Amazing Geometry of the Ancient Pyramids

[mahalla2]

Here is some very interesting information (somewhat lengthy) I found online in regards to the geometry factor as it relates to the ancient pyramids - I personally think this article helps to clarify the importance of it's quadrant mathematical code, and Pi proportion:

http://pyramids-power.com/The_Mystical_ ... amids.html

Ancient Pyramid Geometry:

It is interesting to speculate that the great Pyramid was constructed as a highly sophisticated scientific instrument, an exact scale model of the world, by an ancient Egyptian culture or, possibly pre-Egyptian, far more advanced has been generally believed.

The theory demonstrates that the ancient pyramids geometry incorporated the basic formula of the universe and was designed to help man orientate himself in the cosmos and to apply definitive measures to time and space. Dr Livio C. Stecchini, a specialist in the history of measurement and quantitative science has been able to demonstrate that at least as early as 2800 BC the ancient Egyptians could measure latitude and longitude quite accurately, an ability not duplicated in our era until the 18th century.

These ancient scientists knew the circumference of the Earth precisely and the length of their own country to the cubit along with the geographical coordinates of all the major points in their realm from the Mediterranean to the Equator.

In order to accomplish this according to Dr Stecchini, the ancient Egyptians were able to make astronomical observations with the kind of exactness only provided by the modern telescope and chronometer.

Dr Stecchini, who wrote an extensive and informative appendix entitled "Notes on the Relation of Ancient Measures to the Great Pyramid" for Tomkin’s book, "Secrets of the Great Pyramid," did a 20 year study of the mathematical and astronomical data contained in the cuneiform tablets of the ancient Sumerians and Babylonians.

As a result of his studies of the stepped Ziggurats of the middle east and the ancient pyramids geometry, he was able to show that these structures incorporated the basic techniques for mapping the structure and design of the heavens and for mapping the terrestrial hemisphere.

The ancient pyramids geometry also shows a high level of mathematics, capable of resolving problems in trigonometry, according to Dr Stecchini.

The apex of the great Pyramid corresponds to the pole, and the perimeter to the Equator, with both in exact scale. It is apparent that each side of the Pyramid was designed to correspond to one curved quarter of the Northern Hemisphere, or a spherical quadrant of 90°.

In order to project a spherical quadrant onto a flat triangle correctly, the arc of the quadrant must be the same length as the base of the triangle, and both must have the same height.

This happens to be the case, Tompkins explains, only with a cross-section or a meridian bisection of the great Pyramid.

It's slope angle gives the Pi relation between the height and base. When viewed from the side, the pyramids projection is such that the laws of perspection reduce the actual area of a face to the correct size for the projection. This is the pyramids cross-section what one actually sees is the correct triangle.

The Greek historian Merodotus was told by the Egyptian priests that the pyramid was planned in such a way that the area of each of its faces was equal to the square of its height.

It is now evident that this was the key to the ancient pyramids geometry and mathematical secret.

This information reveals that the ancient pyramids geometry was designed to incorporate not only the Pi proportion but the constant proportion known during the Renaissance as the Golden Section or the Golden Mean, or 1.618.

Pi is an un-ending ratio. This mystical formula is as old as history and is a fascinating system of numbers. It is a summation series and has been called the Fibonacci series after the Italian mathematician Fibonacci.

Succeeding terms beginning with one are obtained by adding together the two preceding terms, as follows: 1,2,3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, and so on. Phi, or 1.618, is obtained by dividing any one term of the summation series by its predecessor.

The terms move closer to Phi when the numbers are larger. Thus three divided by two is 1.5; 13 divided by eight is 1.625; 233 divided by 144 is 1.680555.

Phi has also been called the sacred cut because it is the exact ratio in which a line A C can be divided by B in such a way that AC/AB equals 1.618.

This ratio was used by Renaissance artists as it was considered the most aesthetically pleasing proportion. It is said that these proportions occur throughout nature.

The body of man is said to be divided by this ratio, and the sacred five pointed stars diagonals divide each other by the same ratio. The great Pyramid, using the Golden section, becomes an effective system for translating spherical areas into flat areas.

The Egyptians used and measuring a unit known as a cubit. Evidently the Egyptian cubit was formulated by taking one thousandth of the distance the Earth travels at the Equator in one second.

The designers of the great Pyramid made the base length the distance the Earth travels one half second. The cubit was equal to one thousandth of a second of time, and the foot was equal to one thousandth of a second of arc.

The evidence that the ancient pyramid geometry was formulated in such a manner to imply squaring the circle and cubing the sphere would seem to indicate that the builders were saying that the static geometry of angles could be shifted to the dynamic geometry of curves.

