Thread Rating:
  • 3 Vote(s) - 3.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Great Pyramid
#34
...
Looks like I lost Lonesome Trail -- aka Grand Vizier.
Hopefully if I deposit a few more tidbits,
it all might fall into place.

We have two Pi cubits 20.61670179  and  20.62648062

I optimised 20.61670179
because it falls within the Petrie boundaries of Royal Cubit,
whereas 20.62648062 clearly does not.

Grand Vizier pointed to usage of Pi median to arrive at cubit 20.62648062,
but I do it a different way.
GV used the multiplier 360 degrees to arrive at his number,
I use the ancient 360 count system {babylonian 60 count} but the ancient count,
for calendar and a plethora of applications is actually 360 count,
the ancient global civic calendar is 360 days,
mayan = 18 x 20, egyptian sumerian etc 12 x 30.
Many people believe that the earth had an original 360 day year,
I remain in the fence on that one.

the pi cubits {and all cubits with their complimentary synergistic or "mirror " cubit}
will follow this simple equation:

 cubit 20.61670179 = 6.5625  x  Pi  ----> 100 Pi x cubit 20.62648602 = 18 x 360 count  


cubit 20.625 = 6.5625 x aPi --- where aPi = 22 / 7
and
18 x 360 = 6480 = 100 x aPi x 20.625


so one side of the equation is balanced to 360 count systems
the other ...
wtf
is
6.5625?

look to the first equation in the ancient phi progressions:
they start with the 365 day Earth and 584 Venus synod CALENDAR COUNT timelines

365 / 584 = 5 / 8 = 0.625

the progression:
Line 1:

1 / phi              phi                   phi sq.                   ancient pi value  
0.625 ---> +1 = 1.625 ---> + 1 = 2.625  ---> x 1.2 = 3.15

those are not PHI etc ---> 
they occupy the phi positions in the progression  --- note 2625 sequence

to make the progression work
simply
always
just
DIVIDE the -- phi position value by the phi sq. position value
and that
will give you the very next ---> inverse phi position to start the same equation again <---

lets skip a step in this fibonacci style progression 

step 3

34 / 55                                89 / 55                           144 / 55                  1728 / 550           
0.618 18 18~  ----> + 1 = 1.618 18 18~ ---->  +1 = 2.618 18 18~  --- x 1.2 = 3.14 18 18~

now divide phi position by phi sq. position
1.618 18 18 / by 2.618 18 18
equals
the 
new inverse phi position === 0. 6180555555 = 89 / 144

repeat the process several times
and eventually you arrive at
75025 / 46368 = phi

now back to line 1 ---- and the bold print 2.625 sequence <---

look again at Pi cubit 20.61670179 = 6.5625 x modern pi

align without decimals

65625 / by 2625 = 25

65625 x 584 Venus synod = 105000 x 365 Earth year  --- calendar count cycles

OK, we see that 65625 follows the calendar count series.

But now,
watch what happens,
when we go straight to NASA data <------  Whip


65625 x NASA data 583.92 Venus synod
equals
tropical earth year 365.2422  x ----> 104915.9982 <---> realign to 104916 

the earth year multiple 104915.9982 <---> realign to 104916 {convergence dynamic}

now reduce to lowest common denominators

65625 x 583.92 NASA Venus synod = 104916 x 365.2422 Earth tropical year

reduces to: {factor of 21 reduction}


3125 x NASA data 583.92 = 4996 x Earth Tropical Year 365.242 1938


so what do we see?
NASA Earth tropical year is 365.2422 --- end result was 365.2421938

now review the accuracy:

99. 99999 83 %  is the highest extreme accuracy you could ever ask for:
in planetary timeline cycles -- just a hair under 7 sigma esentially

This has a factor of error of ---> !!! ---> 0.04 seconds per Lunar Month <----

the equation Tropical Earth year itself is off by ---> 0.5 seconds <--- Applause

That is how Conevrgence Dynamics works.

So by extrapolating the equations with the Pi cubit,
an unprecedented extreme accuracy cycle is revealed,
using
NASA Whip
data.

....
Reply
#35
Well, I was doing some figuring - as in, it figures - my new calculator arrives in the mail on the very same day I am done figuring. I may just leave it the plastic and go back to my efforts to win a Nobel Pie Prize for unravelling human sulfur and nitrogen metabolism. (I have to say I am a little wary of looking for planetary data in the pyramids because if the ancient data were more accurate, NASA might still have some catching up to do before things can be fully appreciated, so I may be somewhat neutral on whether that kind of thing is hidden in the pyramids or not). Other than that, it's been so long since I've done any trigonometry I'd have to learn it all over from the ground up.

I don't see a lot in your posts I disagree with, and I agree very much with your basic philosophies about the matter. I think the data EA posted supports your view and your calculations, and I think it's good data because it also support mine. I'm having to come up with words and probably not very good ones to describe the pyramids. They are "polypyramids" in that you can 
probably get multiple separate pyramid models out of the variance in the sides (as you mentioned); they are "hyperpyramids" in as much as the Cheops pyramid your calculations describe appears to be in there and so does the pyramid that Munck's calculations (and mine) describe, impossible as this sounds at first glance.

My guess would still be that all three main Giza pyramids were dressed with about 8 inches of additional paving at the base, it's what the mathematics seem to imply at least, although some of it may refer to a calculated model rather than a real one per se? However, thankfully I don't think I need to rest the arguments on further archaeological proofs. Exactly as you suggested here, things also depend on what units of measurement you employ to calculate a pyramid's values.

It's why I made the point about the data, nobody's actuallymeasured  the Great Pyramid's height in a long time, we have a base length and a slope angle and we calculate from them rather than measure (just as we calculate diagonals that we cannot actually measure because someone put a great big pyramid right in our way), and we hope unless proof turns up one way or the other that the pyramidions preserved the slope angles - if they didn't of course we may all be wrong, outside of projecting completed pyramids that might never have actually existed in real life, for whatever it may be worth.

As stated, at least part of the point of truncating the pyramid sides is in my opinion to establish a metrological standard. It looks very much like that too is conserved across the question of paving or calculation or of choice of unit values for calculations. It looks to me like the original basic design for the Cheops is a perfect 2 Pi pyramid, but that doesn't seem to stop it in the least from supporting your work.

It would take me some doing to make a proper presentation, and really sorting out the Giza data in light of new findings could take a year, but I think I've seen enough the past week to feel like I'm finally starting have any kind of handle on it for the first time. It's pretty amazing, because I'm aware that Munck's Cheops measures are otherwise unsupportable. The math tells him he's correct, but he doesn't seem to know why he's correct. I never did either. Fakhry actually appears to back him up on his baselength, which likely only made matters worse. I've long questioned the validity of that data - I can't actually remember my exact complaint now - but I've had to rest it all on a hint from Lemursier or someone that might mean there was once additional paving that would explain the differences in figures between Munck and everyone else on the Great Pyramid.

Munck's problem with being able to support his own figures may come from what seems to be his relative lack of interest in the more challenging parts of the pyramids - I think he mentioned the apothem once, shrugged, and moved on? - but more importantly his apparent general lack of interest in metrologies outside the modern foot. I don't blame him, it's generally by far the most effective and universal master key for decoding of ancient measures, but there do seem to have been a couple of other units at work on occasions when it fit a particular monument design. If one's monument were seemingly intended to include a metrological standard for any other valid units beside the foot, it's probably best not to overlook them.

(I think I have the better part of the "original specs" now although there are still a few things I'm not sure of. The Chephren diagonal associated with my data is so near unity it's still hard for me to tell if it IS a metrological standard for the modern foot, or if it's an advisory about a fine constant - such as the ratio between a particular pair of remens or cubits? - or possibly both, depending on units applied?)

So it's one thing to say, "Gee, maybe the Egyptians designed the pyramids so everybody's right" (everyone who isn't sawing 17 feet off a pyramid's height to make their calculations work, at least) - but it's always something I've hated to say without having the actual numbers. Without them, I just sound like a cross between an apologist and some kind of day care nanny.

I had always wondered  how we missed out on getting the choice value of 611.597015665 ft for the apothem. It turns out, we didn't. They managed it after all. (One reason this is a choice constant is 611.597015665 / 194.677376447 = Pi).

I don't suppose anyone's ever heard of them, but these metrological units are (ta-da):

Thoth Cubit = 1.72132591650 ft
Thoth Remen = 1.21846967915 ft

I probably pulled their names out of my ear, but I have a few reasons. I'll be surprised if Google knows these, most likely another High Quality Hidden Mission Exclusive?

I almost never would have believed this. I probably still shouldn't with as much work as I didn't do, but it's beginning to look like these were valid units alongside the other two I've been using and alongside whatever the exact units are that give validity to your calculations. So far, these metrological values actually WORK, and for the first time in fifteen years going on twenty, I might be able to explain, paving or no paving, why the mathematics keep trying to give us values that field measurements don't seem to actually support.

I also think it's absolutely brilliant if things were indeed actually deliberately arranged so that the complete theft of an entire layer of hypothetical paving is still unable to erase any of this in the end. 
 
Thanks very much to you and EA for encouragement and data in this thread, I'm sure you've both been a huge help.

(Answer to last week's question: Anyone guess what an Ellifino is? Ask a Pi Thrower...
19.4677376447 x (Pi^2) = 192.138869137)

This week's question: Who ordered this Pi, and why?
3.1426968052735447
"Work and pray, live on hay, you'll get Pie In The Sky when you die." - Joe Hill, "The Preacher and the Slave" 1911
Reply
#36
Quote:I don't see a lot in your posts I disagree with, and I agree very much with your basic philosophies about the matter. I think the data EA posted supports your view and your calculations, and I think it's good data because it also support mine. I'm having to come up with words and probably not very good ones to describe the pyramids. They are "polypyramids" in that you can 

probably get multiple separate pyramid models out of the variance in the sides (as you mentioned); they are "hyperpyramids" in as much as the Cheops pyramid your calculations describe appears to be in there and so does the pyramid that Munck's calculations (and mine) describe, impossible as this sounds at first glance.


The results, which are published in Nature Communications, could help to guide theoretical work in a search for a more general version of quantum mechanics.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-04-deviations...s.html#jCp

[Image: 3-thesearchfor.jpg]
Compare  Sheep

The results show that it's possible to violate local causality in an entirely new and more general way, which could lead to a potential new resource for quantum technologies.


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-04-physicists...y.html#jCp
[Image: bellinequali.jpg]
I generally speak for the simple minded Hi  because itza complex lingo. Doh Third Eye Smack!


Quote:~19.5 "hyper-complex" ~33.3 numbers.  Easy as Bamf Pi

In standard quantum mechanics, these mathematical rules use complex numbers. However, recently an alternative version of quantum mechanics was proposed which uses more complex, so-called "hyper-complex" (generalised and improvised)numbers.


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-04-deviations...s.html#jCp


I try to reduce itza so you kinda get my point.(The Singularity Arrow .) impossible as this sounds at first glance.
Along the vines of the Vineyard.
With a forked tongue the snake singsss...
Reply
#37
...


As soon as I see Munck's data with the GP height at 480.34 feet,
I see no reason to look further, sorry.
When he is that far off, he's just plain old grossly incorrect.
I cannot see any way around that fact concerning the height.


Quote:This week's question: Who ordered this Pi, and why?
3.1426968052735447


I did of course.
That is square root 800 divided by 9.
When you align your uneven base lengths with a fixed height,
you get a variety of slope angles.
We use the standard slope tangent model for all slope possibilities:
{4 divided by pi value} = slope tangent 
There are several primary ancient pi values that produce tangents and cubits,
through this system.
That sqrt 800 / 9 value is designated as another slope producing pi value,
augmenting modern square root two into the ancient cubit system,
because it operates the pure modern square root two,
into Khufu pyramid cubits.
That cubit for that "pi value" is 20.61923374.
the slope tangent
is sqrt 1.62. 



Quote:It looks to me like the original basic design for the Cheops is a perfect 2 Pi pyramid, 
but that doesn't seem to stop it in the least from supporting your work.


I do not think that the Egyptians could calculate a "perfect pi", or any of the square roots.

They are endless decimals.
They certainly had convergent fractions for pi, and square roots,
and as such they had dozens of ancient pi values attached to a variety of math progressions.
Pi is far less important of a subject to advanced ancient cultures,
than the Earth measurements and the planetary astronomies.
First and foremost ancient man was an astronomer.
He watched the planetary movements and accounted for them.
In that accounting he discovered the harmonic cycles of planetary timelines.
From there the ancient cultural math became the spiritual harmonic codes.
Pi was a math tool, certainly recognized as important indeed,
but Pi wasn't the reason why they built the Khufu pyramid with that geometry.
The simplest quality form of Pi is the ancient pi value {355 / 113}.

Standard ancient basic model of the GP is a square base,
440 cubits base length, 280 cubit height.
That can only produce one slope tangent, and it's not {4 / pi}.
From there, it was a free for all in pyramid design,
with 4 uneven bases and 4 - 8 slopes.
I displayed in the last post with NASA data planetary timeline calendar convergence,
to indicate the accuracy of data I derived from a variety of ancient pyramid angle tangents.
No doubt, 
astronomical data is just but one important facet of what is fully encoded in the Giza Pyramids.

Basic or standard models ...
Khafre --- 3 - 4 -5 triangle {side face}

Menkaure -- the Lehner style rectangular base is the basic model here.
That produces two side face slopes.
I use the Masonic Code tangent {21 / 17} for the 51 degree angle,
with the alternate slope as the Khufu pyramid. 
Any rectangular base pyramid represents two side face slope angles,
thus represents two distinct square base pyramids,
in a hybrid pyramid.

Interesting that Lehner got the Khafre pyramid height almost spot on at 470.8 feet.

I set the primary slope, with base length 706.2 feet and that height, for slope tangent {4 / 3}.
From there I create {optimise} multiple uneven base lengths for 3 and 4 side face slope pyramids.


His Khufu pyramid slope is almost spot on ... arctangent  sqrt 1.62

blah blah blah

My favorite image of the last couple of years was the study on the Lunar South Massif.
I noticed that the central latitude of the South Massif was spot on:
the Kabbalah 137 angle 19.98310652 degrees with tangent {36 / 99}.

That specific latitude centrally crosses the Massif and Bear mountain. 
In working that angle with other important angle tangents,
I found a unique situation,
with the standard model of the Khafre pyramid.
So regardless of the implications of the South Massif,
the relationship of the two featured angles,
{one angle being subtracted from the other}
produces a resultant tangent --
that fractionally defines all the possible Khufu pyramid cuibts with possible pyramid heights.

