PROOF OF GOD

Piazza Smyth traveled to Egypt in 1864 to survey the Great Pyramid and he is attributed to having first identified the pyramid inch. He used the figure of 500,500,000 British inches as the polar radius. He concluded at that time the cubit was ten-millionth of that radius, or 25.025 British inches. He ascertained at that time the pyramid inch was 1.001 of a British inch.Rutherford had the advantage of knowing a more precise earth polar radius obtained using earth orbiting satellites.Smyth, Petrie, Rutherford and other surveyors still did not know about the "deflection of the vertical" (DOV) problem that was caused by local gravity anomalies. The problem was identified in the 1950-60s, and it was concluded that local gravity anomalies could have a profound effect on the accuracy of precision surveys. The following is quoted from a professional surveyor, "This is a systematic error that does NOT cancel by balancing foresights and backsights. Ignoring this effect can cause problems for high accuracy work." Although the article is discussing geodetic surveying, the foresight/backsight technique is used for all types of surveying. xyHt - a magazine for geospatial professionals Basically, the surveying instrument is out-of-plumb with true vertical. If you moved the instrument to another benchmark 50 feet away it could have a different local vertical. I had wondered why the various surveyors never seemed to agree on what appeared to be easily obtained measurements, and a surveyor getting different results on the same measurement using different instruments. The out-of-plumb problem can cause a particular measured value to be either larger, smaller or not changed, depending upon the direction of the DOV. Depending upon the siting of a benchmark, the local gravity anomalies could cause measurement errors that are significantly greater than the precision of the instrument. If you want to check for sources on this surveying problem, the following search terms should help."deflection of the vertical" + surveying
"local gravity anomaly" + surveying
"local gravity vector" + surveying
"gravity surveys"I think one has to be very careful in considering a particular surveyors values as being "absolute", as the old surveyors didn't know they were out-of-plumb. It is only in the last 30 years that the DOV problem was introduced into surveying courses.

quote:

---

Could you give some details on how he "concluded" and "ascertained"? What inputs did he use? What calculations? What assumptions?

---

Unfortunately, the Smyth book is not on-line. I have the 1978 reprint of "The Great Pyramid, Its Secrets and Mysteries Revealed", 1880.
Smyth was very verbose and his chapter on the "Standard of Length", Chpt III, encompassed 17 pages, with a lot of material crammed into small print footnotes. He used Vyse's and the French savants values to confirm his own measures of the pyramid base(s), and their relationship to Pi, which he then used to establish the pyramid inch. In his book, he denoted all the pyramid exterior and interior measures in the pyr.inch. No easy way to summarize his conclusions, except what I presented before.The book should be available in a good library. Better yet, the original was titled "Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid", 1877, and it is reputed to contain much more descriptive information than is in the 1880 revised edition. Unfortunately, not many copies of that edition made it outside the British Isles. Someone proposed a year or so ago to put it on CD, but I don't know if it was done.

The 1978 reprint of "The Great Pyramid, Its Secrets and Mysteries Revealed", 1880, is available in many libraries. Unless one has an original of the 1880 or 1887 version, it would be unwise to scan and post the material, as one cannot ascertain the publisher of the 1978 version did not make alterations that would allow detection of a copyright violation.One thing I have not been able to do is obtain a copy of the Adam Rutherford volumes. I would like to know if Rutherford had his surveyors remeasure the external dimensions of the Great Pyramid (GP). All the references to Rutherford's conclusions in "The Great Pyramid Decoded", by Peter Lemesurier, imply he used prior surveyors external values.If Rutherford did not remeasure the external values, the last survey would have been the 1925 Cole Survey, and these results are widely available. The Oriental Institute of Chicago (OIC) conducted a survey of all the objects on the Giza Plateau using the latest laser survey equipment in 1999. No information has been released on any of the results. The spokesperson for the OIC claimed there was going to be an accuracy of 1mm over the whole of the plateau. I made an inquiry as to whether the survey determined the "deflection of the vertical" (DOV) at each benchmark and the respondent had no knowledge any such effort was undertaken. There is a strange lack of published results from the OIC survey. This long standing statement is available on a web page, "The underlying data for the Giza Plateau model are not available to the public at this time. When the basic model is finished we will determine how and to whom the model will be made available."Page Not Found | The Oriental Institute of the University of ChicagoI seriously doubt the 1 mm accuracy can be obtained if they did not determine the DOV at each benchmark. The DOV would depend upon how close each survey benchmark was to the major objects on the Giza Plateau.An example of a DOV survey is available at the following:
Pagina niet gevonden - De KoepelThe Giza Plateau would reflect an even more complicated gravity vector map, with the vector magnitudes increasing the closer one gets to a major object.Many individuals had hoped the OIC survey would provide more accuracy than was achieved with prior surveys.Because of the damage to the GP, the actual as-built dimensions cannot be determined. Many suggest that the pyramid Pi relationship provides the strongest clue to the actual dimensions and angles. The Pi value relationship was repeated in the internal dimensions, suggesting that is a major key in identifying the values and meaning of various dimensions.

