THE PYRAMID AND THE PLANET

The Great Pyramid is of enormous size and certainly speaks of associations to the sky by having within it arrangements and alignments to the stars and the Sun. Various measurements to parts of the pyramid come about because of a scaled astronomical map being the base of the form of the pyramid, and there is little doubt that a particular base-measurement is responsible for this: the measurement between the axes of the King and Queen Chambers.

The length of 43 1/3 inches equalling 1 horizontal degree has played out well in the size of the astronomical map and its 360 degree scope; and according to a Mercator-style that applies to actual navigation upon the Earth, the vertical size of the map also fits well by incorporating the 180 degree size into a perfect square of 15,600 inches to a side. Of course this also accepts the size of the circle that has defined the greater boundary, where we saw the slope of the pyramid and the slope of the gabled blocks above the entrance glyph intersecting upon this boundary from two specific origins within the pyramid. But this scale has resulted because the measurement defines the size of the pyramid, and yet all manner of measurement would see a perfect correlation, with the only real difference to the construction being in its size. Considering that the pyramid is so very large can only mean that it had to be because it was a scale model of something that needed to be represented so very large.

As the height and side-length of the pyramid are certainly related to the form of a circle, it is very possible that this circle is a two-dimensional representation of the Earth itself, and it is a simple foray into verifying this association by examining the scale used: 43 1/3. To do this properly, we will have to identify particulars of the pyramid once again.

Our accepted angle of slope of the pyramid is 51º 51' 14.4", and this is dependent upon the association of a rise over run of 4/pi. According to Petrie, even the north face has several possible angles ranging from 51º 44' 34" to 51º 53' 20", while the other sides are less specific although a possible angle for the south side is based upon the shaft-mouth and could be as much as 51º 57'30" +/- 20". He does state that the shafts should not be considered as accurate enough to be used for identifying the angles.

In the assessment of the platform at the top of the pyramid, Petrie notes that in order for an average slope to exist upon all four sides, the casing would be thinner on the north side and thickest on the south side, with the east and west sides being 2/3 of the difference thick, in order to place the very apex of the pyramid in the centre; otherwise having the same thickness of casing all round would have the apex off-centre by as much as 14 - 17". According to the size of the structure, this is not very much at all considering the actual sight of it, and possibly has no consequence upon the exacting architecture of it.

In considering the slope, a rise of 14 on 11 run would have 51º 50' 35", which would lower the height for Petrie's average side-length, or enlarge the side-length for a 5776" height. A seked of 5.5 - which is the one proposed for the Great Pyramid - has an angle of 51.84º, while the actual angle is best described as 51.854º, so the seked is wrong, and so is the 14/11 proposition.

This all has an impact upon the size of the pyramid, and according to Petrie's determined side-lengths according to survey, the sides are (north, east, south and west):

9069.4”; 9067.7”; 9069.5”; 9068.6”, giving a perimeter of 36275.2"

Height to side length according to slope:

A) 5776.132253" : 9073.127326"

B) 5775.414575" : 9072"

C) 5773.377392" : 9068.8"

For perimeter, and according to circumference of circle to radius:

A) 36292.509304"

B) 36288"

C) 36275.2"

n.e. = 28.6"

s.e. = 39.9"

s.w. = 22.95"

n.w. = 32.7"

Perimeter according to side-lengths between sockets:

average = D) 9125.9" = 36503.7"

(according to Petrie of west, south, north and east sides) :

E) w = 9119.2" = 36476.8"

F) s = 9123.9" = 36495.6"

G) n = 9129.8" = 36519.2"

H) e = 9130.8" = 36523.2"

Comparing to Earth-size, a ratio of circumference to perimeter ( assuming meridional circumference of 21,602.518 nautical miles = 1,575,112,729.76378" ) =

A) 43,400.4912 : 1

B) 43,405.8843 : 1

C) 43,421.2 : 1

and at socket levels:

