|
|
Post by Don Barone on May 20, 2007 22:47:27 GMT -5
Hi Charlotte, Paul, ghia, Bernhard, Daz et al. I knew that Giza had to be able to be drawn with compass straightedge and ruler and that is all I have used here. So far only two required measured distance. Enjoy The Gods of Geometry at play ... Image 1:  Image 2:  Image 3:  Image 4:  Image 5:  Image 6:  Cheers and more to come ! Best in the light Don Barone |
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on May 21, 2007 6:39:14 GMT -5
Beautiful Don, I'm enjoying, yes indeed! I'm smiling as far as my mind can reach, and thanks  Charlotte |
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on May 21, 2007 7:04:52 GMT -5
HI all ... Part II of The Perfection That is Giza Image 7:  Image 8:  I am having a bit of trouble finding a way to tie in Pyramid 1 and 3 from this beginning but we will keep on trying to find the key. Cheers and Light Don Barone |
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on May 21, 2007 8:43:05 GMT -5
Hi all ... Well I think this will be completed before I thought it would. Would you all please put your hands together and welcome Pyramid 1 to the party which is The Perfection of The Geometry at Giza  Enjoy the brilliance of the past ! Image 9:  Image 10:  Image 11:  Life is sweet. Best in The Light Don Barone |
|
|
|
Post by PMacG on May 21, 2007 9:04:11 GMT -5
Hi Don.
You do realize we both seem to have the same design. I know the P's are placed differently but the circles and everything else appears to be the same - all I can say is Wow. Beyond this I feel that I have no place to say anything more, as you have all the measurements and all that will clinch it.
I hope you don't mind me just having a little input but as the design is the same, it was the division of the GP and the SP into 8th but not the Middle P that was the base of the idea. The GP and SP give up down, left and right directions within and between the two circles. Maybe the Ps fit this design in a layered way. Very interesting indeed.
Blessing in your work - Paul.
|
|
|
|
Post by ghia on May 21, 2007 9:12:38 GMT -5
Hey Don,
Yes, I like this explanation...on my level without the math!
Do you think they just had someone stand in the designated spot with their 'String', or whatever,( I think a cord?can't recall at the moment... Oh yeah! The stretching of the Cord...or some such thing), and made the circles and lines like this? I really think that it makes sense because they would only have to mark points.
Bravo!
BB,
Ghia
|
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on May 21, 2007 10:21:32 GMT -5
Hi all ... I am humbled at what I see ... Image 12:  Proof of the equality of DV and DZ Images 13 and 14:   Image 15:  Okay so now we know the geometry ... but why ? Maybe we should all study Clive's work a little more closely now. Best and In The Light Don Barone |
|
|
|
Post by BERNHARD on May 21, 2007 11:26:07 GMT -5
Dear Don, ( and dear Folks here as well ) , an impressive work, no question, but it would take several weeks for me, to study and constructively (!) critizise all the math-details You and Your partners did involve in all these diagrams. for not complicating my answer, i decided to simply trust in You ! but as You still know as well, , i am sceptical against such massive amount of "endless" pyramid-math-operations. for me rests one deciding question: **************************** had the old egyptians, and we talk of the 3. and 4. dynasty, been able to perform such complex WIDE AREA geodaetic measurements ?? AND with what practical field-tools ! one have to combine (in a very precise manner ! ) a lot of controlling angle points which each were of a several hundred meter distance. and the terrain was not levelled on the same niveau. ( only some parts of the plateau, not even completely under the Cheops itself ), starting with Cheops/Kafre-pyramid then moving to the Mykerinos/Menkaure-pyramid you have to climb and cross a terrain with around 75m difference in height. its not easy, to do wide-range geometrical measurements on a non-levelled area ! its fascinating to see your results on a map, on the screen of a PC, but bringing it into a real construction-scenario is a absolutely giant task !! even the much more humble math-concepts and "established" (scholarly well accepted) proposals of the GIZEH-plateau and its buidings, present some still unresolved severe riddles of modern egyptology ! till today nobody could offer real convincing practical-based concepts how all was