Rodders Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks Rigel_7
> How exact is exact?
> Petrie certainly did make mistakes. He stated
> that G2 from G3 had a beariing of 34deg 10 min
> 11secs, whereas from his data it calculates to
> 31deg 55min 13sec. However, an overlay of Petrie's
> plan onto the map I use makes a very good fit, and
> that is all I can use. I think the cente point
> given by the crossed corner diagonals must be
> acceptable.
> My original question was are my diagrams
> meaningful. Do I put you into the coincidence
> camp?

Well, the Sphinx correlation part of it is interesting. However, the line from the triangle point on the hill, bisectiong the triangle and supposedly striking the center of G2, actually misses the center by almost 32 RC NE of the center. If you extend it, it actually comes a lot closer to hitting the NW corner, missing by about 4.5 RC southward. This is what I mean about how far off geometry can be if you just use a crude diagram instead of a CAD drawing. I made mine using the Petrie data for the pyramid corner points. You can't even draw a perfectly vertical/horizontal diagram of Giza because none of the pyramids even come out perfectly square. So you have to set out the corners of all three pyramids and then obtain the centers by drawing in the diagonals. You'd be surprised just how "messed up" the pyramids really are, meaning non-square and non cardinally oriented.

I can tell you what the likely basis was for the height of G3. It's simply the height of G1 divided by sqrt 5, meaning that if the height of G1 was the diagonal of a 1:2 rectangle (half a 2:2 square) then G3 height would be the short side of the rectangle. It's side lengths appear to be either some sort of square root thing, as shown on John Legon's site, or simply the reult of applying an approximately 51 degree slope angle to that predetermined height. It doesn't appear to be any more complicated than that, though it can't be completely ruled out of course. The actual positioning of the pyramid is also explained fairly well on Legon's site.

This image shows what I mean about the heights. Maybe this will inspire somebody to discover something else related to this. The fact that G1 has a height of a perfect 280 RC but odd side lengths of 439.8 RC pretty much proves conclusively that the height was the starting point for the pyramids, not the side lengths. G2 appears to be an exception to this though.





Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2013 09:25AM by Rigel_7.