Discussion:
My website
(too old to reply)
gerson
2016-01-24 10:02:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Read my website and you will find that the puzzle or mystery of
the giza pyramids is much more puzzling and mysterious than it has
seemed up to now. I've used measurements taken from the original
survey in a way that has not been done before, leading to some
surprising discoveries. There's none of the usual nonsense except
in the third section, and by the end of the first section
you will have seen what I've discovered.

www.gersongreatpyramidgiza.com
Kerr Mudd-John
2016-01-25 11:03:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by gerson
Read my website and you will find that the puzzle or mystery of
the giza pyramids is much more puzzling and mysterious than it has
seemed up to now. I've used measurements taken from the original
survey in a way that has not been done before, leading to some
surprising discoveries. There's none of the usual nonsense except
in the third section, and by the end of the first section
you will have seen what I've discovered.
www.gersongreatpyramidgiza.com
There are many mysteries about the pyramids, not least why it attracts so
many kooks.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug
gerson
2016-01-25 13:42:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Read my website ...
the giza pyramids is much more puzzling
There are many mysteries about the pyramids, not least why it attracts so many kooks.
Humbug
It's clear you think that anybody that takes an interest in these sorts of things is a kook, and I understand that, but it's also
clear you haven't read it (the website). That's the problem for me, I can't get anybody intelligent to read it; you all know about
Pizza Napoli (Smyth) and pyramidiots blah blah, so none of you feels like taking (like wasting) any time over it.

Moses said, or anyway Charton Heston, "I shall turn aside to see this strange sight", [various translations] (or was that 'site'),
and came across the burning bush. Yeah, well who believes that. Read the website.

It'll be common knowledge one day, a la Schopenhauer (just looked up the spelling), you'll see.
Richard Heathfield
2016-01-25 14:22:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<snip>
Post by gerson
There are many mysteries about the pyramids, not least why it attracts so many kooks.
It's clear you think that anybody that takes an interest in these sorts
of things is a kook, and I understand that, but it's also clear you
haven't read it (the website). That's the problem for me, I can't get
anybody intelligent to read it;
Not my cup of tea, but can I just put in a good word for "gerson"? He's
been around rec.puzzles for quite a while, and he has never particularly
struck me as being kookatropic. I'm not saying he's onto something - it
may simply be that, on this particular subject, his kook gene* cuts in.
But I think it's fair to give him the benefit of the doubt and look a
little past the obvious "oh, it's about pyramid measurements so it must
be kookinology".

Although, as I say, it's not my particular mug of char, I did take a
look at the page when gerson first posted the URL, and it didn't shout
out KOOK! to me. It struck me more as a page written by a mathematician
with an interest in ancient civil engineering measurement units (and, I
infer, their possible spread to Britain from Egypt?) - a mathematician
who is well aware that he is advancing into territory traditionally
guarded by kooks, and is nervous that he will be mistaken for one.
Witness: "it’s very different from every other site [on the subject]
you’re ever likely to have found up to now".

On the other hand, it's kind of hard (on casual reading) to work out
what the actual point of the page is, unless it's this 6π√3 thing. (For
those with ASCII-only newsreaders, that's 6*pi*sqrt(3).)