The all important aspect of the Khafre pyramid of course ... is the corner angle
Note the equation with that Corner Angle
and tetrahedral 19.47122063

[Image: ize4HcX.jpg]

...
Reply
#38
(04-22-2017, 03:33 AM)Vianova Wrote: ...
As soon as I see Munck's data with the GP height at 480.34 feet,
I see no reason to look further, sorry.
When he is that far off, he's just plain old grossly incorrect.
I cannot see any way around that fact concerning the height.

I'm quoting you that it depends on what unit you use in your calculation. Emphasize calculation here, vs. measurement.

"280" cubits = 279.454657307 cubits
279.454657307 x 1.7188733853 Royal Cubit = 480.347172843
279.454657307 x 1.7213259165 Thoth Cubit = 481.032547980
481.032547980 x 2 Pi = 3022.41662522

Both pyramids are in there, regardless of the issue of whether there is paving missing.

I don't have too much patience for the Urdummheit of insisting that the ancient Egyptians didn't know what Pi was. What, they came here from Mars, discovered and encoded the Fine Structure Constant and the DNA unzip angle, and can encode astronomical data at least as accurately as NASA, but they were too dumb to build pocket calculators or even to do long division? You may eventually be able to see my problem with that scenario...

They had fractions as mnemonic devices, as are many of the formulas that arise from a Pi based system, is what it looks like to me. I cannot memorize more than about a dozen constants, but if I memorize the right ones, I can recreate an enormous amount of data from simple formulas involving them. It may be hard to develop a fascination with Phi and its properties if you don't work it (and its reciprocal) out to umpteen places, and the same with many other interesting irrationals. At least it was for me, I still wouldn't know what the hell was so exciting about Phi without knowing the EXACT value to ten places.

Thoth = "Father of Numbers" according to Yoda who taught us that sqrt (1.234567901234567901) = 1.1111111111111 = symbol of "Thoth".

Yoda also taught us that 240, its square, and its square root represent Thoth, citing a cartouche found at a temple in Edfu in this regard. Sounds like mumbo-jumbo to me (so does gematria) but the numbers seem to work. It sounds rather like an inside architect or mathematician joke that you should find "Thoth's" mathematical "signature" in ancient monuments, but if that's what the numbers say, then maybe Kilroy the Mathematician was here after all?

These are three things Yoda did not teach us.

Thoth Pi = 3.14269680527 = sqrt 9.87654320987654320... This is NOT a property of 22/7.
Thoth Angle = 51.84 = 1 / 0.019290123456790123456790...
Thoth Cubit = .1234567901234567901 x Pi^2

[3022.41662522  / 1111.111111111 = 2.7201749760] Metrological standard FOR "Alternate e'" / Megalithic Yard

You see the same thing at Stonehenge where the outer sarcen circle radius looks like a standard of 120 of same, inner circle radius = standard of 40 remens.

This may be why "Thoth" lets people get away with 51.84 instead of the precise value. I did not even know before yesterday that the reciprocal of 51.84 has this interesting property because up until now I've only been working with a calculator capable of ten digits.

360 / Remen = ~Royal Cubit^2:
360 / Thoth Remen = Royal Cubit^2 = 1.71887338539^2 
360 / Usual Remen 1.21673360279 = Royal Cubit 1.71887338539 x Thoth Cubit 1.72132591650

sqrt 240 (Thoth) x Pi = inner diameter Stonehenge
sqrt 240 (Thoth) x (Pi^3) = 279.454657307 x 1.7188733853 Royal Cubit = 480.347172843
sqrt 240 (Thoth) x 1.11111111111 (Thoth) = 1.72132591650 Thoth Cubit
"Work and pray, live on hay, you'll get Pie In The Sky when you die." - Joe Hill, "The Preacher and the Slave" 1911
Reply
#39
...
Don't belabor these questions with a whole lotta Munck extrapolations.
I have simple questions.
you have Muncks height at 480.34 feet,
what
is his average base length,
and his royal cubit?
Once I know that, then I know his slope angle.
Then you can show me,
how the Egyptians used modern Pi. <----

Are you saying they simply stopped at 10 decimal placements,
and used that?
I am saying that the Egyptians tried to find Pi and the square roots,
and realized that they couldn't do it due to the infinite RANDOM decimals,
{any more than modern man could}
and as such they used convergence dynamics to create convergent fractions.
They certainly didn't have a symbol for Pi, that would calculate,
they needed a NUMBER.

By the ways, the three most important scientists that actually measured the GP,
Petrie, Cole, and Lehner all have heights far above that framework you posted by Munck.
Like I said,
when you bundle up----  e, and pi, and other constants,
you can find a multitude of pathways when your target is loose like Munck's.
{see extrapolation below}


These three "ancient P" values are all you need to work the ancient pi progressions.

22 / 7
355 / 113
377 / 120 ---- fibonacci based

The first two will create a progression that isolates pi value 104348 / 33215 = 3.141592654

Let's look at two ancient pi values,
that actually approach Pi.
-----------------------------------------
355 / 113 = 3.14159292
and
3927 / 1250 = 3.1416 
-----------------------------------------

When using fractions your slope tangents will also be in fractions.

using the slope formula
 {4 / pi} = 1.273239545 --- no fraction -- endless decimal

                             slope tangent
4 / by {355 / 113} = 1.273239437 = ---- 452 / 355 ---- aligns to  cubit 20.61670354

cubit 20.61670354 --- {105 x 355} ---> / by {16 x 113}
----------------------------------------------------------------


4 / by {3927 / 1250} = 1.273236567 = --- 5000 / 3927 --- aligns to cubit 20.61675 

cubit 20.61675 --- {21 x 3927} /  by 4000
----------------------------------------------------------------

immediately we see functionally easy to apply fractions.

Let's look at pi value 3.1416 = 3927 / 1250

This pi value has excellent beauty because it incorporates the primes 7, 11, and 17,


31416 = {7 x 11 x 17} x ... 24  ---- = --- 7 x 24 x 187 <---

Highly competent and valid extrapolations offer this pi value with cubit 20.61675,
as the royal cubit. Not my choice, but highly valid.

this pi value 3.1416 produces progressional phi values:

0.618 ---- 1.618 ---- 2.618 --- x 1.2 = 3.1416

now look at the value 187 in the earlier equation 5 lines up.

{100 Pi  x  phi} divided by e = 187.0006134     e = 2.718281828,  pi = pi,  phi = phi

now backtrack that

7 x 24 x 187 = 31416
7 x 24 x 187.0006134 = 31416.10305 ---- has exactly 6 sigma accuracy to 31416

so using pure pi, phi and e,
a new but superfluous pi value is accomplished.
Cutting to the chase,
the new cubit for that pi value using true pi, phi and e, is:
20.61681753
using the standard 280 cubits for the height
that height would be:
5772.708935 inches = 481.059078 feet <----


point being, 
that is how easy it is to throw constants together like pi, phi and e, etc etc
and arrive at a plethora of pyramid heights.

Like I said, the three predominant scientists that measured the GP,
all had heights that far exceed Munck's.

Lehner claimes to use satellite data to verify slope on the GP,
and his satellite slope angle data posted, 
is almost spot on --- tangent ---- sqrt 1.62 <---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Probably best at this point to offer a MODEL that shows the FIRST STEP <---
in evolving a square base pyramid to a slightly rectangular base pyramid.
since
we have all uneven base lengths in historic measurements.

fixed heights

the first model uses the height 481.25 feet --- cubit 20.625 = 165 / 8

the second model uses height 5292 / 11 feet --- cubit 20.618 18 18 = 1134 / 55
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

{these two cubits emerge in steps 2 and 3 of the ancient phi progressions,
with the specific "ancient cultural cosmolgical pi values"
and these pi values will also emerge directly from the ancient pi progressions} 

From the rectangular base with dual side face slopes,
one can construct pyramids with 3,4,6, 
and possibly 8 slopes {if you use the indentations positions and offset pyramid peak}
PS
when you have 4 uneven base lengths -- 
you automatically have an offset pyramid peak <---

Note that in the second pyramid model -- base length 755.7500823
using cubits 20.625 and 20.6181818
is
9069.000988 inches
9068.8 ------------------Petrie average
9069.4 ------------------Cole average

These are SIDE FACE slopes, they do not include the corner angles slopes.

[Image: d2xsh0n.jpg]
Reply
#40
(04-22-2017, 03:06 PM)Vianova Wrote: By the ways, the three most important scientists that actually measured the GP,
Petrie, Cole, and Lehner all have heights far above that framework you posted by Munck.
Like I said,
when you bundle up----  e, and pi, and other constants,
you can find a multitude of pathways when your target is loose like Munck's.
{see extrapolation below}
...
These three "ancient P" values are all you need to work the ancient pi progressions.

What did Pi ever do to you? Were you traumatized by Pi to ten places in your teens or something? Lehner is not a scientist. Chances are good his placement of the 3 main Giza pyramids in relation to one another are off by large parts of a mile because he thinks he's one. According to his Giza Plauteau Marshmallow Project diary, he's out there camping on the Plateau late at night with his pal Akhmed, they're roasting marshmallows and tracking Polaris with a stop watch, and doing all sorts of fancy-assed shite that Lehner is probably not even qualified to do, when suddenly Lehner gets some marshmallows stuck in the watch stem... Is this your first mapping project, Lehner? Sorta looks likes it. Meanwhile, none of these people actually measured a height that isn't there anymore

I'd have to go all through Munck's material and see who gave him the GP slope angle. It may well have been Kurt Mendelssohn (actual scientist - his Yoda was Einstein, no less), who hopefully gives an actual shit about accuracy, which may explain why his pyramid heights differ so much from those of people who probably don't. Even then, though, they are still calculated, not measured. Likewise, nobody is going to solve any arguments using 1/100000 of the length of an ancient measuring rod. I would love to be able to discuss whether the distances between pyramid apices or their angles have meaning, but not after Lehner pissed in the water like that. All people are going to do now is beat me up with his "data" until I get out Petrie and then the discussion is over because they just fall silent, which really doesn't help explain what happened. 
Giza, Off-By-A-Mile Meter-By-Meter. http://www.aeraweb.org/gpmp-project/giza-meter-by-meter 

Quote:A gnat’s eyelash
Our next task was to precisely determine the location of each of the traverse points with respect to each other. We measured angles and distances between points with a Leitz Red 2A electronic distance measurer and a Lietz TM1A one-second theodolite.
We made four sets of observations at each station. If the averaged results of a set of four readings differed by more than five seconds of arc from the mean of all four sets, the observation was rejected and observed again. This level of accuracy is called second order by U.S. survey standards. David Goodman called it, “Surveying to a gnat’s eyelash!”
...

We took four sets of observations between Polaris (the North Star) and GP9 using a digital watch (synchronized with Universal Time at Greenwich) to record the Greenwich Time at the moment of each sighting.

1 Gnat's eyelash = @@ 2/5 of 1 mile = Polaris/Marshmallows = I'm not really a scientist, can you tell?

If he'd used a GPS like a real scientist... But no, he forgot to bring Hot Dogs so he has to act like one.

(Speaking of Gnats, do we not now have laser instruments capable of measuring the distance to a Gnat's Gnuts on the moon? Why doesn't somebody just measure the f--cking thing instead of getting all Mr. Fancy Marshmallow Pants?)

Meanwhile everybody essentially gets 2 Pi out of it, including that 440 / 280 gives (Pi /2) to a ratio of 1.000402499. Why not? As far as I can tell, it is NOT advantageous to blunt Pi in order to make your Great Pyramid Phi a little more Phi-like. The closest I got to being able to get Phi out of the damned thing where everyone insists there is Phi may be to take Yoda's height for the pyramid and a baseline similar to that as it currently stands. We'll see how that works out. I'm not all that sure - as I said, that's a lot of additional work I haven't had time to do. I'm starting with a basic 2 Pi model and some of these numbers didn't even make sense before last week. For what it's worth, the system I use conserves Pi to retain its efficacy as a mathematical probe. That means you're going to see usefulness in Pi, Pi^2, Pi^3, and Pi^4 whereas I don't see a lot of people excited about Phi^3. The most obvious thing is a 2 Pi pyramid, with concessions.

For the third time now, Yoda's pyramid height may not even actually exist without a paving, but I already showed you how you arrive at those values anyway through calculation, the very same way other people arrive at a height calculated  from "280 cubits" (<----Urdummheit Alert: They used Whole Numbers, because they were too dumb to do anything else). I've already shown you the units, and what may be their origins.

I don't wish to argue over .02 or even .2 feet in ~481, and I don't wish to argue with people I'm trying to agree with. I've already said I'm feeling fairly confident your numbers were acknowledged in there somewhere, as were mine. I'm not feeling up to working it out further today. I didn't get this far by thinking my numbers are great and yours are doodoo, which is kind of interesting. I saluted your model and mine lit up like a Christmas tree. For all I know, the secret of Giza is to not go around thinking other people's numbers are doodoo (Lehner's S'mores incident notwithstanding).

I don't even know where to look to try to explore the question of paving. I'll go over to the New Agey Ancient Mystery Blistery History Giza Snooze Cruise website and they of course tell me that Cheops Himself paved the GP courtyard with black basalt, but if I don't see one piece of basalt paving in a photo except what used to be under the mortuary temple, I'm going to want the sources they don't give. I'm not up to dragging out all my Egyptology books and reading them all again to try to see where that came from, inhaling the dust off the several I did dig out probably has something to with why I'm not up to doing anything else with the varying measures today.

I don't have any guarantees that the sides were irregular to accomodate different pyramid models, but the measures EA posted do look something like what you might get if they were trying to accommodate different approximations of Phi in a Pi Pyramid - probably 1.618829140, 1.6200000000, 1.62113893828, and 1.62231147 unless they were starting lower. (That's part of why I'm beginning to have faith in those measures in spite of seeing Mr. Marshmallow's name in the text. So far, so good... I hope).