definetely built, and: PREPARED ! oh yes, what an outstanding and brillant logistical masterpiece. IF taking Your complex math-models into account: guess, no scholar would risk to offer any idrea how THIS then would have been realized some 4500 years ago ! well, if You think, that extra-terrestal intelligences once visited us, providing their know- how, and high-tec geometrical tools ( like laser based technology ,.., and so on ), then i could imagine the final workout ! but in this case, we would not refer to the "old Egyptians", but to other intelligent beings, where ever they came from ! in addition, one could dispute, if among the old egyptians had been special edicated (carefully selected) disciples, but this raises another question: had been those disciples only been educated at egypt, the old "KMT", and nowhere else on this blue planet ! ----- guess n o : an outstanding knowledge we do find all over the world !!! ok, last not least, ============ another hot discussed, not widely accepted ( for the moment ) by many scholars ( haha: they mostly do not like to risk any PRO--comment until there is not the definitive proof ), are the BOSNIAN PYRAMIDS ! there are not only one, but at least 5 hillss of a significant pyramid-like shape, and three main-hills in a GIZEH-like geometrical baseline ! look here at: =========== www.bosnian-pyramid.com/gallery.php then go for "maps" and select this one : www.bosnian-pyramid.com/gallery/Maps/903433m1.jpg not bad, ey ?? ************* enough for today ! i wish You and Your construction-partners all the best ! have joy while doing these studies ! Best regards from bavaria: Bernie ***************************** |
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on May 21, 2007 12:31:49 GMT -5
Hi all. A giant pin has pricked our ballon. It seems I made a small but tragic measuring error and it does not quite fit as nicely as I thought. It is close, but I am afraid close in this game of perfection does not get the cigar. I will try again.   And the distance between NE corners IS NOT EXACTLY 100 CUBITS.  Click on thumbnail for a larger image Too bad really it looked like it should have fit. Back to the drawing board I go. Thanks Wayne (who took the trouble to do the image below) I guess I should have had you check the opening radius before proceeding.  The yellow are my points, red as in the field. Carry on as Chris de Burgh is apt to say ... At least we established the apex of pyramid 2. I guess I should have quit while I was ahead. Cheers Don Barone |
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on May 21, 2007 14:21:55 GMT -5
Hi all.
Not to panic. Should be back with a flawless diagram shortly.
The light still shines.
Cheers
Don Barone
|
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on May 21, 2007 14:35:29 GMT -5
Hi all. Here is a sneak peak at the corrected version. Just some minor changes but the design was and is sound.  and this one of note:  This solution could be neater. Cheers and stay tooned ! Best in The Light Don Barone |
|
|
|
Post by ghia on May 21, 2007 19:23:39 GMT -5
Keep up the momentum, I really do think there's something to this design.
Sorry, I can't offer more but cheerleading!
BB,
Ghia
|
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on May 21, 2007 19:51:48 GMT -5
Hi ghia ... Sometimes that is more important than anything else  I have momentarily taken a break from lines and angles and circles ... oh my ! ;D Here is something I have been doing as a side light ... still think this is Giza and will keep trying to prove it.   Cheers and now off to watch some fireworks ... but I'll be back ! Don Barone |
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on May 23, 2007 6:17:03 GMT -5
Hi all ... Using geometry (my best and sometimes worst friend) I have noticed that the two distances I call equal and have used for the radii seem not be so equal.  Not exactly sure but it could be because of what has been called north on the overall plan. As we have noticed depending on the angle of our 2000 RC line it can be either 1417.25 and 1411.25 or 1414.21 x 1414.21. I will give it some more thought and effort when I come home from work. Apparent error is 14601.9 - 14419.9 = 182 inches = 8.83 cubits but that would be so noticeable even in the scale I have used (about 1 pixel = 2 cubits) so I am not sure what is going on. Cheers and feel free to jump in with your own calculator at any time cheers Don Barone |
|
|
|
Post by PMacG on May 23, 2007 13:36:50 GMT -5
Hi Don.