*We all have a kook gene, and the best we can hope for is that it's
recessive and dormant.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
gerson
2016-01-26 00:52:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Not my cup of tea, ...
On the other hand, it's kind of hard (on casual reading) to work out what the actual point of the page is, unless it's this 6π√3
thing. (For those with ASCII-only newsreaders, that's 6*pi*sqrt(3).)
*We all have a kook gene, and the best we can hope for is that it's recessive and dormant.
I'm glad of this reasonable response, thank you. There's the 6piRoot3 and there's the Root2/12 also - and if there's a point, it
might be that the builders/designers could calculate as if they had buttons to press on a calculator. And discovering this doesn't
make me a kook. Being interested in it makes me a kook though, so beware folks, if you get interested in things that kookies are
interested in, you'll be a kooky too. And this stuff truly belongs on rec.puzzles, but you have to actually *read* the website to
find that out.
Kerr Mudd-John
2016-01-26 22:06:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Not my cup of tea, ...
On the other hand, it's kind of hard (on casual reading) to work out =
=
Post by Richard Heathfield
what the actual point of the page is, unless it's this 6=CF=80=E2=88=9A=
3 thing. (For =
Post by Richard Heathfield
those with ASCII-only newsreaders, that's 6*pi*sqrt(3).)
*We all have a kook gene, and the best we can hope for is that it's =
recessive and dormant.
I'm glad of this reasonable response, thank you. There's the 6piRoot3 =
=
and there's the Root2/12 also - and if there's a point, it might be th=
at =
the builders/designers could calculate as if they had buttons to press=
=
on a calculator. And discovering this doesn't make me a kook. Being =
interested in it makes me a kook though, so beware folks, if you get =
interested in things that kookies are interested in, you'll be a kooky=
=
too. And this stuff truly belongs on rec.puzzles, but you have to =
actually *read* the website to find that out.
Fair enough. But sometimes we do get flyby bare links to "My New Excitin=
g =

Theory!"

-- =

Bah, and indeed, Humbug
Doc O'Leary
2016-01-25 17:43:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
For your reference, records indicate that
Post by gerson
That's the problem for me, I can't get anybody intelligent to read it
Maybe it’s because you seem to be more interested in driving traffic to
your site via vague teasers than actually discussing whatever it is that
is supposedly on topic for a puzzle newsgroup. Your original post was
devoid of any demonstrated intelligence, so you shouldn’t be too
surprised that nobody with two neurons to rub together cares to read yet
another pyramid-related manifesto.
--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly
James Dow Allen
2016-01-26 13:40:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by gerson
Read my website and you will find that the puzzle or mystery of
the giza pyramids is much more puzzling and mysterious than it has
seemed up to now.
I've read part of the page and am not sure what conclusion to make. Why
do you use both inches and "megalithic yards" as measurements? The
Egyptians themselves used neither; they used cubits.

I did find the dimensions of the King's Chamber intriguing! With width
exactly half the length, and height exactly half the floor diagonal it
is "rather neat" that the length and solid diagonal will form a 3-4-5
triangle. But that's just a geometric fact. (Whichever Egyptian first
noticed that fact must have been very pleased and astounded -- according
to mathematical historians, the Old Kingdom may not have known the
Pythagorean Theorem.)

But I'm not so impressed that the length, to 1 part in a thousand, is
sqrt(160) megalithic yards. To get such a nice approximation by chance
you just need several hundred "nice" numbers per octave. By allowing
square roots, cube roots, reciprocals, multiplications or divisions by
3.1415925 (or by (4/3)^4 = 3.1604938, the pi approximation actually used
by Egyptians) you can get several hundred "nice" numbers in an octave.

But I don't claim this argument will dispose of all the coincidences you
document. Is there one in particular you are most certain of that I
might focus on?

James Dow Allen
gerson
2016-01-27 05:41:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Dow Allen
Post by gerson
Read my website and you will find that the puzzle or mystery of
the giza pyramids is much more puzzling and mysterious than it has
seemed up to now.
I've read part of the page and am not sure what conclusion to make. Why
do you use both inches and "megalithic yards" as measurements? The
Egyptians themselves used neither; they used cubits.
I did find the dimensions of the King's Chamber intriguing! With width
exactly half the length, and height exactly half the floor diagonal ...
But I'm not so impressed that the length, to 1 part in a thousand, is
sqrt(160) megalithic yards. ...
But I don't claim this argument will dispose of all the coincidences you
document. Is there one in particular you are most certain of that I
might focus on?
James Dow Allen
Not using cubits, but using only "megalithic yards" and inches, is how
the long string of coincidences comes about, it's part of the puzzle.

As to one thing in particular, if you consider the ratio I talk about
with respect to P1 and P3, then that's a surprising discovery, and
deepens the mystery all by itself. That's irrespective of the
measurements of the broken or dotted red rectangle. You don't need
"megalithic yards" and inches to discover that ratio, (although it was
because of the measurements that I found the ratio). That's under the
heading "The layout" in section one. It's about seven scroll clicks down
on my moderate sized rectangular screen, but to do that it means you
miss some other things. There's a diagram with two sloping blue lines
connecting P1 and P3. But that's not really what you asked for. You
could consider the coincidences of the dimensions of the red rectangle.

