Home of the The Hall of Ma'at on the Internet
Home
Discussion Forums
Papers
Authors
Web Links

April 29, 2024, 7:20 pm UTC    
January 19, 2013 05:53AM
Just because a theory is consistent with the facts does not mean the facts prove the theory.

The Great Pyramid G1 once stood alone on the Giza plateau, that is without G2 and G3, and the next king after Khufu built elsewhere. That's why I have used a picture of just G1 in my new monograph.

Khafre then decided to go back to Giza. It seems very likely that Khafre's architect was instructed to consider the position of G2 in relation to G1 so it would appear right.

I think that the most important aspect of G2 in relation to G1 is that G2 was built on higher ground thus giving the illusion of being higher than G1.

The mystery of G2 is that the intended height appears to have been approximately 274 royal cubits in the knowledge that G1 is slightly higher at 280 royal cubits. Human nature is to want to build higher, especially as the pyramids are next to each other.

The seked of G2 is 5 1/4 palms which would have translated very nicely into a height of 280 royal cubits for a base side-length of 420 royal cubits. There has to be a good reason why G2 was made slightly smaller, assuming it was built after G1.

The architect of G3 had to think very carefully about the position of G3 so as not to ruin the appearance of the whole site. Perhaps he saw the saw the stars in Orion's belt as a sign?

It is possible to devise any number of theories to account for the heights of the pyramids or the positions of the pyramids, or the base lengths of the pyramids. A model integrating all nine aspects would be interesting, but not conclusive of a plan from the outset.

It seems unlikely that Khufu ordered all three pyramids, with G2 looking more impressive than his own pyramid.

It is also unlikely that his successor neglected to carry on with the plan having been given the pick of the plots with G2 at the centre.

Robert Bauval's Orion Correlation Theory 'OCT' may have been in the mind of Menkaure without having been considered by Khufu or Khafre.

In my opinion it is unlikely that a geometric theory will ever match the elegance of OCT.

Mark
Subject Author Posted

Cubits British inch connection

Rigel_7 January 14, 2013 11:41AM

Re: Final proof of pyramid inch?

Mark Heaton January 14, 2013 02:40PM

Re: Final proof of pyramid inch?

Rigel_7 January 15, 2013 09:17AM

Re: Final proof of pyramid inch?

Rigel_7 January 15, 2013 11:45AM

Re: Final proof of pyramid inch?

Rigel_7 January 15, 2013 12:58PM

Re: Final proof of pyramid inch?

Rigel_7 January 15, 2013 02:09PM

Re: How to be scientific about measurements

Mark Heaton January 15, 2013 02:33PM

Re: How to be scientific about measurements

Rigel_7 January 15, 2013 04:34PM

Re: How to be scientific about measurements

Rigel_7 January 15, 2013 06:21PM

Re: How to calculate a triangle?

Mark Heaton January 15, 2013 06:29PM

Re: How to calculate a triangle?

Rigel_7 January 15, 2013 06:41PM

Re: The division of the royal cubit into 7 palms

Mark Heaton January 16, 2013 03:49AM

Re: The division of the royal cubit into 7 palms

Rigel_7 January 16, 2013 09:05AM

Re: How to calculate a triangle?

Rodders January 16, 2013 08:20AM

Re: How to calculate a triangle?

Rigel_7 January 16, 2013 10:44PM

Re: How to calculate a triangle?

Rigel_7 January 17, 2013 07:32AM

Re: How to calculate a triangle?

Rigel_7 January 17, 2013 08:06AM

Re: How to calculate a triangle?

Rigel_7 January 17, 2013 09:16AM

Re: How to calculate a triangle?

Rigel_7 January 17, 2013 10:20AM

Re: How to calculate a triangle?

Rodders January 17, 2013 03:14PM

Re: How to calculate a triangle?

Rigel_7 January 17, 2013 04:21PM

Re: How to calculate a triangle?

Rodders January 17, 2013 05:28PM

Re: How to calculate a triangle?

Rigel_7 January 17, 2013 07:21PM

Re: How to calculate a triangle?

Rigel_7 January 17, 2013 07:53PM

Re: How to calculate a triangle?

Rodders January 18, 2013 02:56PM

Re: How to calculate a triangle?

Rigel_7 January 18, 2013 05:38PM

Re: How to calculate a triangle?

Rodders January 18, 2013 06:47PM

Re: OCT, or geometry, or perspective?

Mark Heaton January 19, 2013 05:53AM

Re: OCT, or geometry, or perspective?

Rigel_7 January 19, 2013 07:26AM

Re: Back to geometry

Mark Heaton January 19, 2013 08:42AM

Re: Back to geometry

Rigel_7 January 19, 2013 10:27AM

Re: Back to geometry

Mark Heaton January 19, 2013 12:17PM

Re: Back to geometry

Rigel_7 January 19, 2013 02:09PM

Re: Back to geometry

Rigel_7 January 20, 2013 08:17AM

Re: Back to geometry

Hermione January 20, 2013 08:33AM

Re: Back to geometry

Rigel_7 January 20, 2013 09:32AM

Re: Back to geometry

Rodders January 20, 2013 02:06PM

Re: Back to geometry

Rigel_7 January 20, 2013 03:18PM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login