PROOF OF GOD

With all the numerical issues in thie thread, our efforts to find some common ground can only succeed if both sides have a strong mathematical underpinning. At one point I speculated to myself that perhaps you felt that an object's dimensions were a function of the measurement system, but discarded that possibility as improbable. I still hope it's improbable and that I'm misinterpreting the above quote, but now I'm beginning to wonder.I'd like to suggest to the other participants that it might be worth considering the possibility that some fundamental mathematical misunderstandings are the root cause of the difficulties in this thread.--Percy

That's a bit incomplete. What you actually said was: Everyone knows the metric system wasn't developed until the 19th century. The bold emphasis on the 1st part of the sentence is yours, not mine, from your original Message 195. What I'm wondering about is the meaning of the 2nd part of this sentence. Were you really saying it's invalid to measure the Pyramid using the metric system?--Percy

Like all modern measurement systems, the standard meter's definition continues to be refined to be more accurate. At present a standard meter is defined as the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 seconds (this is the inverse of the speed of light in a vacuum, and so naturally depends upon the accuracy with which the length of a second is known). The length of the meter has never changed by amounts that would affect measurements of things like pyramids. Not only can pyramids be effectively measured using the metric system, they can be measured in terms of any units one chooses, including meters, inches, furlongs and light-years. A long-stemmed rose by any measuring system would be as long. Why do you believe the units of measurement employed affect your claims?--Percy

You can convert freely between measurement systems. There is no single and proper "measuring unit of the Pyramid."The Pyramid has a different height in inches than you are claiming. Your say your Biblical numbers add to 5449 inches, but all references we can find say the actual original height was in the neiborhood of 5775 inches. Most references provide the height in feet (481.4) or meters (146.6), not inches, but the conversion is easily done.You said in Message 204 that you would provide evidence for your figure in a few days, but your one lone source will not carry much weight. Do a search on the Internet and you'll find the figures we've provided you. My Britannica says, "it's original height being 481-2/5 ft." My book titled History of Ancient Egypt: An Introduction by Erik Hornung says, "this mighty monument reached 480 feet in height."--Percy

This is just simple math. I had a feeling this was the problem.To convert from feet to inches, the conversion factor is 12 inches/foot. 481.4 feet times 12 inches/foot equals 5777 inches.To convert from meters to inches, the conversion factor we want is 39.37 inches/meter. 146.6 meters times 39.37 inches/meter is 5772 inches.Whether you use the 480 foot figure that yields 5760 inches or the 146.6 meter figure that yields 5772 inches or the 481.4 foot figure that yields 5777 inches, they all agree with each other within a foot and a half, about 0.3%, well within measurement error for a capstone that is no longer there to actually measure.Your measure of 5449 inches disagrees with all other measurements by at least 25 feet, about 5.7%.Your 5449 figure is mentioned at many sites making the same argument about adding letters from Biblical passages. These numerological ideas date back to the 1800's when John Taylor and Piazzi Smyth wrote books promoting them. Many websites around the Internet replicate these arguments, but the popular appeal has no bearing on authenticity, and repetition can't make them true. Unfortunately for this argument, the Great Pyramid was more than 25 feet taller than 5449 inches. Sure, I'll do even better: Here a couple from actual Egyptian websites: And there was no end in sight. If you want more, just go to Google. The only sites that say the height is 5449 inches are ones replicating the Taylor/Smyth arguments. People have posted the actual height many times. Few have provided a source because the correct information is so copiously available all over the Internet, in any encyclopaedia, and at any library, but just to correct you, Jar posted a reference a long time ago in Message 63.The height of the Great Pyramid is easily calculated using triangulation from the ground. It's been done many, many times. The small differences are due to measurement error and the fact that the height of the cap can't be measured, only estimated, since it is no longer there. Your measurement is not only shorter than the original height, it's barely taller than the current height and allows no room for the capstone.--Percy

From the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1986 edition, Volume 4, page 320: The density of water at standard temperature and pressure is 1 g/cm³, by definition.Therefore, the average density of the earth is around 5.5 times that of water. I think you've misread a decimal point for a comma.--Percy

As has been pointed out, this point is debatable, as made clear by Message 182. It certainly isn't impossible that there was never a capstone, but there seems no unequivocal evidence either way.But I hope we don't lose my original point. Do you now understand that one can freely convert between measurement systems? This brings us to another mathematical point, one that also has been raised before. How do you measure something like a pyramid to an accuracy of an inch? A single inch is a mere .02% of your 5449 figure. Thermal expansion and contraction probably varies the height by much more than an inch every day. You can't know how much the pyramid has eroded and settled since it was built, not only in inches but not even in feet. And just where is the exact base level for measuring the pyramid's height? The stone immediately beneath the apex is not accessible, so do you measure from the base of a stone in the center of a side? Which side? From a corner? Which corner?What you want to avoid is a process that just keeps measuring from different points until you get a measurement you like, then claim that's the right one. It is important to establish the measurement criteria at the outset before proceding.But the most important point was raised by Melchior. Even if all questions raised have satisfactory answers, of what possible spirtual significance are these numerological coincidences?--Percy