I printed out the drawing and had a look at it.
I'm still interested in the distance between the centre of P3 and the SW corner of P1, and then to use the same radius from the centre of P1, as the circles match up. So I'm still left wondering at this as it doesn't seem to be just a coincidence. When I do this on Google Earth the circles cross exactly on the central east/west division line of P3 (as defined by in the P3's divisions into 8) at the Valley Temple.
In drawing a circle of this same radius based on the exact centre of P3 a line from the centre of P1 to the SE corner of P3 and extended outwards divides the circle at a 6th division SW. Likewise a line from centre of P1 to the NE corner of P2 hits the western extension of the line taken from the centre of P3 to the Valley Temple exactly on the 6th division. There are more points of corners to centres or other corners that seem to hit either a 6th or a 12th division of this circle.
Have you any thoughts on this yourself please?
Regards, and all the best - Paul.
|
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on May 23, 2007 22:13:03 GMT -5
Hi Paul .. While checking for your distance which is 30504.14 inches I decided to check on a few other things. This diagram is in error as north is shown erroneously on it and there are other significant errors. See diagram below for a further explanation.  Cheers Don Barone |
|
|
|
Post by PMacG on May 24, 2007 4:57:36 GMT -5
Hi Don. Thanks.
It seems extremely difficult to pin these measurements down exactly and it must be somewhat frustrating in that respect, but please keep at it. It will be the first time we have had the exactness needed to look at them all, so I'm sure of great dividends coming from such research.
The idea I was describing is just a compass and line job so it is not in the same league really, as I just drew the circle from the centre of P3 to the Valley Temple and found it to match the same diameter as from the centre of P3 to the SW corner of P1 and of that from the centre of P1 to the Valley Temple. From this I got the intersecting circles and the design matched your intersecting circles, I thought there might actually be 3 levels or sizes of circles. I'm sorry to have worried you with the mundane but one never knows what might be a key or not, as it has looked interesting on paper.
Thanks for your time, and all the best - Paul.
|
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on May 24, 2007 9:48:04 GMT -5
Hi Charlotte and Paul et al ... I continue to square and divide and play at it and I will find it !  Here are a couple of things I have been working on and am in the process of getting it checked for accuracy. But first an explanation of Giza itself. Why is the 45 degree angle so important for our baseline ... perhaps this post of mine from another board will help ... "Hi all. At present as near as I can measure the diagonal of the 2000 Rc baseline is at about 43.9 degrees to what we perceive of and call north with the equator zero and the North Pole 90 degrees. To understand what may be happening at Giza is is imperative that an understanding of squaring the grid is understood. I have enclosed a diagram which I have greatly exaggerated to try and make things a little clearer to those who are wondering what and why I am doing. I contend that the baseline of 2000 is supposed to be 45 degrees to whatever "North" The Ancient Egyptians might have used, however I still am convinced that East was the starting direction and so for some reason the sun seems to have shifted 1.1 degrees ? Hmmm .... or maybe the day in question is not the summer solstice but was something else. Regardless something has changed since the time of the building of The Giza Plateau. Here is the diagram.  Best Don Barone " And now to the diagram I am having checked. Not sure if it is correct but is sure is neat. I will draw this to scale one day soon and see how wonderful it looks.  cheers and In The Light Don Barone |
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on May 24, 2007 11:03:32 GMT -5