The pyramid may be seen as a cone and the cube may be seen as a sphere. According to Henry Monteith, who contributed an essay titled, "Geometry of the Great Pyramid" to Pyramid Power, the pyramid is a perfect representation of the dynamic concentration of energy.

That the great pyramid was located at a specific place for geodetic and geographical reasons seems self-evident, and the location of many ancient buildings was apparently determined by an alignment with the stars.

Alfred Watkins, in his book "The Old Straight Track" points out that many churches in England were established in this manner.

Lyle B. Borst, professor of astronomy and physics at State University of New York, notes in an article In Science that the axes of many early Christian churches in Britain were laid out on top of ancient foundations originally determined by an alignment with the stars.

The great Pyramid has always been the scene of mysterious events and strange happenings. As with the Sphinx, the great Pyramid has been said at times to vibrate with an unusual sound.

Tourist guides claim to reproduce the sound by striking the coffer in the Kings chamber with a stick. Locals have reported at times seeing the great Pyramid bays in acutely light. A number of years ago William Groff, along with members of the Institut Egyptien, reported seeing a light or what they describe as a flame rising from the pyramid.

Others report of seeing unusual circular lights near the stone structure and a recently even flying objects of some nature harbouring near the apex. Yet, whatever the nature of the energy fields in and around the great Pyramid, and whatever the forces of nature the ancient builders set out to control through its construction, these forces are still present and capable of being re-invoked when we come to recognise their function

[Buzi-Blu]

When it comes to pyramids there isn't a great deal of flexibility in choice of design. The only variable is the ratio of the height to the base.

With a sphere the circumference C is equal to Pi multiplied by the diameter D (and D=2 x radius r of course). Therefore Pi=C/D or Pi=C/2r. So, with the Great Pyramid it is thought to represent Pi because half x base/height comes out very close to the value of Pi (to 2 decimal places from my calculations).

Interestingly, this same calculation on the second pyramid gives a value of almost exactly 3 (to 2 decimal places). This suggests that the calculation is not coincidence in that one pyramid gives an integer value while the other gives Pi.

The article listed explains the mathematical constant Phi, but I do not see how it relates to the pyramids.

[mahalla2]

Did you read the whole article? Perhaps they are referring mainly to the Great Pyramid itself, focusing on the relationship that quadrant mathematics have in regards to measuring distances throughout the world and throughout our entire solar system. Thus, it would seem the Great Pyramid in itself could be (for the ancient Egyptian) a precise form of measurement for calculating not only distances on planet Earth but also precise distances to the stars.

[Moon]

There are many books by researchers who have studied the mathematical alignments related to the pyramids. Graham Hancock, Christopher Dunn, Robert Bauval and Robert Temple are among the many different researchers who have written about the geometrical and mathematical relationships.

Thank you for posting the article, Mahalla.

[mahalla2]

you're very welcome - seems all quite fascinating to me!

[Pons Asinorum]

you're very welcome - seems all quite fascinating to me!

Thank you too Mahalla2, I have heard of these assertions, but did not know the sourcing. Much appreciated.

Of course, I now have to disagree with the scope of some of the claims the article makes...

--

Taking a ratio and then matching it to a similar ratio of some natural occurrence is completely arbitrary.

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

(Note: I copied and pasted much of the following from a another website where I had a similar discussion).

For the GP/Earth:

* circumference of the Earth is 40,076 km or 40,076,000 m.
* mean polar radius of the Earth is 6,356.7523 km or 6,356,752.3 m.
* each original base length was 230.37 m.
* original height of the Great Pyramid of Giza was 146.478 m.

Ratio of Earth’s circumference to its polar radius = 40,076,000 m / 6,356,752.3 m = 6.30.

Ratio of Pyramid’s circumference to its height = perimeter to its height* = 4 X 230.37 m / 146.478 m = 6.29.

This constitutes a match; however there are other relationships that are similar:

Venus’ eq circumference to its polar radius = 38,025,000 m / 6,052,000 m = 6.28

Here are some more (Mars and Moon used equatorial circumference / polar radius, all others utilized mean averages):

15,326,200 / 2,439,700 = 6.282 about 6.28 for Mercury
21,334,900 / 3,376,200 = 6.319 about 6.32 for Mars
10,907,400 / 1,738,140 = 6.275 about 6.28 for Moon
16,171,000 / 2,575,500 = 6.279 about 6.28 for Titan
11,398,000 / 1,815,000 = 6.280 about 6.28 for Io

So, to state that the Great Pyramid was displaying the ratio for the Earth and not Venus (or Mercury, Mars, Moon, Titan, or Io for that matter) requires speculative interpretation. These types of ratios exist on other contemporary structures as well, but are meaningless.

