keeperzz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>

Quote

If the changes in orientation of pyramids
> reflects precessional drift then this implies that
> the builders worked with a particular set of star
> targets in the north. But these stars cannot be
> identified because of the serious question of
> carbon dating that now emerges. Until this problem
> is resolved we are left with speculation.

>
> When I try to explain to people my hypothesis that
> the pyramids of the 4th dynasty were oriented to
> the pole star of that epoch - Thuban (when it was
> most closer to the Pole), they tell me: "This
> cannot be true, because it’s known that for
> example the Khufu pyramid was laid out at 2570 BC
> or 2550 BC! "
> When I ask to give at least some evidence that the
> age of the Khufu pyramids (or any of the 4th
> dynasty pyramids) is exactly that, they usually
> keep silence or, at best, mentioned Ramsey's
> "Radiocarbon-Based Chronology".
> There are no other "strong" arguments because they
> simply do not exist.
> Currently accepted dates for Khufu’s reign are
> nothing more than consensus not justified by
> anything more convincing than shaky assumptions of
> chronologists (you will understand what I’m
> talking about if you carefully read chapter 6 of
> my article, the link to which is in the first post
> of this topic).
> At the same time, some of the chronologists
> themselves assume that the age of the Old Kingdom
> is underestimated in current chronolgy (for
> example, Seidlmayer, an authority specialist in
> this field, who wrote a chapter on the First
> Intermediate Period for Hornung & Krauss’s
> chronology, suggests that Manetho’s data on the
> duration of the FIP are correct and thus the Old
> Kingdom is 250 years older. Thus, it turns out
> that Bristed’s chronology (1906-07) at some points
> is more accurate than the chronologies of
> Beckerath, Shaw, etc.).
>
> It is clear that under such conditions, such a
> discipline as radiocarbon dating, which operates
> on actual data rather than assumptions, could
> help. It would seem that radiocarbonists should
> build an independent chronological model, and
> historians should accept it, but in fact the
> opposite happened: the radiocarbonists accepted
> all the assumptions of the chronologists as
> relevant and created a confirmatory model
> (Ramsay), while the large-scale radiocarbon study
> results of which were not in line with the
> expectations of historians were criticized
> (Bonani, Haas, Lehner).
>
> As you know, when reconstructing a chronology,
> proven astronomical synchronisms have the greatest
> strength, because the motion of celestial objects
> is very constant and can be accurately calculated
> for a very long periods.
>
> The global astronomical synchronism that I
> discovered allows to explain the orientation of a
> large set of pyramids of the Old Kingdom and is
> strong in itself (unless not to consider it a mere
> coincidence; it is absolutely unbelievable that
> the data on the azimuths of all the pyramids
> simultaneously coincide on the graph with the
> azimuths of the stars of the Big Dipper and
> Thuban), and in the same time confirmed by
> radiocarbon dates for Old Kingdom, which despite
> the recent efforts of radiocarbonists continue to
> gravitate toward a greater age.
>
> Further reading:
> this
> and
> especially
> this

The main point I was trying to make is that pyramid orientations change over time, suggesting that this is the result of precession. What other explanation presents itself? But this also implies that the northern star targets remained the same throughout the pyramid age - otherwise, if it is suggested that different targets were used for particular pyramids, it all becomes a mess with too many variables. And it means that the builders did not aim at the actual pole but selected star targets which were subject to precession.

As to the shafts, I repeat - "Unfortunately the data needed to reach conclusions is lacking. Have Petrie shaft/casing intersection points been confirmed, or has Gantenbrink provided better data to justify 154 for KC shaft exits? Confusion remains over shaft angles yet the shafts have been resurveyed by the Djedi team but no precise data has been released (and you'd think they would have performed a detailed survey before drilling into the pyramid). " All we have are scraps of information from Petrie and Gantenbrink to go on. As has been mentioned Petrie wrote - "It is a golden principle to let each year see the publication of the years work, in any research: but the writer places himself thus at the disadvantage of showing how his information may have been defective, or his views requiring change, as year after year goes on. Such a course, however, is the honest and the most useful, as half a loaf is better than no bread. This volume, therefore, with all its imperfections, its half-gleaned results, its transitory views, comes forth to show what is already ascertained, and to supply a mass of certain facts for the assimilation of scholars, who may accept or not the way in which they are built up. It may be said that further research in what is already known ought to have been made, before placing results in such a form. I think not. So long as enough study is given to the materials to present them in an intelligible and usable form, it is better to let them be at the disposal of all students, without waiting for a final summing up at the close of the excavations.” Hawass clearly believes otherwise.

>

Quote

Gantenbrink's 'ideal' scheme (KC shafts
> exit 154 above base) whether modified or not,
> remains persuasive because it reflects the ratio
> 99/70 used to locate the KC

>
> What is this ratio? What is its uniqueness to be
> imprinted in a pyramid? Why not, 98/70 or 99/60?

All irrationals are approximations whether written in decimal form or as simple numerical ratios, and these last appear in cultures other than egyptian. They can in fact be generated using simple numerical algorithms. For example for root two we have the series 2/3, 5/7, 17/12, 29/41, 70/99, 169/239, and so forth. The series reaches perfection at infinity. Whether egyptians were aware of the series (and I see no reason why not) they certainly employed 99/70 (or same thing, 198/280) because it introduces the septenary - 7 palms, 28 fingers, 1 cubit. As Lightbody showed the septenary is the measure of the circumference of a circle symbolizing protection. In practical life they had no need to 'measure Pi'; the area of the circle was much more important to them, even though all we find is the very rough approximation 8/9 of a circle's diameter squared, sufficient for office clerks to tally the resources of the state.
But the dimensions of pyramids were not chosen for practical purposes but for theological reasons . The decision to place the most important King's Chamber at root two of the height must represent a kind of geometrical metaphor, symbolic perhaps of the king achieving some kind of altered state. The essential point is that the diagonal of the square is at 45 degrees.

>

Quote

For KC south Gantenbrink gives 45 degrees
> which corresponds to a date about 2570 BC. If the
> builders lived 200 years earlier the belt would
> not have aligned with the shaft.

>
> If the builders lived 200 years earlier the belt
> would not have aligned with the shaft with the
> angle of 45 degrees.

> But 45 degrees is a theoretical angle. In reality
> this angle is less steper (about 44 deg.) and well
> correspond to earlier (for two centuries) epoch.

But what is the significance of this strange angle 44 degrees? It certainly does not fit with the rest of the pyramid's geometry. (Neither does an inter-exit distance of 200 cubits defining a a level beloww apex of 127.72). So what is the consensus of this forum - does KC south measure 45 degrees? If it does then it supports a conventional pyramid date of around 2570 BC, arrived at independently of datings using northern star targets.

It is a sorry state of affairs if we cannot date the Old Kingdom. Is it really true that scholars rely solely on king lists and the like, or do they have other methods at their disposal? Have they had anything to say about the 'old straw' you mention? Must we wait until scholars get around to properly investigating the straw problem?