What I'd really like to do is go over some more metrological models, I may have seen one too many indications lately of Pi and ~Phi in feet as metrological units. I don't know if that would help explain anything further, but I'd feel better entertaining that idea if I could picture better how that might have happened. I probably need to brush up on sacred geometry at least a little. Which do I need to do worse today, haul out those books and eat the dust on them, or keep breathing? Tough question.
"Work and pray, live on hay, you'll get Pie In The Sky when you die." - Joe Hill, "The Preacher and the Slave" 1911
Reply
#41
Sorry... I'm developing a new theory that histamine makes me prick-ly. I'm probably still having the argument in my head with the clown that wrote that one "respectable" book on pyramid geometry (My internal dispute with Professor Stay-Puft also continues, obviously). If you have reason to endorse 22/7 then I probably have reason to try to take it seriously for once. So far I've had no reason to take it seriously coming from that bozo waving the Urdummheit Papyrus at me all the while being too thick to notice that a Pi pyramid provides ample "Phi" for any "respectable" theories starting at sqrt (10 Pi / 12). Plenty close for any "respectable" authors. No reason for them to be taking a piss on Pi for Phi's sake, at least. Also, I'm guessing that metrologists have worn out my patience with fractions already in general. I'm pretty weary of reading how a Romanian frapdoodle is 97/93 of a Babylonian doodlefrap and all that sort of BS. Does it never occur to these people to try to use decimals to figure out why metrological units have these relationships, or why they're variable? Of course, why would they even bother since even the builders of the mighty pyramids themselves only knew Pi as 22/7 - to only three places after the decimal, as "everyone knows." Apparently this 22/7 thing is rather dangerous in unskilled hands.
"Work and pray, live on hay, you'll get Pie In The Sky when you die." - Joe Hill, "The Preacher and the Slave" 1911
Reply
#42
I am just going to put up some of my data where it's available without trying to have a point to make. Keith is doing an incredible job keeping his own Hall of Records here. I've lost thousands of pages online when the original message boards took a fade, and more thousands of pages of work currently inaccessible. It's about easier to start all over than find everything and double-check it all. Hopefully I will find a few things I didn't last time if I choose to pursue matters further. Treat this as trivia - or even spam - if you like, but I can only hope someday someone else finds anything interesting in some of these numbers (or similar ones).

Memoirs of a Pi Jedi
Introduction

Thus far, I am proposing a possible original height for the Great Pyramid partly based on the preceding considerations and projected from the most sensible values I can find so far for Royal Cubits, which appear to allow for conservation of the Yoda model in addition to others. This has ramifications, since conservation of the Yoda model observes numerous ratios between various Giza pyramids. Their conservation requires projection of different values for the other two main Giza pyramids, and such an impetuous gesture needs to produce at least a few sensible results in order to suggest deliberacy. 

Great Pyramid Perimeter in feet 480.347172843 (Yoda model) x 2 Pi = Perimeter 3018.110298 ft 
Chephren Pyramid Height in feet 471.238898038 (Yoda model; Yoda quotes Mendelssohn for the baseline figure: Mendelssohn = 707.02 ft, Yoda = 706.858347058 ft) 706.858347058 x 6 = Perimeter 2827.43338823 ft

The ratio between the two of them is 3018.110298 / 2827.43338823 = 1.067438159

Why is this worth conserving? For one thing, it's one of the numbers that Yoda would apparently rather keep up his sleeve than put some of his best proofs on the table. 

Naughty You don't get to cry about being ignored by the mainstream community if you're keeping your best on private reserve.

I first discovered it at Stonehenge while checking the sense of using Alternate e' as an actual Meg Yard at Stonehenge. The sarcen circle might be a metrological standard for both the Meg Yard (outer) and the remen (inner), but they still shouldn't be lumped together arbitrarily, one hopes.

120 Meg Yards of 2.720174976 = 326.42099712 ft Outer sarcen circle diameter?
(sqrt 240) x Pi = 48.6693441117 (based on Petrie & Thom);  x 2 Pi = 48.6693441117 = 305.798507833 feet
326.42099712 / 305.798507833 = 1.067438159

I took this back to Giza to see if Giza knew anything about this, and about fell out of my chair to find to find this number prominently displayed amid Yoda's Giza numbers no less than 3 times though at the time he had never published it to the best of my knowledge. I'd have found it sooner when I made a data sheet of every ratio that could be found in Yoda's Giza numbers, but a word processor accident happened to delete some 20 or 30 entries without my noticing and it was right in the middle of them. As soon as I'd found it, I could see why Yoda should think he knows where a "Hall of Records" is no matter how little real reason I seem to have to believe in one. The numbers involved were in my opinion no less than amazing.

360* circle / calculated perimeter 305.798507833 ft = 1.177245771 - that which Yoda calls Alternate Pi, and on at least one occasion expressed preference for it over Pi Itself as a mathematical probe. He'll be happy to show you plenty of it at Giza, (including monuments placed according to him at 11.77245771" longitude from 0* 00' 00.00" as marked by the GP apex if anyone can trust anyone's Giza mapping anymore).

Alternate Pi 1.177245771. That's one more number that anyone aspiring to critique Yoda should be aware of. 

Substituting Alt e' 2.720174976 (a "linear" Megalithic Yard?) for actual e' 2.72069904635 in the equation from which it derives, using a "generic" radius value of 57.29577951 for the radius of the circumscribing sphere, gives an adjusted tetrahedral surface area of 15165.5542998 = "Pi-Pyramid Phi" 1.61882914 (adjusted from 1.6189..) / 1.067438159 x 10000

Still, while 1.61882914 has its golden "Matrix" moments that may justify some observance, it's still a pretty lousy mathematical probe compared to 1.62231147. 1.067438159 is probably the same way - it has numerous magic moments connecting significant values, but it rarely seems useful past the first power as a probe of unfamiliar data.

That's the other thing people might wish to be aware of in the course of critiquing Yoda's work, though, is that there are both things he doesn't seem to want to talk about, and apparently many things that he doesn't seem to be aware of himself. Even he may not fully appreciate exactly what a Pi pyramid is capable of. Doesn't mean the GP IS one, but a Pi pyramid may be a remarkably attractive proposition in its own right, all things considered.

That's all I've ever been able to say with confidence is that when you end up with numbers that just don't quit, you may be onto something intentional, whatever your numbers may be.
"Work and pray, live on hay, you'll get Pie In The Sky when you die." - Joe Hill, "The Preacher and the Slave" 1911
Reply
#43
...
that's funny,
you got upset at my precision fractions for pi and phi,
but from the get go you offered what you consider precision lengthy decimals quite prolifically.

I'll see if I can summarize as concisely as possible.
we cannot agree due to standard basic pyramid model definition.
it is not a Pi pyramid,
it is better described as a Pi progression pyramid. Phi is a side show.



Quote:Meanwhile, none of these people actually measured a height that isn't there anymore. 
{Petrie, Cole, Lehner}


Actually they did offer such date quite clearly, 
with what they had available in instrumentation to evaluate with.
Regardless,
the historic measured base lengths Whip
 have enough of a basic common value between all 3 historic measurements.

Looking at all three scientists,
even if we take the shortest length by Lehner at 230.33 meters <---
equals
755.6758542 feet,
now,
with Munck's height 480.34 feet,
that would yield a slope tangent : 1.271285823 for ---> 51.81122682 degrees  Nonono

OK, you don't like Lehner, neither do I,
so we will take the average of the Petrie -Cole measures,
9068.8  and  9069.4 inches,
average 
9069.1 inches = 755.75833333 feet,

using that Petrie Cole value with Munck's height,
then,
the slope angle would be 51.8081881 degrees Nonono  not even close,
so,
either Petrie and Cole cannot measure base lengths,
or Munck is dead wrong.




Quote:As far as I can tell, 
it is NOT advantageous to blunt Pi in order to make your Great Pyramid Phi a little more Phi-like.
 

I agree, square root phi as the slope angle tangent is pretty,
but that isn't the design.


Quote:Meanwhile everybody essentially gets 2 Pi out of it, 
including that 440 / 280 gives (Pi /2) to a ratio of 1.000402499. 

If you have reason to endorse 22 / 7 then I probably have reason to try to take it seriously for once.


that is where you are wrong in your own words --- "essentially"
There wasn't an "essentially close" in the Egyptian GP.
aPi = 22 / 7 ... is not even close to Pi,
and never was meant to be construed as Pi, it is straightforward in the standard geometry.

If you do not accept the ancient historic standard model,
440 cubit base length and 280 cubit height,
then we get nowhere.

Lots of people have trouble with aPi = 22 / 7.
That is because they only see modern Pi from their western math training.
aPi = 22 / 7 is not Pi, it is not meant to be Pi, 
it has nothing to do with volume.
I don't endorse it,
it is an automatic with the 440 cubit base length and 280 cubit height basic model.
{4 / aPi} = 14 / 11  slope tangent.
That is the math.

It is most directly attached to the two cubits 20.625 and 20.618 18 18~.

aPi is imperative in the ancient Egyptian pi progressions,
and with calendar count planetary timelimes.

By the ways to your earlier question on --- 3.142696805 or sqrt 800 / 9,
square it,
gives you beautiful decimal:
9.87654320 987654320
which then breaks down into two important Egyptian cultural  ancient pi values,
{22 / 7}  x  {2800 / 891} = 9.87654320 987654320

the interesting aspect of fraction {2800 / 891} is the decimal as well
3.14 25 36 47 58 69 
with 
cubit 20.620 285714 285714~ ---- creates the 481.14 foot height. 

------------------------------------------------


Quote:Of course, 
why would they even bother since 
even the builders of the mighty pyramids themselves only knew Pi as 22/7

you get it, ... but then you don't get it.
they had several volume pi values in fractions one of which was unmentioned, 
and better than {355 / 113}
{84823 / 27000}
also in the ancient pi progressions.

The Khufu pyramid can represent the ancient pi ... AND ... the ancient phi progressions,
in the multiple slope angle tangents
that their finished pyramids represented .

It simply starts as a standard base model,
280 and 440 cubits,
then I showed how a rectangularr base creates two slopes.
from there 
a 3, or 4 slope pyramid can easily be accomplished,
and more slopes by using offset peak and the indentations which are not precisely half way.

Point being, {summation}
that you can have the starter pyramid with a square base 440 cubit, 280 height,
then evolve that to:
a multiple slope pyramid,
with one slope at 4 / aPi = slope tangent,
another at {4 / 3.14 18 18 18~},
another at {4 / 3.1416},
and another at 
{4 / pi} .................... where pi is fraction 140348 / 33215 
cubit 20.61670179
and this is simply accomplished by the uneven base lengths.

do you see those equations?
It is a pi progression pyramid ... among many other applications <---
creating multiple base lengths and slopes,
and the ancient phi progressions just fall into place as a side show.


last but not least, 
the megalithic yard is simply 2.72 feet.
It works very well with three ancient pi values,
most importantly 
3.1416
314160 = 272  x  1155 ---- 1155 = 56 cubits of 20.625

.....
Reply
#44
I was just trying to make the most of the data presented here, actually...

"Then, the team used a statistical method called linear regression analysis to determine those lengths. They found that the east side of the pyramid originally measured somewhere between 755.561 and 755.817 feet (230.295 to 230.373 meters), while the west side of the pyramid originally measured somewhere between 755.833 and 756.024 feet (230.378 to 230.436 m).

This means that, at most, the west side was only 5.55 inches (14.1 centimeters) longer than the east side. Though that would leave the pyramid not quite square, it's a remarkable level of precision for a monument constructed more than 4,500 years ago, the researchers noted."

755.604156305 is within the figures given there for the west side, and I figured that 481.032547980 was a fairly reasonable approximation of your 5292 / 11 ( = 481.09090909) value. If not, do you have a single figure for the most basic design?

That data very much makes me think that maybe I'm explaining the pyramid represented by the east side of the GP and you're explaining the pyramid represented by the west side?

(BTW, 5.55 is a little suspicious. Someone may want to build a 555.5555555 ft tall obelisk over it, especially since it's the reciprocal of "Isis" if Wood and Campbell had their way).

I'm not sure which of your GP height values is actually intended as the basic one though. Do you have a particular preference?

There are other things that might be cubit pairs that you can get out of the Cubit-o-Matic 2000

(360 / 1.21673360279) / 10 = 1.71887338556 x 1.72132591650  = 1.71763106226 x 1.72257092721 
(1.71715890225 x 1.72304457533 might be possible, but 1.72257092721 may have the best pedigree of the lot).

I don't know any of these that well though. Customarily these would be expected to relate to other things at Giza. I expect redundancy - part of data handling is to make backups, obviously - and that is a lot of second opinions to consider.

Speaking of Isis Backwards, though that's 1 / 18 x (Pi^3) = 1.72257092668 = 20.6708511202 inches. Yoda gets excited to see that figure of 20.6708511202.

481.032547980 / 1.71763106226 = 280.055803921 
755.604156305 / 1.71763106226 = 439.910628423 - is that close enough to "440 cubits"?
755.604156305 / 1.71715890225 = 440.031586583 
(Does remind me of 2.72017497600 x 1.61882913851 = 440.349851705 also)
(3.33333333333 / Pi) x 1.61882913851 = 1.71763106226

(While I'm thinking of it, 1.61882913851 does also have this pedigree by the way: ((R^2) / Pi) x sqrt 240)

Redundancy... many routes to the same data, ideally accessible via the usual suspects. Just in case some archaeologist chops it all up. Especially if no four sides of a pyramid are actually going to be the same in real life. I think Lehner tried to say there's actually a twist in the top. Might be what comes from trying to splice four different pyramids together. That much less that he's coming to your rescue or mine probably. Great big marshmallowy pyramid too squishy to measure without a f-cking satellite, topped with 2/5 miles of fudge. Mmm, mmm - Giza-licious! 

You know what's funny? When patron saint of Nazca Maria Reiche declared that Nazcans used units of .33 and .66 feet. I don't suppose it ever occurred to her to add the two together? It occurs to someone to occasionally use addition, doesn't it? 33.33 + 19.47 = 5280 / 100 (<--Proof that ancient Freemasons did not own pocket calculators. They obviously don't even know that anything exists beyond 2 places after the decimal).

I like your work on the Chephren pyramid, Vi. Are those for real? I had a feeling they didn't build a 30-60-90 the better part of 500 high just to keep from forgetting the Pythagorean theorem.
"Work and pray, live on hay, you'll get Pie In The Sky when you die." - Joe Hill, "The Preacher and the Slave" 1911
Reply
#45
So your Point is schematics ?
Point of None
lol .
HMmm .
I'll stick with V's Numbers on this One .
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#46
They're like Legos. You can build things out of them. Pyramids, henges. It's almost fun when it works. I already built the circumference of the earth to within about .4 miles up thread. Some modern maps use a figure a mile and half off. There's at least a dozen ways I can write that, precise to ten places (more, calculator willing). I can find it written at Giza, Stonehenge, anything I have decent data for. Found it at Tikal at least once five minutes after I got home with Mahler's data, IIRC. I could look for planetary data in it, but NASA's likely to change it on me. I think they've done that before. I don't even know what their current data is because I don't know it's shelf life but I expect it to have one. I expect the circumference of Mars could change 50 miles every time they upgrade their altimeters. Has before if I'm not mistaken.