Some other ratios:
75.6 inch lamppost / 12 inch lamp = 6.30
24.4 inch cat / 4 inch collar = 6.11 (Jupiter’s circumference to polar radius ratio).

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

The claim does not stop with the GP. It then demonstrates the ease of matching different structural ratios with other things:

As a result of his [Dr Livio C. Stecchini] studies of the stepped Ziggurats of the middle east and the ancient pyramids geometry, he was able to show that these structures incorporated the basic techniques for mapping the structure and design of the heavens and for mapping the terrestrial hemisphere.

The ratios of a variety of structures (notice the plural) that he simply matches up with various ratios of natural occurrences that he can find.

He could easily of have picked modern day structures like the Empire State Building or his own house or golf clubs (or as I did with my lamppost example).

--

In short, any ratio where “this” is divided by “that” can equal a meaningful relationship if one looks for a matching result. In this case, speculative interpretation is required as this ratio can mean or represent anything (as demonstrated above). In short, multiple solutions make all of them trivial.

--

Re: PI and PHI (and other famous mathematical relationships) that are present in the GP --

"There is a simple method of construction-design for the Great Pyramid, that incorporates relationships of PI (and other notable ratios as well) without the builder having to know about the existence of such relationships. ..."

This was discussed here in my comment in another thread -- toward the end of the comment (the term "pizza" will be highlighted).

For Pizza-Cutter theory: http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~matc/mat ... 20Triangle (scroll down).

There are other similar ways the incorporation of these relationships can happen without the knowledge of the builder, this is just one possibility (which is kinda why the relationships are famous to begin with, they have a tendency to show up ).

--

* The perimeter makes a more favorable fit than the circumference of the GP -- indeed, I optimized all of the measurements to present Stecchini's ideas in the best possible light.

[cRush]

3.14 * 2 = 6.28

It should be no surprise why that number keeps popping up when dealing with spheres.

[mahalla2]

yes, I understand Pons, and since I am not a mathematician I really do appreciate your response. However, what if some of the mathematical formula's today are not quite insinc with what they exactly were 10,000-20,000 years ago, and what if the original pyramid architects (not just the average builder) had access to ancient knowledge (possible AA connection) of universal mathematical measurements that our most intelligent scholars today know nothing about? I realize that you believe in this day and age it is all speculative but perhaps back then it wasn't. And if we truly understood their use of ancient geometry it would seem we might know how to calculate the exact distance to secret locations where many mysterious ancient artifacts were placed thousands of years ago.

[cRush]

yes, I understand Pons, and since I am not a mathematician I really do appreciate your response. However, what if some of the mathematical formula's today are not quite insinc with what they exactly were 10,000-20,000 years ago, and what if the original pyramid architects (not just the average builder) had access to ancient knowledge (possible AA connection) of universal mathematical measurements that our most intelligent scholars today know nothing about? I realize that you believe in this day and age it is all speculative but perhaps back then it wasn't. And if we truly understood their use of ancient geometry it would seem we might know how to calculate the exact distance to secret locations where many mysterious ancient artifacts were placed thousands of years ago.

I think what Pons was getting at is that the ancient Egyptians didn't need to know or understand these calculations and mathematical principles for them to show up in the design of the pyramids. They are intrinsic by the very nature of geometry. If the pyramids were built differently, you could most certainly find other mathematical ratios embedded in them still.

Any symmetrical design is going to have some mathematical relationship. Pons is merely stating that coincidence is being misconstrued as intent.

[Pons Asinorum]

Pons is merely stating that coincidence is [possibly] being misconstrued as intent.

Only I made it really confusing and wordy

Thanks cRush, that is what I was trying to say (I did add the word possibly to your sentence).

--

However, what if some of the mathematical formula's today are not quite insinc with what they exactly were 10,000-20,000 years ago,...

All hell would break loose

What if the original pyramid architects (not just the average builder) had access to ancient knowledge (possible AA connection) of universal mathematical measurements...

That is always possible and if ever proven would herald profound changes in almost every aspect of our civilization, philosophies, beliefs...

...that our most intelligent scholars today know nothing about?

...science and mathematics.

I also think it would be a really, really great day.

--

It may happen Mahalla2, it is certainly a possibility (IMHO there is no solid evidence currently, but I am wrong quite often, or so my wife tells me ).

