minor-asia/158-festivals-of-osiris-egypt.html#:~:text=The festivals of Osiris took,to the point of destination.)  His birthdate is the first of the intercalary days.

No proponent of the idea has ever shown that there was a standard day (and hour of the night) devoted to making this measurement.  Furthermore, the "hours" of the night when they might have made the observation in the Old Kingdom weren't a terribly standard feature.  To quote Clagett (page 15 in the pdf Høyrup, Jens. A Historian's History of Ancient Egyptian Science. Roskilde University Centre, Section for Philosophy and Science Studies, 1996.),

  • "the “hours” of the Old Kingdom night were thus neither seasonal hours nor equinoctial hours, nor were they meant to be equal divisions of the period of darkness of the actual night; they marked stations of the Sun during its nocturnal voyage through the Netherworld, and constituted no metrology. Correspondingly, “hours” were originally only divisions of the night (corresponding, we may assume, to particular liturgical duties19); only later would the day be divided by analogy in its own 12 hours [II:49]"

So to overcome the flaw, you have to have a date when this is supposed to occur and a time, and it needs to be a unique date and time that was somehow marked by the Egyptians because if you measure it at any old time that Orion is visible, you get completely different answers.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You also have to show that they could measure the precession.  It supposedly takes 2160 years for the precession, so what needs to be shown is that they could measure the sky accurately to see 1/2160th of a movement in the sky from year to year.  That distance is 8/100ths (check the math - 180 degrees of visibility divided by 2160 years) of a degree every single year, or 13 years to see a movement of what we say is one degree in our modern measurements.  Put another way, it moves 5 arcminutes per year, which is one sixth the size of the diameter of the moon.

So... you have to be able to show that the Egyptians could measure the sky reasonably accurately and that they noted the position of planets and stars to at least one degree of accuracy.

Since the Old Kingdom, of course... or even before that.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

You also have to show that they could measure the precession. 

...

As we know, Hipparchus  (2nd cent. BC) is believed to be the first to have stumbled across the precession of the equinoxes.

Not the ancient Egyptians.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Kenemet said:

You also have to show that they could measure the precession.

Why?

All that is being said here is that QCS shaft seems to have been designed to reference Al Nitak when it reaches ~39.3°.  This ~39.3° altitude of Al Nitak, curiously, also happens to be the Golden Ratio point of Al Nitak's precessional journey up and down the southern meridian.

I'm not saying here that the AEs actually knew this was the Golden Section point of Al Nitak's precessional cycle, so there is no need for them to know or measure precession. They are simply 'pointing' (indicating) the QCS shaft at that 39.3° altitude of Al Nitak (for whatever reason of theirs). That altitude (from my research) just happens to also be the Golden Section point of Al Nitak's precessional journey, regardless of whether the AEs knew that or not (probably not). They could reference (with this shaft) this 39.3° altitude of Al Nitak without actually knowing anything about precession or knowing that it is the Golden Section point of Al Nitak's precessional journey.

That's my question - is this just some weird coincidence or is there perhaps something more to this 39.3° Golden Section altitude of Al Nitak that this QCS shaft appears to 'align' with (not that the AEs likely knew any of this)?

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Why?

All that is being said here is that QCS shaft seems to have been designed to reference Al Nitak when it reaches ~39.3°.  This ~39.3° altitude of Al Nitak, curiously, also happens to be the Golden Ratio point of Al Nitak. I'm not saying here that the AEs actually knew this was the Golden Section point of Al Nitak's precessional cycle, so there is no need for them to know or measure precession. They are simply pointing the QCS shaft to that 39.3° altitude of Al Nitak. That altitude (from my research) just happens to also be the Golden Section point of Al Nitak's precessional journey, regardless of whether the AEs knew that or not (probably not). They could point to this altitude of Al Nitak without knowing about precession or knowing that it is the Golden Section point of Al Nitak's precessional journey.

That's my question - is this just some weird coincidence or is there perhaps something more to this 39.3° Golden Section altitude of Al Nitak? 

