CHEOPS ATLAS ¦ PYRAMIDS — UNIVERSUMS HISTORIA | a production 2020I1 | Senast uppdaterade version: 2024-03-01 · Universums Historia

innehåll denna sida · webbSÖK äMNESORD på denna sida Ctrl+F · sök ämnesord överallt i SAKREGISTER · förteckning alla webbsidor

PEARL LINE REFERENCE ¦ NatCH ¦ CheopsATLAS-Begin ¦ CheopsATLAS-TNED ¦ CheopsAT ¦ Resolution 217 ¦ C14darting

Cheops Atlas Begin THOUSANDS OF YEARS BACK FROM HERE some established sources claim, in some parts, a no-easy- explainable glaciation history — only over the northern Earth part. THAT promotes a further GeoATLANTIS investigation. See the special treatise glaciation article in this unique CheopsATLAS series.

— Calling ATLANTIS .. ello .. ello .. 222 .. 333 .. ¦ ATLANTIS ¦ GTursprunget2019 ¦ AtlantisAPPENDIX ¦

— Roger .. Roger .. Mayday .. Mayday .. A GEOATLANTIS might EXPLAIN some GLACIATION VARIATIONS — GeoATLANTIS NORTHERN HEMISPHERE GLACIATION VARIATIONS

— What’sUp?

• Background:

A few challenging examples, Dec2019

THE MODERN ARCHAEOLOGICAL BOND BETWEEN ASSOCIATED MONUMENT AND PROCLAIMED ACTION

Human sacrificial rituals ON (Mesoamerican) Pyramids:

— Why would satanists need to build Pyramids to stress an already established inducement for murder?

— They didn’t; they found them. Enlighten us with some solid proofs against. Absolutely.

The actual pyramid MATERIAL (stone, rock [mortar]), has no date STAMP. But remnants of killed, murdered, humans HAVE (C14-method). So:

— Is the IDEA a modern academic scholar INVENTION to explain the modern lack of knowledge —

— »killed humans all around the place: the murderers built it too»

— or is there some itty bitty tiniest PROOF that the pyramid building work began ON an already established satanism?

Debunk these spontaneous statements. Show us they are completely absolutely wrong, or just wrong.

A STRAIGHT PRACTICAL EXAMPLE (1): 2 ¦ 3

ANSWER SEARCHED FOR @INTERNET — not found:

Childish spontaneous association:

— »50 000 year old helicopter platforms» (helipads).

Mexico (Near Mexico City), Teotihuacán (”The Avenue of The Dead”):

By Weight. Mechanic discharge.

— 50 000 year old helicopter platforms: helipads.

SCENARIO:

Primitive cultures evolved out of a primary good and sane civilization: ”Bad guys” love egoism and selfishness — and stress such advocacy. Greed is a good start (Tell me about it: I’m human; The cure is: adoration, devotion, tenderness: if we cut on an office paper edge, it heals: let’s try the same together. I think it’s called: natural — chemical — defense).

In a time where practically no evolved humans at all lived in the South American forests, these buildings were built and used by an already old high WISE culture established civilization (on other grounds) for logistic purposes.

Ma, Million years ago — ATLANTIS FRAGMENTED AND DISAPPEARED ON THE CONTINENTAL DRIFT — from an original volcanic thin and fragile land crust a long time ago.

— Possibly, but not yet provably, favoured by a unique geological land form, the first full developed humans some 0.2 Ma evolved on a tempered (ATLANTIC) zonal — partly geologically isolated — favourable high tech culture among other not yet fully developed human tribes. Such an old precursor, if relevant, MIGHT have had many thousand years on its history — before a final collapse on natural geological processes. Note: this IS speculation. We have — yet — no proof.

After or during (many) thousand years, some sadistic, primitive and satanistic tribes evolved through history: During the last 100 000 — 50 000 years of human biological evolution, some bewildered movements developed satanistic tendencies of a specific weird nature.

In the period towards our own calendar era, some thousand years back, the satanistic tribes, now almost fully in a developed human form (round sculls), discovered or began taking advantage of the eon age old monumental buildings, the South American Pyramids. The satanists were imagining them to be sent by gods to improve their already well established satanistic conviction.

The satanistic murdering rituals on these South American pyramids lasted far into our own time era. So: Modern academic (1700+) scholars have now (2000+) established an academic scholar consensus that the remnants of the killed humans all around the South American Pyramids are proof of a pyramid building culture based on human sacrifice, as far back as the dating C14-method allows, along with corresponding sculpturing artifacts: The murderers built the pyramids.

On inspecting the available academic literature, including Wikipedia @Internet, for debunking arguments on these SCENARIO statements (2019), none have yet been found.

AchEx2: Dec2019

THE MODERN ARCHAEOLOGICAL BOND BETWEEN ASSOCIATED MONUMENT AND PROCLAIMED ACTION

Human sacrificial rituals ON (Mesoamerican) Pyramids:

— Why would satanists need to build Pyramids to stress their already established inducement for murder?

The actual pyramid MATERIAL (stone, rock [mortar]), has no date STAMP. But remnants of killed, murdered, humans HAVE (C14-method). So:

— Is the IDEA a modern academic scholar INVENTION to explain the modern lack of knowledge —

— »killed humans all around the place: the murderers built it too»

— or is there some itty bitty tiniest PROOF that the pyramid building work began ON an already established satanism?

Debunk these spontaneous statements. Show us they are completely absolutely wrong, or just wrong.

A STRAIGHT PRACTICAL EXAMPLE (2): 1 ¦ 3

ANSWER SEARCHED FOR @INTERNET — not found:

OLDER PHOTOS OF DETAILS FROM MAYA CIVILIZATION.

— Extremely old illustrations of Applied Satanism

— formed by high tech artists for peaceful social education,

— later misunderstood by less educated pedestrians as satanistic creations.

In order to leave behind for future generations some educational illustrated tutorials, sculptures and wall reliefs and some buildings were formed from rock and clay by artists and engineers of the most educated culture at the time when practically no other human civilization was around.

With a later following more primitive culture of ideation, humans soon believed these artifacts were creations from actually practicing satanists depicting their own inducement.

On inspecting the available academic literature, including Wikipedia @Internet, for debunking arguments on these rebellious statements (2019), none have been found.

AchEx3: Dec2019

THE MODERN ARCHAEOLOGICAL BOND BETWEEN ASSOCIATED MONUMENT AND PROCLAIMED ACTION

Human sacrificial rituals ON (Mesoamerican) Pyramids:

— Why would satanists need to build Pyramids to stress their already established inducement for murder?

The actual pyramid MATERIAL (stone, rock [mortar]), has no date STAMP. But remnants of killed, murdered, humans HAVE (C14-method). So:

— Is the IDEA a modern academic scholar INVENTION to explain the modern lack of knowledge —

— »killed humans all around the place: the murderers built it too»

— or is there some itty bitty tiniest PROOF that the pyramid building work began ON an already established satanism?

Debunk these spontaneous statements. Show us they are completely absolutely wrong, or just wrong.

A STRAIGHT PRACTICAL EXAMPLE (3): 2 ¦ 1

CLARIFICATION SEARCHED FOR @INTERNET — not found:

CULTURAL SATANISTIC MOVEMENTS

DON’T DEVELOP ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY.

— Some of the stone blocks weigh over 100 ton.

— ESPECIALLY THOSE WITH SYSTEMATIC CHILD SACRIFICES DON’T.

WIKIPEDIA, Inca architecture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca_architecture

” Aesthetics: Combining the Built and Natural Environments

Inca architecture is strongly characterized by its use of the natural environment.[29] The Inca managed to seamlessly merge their architecture into the surrounding land and its specificities.[30]”.

— »Wikipedia addresses natural admiration to a misdirected

— wrong — postbox».

—————————————————————————

” The Incas lacked the use of wheeled vehicles. They lacked animals to ride and draft animals that could pull wagons and plows... [They] lacked the knowledge of iron and steel... Above all, they lacked a system of writing... Despite these supposed handicaps, the Incas were still able to construct one of the greatest imperial states in human history.”,

WIKIPEDIA, Inca Empire (Dec2019).

—————————————————————————

PETRIE Cheops Pyramid measures SOURCE @INTERNET

THE PYRAMIDS AND TEMPLES OF GIZEH, William Flinders Petrie 1883

W. M. Flinders Petrie 1883 — @INTERNET Ronald Birdsall, 2003-14

http://www.ronaldbirdsall.com/gizeh/petrie/index.htm

At the built precision: PETRIE SOURCE

AN ASSERTED BUILDING PLAN

PROOF of

Not only the rJCIRCLE complex reflects some clear proofs with a strong suggestion of a sophisticated PLAN for the whole building. But so does also Flinders Petri in his (1883) general over-viewing observation of the the actual edifice.