[mahalla2]

Thanks Pons and cRush for your really good responses. However, the part I can't seem to wrap my head around is the notion you both stated about coincidence being mistaken for intent because it seems just about everything to ancient people had meaning and intent, right down to every little symbolic dot or dash. Thus, I think very little if anything was ever coincidence (especially the calculation of measurements for anything on such a grand scale as the great pyramid) plus their very survival as an advanced civilization depended on the accuracy of their accomplishments - again, just my opinion

[cRush]

Thanks Pons and cRush for your really good responses. However, the part I can't seem to wrap my head around is the notion you both stated about coincidence being mistaken for intent because it seems just about everything to ancient people had meaning and intent, right down to every little symbolic dot or dash. Thus, I think very little if anything was ever coincidence (especially the calculation of measurements for anything on such a grand scale as the great pyramid) plus their very survival as an advanced civilization depended on the accuracy of their accomplishments - again, just my opinion

We aren't doubting their predisposition to embedding symbolism in everything they do. What we are trying to say is that they didn't need to be necessarily aware of these cited mathematical relationships for them to end up being imbued in the design of the pyramids. That doesn't discount the notion that the Egyptians were highly symbolic. It means that these ratios and fundamentals present in the pyramids more than likely exist due to chance.

[armedequation]

I guess the way to look at it would be what geometric functions were actually needed in order to build them and to have them last centuries?

[cRush]

I guess the way to look at it would be what geometric functions were actually needed in order to build them and to have them last centuries?

Well, to be perfectly honest, one wouldn't need any geometric equations at all in order to build the pyramids exactly as they stand, fully intent on doing so.

My grandfather was one of the premier housing contractors in the small city he resides; he has built thousands of homes in the community, and doing this without any formal education. His education stops at high school with mathematics knowledge not exceeding pre-Algebra (no formal geometric education).

He understands some concepts that he has learned through experience and observation, and then couples that knowledge with common sense to create all sorts of geometric shapes, ratios, and relationships, unintentionally. His concern is with building the object defined in the specifications - how he does that is left up to him.

Simple tools needed for making almost any geometric shape: square (right-angle), straight edge (usually encompassed by the square), few thousand yards of string, and wood working tools. By combining these tools and common sense with simple mathematics (PEMDAS), he can accomplish just about any desired target result.

--

The base of the pyramids in Egypt are almost a perfect square, but there is room for error. The angles aren't exactly 90 degrees, but are very close (as would be expected with any squared block acting as a corner stone). The angles differ only by +/- 1 degree, but some are larger and others smaller than 90 degrees. The lengths of each side aren't all uniform, but are within feet of each other; testament to the imprecision that would result from the use of primitive tools coupled with human ingenuity.

If the Egyptians were getting advanced help from space-faring civilizations to build the pyramids, I would expect them to build structures with much less tolerance for error. If they were using space-age machining techniques on blocks, I would expect them to have precise 90 degree angles, uniformly across the board. If they were using lasers to etch these stones in the quarries, I would expect them to have the ability to lay perfectly uniform sides.

As precise as the pyramids seem, there is more than enough error to validate them as being created through human knowledge and perseverance in my opinion.

I think our line of questioning should be more of why were they build, rather than how were they built.

[mahalla2]

[quote="cRush]We aren't doubting their predisposition to embedding symbolism in everything they do. What we are trying to say is that they didn't need to be necessarily aware of these cited mathematical relationships for them to end up being imbued in the design of the pyramids. That doesn't discount the notion that the Egyptians were highly symbolic. It means that these ratios and fundamentals present in the pyramids more than likely exist due to chance.[/quote]

well, I guess the point is - There was a reason for their intense adherence to deliberate methods used in their technologies, and I still believe very little was done by chance, expecially the construction of a project as important as the one at Giza which is still standing after thousands and thousands of years.

[nippur10]

Good post Mahalla2. There is a lot of discussion re: the design of the pyramids, some by "experts" in many fields. Still,I have yet to read where any respectable author provides proof of knowledge of higher mathematics, advanced construction methods, and refined purpose in the building of the pyramids and the so called "temples" by the native peoples of the early and middle dynasties. What I've been able to conclude is that they either learned or had knowledge of these advanced methods from teachers who already had this advanced knowledge, namely extraterrestrials, and simply watched as these structures were being built. They were not stupid; the technological brainpower was simply not there yet for the indigenous population of the time.

[Moon]

I find it harder to believe that the pharaohs just pointed to one area and stated for them to build the pyramids there. I do think they took the time to lay out what they wanted and where they wanted. They also probably had some alignments in mind also when they were building them.