I started at page 1 to review just how this post started and how it has progressed. My interest in the Great Pyramid (GP) is related to how its dimensions are used to preserve knowledge.Over a period of years, I have examined the values provided by Rutherford, Petrie and Smyth for various Great Pyramid dimensions. Petrie and Smyth had some really bad conditions in some areas they surveyed and were not very thorough, but the surveyor Rutherford hired was able to work in very good conditions. To satisfy his premise, Rutherford needed to fill in more detail than was provided by Smyth and Petrie. Rutherford filled in many missing dimensions, but Rutherford "qualified" his values in a way the other two surveyors did not.In Appendix F of Lemesurier's book, "The Great Pyramid Decoded", it states,

quote:

---

One of the procedures used in the measurement of the Pyramid involves the averaging of a large number of different measurements of the same feature. The resulting average figure tends, not unnaturally, to ignore preconceived notions of what a 'neat' answer should be, and often displays many digits to the right of the decimal point. At this juncture the temptation is great to round the figures up or down. Yet a moment's thought reveals the potential danger of such a policy --- for how is the researcher to know that he is not moving away from the correct figure? Consequently the resulting figures need initially to be accepted as they stand.

---

As a result, Rutherford presented his values with 3 to 6 decimal places, with the bulk being 4, 5 and 6 places. The devil is in the details, as it is conceivable that Rutherford's surveyor could have used a micrometer device, as an extension, on many of his measurements. The methodology used in the averaging is not stated nor the type of instruments used to obtain particular values. If the many decimals are the result of mathematical averaging rather than instrument precision, the stated "accuracies" are invalid, basically stated by Percy earlier.It appears Rutherford's surveyor did not remeasure the exterior dimensions, also from Appendix F,

quote:

---

Rutherford's own figures for the Pyramid as designed are, almost without exception, well within the stated tolerances of the most authoritative surveys (on which, indeed, they are largely based) and are thus, by defintion, necessarily as valid as any other figures which conform to those tolerances.

---

Unfortunately, there is no clarification as to what Rutherford meant by "as designed".An earlier statement made by WT, Msg 428 pg 29, suggests preconceived attitudes about human achievement that are not supported by fact.

quote:

---

It is axiomatic - ancient humans did not possesss advanced mathematical and geometrical and astronomical knowledge comparable to present day. To say they did defies the obvious, common sense, and the evidence.

---

I need only point out the Mayan calendar as one example that identifies highly advanced mathematical and astronomical knowlege, far exceeding anything the so-called Western science had 200 years ago.Hugh Harleston identified the "hunab" as the basic Mayan unit of measure and the Americanists that ridiculed Harleston couldn't conceive the "primitive" Mayans had a sophisticated metrology system. Harleston added a few more discoveries that were derided by the Americanists, but which actually supported the sophisticated astronomical knowledge required to produce the Mayan calendar.This gets into another area this post has covered, just what unit of measure (metrology system) is most appropriate to discuss GP dimensions. I really doesn't matter whether one uses Metric, British or pyr.inches to represent physical sizes. What is important, as Harleston found with the hunab, certain dimensions present a specific numerical meaning only in the builders basic unit(s).I would like to add this, one should not equate the knowledge of the average ancient Egyptian to what was known by those that had been educated in "The House of the Pharaoh". It is no different today than 3 to 5 thousand years ago, there is a wide divide between what is known by the average citizen as compared to those educated in "The Halls of Scientific Academia".

