A correction, and an apology to Ray and to the group
Jim Willemin
would be three and a half degrees from the celesital pole, and arrived
at dates of 2581 BCE and 3089 BCE ( MessageID
<Xns99575C1BEDB3Fj...@194.177.96.78>). I made an error
in this calculation. I forgot that the pole precesses along a small
circle, not a great circle, and that degrees in a small circle do not
subtend the same length of arc as degrees on a great circle (the
correction required is to multiply by the sine of the angular radius of
the small circle, in this case 23.5 degrees; the correction factor is
0.399). That is, when the pole had precessed three and a half degrees
along its small-circle path, the actual angular distance between the
pole and Thuban was (0.399 x 3.5), or 1.4 degrees. Making this
correction in my calculations, I discovered that the pole would need to
precess roughly 8.8 (small circle) degrees along its path for Thuban to
lie 3.5 (great circle) degrees from the pole. Taking the nearest
approach of Thuban to the pole as 2831 BCE, and a period of precession
of 25,800 years gives 629 years for the necessary precession to occur,
or dates of 3640 BCE and 2202 BCE for alignment of Thuban with the
descending passage of Khufu's pyramid. The latter date is only 60 years
from Ray's invulnerable date of 2141 BCE for the alignment.
Thus, I apologize to Ray, for insisting on an erroneous date (2581), and
to the group for providing flawed results. However, in pursuing
curiosity about the other pyramids in the Giza complex, I ran across an
interesting site that offers a geometric construction for the interior
arrangements of all three Giza pyramids
(http://www.atara.net/pyramids/index.html), which, although not
published per se, provides a possible and plausible alternative to
stellar alignments for the interior design of the monuments.
Ray Martinez
wrote:
> In a previous thread, I calculated the date at which the star Thuban
> would be three and a half degrees from the celesital pole, and arrived
> at dates of 2581 BCE and 3089 BCE ( MessageID
> in this calculation. I forgot that the pole precesses along a small
> circle, not a great circle, and that degrees in a small circle do not
> subtend the same length of arc as degrees on a great circle (the
> correction required is to multiply by the sine of the angular radius of
> the small circle, in this case 23.5 degrees; the correction factor is
> 0.399). That is, when the pole had precessed three and a half degrees
> along its small-circle path, the actual angular distance between the
> pole and Thuban was (0.399 x 3.5), or 1.4 degrees. Making this
> correction in my calculations, I discovered that the pole would need to
> precess roughly 8.8 (small circle) degrees along its path for Thuban to
> lie 3.5 (great circle) degrees from the pole. Taking the nearest
> approach of Thuban to the pole as 2831 BCE, and a period of precession
> of 25,800 years gives 629 years for the necessary precession to occur,
> or dates of 3640 BCE and 2202 BCE for alignment of Thuban with the
> descending passage of Khufu's pyramid. The latter date is only 60 years
> from Ray's invulnerable date of 2141 BCE for the alignment.
>
Jim: the most respected scientists, surveyors, and researchers have
all made errors like this and even much-much worse. The 2141 BC date
was not arrived at overnight. Many scientists held to a date that was
60 years or more different from 2141 BC for decades. But now, the
issue has long been settled: astronomical authorities, mainly from
Britain, including the first person to suggest the accepted date of
2141 BC in the late 19th century (Royal Astronomer of Scotland, Piazzi
Smyth) have shown positively, since the 1970s, that only in 2141 BC
did the two alignments occur at the same time.
Since there is not in existence even one person who has ever suggested
that the GP was constructed or oriented in this year, the feat of
achieving these alignments before these stars were in place, hundreds
or even thousands of years beforetime, along with the knowledge that
it entails, a knowledge that took our best minds decades to finally
determine, plainly and clearly evidences the existence of God since
Isaiah 19:19,20 identifies the GP in Scripture. The GP is located in
the center of the Nile-Delta quadrant - exactly, which is also the
center point between Upper and Lower Egypt, AND it is, at the same
time, the border between Upper and Lower Egypt, which satisfies the
peculiar passage requirements.
