
Post by Don Barone on Jun 6, 2020 10:10:58 GMT 5
The image from Petrie's notes . And Petrie's notes on the angles More to come What an interesting and mind expanding creation The Ancient Builders left us



Post by Don Barone on Jun 6, 2020 10:44:41 GMT 5
Okay so let's begin to try to figure things out . Let's start with the known facts . 1) Petrie measured 2165 inches and this is 105 cubits @ 20.62 inches per cubit . 2) According to Petrie the slope at the base started at 74.71 cubits from central axis of pyramid NOT 75 cubits exactly . Now the assumption . 3) The platform at the 105 cubit high level is 927.9 per side or 45 cubits making the platform 90 cubits or 1855.8 inches . Now Petrie has this level as As you can see 1855.8 falls well within the parameters set by Petrie's actual measurements (this is second step . He has a bad habit of starting with the top and working down .) Okay so now to calculate the angle . The top is 45 from our base of 74.71 leaves us 29.71 So we have a triangle left of 105 by 29.71 . Simple trig tells us if we divide 105 by 29.71 we will have the tan of the angle . Are you ready ? 105 / 29.71 = 3.53416358128576 3.53416358128576 is The Tan of 74.20 Hmmmm how does this compare with Petrie who liked 74° 21' or 74.35 I am still working on the image and will post it when it's finished but I am also looking at 60 cubits which falls at the 52.5 cubit level . Thus this time we have 74.71  60 = 14.71 and this time our height is 52.5 and as we know 52.5 / 14.71 = 3.56900067980965
and 3.56900067980965 is The Tan of 74.3476 or 74° 20.8' and Petrie favoured ... 74° 21' Nice so the 52.5 mark is almost certainly 120 cubits wide (60 cubits per side)



Post by Don Barone on Jun 6, 2020 12:13:24 GMT 5
Okay trying to understand their genius and it is becoming a bit clearer . I have determined that the starting angles were of no consequence but only really a guide to the finished product . Thus we have the variable slope angle . It only mattered what the platform widths were. How they arrived there was up to the particular builder and thus it did not matter whether he/she/they started at 75 or 74.71 as long as it fit the final design. Here is my latest image . With each image I learn and see a little more of the brilliance . It still escapes me however why they would take this obvious mathematic book in stone (the outside wall showed our Solar System) and build what appears to be a tomb. The only thing that makes sense to me is that they took an old unused mastaba (possibly a discarded one before the building of Mastaba 17 ) and decided to use it as a base and a good starting point. The one thing I am now certain of is that this glorious architectural marvel was never meant to be covered up ... or was it ? Cryptic I know but we will address that issue later. The images. First a cross section and then my latest drawing



Post by Don Barone on Jun 6, 2020 12:29:24 GMT 5
An image I posted earlier expanded upon



Post by Don Barone on Jun 6, 2020 17:13:17 GMT 5
Okay here is where the numbers have taken me . I have determined that the top of the unsmoothed larger section at the bottom is at 70 cubits up from the base. Further I conjecture that the pyramid may have been finished up to this point and since at the 70 cubit mark it is 55 cubits to the slope a nice mini version of 175 by 137.5. There are all kinds of things to notice such as the black square seems to be half way between the 52.5 and 105 to fall at 78.75 and appears to be 8.75 up from our 70 cubit line and our ever popular 17.5 from the center axis and 17.5 is also the depth of the horizontal passageway after the slope ends. Here is the image that helped me the most . You can see the 27.5 mark as well as both the 47.5 and 52.5 mark leading to the conclusion that the top of smooth section is 70 . I wonder if they drew lines on it to show the graduations of cubits ... could be. Okay image #1 And now my image (always subject to another revision but this one looks pretty good) Amen



Post by Don Barone on Jun 6, 2020 17:25:17 GMT 5
Just a short quick addendum to that last post . The small unfinished section was not just drawn on without forethought. We had a Petrie distance of 1755 inches and this equals 85.11 cubits so I rounded off at 85 and since this was 87.5  2.5 I decided to add 2.5 and so the bottom of the smaller unfinished section is 85 and the top is 90 with 87.5 in the middle and is 5 cubits and 17.5 / 5 = 3.5 and we all should know by now that that is the slope distance of 74.0456°
Amen



Post by Don Barone on Jun 7, 2020 12:02:48 GMT 5
Okay so for my amusement I am drawing a large version of The Pyramid of Meidum using the scale 1 inch equals 10 cubits of 20.62 inches. Now the angle at the entrance should have been 51.84277 but in fact using Petrie's own notes it worked out to be 51.477° . I think I have possibly solved "the why". I will post two drawings/notes that should explain. Suffice it to say in all likelihood the person that laid out the original base of what would eventually be the Pyramid at Meidum DID NOT lay out the rest. NOTE: I have used the average of the east and west base which is 5684.75 Amen



Post by Don Barone on Jun 7, 2020 12:31:34 GMT 5



Post by Don Barone on Jun 7, 2020 14:05:07 GMT 5
The more I study the more the geometric perfection is shown. Vertical height from entrance to base of passageway way = 52.5 cu (1082.55) Vertical height just to ground is of course 35 leaving 17.5 below ground Base for pyramid angle is 27.5 but is actually 27.798 Entrance of passageway is 27.5 cubits west from center axis Length of slope of passageway is 110 cubits Simply an eloquent design and maybe soon we will discover why ? Why build all this into a pyramid ? Obviously more to come Looks easy and quite simple when you simply study it . Possibly 5700 years and no one has ever taken the time to do this . Simply unbelievable



Post by Don Barone on Jun 7, 2020 15:26:52 GMT 5
Hi all it is almost certain that the original plan was added on to but I have had a thought .
What if ALL THE PYRAMIDS were originally step pyramids. What if Khufu, Khafre, Menkaure and Sneferu were simply or did simply turn them into proper pyramids ? What evidence might we find . Well there is proof that sloping stones were used here but this time at a 60° angle.
What I did was go on an engineering site to see how effective the angle of 74 to 75° would be in dissapating load . It fared not too bad but according to the engineers the best angle for this is the equalateral triangle and angle of 60° but I sensed a problem here because The Bent Pyramid used as a foundation to build slopes of ... 60° (we will get to that pyramid) .
So if 60° is the strongest angle one can build on ... how can certain people claim the angle was changed because it failed .
As a total aside I think that the best load bearing angle is 75° ... but what do I know 🙂
So what I am going to try to do is figure out the best design and size for the three pyramids of Giza as step pyramids. Should be fun and maybe enlightening



Post by Don Barone on Jun 8, 2020 17:16:53 GMT 5



Post by Don Barone on Jun 28, 2020 6:44:39 GMT 5

