An exact distance in degrees might prove considerably more enlightening if 45 degrees is part of a square.
Heliopolois is a big place. Do we know the exact location of the temple of the benben.
by
Mick
-
Ancient History
Hi,
Tracking down a King. Does anyone know more of a King Zet around 2900-2500bc in the middle east or Egypt. I cant find a Link to the King Zet Petrie talks about.
I have found a Dzet and Dzer grave drawing but little data on them.
Many thanks,
Mick
1st dynasty tomb Giza....
QuoteWithin this chamber was a wooden lining, which
rested on a footing beam ; and the space between
by
Mick
-
Ancient History
covers Gardners angle on the Nebiu with his sources attached.
Stecchini museum sample rod is actually 7 hands as opposed to 7 palms.
7 palms being 20.625
7 hands being 20.625 * 4/3
You can equate this rod to 37.333 fingers
or simply 28 thumbs
You can equate the hand to 5.333 fingers
or simply 4 thumbs
You can equate the half hand to 2.666 fingers
or simply 2 thumbs
I am not f
by
Mick
-
Ancient History
Quote
More recently one has come to realize that a number of documents indicate the use of a unit equal to 1 1/3 royal cubit. In my opinion this mysterious unit is a cubit of two hybrid feet, that is, 37 1/3 natural basic fingers, 700 mm. The name of this unit is nb, nebiu, which means “carrying" and indicates that the original unit of length was the carrying yoke; the term for cubit in Semi
by
Mick
-
Ancient History
I was more concerned with the exact ratio of the sides
13 : 25
which you have not taken into account with your math.
424 / 25 = 16.96
220.5 / 13 = 16.9615
20.625 is the diagonal of a remen
16.96 is the diagonal of 11.9936
The only way you can get from 12 to 20.625 ?
20.625 / sqrt2 / 20 * 16 = 11.667 early greek foot of 16 fingers
12 / 11.667 = 36:35
So if you then come across a m
by
Mick
-
Ancient History
(426 inches E., 422 W.) and over 18 feet wide (221 N., 220 S.);
by
Mick
-
Ancient History
So would I. I am in the throws of trying to get a book written. I need to cover....
the greek earth and egypt lengths.
herodotos metrology.
the egyptian borders and measures.
the various cubits in museums.
tie all this together with accurate satellite data.
show sample buildings like the bent and the length of cubit used.
show some more tombs and lengths....
but this book is getting
by
Mick
-
Ancient History
I dont belive you just done that Graham.....
1/50th x 5000 stade of 300 cubit of 21 inch
50 * 300 * 5000 * 21 = 1575000000 = 6.3 x 250,000,000
40,000,000,000 / 250,000,000 = 160
160 / 6.3 = 25.3968
25.3968 * 63/64 = 25mm
by
Mick
-
Ancient History
Agreed on most counts. A picture paints a 1000 words. I was just ecstatic over the greek quotes on the dimensions of the earth and egypt. How it relates to this bronze rod.
This particular rod I was commenting on the scale cut into 12, 72 & 360 divisions.
That same scale using the 360th divisions equating to 20.16 british inches.
The other scale showing 27 fingers of 28 that make 21 brit
by
Mick
-
Ancient History
I think this rod is supposed to be a rosetta stone.....
20.5 total
20.25 scale b [27 major british fingers]
20.16 scale c [28 minor british fingers 21 minor british inch]
20.418 scale d [28 fingers 21 early greek inch 20.16 olympic inch]
by
Mick
-
Ancient History
I really dont believe this.....
27 x 0.75 = 20.25 (28 x .75 = 21)
28 fingers = 21 early greek = 20.16 olympic inch.
360 x 60 x 72000 olympic inch polar great circle
360 x 60 x 75000 early greek inch polar great circle
360 x 60 x 100000 fingers polar great circle
Specimen #4: Turin Museum catalog #6349.
Nearly square 0.57 X 0.68 bronze rod with three different scales. This ro
by
Mick
-
Ancient History
This stuff is a goldmine.....
20.75 / 3 = 6.91666
20.625 / 3 = 6.875
20.5 / 3 = 6.8333
6.8333 + 6.875 + 6.91666 = 20.625
3 subdivisions 6.875 +- 0.041667 (w) SCALE 'E'
Hence 3 finger types for 3 cubits
.............................................
Specimen #5: Turin Museum catalog #6348
A green basalt rod, with three different scales. This rod is very near an ideal
by
Mick
-
Ancient History
Came across a good site
QuoteSpecimen #1: Turin Museum Supplement #8391.