With concrete example from CHEOPS PYRAMID — FROM FLINDERS PETRIE 1883

WITHOUT A PLAN it will be hard — not to say impossible — for us to explain the precision and preciseness of the edificial details.

FLINDERS PETRIE 1883 ON THE GREAT CHEOPS PYRAMID

ASSERTING THE BUILT PRECISION

AN OBVIOUS ENGINEERING PLAN OF HIGH PRECISION EDUCATIONAL TECHNIQUE

— Where is an educational spouse in our time?

• PetrieCH6.20 clarifies (1883) — by intelligent observation and metric measure — that previous estimates of the Pyramid were somewhat flawed:

• The Pyramid’s core stone block staircase masonry is built on a rock cut SOCKET beneath Petrie’s pavement;

• The SOCKET relates to the Pyramid’s Corner Casing stone blocks;

• The Corner Casing stone block outermost Pyramid corner edges have different depth (”20 or 30 inches”) relative the higher up lying Petrie SO discovered TRUE Pyramid base (PetrieCP¦b=4534.40’’ ± 0.25: our corresponding ideal Cheops Rectangle agent PetrieCR¦b58 = 4534.20’’);

• THE SOCKET SQUARE IDEAL GEOMETRY IS THEREFORE (as so adopted to the underlying rock and its different corners, as here suggested) QUITE LESS PRECISE THAN THE ABOVE BUILT STONE CORE STAIRCASE MASONRY:

• ”.. that the core masonry was far more accurate in its form than the socket square. It is, in fact, four times as accurate in length, and eight times as accurate in angle.”, PetrieCH6.20.

In PetrieCH6.21 the expedition ends up in a clear cut clarification of the (impressing) overall preciseness, here partly compiled from the details in PetriePLATE.10:

Extracted and compiled Cheops Pyramid data from PetriePLATE.10.

PetrieCH6.21 concludes — after suggesting a crucial investigating quest on the different parts:

• ”It seems then that we are shut up to the idea that the socket corners lie in the diagonals of the Pyramid casing.”;

• Petrie asserts the diagonal precision in exercising ”.. : if we start from one diagonal, say N.E; draw a line through the E. casing to S.E. diagonal; from that through the S. casing, to the S.W. diagonal; and so on round to the N.E. diagonal again; there is no necessity that the line should on its return fall on the same point as that from which we started : ..”;

• ”The chances are greatly against its exactly completing its circuit thus, unless it was so planned before by the diagonals of the socket corners being identical with those of the square of the casing.”;

• ”On applying this test to the diagonals, we find that the circuit unites, on being carried round through these points, to within 1 inch far closer, in fact, than the diagonals of the sockets and the line of the casing can be estimated.”.

Asserted precision by assured planning — as we know and can understand. And Petrie underlines this further:

• ”But it must always be remembered that this very small mean error on .65 inch and 12’’ is that of the sockets, and not that of the casing stones; these latter we can hardly doubt would be adjusted more carefully than the cutting of the sockets with their free margin.”, PetrieCH6.21.

Or as is stated in PetrieCH6.26 on the casing observations:

”.. some 16 tons. To merely place such stones in exact contact at the sides would be careful work; but to do so with cement in the joint seems almost impossible.”.

On the whole: High precision by careful planning. No improved work. That is what meets the eye on The Great Cheops Pyramid, as so asserted from the 1883 Flinders Petrie measurements.

Assembly Issues:

— See also in Comparing Assembly alternatives.

— COFFEE BREAK GUYS.

Anderson:

— The Chief at Camp A has made a new invention to compensate for wind.

PyramidDetails: 23Dec2019

Comparing Cheops [JOEL’S EGYPT] with Inca [WIKIPEDIA]

CONCRETE CONSTRUCTIVE VIEWPOINTS

In comparing the edifice setup — the conventionally described Egypt Cheops Pyramid (The Great Pyramid of Giza) contra Inca Stone Masonry — the resemblances seem stunningly direct:

— According to established sources in general: The region of Egypt is a continental plate-LOW seismic active region:

— SOME care must be observed IF the aim is to preserve a building during any longer periods of time.

— The region of Peru on the other than is a High Risk Seismic Region:

— GREATER CARE must be taken if the aim is to preserve a building during any longer periods of time:

— Deeper in-cuts, more irregular (and precise) joints secure less positioning fragmentation during a seismic outbreak: smooth (polished) wall-surfaces minimizes erosion effects. In all: advanced knowledge, far from primitive farming.

INCA tonnage: granite-stone with some reported stones over a 100 ton.

Cheops tonnage: average limestone block (2.3 million) weighs 2.5 ton.

QUARRY EXAMPLE:

1 finished cut adopted and set stone per hour 24/7 makes 95 833 days or 262.38 years.

WITH A CONSTRUCTION PLAN as in all organized work:

— Not one single stone block can be IMPROVISED on SHAPE or PUT: it has to fit by proper check, exactly according to the plan, within limits, without breaking the tolerances:

— What is the COMMUNICATION organization for several quarries with a safe, asserted and end precision secure common organized precise fitting — on several blocks per hour?

(10 per hour: 26 years; 100 per hour: 2.6 years; 1000 per hour: some few months).

Please share. No improvisation.

Any way we reckon ON A GIVEN PLAN FOR THE BUILDING, it seems impossible to realize the building without some computer aided technology: robotic machine stuff. No breaks. Monotonic precise placing.

All pictures are extracted parts (23Dec2019) from Wikipedia and Joel Clarc’s Egypt.

Do visit the latter — several clarifying photos with text explain the most central. Quotes below.

PYRAMID STONE BLOCK DETAILS:

JOEL’S EGYPT — PERSPECTIVES AND INSIGHTS, Joel Clarc (2009)

http://www.joelsegypt.com/1-the-building-blocks-of-the-great-pyramid/

JoelsEgypt.com — the only found site @INTERNET which ILLUMINATES, reports and describes IN DETAIL the Cheops Pyramid edifice’s stone block details:

THE MASONRY — not seemingly two identical or even similar blocks: no ideal adjacent lineage:

” The shape of the stones are entirely irregular.”, JoCH2009.

” In addition, the fact remains that each individual casing stone was cut to fit an entirely different and uneven shape of the blocks into which it was set.”, JoCH2009;

THE BEDROCK (picture text cannot be copied) — the local impossible limestone quarry:

” One theory tries to explain the tight fitting joints by claiming the stones were refitted in the same sequence as they were extracted from the quarry. In certain cases the striations of neighbouring stones seem to match. Yet this is hardly consistent throughout. Moreover for this to work consistently throughout the structure would require a quarry of the same depth and size of the pyramid itself, each block being matched to those above, below and around it as originally cut from the bedrock.

Nowhere in Giza, where we know the limestone to have been extracted, do we find such dimensions in a quarry. Moreover the logistics of not losing the track of the order of placement of each of the 2.3 million blocks lends yet another seemingly impossible feat should this have been the case.”;

WEB SOURCE MAIN TEXT (adjusted from [American-]English spell check):

” The quarry extraction theory, as I will call it, basically states that the reason that all the stones in the Great Pyramid are of slightly different angles, heights and sizes, is because this is the way the blocks split as the stone was being extracted from the quarry. All the builders had to do was keep perfect track of the exact order of stone extraction, yet another tremendous challenge when moving and reseting 2 million plus blocks.”,

” Aside from the points made in the photo text above, this theory would require the consistent ability to split these massive blocks to relative height and block shape with few mistakes. I wouldn’t dismiss this theory entirely as there is certainly evidence for it in certain areas of the tiers of stone. But just look at the incredibly odd sizes of the upper tier blocks in the picture below and one must admit that it wasn’t happening there”, JoCH2009.

CLARC EXPOSES several detailed photos of the Cheops Pyramid masonry, exposing its irregularities, its non-linearities, its »corrupted linearities», its broken linearities.

— All with a general look of (very) tight IRREGULAR joints between adjacent ton-huge limestone blocks at the outer sides of the building.

— This is to be compared with the results from Flinders Petrie (1883) in his thorough measurement of the whole pyramid, ending on conclusions of astounding perfection with tight tolerances. The Petrie details are given (in Swedish) in CHEOPS RECTANGLE.

Picture text (cannot be directly copied, Joel Clark 2009):

THE FITNESS WITH NO TWO EQUAL BLOCKS:

” Yet again, no two stones are of the same size and shape yet all are remarkably well fitted.”, JoCH2009;

2.3 ”million blocks of stone, no two alike, yet all perfectly fitted into each other? Nothing about the Great Pyramid speaks of the work of a man as we know it.”.