Hi, WillowTree!I'd like to mention some additional issues with your 5449 inch height figure for the Great Pyramid. In your message introducing this topic, Message 1, you referenced the site Great Pyramid of Giza Research Association. He gives the height as follows at Measurements of the Great Pyramid (the first value is cubits, the parenthesized value meters): There are two problems with this:

• Inconsistency. On page Great Pyramid of Giza Research Association he says the capstone was never there:
  ​
  It appears that the Great Pyramid was never finished since the top is flat, and not pointed, as it should be. It has a truncated summit which is coarse and uneven and measures about 30 square feet...This pyramid does not currently have one and it appears that it never did. Diodorus Siculus (60 BC)...tells us that in his day, when the Pyramid stood with its casing stones intact, the structure was "complete and without the least decay, and yet it lacked its apex stone"...Also it appears that between the different courses of stones there is a thin cement which is absent on the upper surface of the highest course. Why the pyramid was never finished remains a mystery.
  ​
  If the capstone was never there, then why does he include the height with capstone?
  ​
• The current height of 137.2 meters is 5402 inches, not 5449 inches. What is the origin of this 5449 figure? No one anywhere decribes how this figure for the height of the original pyramid without capstone was determined.

One additional problem with the 5449 figure is that many sites that repeat your claims not only say it is the height of the Great Pyramid, but that it is also the height of the average land elevation on earth. This turns out to be false. The correct figure is apparently 840 meters, which is 33,071 inches, not 5449 inches. (Page not found | Science Centre Singapore)There are several problems with these numerology arguments:

• If you take an object with many measurements, like a pyramid, and are willing to work at it, you can find all kinds of numerical coincidences.
  ​
• Most practitioners of this art are not very interested in accuracy. Accuracy isn't what sells books.
  ​
• Many times the numbers get beyond questions of accuracy and are simply made up.
  ​
• I think you'll find that even the 5449 letters in Isaiah is not fixed, but that it is a function of what particular copy of Isaiah you use.
  ​
• Even if all your numerological claims were true, the religious or spiritual significance is ambiguous at best.

--Percy

I think what we'd like to see is the evidence that the Great Pyramid was 5449 inches tall when originally constructed.One other point I've been wondering about: If the pyramid has all these precise numerological features because of its exact proportions, how is this consistent with an imperfect pyramid with a missing capstone?--Percy

The concavity of the Great Pyramid's sides is linear, not curved, yielding an 8-sided pyramid. See http://www.catchpenny.org/concave.html (has some good pictures and diagrams) and The Great Pyramid Reflections in Time (argues that the ratio of the length of the sides describes various measures of the length of the year).--Percy

This picture clearly shows the discontinuity down the center of each face, which would not be there were the faces a smooth curve:--Percy

Hi, WillowTree!A little more information about your concavity. You said: This webpage, The Great Pyramid Reflections in Time, gives some numbers for the concavity. If the corners of one side of the pyramid are labeled A and C, and the midpoint of the concavity is B, then ABC is a triangle. This website says that for the Great Pyramid, if A is 1.0 in length, then the length from A to B to C is 1.000046544. AC is therefore the chord of a circle, and the height of the triangle at the centerpoint of the base we can call H.H can be calculated by simple trigonometry to be .004824, and we can then plug H into this equation for determining the radius, R, of a circle (from Radius of Convex Wall):R = ((AC/2)² + H²) / 2HSolving this equation gives a radius of about 26. Plugging in actual numbers, if AC, the base length of the Great Pyrammid is actually 9072 inches, then multiplying 26 times 9072 yields 235,872 inches, or about 3.7 miles. The radius of the earth is somewhat larger.I was short of time while doing this, so I haven't done due diligence verifying the figures or the equation. But I wanted to go through this exercise because it didn't make sense to me that the radius of the earth would be visible to the eye and measurable across a distance of only 756 feet. I hope someone else repeats this exercise with more reliable numbers and a better understanding of geometry so that we can improve the numbers and develop some confidence in the results.--Percy

All it's saying is that the radius of a circle through the points of triangle ABC is 3.7 miles. That's several orders of magnitude smaller than 2000 miles, which is half the earth's radius. I think it would be a good idea for someone to independently look up the figures and do the math. Message 289 shows this ariel photo of the Great Pyramid indicating that the faces are not curves anyway:These points are in rebuttal to your Message 284: But the Great Pyramid's sides are not curved, but flat and 8-sided. The radius of the circle inscribed on the triangle formed by the discontinuity is a few miles, not a few thousand miles.--Percy

This is right up there with your "you can't use the metric system to measure the Great Pyramid" stance. You're going to find evidence against a photograph? --Percy

The latitude would be the same, so we only have to figure out the longitude. The longitude of the Great Pyramid is east of Greenwich, so 180^o around the globe would give us a west logitude equal to 180-x. Plugging in the Great Pyramid's longitude of 31^o 9" east gives a longitude of 148^o 51" west, and the latitude is about 30^o north, and this is a point about 1000 miles north-north east of Hawaii.This means that if archeologists were to search the ocean depths at this point, they would find the remains of a lost civilization that provided the means and impetus for all ancient Egyptian accomplishments, including the Great Pyramid. But archeologists don't want their precious preconceptions destroyed, so of course this will never happen. --Percy