Metric And Imperial In Great Pyramid.

 Posts 181
Regular
jim
Regular
Joined: Apr 20 2012, 08:19 PM
Flinders Petrie measures for the Great Pyramid.

Base mean 9068.8 inches 755.733 imperial feet
Height mean 5776 inches 481.333 imperial feet

Slant height then 611.935 imperial feet

Area of base in acres = 13.0975 acres
Area of face in acres = 5.308305 acres

Area of base in ha = 5.30042 ha same number as face of pyramid in acres.

Note; The height of the pyramid squared = area of face'

481.333 squared / 43560 = 5.3186 acres = area of face.

5.3186 ha = 13.142 acres = area of base.

Total area of pyramid in acres face x 4 = 21.23322 acres + area of base 13.0975 = 34.33 acres same number as length of Kings chamber in feet 34.35 feet.

Jim

 Posts 33
Casual Member
Einmaleins
Casual Member
Joined: Feb 12 2018, 06:58 AM
I cannot see the Egyptians using your inches and feet.

wendy.krieger
wendy.krieger
It has been a fashion in England, with the appearance of the Ordinance Survey maps, and exact measurements from archeology, to poke various units into the numbers, and lines across the country side, and to suppose these are a reflection of a lost world.

There is a tradition of recovering a lost world, with the completion of a quest, such as Jason and the golden fleece in Homer, and King Authur and the holy grail in the 6th century.  These are usually set against desolate worlds, such as the great plague and nuclear winter that followed the eruption of the 535 volcano.  The traditions are global, but implemented differently.

One supposition is that the measures are preserved.  One can even see in this forum, that the systems of Essig and of Pajul are geographic-metric, while Crosby, Kode's primel, and my COF are derived from some the same base constants.  If one were to suppose that the current measures of imperial and metric, reflect continuity of some ancient measures, then this is pretty much spot on.

Dozenal would never really come of age until they can do this too.  I can't see it happening, though.

 Posts 181
Regular
jim
Regular
Joined: Apr 20 2012, 08:19 PM
Wendy

Took my dogs to Sweeney reserve today at Petrie.  Always think of the name  Petrie when driving through.  What a family.

http://everydoghasherday.com.au/sweenie ... off-leash/

wendy.krieger
wendy.krieger
Flinders Petrie, the egyptologist, is father to John Petrie (the petrie polygon &c), and related to both Matthew Flinders and to the Petrie of Petrie Bight and Petrie suburb fame.  It's a small world.

 Posts 181
Regular
jim
Regular
Joined: Apr 20 2012, 08:19 PM
Einmaleins wrote: "I cannot see the Egyptians using your inches and feet."

I don't have a good answer for that however if I demonstrate it in the second pyramid maybe someone can. Flinders Petrie prided himself on measuring objects eg old doorways buildings stone circles and pyramids to an exactness of 1/100th of an inch.

When he came to the Second Pyramid besides measuring the base of the pyramid he measured the coffer in it's  great chamber. Fortunately the coffer within the second pyramid has a lid and unlike the Great pyramid the coffer has not been hacked at for souvenirs..

outside length 103.68 inches and this may seem an odd number however it is 8.64 imperial feet a number that seems to permeate all of the three great pyramids at Giza. The width by lid measurement is 42 inches exactly 3.5 imperial feet and the outside height of the coffer is 38.12 + 9.9 ins (9.9 inches is also known as a Welsh foot or Great span) = 48.02 inches or 4 imp feet.therefor the volume of the outside of the coffer = 120.96 cubic feet.

The outside volume of the coffer is connected to the inside volume but a number we know as the Babylonian value for pi 3.125. 120.96 / 3.125 = 38.7072 cubic feet and we know this is correct as the dimensions of the inside of the coffer according are inside length 84.73 ins width 26.69 ins debth 29.59 ins.38.724 cubic feet.

And just as with the Great pyramid the inside volume is connected with the total volume of the pyramid.
Total volume 91,506,250 cubic imperial feet or 68,750,000 Indus valley/ Saxon feet cubic feet' the inside volume of the coffer in the Great Pyramid = 31.25 cubic Saxon/Indus feet (same number as found in 2nd pyr coffer 3.125)., In the Great pyramid the volume of the coffer is 1/2,200,000th of the pyramid as a whole.

The second pyramid coffer is similar however it is not as large as the Great pyramid and so the volume of the coffer is 1/2,020,000 of the pyramid.

volume of coffer 38.7072 cubic feet x 2,020,000 = 78,188,544 cubic imperial feet. Of course this will work for any measure but imperial feet fit so nicely in the second pyramid. And it seems to me both the old Saxon measure and imperial are working together including the ancient metre 39.6 inches.