Well said.

The clarified investigation (Jan2020+) on the rJCIRCLE complex only underlines the presented perspective from Joel Clark and other individuals of same sense;

— Sophisticated tools, technology and natural knowledge in deep is needed to raise a building of that caliber. Even so much, that any the like — as we know of — is out of the question in our own cultural reference; the Organization more the the planning: no breaks, no mistakes, no discussions, no conflicts, no obstacles. Just a 24/7 solid exact precise monotonic placing and shaping from start to end without breaks. Only a machine — a whole landscape of them controlled and programmed by computer technology — can make such a thing happen. As we know it.

SESQB:

SEISMIC STRESS QUALITY BUILDINGS

Another aspect comes forth in this Joel Clarc and others illuminating The Quest:

— The South American ANCIENT STONE MASONRY technique.

Early KNOWLEDGE of DESTRUCTIVE EARTH QUAKES — ON SEVERAL CONTINENTS.

MY PERSONAL REFLECTION:

— »The South American Ancient Satanist Chairman around 100 BC ordered special Friday meetings (special Child sacrificing ceremonies) to discuss the seismic issue on preserving the altars through time». Very educated people. Modern academic scholars at their best top.

— Gimme a break.

FREQUENT EARTH QUAKE REGIONS MARKED IN RED America-Africa-Europe

— SCHEMATIC ROUGH PICTURE FROM AVAILABLE ESTABLISHED MAPS

Roughly — from available mappings — the red regions represent geographical active earth quake areas.

— The American east coast with Mexico and Yucatan is (much) more frequently (with heavier force) visited by earth quakes than areas in the Egypt Nile region.

— So we would expect any engineering planning of a more fundamental edificial dignity to reflect these circumstances IF such knowledge was present:

MOST EFFECTIVE TECHNIQUE IN PRESERVING A HEAVY MASONRY EDIFICE FROM SEISMIC INJURY: maximum individual block LOCK.

— Hidden parts are concave-convex.

— We can FORM such, one or two truck heavy two ton stone blocks at a time. By hand.

— But roughly 2 300 000 monotonously placed ton blocks with some seam differences on the level of a human hair: no tired legs, no mistakes, no arguing, no breaks, no doubts — is what we know an impossible expedition by any human organized hand craft. Cheops Pyramid — and others.

A short view on comparing Egypt region stone masonry technique with South American ditto reflects a certain profound connection:

EGYPT — similar to South American,

but profoundly LESS in-fractured curvature = less regional seismic forcing stress;

SOUTH AMERICA — highly in-fractured curvature = strong regional seismic stress.

These suggestions have a meaning ONLY with some idea of a GENERAL plan including BOTH occasions.

CompMeES: Comparing Mesoamerican with Egypt-Sumerian ¦ Pyramid Details ¦ ArcEx3 ¦

DIRECT VISUALLY PROVABLE CORRESPONDENCES IN ADVANCED ancient SEISMIC MASONRY

COMPARE INTERNET 2020:

Article 27.1 in explicit: ”1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.”.

— Is modern academic DATING and METHOD descriptions of the Cheops Pyramid ”scientifically advanced and beneficial”?

Search for. Not yet found (24Dec2019).

— CONSENSUS is NOT a science — does not belong to knowledge. Only to OPINION.

The GeoAtlantis Quest continues

COMPARING Mesoamerican monument with Egypt-Sumerian

See also specific Earth Quake Map in Wikipedia Earthquake, Major earthquakes 1900-2017: minor in Egypt-Sumer, major in (Mesoamerica) Mexico-Peru.

”very weak architectural resemblance to Egyptian pyramids”

WIKIPEDIA, Mesoamerican pyramids (23Dec2019)

https://.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_pyramids

:

” Mesoamerican pyramids or pyramid-shaped structures form a prominent part of ancient Mesoamerican architecture. Although similar to each other in some ways these New World structures with their flat tops (many with temples on the top) and their stairs bear only a very weak architectural resemblance to Egyptian pyramids.[1][2]”.

A collection of available resources @INTERNET Dec2019 seems NOT concordant with this above given central Wikipedia issuing summit. See the following extracted examples.

REGULARITY, THOROUGHNESS

South America:

— Profoundly Well structured Buildings from rock (Maya) or/and sun-dried bricks.

Egypt-Sumer:

— Strikingly similarly shaped buildings from rock (Hatshepsut) or/and sun-dried bricks (Ziggurat at Ur).

”Mesoamerican pyramids or pyramid-shaped structures .. bear only a very weak architectural resemblance to Egyptian pyramids”.

— So you keep saying.

See also more specified in detail — MASONRY — Cheops data from [Quotations] in JOEL’S EGYPT in PYRAMID DETAILS.

— What meets the eye is an obvious partnership between regularity and thoroughness with different shapes of ramping, stairing and sloping — with a profoundly adapted masonry technique seemingly adjusted for the local continental seismic activity and its force.

• It WOULD be nice to here this from present day so called scholars (type Wikipedia and associated):

— We don’t know.

— We have absolutely no rational logical explanation to this.

— But let us present ourselves, and see how far we have come, and the bottlenecks we are fighting in.

Basic natural scientific interest: sharing.

Article 27.1 in explicit: ”1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.”.

— Is modern academic DATING and METHOD descriptions of the Cheops Pyramid ”scientifically advanced and beneficial”?

Search for. Not yet found (24Dec2019).

— CONSENSUS is NOT a science — does not belong to knowledge. Only to OPINION.

If the record of our history is determined by OPINION, why not spell it out directly?

— »We don’t care about science. We just want to be popular».

So: Why not spell it out directly:

— »The only proof we have IN CONCLUSION that these monuments were built to perform human sacrifices IS the fact that we have found dated remnants of murder near them:

— We have absolutely no proof at all of when the monuments as such were initiated».

IF such only one single proof exists, why not expose it?

Searched for. Not yet found.

SHORT SWEDISH VERSION (SumerAssocierade kulturfestligheter):

— Varför skulle satanister behöva bygga pyramider för att understryka fallenheten för mord?

— DÄRFÖR ATT DEN MODERNA ARKEOLOGINS INTELLIGENSNIVÅ INTE ÄR SÅ UTVECKLAD ÄN, ATT MAN FÖRSTÅR DEN MÖJLIGHETEN ATT TIDIGARE EXISTERANDE INDIVIDER HADE HÖGRE IQ.

Rätta gärna om fel.

CLARIFYING PETRIE POINTS:

ON THE GREAT STEP

COLLECTED OVERVIEW OF PETRIE’s STATED MEASURED/CALCULATED VALUES

— Petrie does not account for a PetrieCH7.45tab last column claimed angular value A1=26° 16’ 40’’ between Point D and E¦PG.

— If Petrie’s observation with the »Pyramid Mid De-localized ¦0.78’’¦ midpoint» will hold by Petrie’s other collected values, this unrelated A1 angle — triangulation checked calculated here in an aftermath »Petrie simulation» — will have to show the figure A = 26° 20’ 26.36 27 56’’.

The deviation over the actual Petrie stated slope (d=1815.5’’, see in quote below) is 2’’ [d×Tan(A1–A)=1.9924’’]: As PetrieCH7.46 also refers the different height measures of the (partly badly injured) Great Step face between 34.92 to 35.85 with an adopted (East wall) 35.00, an additional 35+2=37 will most certainly destroy the overall Petrie given detailed picture at the site: PetrieCH7.46e on the King’s floor level 1693.2 ± 0.6, minus 35’’, = 1658.2’’ ± 0.6. A value –(35+2) has no representation. See also Petrie1658 in quote. Details below relate the reckoning.

Collected Petrie Great Step values:

————————————————————

MiUNIT ¦ PETRIEpGpoint ¦

THE MAIN POINT TO OBSERVE:

————————————————

— In PetrieCH7.45tab last column

”Variations from mean axis of

26° 16’ 40’’ altitude” (= 26 + 1/3.6 = 26.27777...)°

Petrie follows a path southwards towards the upper Gallery sloping floor part

”.. starting from the N. wall of the gallery at

1546.8 from beginning of ascending passage.”

In the table Petrie gives in column one bottom,

”Ramp end

1815.5 ¦ S. wall, in same line

1883.6”.

Except for this one single PetrieCH7.45 table mentioned occasion:

— Petrie gives no further mentioning of this angular value in his text:

”mean axis of 26° 16’ 40’’ altitude”

What’s up?

— THE accounted Petrie VALUES do SPOT A SLIGHT LOWER Petrie pG POINT

— than the one shown in the above collected illustration on Petrie’s PetrieCH7.46e

”.. and this at the angle

26º 12' 50" (by which the end of the gallery was calculated from the plug-blocks)”

stated mean WHOLE ASCENDING TUNNEL angle 26° 12’ 50’’: ascending passage + Gallery floor.