Here's one - since everyone seems to like finding 365- something at Giza. 365.020081. That's Yoda's. He thinks it's some ancient sidereal year and I think it's more likely the calendar year. Probably twenty fairly obvious ways that one can be written.
"Work and pray, live on hay, you'll get Pie In The Sky when you die." - Joe Hill, "The Preacher and the Slave" 1911
Reply
#47
...
Thanks for the compliment on the Khafre pyramid.
It is the glue between the ancient and the modern constructs,
via the Corner Angle.
It can transfer the tetrahedral into the phi geometry,
in the process I have developed.
It starts with the progenitor pyramid with slope tangent {4 / 3}.
That slope angle produces a Cap Angle <----
with tangent
{24 / 7}
aka
24 hours a day - 7 days a week.


you failed to answer basic questions <----

Show me one equation where Egyptians used modern pi.
Do the math.
It cannot be done without a modern hand calculator.
At least I display functional useable pi values, 
that could be operated mathematically by ancient cultures
355 / 113
84823 / 27000
104348 / 33215

do you accept the Petrie and Cole measures?
they
had
AVERAGES that were within 6 tenths of an inch of each other.

Either you accept the historic scientific measured base lengths or you don't.

If you do, 
then Munck's data is junk, which it is,
because his slope angle will be absolute nonsense,
in relation to the historic measures.

I still have not heard from you --- a Munck base length or royal cubit,
or Pyramid angle slope.

Like I said
you have TWO CHOICES
one
the Petrie and Cole measures completely invalidate Munck
or
Munck invalidates Petrie and Cole measures.

that's it.

I assume from you writing that you think the RC is 20.62648062
nothing wrong with that thinking,
but if so,
then Muncks height is 279.4504844 cubits


The Khufu pyramid is a series of pyramid possibilities all wrapped up in a hybrid pyramid.
The finished prooduct,
will display the entirety of the ancient pi and ancient phi progressions.
and
a whole lot more.



the ancient pi progressions,
start with aPi = 22 / 7 <----
without that value as a starter value,
the progressions cannot isolate pi to 104348 / 33215

pi value 377 / 120 {from fibonacci and ancient phi progression}

377    subtract numerators from numerators denominators from denominators
120

first step
377   minus  22
120   minus   7

equals pi value
355
113

from there it is a piece of cake using 355 / 113 and 22 / 7 
to arrive at the ancient convergent fraction for pi
104348 / 33215

note 33215 = 91 x 365 <---- days

go to pyramid sun - kukulkan pyramid

4 sets of 91 steps <--- = 364 
top platform = 365

364 x 365 x pi = 417392 { exceeds ten decimal accuracy} 
so the pi value there
is
417392 / 132860 ---- reduces to: 104348 / 33215

Once again,
if you try to apply all those modern constants -- pi, e, etc etc
to the ancient pyramid constructs,
you will always be off by a hair here and there.

like your megalithic yard   2.72 01 whatever

the Megalithic Yard Whip
is an ANCIENT VALUE
it is straight forward and direct,
2.72 feet 
272 = 16 x 17

the prime 17 is the key, which is why it assembles itself perfectly,
with aPi and ancient pi value :
3.1416
314160 = 1155 x 272 ... where 1155 can= 56 {56 aubrey poles stonehenge} x cubit 20.625


now watch what 1155 also does
sqaure it.
equals
1334025
divide by ten
133402.5
take square root
365.2430698 ----- that is my "grand unification tropical earth year"
equals
ancient number 231 x {square root 5 / square root two}

now take the designated height with the cubit 20.625 x 280 cubits = 5775 inches

5775 / by {square root 5 / square root two} = 3652.430698

is that the tropical earth year?
no
it is a solely a function of the two square roots and cubit 20.625,
but it works to backtrack to both ancient pi values,
22 / 7 and 3927 / 1250 = 3.1416

those two square roots {sqrt2 and sqrt 5} represent tetrahedral and phi geometry <---

the tropical earth year is 365.2422 days

the megalithic yard can also arrange itself to aPi <---

you have to go to the Masonic Code architectures in the Grand Masonic lodge
to see
the foremost Menkaure pyramid slope tangent 21 / 17, = {336 / 272}
{there are 4 slopes to the pyramid}
aPi = 22 / 7

the mile:
5280 feet
divided by
500 aPi 
equals
3.36 -------> 3.36 feet / by Menkaure slope tangent 21 / 17 = 2.72 feet

or simply

2.72 feet x menkaure slope tangent {21 / 17}  x  500 aPi = 5280 feet


later tonite I will post how to make a Khufu pyramid <---
with
3 Side Face slopes <---

but first
lets play with the megalthic yard 2.72 feet --- and show how convergence dynamics works,
ancient
and 
modern constructs

[Image: mKYUmsF.jpg]



so we have an ancient math construct for a rectangular pyramid base,
where the diagonal is an even number of feet {no lingering decimals}.

what is the optimum height to apply?

that is where the ancient money is.
That height will be in my pdf, and it exposes Kabbalah 137.


However,
one fellow -- a Ukrainian based defense contractor billionaire  Rofl  
he is a Russian actually,
has built the single most Whip
important Whip
and simple Whip
pyramid in recent history.

Golod's pyramid.

I really want to contact him, but then the NSA would have me for lunch. 
So I don't bother.

.......
Reply
#48
Please don't play "You still haven't answered my question" with me. Leave that to professional skeptics like the Krapps Krupps, would you mind?

"You still haven't answered my question" about what is your height for the Great Pyramid? Pick ONE - not FOUR, or I'm going to pick a fifth one and say it's fair by your own rules. (You can pick as many as you like, that is the whole point I'm trying to make - but what's your favorite, just out of curiosity?)

"You still haven't answered my question" about whether or not I found your lost cubit. (Go ahead and take your time).

And PLEASE don't be absurd and try to tell me anybody's theories are going to be proven by measurements accurate to .000000001 foot that will be the LAST thing we get from that Peep-in-a-Pith-Helmet, Professor Stay-Puft. 

I don't need to prove to anyone that the ancients knew Pi to x number of places. I prove to myself constantly that my equations fit each other PRECISELY TO TEN DIGITS, except when it isn't even humanly possibly due to the laws of mathematics and geometry. 

Fair enough?

Oh, and while I'm at it, please don't try to tell me what a Megalithic Yard isn't after what I just showed you. You have some of the most amazing math on display I've ever seen. The last thing you need to do is try to debunk my theories to support your own. Yours stand fine on their own without that.



Memoirs of a Pi Jedi
Chapter One: 
Pyramidiots Will Be Pyramidiots...

Unless it turned up while I wasn't loooking, the Great Pyramid is still missing a capstone. Without the physical evidence, it's difficult to be sure that the pyramidion conserved the slope angle of the remainder. It might have a rather different angle (the Bent Pyramid certainly comes to mind here). There is also the question of whether the pyramids were designed to have significant heights without their pyramidions.

1440 Pi is regarded by Yoda with apparent reverence, beyond his habit of reminding us that 1440 is a "gematrian" number. He has referred to this figure before as a "Holy of Holies". He has tried to stick this revered number onto such constructs as the Great Pyramid's gallery, the Mars Face ("The" Face at Cydonia), and the Hall of Records, no less.

Addition and subtraction usually aren't kind to Pyramid Matrix math, which thrives instead on ratios (division) and products (multiplication). Pi is a ratio. Phi is a ratio. Ratios permit the encoding of the parent figures in addition to the possible simultaneous encoding of other sets of parent figures who share the same ratio, and while it doesn't really need saying in this thread, ratios serve as powerful tools to extract data.

Given that not just any addition or subtraction schemes are going to work, when we see one that actually does within the figures we have already establish, it hints at deliberacy.

Contemporary figures for the Great Pyramid's current height vary, both due to inadequate accuracy in measurement and possibly due to including stones that may have been previously concealed by the pyramidion, but figures in the neighborhood of 450 - 455 feet may be commonplace.

In spite of the dislike of "Matrix" math for operations of addition and subtraction, in this case, 1440 Pi / 10 (452.389342117) subtracted from 480.347172843 = 27.95780307259, which is remarkably close to 1/10 of the figure for 480.347172843 in royal cubits of .03 Radians (= 1.71887338539 ft = 20.626480627) = 279.45465307.

Thus, to an accuracy of about 1/100 foot, it is possible that the Great Pyramid's pyramidion represented a "microcosm," or a scale model, of the whole pyramid at a scale of feet to royal cubits.

Because the Mycerinus pyramid generally appears to be a scale model of the Great Pyramid (be sure to ask Lehner about that one, lemme guess he'll tell you this is because "Menkaure see, Menkaure do" and, envious of Cheop's pyramid, Mycerinus decided to prove he was an even greater ruler than Cheops by creating a pyramid only half its size), we may be able to expect that the Mycerinus pyramid conserved this feature of the Cheops pyramid as well as conserving many others.

Yoda will probably be more furious than anyone when he hears this if he hasn't already. That's too bad, but sometimes even when you're a Pi Jedi, you can't give Pi away. You can divide it all you like, but sometimes you just can't give any away, to anyone. 

May the fours be with you.
"Work and pray, live on hay, you'll get Pie In The Sky when you die." - Joe Hill, "The Preacher and the Slave" 1911
Reply
#49
...

Quote: please don't try to tell me what a Megalithic Yard isn't after what I just showed you.

so we end this then, 

Hi

That would be best, I am too busy anyways,
and too tired tonite 
after jade hunting all day in the rain in the mountains.

The megalithic yard is 2.72 feet. it is clear and simple, straighforward.

480.347 + feet Khufu pyramid height is a total nonsense height for pyramidiots,
you still cannot supply a slope that is competent with that height.

You can carry on all you want however, I am finished, that's all.


Quote:which is remarkably close to 1/10 of the figure for 480.347172843 in royal cubits of .03 Radians 

Rofl

I did say I would supply a 3 slope pyramid. {three side face slopes}

First I need to supply a 2 side face slope pyramid that may be more palatable for you.

I actually made it for you <-- tonite, 
Slap2
all tired ass mother fucker me rainy day jade hunt didn't find a thing,
other than two good small botryoidal jade fragments.
Actually
Hmm2
I did find an 800 pound botryoidal diopside,
and a 600 pound botryoidal jade,
but they won't fit in my pack.
Other than that it was junk jade day, the pie stayed in the sky. 

you see ... you can do math like this for days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, millenia 
or
you can go jade hunting while you gotta chance.

I go into pristine environments deep in the wilderness.
and when you do find the good jade, 
then the pie in the sky is coming home.

I scratched square root two Whip  into the sand on an isolated rock bar today.
It's there right now in the dark on the rock bar melting away in the drizzle.


Tomorrow I will forward the 3 slope pyramid here,
then have a good time here with your material.

Two Slope Pyramid --- slopes tangents with Pi and aPi

there are two Pi cubits in play here, 

20.62648062 =  {18 x 360} / 100 Pi

20.61670179 = 6.5625 Pi

{see right hand side of pyramid base for pi cubits alignment}


fixed pyramid height is 280 cubits x pi cubit  20.61670179 


the third cubit in calculation play is cubit 20.618 18 18 = 1134 / 55,
associated with a 756 foot base = 2 x 378



[Image: hCB2jJ6.jpg]



I edited or reviewed image geometry math as much as possible, 
this was created quickly tonite,
it should be clean of typos etc
....

...
Reply
#50
...
This is my last post on this subject,
because it simply takes up too much time.
when you see me use Pi in my -- cubit system models,
that is Pi value, 
fraction 104348 / 33215,
good to ten decimal placements for modern Pi.
-----------------------------------------------

Khafre pyramid sacred seked --  5.25  -- for {4 / 3} = {7 / 5.25}

My Khufu pyramid data uses ancient formula -- 
pyramid sacred seked 5.5 -- for the 14 / 11 --- slope angle tangent {7 / 5.5}

Follow this closely if you want to understand,
why I say, 
that your height 480.347 feet is nonsense.

You asked for my height, --- you still have not offered a base length by Yoda Munckie.

By using that ancient seked formula, tangent = 14 / 11,
my height is 481.09 09 09 ---> with a 756 foot base length <--- in a cubit system model.

However,
one has to align to an average base length for all 4 base lengths <---
use 
the Petrie average: 
9068.8 inches = 755.733333 feet <---

Then the sacred seked formulated height is:
480.92 12 12 12 feet <-----
that is essentially a valid starter height,
and all the pyramid diagrams I post,
are exactly what I stated:---------------- Cubit System Models <---

if you use the Cole average 9069.4 inches -- with sacred seked 14 / 11,
then the height would be:
480.95 30 30~ feet <---

So best to average those two height numbers! {cole and petrie}

Average the two height measures: {cole and petrie} 
480.9371212 feet

Now:
Lehner measured the height to 146.59 meters = 480.9383209 feet <---

comparing the Cole and Petrie base lengths -- producing an average height,
and 
the Lehner height:

480.9371212 feet -- Cole - Petrie --> My finished pyramid height using Cole / Petrie base length averages.
480.9383209 feet -- Lehner

looks pretty goddam close to me.

your height
480.347 feet --- off by 7 inches approximately from all other historic measures.


You stated that nobody measured the height of the GP:

Quote Petrie:
Quote:For ascertaining the height of the Pyramid, 
we have accurate levels of the courses up the N.E. and S.W. corners; 
and also hand measurements up all four corners. 
The levels were all read to 1/100 inch, to avoid cumulative errors; 
but in stating them in Pl. viii., I have not entered more than tenths of an inch, 
having due regard to the irregularities of the surfaces.


481.333333 feet  = 5776 inches  Petrie average height + or - 7 inches

base lengths:
N --- 9069.4
E --- 9067.7
S --- 9069.5
W -- 9068.6 -----  

 average 9068.8 -- 755.73333 feet

Cole:
average length   9069.4  --- 755.7833333 feet
Cole did not publish height.

Lehner:  
length average 230.33 meters = 755.6758542 feet
height                 146.59 meters =  480.9383209 feet


If you take the Petrie average height --- and the Lehner height,
and average those:
the height would be: 
481.1358271 ---- cubit 20.62010688 <--- spot on Petrie's king chamber average.