Jim

Obsessive poster
Obsessive poster
Joined: Sep 10 2011, 11:27 PM
jim wrote:
Einmaleins wrote:I cannot see the Egyptians using your inches and feet.
I don't have a good answer for that however if I demonstrate it in the second pyramid maybe someone can. Flinders Petrie prided himself on measuring objects eg old doorways buildings stone circles and pyramids to an exactness of 1/100th of an inch.

When he came to the Second Pyramid besides measuring the base of the pyramid he measured the coffer in it's  great chamber. Fortunately the coffer within the second pyramid has a lid and unlike the Great pyramid the coffer has not been hacked at for souvenirs..

outside length 103.68 inches and this may seem an odd number however it is 8.64 imperial feet a number that seems to permeate all of the three great pyramids at Giza. The width by lid measurement is 42 inches exactly 3.5 imperial feet and the outside height of the coffer is 38.12 + 9.9 ins (9.9 inches is also known as a Welsh foot or Great span) = 48.02 inches or 4 imp feet.therefor the volume of the outside of the coffer = 120.96 cubic feet.

The outside volume of the coffer is connected to the inside volume but a number we know as the Babylonian value for pi 3.125. 120.96 / 3.125 = 38.7072 cubic feet and we know this is correct as the dimensions of the inside of the coffer according are inside length 84.73 ins width 26.69 ins debth 29.59 ins.38.724 cubic feet.

And just as with the Great pyramid the inside volume is connected with the total volume of the pyramid.
Total volume 91,506,250 cubic imperial feet or 68,750,000 Indus valley/ Saxon feet cubic feet' the inside volume of the coffer in the Great Pyramid = 31.25 cubic Saxon/Indus feet (same number as found in 2nd pyr coffer 3.125)., In the Great pyramid the volume of the coffer is 1/2,200,000th of the pyramid as a whole.

The second pyramid coffer is similar however it is not as large as the Great pyramid and so the volume of the coffer is 1/2,020,000 of the pyramid.

volume of coffer 38.7072 cubic feet x 2,020,000 = 78,188,544 cubic imperial feet. Of course this will work for any measure but imperial feet fit so nicely in the second pyramid. And it seems to me both the old Saxon measure and imperial are working together including the ancient metre 39.6 inches.

Jim
Jim, you managed to place your entire response to Einmaleins inside the quote of his post.  Next time, try checking the box labeled "Dsable BBCode" so you can see the raw bbcode tags in the editor. That way you can see the start and end quote tags and know where you should start writing your response. You don't need to put quotation marks around the message you're responding to, just use the quote tags. I've fixed my copy here to show the right way to do it.
As of 1202/03/01[z]=2018/03/01[d] I use:
ten,eleven = ↊↋, ᘔƐ, ӾƐ, XE or AB.
Base-neutral base annotations
Systematic Dozenal Nomenclature
Primel Metrology
Western encoding (not by choice)
Greasemonkey + Mathjax + PrimelDozenator
(Links to these and other useful topics are in my index post;
click on my user name and go to my "Website" link)

 Posts 181
Regular
jim
Regular
Joined: Apr 20 2012, 08:19 PM
jim wrote:
Einmaleins wrote:I cannot see the Egyptians using your inches and feet.
I don't have a good answer for that however if I demonstrate it in the second pyramid maybe someone can. Flinders Petrie prided himself on measuring objects eg old doorways buildings stone circles and pyramids to an exactness of 1/100th of an inch.

When he came to the Second Pyramid besides measuring the base of the pyramid he measured the coffer in it's  great chamber. Fortunately the coffer within the second pyramid has a lid and unlike the Great pyramid the coffer has not been hacked at for souvenirs..

outside length 103.68 inches and this may seem an odd number however it is 8.64 imperial feet a number that seems to permeate all of the three great pyramids at Giza. The width by lid measurement is 42 inches exactly 3.5 imperial feet and the outside height of the coffer is 38.12 + 9.9 ins (9.9 inches is also known as a Welsh foot or Great span) = 48.02 inches or 4 imp feet.therefor the volume of the outside of the coffer = 120.96 cubic feet.

The outside volume of the coffer is connected to the inside volume but a number we know as the Babylonian value for pi 3.125. 120.96 / 3.125 = 38.7072 cubic feet and we know this is correct as the dimensions of the inside of the coffer according are inside length 84.73 ins width 26.69 ins debth 29.59 ins.38.724 cubic feet.