IN EXPLICIT PetrieCH7.39:

” Hence we cannot say exactly what direct relation the theodolite bore to the passage; but we can obtain the angle of slope very satisfactorily, by taking the angles observed to signal at bottom of ascending [p. 65] passage, and to signal at top of gallery, and then (knowing the distances of these signals) calculate the angle of slope from signal to signal. This, when corrected for lower signal being 3 too high, gives

26º 12' 50" for mean angle of both passage and gallery together. Hence, from my offsets to the places of these signals, the absolute angle, and the variations from it, can be obtained for either part independently.”.

PETRIE DOES NOT RELATE THE VALUE

”mean axis of 26° 16’ 40’’ altitude”.

— IT is not a big deal though, because we can Adjust the minor issue with the help of Petrie’s other measuring values,

arriving at a more precise Petrie overall picture.

— IT just suddenly ”pops up” in a tabled column.

— AND IT connects to »some minor corrupted parts» in the overall context.

We study that.

(Measuring Cheops Pyramid IS a demanding work, and it would be strange if no voids would show: if a related description is lost, so will the path to its understanding be cemented).

Provided no »Error Authority» has taken control of this presentation (because Some Knows that shit happens):

If we RELATE the whole complex ON Petrie’s given values, ON a basic TRIANGULATION trigonometric exercise, we arrive at ”the correct form” — based on a minor SIMULATED PETRIE calculation to arrive at the final destination:

— The angular value ” 26° 16’ 40’’ ” = 26° + 1°/3.6 = 26.2777..° between the points D and PG is incorrect.

Or more correctly formulated:

— If adopted, IT generates a mixed OVERALL corrupted Petrie value picture on the Gallery top.

FIRST SEE PETRIE’s LEADING COMPLEX DESCRIPTION where the detail is buried — the whole Petrie part giving the exact context in PetrieCH7.39:

”39. For the angle of the passage, and its straightness, it will be well to consider it all in one with the gallery floor, as they were gauged together all in one length. The angle of slope I did not observe, as I considered that that had been settled by Prof Smyth; but the azimuth was observed, by a chain of three theodolites, round from the entrance passage.

The straightness was observed by offsets to floor and side all along it, read from a telescope at the upper end of the plug-blocks. When I came to plot the results, I found that there were no measures taken at the point where Prof. Smyth's theodolite was set up. The sloping floor is nowhere, having been entirely cut away at the beginning of the gallery; and the top of the ramp (to which the theodolite had been referred) was not offsetted by me, nor was its slope measured by Prof Smyth's clinometer for 300 inches from the place.

Hence we cannot say exactly what direct relation the theodolite bore to the passage; but we can obtain the angle of slope very satisfactorily, by taking the angles observed to signal at bottom of ascending [p. 65] passage, and to signal at top of gallery, and then (knowing the distances of these signals) calculate the angle of slope from signal to signal. This, when corrected for lower signal being 3 too high, gives

26º 12' 50" for mean angle of both passage and gallery together. Hence, from my offsets to the places of these signals, the absolute angle, and the variations from it, can be obtained for either part independently.”.

— We (here) have no precise idea of the way Petrie navigated mathematically through these implied points to arrive at end results: EXACTLY WHAT ARITHMETICAL OPERATION PETRIE was dealing with here in detail, has no further textual description. We have to sought it out ourselves — on Petrie’s given values, indirectly the Petrie1658 parts on The Great Step AND PROVIDED NOTHING HAS BEEN MISSED HERE ON PETRIE’S ACCOUNT.

— See the calculating details from THE LOST ANGLE.

COMPARING RESULTS

A° = PetreiCH7.45tab ¦ 26° 16’ 40’’ = 26° + 1°/3.6 =

26.27777..° ¦ Petrie table values on following path D to PG via A°

xyD = PetrieCH7.39 point xyD: x = 852.6’’ ± 0.3 ; y = 2907.3’’ ± 0.3

xb = b — xD =

1627.10’’ ¦ PetrieD NORTHWARD from Pyramid MID

y = yPG — yD = 1658.2 — 852.6 =

805.60’’

——————————————————

PREFIXSIN:

c = d · sinA

——————————————————

= y / TanA

b = PetrieCH6.25 PetrieCP¦b = 4534.40’’ NOMINAL ½ Pyramid base value ± 0.25 PetrieCH6.25

x = horizontal SOUTHWARD extension from Pyramid MID

= c — xb

= d · sinA — xb

= y / sinA — xb

PETRIE’S VALUES ON d SIDE = sloping length via PetrieCH7.45tab:

—————————————————————— —————————————————————

A° d c = d·sinA x

26° 16’ 40’’ 1815.5’’ 1627.88 0.78’’ ............... RAMP END

26° 16’ 40’’ 1883.6’’ 1688.95 61.85’’ ............. S. WALL

PETRIE’S VALUES FROM KING’s FLOOR LEVEL 1693.2 ± 0.6 in PetrieCH7.46e:

—————————————————————— —————————————————————

A° d c = y/TanA x

26° 16’ 40’’ 1815.5’’ 1631.60’’ 4.5’’................. RAMP END

+ 61.7’’ between RampEnd and S. wall = 66.2 ................ S. WALL

——————————————————————

Petrie’s South wall — PetrieCH7.45e¦46¦47tab¦67tab 61.7 ± 0.8 from Pyramid MID

——————————————————————

RESULTS:

— The TANGENT calculated values exposes a corrupted Pyramid MID intersecting point: 4.5’’ left of the actual level (2.25 below): angle error.

— The lesser SINE calculated results from the Petrie measured d-slope to Ramp End WILL do OK IF taken through a slightly greater angle, penetrating the actual yPG horizontal level (1658.2’’) as in the Collected Petrie Values illustration:

How is that?

— Petrie has calculated on a small margin (0.78’’ [”0.4 ± 0.8”]) asserting that the Pyramid MID does NOT — actually — fall EXACTLY on the FACE of the The Great Step block, as it finishes the path on the gallery floor top.

Meaning:

— With that margin, Petrie’s general 26° 12’ 50’’ ascending passage-Gallery mean average angle will correctly spot slightly behind the ideal Pyramid MIF PG point (0.78’’/2=0.39’’ above the ideal PG point horizontal level).

The Correction — or rather: the clarification if correctly apprehended

CALCULATING THE D.PG angle from the Petrie given D point coordinates with the Petrie1658 indirectly given yPG value 1658.2’’ ± 0.6 gives a corrected D.PG¦E angle of value 26° 20’ 26.36 27 56’’:

WITH its value AND THE REST OF THE PETRIE GIVEN MEASURES — especially the mentioned sloping

a =1815.5 between D and E¦PG — gives a triangulated calculated total distance between crosspoint B on ascending-descending up to the PG point as DISTANCE B.E¦PG

3362.2886273723’’ = b with (PetrieBE) a PREFIXxSIN b·sinDE°

CORRESPONDING HORIZONTALLY PROJECTED LENGTH OF EXACTLY

3016.6000000000’’ .

— It is the same value we find with Petrie’s measure ½ Pyramid 4534.40’’ ± 0.25 minus the horizontal value of the Petrie B-point in the PetrieCH7.39 measure 1517.8: 4534.4–1517.8 = 3016.6000000000.

— PetrieCH7.64tab results also specifies the same horizontal component 1517.8’’ ± 0.3 — but with a possible (unnoticed) table writing error (or relating the Pyramid ½ base on other references) of the subtraction type

4534.40 – 1517.8 = 3016.6 written in PetrieCH7.64tab as ”3016.3 ± 0.3”:

— A 3016.3 +1517.8 = 4534.1 is out of Petrie’s own specified tolerance range 4534.40 ± 0.25: lowest 4534.15.

SUMMING IMPRESSIONS

— Our investigating excursion has ended precisely upon Petrie’s own related measures: approved.

CheopsPyramid, The Great Step:

All these small angular variations differ without visual significance on the scale of The Great Step

61.80’’ = 1M57. So: We can use one and the same ideal Golden Section Cheops Rectangle angular slope ArcTan½ to illustrate all three different angles as parallels at a top location where they depart further down from different station points.

So: Our minor »Petrie simulated calculating Triangulation Expedition» is precisely approved.

Then also all the other Petrie related values on The Great Step conform to a unitive whole in

The Collected Illustration.

CheopsPyramid, The SLIGHTLY Conic Gallery: ON THE GREAT STEP

CHEOPS PYRAMID FROM PETRIE 1883 — Mar2020

THE Abstruse Conic GALLERY HEIGHT

— How did you know how to position the Petri NOT VERTICALLY SPECIFIED top Gallery point?