Did they get help from extraterrestrials, or were they working on some very old plans? These are interesting questions that usually get ignored by the mainstream Egyptologists.

Colin Wilson pointed out how the old English measuring standard is very old and could possibly go back tens of thousands of years old. So it should not be inconceivable that some older civilization or culture had some advanced knowledge that was forgotten.

Here is one such article from another person:

http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/neal ... asures.php

I am trying to remember the name of an older book that found many coincidences in measurements and numerology.

[cRush]

I don't think the Pharoahs just pointed to a spot and said build either. No one here is saying that is the case.

I feel fairly confident that all the Pharoah did was demand a giant structure in his honor. He most likely had a team of scholar/engineers that decided the specifications and location.

I think it is possible that the Giza complex was modeled after the stars. I think it is even possible that it is modeled after Orion's belt. What I don't agree with are the claims that it aligns "exactly" and "precisely" with the alignment of Orion's belt at 10,400 BCE. These claims simply can't be substantiated, and I don't believe that we have the knowledge or tools even today to make such precise alignments, or to judge if other structures on the Earth are aligned so precisely. This is why these claims get classified as pseudoscience. Instead of hypothesizing that the structures may be modeled in the image of Orion's belt, the hypothesis has transformed into "exactly aligned with Orion's belt". This is a grand distinction; grand enough to bring discredit to the entire theory - and those who buy into it. It's simply not possible to tell if it "exactly" aligns with Orion's belt, and it has already been proven that if it does align anywhere close to Orion's configuration, then the image is absolutely inverted. I personally subscribe to the belief that they wanted to mimic the pattern, and not precisely recreate it. Just like the claims that some of the chambers, and tunnels, in the pyramid precisely align with constellations. That level of accuracy is impossible to determine with the tools and knowledge we have today. The scale renders such precision incalculable.

[mahalla2]

That level of accuracy is impossible to determine with the tools and knowledge we have today. The scale renders such precision incalculable.

And that's the whole point - Even with today's advanced scientific/mathematical knowledge and tools there is no way to accurately determine how, why, when, and for what purpose (deliberate intent) the Great Pyramid at Giza was originally constructed so until we know what they knew it would seem senseless and arrogant to discount the mathematical knowledge/capabilities of the original architects.

[cRush]

That level of accuracy is impossible to determine with the tools and knowledge we have today. The scale renders such precision incalculable.

And that's the whole point - Even with today's advanced scientific/mathematical knowledge and tools there is no way to accurately determine how, why, when, and for what purpose (deliberate intent) the Great Pyramid at Giza was originally constructed so until we know what they knew it would seem senseless and arrogant to discount the mathematical knowledge/capabilities of the original architects.

Not quite. The impossible claim is to say that the complex IS lined up precisely with the stars - it's not a claim that can be tested because tools for testing it to that level of precision simply do not exist. Not the other way around. As Pons has established many times on this forum, the burden of proof lies on the extraordinary claim. In this case, that claim is that the pyramids are lined up with the stars with pinpoint precision.

I would contest why they were building structures out of granite, and not utilizing alloys and metals, or some more advanced composite, if they were so advanced scientifically and mathematically beyond our current civilization. I mean we are talking about extraterrestrials that supposedly travel space in highly advanced spaceships - those spaceships aren't made out of stone and copper. The lasers that are conjectured to have been used to cut the stones weren't fashioned out of stone as well. Why don't we see evidence of these other advanced materials in Egypt? Why wouldn't these ancient aliens have built a steel structure, or some other formidable structure that has more advanced properties?

[mahalla2]

[quote="cRush Why wouldn't these ancient aliens have built a steel structure, or some other formidable structure that has more advanced properties?[/quote]


First of all - I never stated that I believed ancient aliens themselves constructed the Great Pyramid (please stop misconstruing my opinions) but rather that the original architects might have been working from information (mathematical formula's, etc.) from ancient secret knowledge possibly of AA origin. And would the Great Pyramid still be standing after 10,000 years if it had been made with steel or any other modern day material? Like Bob stated in a previous post - Let's just agree to disagree, thanks!

[Pons Asinorum]

However, the part I can't seem to wrap my head around is the notion you both stated about coincidence being mistaken for intent because it seems just about everything to ancient people had meaning and intent, right down to every little symbolic dot or dash.

Well stated Mahalla. When it comes to the assertions of Stecchini, I do indeed believe he attributed intent without justification (although in addition to coincidence, one might add inevitability, too).