Mankind began ultra-intelligent like the Bible says, he did originate
from lower animals: human evolution is falsified and this physical
evidence proves it. Like I have said since I came to this NG: the
evidence for the existence of God has always been in existence and
voluminous, suppressed by non-believers just like the Bible says.
Now that you admit to being within 60 years I urge you to read
scholarship on the issue and augment your date to 2141 BC (like they
ended up doing eventually).
> Thus, I apologize to Ray, for insisting on an erroneous date (2581), and
> to the group for providing flawed results. However, in pursuing
> curiosity about the other pyramids in the Giza complex, I ran across an
> interesting site that offers a geometric construction for the interior
> arrangements of all three Giza pyramids
> (http://www.atara.net/pyramids/index.html), which, although not
> published per se, provides a possible and plausible alternative to
> stellar alignments for the interior design of the monuments.
Ray
geo...@hotmail.com
Ray: please explain how you go from: 'the GP is identified in the
Bible' (which isn't necessarily true: it actually says an altar in the
midst of Egypt, but let's assume you're correct) to 'human evolution
is false'? Do you even know? Since you're accusing people of being 'on
the run' at the moment, I'd like you to answer that.
Stile4aly
Again, unless you can show an error in Jim's math, then the alignment
did not occur when you say. It was certainly close, but clearly not
exact bein 60 years off. And let me also say that I have tremendous
respect for Jim freely admitting his error.
> Since there is not in existence even one person who has ever suggested
> that the GP was constructed or oriented in this year, the feat of
> achieving these alignments before these stars were in place, hundreds
> or even thousands of years beforetime, along with the knowledge that
> it entails, a knowledge that took our best minds decades to finally
> determine, plainly and clearly evidences the existence of God since
> Isaiah 19:19,20 identifies the GP in Scripture. The GP is located in
> the center of the Nile-Delta quadrant - exactly, which is also the
> center point between Upper and Lower Egypt, AND it is, at the same
> time, the border between Upper and Lower Egypt, which satisfies the
> peculiar passage requirements.
What area on the map corresponds to the "Nile Delta quadrant." A
google search for this phrase comes up only with posts from you. Is
there any reputable authority who actually uses this term? Also, the
idea that the Pyramid was the border between Upper and Lower Egypt is
incorrect. The border was never truly defined but is considered to be
south of the ancient city of Memphis. Giza is to the northwest of
Memphis, so it cannot be the border. As far as being the center
point, do you mean along an east-west alignment? If so, this doesn't
appear to be correct on a map either.
> Mankind began ultra-intelligent like the Bible says, he did originate
> from lower animals: human evolution is falsified and this physical
> evidence proves it. Like I have said since I came to this NG: the
> evidence for the existence of God has always been in existence and
> voluminous, suppressed by non-believers just like the Bible says.
The Bible doesn't say that man began ultra intelligent, simply that he
was formed in God's image. Moreover, mankind as it existed in ancient
Egypt was just as intelligent then as we are now. The difference
between us is simply that we have a greater amount of accumulated
knowledge and 4000 years of additional technology. If you went back
in time and stole a baby from a basket in the Nile and raised him in
the modern day he would be no less intelligent than any other child.
> Now that you admit to being within 60 years I urge you to read
> scholarship on the issue and augment your date to 2141 BC (like they
> ended up doing eventually).
Why should he augment his numbers to a preconceived notion of 2141 BC
when his mathematics clearly show a date 60 years earlier? Augmenting
number to match an expected value is a practice of quacks of all
sorts, including pyramidologists.
> > Thus, I apologize to Ray, for insisting on an erroneous date (2581), and
> > to the group for providing flawed results. However, in pursuing
> > curiosity about the other pyramids in the Giza complex, I ran across an
> > interesting site that offers a geometric construction for the interior
> > arrangements of all three Giza pyramids
> > (http://www.atara.net/pyramids/index.html), which, although not
> > published per se, provides a possible and plausible alternative to
> > stellar alignments for the interior design of the monuments.
No response here to a non-pyramidological explanation for the layout
of the Pyramids?