D) 43,149.5176 : 1

E) 43,181.2201 : 1

F) 43,158.9761 : 1

G) 43,131.0853 : 1

H) 43,126.3616 : 1

Comparing to Sun distance ( assuming average between perihelion and aphelion = 80,776,598.81209503 nautical miles = 5,889,695,314,960.63 " ) =

5776.132253" = 1,019,660,744.76595 : 1

5775.414575" = 1,019,787,452.22123 : 1

5773.377392" = 1,020,147,292.48807 : 1

Including these into above figures defines further sun distance to pyramid height ratios, with several measures defined per socket-depth and alternate pyramid height. To define a perfect 1 billion to 1 ratio, the height would have to be 5,889.695315", which is far outside the possibilities; but then again, having the 5,776" height could be in relation to the Sun distance where the estimation of its distance was out by only 19 million nautical miles, and it is an average distance between perihelion and aphelion, and could be considered spot on.

There are slight variations that can be figured and they are well within the realm of possibility.

Between the ratios seen for the perimeters at the base-levels and socket-levels, the option of defining that one set of figures alludes to the circumference of the Earth equatorially and the other meridianally might be applicable. Certainly the base-level is a larger figure but they have been compared just to the meridian circumference. The actual circumference at the equator is 21,638.778 nautical miles instead of 21,602.518 nautical miles. This does have an effect upon the figures derived for the base level, considering this a larger circumference to apply to the perimeter of the socket levels. This ratio would see an even 43,400 : 1, and is a quite exacting ratio that comfortably defines a relationship between the size of the pyramid and the size of the Earth. There is also one further association that can be assumed: did the ancients actually have the correct size of the Earth to model from? If they did, it is astonishing as to how they did, although there would have to have been an ability of some kind that they could have measured the size of Earth to such an exacting measure that the pyramid expresses this as a scale model. Of course having an exact measure so agreeable might be a numerical mistake, as we have found another scale being used within the pyramid.

Considering the scale for the analysis relies upon a ratio of 1degree equalling 43.333333", and considering the ratio of the circumference to perimeter is some 43,400 : 1, it is worth using the scale of 43,333.333 : 1 being applicable. Doing so means the first formula of the offered true size of the pyramid would define a circumference of 21,569.0903 nautical miles for the meridian, and 21,694.544 for the average socket depth. The first socket depth would see 21,678.6165 nautical miles.

Compared to the actual Earth-figures, this would state that the polar circumference associated with the pyramid base was approximately 33.5 nautical miles too short, while the socket level was some 56 too long for the equatorial circumference. These are not bad numbers against lengths of some 21,600 nautical miles, and if these can be accepted then it shows a further unbelievable observation of how close our ancestors were able to estimate the true size of the Earth's spheroid shape.

It is probably too much to assume they also had a good idea about the distance from the Sun, seeing that a clean 1 billion to 1 ratio would see the distance out by some 1.5 million nautical miles, but this distance is within the range defined between perihelion and aphelion, and can be quite readily accepted. In stating this, there is quite a pleasant association between Earth's circumference and its distance from the Sun.

What all this means is that there is a very good possibility that the pyramid actually represents our Earth according to a scaled model, built in pyramid form while using formulas associated with a circle. To think that the perimeter of the pyramid at its base level upon the pavement represents the circumference of Earth along its meridian from pole to pole is extraordinary, and to be just 33.5 nautical miles too short from being exactly what Earth is beggars belief. And the equatorial circumference of Earth is represented in the perimeter of the pyramid at the sockets level, where the first depth equates to a scale which would see the measure being some 40 nautical miles too large. While there have been some amazing associations shown in this analysis that have amounted to a great amount of knowledge and understanding our ancestors had about Earth's position in the cosmos, and the movements of this cosmos around us, to question about an Earth-association where the actual measurements are so very small in their discrepancy does create more questions than may have been considered for our history.

It is far beyond this analysis to even delve into that, and certainly this was not the intention of this analysis as defining what the pyramid was planned from is the intention. Certainly the pyramid has been successfully laid upon a map of the cosmos and all manner of interactions between the two have been found.