Dorner measured the base lengths in 1979.
his average:
755.7742794 feet

If you take all 4 base length measurements -- Lehner, Cole, Petrie, Dorner <---
the average is: 
9068.9 inches ---------- Petrie average 9068.8 <----
755.7417 feet

755.7417   foot average base length --  from 4 historic measures <---

This is why your height  480.347 feet,  is incompetent:

the 2 Pi pyramid you refer to,
has a slope angle tangent of {4 / pi} = 1.273239545 <---

with your height 480.347 feet <---- using that modern pi tangent above,
your base length is thus:
754.527303 feet
755.7417   ------   historic measures average.

you are off by 1.2 feet <---- 14 .4 inches off

if you use the 14 / 11 slope angle tangent <---
your base length is:
754.831 feet
755.7417 ---  historic measures average

you are off by 0.9 feet <---- 10 inches off

if you use sqrt phi as the slope tangent <---
your base length is:
755.2509116 feet
755.7417 ---  historic measures average

you are off by about a half a foot <---

For your pyramid height --- 480.347
to work with the established historic base lengths averages,
or just using the Petrie average 9068.8 inches = 755.73333 feet,
{which was almost spot on the average for all 4 measures above}
your pyramid slope is:
51.80951477 degrees ----> that is why your height is incompetent.

Absolutely NONE of the historic measures - by Petrie, Cole, Lehner, Edwrads, Dorner etc etc
and their proposed slope angles, 
or of any historic researcher,
come anywhere close to that slope angle value.


this link here offers some reliable data:
http://www.khufu.dk/article/dimensions-outer.htm


Three slope pyramid retains a rectangular base.  
A simple shift  or offset of pyramid apex placement.

[Image: kE7x5ms.jpg]


Hi

...
...
Reply
#51
I've finished the reconstruction and a light review of my original simple, exterior model of the Great Pyramid. I'm fairly certain it IS the correct basic model, and that the correct basic model is a 2 Pi pyramid. 

I remain confident that "my" "Pi pyramid" is the proud parent of a set of truly remarkable "Vi pyramid" models shown here and that they are all valid and intended. We are not actually doing different work according to opposing schools of thought, we are doing the same work. Essentially, I've been perfecting an elementary model, and the Vi models have been perfecting advanced models (not at all surprising given our respectively levels of mathematical skill), but in all likelihood they all belong to the very same progression.

I wouldn't worry about not being familiar with the content of the 2 Pi pyramid, someone should be doing a much better job presenting it to everyone so they can see it, and that someone is probably me.

I stand by most of my remarks already made, with the exception that I'm no longer harboring any optimism that any irregularities in the sides were intentional, or that that is where the license to construct the "Vi pyramids" lives. Notice in the latest data the similarity between one minimum and the matching maximum. I don't think the article has much business declaring the GP to be uneven on the sides given that. That seems just a little premature of the authors.

I also stand by my comments about Lehner. One of the remarkable things in reviewing the pyramid data is how close Petrie comes to the mean figures that Lehner was involved in even when it's stated in the text that Petrie was using allegedly far less sophisticated methods. (I may continue to make marshmallow jokes - Lehner's grossly overpriced GPMP book and the unscientific garbage in it is why I gave up Egyptology 10 years ago, which is really a drag because it's fascinating and I've missed it greatly. I still await the lengthy errata that should be sent to purchasers of the work). Thank the heavens, I think Lehner and colleages actually are turning in data of fairly reasonable accuracy in smaller measures on the ground, or at least I'll accept the endorsement of it that comes from Petrie's work.

If we do not have an outright mandate from the 2 Pi pyramid to seek out these remarkable additional models, we are at the very least encouraged to do so by aspects of the 2 Pi designs, but particularly by the metrology. It's the "fraying" of the cubit by the same formulas I already put forward that ultimately gives us not only a license to build the "Vi pyramids" and the parts we need to construct them, but the subsequent license to seek more perfect Phi pyramids and to eventually even mutilate Pi itself in order to do so.

It looks like we are also encouraged to construct "hybrid" 2 Pi pyramids (which will no longer be Pi pyramids) by cross pollinating Yoda's measures and the second set that I recently discovered. I don't know whether to expect these to be valid pyramids in themselves (I'm still weighing the idea of actually working them out - no hurry, at least), but if we follow these very same encouragements to construct the initial set of four different elementary pyramids, eventually we be pointed at the "Vi pyramids".

It's been a struggle, because both Yoda and I are highly devoted to accuracy - so much so that it's easy for us to forget that it isn't necessarily quite the "be-all, end-all" of the matter. We are encouraged at every turn to remain devoted to accuracy, so it is something of a small shock that eventually our own system that teaches us that, does also seem to encourage us to make some exceptions. It's also a struggle, because ordinarily we'd expect monuments to cross-reference one another by being made of similar stuff. That doesn't work that well here because the "Vi pyramids" are made of somewhat different stuff than the basic model that gives rise to them (and as been demonstrated by Vi, you can optionally skip over the Pi design and go right to them).

If you look closely at the pic in the article posted by EA, you should be able to see what look like several unsightly details in both the existing paving and in the baseline of the platform, that call for cosmetic dressing - which in my mind makes the idea of an extra layer of paving that much more plausible even without knowing the current location of a single one of the upper paving stones. I stand by my remarks that this hypothetical paving is of little real consequence - after the pyramid makers (in my opinion) made a shrine to the most commonly considered cubit value out of the pyramidion, we proceed to the variable values for the cubit that give rise to the "Vi pyramids". Metrological variance is the key to all of that, as is extrapolation. I can't see any other way to achieving the "Vi pyramid" models, or any other way to get away with assigning multiple height values in order to obtain them.

How do we know we are using the right metrological unit in the right place at the right time? When it's working.

Rather than pointing at the Bent Pyramid to say we could all be wrong about the actual height of the Great Pyramid, I should be holding it up as further evidence of the concept of multiple pyramids in one, going some way back into antiquity.

Technically, Yoda should be my Obi-Wan and Vi should be my Yoda because Vi's pyramids are even more kick-ass than Yoda's pyramid, but I reserve the right to insultingly refer to Yoda as the short green and hairy one after the wild goose chase Yoda sent me on with his half-baked cartography. I did get a lovely tour of every ancient monument known to man and tons of practice crunching numbers, but that doesn't keep it from having been a wild goose chase since I didn't actually come back from the Grand Tour with a lot of data I could actually keep.

I'm nominating "Pyramid Pi System" to replace the terminology "Pyramid Matrix" - I always took "Matrix" to mean the geographical grid system to which ancient monuments allegedly belong, but no such thing may actually be possible until we have some genuine cartographers among "archaeocyptographers". No one claiming to be working in a field of inquiry by that name that I'm aware of has truly been able to map their way out of a paper bag, including myself (not for lack of trying).

I will also endorse the use of fractions - it would be hypocritical of me not to, since I do so much work with Pi fractions that I simply prefer to write and to think of in decimal form. Also, one of the most compelling things I've ever seen in metrology is Algernon Berriman's work on remen fractions. Essentially my work was already done except for defining the value of the primary remen, and accidentally discovering while converting some of the units from feet into inches, that applying the number 12 to them like that seems to be even more adept at revealing their relationships than recognizing them as remen fractions. 

I hope you publish a book, Vi. The world should see those. I'd certainly like a copy - and you have no idea how glad I am that I didn't have to write it myself. If anyone wishes to criticize your work - or mine, or Yoda's - they can talk to me. As always, "see what it is before you kick it to the curb" must be inherently good advice.
"Work and pray, live on hay, you'll get Pie In The Sky when you die." - Joe Hill, "The Preacher and the Slave" 1911
Reply
#52
Quote:I've finished the reconstruction and a light review of my original simple, exterior model of the Great Pyramid. I'm fairly certain it IS the correct basic model, and that the correct basicmodel is a 2 Pi pyramid. 

I remain confident that "my" "Pi pyramid" is the proud parent of a set of truly remarkable "Vi pyramid" models shown here and that they are all valid and intended. We are not actually doing different work according to opposing schools of thought, we are doing the same work. Essentially, I've been perfecting an elementary model, and the Vi models have been perfecting advanced models (not at all surprising given our respectively levels of mathematical skill), but in all likelihood they all belong to the very same progression.

I wouldn't worry about not being familiar with the content of the 2 Pi pyramid, someone should be doing a much better job presenting it to everyone so they can see it, and that someone is probably me.

Doh Base10 Decimal  Hi
'Anumeric' people: What happens when a language has no words for numbers?
April 26, 2017 by Caleb Everett, The Conversation

[Image: anumericpeop.jpg]
A Pirahã family. Credit: Caleb Everett, CC BY-SA
Numbers do not exist in all cultures. There are numberless hunter-gatherers embedded deep in Amazonia, living along branches of the world's largest river tree. Instead of using words for precise quantities, these people rely exclusively on terms analogous to "a few" or "some."



In contrast, our own lives are governed by numbers. As you read this, you are likely aware of what time it is, how old you are, your checking account balance, your weight and so on. The exact (and exacting) numbers we think with impact everything from our schedules to our self-esteem.
But, in a historical sense, numerically fixated people like us are the unusual ones. For the bulk of our species' approximately 200,000-year lifespan, we had no means of precisely representing quantities. What's more, the 7,000 or so languages that exist today vary dramatically in how they utilize numbers.
Speakers of anumeric, or numberless, languages offer a window into how the invention of numbers reshaped the human experience. In a new book, I explore the ways in which humans invented numbers, and how numbers subsequently played a critical role in other milestones, from the advent of agriculture to the genesis of writing.
Numberless cultures
Cultures without numbers, or with only one or two precise numbers, include the Munduruku and Pirahã in Amazonia. Researchers have also studied some adults in Nicaragua who were never taught number words.
Without numbers, healthy human adults struggle to precisely differentiate and recall quantities as low as four. In one experiment, a researcher will place nuts into a can one at a time, then remove them one by one. The person watching is asked to signal when all the nuts have been removed. Responses suggest that anumeric people have some trouble keeping track of how many nuts remain in the can, even if only there are only four or five in total.
This and many other experiments have converged upon a simple conclusion: When people do not have number words, they struggle to make quantitative distinctions that probably seem natural to someone like you or me. While only a small portion of the world's languages are anumeric or nearly anumeric, they demonstrate that number words are not a human universal.


It is worth stressing that these anumeric people are cognitively normal, well-adapted to the environs they have dominated for centuries. As the child of missionaries, I spent some of my youth living with anumeric indigenous people, the aforementioned Pirahã who live along the sinuous banks of the black Maici River. Like other outsiders, I was continually impressed by their superior understanding of the riverine ecology we shared.
Yet numberless people struggle with tasks that require precise discrimination between quantities. Perhaps this should be unsurprising. After all, without counting, how can someone tell whether there are, say, seven or eight coconuts in a tree? Such seemingly straightforward distinctions become blurry through numberless eyes.
Children and animals
This conclusion is echoed by work with anumeric children in industrialized societies.
Prior to being spoon-fed number words, children can only approximately discriminate quantities beyond three. We must be handed the cognitive tools of numbers before we can consistently and easily recognize higher quantities.
In fact, acquiring the exact meaning of number words is a painstaking process that takes children years. Initially, kids learn numbers much like they learn letters. They recognize that numbers are organized sequentially, but have little awareness of what each individual number means. With time, they start to understand that a given number represents a quantity greater by one than the preceding number. This "successor principle" is part of the foundation of our numerical cognition, but requires extensive practice to understand.
None of us, then, is really a "numbers person." We are not predisposed to handle quantitative distinctions adroitly. In the absence of the cultural traditions that infuse our lives with numbers from infancy, we would all struggle with even basic quantitative distinctions.
Number words and written numerals transform our quantitative reasoning as they are coaxed into our cognitive experience by our parents, peers and school teachers. The process seems so normal that we sometimes think of it as a natural part of growing up, but it is not. Human brains come equipped with certain quantitative instincts that are refined with age, but these instincts are very limited. For instance, even at birth we are capable of distinguishing between two markedly different quantities – for instance, eight from 16 things.
But we are not the only species capable of such abstractions. Compared to chimps and other primates, our numerical instincts are not as remarkable as many presume. We even share some basic instinctual quantitative reasoning with distant nonmammalian relatives like birds. Indeed, work with some other species, including parrots, suggests they too can refine their quantitative thought if they are introduced to the cognitive power tools we call numbers.
The birth of numbers
So, how did we ever invent "unnatural" numbers in the first place?
The answer is, literally, at your fingertips. The bulk of the world's languages use base-10, base-20 or base-5 number systems. That is, these smaller numbers are the basis of larger numbers. English is a base-10 or decimal language, as evidenced by words like 14 ("four" + "10") and 31 ("three" x "10" + "one").
We speak a decimal language because an ancestral tongue, proto-Indo-European, was decimally based. Proto-Indo-European was decimally oriented because, as in so many cultures, our linguistic ancestors' hands served as the gateway to realizations like "five fingers on this hand is the same as five fingers on that hand." Such transient thoughts were manifested into words and passed down across generations. This is why the word "five" in many languages is derived from the word for "hand."
Most number systems, then, are the by-product of two key factors: the human capacity for language and our propensity for focusing on our hands and fingers. This manual fixation – an indirect by-product of walking upright on two legs – has helped yield numbers in most cultures, but not all.
Cultures without numbers also offer insight into the cognitive influence of particular numeric traditions. Consider what time it is. Your day is ruled by minutes and seconds, but these entities are not real in any physical sense and are nonexistent to numberless people. Minutes and seconds are the verbal and written vestiges of an uncommon base-60 number system used in Mesopotamia millennia ago. They reside in our minds, numerical artifacts that not all humans inherit conceptually.
Research on the language of numbers shows, more and more, that one of our species' key characteristics is tremendous linguistic and cognitive diversity. While there are undoubtedly cognitive commonalities across all human populations, our radically varied cultures foster profoundly different cognitive experiences. If we are to truly understand how much our cognitive lives differ cross-culturally, we must continually sound the depths of our species' linguistic diversity.


[Image: 1x1.gif] Explore further: You can't do the math without the words
[Image: 250859164_740cb617dd.jpg]
Provided by: The Conversation


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-04-anumeric-p...s.html#jCp[/url][url=https://phys.org/news/2017-04-anumeric-people-language-words.html#jCp]


Quote:8. Decimals. 