— I didn’t. It has been calculated with some lead hints from other sources, and the Petrie given values as well, as

THE MOST CLOSE POSSIBLE CANDIDATE to a unitive rJCIRCLE Complex: A unitive total overall exact related quantitative description — WITH Petrie’s values included. Of course. Or not at all.

NO EXACT DATA ON THE GALLERY TOP SITE ARE KNOWN HERE BY THIS AUTHOR. SO, IF SUCH DATA WILL APPEAR SOME DAY, IT WILL BE BE EASY TO REFUTE — OR CONFIRM — THE FOLLOWING COMPILED RESULTS.

THE GALLERY HEIGHT — some compiled basic quantities:

rJCIRCLE basics — CHEOPS PYRAMID AFTER PETRI 1883 exact related quantities for test and comparing Petrie measured values: • 1658.17’’ → 1658.1652607385 = yPG from rJCR¦b16 ........................ = yPG • 2027.75’’ → 2027.7543534425 = yP(PetrieCR¦b58) = b/√5 ................. = yP • 338.69’’ → 338.68739326650 = Gallery Height = yP — yPG — 50R = GH • 1693.18’’ → 1693.1782168993 = yPG + 50R + yBlimit ...................... = yK — KING’s FLOOR LEVEL at Pyramid MID PETRIE values and others: • 1693.20’’ ± 0.6 → yK PetrieCH7.46e. • 339’’ → GH not further specified by Petrie ¦ PetrieCH7.46 ”therefore at half the height of the gallery, that varying from 167 to 172.” : 167 + 172 = 339” : — Petrie’s figures implies a total GH difference 2×[172–167=5]=10’’ — but gives no specific information on WHERE or HOW. — Same type of »Half Information Store» is given indirectly by Other Cheops Pyramid Sources, as in • 338.98’’ → 8M61 = 338.976378’’ from ”According to Maragioglio & Rinaldi (1965: pl. 6, fig. 1), the vertical height of the gallery varies from 8.48 to 8.74 m, mean 8.61 m”, Miatello 2010 Note.11 p.6 ”about 15 cubits”, free PDF-document EXAMINING THE GRAND GALLERY IN THE PYRAMID OF KHUFU AND ITS FEATURES, — No freely available Maragioglio source seems be available: searched for Mar2020, not found. — Unrelated source quantities: we don’t know the details in WHERE or HOW. • 1658.20’’ ± 0.6 → yPG Petrie1658 indirectly in ”.. the height of the step face is 34.92 or 35 on E. ..” ”.. the step surface at the E. side of the S. doorway is 1693.2 ± .6 over the pavement.”, PetrieCH7.46; — We use these Petrie’s figures to calculate a specified Great Step difference as 1693.2 — 35 = 1658.2 (± 0.6)

South PETRIE’s UNSPECIFIED GALLERY TOP, PetrieCH7.46: — Petrie gives SOME vital measured values — but a general VERTICAL specifically related position (↨) of the measures is never mentioned (partly already asserted due to partially material injures and other issues): ”The roof of the gallery and its walls are not well known, owing to the difficulty of reaching them. By means of ladders, that I made jointing together, I was able to thoroughly examine both ends and parts of the sides of the gallery.”, PetrieCH7.46. ”The ramps along the sides, where they join this great step, are very irregular.”, PetrieCH7.46; ”The surfaces are so much decayed and exfoliated, that it is only just at the ends that two original faces can be found opposite to one another; hence the width and height cannot be measured, and the offsets can only be stated to one surface.”, PetrieCH7.39 on the ascending passage. ”The roof stones are set each at a steeper slope than the passage, in order that the lower edge of each stone should hitch like a paul into a ratchet-cut in the top of the walls; hence no stone can press on the one below it, so as to cause a cumulative pressure all down the roof; and each stone is separately upheld by the side walls across which it lies. The depth of two of these ratchet-cuts, at the S. end, I measured as 1.0 and 1.9 to 2.0; and the angles of the two [p. 73] slabs there 28° 0' to 28° 18', and 27° 56' to 28° 30', mean 28° 11'; which on a mean slab 52.2 from N. to S., would differ 1.74 inches from the passage slope. The edge of the southernmost slab is 14.5 from the S. wall; the next slab is 47.4 from N. to S.”, PetrieCH7.46 Petrie’s LAP table values in PetrieCH7.46 as in the illustration: — Petrie’s ”High on S. End” only 5 values are as measured beginning from the south Gallery top, their facing height. There is no information on the three lowest faces. — In the illustration these last two faces are extrapolated in height from the Petrie last given by the (33.8’’) 4-3 Lap part.

NO DIRECT REFERENCE POINTS

— as from a construction PLAN

— exists with ONLY the Petrie given measures however such truly appear.

But the rJCIRCLE complex with the two Pyramid Agents

have such definite reference points — to be tested as such.

That is what we are dealing with here: »trying to kill the intruder»

— with a fair chance of survival IF consolidated facts show up.

— How is it going?

— Not to well, I’m afraid. It seems IT is here to stay — alive.

PEARL LINE REFERENCE: GS, Golden Section abbreviation — THE Abstruse Conic GALLERY HEIGHT

Golden Section’s R = (√5 — 1)/2 CHEOPS RECTANGLE

rJCIRCLE COMPLEX:

PetrieCP¦b58 = 4534.196576’’ ¦ PetrieCP¦b = 4534.40’’±0.25

Pearl Line vertical level yP = Half Pyramid Base/√5 = yP = (58R√16000)/√5 = 58R√3200 = 2320R√2 = 2027.754353’’

NUCLEAR PHYSICS. ABSOLUTELY.

Based on GROWING order. Not Disorder: LIFE.

The Golden Section geometry — named CHEOPS RECTANGLE in this presentation — through the observed rJCIRCLE complex with its two Pyramid Agents rJCR/¦b16 and PetrieCR¦b58 immediately gives direct and exact quantities: Thorough quantitative — and qualitative — tests is executed directly versus the Petrie given measured values on the Gallery partition. Our exact testing reference here is The Pearl Line and all its geometrical math connecting details, as illustrated above. We only use terms as so deduced and related in specific sections through the following marked links:

GENERAL GOLDEN SECTION QUANTITIES — n’’= nINCHES = n·0.0254 M → n0M024

———

yP = 2027.7543534425’’ = (58R√16000)/√5 = 51M50485 = (yP¦PetrieCR¦b58)/√5= b/√5 ;

Petrie = unknown connection ;

yPG = 1658.1652607385’’ = [(rJCR¦b16) — xB]/2 + yB — yBarm ;

Petrie = 1658.20 ± 0.6 PetrieCH7.46 as quoted;

yKING = 1693.1782168993’’ = yPG + 50R + yBlimit ;

Petrie = 1693.20 ± 0.6 PetrieCH7.46 as quoted;

GSface = 35.0129561608’’= yKING — yPG = 50R + yBlimit ; FACE height of the Great Step;

Petrie = 35 — no tolerance specified PetrieCH7.46 as quoted;

The quantities all come from the above marked constants based on simple GS-geometry

BASIC GALLERY DIMENSIONS — PEARLbasics

GOLDEN SECTION GS CHEOPS RECTANGLE QUANTITIES TESTING PETRIE MEASURED VALUES

— see also the following table below with specific descriptions

Based on comparisons with Petrie mentioned values and quantities The Golden Section ArcTan½ gives the basic geometrical PLAN with GALLERY HEIGHT quantities: GH = 338.6873932665’’ = T.PG = W.W’ ........ Golden Section calculated: GHlo = 334.5761365432’’ = V.V’ = E.S GHhi = TanGR°·(xGL=GalleryRoofHoriz.Proj.) + E.PG – TanGF°·(xGL + [V.S=V.E]): WITH PetrieCH7.46tab 19.2 South offset from the Gallery North end Petrie D point: GHhi = 344.57’’ WITHOUT: The Gallery Roof taken all down to a vertical intersect with the D point: GHhi = 344.68’’ ; • The difference is practically discernible on tolerances within a few 1/10 inch. • Petrie gives no tolerance specifications on this part. GR°, GalleryRoof sloping angle ¦ GF°, GalleryFloor sloping angle ¦ xGL, Gallery Roof’s length Projection on Pyramid base ¦ — With the Petrie given values (PetrieDangles) the GALLERY lower NORTH LENGTH END value is NOT critical: And Petrie neither gives tolerances here. NOTE: Petrie’s D point marks a slight angular change In Quote PetrieCH7.45 Col2 Row23 where the ascending passage continues on the Gallery floor specifics.

