Re: Pyramidiocy (was Re: Strange Maths)

Whittet (
16 Jul 1995 21:40:02 GMT

In article <>, says...
>In article <3ub5f3$>,
> (HarryR6047) wrote:
>> The response was to a question regarding "pyramid inches". The reply was
>> that the circumfrence of the great pyramid was equal in "pyramid inches"
>> to the circumfrence of the earth in "miles". This information was gained
>> from Peter Tompkin's study of the Pyramids. Other interesting facts
>> include that the pyramid was established paralell to the equator. That
>> the lines of longitude and latitude could be calculated from it. ETC.
>> ETC.
>> And the Mayan Caldendar stone doesn't exist either.
>Not surprising if something is orientated north south that it is parallel to
>the equator. Miles is surprising -- or at least interesting, as I don't
>understand why the mile would be based on the pyramid inch (I presume you
>are saying that when the mile was established, it was based on 'The circumfere
>of the great pyramid is X pyramid inches, we'll just say the earth's
>diameter at the equator (I presume you mean that, there's no such
>thing as *the* circumference of the earth) is X miles and work out how long
>a mile is based on that.
>Doug Weller

The pyramid is also located so that an arc swept from its center and intersecting
its diagonals neatly encloses Egypts delta.

The number of feet in a mile can be obtained from the number of days in a millenium
divided by the number of miles in a degree of the earths circumference at the equator

365240/69.17424... = 5280

The pyramid idiocy part comes from the fact that the more correlations you want to get
the more sophisticated the model you have to use. The mere Pi relation is dwarfed by
the derivation of the mile as a ratio between measures of time and space.

One suspected correlation is that:

The perimeter of the base of the pyramid in inches is a number equal to the number
of days in a century, while the apothem or slant side (less a pyramidion) is equal
to 1/600 of a geographical degree (608'9") and the ratio of the pyramids height
to its base is the same as the ratio of the earths radius to its circumference.

this works reasonably well if the measurements for the pyramid are

base 760'11", height 484'5", apothem 616'

36524"/11626" = 3.141579219

and if it had a pyramidion 5'8" high. This is about the size of the pyramideon from
the Khephren pyramid.

Taking the perimeter of the base in inches and dividing by the length of the apothem
in inches taken to the base of the pyramideon is equal to 5. A clear relation between
measures of time and distance.

Taking the perimeter of the base of the Great pyramid in inches as equal to the
number of days in a century is equal to a length of 5 stadia in inches 36524/7305 = 5

"Pyramid inches" are equal to the English inch to better than three decimal points of
accuracy to begin with, allowing for the period of time involved and the medieval use
of rather imprecise standards to redefine its standard of measure, the continuing
correlation is extraordinary.

Ignoring for the moment that this pyramid was constructed about 4,500 years ago...
at a time when most people were supposedly just entering the Bronze age...

The real question is whether or not, if you were designing the Great Pyramid to
incorporate standards of measure and happened to know the length of a year, the
circumference of the Earth at the equator, the ratio of a circles diameter to its
circumference, all to fairly high degrees of accuracy, whether or not you could
work out a better way to relate them all together.