And just as with the Great pyramid the inside volume is connected with the total volume of the pyramid.
Total volume 91,506,250 cubic imperial feet or 68,750,000 Indus valley/ Saxon feet cubic feet' the inside volume of the coffer in the Great Pyramid = 31.25 cubic Saxon/Indus feet (same number as found in 2nd pyr coffer 3.125)., In the Great pyramid the volume of the coffer is 1/2,200,000th of the pyramid as a whole.

The second pyramid coffer is similar however it is not as large as the Great pyramid and so the volume of the coffer is 1/2,020,000 of the pyramid.

volume of coffer 38.7072 cubic feet x 2,020,000 = 78,188,544 cubic imperial feet. Of course this will work for any measure but imperial feet fit so nicely in the second pyramid. And it seems to me both the old Saxon measure and imperial are working together including the ancient metre 39.6 inches.

Jim
Jim, you managed to place your entire response to Einmaleins inside the quote of his post.  Next time, try checking the box labeled "Dsable BBCode" so you can see the raw bbcode tags in the editor. That way you can see the start and end quote tags and know where you should start writing your response. You don't need to put quotation marks around the message you're responding to, just use the quote tags. I've fixed my copy here to show the right way to do it.
thanks got it on my iPhone not laptop

Jim

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 Posts 33
Casual Member
Einmaleins
Casual Member
Joined: Feb 12 2018, 06:58 AM
Play with numbers ok; but this does not prove the "Imperial" inch was used in Ancient Egypt.

 Posts 181
Regular
jim
Regular
Joined: Apr 20 2012, 08:19 PM
Einmaleins wrote: Play with numbers ok; but this does not prove the "Imperial" inch was used in Ancient Egypt.
The burden of proof;

When at school a teacher may make a statement  you think about it but generally accept it. When older you question.

Steve Jobs before he became very ill realised he had made a mistake but it was to late. Steve Jobs was pretty smart and got many things right, he pondered on the word 'design'.

Most people he said when thinking on that word 'design' thought it meant 'how something looks' (I don't have his exact quote so from memory) but he said no. When you dig the word 'design' really means 'how something works'.

I guess I look at ancient measures that way.

Jim

 Posts 113
Casual Member
Sennekuyl
Casual Member
Joined: Jun 29 2014, 06:00 AM
jim wrote:
Einmaleins wrote: Play with numbers ok; but this does not prove the "Imperial" inch was used in Ancient Egypt.
The burden of proof;

When at school a teacher may make a statement  you think about it but generally accept it. When older you question.

Steve Jobs before he became very ill realised he had made a mistake but it was to late. Steve Jobs was pretty smart and got many things right, he pondered on the word 'design'.

Most people he said when thinking on that word 'design' thought it meant 'how something looks' (I don't have his exact quote so from memory) but he said no. When you dig the word 'design' really means 'how something works'.

I guess I look at ancient measures that way.

Jim
You’re the teacher. Burden of proof is on you.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Obsessive poster
Obsessive poster
Joined: Sep 10 2011, 11:27 PM
I had no idea the word "late" could be used as a verb.

When you dig the word 'design' really means 'how something works'.
Man, I really dig the power of a comma (or its absence). Like, really far out diggit, man! In fact, if you dig into it a bit, I mean, really dig, the power of a comma (or its absence) to transform the meaning of the preceding word is truly remarkable!

jim wrote:I guess I look at ancient measures that way.
"Design", to you, is "how something works"?  Is it really?  Or is it just "how you wish to imagine something works"?  A telephone pole casts a shadow on a sunny day. Does that mean that it was "designed" to be a sundial?  The same can be said of a skyscraper.  Or of Mount Everest.  Some things are just happenstance, without any underlying intent.

jim wrote:The burden of proof;
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
As of 1202/03/01[z]=2018/03/01[d] I use:
ten,eleven = ↊↋, ᘔƐ, ӾƐ, XE or AB.
Base-neutral base annotations
Systematic Dozenal Nomenclature
Primel Metrology
Western encoding (not by choice)
Greasemonkey + Mathjax + PrimelDozenator
(Links to these and other useful topics are in my index post;
click on my user name and go to my "Website" link)

 Posts 181
Regular
jim
Regular
Joined: Apr 20 2012, 08:19 PM
Ok Kode I did say from memory, but hey, here is Steve Jobs quote go argue with him.

'Design is a funny word. Some people think design means how it looks. But of course, if you dig deeper, it's really how it works.' Steve Jobs

Best

Jim