HI all .. Here is yet another amazing "co-incidence" God I love co-incidences ... don't you ? This one wasn't even on my diagram of other ratios to check. Posted at Ma'at: Hi all. Thought I would approach a series of new findings this way. Co-incidence #1The west side of P2 ... IS EXACTLY ( are you paying attention Anthony ?) 1/4 of the way across the plateau and could very well explain why 250 cubits was used.  Cheers and let's see if we can remove all seven veils. Cheers Don Barone" Best and In The Light Don Barone |
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on May 24, 2007 12:14:10 GMT -5
Hi all ... Co-incidence #2 Enjoy ... Don Barone |
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on May 24, 2007 12:32:14 GMT -5
Hi all ... Moving on ... Co-incidence #3 Cheers and In The Light Don Barone |
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on May 24, 2007 13:35:15 GMT -5
Hi all Co-incidence #4 Enjoy ...  Cheers Don Barone PS: haven't checked the math on this one yet as I am having a mental block on trying to figure out the dimesnions. I know it is there but I need a break. Feel free to do the geometry yourselves  Best and In The Light Don Barone |
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on May 24, 2007 14:02:23 GMT -5
Hi all Here is the proof for co-incidence #4  Just a couple more to go now ...  Best and In The Light Don Barone |
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on May 24, 2007 14:26:29 GMT -5
Gosh I'm clever sometimes Co-incidence #5  Best when in the light Don Barone |
|
|
|
Post by PMacG on May 24, 2007 17:05:33 GMT -5
Hi Don. Great work again.
I find 45 degree red line is highly significant as in its extension. This gives me fuel to pursue the reflection idea for the pyramids (left/right and up/down) - this of course does not in anyway interfere or duplicate any of the work you have done. I should also draw attention to the degree between the red line and the causeway from G2.
The measure of 1.732 also fits but I'm rather confused over the 1414. sqrt of 2 as you also keep on giving it either as 1414 or 1417, so can you clarify which is correct.
I shall get down to doing some drawings and give them to you to look at as soon as I can, if I can get the scanner working again.
Regards - Paul.
|
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on May 24, 2007 17:29:24 GMT -5
Hi Paul ... Thanks. The correct distance is 1414.21 which is the square root of 2 and 1.732 is of course the square root of 3 If you look at this diagram ... You will see that depending on the angle of "The Barone Line" [Scott suggested I call my 2000 RC baseline that ] it can vary greatly. If it is 45 degrees N-S and E-W are both 1414.21. If the angle varies in either direction it changes accordingly. It is my contention (and gut feeling) that is was designed as a 45 degree angle. This is the easiest angle to work with and would make sense. It is still possible they meant to use a 43.9 degree angle but so far I do not know why. Anyway there is still much to be discovered in this amazing geometric figure and I will continue to measure and turn angles until I get it right although it is slowly starting to make a lot of sense to me. cheers and In The Light Don Barone |
|
|
|
Post by ghia on May 24, 2007 22:14:40 GMT -5
Hey Don,
Makes me think I should build a small pyramid for my Cusco residence! I need plans, and these are all I see!! Just to let you know my subconcious has been breached with your pursuits!
BB,
Ghia
|
|
|
|
Post by ghia on May 24, 2007 22:18:48 GMT -5
Hey Don,
Makes me think I should build a small pyramid for my Cusco residence! I need plans, and these are all I see!! Just to let you know my subconcious has been breached with your pursuits!
BB,
Ghia
|
|
|
|
Post by ghia on May 24, 2007 22:21:07 GMT -5
OOPPSY! Double post , sorryyyyyyy! please delete...oh, I just noticed my Demi- God status...hmmm....isn't that sweet!
|
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on May 25, 2007 8:11:43 GMT -5
Hi ghia not to worry. It has been brought to my attention that although I see it clearly there might be a few too many lines for people to follow so with this in mind I have made a simplified version of the design to make it a little clearer. The apex of P2 is simply defined as 1/4 and 2/3 of very specific distances and the west side of P2 is defined by 250 double remens (353.55 cubits) or 1/4 of our bottom baseline to our diagonal baseline of 2000 Rc and which measures 1414.21 cubits. Actually very simple geometry really  Click for much larger imageCheers Don Barone |
|