Since we use the decimal system of reckoning (rather 
than the dozal or some other system) it is as natural to 
represent rational numbers as sums of hundreds, tens, units, 
tenths, hundredths, etc., as it is to represent positive inte- 
gers as sums of units, tens, hundreds, etc. Fractions such 
as 3/10, 271/100, and 52/1000 in which the denominator is 
10, 100, 1000, etc., occur so frequently that a special way 
of writing them has been invented. Just as 20 = 2(10), 
200 = 2(100), 2000 = 2(1000), we have 2 = 2(1), .2 = 2(1/10), 
.02 = 2(1/100), .002 = 2(1/1000). Every time we divide 
by 10 we move the decimal point one place to the left and 
every; time we multiply by 10 we move it one place to the 
right; adding zeros if necessary to indicate its .position. 

The monetary system of the United States makes use of 
decimals; for example, 712 cents make 7.12 dollars; and 
2.99 dollars make 299 cents. The metric system of meas- 
urement was devised to fit in with our decimal notation: 
100 centimeters = 1 meter, 1 decimeter = .1 of a meter, 
etc. On the other hand, the division of a foot into twelve 
inches is not easily adaptable to this system, for 1 inch = 
.08333 of a foot. It would, however, fit in nicely with the 
dozal system, for in that case .1 would mean one " dozenth" 
'(that is, one twelfth) and we should have 1 inch = .1 of a 
foot in dozals while 1 decimeter = .124972 of a meter in 
the same system. 

We have all had experience with multiplication and divi- 
sion of decimals but it may not be without profit here briefly 
to explore the subject in order to find the reasons back of 
familiar rules. (Sometimes, alas, they are not as familiar as 
they should be.) We have the following 

Rule: In i^^lying jwo decimals, the number^of places 
to jhe right of the decim^ product is the sum 



100 RATIONAL, IRRATIONAL NUMBERS [Ch.lli 

of the number of places to the right of the decimal point in 

^BTraffibers^oflhe product. ~~ 

The following illustration will show the reason back of 
the rule; suppose we multiply 1.576 by 2.32. The former is 
1576(1/10 3 ) and the latter is 232(1/10 2 ). Hence the product 
is equal to 

232(1576)(1/10 3 )(1/10 2 ). 
But 

JL JL = i = J_ 

10 3 ' 10 2 10 s 10 2 10 5 

since 10 taken as a product three times multiplied by 10 
times 10, is 10 taken as a product five times. Thus, to get the 
product of the given numbers, we multiply 232 by 1576 and 
place the decimal point five places from the right. If our 
numbers were .001576 and .0232 respectively we would have 
1/10 6 instead of 1/10 3 , 1/10 1 instead of 1/10 2 , and hence 
1/10 10 instead of 1/10 5 . Notice, by the way, that the. Dum- 
ber of digits to the right of the decimal point of any number 
(not counting terminal zeros) is equal to the least power of 
IJLfay which the number need be multiplied to become an 
integer. 

The rule for division is just the reverse of that for multi- 
plication. Since the number of places to the right of the 
decimal point in the product is the sum of the number of 
places for the members of the product, so the numbgr^pf 
places in the quotient is the number of places in the divi- 
dendT minus the number of places in the divisor. For instance, 
in dividing 5.37 by 253.2 we write 

.02 

253.2 | 5.370 
5.064 

The position of the decimal point in 5.064 is determined by 
that in 5.37, the dividend. Since 5.064 has three places to 
the right of the decimal point and 253.2 has one, the quo- 
tient must have 3 1 = 2 places to the right of the decimal 
point. 



8] DECIMALS 101 

Some numbers are easily expressed (or represented) in 
decimal form. For example, 2/5 = .4, 10/4= 2.5, 
3/8 = .375. But there are other numbers such as 1/3, 5/7, 
and 1492/1776 for which representation in decimal form is 
not so simple. We have all written 

.3333333-- 

3 1 1.0000000 - 
and then 

.3333333 . 

To examine the connection between the number 1/3 and the 
nonterminating decimal .3333333 , let 

= .3 
= .33 
'* 8 = .333 

= .3333 


[Image: 8197556060_6b3c89d120_c.jpg]
Each of the numbers 1 Si, s 2 , s 3 , is a " terminating 
decimal," that is, we can write the entire decimal there are 
no dots in any single s indicating any desire to go on like 
this forever. It is instructive to compute the differences 
1/3 - si, 1/3 - s 2 , 1/3 - s 3 , We find that 

1 _ 1 _ .1 = 10-9 = JL = __L_ 
3 Sl 3 10 30 30 3(10)' 

3~* 

3 "" S3 = 3 ~ 1000 ~ 3000 ~ 3(10 3 )' 
and, in general, 



10 
33 
100 
333 

30 


30 





300 


3(10 2 )' 

- = 
Sn 

3 n 3(10?) 

where^HFls 10 taken as a product n times. It thus appears 
that, when we take more and more terms of the decimal 
.33333 to have successively .3, .33, .333, , we get numbers
nearer and nearer to 1/3.
1 We read *i "s sub-one," etc. 
[Image: 15506751976_0dec070d4e_b.jpg]
102 _ RATIONAL, IRRATIONAL NUMBERS [Ch.lii 

Furthermore, no matter how 
small a number you name I can carry out the division to 
enough places so that the terminating decimal s n differs 
from 1/3 by less than that number. This can be done since 

n can be taken large enough so that , , is smaller than 

the number you named. This fact is conveniently expressed 
by the simple statement "the sequence .3, .33, .333, con- 
verges l to 1/3." We say that ".3333 is the decimal 
expansion of 1/3" or that ".3333 - converges to 1/3." 
[Image: 12191606586_59a5d7c033_b.jpg]
Division of 3.0000 ---by 7 gives .428571428571 ; and it 
can be shown that 

f = .428571428571 

in the sense that the sequence .4, .42, .428, .4285, con- 
verges to 3/7. It can also be shown that 

= 4.561212121212 



where the block 12 keeps repeating without end; for this 
reason the decimal is called a repeating decimal (even though 
there are some terms at the beginning before the repetition 
starts). Terminating decimals can be made into nontermi- 
nating decimals by adding zeros; for example, 

i = .25 = .25000000 - 

where the keeps repeating. Thus the decimal value of 1/4 
can be considered to be a repeating decimal. 
The expression 

.101001000100001000001 -, 

in which each bunch of zeros contains one more than the 
preceding bunch, is not a repeating decimal; hence it can- 
not be the decimal expansion of a rational number. 

1 In more advanced courses it is necessary to have a precise definition of 
convergence. A sequence s n is said to converge to s if, corresponding to each 
positive number c, there is a number TV" such that the numerical (absolute) 
value of s s n is less than e when n is greater than N. 
[Image: 22239658353_3237a6984d_b.jpg]
Exercise: If i == .3, s 2 .33, s = .333, and s = 1/3, find a number 
N which corresponds to the value 1/1,000,000 of e. 




8] _ DECIMALS _ 103 

We shall show later on ...
that every repeating decimal converges to a rational number ...

Munck ~.3333333333 Monk
Along the vines of the Vineyard.
With a forked tongue the snake singsss...
Reply
#53
In the Pyramid Pi System, Morton and I used a term, "decimal harmonic" to denote the irrelevance of decimal placement or of the number of zeros after a whole number. It isn't normally of consequence except that decimal placement can affect square roots. For example, the square roots of 6 and 600 -  2.44948974278 and 24.4948974278 respectively - don't seem to belong to the system, while the square roots of 60 and 6000 - 7.74596669241 and 77.4596669241 respectively, do.

In case it's of any interest, whole numbers between 1 and 144 that belong to the system are:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 24, 27, 30, 32, 36, 40, 45, 48, 50, 54, 60, 64, 72, 75, 80, 81, 90, 96, 100, 108, 120, 125, 128, 135, and 144. 

Hope I didn't leave any out, I haven't recited them in a very long time.
"Work and pray, live on hay, you'll get Pie In The Sky when you die." - Joe Hill, "The Preacher and the Slave" 1911
Reply
#54

Posted by Ancient Vizier - 46 minutes ago
In the Pyramid Pi System, Morton and I used a term, "decimal harmonic" to denote the irrelevance of decimal placement or of the number of zeros after a whole number.
(Vianova has coined the term: Decimal Numeric Sets for much the same purpose) It isn't normally of consequence except that decimal placement can affect square roots. For example, the square roots of 6 and 600 -  2.44948974278 and 24.4948974278 respectively - don't seem to belong to the system, while the square roots of 60 and 6000 - 7.74596669241 and 77.4596669241 respectively, do.

In case it's of any interest, whole numbers between 1 and 144 that belong to the system are:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 24, 27, 30, 32, 36, 40, 45, 48, 50, 54, 60, 64, 72, 75, 80, 81, 90, 96, 100, 108, 120, 125, 128, 135, and 144

Hope I didn't leave any out, I haven't recited them in a very long time.




The Dimensions of the Square Complex are exactly a 12 km x 12 km sq according to the Google Mars RULER measuring tool.
(12 km) x 12 km =
144 square kilometers LilD


[Image: 1243859062_b6170b1322_b.jpg]
Themis image # io1024002 rotated 33.3 degrees and "Righting the tilted square straight up from Nadir
There is an axis(syzygy) of orient that starts at the center of the square that goes through the center of the D&M and carries on through the hominid eye of the bifurcated sphinx to terminate on the Crown @ the central Bifurcation line that splits the Hominid side from the Feline.

All measures = 100 meters per pixel at this resolution and has been verified by the higher-res  ESA  and MOC images.

[Image: 116849107_84331415f1.jpg] The axis is denoted starting from Square complex center and continues on to the D&M and Ares' Face on Mars.
This axis is exatly in the path of the original sun-synchronous orbit Mars Odyssey began itz mapping phase with(wich has also changed now)

By this I mean I never drew the line...it stems from an entire verticle column of 3600 pixels on the pixel column # 195 out of a 320 pixel wide daylight IR image.

The line was already there but for emphasis...Eye just colored it red.

Square Roots

4-7-03
[Image: pulse.gif] New Animation Highlights Cydonia "Urban Substrate"
Related links:
www.keithlaney.com/BullittsIRviews/SouthCityCombo.jpg
www.mactonnies.com/imperative34.html
In the online journal New Frontiers in Science, Mark Carlotto examines a conspicuous collection of eroded fragments that form a coherent "square" most unlike the disordered local topology. Coincidentally (?), this assortment is located along an axis that intersects both the Face and the D&M Pyramid.
"In particular, several rectangular arrangements can be seen," writes Carlotto. "Some of these arrangements are aligned, more or less, in the direction of the crustal dichotomy in this part of Mars. On Earth, in the Middle East for example, it would certainly be seen as a possible archaeological site. But it is on Mars."

[Image: cyrubble.gif]Anaglyphic image courtesy Mark Carlotto.
Clayton Spencer Ireland, working independently, has identified the same curious feature and has highlighted it in a GIF animation, revealing a high level of internal symmetry (below).

[Image: squareelab.gif]Image courtesy Clayton Spencer Ireland.
The "Urban Substrate," whatever it is, adds yet another level of enigma to the Cydonia region and deserves a very close look by future spacecraft.



Posted by Ancient Vizier - Sunday, April 23rd, 2017, 01:35 pm
They're like Legos. You can build things out of them. Pyramids, henges. It's almost fun when it works. I already built the circumference of the earth to within about .4 miles up thread. Some modern maps use a figure a mile and half off. There's at least a dozen ways I can write that, precise to ten places (more, calculator willing). I can find it written at Giza, Stonehenge, anything I have decent data for. Found it at Tikal at least once five minutes after I got home with Mahler's data, IIRC. 


[Image: 2202306925_67921cd5d9_z.jpg?zz=1] Context  pre Viking and coordinate system

I could look for planetary data in it, but NASA's likely to change it on me. I think they've done that before. I don't even know what their current data is because I don't know it's shelf life but I expect it to have one. I expect the circumference of Mars could change 50 miles every time they upgrade their altimeters. Has before if I'm not mistaken.


This has been known to actually happen but does not affect the RULER tool on Google Mars.

therefore according to the USGS map-a-planet here were the previous coordinates of the square complex:

[Image: 116849107_84331415f1.jpg]


Coincidentally? it is in Virtually the same place on the surface of a planet as the Original Square precinct of the District of Columbia(only tilted @ 33.3 degrees as opposed to the 45 degree tilt that makes DC a  'square-diamond'
Square Roots
[Image: 95578181_0eb0668fc6.jpg] AN is the bottom corner of the Square Complex @38.942 deg

I named it AN after the Anomalies Network forum wich is where we all were including Keith when it was discovered.

PW...have you or can you find any significance between the 33.3degree and 45 degree tilts of these squares or any other connection between 33.3 and 45 (don't say Vinyl Records  Doh )
Reply
#55
Here's a "scholarly" article on metrology I just stumbled across. It might lend a little additional legitimacy to the idea of additional variations on the cubit ? 
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/janthro/2014/489757

Among other useful information is Table 6, showing some of Berriman's work 
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/janthro...89757/tab6

Note the "Assyrian cubit" of 19.45 feet. My call is that this cubit is more closely related to the remen than the cubit, generally speaking. I take it for exactly 16 of my remens = 1.216733603 x 16 =19.46773767, our "Pyramid Pi System" "stunt double" for 19.47122063 aka sin^-1 .33333333333. The e' used in formulating the remen from sacred geometry via "e' / sqrt 5" is of course the 2.720699046 e' value from the Hoagland / Torun paper, which is the ratio between the surface area of a sphere and the surface area of the largest tetrahedron that it is able to circumscribe. 

Back at this thing, 1.62231147, speaking of remen fractions, this is 3/4 of the primary remen of 1.216733603 ft, which is hard to discourage me from because a). this remen has the remarkable distinction of belonging to both sacred geometry and to the "Pyramid Pi System" b) it generally works. Three remens, or 1.216733603 ft / .33333333333 provide us with "decimal harmonics" of a "Pyramid Pi Year" (formerly Matrix Solar Year) of "dh" (decimal harmonic) 365.0200809. 1.62231147 ft = 19.46773767 inches, making this possible form of Phi, 1.62231147, also a possible metrological unit.

