Page 1 of 25
Pages: 12345
Results 1 — 30 of 748
Hi Graham,
Excuse my inserting myself into your conversation. This is off the top of my head and I could be wrong, but from a different perspective both dimensions are correct at 360 for both the socket base and above pavement base of the Bent Pyramid. There are two different cubits and it does seem to be intentional. Based on the fact the same cubit ratio is repeated in the casing and socke
by
Sirfiroth
-
Ancient Egypt
Kanga Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The seked relates to the finished casing. Any
> supposed indentation is irrelevant to a discussion
> about the seked.
Not really! Unless can you show evidence of another method employed by the Ancient Egyptians for finding gradients? Logically as evidenced by the existence of the indentations in the core sides
by
jacob boaz
-
Ancient Egypt
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the post.
Mark Heaton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Petrie did not think the palm was divided into 4
> digits so he overlooked the fact that the
> perimeter of the long walls of the King Chamber
> not only corresponds to the circumference of a
> circle with the length taken as the diameter of
> the circle, but als
by
jacob boaz
-
Ancient Egypt
Hi All,
By all available evidence the Ancient Egyptians were unable to subdivide a cubit rod to our current standards of accuracy. Which begs the question for any and all: What evidence leads anyone to believe or assume any surveyed as built dimension are the intended dimensions of G1 by Ancient Egyptian architects and builders? What information, other than opinion, is available indicative of
by
jacob boaz
-
Ancient Egypt
Mark Heaton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree that the 8/9 ratio can be converted to a
> Pi approximation but it has nothing to do with
> pi.
Right.
>
> From memory the cylindrical granary in RMP has a
> volume of 640 cubic cubits for a diameter of 9
> cubits and a height of 10 cubits, compared to a
> volume of 636 and
by
jacob boaz
-
Ancient Egypt
Hi B.A.
Can anyone really be sure? If one chooses to believe Petrie's, Cole's or any other survey measurements to be the exact intended measures of the Ancient Egyptians your assessment would be correct. The only drawback to this chain of thought is it leaves no room for the inevitable building errors that always occur in structures of G1's size not to mention the choice of buil
by
jacob boaz
-
Ancient Egypt
Hi Mark,
Thanks, but unfortunately, I am still unable to visualize the connection of the mathematical assessments attributed to the Ancient Egyptians in your posts. Mainly because there is no archival proof they employed anything other than the area circle calculation noted in the papyri. There is no problem where they did not use the (8/9 d)^2 formula some form of problem #50 Rhind Mathematic
by
jacob boaz
-
Ancient Egypt
Hi Mark,
Personally I don't think the Ancient Egyptians used pi. If they had used pi there would have been at least a notation of it somewhere in their archives. This doesn't mean they weren't capable of deriving pi answers through the use of the 5 1/2 seked.
The casing base of 1760 cubits relating to the height has a ratio of 6 2/7 which of course being we are trained i
by
jacob boaz
-
Ancient Egypt
Hi Mark,
What about the 5 1/2 seked? Where does that fit into your theory?
Jacob
by
jacob boaz
-
Ancient Egypt
Hi Spiros,
Spiros wrote:Here the perimeter is multiplied by 43,200 ( the number of seconds in 12 hours).
But this equation is not very accurate.
That it is not very accurate is true. But coincidentally if one were to employ the Sarcophagus cubit of G2 (equal to one-fifth Petrie's G2 mean sarcophagus length 103 17/25 inches, 8.64 feet) is employed in conjunction with the Socket Base
by
jacob boaz
-
Alternative Geometry and Numerology
Hey Lee,
You might want to read a post in its entirety before responding. Of course the Earth isn't flat! Which is why my post was phrased as questions. The proper answer would be: If the Earth were flat the folk in the Northern hemisphere would be able to see the Southern Cross, and folk in the Southern hemisphere would be able to see the Northern Pole star.
Jacob
by
jacob boaz
-
Laboratory
Hi Lee,
Maybe you can answer a question regarding Flat Earth hypothesis. If the earth is flat, why is the Southern Cross not visible from the Northern Hemisphere or the Northern Pole star not visible from the Southern Hemisphere?
Jacob
by
jacob boaz
-
Laboratory
Is this what you are looking for?
Regards,
Jacob
by
jacob boaz
-
Ancient Egypt
Hi Robin,
robin cook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I have come across suggestions for the use of
> Pythagorean triangles by the AE, for example in
> the layout as put forward by the late Clive Ross
>
> By the way, where do the 68.72-99 and 49-50-70
> triples occur?
>
Just curious, are any of these Pythagorean trian
by
jacob boaz
-
Ancient Egypt
Pistol Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> if the royal cubit was "most" important as a
> ""concept"" why then would they have need to
> divide the royal cubit into extremely small
> fractions?