My previous post that mentioned numerical relationships, refers to mathematical and/or physical relationships, not numerology.

If the designer of a structure deliberately designed a room where the long side was 3.14 times the short side, I could say the intent was to present numeric evidence that the designer understood the ratio of the diameter to the circumference of a circle, regardless what the room was used for.In Hugh Harleston's case, he found the Mayans had deliberately built and spaced their structures using a basic unit of measure he renamed the "hunab". He also found that specific multiples of the hunab represented selective astronomical relationships.As for ancient man not knowing anything about astronomy, I suggest reading the research of Livio Stecchini, here,
Metrum.org Is For Salethe origin of British measures,
Metrum.org Is For Sale
and the determination of earth size by the ancients,
Metrum.org Is For SaleIn one of the Egyptian tombs there was a ceiling (now in Paris) that included the full Zodiac (Dendera Zodiac) with all the major stars noted, and the full Southern Zodiac was not visible from any part of Egypt.The Great Pyramid, in its damaged condition is not a very good example to try to prove an absolute. There is considerable evidence that ancient man had excellent knowlege of earth size, their position on the earth, and more astronomical knowledge 1000s of years before the so-called enlightened Europeans.This message has been edited by FrankM, 07-31-2004 12:10 AM

It is amazing what students are being taught about the Great Pyramid. The following site touches on a number of issues, and these are typical of what is being taught in schools, everywhere.http://users.bigpond.net.au/turtle/pyramid/pyramid.htmlFor those that have reviewed the research of Livio C. Stecchini concerning ancient Eygpt, the Pharaoh's of that land knew exactly where they were on this planet. He does not speculate how they knew, but they had precise knowledge on the exact size of the earth, something we did not determine until 1957. Current historical evidence supports the above statement.

It was Gilgamesh that introduced the term "cycles".The whole premise of the pyramid being proof of God has been addressed before, and those who have done so were either unaware of or totally dismissed outside evidence. WT cites evidence in Smyth's book as an important basis of his argument, but he does not point out the all consuming hatred Smyth had for anything Egyptian, in fact any civilization that preceded his "enlightened" Christian view. The Introduction to Smyth's book is a precursor of the slant he presents to all the "evidence" he identifies. In a particular condemning diatribe about the wicked Egyptians, he ends the paragraph with this:

quote:

---

But theGreat Pyramid is, in its origins and nature, something pure and perfectly different.

---

This statement is introducing his theory that divine guidance was needed to built the pyramid the way it was. Another quote cuts directly to the chase,

quote:

---

Modern Astronomers are involuntarily proving that Man, unaided by supernatural Divine Power, could not possibly have measured the Sun-distance accurately in the Age of the Great Pyramid; and yet it is recorded there with exceeding accuray.

---

In Chapter 4, Smyth titles a section thus,"The Great Pyramid before Science", and that is a whole of his premise, the Ancient Egyptians knew nothing and he fills his book with Biblical quote after quote to support his contention. Smyth's views had considerable influence on those that later investigated the pyramid, and it is this "divine" evidence Smyth pushed that supported the views of Rutherford and Lemesurier. Smyth knew nothing about all the astronomical knowledge that is now known to have been used by the ancient Egyptians in the periods before and after the time of the Great Pyramid. (See Stechinni and related metrology research.)To isolate the Great Pyramid from its surroundings, as "Proof of God", is placing oneself in the position of the blind men, each, with conviction, describing an elephant by examining just one part.

One of the issues presented by Jim Fournier in
http://www.geoman.com/jim/pyramid.html
is whether the ancient Egyptians had any geodetic knowledge. This is quoted from the above URL: You have to know the size of the earth to be able to establish benchmarks that are 1/12 of the length of the meridian from the equator to the pole.Gilgamesh used the term "cycles of technology", and my quotation of Gilgamesh brought forth an "admin" chastisement that I was deviating from the post subject. Do expect to receive an appropriate chastisment from "admin". I have no idea if Jim Fournier is or is not a "non-supernaturalist", but you do seem to give a lot of weight to "them" and "secularists" to support your contentions.This message has been edited by FrankM, 08-02-2004 01:05 AM