As GS-calculated: The Gallery Roof Angle is exactly the same as The Petrie D.B’ angle [TP27] between D and base point B [Petrie’s B’] where descending tunnel meets ascending tunnel on the Petrie measured Petrie B point. So: The Gallery Roof-Floor is slightly CONICAL with a lower South and roughly a 10 inch higher North — taking the Petrie stated values [2×167=334 LOW; 2×172=344 HIGH] as true representations. Angle details in The Petrie Angles.

— What’s this (TheQuan):

This:

— The Golden Section GS-calculated [with specific markings, further below] as shown:

166.2602540908’’:

” According to prof. Smyth

the mean height of this lap above the gallery floor is

166.2 ± .8 vertically; ”, Petrie166Ref.

We will soon return to this part in explicit (PetrieGroove).

— THE LAP3 ITEM has the following

SIMPLE associated GS-calculable constants from the PEARL given premises:

SPECIFIC in exact GS-quantities

———

value in INCHES term short description as GS-calculated

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

constants from construction plan and contracted construction

= yP — yKING + yBlimit

= GH — yBlimit

= GHlow + 50R + yBlimit

= ( GHlow/2 + GHlow — GH/2 )/2

= 178.00’’ = 2 dec. rounded 288R.

= 178 — (GHlow — ML)

= 178 — GH/2

= 2· Nj

= 28 · R ¦ very close to 2Nj

= 178 — Ni = GHlow — ML

= n5/5 → NOT >19th 37.94’’ ¦ PetrieCH7.46tab: 5val,top-dn ¦ 33.6 ¦ 33.7 ¦ 33.0 ¦ 34.0 ¦ 33.8 ¦

= 50R — Ni ¦ the 7 LAPS interval

= n7/7 ¦ mean equal Lapse step ¦ PetrieCH7.46tab, suc.: 2.8| 5.8| 9.00| 12.18| 15.18| 18.55| 21.25

= n7(1—1/π) — adopted pi-number to fit the given Cheops Pyramid Petrie metrics

= n7/π — as from DIVs

= —(n5 + Nj +3[n5/5 + yBlimit]) + GHlow ¦ remaining distance to yKING level

———————————

yP ¦ yBlimit ¦ yKING

PETRIE NEVER MENTIONS TOLERANCE FIGURES in his Gallery measure descriptions.

Mainly only whole number inches are mentioned:

” According to prof. Smyth

the mean height of this lap above the gallery floor is

166.2 ± .8 vertically;

hence the groove is at

172.1 to

179.0 vertically over the floor, and its lower edge is therefore

at half the height of the gallery, that varying from

167 to

172.”, PetrieCH7.46.

— ACCORDING TO MEASURES would be more shiny;

”The roof of the gallery and its walls are not well known,

owing to the difficulty of reaching them. By means of ladders,

that I made jointing together, I was able to thoroughly examine

both ends and parts of the sides of the gallery.”, PetrieCH7.46.

PETRIE’S ONLY HINT TO US LAYMEN HERE is the word ”hence”: We (here) don’t know how Petrie did figure this part out (We might have missed something ..). He just presents two numbers — that happen to fit (very) close to the Golden Section calculated quantities:

— UNLESS PETRIE HAD SOME MEASURING EXPERIENCE OF

”the height of the gallery”

NO STATEMENTS OF THE KIND WOULD BE POSSIBLE EXCEPT on a pure speculative basis — unless we did miss something.

Petrie’s mentioned values

2 × 167 = 334 ¦ GALLERY HEIGHT lower

2 × 172 = 344 ¦ GALLERY HEIGHT higher

MEAN = 339 ¦ GALLERY HEIGHT average

”According to Maragioglio & Rinaldi (1965: pl. 6, fig. 1), the vertical height of the gallery varies from

8.48 to

8.74 m, mean

8.61 m”, Miatello 2010 Note.11 p.6 ”about 15 cubits”: free [Mar2020] PDF-document:

EXAMINING THE GRAND GALLERY IN THE PYRAMID OF KHUFU AND ITS FEATURES, Miatello 2010

— No freely available Maragioglio source seems to be available: searched for Mar2020, not found.

— Unrelated source quantities: we don’t know the details in WHERE or HOW.

8M48 = 333.8582677’’ = GHlo Miatello/Maragioglio 2010/1965

8M74 = 344.0944882’’ = GHhi Miatello/Maragioglio 2010/1965

8M61 = 388.9763780’’ = GHmean Miatello/Maragioglio 2010/1965

The calculated Golden Section values lie roughly 0.5 inch above these, except for the mean:

Golden Section rJCIRCLE complex calculated

334.5761365432 = GHlo

344.5691974484 = GHhi with PetrieCH7.46tab North Gallery end 19.2’’ subtracted;

344.6796485209 = GHhi with North Gallery End vertically directly above the Petrie D point.

338.6873932665 = Nominal GALLERY HEIGHT

It appears difficult to ignore a highly sophisticated Golden Section PLAN as

The Foundation and Reason underlying these tight Coincidences.

GalleryConicity:

The Conical Gallery

NOTE Petrie166Ref THAT THESE VALUES REFERRED BY PERIE (and Maragi8Mref) IMPLIES A SLIGHTLY CONICAL SHAPE OF THE South-North SECTIONAL FORM OF THE GREAT GALLERY: a shallower South (334’’) to a rough ten inches more deep North (344’’).

— Petrie hints at a corresponding conical shape on the Gallery roof metrics;

” The width of the top of the gallery is

40.9 at N., and

41.3 at S. end.”, PetrieCH7.46.

As seen from above (North-South, looking South): A broader South down to a 0.4 inch more narrow North.

— Is that meaningful?

— You tell me. Compare Assembly.

Further below in Petrie19.2.

PetrieGroove:

PETRIE’S DESCRIBED GROOVE OVER LAP3

NOTE: No information is known here on HOW the actual Gallery masonry is organized

— how the different stone blocks are related to each other: horizontally and vertically.

— The black horizontal Lap3 South line is GS-calculated as [V.V ’] half the distance yP — yKING.

It seems difficult to understand such a MARKER as »a coincidence».

———————————

ML = 166.26’’ ¦ Petrie166Ref

— A shallow (0.6-0.8’’) ditch roughly cut ALL along both the Gallery East and West opposite walls, all the way Upper South to Lower North, beginning some 5 or 6 inches (0M127) over the 3:rd LAP:

” The remarkable groove in the lower part of the third lap,

along the length of the whole sides,

was measured thus, perpendicularly:—”, PetrieCH7.46:

Extracted from PETRIE GROOVE TABLE DATA

EXTRACTED FROM [the best] RONALD BIRDSALL’S PETRIE COPIED TEXT SOURCE PetrieCH7.46.

— The vertical correction from the perpendicularity in the groove line distances on the Gallery wall sloping angle [close to ArcTan½], gives a discernible difference

here in using the simple ArcTan½ line correction through a multiplication by √1.25. But Petrie gives no corresponding specification.

”At the S. W. it is cut to a depth of

.8 inch, at the S. E. to

.6 (?); the upper edge of it is often ill-defined and sloping.

According to prof Smyth ..”, PetrieCH7.46.

Quote Petrie166Ref.

SPECIAL GALLERY DIMENSIONS

CHECKING ALL THE PETRIE GIVEN VALUES (PetrieCH7.45-48) against our exact calculable rJCIRCLE Golden Section CHEOPS RECTANGLE complex, it it EASY FOR US with a computer aided tool — CalCards (conv. a spread sheet) to VERIFY CORRESPONDING Petrie measured (or Petrie referred) values:

EASY ARITHMETICS on basic simple geometrical premises exposes a seemingly full and exact PLAN for the whole edificial construct — the different GS-calculated constants used here are related in the GalSPECIFICS table:

— Half the Great Step (our Cheops Unit) 100R=GS-calculated =30.9’’ minus the Ni term gives 30.9 – 9.68 = n7 =

21.22’’. PetrieCH7.46tab gives a base value for the last of the 7 summed laps from the Gallery roof top down to the (5 times mentioned in PetrieCH7) Petrie specified South wall (61.7’’ ± 0.8) from the Pyramid MID:

21.25’’. The 0.03’’ has no significance as we know of. Petrie neither mentions tolerances on these values (most probably due to their small differences [0.1-0.4’’] on each face between its top and base).

— And how the 7?