The two assertions made by Stecchini do invite challenge:


The first challenge is that any set of ratios of a given object can be matched by another ratio if one looks hard enough (for example, the width and length ratio of my sidewalk matches the equatorial circumference and polar radius of Jupiter).

For me, to claim that the concrete company embedded that symbology on purpose fails. It is of course possible, but more likely a product of my matching a given ratio with whatever I wish. To expand that and say my neighbor's driveways and sidewalks also contain similar ratios of other planets, is arbitrary. There is simply no evidence that the GP was deliberately designed as proportional to the Earth (or Mercury, or Venus, or Io, etc -- they too all fit). It is, however, an inevitable fact that the GP will have various ratios and by matching them to ratios of other objects, similarities will be found.


The second is that certain, simple construction methods will incorporate ratios like PI and PHI without the builders knowledge of such ratios -- not coincidentally, but inevitably (for example, the pizza-cutter theory, see reference in above comment).

Again, it is possible that the builders decided to deliberately incorporate these relationships, but so too is the proposition that these relationships came about without design. Without any supporting evidence of such mathematical knowledge by the builders, then such an intention is unlikely.


Stecchini's assertions fail, not be cause they are impossible, but because they starve for evidence, while other explanations seem to thrive based solely on the existing-evidence.

In any event, we are all free to hold whatever opinion we wish and "agreeing to disagree" is sound advice.

[mahalla2]

However, the part I can't seem to wrap my head around is the notion you both stated about coincidence being mistaken for intent because it seems just about everything to ancient people had meaning and intent, right down to every little symbolic dot or dash.

Well stated Mahalla. When it comes to the assertions of Stecchini, I do indeed believe he attributed intent without justification (although in addition to coincidence, one might add inevitability, too).

In any event, we are all free to hold whatever opinion we wish and "agreeing to disagree" is sound advice.

well, my comments/opinions were my own not Stecchini's but I do agree to disagree with you on the "by chance vs deliberate intent" debate - thanks Pons

[armedequation]

sorry crush but i dont buy that. Your talking about one of the few if not only place that the great pyramid could have been built concerning total mass. To me the mere fact that a pyramidic structure was chosen tells me geometry plaid a factor :shrug:

The lasers that are conjectured to have been used to cut the stones weren't fashioned out of stone as well. Why don't we see evidence of these other advanced materials in Egypt? Why wouldn't these ancient aliens have built a steel structure, or some other formidable structure that has more advanced properties?

theres not one steel structure that i know of that would last that length of time. The answer to your former question would be scraping and pillaging as a possibility

[cRush]

sorry crush but i dont buy that. Your talking about one of the few if not only place that the great pyramid could have been built concerning total mass. To me the mere fact that a pyramidic structure was chosen tells me geometry plaid a factor :shrug:

You don't buy what exactly? That these "ratios" were embedded into the pyramids by chance? How many of the other pyramids have these exact ratios? They don't all have the same measurements, and there is no relationship between that difference, so we know they can't have the exact same ratio.

Why is it that you think the fact that they chose a pyramid proves that geometry played a factor? Isn't it easier to stack stones progressively at a sloping angle than it is to build straight up?

A little explanation of your stances can go a long way to helping others decide if they want to side with your cause. You offer no insight as to why you refuse to accept that there is another explanation besides "aliens built them".

If they had built a standard box shape, instead of pyramid, would you then assert that geometry played a factor because they built a cube? How about if it was in the shape of an elliptical sphere? A cone? A cyllinder? You see, we formulated the discipline of geometry in order to explain shapes that exist in nature in a mathematical context; it's not the other way around. Geometry is inherent in nature. It is inescapable.

theres not one steel structure that i know of that would last that length of time. The answer to your former question would be scraping and pillaging as a possibility

My point wasn't to state that steel would last for 10,000 years, or however long you believe the pyramids have existed. The point I was trying to make is why would an ancient alien civilization come here and build stone structures, instead of steel structures. Was there only intent to leave a monument for all of eternity? Did they envision no practical implementation for these structures? If both of those questions are yes, then fine, my point is invalid. I just can't imagine a super advanced alien civilization, with the ability to travel the stars, coming to Earth and not utilizing metal alloys to build. You're welcome to your own opinions of course. It would be nice if you explained why you have them, though.

[nippur10]

Mahalla2 is on to something, so get with that line of thinking. While we're on the "Sacred Geometry" of the pyramids, check out the pyramids in Montevecchia outside of Milan and the ones in Pontassieve outside of Florence in Italy. Same dementions and geometry as the pyramids on the Giza plateau. They are, as of yet, unexplored. Perhaps much older.

