Comment: How to determine true NSEW w/ancient tools:

(See in situ)

Joη's picture

How to determine true NSEW w/ancient tools:

mainly the sun's shadow:

I've heard "laser flat" in this context before, and it's a misnomer for variance around 1 millimeter (are porous rocks really flat?), and that can be achieved with a foot- or arm-powered mill with sufficient hardness greater than the target being milled.

The number of days in a year is really not hard to determine. Even if you couldn't determine a seasonal pattern, marking the motion daily of a shadow from the sun for a year will reveal an analemma on the ground. It's a camping trick. When the shape closes, it's over. Do it 4x, and you'll notice it has a 1/4 day offset. And to be exact, it's the length of the base perimeter sides, in egyptian cubits no less, that demark the number of days in a year, not the ~204 steps in the Great Pyramid. One stands a better chance saying that's the # of bones in the human body if there are two missing layers on top instead of just one.

As for sharing know-how, a pyramid was the most stable structure available at that time, so it's not surprising the very general shape of a pyramid would independently develop—unless you consider step pyramids exactly the same as the Great Pyramid. Space/the sky was a generally unreachable realm to all of them, so each independently studying it (lots of time on their hands) would come up with the same information, just like the analemma.

This alone is not surprising. That some would share identical perimeters across the Atlantic is a little more interesting, but I haven't verified that for myself.

As for how the Great Pyramid was built, Jean-Pierre Houdin's suggestion that an internal corkscrew ramp was used is the most plausible, and is supported by microgravity scans revealing an internal corkscrew structure ramping up the inside of the pyramid, effectively using the structure as a ramp itself.

As for who, hieroglyphics in the relieving chambers above the King's Chamber mark that.

Ignoring all this evidence is more a testament to how stupid you think the past and smart you think the present than what is likely the case.

As for Nassim, his "best new paper" was presented to a non-physical science community that happened to be meeting at the University of Liege in Belgium. If it was so credible, why not let peers in your field of study judge it? "Oh, they wouldn't accept it!" Some of the most convincing charlatans have unwittingly fooled themselves.

...Though I guess I should have known better than to argue with someone who thinks North East West South is the etymological origin of the english word "news", despite prior languages' words for those directions and the concept of original information.

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?