Hermione Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jiri Mruzek Wrote:
> > The pyramids are obviously not built on shifting sand.
>
> Over 4,500 years, it's presumably blown about a
> bit, and some of the stones has worn away or
> fallen off the lowest courses ... I daresay that
> measuring the sides was not an easy task at all.
You've changed the drift. The pyramids stand on solid rock. Not sand.
> What I
> actually said was that the sand itself, the ground
> level, might have moved slightly since the GP was
> first built. Not an unreasonable supposition in
> the circumstances ...
I've read somewhere that the limestone layer at Giza rests on granite. Hence Giza foundations are rock-solid. One way to tell that the ground was not shifting was to look at the pyramid mantles, which had survived thousands of years in apparently excellent condition until dismantling by Arabs after an earthquake destroyed Cairo.
> They are not like
> > three ships tossed by stormy seas, and there
> is no
> > danger that the pyramids will ever collide
> with on
> > another, no matter how the sands will shift.
>
> No idea quite how we got to the notion of the
> Gizamids sailing about the plateau like yachts at
> a regatta ...
Just a little exaggeration of your explanation.
> I
> > wonder if you agree that I have an elegant
> system,
> > which reproduces Petrie's Giza layout of the
> three
> > pyramids exactly, and if you have taken a
> good
> > look at it.
> What I've seen of your work so far doesn't lead me
> to think that it's much different from any other
> collection of squares, triangles, dodecahedrons
> and all the rest that I've seen plastered over the
> Giza Plateau during the last few years. Unless
> you have some new evidence to offer, therefore,
> I'm afraid that there seems little else to
> discuss.
Classic denial uses the sudden Babel-tower syndrome, i.e.; all of a sudden the capacity to appreciate the difference between basic concepts like successful, and not successful, or, close, closer, and exact, becomes lost. A collection of geometrical figures is not necessarily bad per se. A lot depends on what the figures do.
Quite simply, this 'set of geometrical figures' forges Petrie's map orders of magnitude better than any previous 'collections of figures'. The name of the game is retracing actions of the ancient architect in the construction of the plan. If you do that, you will have recreated the original plan. This is no different from re-engineering a watch. I am worried because you seem to not understand this concept.
The recreation scores a clear success. Inasmuch, it is highly significant to the stated purpose of this board. After all, a successful solution should put an end to this 'nuisance of plastering circles all over Giza' once and for all. You should welcome it. If nothing else, you should at least remember the valiant attempt, which manages to falsify Petrie's plan. Therefore, I would like to hear something more reasonable from you than a brush-off.