SC

Well, by your own points (" QCS shaft seems to have been designed to reference Al Nitak when it reaches ~39.3°") 

  • Did they actually name this star or just the group?  Huge difference.  If they're measuring it, then they would have named it.
  • 39.3 degrees... at what date and what time of night?  The sky isn't a ceiling.  Al Nitak moves across the sky every night, and the Earth's wobble puts it in a different declination (though slight) every day.
  • Your original post (point 3) says "The mean angle of the QCS shaft was created in order to 'record' Al Nitak at a very specific altitude (and probably also the other shafts)." 
  • The image you posted shows a line pointing to a point about 2/3 of the way up a marker in the sky (which indicates, I assume, the precession of the star over that time period.
  • In order for it to be a non-coincidence, they have to be measuring the sky like you did and to have recorded a minimum and a maximum height at a specific time of night.  You don't get that measuring stick by simply waving your fist at the sky and saying "yep.  that's it."

So you need to prove those points.  Otherwise, as your own post says, it's just an interesting coincidence.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Did they actually name this star or just the group?  Huge difference.  If they're measuring it, then they would have named it.

It is quite possible that they named this star S3h. But who knows?

Quote

39.3 degrees... at what date and what time of night?

Possibly around 2,800 BC. At night. When it was dark.

Quote

The sky isn't a ceiling.

Well spotted.

Quote

Al Nitak moves across the sky every night, and the Earth's wobble puts it in a different declination (though slight) every day.

Uh-huh. And what’s your point?

Quote

Your original post (point 3) says "The mean angle of the QCS shaft was created in order to 'record' Al Nitak at a very specific altitude (and probably also the other shafts)." 

Yes. And?

Quote

The image you posted shows a line pointing to a point about 2/3 of the way up a marker in the sky (which indicates, I assume, the precession of the star over that time period.

That 2/3 of the way up is the Golden Section point i.e. when Al Nitak reaches an altitude of 39.3°.

Quote

In order for it to be a non-coincidence, they have to be measuring the sky like you did and to have recorded a minimum and a maximum height at a specific time of night. 

Eh – no. They don’t. They really don’t. They’re just recording Al Nitak at a specific altitude in the sky. They see it’s altitude and align a shaft to it. End of. (They likely had no idea that that altitude just also happens to be the Golden Section point of Al Nitak’s precessional journey. It’s ME who observed that and who is wondering if there is any significance to it).

Quote

You don't get that measuring stick by simply waving your fist at the sky and saying "yep.  that's it."

Sorry – haven’t a clue what you’re on about here.

Quote

So you need to prove those points.  Otherwise, as your own post says, it's just an interesting coincidence.

I don’t need to prove anything here. And my post doesn't say "it's just an interesting coincidence". That's a statement whereas my post actually asks a question. Here it is again: "Is this simply a curious coincidence or is there perhaps something deeper that we're being 'shown' here by the ancient builders of the GP?"

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on my calculations this golden mean relation has an error of 0° 4'. I computed the upper and lower culmination limits using a +-10 year accuracy. No atmosphere was set in Stellarium. There seems to be a lot of information encoded in this pyramid.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking over the Stellarium data I now compute the error to be 0° 4' 32".

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find that the precessional range is between 10725 BC and 2360 AD. The altitude difference is then θ:

 

θ = 58.1717°  -  9.1354° = 49.0363°

 

The golden mean of this t is:

 

t = 0.61803 x 49.0363° = 30.3061°

 

The  shaft angle is then:

9.1354° + 30.3061° = 39.4415°

 

The average Queen Chamber shaft slope is  39.366°.

 

Now we can arrive at this value will better accuracy using a different method.

 

We station ourselves on top of a pyramid. We measure the altitude of the Sun at upper culmination(astronomical Noon). It's as easy as that!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought there was a block in the way, stopping a direct view from the chamber to the sky?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

It is quite possible that they named this star S3h. But who knows?