Thus far, I have managed to refrain from hauling off and declaring that someone must have made a cubit out of 33.3333333 / 19.46773767 (who could resist, frankly?) but note that a cubit of 33.3333333 / 19.46773767 = 1.712234828 ft is actually larger than the smallest cubit in the vicinity of 1.7-something-on-the-low-end that is observed here 
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/janthro...89757/tab3

I am probably still deliberating over what an "Egyptian common cubit of 18.25 inches" might be exactly. R / Pi = 57.29577951 / Pi = 18.23781305; however I recently set out to try to reconstruct a "Pyramid Pi" model of the circle inscribed by the face of a 2 Pi pyramid. I still have a few small glitches in my equations somewhere, probably soured trigonometry, but given the proportions as stated by Yoda I get an inradius of 183.4090951 ft, which its extremely tempting to take to be 183.4791047 ft in "Pi System-Valid" terms, partly because 18.34791047 x 2 Pi = 115.2833215 ft, or a decimal harmonic of the number of miles in a second of equatorial longitude at a ratio of 1 foot = 10^x miles and using 24901.19744 miles to represent Earth's equatorial circumference. I'm curious to see what it looks like with the kinks worked out of the numbers because as I have it, the perimeter of the Great Pyramid (Yoda model) at the height of the center of this circle (incenter) comes to 1823.577317 and might even be a "decimal harmonic" of the R / Pi value precisely without the bug in the calculations. (Even such as it is, I believe it's accurate to .9998881508)?

It's the sort of thing I take as encouragement, likewise that decapitating the Great Pyramid (Yoda) at the height I suggested reduces the indented apothem to so close to a decimal harmonic of the 57.29577951 radian value that there may be not much room for argument as to deliberacy or intent. (The idealized apothem seems to be reduced by this to a metrological standard for the Squared Yoda Megalithic Yard (575.1793154 / 2.719715671^2 = 77.60000000 = dh 60^5 = dh 25920 / 33.3333333) and a showcase for the square of "Pi Pyramid Phi" 1.61882914. (575.1793154 / 1.61882914 = 360 Pi^2 / 10); 575.1793154 / (1.61882914^2) = 21.94831744 x 10, with 21.94831744 being 1/2 the baseline of the proposed GP pyramidion).

We see another advertisement for the radian in a similar setting, where the intact apothem (with pyramidion) of the Mycerinus pyramid proportionately scaled to that of the Great Pyramid (as 194.4 Pi) at the usual Yoda ratio of 2.12360074884:1 comes out to a decimal harmonic of 57.29577951 / 2 in remens of the usual 1.216733603 ft. (This concerns a basic model of the Mycerinus with even sides, the reality sounds more like another multi-pyramid that is achieved by having markedly uneven sides but I'm not sure yet whose data to trust on the actual proportions).

I find all this fairly remarkable given Yoda's apparent reluctance to seriously consider pyramid apothems or metrological units aside from the foot. Presumably these were NOT considerations of his when arriving at his values.

Both of these two (1.823781305 and 1.834090951) probably need a little more road testing as possible metrological units?
"Work and pray, live on hay, you'll get Pie In The Sky when you die." - Joe Hill, "The Preacher and the Slave" 1911
Reply
#56
Ancient Vizier This image will take you back.
Wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy  back to the Rhyme/Reason of the Ancient Mariner.

A Zep-Tepi of sorts for the first time...
[Image: 2202306925_67921cd5d9_z.jpg?zz=1]
Airy-0
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[/url]
Airy-0[Image: 230px-Martian_prime_meridian_Airy-0_crat...A03207.jpg]
Three images of Airy-0 taken by, from A to C,Mariner 9Viking 1 and Mars Global Surveyor. Airy-0 is the larger crater towards the top center in each frame.
Planet
Mars
Region
Inside Airy Crater
Coordinates
[Image: 17px-WMA_button2b.png]5.1°S 0°E

[size=undefined][size=undefined]
Diameter
0.5 kilometres (0.31 mi)
Eponym
Sir George Biddell Airy[/size]

Airy-0 is a crater on Mars whose location defines the position of the prime meridian of that planet. It is about 0.5 kilometres (0.31 mi) across and lies within the larger crater Airy in the region Sinus Meridiani.
It was named in honor of the British Astronomer Royal Sir George Biddell Airy (1801-1892), who in 1850 built the transit circle telescope at Greenwich. The location of that telescope was subsequently chosen to define the location of Earth's prime meridian.
Merton Davies chose this crater as Mars's prime meridian in 1969 based on Mariner 6 and 7 photographs.[1][/size]





[size=undefined][Image: 22446875339_71e6874ca3_b.jpg][/size]

Vianova aided me and is still tutoring away and rewriting the cosmos and I see it as Itza write itself.
Combined we ended up with these results.
[Image: 25261267889_817726d989_b.jpg]

Discecting a circle with an (Radius/diameter)equator and then trisecting the polar length @ a Third is the word of equal length.

You arrive at the tetrahedrons point it just made.

Using the (Base Ten/ Decimal Numeric Set) Metric Sytem NOW arrives at these results.  Arrow

3 x 3 x 33,310,273.1 m / s  = the speed of light / 9 = Its exact value is 299792458 metres per second (approximately 3.00×108 m/s, approximately 186,282 mi/s)

There is a caveat at ~All Ma'at @ That...  Arrow

Proposed redefinition of SI base units

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


For a topical guide to this subject, see Outline of the metric system.
[Image: 312px-Unit_relations_in_the_old_SI.svg.png]



Current (2017) SI system: Dependence of base unitdefinitions on other base units (for example, the metre is defined in terms of the distance travelled by light in a specific fraction of a second), with the constants of nature and artifacts used to define them (such as the mass of the IPK for the kilogram).

[size=undefined]
[Image: 312px-Unit_relations_in_the_new_SI.svg.png]
[/size]



Proposed SI system: Dependence of base unit definitions on [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant]physical constants with fixed numerical values and on other base units that are derived from the same set of constants.

[size=undefined]
A committee of the International Committee for Weights and Measures (CIPM) has proposed revised formal definitions of the SI base units, which are being examined by the CIPM and which are expected[1][2][3] to be adopted at the 26th General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM) on 16 November 2018.[4] Themetric system was originally conceived as a system of measurement that was derivable from nature. When the metric system was first introduced in France in 1799 technical limitations necessitated the use of artifacts such as the prototype metre and prototype kilogram. In 1960 the metre was redefined in terms of the wavelength oflight from a specified source, making it derivable from nature, leaving the kilogram as the only unit still defined by an artifact. If the proposed redefinition is accepted, the metric system (SI) will, for the first time, be wholly derivable from nature.
The proposal can be summarised as follows:
[/size]


Quote:There will still be the same seven base units (secondmetrekilogramamperekelvinmole, andcandela). Of these, the kilogram, ampere, kelvin and mole will be redefined by choosing exact numerical values for the Planck constant, the elementary electric charge, the Boltzmann constant, and the Avogadro constant, respectively. The second, metre and candela are already defined byphysical constants and it is only necessary to edit their present definitions. The new definitions will improve the SI without changing the size of any units, thus ensuring continuity with present measurements.[5]
[size=undefined]
Further details are found in the draft chapter of the Ninth SI Units Brochure.[6]
The last major overhaul of the metric system was in 1960 when the International System of Units (SI) was formally published as a coherent set of units of measure. SI is structured around seven base units that have apparently "arbitrary" definitions and another twenty units that are derived from these base units. Although the set of units form a coherent system, the definitions do not. The proposal before the CIPM seeks to remedy this by using the fundamental quantities of nature as the basis for deriving the base units. This will mean, amongst other things, that the prototype kilogram will cease to be used as the definitive replica of the kilogram. Thesecond and the metre are already defined in such a manner.
A number of authors have published criticisms of the revised definitions—in particular that proposal had failed to address the impact of breaking the link between the mole and the kilogram, the dalton and the unified atomic mass unit, and the Avogadro constant and Avogadro's number.
[/size]
Along the vines of the Vineyard.
With a forked tongue the snake singsss...
Reply
#57
Holy Re-Vision!!!  LilD = C

[Image: 34182700421_b402ee31cf_b.jpg]  LilD
Along the vines of the Vineyard.
With a forked tongue the snake singsss...
Reply
#58
I decided that since my electronic materials probably had only .33333333333 as much dust on them for me to eat as my printed materials do, that I should persist in looking for them. The good news is that I think I found them; the bad news is that it will probably still take me a year to figure out exactly how far I'd gotten before I left off. (I think I already got a good review of where I learned not to trust Lehner much even on small measures).

I want to review the data sources some more but I found a draft proposal giving the basic proportions of the King's Chamber as 20 cubits x 10 cubits x 10 Ellifinos (what's that doing in the King's Chamber? Ellifino!) - it's a little dicey because Lehner is going to assume it was intended to be regular and only give us the mean figures (as with the Mycerinus exterior) I presume. It looks I used Capt's book as a source (since I don't seem to have a physical copy of Petrie's book?) after probably checking to see how close he was to Petrie how often and figuring it was okay to proceed, but I'd feel more comfortable if I could give presumed intended values for the actual proportions (rather than just basic or "idealized" ones), which I'm pretty sure I remember being more diverse.

I've also found the sources for some suspicions about display of the Stonehenge inner diameter in the Great Pyramid passages, and the possible display of 1.62231147 x 10 in one of the Chephren chambers - it's the width of the Burial Chamber 

Lehner: 16.40419948 ft --- Petrie: 16.32083333 ft --- Vyse: 16.16666666

I'm not at all entirely sure of either one, I'd like to go back and see how these possible values would actually fit in with their surrounds before I try to be. I lean toward a mean of Vyse and Petrie since Lehner leans a little to begin with (and I don't know how much damage will be done just converting things into and back out of the meters he likes to use).

I found some more data on my pyramidion proposal. It's from a message board post dated Fri, Aug 6, 2004. Referring to the Yoda model (except that I have never seen Yoda express the least interest in the possible value of the Great Pyramid base diagonal), the base diagonal of the Great Pyramid itself comes to 

((3018.110299 / 4) /  x sqrt 2) = 1067.063129 ft

"Pyramid Pi" numbers are able to approximate this as the system-valid figure 1067.077716 - an almost absurd degree of accuracy.

There were some other options, but given the opportunity to maintain that level of accuracy, after tossing some mathematical probes at it, I settled on that figure as hopefully being the intended interpretation. If I recall correctly, it wasn't quite as silent as the luck of the draw can often dictate.

Retaining the ratio of whole Yoda pyramid / pyramidion in the pyramidion proposal gives us a pyramidion base diagonal of

1067.077716 / (1.718873385 x 10) = 62.08006507

And a half-diagonal of 62.08006507 / 2 = 31.04003254

You'll notice it looks a bit like Pi^3... It's 3.145012837 x (Pi 3.141592654^2). That may have been me ignoring an invitation to mutilate Almighty Pi Itself straight from the "Pyramid Pi System," longer ago than I like to think about. I figured it for noise and ignored it. Sometimes we don't get the numbers we'd hoped for by some small ratio, and usually figure we've gone too far when we don't.

Numerous mathematical probes hinted that the intended value should be 31.0505174 which seemed to have better resonance in its context, but it turned out to be something of a moot point anyway since other figures for the pyramidion had already been determined, and my calculations (if they are not in error) revealed that 

(9.315155235 Pyramidion Volume / Base Area Ratio) / 3 = 3.105051746 

That too seems to be only that far away in a pyramid that somehow seems to be incorporating everything including the kitchen sink and the refrigerator.

27.94546571 Pyramidion Height in feet; 279.4546571 Height of Complete Great Pyramid in cubits of 1.718873385 ft

Taking the matter up with "The Divine Architect and Father of Numbers," he concurs that 3.10505174 is already readily available to us 

279.4546571 x 1.1111111111 = 310.5051746

So we're not really missing out on much by accepting 31.04003254 ft and 62.08006507 ft as the "intended" values for the proposed pyramidion's half diagonal and full diagonal values respectively, accurately preserving the 1:17.18873385 ratio between the whole pyramid and pyramidion observed thus far.

I've already told the story of how I finally found 1.067438159, as the outer/inner diameter radius of the Stonehenge sarcen circle, and how this number has some profound resonance with many numbers at Giza. I'd love to call the Great Pyramid's calculated diagonal of 1067.063129 ft to mean 1067.438159 feet - who's going to argue, Lehner? - but the perennial trouble is that to this day we have no written or even indicated mandates that I am aware of on acceptable limits of accuracy, and I've often gotten very interesting results trying to stay on the safe side when possible.

Not that we're missing out, since the 1.067438159 ratio may already be spelled out obviously enough at Giza and in what may be less uncertain terms (i.e., the ratio between the Great Pyramid's height, and the side length of the Chephren pyramid, in the Yoda model of Giza).

But it still isn't that far away, since we've found 3.10505174 already and we appear to have prominent display of a 1.718873385 ft cubit, and of course

3.105051746 x 1.718873385 = 1.067438159 / 2

I thought all this was pretty damned good for just being consequences of saying, "Hey, let's just chop off the Great Pyramid's head at a height that Yoda thinks is really, really cool". Pretty sure I still think so...

And remember, I'm still only on My First Cubit™ of .03 Radians = 1.718873385 ft here... (sometimes referred to by me as the "MLM cubit" since I honestly still don't know of anyone before Michael L. Morton to declare it having that value to that many places).

But perhaps I might have noticed that these equations may give us the endorsement of Mighty 1.067438159 along with others, to possibly consider not one but two alternate forms of Pi...

31.04003254 / Pi^2 = 3.145012837
31.05051746 / Pi^2 = 3.146075182

It is never going to be Pi^3 in this scheme without copping an error of a foot on the base diagonal

(Pi^3 31.006276680) x 17.18873385 x 2 = 1065.91727507 ft vs 1067.063129 ft (exact)

But we have one of two possible projected "hybrid" pyramids that appears to be in agreement with encouraging the humble seeker to refrain from taking a foot off of the diagonal

(Perimeter 3022.416637 courtesy of Thoth, Height 480.347172843 courtesy of Yoda. No such pyramid is physically found at Giza)

3022.416637 / 480.347172843 / 2 = 3.146075180 = 31.05051746 / Pi^2

(Given the way our numbers work, the cube roots of 31.04003254 (3.142732301^3) and 31.05051746 (3.143086119^3) probably don't even belong to our basic Pi pyramid model or even our Pi-based number system - but they may belong to someone's).

And since I have demonstrated that when exposed to the 360* circle, the remen may become a Cubit Factory

360 / Remen = ~1.718873385^2 then 360 / Remen = (cubit x) x (cubit y)

And since these Pi equations are linked to the cubit as already shown here...