Perhaps another thing. The passage system inside P1 is offset from the
centre line by about 287 inches. A bit of geometry (involving using
megalithic yards though, and sqrt(2)/12), gives the value for this.
This relies on what I call the Main Circle, which is remarkable in
itself. I haven't seen any attempt at all to explain this offset before,
but it flows fairly well from all the preceding stuff.

Perhaps I shouldn't have put the KC and the QC at the beginning, but the
KC dimensions were the thing that set me to find so many other things.
gerson
2016-02-10 10:47:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
... King's Chamber ...
... height exactly half the floor diagonal ...
But I'm not so impressed that the length, to 1 part in a thousand, is
sqrt(160) megalithic yards
I thought of the floor diagonal as being sqrt(200), but of course it's
better expressed as 10*sqrt(2) now that you sort of point it out, and
the other dimensions follow, that is the sqrt(160) and so on. The floor
diagonal is the same as the diagonal of a square of side 10 My.

I'm pleased you were interested enough to make a post. (I wish
you were more interested though, or everyone really).

{I've tried to write this to you directly, but I haven't been able to figure
out your email address. Apologies to all. Not that anyone cares.}
Richard Heathfield
2016-02-10 12:18:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by gerson
... King's Chamber ...
... height exactly half the floor diagonal ...
But I'm not so impressed that the length, to 1 part in a thousand, is
sqrt(160) megalithic yards
I thought of the floor diagonal as being sqrt(200), but of course it's
better expressed as 10*sqrt(2) now that you sort of point it out, and
the other dimensions follow, that is the sqrt(160) and so on. The floor
diagonal is the same as the diagonal of a square of side 10 My.
I'm pleased you were interested enough to make a post. (I wish
you were more interested though, or everyone really).
I think the trouble is that people think (rightly, perhaps?) that you
have stumbled on a coincidence and ascribed undue significance to it.

A human-friendly measure of distance (for the purposes of, say, deciding
how long a wall should be) is likely to be somewhere between the length
of a shoe and the distance between maximally outstretched hands. Call it
300mm to 2000mm, say.

Consider a number of building projects across the globe, all taking part
at roughly the same time, all in places that have all /independently/
devised their own standard of mensuration. Let us assume that each of
them has adopted a standard distance at random within that range, and
that their standard measure has been made to a tolerance of +/- 1mm
(which would be extraordinarily good for the time, I think).

How many such (independent!) projects must there be, before there is a
50% chance that at least two of them are using the same measure?

There are 1700 choices, so you might think there would have to be 850
such projects for there to be a 50/50 chance that two will use the same
measure purely by chance.

But no. This is an example of the Birthday Paradox, and the answer turns
out to be not 850, but a mere 49. And 89 will give you a 90% chance! In
fact, 152 such projects will give a 99.9% chance of a coincidence. How
many building projects were actually going on at the time? Thousands, I
should think.

So, when two disparate cultures are using what appears to be the same
unit of measurement, the burden of proof lies with those who think it is
/not/ a coincidence; it is up to them to show a causal connection.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
gerson
2016-02-11 00:01:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Heathfield
I think the trouble is that people think (rightly, perhaps?) that you
have stumbled on a coincidence and ascribed undue significance to it.
A human-friendly measure of distance ...
So, when two disparate cultures are using what appears to be the same
unit of measurement, the burden of proof lies with those who think it is
/not/ a coincidence; it is up to them to show a causal connection.
Looks like I shouldn't have used the stone circles to establish the second
unit, but I thought it would make it all easier. I see that you're right that
might have the opposite effect.

Anyway, you can ignore all the stuff about Avebury and England and just
look at the circle in the pyramid diagram, that's the circle I call the Main
Circle, and see that its radius is exactly 80 of the the second unit, and
that drawing the quarter circle on top results in finding the passage offset,
(or entrance offset).