Possibly around 2,800 BC. At night. When it was dark.

Ah.  I apparently didn't communicate that well.  Orion travels the sky in an arc.  You can't see its precession unless you observe its position at a standard time (like 8 pm in the evening) on the same date every year.   Just looking at it when it's dark... well, it's 2 am here in Dallas (similar latitude (well, two degrees more northerly) as Giza and Cairo) and Orion is nowhere to be seen.  

So "at night.  When it was dark" is a "no, not always."  If I went out four hours ago, I could find it but it's not at the same place it was six hours ago.  And if I spotted it six hours ago, it's not gong to be in exactly the same spot 30 minutes later.   If I wait until November, it'll be rising and setting at very different times (and sometimes it won't rise or set at all)

So "at night.  When it was dark."  isn't the answer.  My question was "when (what date) would they have been measuring this magical star and what time of night?"

I hope this makes it clearer.

 

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t know anything about this but I did create a cool digital art once called The View From Alnitak.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Oops, wrong topic, sorry.

Edited by The Puzzler
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Is this simply a curious coincidence or is there perhaps something deeper that we're being 'shown' here by the ancient builders of the GP?

It's a coincidence.

Even though Orion's belt has considerable celestial significance (in conjunction with The Pleiades & Taurus), it's far more likely that the GP's location was determined according to suitable foundation.

The shafts aren't even straight - so you have to use 'mean', which pretty much blows 'pointing to' out of the window.

The shafts, their heights and angles, are far more easily understood from a hydraulic perspective, i.e. that the height in the King's Chamber had to be just at the level of the top of the Porphyry coffer (thus permitting seawater level to rise thus far and no further). The angle is determined by that necessary to reach well above maximum expected flood height* at the GP exterior. The QC shafts only needed to vent high pressure air, so didn't need to reach quite so high, and were terminated by flap valves (to prevent significant ingress).

The builders of the GP are indeed showing us something, and what their GP shows is witness/proof/testimony of the Great Flood, hence the Ark of Testimony (aka 'The Porphyry coffer') having floated over the 2cm step into the KC.

 

* Great Flood, cataclysm, YDE, 10kBCE.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Spiros said:

I find that the precessional range is between 10725 BC and 2360 AD. The altitude difference is then θ:

 

θ = 58.1717°  -  9.1354° = 49.0363°

 

The golden mean of this t is:

 

t = 0.61803 x 49.0363° = 30.3061°

 

The  shaft angle is then:

9.1354° + 30.3061° = 39.4415°

 

The average Queen Chamber shaft slope is  39.366°.

 

Now we can arrive at this value will better accuracy using a different method.

 

We station ourselves on top of a pyramid. We measure the altitude of the Sun at upper culmination(astronomical Noon). It's as easy as that!

 

Thanks Spiros. That's very helpful.

Cheers.

SC

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Ah.  I apparently didn't communicate that well.  Orion travels the sky in an arc.  You can't see its precession unless you observe its position at a standard time (like 8 pm in the evening) on the same date every year.   Just looking at it when it's dark... well, it's 2 am here in Dallas (similar latitude (well, two degrees more northerly) as Giza and Cairo) and Orion is nowhere to be seen.  

So "at night.  When it was dark" is a "no, not always."  If I went out four hours ago, I could find it but it's not at the same place it was six hours ago.  And if I spotted it six hours ago, it's not gong to be in exactly the same spot 30 minutes later.   If I wait until November, it'll be rising and setting at very different times (and sometimes it won't rise or set at all)

So "at night.  When it was dark."  isn't the answer.  My question was "when (what date) would they have been measuring this magical star and what time of night?"

I hope this makes it clearer.

 

Let me try again.

This isn't about the AEs knowing of or calculating precession.

They simply observed and measured Al Nitak in the night sky on the meridian at an altitude of ~39.3° above the local Giza horizon and seemingly built the QC shafts to 'record' that ~39.3° altitude of Al Nitak. That's all there was on their part.