We may have a Pi Factory... 

And true to form, the fine people at the Pi Factory™ want you know that Pi is all there is to life (of course), but that it doesn't necessarily mean that Pi can't come in many flavors...

I could probably cook broccoli with the steam that is going to come out of Yoda's ears when he finds this out that Our Master "1.1111111111 Himself" may have thusly "authorized" the Vi Pyramids and probably any flavor of Pi they might require, in addition to the "mixing and matching" of different heights, baselines and cubits or other measures as required to construct them...

But nothing more exotic than what I'd already hoped I'd established may be required to obtain that "authorization".

Which is why at the risk of sounding like a pathetic dumb*ss who wants to ride on Vi's coattails, I actually think my Pi pyramid doodlings are the ground floor level of a progression of models where mine are followed by Vi's.

So if anyone should try to say that Yoda's pyramids are "better" than Vi's, or that Yoda's pyramids somehow mean that Vi's pyramids weren't intended... even if it's Yoda, just tell them I said they might need to take a little closer look at Pi.

[Image: C7XwF6tV4AAn-Q1.jpg][Image: pieintheface-9.jpg]
"Work and pray, live on hay, you'll get Pie In The Sky when you die." - Joe Hill, "The Preacher and the Slave" 1911
Reply
#59
(04-27-2017, 10:46 PM)EA Wrote: PW...have you or can you find any significance between the 33.3degree and 45 degree tilts of these squares or any other connection between 33.3 and 45 (don't say Vinyl Records  Doh )

Why not? 45 + 33 = 78 RPMs / 4 = 19.5... I think you've found the Martian Hall of Records? :-)

I've no idea, really...

45 x 33.33333333 = 150 = 1 / (66.66666666 / 10000) or (1 / 45) / 33.33333333 = 66.66666666 / 1000)

You see in your diagram the 33.33333333% below latitude 19.471220163* where the base of a circumscribed tetrahedron rests is the portion of the axis of a sphere circumscribing a tetrahedron that is unoccupied by the tetrahedron, therefore 66.666666666% is the portion of said axis that is occupied by the tetrahedron, regardless of the length of the axis, correct? 

(Not to mention that 1.111111111 x 2 = 2.222222222 = (1 / 45) x 100)

Although the proposition might be just a little dicey because after all, you of course can also just use 2 to interconvert 33.33333333 and 66.66666666...

33.33333333 x 2 = 66.66666666

But maybe 1.1111111111 wanted you to flip it over and see his signature on the bottom of it? :-)

This one might be dicier, but you have a square there... Curious piece of trivia, the e' constant 2.720699046 is the ratio between the surface area of a sphere and the largest tetrahedron it can circumscribe, but if I'm not mistaken, it's also the ratio between the volume of a sphere, and the largest hexahedron (cube) it can circumscribe, and any side of a hexahedron is of course a square... And of course once you have a tetrahedron, you are sort of already headed up the Platonic Solids path...

But where does one draw the line when declaring squares to represent tetrahedra on that account? They probably aren't all intended to mean that. :-)
"Work and pray, live on hay, you'll get Pie In The Sky when you die." - Joe Hill, "The Preacher and the Slave" 1911
Reply
#60
Upon some reflection, one way to end up a Pi Jedi is because your calculator has a Pi key but no Phi key, which may incline a person to see the world through the eyes of Pi before Phi... 

But why is that my calculator has a Pi key but no Phi key? Is Pi more consistently useful than Phi even in higher dimensional geometry, or is that sort of a mathematically existentialist question?

For a philosophical question, were we intended to enter the Great Pyramid in order to encounter the mathematics therein, or does the design provide that the same information should be available on the outside, to prevent us from having to do this?
"Work and pray, live on hay, you'll get Pie In The Sky when you die." - Joe Hill, "The Preacher and the Slave" 1911
Reply
#61
Where'd everyone go? Ellifino...

I'm looking at a data spread for the King's Chamber and Queen's Chamber... I'm using primarily data from Petrie, converted into cubits, remens, Meg Yards and Squared Yoda Meg Yards... i.e., metrological units shown or implied in the Great Pyramid's exterior.

If I'm getting anything out of it, I may be getting a particularly good warning against assigning knee-jerk whole number values to the measures of ancient structures. Urdummheit. So, the Queen's Chamber tries very hard to look mainly very simple use of cubit values in most of its proportions... but is it really? 

What else is an Ellifino? Well, it appears to be that the diagonal of a square of 1 Ellifino x 1 Ellifino = 1 Megalithic Yard, just as the remen appears to be ~the diagonal of a square of 1 Cubit x 1 Cubit.

So what is the name of this unit, really? (It may have more than one).
"Work and pray, live on hay, you'll get Pie In The Sky when you die." - Joe Hill, "The Preacher and the Slave" 1911
Reply
#62

Posted by Ancient Vizier - Saturday, April 29th, 2017, 09:18 a

Posted by Ancient Vizier - Saturday, April 29th, 2017, 09:18 am

(Friday, April 28th, 2017, 01:46 am)EA Wrote: Wrote:PW...have you or can you find any significance between the 33.3degree and 45 degree tilts of these squares or any other connection between 33.3 and 45 (don't say Vinyl Records  [Image: doh.gif] )


Why not? 45 + 33 = 78 RPMs / 4 = 19.5... I think you've found the Martian Hall of Records? :-)

I've no idea, really...

45 x 33.33333333 = 150 = 1 / (66.66666666 / 10000) or (1 / 45) / 33.33333333 = 66.66666666 / 1000)

You see in your diagram the 33.33333333% below latitude 19.471220163* where the base of a circumscribed tetrahedron rests is the portion of the axis of a sphere circumscribing a tetrahedron that is unoccupied by the tetrahedron, therefore 66.666666666% is the portion of said axis that is occupied by the tetrahedron, regardless of the length of the axis, correct?  Yep.

(Not to mention that 1.111111111 x 2 = 2.222222222 = (1 / 45) x 100)

Although the proposition might be just a little dicey because after all, you of course can also just use 2 to interconvert 33.33333333 and 66.66666666...

33.33333333 x 2 = 66.66666666

[Image: 2694294216_6ebfa578d9.jpg]therefore 66.666666666% is the portion of said axis that is occupied by Earth Orbit, regardless of the length of the Mars Orbit, correct?  
youareaduck  in duck ted-talks(~independently held in conjunction with Sol Support) Nadir View 

But maybe 1.1111111111 wanted you to flip it over and see his signature on the bottom of it? :-)

Let them who hath "Understanding" Recon

Quote:This one might be dicier, but you have a square there... Curious piece of trivia,
[Image: 2259695600_fa0bac062c_m.jpg] ...been there 
the e' constant 2.720699046 is the ratio between the surface area of a sphere and the largest tetrahedron it can circumscribe, but if I'm not mistaken, it's also the ratio between the volume of a sphere, and the largest hexahedron (cube) it can circumscribe, and any side of a hexahedron is of course a square... And of course once you have a tetrahedron, you are sort of already headed up the Platonic Solids path...
[Image: 2259695560_1439a11b9d_m.jpg] ...done that 
But where does one draw the line when declaring squares to represent tetrahedra on that account? They probably aren't all intended to mean that. :-)

[Image: 5097181845_0c631c8779.jpg]
therefore 66.666666666% is the portion of said axis that is occupied by the tetrahedron, regardless of the length of the axis, correct?  Yep.
[Image: 15638518344_2b8b190c82_z.jpg]
But maybe 1.1111111111 wanted you to flip it over and see his signature on the bottom of it? :-)
[Image: 16264399702_630609368d_z.jpg]

Semimajor axis (106 km)
 Mars...................... 227.92
Earth...................... 149.60
Ratio(Mars/Earth) 1.524


[Image: 25076376595_fb550ee32e_z.jpg]

[Image: 25083355156_0dea842793_b.jpg]

That There...
Local Convergence is real and happening now @ THM

Where'd everyone go? Ellifino...


I'm looking at a data spread for the King's Chamber and Queen's Chamber... I'm using primarily data from Petrie, converted into cubits, remens, Meg Yards and Squared Yoda Meg Yards... i.e., metrological units shown or implied in the Great Pyramid's exterior.

I use SI base 10 metric system units...
and the rest just writes itself.
Along the vines of the Vineyard.
With a forked tongue the snake singsss...
Reply
#63
Oh, I see. You were already making cones of incense to fill the nostrils of Mighty Thoth with a sweet savor. Here I was dinking around with maps. 

Those are really nice. Thank you! I think a little more is beginning to make sense to me now?
"Work and pray, live on hay, you'll get Pie In The Sky when you die." - Joe Hill, "The Preacher and the Slave" 1911
Reply
#64
Quote:But where does one draw the line when declaring squares to represent tetrahedra on that account? They probably aren't all intended to mean that. :-)

As I said line "Drew Itself"

Placing the Southernmost point of a Square Area on a globe @ ~38.942 degrees satisfies this requirement of illogic so to note:

To signify in a universal language based on Light Speed How would you leave an impression on a world that "Kilroy wuz here"?

Placing a monument at each point of the Tertrahedron or cube or any derivative geometry would diffuse the signal strength. Naughty

In a @~Local Convergence on a great circle the ideal way to consider all points @~19.471 in both North/South latitudes would be by adding the two latitudes  together and commemorating  that there on the square.@ ~38.942

At the Combined ~2 x 19.5 latitudes on or about the 39th parallel draws a direct Parallel to Washington D.C. on Earth.

Nasa see Nasa do?

[Image: 2522018934_bddcbdc358_z.jpg?zz=1] The Red Line is an Axis of a Sun-Synchronous Spacecraft Nadir pointing itz cameras 
@ 100 meters per pixel so that it can view the same spot on the planet at the same time of day at a later date when it maps around itz sequence.

The Line is exactly 120 kilometers long to the crown of the face on mars but if you would note it can also be a great circle that encompasses the entire planet Mars and arrives back where it left off @ ORIGIN in the center of the Square Complex in Cydonia.

As a Rule of Thumb...if you use the equatorial radius of Mars and consider it a circle and then envelope the Nort Poleward half of the Polar Axis and Centered a 33.3 degree angle that evelopes the axis and then cut a chord by itz own accord...between the two points you result in 1947 kilometers

[Image: 1969065931_597ff7983c_o.jpg]

Why Base a Square on or about the 39th parallel??? 

[Image: 1087601645_16bc3d7ed0_o.jpg] Split_spawn

[Image: 116849107_84331415f1_o.gif]

[Image: 16848645400_bbbcf39d30_o.jpg]



And EA took PW up to the high place and shewed him his surroundings that outnumbered him...

...And PW saw that there was good and just itza rite itself.
[Image: 15528045301_3477b3d7e3_o.jpg]

And EA sayeth: Ya wanna see what I see? What do you See

And PW replied: I see Pi eyed in the countenance of a Face.

[Image: 29990766171_11414464a8_o.jpg]

'What is different'   EA inquired to PW

'They have a same measure'   was the difference PW intoned.

'Yes, PW,,,Just Like Bamf Pi'  EA agreed.
[Image: 11915938413_490895347f_o.jpg]

PW surveyed his outlook and saw itza slice of Write/Right/Rite itself.
In a Pentagonal Pi- Panned out by Carlotto!



[Image: 11916857286_587988b431_o.jpg]
They had the Same difference in countenace.
And that It was Metric/Square based on C/See light.

[Image: 11915948905_131c8d21fb_o.jpg]

[Image: 8197513206_f1ca076c9b_o.jpg]

[Image: 8197512566_62d2515b8b_o.jpg]

[Image: 8197511360_2e7a276a80_o.jpg]
con text from the frame of reference of a snake oil y'all salesman.
Along the vines of the Vineyard.
With a forked tongue the snake singsss...
Reply
#65
Geeze huh? Gizah!

PW... if you combined both slices of 90 degree Pi from the D&M Pentamid as viewed from Nadir @ 100 meters per pixel and saw it as the groundplan/layout
[Image: 11915938413_490895347f_o.jpg] Angles as tricks of light,   two dark triangles left in shadow.
You would have a Square with a Diagonal of 3,333 meters and still have 2x90 degrees left over: 

wich we also term twice 'square' @ that remainder Alien2 reminder there of 180 degrees gives you a straight angle wich is a line wich is an axis wich is the syzygy that connects all three.




[Image: 15528045301_3477b3d7e3_o.jpg]
Red Dot is 1,947.1 m above base plain Same Sheep Difference of -3,333 m below Mars Datum =0m (Sea Level/SEE Level)

[Image: 8197556060_15b3331b0e_o.jpg]

that Ground Level As above +1,947m Datum -3,333m So below SEE Sea level there

[Image: 22239658353_3237a6984d_b.jpg]
Along the vines of the Vineyard.
With a forked tongue the snake singsss...
Reply
#66
(05-01-2017, 10:06 PM)Ancient Vizier Wrote: Oh, I see. You were already making cones of incense to fill the nostrils of Mighty Thoth with a sweet savor. Here I was dinking around with maps. 

Those are really nice. Thank you! I think a little more is beginning to make sense to me now?


PW... Eye painstakingly took effort to ~perfectly align and register the carlotto penta-pi masterpiece 'o cake.

Flitting back and forth in a toggle of the images,  I indeed combined and syched the images and trued both data.

Then I measured Each base-length side of the Pentapyramid according to carlotto's NADIR VIEW groundplan/layout

It would be 3-D with a 2-D NADIR  reticle superimposed in a sense.[Image: 25002787003_54dbfd8265_o.jpg]

[Image: 15530461575_ec7b3cdfa4_o.jpg]
In the Left hand Panel of Google Mars you can see the actual measures according to their datum.
[Image: 15506751976_e8a37f03d9_o.jpg]
The Google Mars Model is supposedly fairly accurate.
When you remove carlotto's model the measures still define baselengths and don't forget by nearly the same amount of offset the great pyramid is from due North and the other cardinals the D&M pyramid has 1 facet that is near perfect aligned to the South
[Image: 15344303068_04dc60dd0d_o.jpg]

[Image: 15506798926_99598800b6_o.jpg]

I showed you the five ~base-lengths of the D&M according to carlotto /esa/dlr...

With software from the Mars odyssey Themis' mission Software Manager whro wrote the code of the image I use as a standard benchmark against all other measures.

These are only the baselengths of the Penta- PERIMETER though and I have yet to make a volumetric 3-d model.

I haven't advanced to that level just yet.
Along the vines of the Vineyard.
With a forked tongue the snake singsss...
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)