In response to Byrd:


Many Egyptologists start with the notion of Sirius, but Sirius was merely a marker of the solar year.

It is true that its cycle happened to be 365.249 days or 365.251 in the Pyramid Age (rather than the solar cycle of 365.242 days), but this is only known from modern astronomy, and of no help except in the minds of Egyptologists who somehow suppose it was. Observations of the heliacal rise might well have an error of a day so it was useless in the short term, and even after say 200 years might still have an observational error of a day, but the calendar year was 365 days, so of no help at all in reconciling anything as the calendar year shifted in relation to the solar year completing a full cycle in about 1509 years.

The value of Sirius to the modern researcher is if a historical record ever shows up stating that the heliacal rise of Sirius coincided with New Year's Day in the Egyptian calendar at sometime in the first millennium BC, or the second millennium BC, or third millennium BC, but the idea that the calendar started on that day about 1460 years previously or 2 x 1460 years has little merit and no evidence.

The calendar year of 365 days was a way of calculating special days based on knowledge of the cycle of 309 lunar months which only has an error of about a day every 500 years, but probably regarded as perfect.. Egyptologists have become entrenched in their views, whereas the proposed geometric model offers a new perspective. The burial chamber and antechambers were intended to be hidden in perpetuity, so the wisdom of Egypt was locked away in the burial place of the king, but the king was expected to look down on his pyramid in his celestial after-life and see that what had been entombed in the pyramid mirrored his celestial destiny. This appears to reflect a primitive belief that what was preserved on earth would be preserved in the heavens above, namely the king's celestial destiny.

My new topic arose from queries by Don and Robin on a matter debated well over a year ago and re-reading the topic I decided to re-post as a new topic, as suggested, to try to explain the geometry which is the first stage before debating what the geometry means but I thought I should state where my model is leading at the outset.

Unfortunately, I did not make enough notes, or have not yet found my notes, and a lot of water has gone under the bridge since lock-down last year.

The second antechamber can be regarded as a model in relation to the base square, but the first antechamber is then divided into 8 sections as 8 x 40 palms for the perimeter, but not in same way so my simple invitation to draw out in step 8 is not valid. I recall finding an unusual construction of numbers or angles, but I can't remember what it was, following the publication of (Waggy's guide?).

The first antechamber is 111.5 x 48.5 palms in my model and the division into sections of 40 palms requires a cross which is not 45 degrees.
Two lines forming a cross with an angle close to a tangent equal to 14/23 as the angle to the north-south axis is a cotangent equal to 23/14 or 11.5 divided by 7 which is the seked of 11.5 palms.

I hoped this would enable Robin Cook to re-draw his model more precisely in palms and then highlight the scale relationship of 1 to 36.5 to the base square. Some may then arrive at the conclusion that the connection to 365 days in a year is a coincidence because Egyptologists think the same as the ancient Egyptians, so know that the ancient Egyptians didn't think like that.

Having been the first to draw a model of the King's Chamber of the Great Pyramid as a model of the size and shape of the Great Pyramid, and the first to draw the antechamber of the Red Pyramid as a model of the base square of the Red Pyramid, you will have to excuse me if I now find the notions of some Egyptologists as of little use except for writing children's books to gain the interest of children who might ultimately be able to explain things rather better:
In my opinion the main burial chamber of Khafre's Pyramid is an elegant model of the pyramid's superstructure, which is a separate debate on this forum at present.

I received children's books with content related to ancient Egypt as prizes in 1964, 1970 and then in 1973 at the time of the Tutankhamun Exhibition in London, but it is for others to judge whether I have regressed or progressed from prize winning days at school. I now recall my last prize book related to Egyptology was 'Discovering Tutankhamun' given to me shortly after its publication, but as a prize for technical merit in my occupation. I do find some books written by Egyptologists worthy of great praise, including this one.

By the way, Petrie's granddaughter, an astronomer, presided over a conference on astronomical matters related to ancient Egypt about 15 years ago, and all the lectures were of a high standard. Kate Spence conceded that she had not studied spherical geometry, and thought it amusing that others would ever suppose that she had, if I understood her correctly, because her speciality is ancient Egyptian architecture.

You appear to dismiss my proposition entirely without proper consideration.

Have you studied maths or physics or geometry at university level like me and countless others?

Mark



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/22/2021 03:43AM by Mark Heaton.