[armedequation]

You don't buy what exactly? That these "ratios" were embedded into the pyramids by chance? How many of the other pyramids have these exact ratios? They don't all have the same measurements, and there is no relationship between that difference, so we know they can't have the exact same ratio.

That most of them arent in there by chance. From everything I've seen, it doesnt look to me like the same planning or stone working went into the building of pyramids after the 3 and some argue that even after the great pyramid was built that the workmanship showed decline. There's too many "coincidences" in the great pyramid involving math and geometry for me to accept them as that when it doesnt occur with the rest.

Why is it that you think the fact that they chose a pyramid proves that geometry played a factor? Isn't it easier to stack stones progressively at a sloping angle than it is to build straight up?

well to be honest it plays a factor in building anything. Triangular patterns carry weight to its supports better than a circle or square. Considering the size and ground that its on, a pyramid balances itself over the land better than any other pattern.
If your talking just stacking stones possibly but if your stacking for a purpose then you have to plan accordingly. A square structure on this size level would be too heavy and it doesnt appear that a circular building would have fit their needs (whatever those needs where).

A little explanation of your stances can go a long way to helping others decide if they want to side with your cause. You offer no insight as to why you refuse to accept that there is another explanation besides "aliens built them".

im here for informational purposes, not to get people to side with me and my views.
Why do you think that "I" refuse to accept another explanation? Here in this thread "I" have shown no signs of refusing any explanation. If your curious as to why I have beliefs then please ask and I will answer such as I did in this post.

Geometry is inherent in nature. It is inescapable.

certain geometry is inherit in nature while some is not

My point wasn't to state that steel would last for 10,000 years, or however long you believe the pyramids have existed. The point I was trying to make is why would an ancient alien civilization come here and build stone structures, instead of steel structures. Was there only intent to leave a monument for all of eternity? Did they envision no practical implementation for these structures? If both of those questions are yes, then fine, my point is invalid. I just can't imagine a super advanced alien civilization, with the ability to travel the stars, coming to Earth and not utilizing metal alloys to build. You're welcome to your own opinions of course. It would be nice if you explained why you have them, though.

the questions you pose arent answerable at this point as we dont know what they were built for. If they were built/assisted by aliens I can definitely see them not using metals and alloys when stone is abundant and can serve the same purpose

my opinions are just that and are to be taken as they will, no offense is meant. On a side note it is nice to be asked my mind on a matter

[nippur10]

This discussion here is a non-event. The ancient Egyptians had nothing to do with the building of the pyramids on the Giza plateau. None of the postings reflect any knowledge of the conditions of the ancient Egyptians: they farmed, built sun dried mud brick sturctures, had a form of government that was reasonable for their times; but, in no way did they build in stone and certainly had no knowledge of the mathematics that is being discussed. So get this idea that the ancient Egyptians build the pyramids on the Giza plateau out of your heads. The mathematical systems that went into the building of the pyramids, as we understand it, is beyond what anyone knew before the late 18th century A.D. For the uninitiated, try to imagine what the mathematical systems of the extraterrestrials were. Since none of us know, this is a daunting task. But if we did know, we could only compare out math systems to theirs. To apply our systems to their math systems and their projects (i.e. the pyramids) is folly. So spend your time trying to imagine what their mathematics was. This is the attempt that Mahalla2 is proposing: suggesting an approach to that understanding. It seems to me that everyone is missing that point. Arguing what math went into the building of the pyramids is non-applicable. What math we have discovered or postulated on may not be a true identity of what actually happened when the plans were under way for this monumental project.

[Pons Asinorum]

That most of them arent in there by chance.

Something to consider AE:

If stones are placed in a ring, that does not mean the builder had knowledge of PI.

In the same manner, if a builder uses, say, a measuring wheel to draw a square as the base of a structure, then the resulting structure will have PI and PHI ratios incorporated within it. That does not mean the builder had knowledge of them.

They are the result of trivial processes.

--

Even worse is Dr Stecchini's assertion, which none here seem to endorse in this thread.

Dividing the height by the perimeter of any building yields a ratio. Matching this ratio with geographic or astronomical facts is meaningless, as any and all structures ever made have a "matching" ratio.

[armedequation]

Pons,

I'm not denying that.

But I'm also looking at numbers that *seem* to have purpose. My problem with the pyramids is that whomever planned this build knew what they were doing. I'm not an architect but when I do look at the numbers at this point, there's too many coincidences for me just to swallow that it is all arbitrary.