PREVIOUS

NEXT

INDEX

The Great Pyramid is of enormous size and certainly speaks of associations to the sky by having within it arrangements and alignments to the stars and the Sun. Various measurements to parts of the pyramid come about because of a scaled astronomical map being the base of the form of the pyramid, and there is little doubt that a particular base-measurement is responsible for this: the measurement between the axes of the King and Queen Chambers.

The length of 43 1/3 inches equalling 1 horizontal degree has played out well in the size of the astronomical map and its 360 degree scope; and according to a Mercator-style that applies to actual navigation upon the Earth, the vertical size of the map also fits well by incorporating the 180 degree size into a perfect square of 15,600 inches to a side. Of course this also accepts the size of the circle that has defined the greater boundary, where we saw the slope of the pyramid and the slope of the gabled blocks above the entrance glyph intersecting upon this boundary from two specific origins within the pyramid. But this scale has resulted because the measurement defines the size of the pyramid, and yet all manner of measurement would see a perfect correlation, with the only real difference to the construction being in its size. Considering that the pyramid is so very large can only mean that it had to be because it was a scale model of something that needed to be represented so very large.

As the height and side-length of the pyramid are certainly related to the form of a circle, it is very possible that this circle is a two-dimensional representation of the Earth itself, and it is a simple foray into verifying this association by examining the scale used: 43 1/3. To do this properly, we will have to identify particulars of the pyramid once again.

Our accepted angle of slope of the pyramid is 51º 51' 14.4", and this is dependent upon the association of a rise over run of 4/pi. According to Petrie, even the north face has several possible angles ranging from 51º 44' 34" to 51º 53' 20", while the other sides are less specific although a possible angle for the south side is based upon the shaft-mouth and could be as much as 51º 57'30" +/- 20". He does state that the shafts should not be considered as accurate enough to be used for identifying the angles.

In the assessment of the platform at the top of the pyramid, Petrie notes that in order for an average slope to exist upon all four sides, the casing would be thinner on the north side and thickest on the south side, with the east and west sides being 2/3 of the difference thick, in order to place the very apex of the pyramid in the centre; otherwise having the same thickness of casing all round would have the apex off-centre by as much as 14 - 17". According to the size of the structure, this is not very much at all considering the actual sight of it, and possibly has no consequence upon the exacting architecture of it.

In considering the slope, a rise of 14 on 11 run would have 51º 50' 35", which would lower the height for Petrie's average side-length, or enlarge the side-length for a 5776" height. A seked of 5.5 - which is the one proposed for the Great Pyramid - has an angle of 51.84º, while the actual angle is best described as 51.854º, so the seked is wrong, and so is the 14/11 proposition.

This all has an impact upon the size of the pyramid, and according to Petrie's determined side-lengths according to survey, the sides are (north, east, south and west):

9069.4”; 9067.7”; 9069.5”; 9068.6”, giving a perimeter of 36275.2"

Height to side length according to slope:

A) 5776.132253" : 9073.127326"

B) 5775.414575" : 9072"

C) 5773.377392" : 9068.8"

For perimeter, and according to circumference of circle to radius:

A) 36292.509304"

B) 36288"

C) 36275.2"

n.e. = 28.6"

s.e. = 39.9"

s.w. = 22.95"

n.w. = 32.7"

Perimeter according to side-lengths between sockets:

average = D) 9125.9" = 36503.7"

(according to Petrie of west, south, north and east sides) :

E) w = 9119.2" = 36476.8"

F) s = 9123.9" = 36495.6"

G) n = 9129.8" = 36519.2"

H) e = 9130.8" = 36523.2"

Comparing to Earth-size, a ratio of circumference to perimeter ( assuming meridional circumference of 21,602.518 nautical miles = 1,575,112,729.76378" ) =

A) 43,400.4912 : 1

B) 43,405.8843 : 1

C) 43,421.2 : 1

and at socket levels:

D) 43,149.5176 : 1

E) 43,181.2201 : 1

F) 43,158.9761 : 1

G) 43,131.0853 : 1

H) 43,126.3616 : 1

Comparing to Sun distance ( assuming average between perihelion and aphelion = 80,776,598.81209503 nautical miles = 5,889,695,314,960.63 " ) =

5776.132253" = 1,019,660,744.76595 : 1

5775.414575" = 1,019,787,452.22123 : 1

5773.377392" = 1,020,147,292.48807 : 1

Including these into above figures defines further sun distance to pyramid height ratios, with several measures defined per socket-depth and alternate pyramid height. To define a perfect 1 billion to 1 ratio, the height would have to be 5,889.695315", which is far outside the possibilities; but then again, having the 5,776" height could be in relation to the Sun distance where the estimation of its distance was out by only 19 million nautical miles, and it is an average distance between perihelion and aphelion, and could be considered spot on.

There are slight variations that can be figured and they are well within the realm of possibility.

Between the ratios seen for the perimeters at the base-levels and socket-levels, the option of defining that one set of figures alludes to the circumference of the Earth equatorially and the other meridianally might be applicable. Certainly the base-level is a larger figure but they have been compared just to the meridian circumference. The actual circumference at the equator is 21,638.778 nautical miles instead of 21,602.518 nautical miles. This does have an effect upon the figures derived for the base level, considering this a larger circumference to apply to the perimeter of the socket levels. This ratio would see an even 43,400 : 1, and is a quite exacting ratio that comfortably defines a relationship between the size of the pyramid and the size of the Earth. There is also one further association that can be assumed: did the ancients actually have the correct size of the Earth to model from? If they did, it is astonishing as to how they did, although there would have to have been an ability of some kind that they could have measured the size of Earth to such an exacting measure that the pyramid expresses this as a scale model. Of course having an exact measure so agreeable might be a numerical mistake, as we have found another scale being used within the pyramid.

Considering the scale for the analysis relies upon a ratio of 1degree equalling 43.333333", and considering the ratio of the circumference to perimeter is some 43,400 : 1, it is worth using the scale of 43,333.333 : 1 being applicable. Doing so means the first formula of the offered true size of the pyramid would define a circumference of 21,569.0903 nautical miles for the meridian, and 21,694.544 for the average socket depth. The first socket depth would see 21,678.6165 nautical miles.

Compared to the actual Earth-figures, this would state that the polar circumference associated with the pyramid base was approximately 33.5 nautical miles too short, while the socket level was some 56 too long for the equatorial circumference. These are not bad numbers against lengths of some 21,600 nautical miles, and if these can be accepted then it shows a further unbelievable observation of how close our ancestors were able to estimate the true size of the Earth's spheroid shape.

It is probably too much to assume they also had a good idea about the distance from the Sun, seeing that a clean 1 billion to 1 ratio would see the distance out by some 1.5 million nautical miles, but this distance is within the range defined between perihelion and aphelion, and can be quite readily accepted. In stating this, there is quite a pleasant association between Earth's circumference and its distance from the Sun.

What all this means is that there is a very good possibility that the pyramid actually represents our Earth according to a scaled model, built in pyramid form while using formulas associated with a circle. To think that the perimeter of the pyramid at its base level upon the pavement represents the circumference of Earth along its meridian from pole to pole is extraordinary, and to be just 33.5 nautical miles too short from being exactly what Earth is beggars belief. And the equatorial circumference of Earth is represented in the perimeter of the pyramid at the sockets level, where the first depth equates to a scale which would see the measure being some 40 nautical miles too large. While there have been some amazing associations shown in this analysis that have amounted to a great amount of knowledge and understanding our ancestors had about Earth's position in the cosmos, and the movements of this cosmos around us, to question about an Earth-association where the actual measurements are so very small in their discrepancy does create more questions than may have been considered for our history.

It is far beyond this analysis to even delve into that, and certainly this was not the intention of this analysis as defining what the pyramid was planned from is the intention. Certainly the pyramid has been successfully laid upon a map of the cosmos and all manner of interactions between the two have been found.

PREVIOUS

NEXT

INDEX