ASSUMING A RECURRENT USE of already specified Pyramid details — as engineers — we would prefer to use these as much and as close as possible by purpose of UNIFYING the whole construct on as few parameters as possible. That also helps us later born pedestrians to find the corresponding plan — if the aim had such inducements, which implication is under test here. So:

— With our GS-calculated n5=168.3158824524’’ distance given

— it is the intersection between the ArcTan½ LAP3’s ML=166.2602540908’’ and the vertical V.V’ between PEARL line (yP) and KING’s floor level (yKING) GHlow = 334.5761365432’’: GHlow – ML = n5

— we seek a general mean average building stone block height preferably equal to The 19th Course height near the Pyramid entrance (Petrie3794) Petrie’s 37.94’’ ± 0.17— »the whole heart of the matter», as it has shown.

Closest — not greater than 37.94 whole number — value is n5/5 =

33.6631764905’’: Petrie only have 5 measured, no tolerance, values in his table PetrieCH7.46 named ”High on S. End”:

33.6 ¦ 33.7 ¦ 33.0 ¦ 34.0 ¦ 33.8.

— Undoubtedly close.

THE REMAINING DISTANCE down to the KING’s floor level — IF we extrapolate the 3 last face heights as

n5/5 + (yBlimit=4.11’’) — will be of the type

GHlow – n5 – 3(n5/5 + yBlimit) =

44.2868623227’’. PetrieCH7.48tab hints us to accept a value of precisely

45.0000000000’’ as the (North wall Ante Chamber) distance over the yKING floor level.

— But Petrie gives us no hint of a tolerance on his tabled figures.

(The floor is partly rough .. with small changes in level from north to south: Petrie’s table on CH7 gives values of floor levels between 5.6’’ and 3.2’’ over a distance 173.8’’ horizontally: Diff. 2.4’’).

— Undoubtedly close if we are allowed to be rough on 0.78’’ at this site.

THAT GIVES US The n7=21.22’’ TOTAL OF A 7 LAP stepping block face indent course path

between Petrie’s 61.7’’ ± 0.8 defined South wall as it ends 45’’ over the King’s floor level and the South Gallery roof onset top.

— The mean average of each lap over the horizontal distance 21.22’’ for all the 7 laps then becomes

n7/7 = dL =

3.0319704471’’. PetrieCH7.46tab gives the laps (extracted base values below) by successive growth from top to bottom (here with added differences):

2.8 5.8 9.00 12.18 15.18 18.55 21.25

2.8 3.0 3.2 3.18 3.0 3.0 2.7

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Mean average: 3.035714286.

— Undoubtedly close to our GS-calculated 3.0319704471.

ASSEMBLY NOTE — on the possible CONSTRUCTION SITE as suggested by TNED (not included in Modern Academy):

Safely by documented observation (PYRAMID DETAILS):

— The Cheops Pyramid (and others) have no two equally dimensioned stone blocks. So: Adopting this as a principle

with freely available energy and maximum computer aided programming tools and machinery:

Blocks are adopted

— shaped during the transport (WE DON’T KNOW HOW) path between quarry and building site by updated 3D plan info as the work proceeds (OUR MOST CONVENIENT ASSOCIATION)

— as the building process proceeds ON A PRECISE GENERAL TIGHT TOLERANCE PLAN:

— Within certain intervals, random adjustments CAN be made, only to secure the general fitness.

Any such PRIMITIVE assembly will — hence — be out of the question: human beings can not realize such a building in physical reality: no breaks, no interrupts, no discussions, no tired legs, no troubled minds. Only a computer controlled machine — lots of them — can do it provided freely available energy in any suitable amount with zero environmental issues.

The fact that we DON’T KNOW HOW does not entitle us to reject the possibility — unless we have a perfect insight into any possible realm of any possible knowledge of any possible physics of and in our universe stating: it is impossible — by related facts and precise descriptions.

— Please do share.

As we see here from the PetrieGroove:

— There is little doubt on INTENTIONS that the Petrie mentioned groove ends PRECISELY ON an average mean AS concordant with the ML=166.22 LAP3 line where it intersects the GHlow=yP–yKING vertical V.V’ line:

— Unquestionably close.

The Petrie 14.5 and 47.4 mentioned Gallery Roof top SLAB values

THE GALLERY ROOF TOP ONSET

— So: How do The Measures define what Petrie found at The Gallery roof top?

ONLY WITH HELP FROM PETRIE’S MEASURED VALUES In Quote PetrieCH7.46 Row 21:

— 14.4 and 47.4 no tolerances mentioned extrapolated for 100R=61.8 as the sum of 14.5 and 47.3:

a: THE SIMPLE AND EASY BEGIN from The Pearl Line rJCIRCLE two Pyramid Agents Quantities.

b: The 50R=30.9 and Ni=9.68 inches constants point out how the Cheops Pyramid Gallery top is organized over The Great Step.

c: The Petrie reported Gallery roof top slabs inserted from b.

d: Quantities as described — with no specified tolerances — by PetrieCH7.46.

n7(1 – 1/π) = 14.4680499544’’ = DIVs;

n7/π = 6.7557431756’’ = oDs ;

— WE DON’T KNOW HOW PETRIE DID FIGURE The 14.5 PART OF HIS MEASURE OUT

AT THE GALLERY TOP. We only have his reported value — we question it because

IT demands some »looking South behind» the Gallery top of the stone masonry — provided no apprehending mistakes has been made here on the Petrie reported figures.

FIRST OBSERVATION ON PETRIE’S GIVEN VALUES:

(30.9 – 9.68 = 21.22) — 6.75 = 14.47 ~ 14.5 = DIVs.

AFTER ALL COLLECTED AND COMPILED DATA — Mar2020:

NOTE THE OPTIONAL U-POINT TOUCH:

The Petrie RATCHET given 1.74’’ value of the overhang or »RATCHET under-hang» seems to be a »perfect fit»

with the general Gallery Height low and and high values and their fair coherence with the Petrie given values.

— Petrie’s Gallery height specifications are related here more in detail from GalSPECIFICS.

An adopted pi-number in this part of the building COULD be a natural choice for an engineer who deliberately was spying on occasions to find SIMPLE numbers — to prove the overall unity of the Golden Section CHEOPS RECTANGLE Pearl Universal edifice:

— The Great Cheops Pyramid proving an early familiarity.

— Feel free to question these statements. I do, all the time. With seemingly less space left as we go along.

See also the (So) adopted pi-number in The Main Construct.

Petries19.2:

Finalizing on lower North

WHAT ABOUT THE PETRIE 19.2’’ OFFSET DOWN AT THE NORTH END?

FIRST: Compare or reflect The Conical Gallery Aspect.

— The following part has no here known Petrie reference. It is just this author’s own simple spontaneous reflection (reflexion) on some simple physical stress basics on the level of an edifice of The Great Cheops Pyramid caliber:

HEAVY WEIGHT pushing on roof, walls and floor of any hollow room on the face of a seismically active planet Earth represents forces that can, and will, make it collapse over time. The question is only how long it takes before a final fall will be executed.

Petrie describes some already observed minor injuries in the King’s chamber. And he concludes,

”All these motions are yet but small—only a matter of an inch or two—

but enough to wreck the theoretical strength and stability of these chambers,

and to make their downfall a mere question of time and earthquakes.”, PetrieCh7.51e.

There are certainly always some attactive ways to GUIDE active and reactive forces — create or guide stress resistance — through an edifice built by bricks depending on the geometry of the bricks and their weight by volume.

SUCCESSIVE INDENTS is a simple and effective way of distributing high physical stress on a roof top by leading its weighing stress factor to diverge orderly downwards into a broader floor bottom of surrounding walls.

In this case, The Great Cheops Pyramid and its Gallery space, going from higher South to lower North means a corresponding accumulating weighing stress downwards proportional to added stone block mass pushing above.

— With a South floor-top offset of n7=21.21’’ (Petrie’s tabled no tolerance specified 21.25) on a 7 lap indented step path, we would expect a slight narrower same 7 step lap path further down on higher physical stress.

— Petrie’s measured 19.2’’, with no tolerance specification, lower Gallery North wall floor-top offset marks a small but clear approach to this physical stress issue. And the only GS-body specific figure to match that value, as known here, is 31R =

19.15905365’’; Diff: 0.040946348 = 1mM040037.

— As we know, a fair equivalent to 19.2.

THIS SUGGESTED SMALL principal CONICITY IS NOT THE ONLY ONE IN THE GALLERY SPACE.

— Petrie also reports a difference in the Gallery Ceiling from max 41.5 at South with a min 40.9 at North. This part might as well be seen from a physically stressing environmental viewpoint:

— With more weight on lower Northern parts, follows higher stress over given stone block areas. It would be natural, as a constructive engineer as seen from above, to narrow the space downwards then: Increasing the resistive stress on the lower blocks: less open area to create a crack. And, at the same time, trying to push this higher stress on lower parts as much as possible outwards towards the Pyramid’s outer casing walls — by increasing, as seen from east to west, the distance between floor and ceiling towards the sloping lower northern parts. This could be made in placing the blocks after one and another as gliding along the gallery floor slope: Any seismic stress can transfer its force preferentially more sloping along that line, instead of pushing it all conventionally straight vertically downwards.