There really is no proof one way or the other for me to confidently say yes or no. So I dont know how anyone can come to a conclusion on this subject when there's insuffecient evidence but I know which way I am leaning


PS I do have to agree with Nippur on this as well

[cRush]

Pons,

I'm not denying that.

But I'm also looking at numbers that *seem* to have purpose. My problem with the pyramids is that whomever planned this build knew what they were doing. I'm not an architect but when I do look at the numbers at this point, there's too many coincidences for me just to swallow that it is all arbitrary.

There really is no proof one way or the other for me to confidently say yes or no. So I dont know how anyone can come to a conclusion on this subject when there's insuffecient evidence but I know which way I am leaning


PS I do have to agree with Nippur on this as well

I think that stems from your lack of understanding of what these numbers represent, and how they can come to be found in the pyramid's structure. As you admit, you are no architect. Likewise, I would venture to guess that you don't have a strong mathematics background, either. Please, don't warp this into insult, as every person has their own area of expertise.

However, you seem to attribute this sense of purpose to these numbers, without understanding their innate significance. They aren't arbitrary. They are embedded; inherent. What Pons has demonstrated is that it is not only possible for these ratios and numbers to have found their way into the pyramid's structure, but it is damn near inescapable.

What I meant to demonstrate, when I queried your judgment of if it is easier to build a structure by stacking blocks in a staggered fashion or straight up and down, was that the pyramid's shape was chosen because it presented a more stable and easy method of building a large structure. It was more logical and reasonable to build a pyramid than a cube. Building a completely cubed structure of the same proportions would have been much more of a daunting task, and most likely have not withstood the sands of time, literally and figuratively.

[mahalla2]

Here is a link that will help to explain the "deliberate intent" component utilized by many ancient people within all areas of their daily lives. There was a tried and true pattern called the "flower of life" that not only served as a template for physical projects but as a source for sacred knowledge/meaning as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_of_Life

Also, in relationship to this are the Akashic Records which were to have represented the "Mind of God" or to some, a super-celestial computer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashic_Records

Perhaps this is why in Job 38:33 (Old Testament) Yahweh asked Job "Have you grasped the celestial laws?"

[Bob137]

Something I have noticed in regards to the aligning of the Giza Pyramids with Orion's belt is that the computer program simulation set up that configured this was that at a time of tens of thousands of years ago, (I do not remember the exact date), that at that time it did align up perfectly. The debunkers though utilize our time that does not align up perfectly and utilize that for stating that it does not lign up as reported. Which if you look at all the actual data from the alignment of the older date time, it does align, so that is where the theory came about of the alignment with Orion, in that time period, not ours. So it is then speculated and theorized that the design, and possible construction of the pyramids were done at that time period, not at the earlier date time period, which would be logical!
In other words if someone doesn't use the same calculations and information of the other, but decides to debunk something on the basis of different data, maybe incorrect, and preponderous for such a debunking.

[mahalla2]

Something I have noticed in regards to the aligning of the Giza Pyramids with Orion's belt is that the computer program simulation set up that configured this was that at a time of tens of thousands of years ago, (I do not remember the exact date), that at that time it did align up perfectly. The debunkers though utilize our time that does not align up perfectly and utilize that for stating that it does not lign up as reported. Which if you look at all the actual data from the alignment of the older date time, it does align, so that is where the theory came about of the alignment with Orion, in that time period, not ours. So it is then speculated and theorized that the design, and possible construction of the pyramids were done at that time period, not at the earlier date time period, which would be logical!
In other words if someone doesn't use the same calculations and information of the other, but decides to debunk something on the basis of different data, maybe incorrect, and preponderous for such a debunking.

well, as you know, there will always be debunkers who will twist and turn the truth until it supports their agenda. Thus to me, seems to be more a matter of remaining loyal to your own beliefs if you feel confident that you are on the right path - And I agree that Giza is probably older than what has been previously determined

[Bob137]

I would like to point out that for many years I was a builder, and constructed houses, and designed them and numerous other things also as a draftsman. Although I am not an engineer or an architect, I do know what it takes to in designing to build houses and other structures. For one, there is some very great architects today that claim the precision in the great pyramid would not be accomplished today with their technology! I also know from building my own pyramid, that to do such a project takes a lot of mathematics and geometry, and knowledge of higher mathematics, (which some claim is not needed). Without that that pyramid would not have been constructed not only on such a vast scale, but with all the intricate passages and such that is incorporated into it would have been impossible to build. I would suggest for those who believe it is possible to build one without utilizing such knowledge to try and do so themselves, as I have done, but I needed the math and geometry knowledge to do so. So far others that have tried to do build a 1/10th of a scale, of the great pyramid have failed.