A wood rod, hinged in the center. Marked off in palms with the right-most palm divided into one-half palm first and then 2 digits from the end. The left-most section has palms 6 and 7 combined into one length.
*********************
Common Scale:
Length = 20.81
(7) Palm mean length = 2.973
w = 0.155 (
by
Mick
-
Ancient History
very good clive. Alternatively as the range height is 93 to 96 the mean is 94.5
and the 94.5 / square root 2 = 66.826 which might just as well be 66.666'
since 300 x 140/99 x 33 = 14000
since 156 x 140/99 x 33 = 7280
94.5 x 33 = 3118.5 (which might explain the 33 + 60 at one corner)
66.666' x 140/99 x 33 = 3111.111' (28000 / 9)
or 2 lengths = 9 heights
25 x 9 = 175
13
by
Mick
-
Ancient History
You'll have to do some considerable hand holding with your armspan measures et cetra...
I did notice you added a 4th kind of finger to the Horemheb rod. A lot of your site is excellent. I have come across it before and learned a lot from it.
by
Mick
-
Ancient History
On your ell no.3;
you see the 1st 12 fingers hover at the 66 to 2x66 mark.
Then you have a 142 ....with a big break down the middle
Then you have a 145 ....clean measure with no breaks.
That 142 is obvioulsy a minimum and depending on how much material has been lost by the break will add to this. So this 142 is not a certain and should be read as 142+
145 is however a clean measure wit
by
Mick
-
Ancient History
Hi Graham,
I've delved as deep as I can at the moment to see what I can Gleen from the data provided. I've been looking at your pixel definitions for the rod and trying to figure out how those finger ratios relate to the rod.
The best that I could come up with is shown below. It shows to me that the Elle No.3 rod is cut into fingers of 4, 12 & 12 finger sets with the horemheb ro
by
Mick
-
Ancient History
Some of these satellite observations are upto 30 degrees from Nadir. I think that makes one hell of a differenece to the relative altitude an alignment of differnt points. eg...observe the dots
.-----.
---.---
.-----.
---.---
by
Mick
-
Ancient History
What we have is numerological nonsense based on out of date information. It's clear that the Bent wasn't intended that way.... ?????
How was it intended to be then John, please tell. I you expressing a fact or merely your personal opinion ?
Show me the new (quality) information that has not passed its sell by date yet.
Show me how this new data refutes the possibility of Johns pl
by
Mick
-
Ancient History
This is the bent pyramid work produced by John Legon. If you scroll down to the diagram you'll see a 140:99 ratio expressed for the square root of 2.
Which may open the eyes a little....
14000 / 33 = 424.2424' chamber length
424.2424' * 99/140 = 300
7280 / 33 = 220.6060'chamber width
220.6060' * 99/140 = 156
300 : 156 = 100 : 52 = 25 : 13
300 / 25 = 12
by
Mick
-
Ancient History
The feelings mutual john
QuoteFrom Petrie...In the south-west corner the floor is rather lower, and the highest plastered face is 96 inches over it...
"Therefore"...no erosion if plaster remains on the chamber walls.
Petrie has enough information to draw up the brick piers and inner plaster lining. Obvioulsy it has not deteriorated that much.
by
Mick
-
Ancient History
That makes
13 x 12 x square root 2 = 220.617 british inch
25 x 12 x square root 2 = 424.264 british inch
I think Petries having a laugh with those that delve
by
Mick
-
Ancient History
Would Petrie not have commented on the state of the walls as he did with his survey of the other pyramids ??? This is one for the maybe pile but note this.....
I had already remarked on the fact that the megalithic yard seems to be the digonal of a double foot or 4 remen royal cubit / 2.5 pieces. So
4 remen = 57.6
57.6 / 2.5 = 23.04 yet why would you use 1 measure divided by 2.5 ??? 5 is mo
by
Mick
-
Ancient History
Eh ? I'm using quoted dimensions. Something Petrie was renowned for. Whats the problem ?
by
Mick
-
Ancient History
This is a quote from Petrie work on a 1st dynasty tomb at Gizeh....
QuoteThe burial chamber is over 35 feet long (426 inches
E., 422 W.) and over 18 feet wide (221 N., 220 S.); it
was over 7 feet deep originally, but is so much broken
at the top edge that it is hard to trace the roofing.
The best indication of depth is that of the northern
chamber where the roofing beams were traced at
3
by
Mick
-
Ancient History