The so called coffer or sarcophagus (the strange granite box in the KC)
appears to be intended to be exactly 1 of these units wide. That's in the
second paragraph of section 2. The second unit is 38.48 inches where
"the survey says" 38.50 inches (for its external width).

Cheers, and thank you for you interest.
gerson
2016-02-12 13:13:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Heathfield
I think the trouble is that people think (rightly, perhaps?) that you
have stumbled on a coincidence and ascribed undue significance to it.
Not "stumbled", and not "a" [that is to say not simply one] coincidence,
but a number of coincidences - (say, a few)
Post by Richard Heathfield
Consider a number of building projects across the globe
... Let us assume that each of them has adopted a standard distance
at random within that range,
There are 1700 choices ....
But no. This is an example of the Birthday Paradox ...
No it isn't
Post by Richard Heathfield
So, when two disparate cultures are using what appears to be the same
unit of measurement ...
Should give you something to think about
Post by Richard Heathfield
Richard Heathfield
Richard Heathfield
2016-02-12 16:39:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<snip>
Post by gerson
Post by Richard Heathfield
... Let us assume that each of them has adopted a standard distance
at random within that range, There are 1700 choices ....
But no. This is an example of the Birthday Paradox ...
No it isn't
'Tis.

Okay, why don't you think so?
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
gerson
2016-02-12 20:55:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Richard Heathfield"
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by gerson
Post by Richard Heathfield
... Let us assume that each of them has adopted a standard distance
at random within that range, There are 1700 choices ....
But no. This is an example of the Birthday Paradox ...
No it isn't
'Tis.
:-)
Post by Richard Heathfield
Okay, why don't you think so?
Because the birthday paradox isn't really a paradox, it just seems to
a paradox because of people's expectations and assumptions, and it
wouldn't seem to be a paradox if their expectations and assumptions
were more sophisticated; and so considering whether something is
like the birthday paradox is really a matter of considering one's
assumptions. So, oh, um, it is like the birthday paradox after all !
Kerr Mudd-John
2016-01-31 11:20:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by gerson
Read my website and you will find that the puzzle or mystery of
the giza pyramids is much more puzzling and mysterious than it has
seemed up to now. I've used measurements taken from the original
survey in a way that has not been done before, leading to some
surprising discoveries. There's none of the usual nonsense except
in the third section, and by the end of the first section
you will have seen what I've discovered.
www.gersongreatpyramidgiza.com
Seems to have an error ATM
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug
gerson
2016-02-02 00:46:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kerr Mudd-John
the giza pyramids ...
Seems to have an error ATM
Whereabouts is it, please ?
Kerr Mudd-John
2016-02-02 19:41:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by gerson
Post by Kerr Mudd-John
the giza pyramids ...
Seems to have an error ATM
Whereabouts is it, please ?
the link that I quoted said summat about being unable to contact a
database. I'm not questioning your geometry, as I haven't seen it yet!
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug
gerson
2016-02-02 23:28:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kerr Mudd-John
the link that I quoted said summat about being unable to contact a
database. I'm not questioning your geometry, as I haven't seen it yet!
fixed now, thank you

www.gersongreatpyramidgiza.com
Kerr Mudd-John
2016-02-04 11:04:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by gerson
Post by Kerr Mudd-John
the link that I quoted said summat about being unable to contact a
database. I'm not questioning your geometry, as I haven't seen it yet!
fixed now, thank you
www.gersongreatpyramidgiza.com
Too wild. Conflating Stonehenge Avebury and the Great Pyramid all
constructed at quite different times.
Constructing a cube root is unlikely to have been within any of their
powers at that time.

Sorry. It's a human trait to look for patterns, but sometimes they are
just co-incidences.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug
gerson
2016-02-05 05:50:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kerr Mudd-John
Too wild. Conflating Stonehenge Avebury and the Great Pyramid all
constructed at quite different times.
Constructing a cube root is unlikely to have been within any of their
powers at that time.
Sorry. It's a human trait to look for patterns, but sometimes they are
just co-incidences.
Don't be sorry, i'm pleased you've read it and have something to say
about it. I hope you got down to the end of section 1, including
the diagram of the giza layout, it's not very far.

Which are the most oustanding co-incidences of them?
Loading...