Graham Chase Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hello Hermione,
>
> Fair questions I would say.
> The 37.715 degreee inclination is what we find at
> Giza. It can be verified by the Petrie data. From
> the Petrie co-ordinates we can get the angle
> between the lines of P1 - P3 and the 45 degree
> line.
>
> The other questions you are asking are cultural
> ones, rather than mathematical ones. The proposed
> theory avoids the area of cultural interpretation
> which is open to endless debate. The mathematical
> proof is either right or wrong in its mathematics
> not in its cultural interpretation.
>
> But I can answer the questions quite easily.
> The 45 degree axis of Giza aligned the structures
> with Iunu (Heliopolis) the temple of the sun. This
> is supported by related funeary texts.
>
> The angle of 37.715 ensured that Sirius and
> Rigel(Orion) also fell on that same 45 degree line
> as they set in the south west, this time when
> Kocab had rotated to bottom left.
> The pyramid texts confirm that Sirius and Orion
> are involved in death and resurrection rituals as
> well as the adze and the circumpolar stars.
Graham,
The pt do not confirm this for the 4th Dynasty. The earliest pt are late 5th Dynasty (Unas' pyramid). This has been told you before, but still, you just keep going round this fact. When facts occur that invalidate your theory on 'Giza-star alignment', you simply ignore them. Tell me once and for all now, or to somebody else while you stopped the discussion with me, since you are so certain that Giza is 'star-aligned', why pt ('telling us the role of the circumpolar stars') are totally absent in these three pyramids that are supposed to be aligned with these circumpolar stars ?
'The Kocab-Mizar line was called 'the plumbline of the sky' when vertical and is proposed as the method of aligning the pyramids'. So, 'accidentally', Kocab's position in space exactly coincides on Earth with the natural limestone-elevation on which G1 has been constructed ?
'The arrangement of the stars in the north have dictated the actual sizes of the pyramids G1 and G2 precisely.' G2 also has been constructed on a natural elevation, its base stands considerably higher than G1's base. This common feature of G1 and G2- having been built on elevations - simply indicate that the AE choose locations that guaranteed the highest possible stability for their pyramids. Nothing to do with 'star-alignment'.
>
> In its 180 degree anti-clockwise rotation around
> the celestial pole the Kocab - Mizar line also
> passed the points of vertical exactly when Orion
> was rising over the eastern horizon, and then
> horizontal with Kocab on the left just when Sirius
> and Orion were culminating due south. Finally the
> line reached 37.715 with Kocab bottom left exactly
> as Sirius and Rigel(Orion) straddled the South
> West azimuth as they were setting.
>
> So there were 4 key orientations for the rotating
> trio. Two were recorded in stone pyramids by the
> 37.715 orientation of P1 to P3. The other two
> positions, that is vertical for the east and
> horizontal for the south, were recorded in stone
> by the 2 sets of Queens pyramids.
>
> I think that answers your questions about reasons
With star-line rotations, as they took place 4500 years ago, you can go any direction. Imo, it's not possible to exactly reconstruct this, taking the present-day situation and calculating back into historical time. You also did not explain how people, who lived 4500 years ago (4500 years AGO ; fact which you seem to have forgotten), should have projected certain locations in space to exactly the corresponding locations on Earth ?
Ronald.