Hi Pistol,
Why did they divide the cubit into unmarked subdivisions as found in Rhind Mathematical Papyrus Problem 56 RMP?
by
jacob boaz
-
Ancient Egypt
HI Kanga,
Kanga Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> One cannot state the corner edge slope of G1 is
> 9:10. The corner edge slope (seked) of G1, if they
> were interested in it at all, would have been
> calculated from the dimensions of the
> half-diagonal and the height, but the value of the
> half-diagonal depends on which value of
by
jacob boaz
-
Ancient Egypt
Hi Kanga,
You wrote: We also are unable to express irrational square roots either. Let's look at sqrt 2. How would we express it as a single fraction or ratio? We can't. We can only speak of rational approximations, and there are an infinite number of them.
I think this is where Ocham's razor might apply: when presented with competing hypothetical answers to a problem, one sh
by
jacob boaz
-
Ancient Egypt
Hi Kanga,
If it wasn't for the incremental differences of cubits brought about by that pesky inch and/or meter measurements applied to the cubit this would not even be a topic of conversation.
In our world it only stands to reason we look for and employ terms like pi, phi, sqrt2, sqrt3 or sqrt5, along with decimals and angles since it is what we were trained to do. Regarding the Ancient
by
jacob boaz
-
Ancient Egypt
Hi Kanga,
5 1/25 seked is still two numbers, there is the 7 palms of the rise. In this case 5 1/25 run to a 7 rise. Which brings us to the problem calculation, let alone communication. 1/25 palm, which is (1/10 + 1/25 + 1/50 digit) = 4/25 digit. Especially when it does not correlate to markings normally appearing on a cubit rod. Fact: 1/25 palm does not correlate with even the smallest subdivi
by
jacob boaz
-
Ancient Egypt
Hi Kanga,
20.632 cubit in the Grand Gallery? That would indicate the designers/builders changed cubit lengths at the threshold of the Grand Gallery. From 20.62 to 20.632 inches.
section 149
Petrie states this regarding the ascending passageway “The length of the ascending passage is 1546.5 inches; this is equal to 75 cubits of 20.620; and therefore is 3/8 of the length of the entrance pas
by
jacob boaz
-
Ancient Egypt
Hi Mark,
Cubit rod of Maya, treasurer of Tutankhamun it is difficult to see in detail photos available.
Here is a picture of the Sister rod to Maya rod on display at Turin Museum.
Note the fractional quantities written above the fine subdivisions.
On most, not all, of the cubit rods divided into 28 digits with digits further divided into 1 - 16 subdivisions. Making for a possible 16
by
jacob boaz
-
Ancient Egypt
Hi Kanga,
Sadly other than Petrie's calculations (by trigonometry) based on his the measured angle and length of the hypotenuse (sloping length of the Grand Gallery) there is no evidence or reasonable Ancient Egyptian assertion supporting Legon's 79/39 figure for the seked. Petrie did not measure the 39 cubit height, nor did he measure the horizontal, they are products of calculation
by
jacob boaz
-
Ancient Egypt
Hi, I Cooper,
The seked did most certainly govern the gradient of all interior passageways. The real question is what are the possible design sources and reasons for any particular seked to be applied as done in problem #57 of the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus?
You wrote: I believe that the seked was a tool that could be used to describe a slope that had been predetermined by other desired r
by
jacob boaz
-
Ancient Egypt
Hi Kanga,
Thanks for the link. I personally have never been a big fan of Legon, since much of his work is based on irrational numbers and therefore incompatible with the Ancient Egyptians use of unit fractions.
Regards,
Jacob
by
jacob boaz
-
Ancient Egypt
Hi Mark,
Thanks for your reply. I was really looking for the seked more in fractional form. I was really surprised and somewhat disappointed not a single individual on three different message boards could answer, what I thought to be a simple question.
Mark Heaton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In my monograph on the Grand Gallery I have shown
> t
by
jacob boaz
-
Ancient Egypt
Hi Chris,
Thanks for your response. I did find similar information at <; in Sections 36, 38 and 46 for the angles for the interior passages of G1. Although Petrie does provide the estimated and measured angles, but he says nothing about the seked values that establish these gradients.
I was hoping some of the more adventurous members in the group here would have established the sekeds g
by
jacob boaz
-
Ancient Egypt
Why, are they they experts regarding the seked? After all the seked was employed by the Ancient Egyptians to set all gradients was it not?
by
jacob boaz
-
Ancient Egypt
Hi All,
Just curious whether anyone has determined the seked of G1's Grand Gallery? Ascending Passageway? If so, what are the evidentiary proofs?
Regards,
Jacob
by
jacob boaz
-
Ancient Egypt
Hi Mark,
It is a shame we of western world have a tendency to complicate simplicity. It seems we are still unable to think in the simple terms of the Ancient Egyptians. Quite simply the lower slope of Bent pyramid is a 10 rise : 7 run base angle multiplied by 2/3 = 20/21 upper rise run.
Yields our values as follows:
A 4 9/10 seked, a cotan:7/10 = 34º 59' 31.27" - 90º = tan:10/7
by
jacob boaz
-
Ancient Egypt
Page 1 of 25
Pages: 12345