The deeper question is why they 'recorded' that particular altitude of Al Nitak?  What, if anything, does it tell us?

I have subsequently observed that the altitude of ~39.3° just so happens to be the Golden Mean ratio of Al Nitak's precessional journey (i.e. the Earth's precessional wobble) and wonder if that is in some way significant? Again - I'm not saying the AEs understood or realised any of this - they almost certainly didn't. But clearly this ~39.3° angle was significant to them and I simply wonder if there is perhaps some unknown, deeper relationship between this altitude of Al Nitak and its golden ratio point (it's not Al Nitak that's moving, of course, but that this is a specific point in the Earth's precessional wobble that's been 'recorded' at the latitude of Giza)?

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Let me try again.

This isn't about the AEs knowing of or calculating precession.

They simply observed and measured Al Nitak in the night sky on the meridian at an altitude of ~39.3° above the local Giza horizon and seemingly built the QC shafts to 'record' that ~39.3° altitude of Al Nitak. That's all there was on their part.

The deeper question is why they 'recorded' that particular altitude of Al Nitak?  What, if anything, does it tell us?

I have subsequently observed that the altitude of ~39.3° just so happens to be the Golden Mean ratio of Al Nitak's precessional journey (i.e. the Earth's precessional wobble) and wonder if that is in some way significant? Again - I'm not saying the AEs understood or realised any of this - they almost certainly didn't. But clearly this ~39.3° angle was significant to them and I simply wonder if there is perhaps some unknown, deeper relationship between this altitude of Al Nitak and its golden ratio point (it's not Al Nitak that's moving, of course, but that this is a specific point in the Earth's precessional wobble that's been 'recorded' at the latitude of Giza)?

SC

They didn't measure degrees or angles.  They measured rise and run.

Now.. having said that, there's a LOT of stars that pass through that 39 degree mark-- but none of them actually hover at that position permanently. 

  • How do you know it's pointed at Al Nitak instead of just being pointed toward ... empty sky?  Other than "it's my belief based on the OCT" - because that is actually not proof of anything.
  • As was pointed out, that's not a straight and unimpeded shaft *and* they wouldn't be outside at night working (somebody'd surely fall off that pyramid.)  What evidence do you have to show about the time and date when they would have made that measurement?
  • They're not going to go to huge amounts of trouble to point at something if it's insignificant to them.  What evidence do you have that Al Nitak was important to the ancient Egyptians?
  • You talked about the precession of Orion.  What evidence do you have that they knew about this in the 4th dynasty?
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

They didn't measure degrees or angles.  They measured rise and run.

I've presented the angle of the shaft using our modern convention of degrees, minutes & seconds because that's what most people reading this will understand. It doesn't matter what the unit of measure is - whether expressed in sekeds or degrees, it will result in the same angle of inclination. Don't you understand this?

Quote

Now.. having said that, there's a LOT of stars that pass through that 39 degree mark-- but none of them actually hover at that position permanently. 

On the southern meridian at Giza, Al Nitak is within 1 degree of 39 degrees from 3639 BC to 3454 BC - at night on 21st December (winter solstice) for around 185 years. More than enough time to observe and record it.

Quote

How do you know it's pointed at Al Nitak instead of just being pointed toward ... empty sky?  Other than "it's my belief based on the OCT" - because that is actually not proof of anything.

Let me repeat for you from the OP:

"First, some assumptions (I should add here that if you do not accept the assumptions given below, then probably best that you simply skip this thread).

1) The Giza Pyramids are symbolic of Orion's Belt (as per Cocteau, Trimble/Badawy and Bauval).

2) The Great Pyramid is symbolic of the star Al Nitak (Zeta Orionis) within the Belt.

3) The mean angle of the QCS shaft was created in order to 'record' Al Nitak at a very specific altitude (and probably also the other shafts)."

The discussion here is based upon the premise and acceptance of the above assumptions. I am not about to get into a discussion about those. If you do not accept them (even for the sake of discussion) then I politely ask you to skip this thread.

SC  

 

"

Edited by Scott Creighton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

I've presented the angle of the shaft using our modern convention of degrees, minutes & seconds because that's what most people reading this will understand. It doesn't matter what the unit of measure is - whether expressed in sekeds or degrees, it will result in the same angle of inclination. Don't you understand this?

On the southern meridian at Giza, Al Nitak is within 1 degree of 39 degrees from 3639 BC to 3454 BC - at night on 21st December (winter solstice) for around 185 years. More than enough time to observe and record it.

Let me repeat for you from the OP:

"First, some assumptions (I should add here that if you do not accept the assumptions given below, then probably best that you simply skip this thread).

1) The Giza Pyramids are symbolic of Orion's Belt (as per Cocteau, Trimble/Badawy and Bauval).

2) The Great Pyramid is symbolic of the star Al Nitak (Zeta Orionis) within the Belt.

3) The mean angle of the QCS shaft was created in order to 'record' Al Nitak at a very specific altitude (and probably also the other shafts)."

The discussion here is based upon the premise and acceptance of the above assumptions. I am not about to get into a discussion about those. If you do not accept them (even for the sake of discussion) then I politely ask you to skip this thread.

...so they're observing sometime on the night of the feast day of the Sailing of Bast? (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt/ideology/festivaldates.html)  

Another reason to be skeptical of the idea.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kenemet said:

...so they're observing sometime on the night of the feast day of the Sailing of Bast? (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt/ideology/festivaldates.html)  

Another reason to be skeptical of the idea.

Had the AE builders all downed tools to join in celebrations every time there was a festival to one of their gods, they'd never have built anything.

SC

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Let me repeat for you from the OP:

"First, some assumptions (I should add here that if you do not accept the assumptions given below, then probably best that you simply skip this thread).

1) The Giza Pyramids are symbolic of Orion's Belt (as per Cocteau, Trimble/Badawy and Bauval).

2) The Great Pyramid is symbolic of the star Al Nitak (Zeta Orionis) within the Belt.

3) The mean angle of the QCS shaft was created in order to 'record' Al Nitak at a very specific altitude (and probably also the other shafts)."

The discussion here is based upon the premise and acceptance of the above assumptions. I am not about to get into a discussion about those. If you do not accept them (even for the sake of discussion) then I politely ask you to skip this thread.

"

 

This renders discussion pointless/unconstructive.

Your question is essentially: "If the pyramids were arranged by the builders according to Orion's belt, and they designed the shafts to point to certain stars, is it a coincidence?"

It looks like a question, but it is invalid as such.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

You're right about Vyse's forgery, but wrong about the 'star shafts'. Aren't you meant to be an engineer?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you’re even losing the support of the fringe kooks, Scott. 
 

Btw where’s that secret cache again?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Zod YinYang said:

 

This renders discussion pointless/unconstructive.

Your question is essentially: "If the pyramids were arranged by the builders according to Orion's belt, and they designed the shafts to point to certain stars, is it a coincidence?"

It looks like a question, but it is invalid as such.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

You're right about Vyse's forgery, but wrong about the 'star shafts'. Aren't you meant to be an engineer?

Zod, 

No, you seem to misunderstand what I'm asking.

The Golden Ratio point of Al Nitak’s precessional journey up and down the southern meridian at Giza is 39.3° above the local Giza horizon. (I'm not saying that the AEs knew this - just my own observation of this phenomenon being presented here).

The mean inclination of QC shafts is 39.3°.

Thus:

1)    QCS mean shaft inclination: ~39.3°

2)    Golden Ratio point of Al Nitak’s precessional journey on southern meridian: ~39.3°

Is the ~39.3° connection between 1 & 2 (above) merely coincidental, or is there some (as yet) unknown correlation that our present civilisation is missing in its calculations of the Earth’s orbital mechanics as they relate to our planet's precessional cycle?

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.