The thing is: we (here) have no idea of exactly how the actual Gallery masonry looks like in these parts.

— @INTERNET pictures and photos have poor visual clarity on these details: Practically nothing CLEAR appears on looking at the pictures as such. And other sources on the subject seems not overly enthusiastic in telling us the details either. The principle mentioned here just seems to be the most direct and easy to solve on the masonry quest — and so might easily be debunked by anyone who has a more accurate picture of the work:

WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY — HERE — NO KNOWLEDGE AT ALL HOW THE CHEOPS PYRAMID GALLERY MASONRY IS ORGANIZED. Possibly:

DIFFERENT MASONRY ORGANIZED ALTERNATIVES — with suggested simple force developing paths depending on mortar design — SCHEMATIC:

The North lower Gallery end 7 lap stepping block masonry, gray above, is raised first over the basic finished courses by exact mounted/placed blocks. From both opposite sides East-West of this middle, Gallery ramping blocks can be pushed into exact precision positions without risking any deviating spaces — provided there is a mounted, mobile Fixture taking over the 7 laps supporting role as further ramp stones are pushed and positioned upwards Southwards. The Petrie described ramp holes, as quoted below, may be a proof of this mounting Fixture’s mobility capability, guaranteeing that the Gallery will be constructed safely and exactly by plan of a corresponding perfectly solid Pyramid — as if all the stone blocks were pushed together from centre to casing, course by course, with no internal spaces at all.

NAMELY THIS — Database P:

— Building a SOLID pyramid with individual blocks — provided free energy and computer controlled machinery on a thorough plan, see the ASSEMBLY NOTE — will be no problem at all PROVIDED beginning from the middle: Pushing blocks together successively outwards: Always certifying a maximum tight fit from centre to casing, leaving no room for uncertain spaces: Mounting machines perfectly synchronized on all four Pyramid sides: Placing blocks from centre and outwards in one common micro second synchronized push, coordinating a common mobile progress with no breaks, no hesitates, no tired legs, no discussions: no arguing: Perfect Assembly.

— But how is that precision work done IF there must be some HOLLOW spaces inside The Tight Corresponding Pyramid Construct, a Database T?

We can’t fill a space with »precision».

No mother god loving way.

— Has to be some HELPING device there:

A tight push precision guaranteeing Fixture.

— As we CAN ASSOCIATE IT: The Machinery advances from a finished lower course, beginning on a higher (from the pyramid centre); The Fixture is raised or moved stepwise up though a structure of precision assembling guaranteeing intervals: The Fixture is mounted — and internally precision locked — a level higher up as each floor is finished to fill out the construction space (Gallery here) while the machines can continue their exact pushing solid Pyramid building work according to the plan.

It seems (here) the most simple and reasonable explanation to the structured hollowing on the Gallery floor edge ramps as Petrie.CH7.46 describes them (also shown drawn in PetriePLATE.9),

” The holes cut in the ramps or benches, along the sides of the gallery, .. the blocks inserted in the wall over each, .. all these features are as yet inexplicable.”, PetrieCH7.46.

The other holes:

The other holes

• THE NARROW descending and ascending TUNNELS and their general small hollow dimensions have already been explained (TCA) by the Petrie observed 19th course principle. The rJCIRCLE complex obviously DEFINES this Petrie measured 19th course height AS the Petrie specified 37.94’’ ± 0.17 connecting the descending and ascending tunnel dimensions through trigonometric/optic projection. See all details collected in THE MAIN CONSTRUCT and PROVING THE CONTRACTED CONSTRUCT.

• THE 4 NARROW SO CALLED AIR SHAFTS MIGHT JUST have been final Vacuum channels:

— Before the last Casing shell was mounted, the inner parts had to be dust cleaned — leaving only a most perfect clean stone masonry building on a finished work. Possibly. But here with absolutely no proof at all except the narrow channels as such (see their corresponding Golden Section geometrical sources in The Air Channels).

For any eventually further clarification.

CHEOPS PYRAMID DATA SOURCES: Only data specifying soruces

Birdsall2003:

— Our absolute Petrie data source:

THE PYRAMIDS AND TEMPLES OF GIZEH, William Flinders Petrie 1883

W. M. Flinders Petrie 1883 — @INTERNET Ronald Birdsall, 2003-14

http://www.ronaldbirdsall.com/gizeh/petrie/index.htm

PYRAMID STONE BLOCK DETAILS:

JOEL’S EGYPT — PERSPECTIVES AND INSIGHTS, Joel Clarc (2009)

http://www.joelsegypt.com/1-the-building-blocks-of-the-great-pyramid/

Older PHOTO SOURCE IDENTIFIED:

THE GREAT PYRAMID PASSAGES AND CHAMBERS

Volume 1 by John and Morton Edgar, 1910

found through a Danish web site on Cheops Pyramid Feb2020

THE KHUFU PYRAMID — GRAND GALLERY, Stefan A. H. Holmgren (1988+)

http://khufupyramid.dk/inside-dimensions/grand-gallery

Free PDF-document:

Historical survey with late results:

NEW ANGLES ON THE GREAT PYRAMID

by Glen Dash, fall 2012

:

" In 1984 Mark Lehner and David Goodman measured the elusive base of the Great Pyramid of Khufu. They followed in the footsteps of researchers, going back to the 17th century, who tried to determine the true dimensions of the pyramid—no easy task. Stripped of nearly all of its casing, the monument no longer has any corners, nor well-defined edges. Now, for the first time, we publish the Lehner-Goodman data with an analysis that gives the dimensions and orientation of the Great Pyramid."

;

" Petrie found that each side was rotated slightly counterclockwise from cardinal points, as indicated by the minus sign."

;

" The mean of the Lehner-Goodman estimates for the casing corners are remarkably close to Petrie’s."

— The source gives a resulting table

THE GREAT PYRAMID’S CASING LENGTHS IN METERS:

LEHNER-GOODMAN, PETRIE, COLE, AND DORNER

here extracted only on the source’s table The Average end result Row:

SIDE LEHNER/GOODMAN PETRIE COLE DORNER

Average 230.329 230.348 230.364 230.360

——————— ——————————— ——————————— ——————————— ———————————

Inch/2 4534.035433 4534.409449 4534.724409 4534.645669 ..... ½Pyramid side

:

— We see that the 1984 Lehner/Goodman result is more favourable to our PetrieCR¦b58 value 4534.20''.

NOTE. To get Petrie accurate figures by two decimals in inches, the meter representation must have six (6) significant decimals; 0.01'' = 0M000254.

— The Dash table gives no specified tolerances (maybe it should be 4534.20’’ ± 0.20 = ± 0.005080 M).

A CONFIDENCE CONCEPT is a toning in toning out = definite interval of uncertainty. Not good. As constructors we need Definite Tolerances to Blow a Whistle when the Machines shows on RED: turn it off. Not approved. Least Safe Margins. No Confidence: zero doubt.

CHEOPS PYRAMID unidentified GALLERY DRAWING comparing source:

Certain humans have more Authorized search power @INTERNET than others ..

UNIDENTIFIED DRAWING

CHEOPS GALLERY SOURCE:

BOTH below referred drawings expose but not in any corresponding scale a Gallery space with a shallower South (334’’, InQuotePetrie166Ref) and a rough ten inches higher North (344’’) implying a sectional conical shape.

• Petrie however have no mentioning of a ”conical” or ”conicity” connection, only the actual opposed values.

• COMPARING THESE DRAWING SCALES HERE IS however NOT RECOMMENDED AS THE PETRIE.PLATE 9 SOURCE IMAGE IN ITSELF HAS A VERTICAL not linear SCALE ERROR (The PetriePlate.9 drawing exposes higher vertical metrics than the actually stated Petrie values, while the PetriePlate.9 horizontal scale is in a perfect concord with the Petrie stated values) — see detailed description in NatDES unless already familiar.

— A rough analyze of the PetriePLATE.9 vertical error seems to depend on a (vertical) optical scanning issue, but here absolutely without proof: no simple scaling transfer connection is known here. The PetriePLATE.9 drawing has to be recalculated/redrawn practically for each specific vertical position to get a thorough corresponding Petrie stated value match.

We SHOULD expect an edificial drawing to be 2D PHOTOGRAPHICALLY representative to the actual physical metrics. To assure such genuine copying seems not always a too easy task. We make (minor) mistakes sometimes.

Internet, Mar2020: Please excuse the language:

Example of typical ongoing

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT from web browsing global companies 2015-2020(+)

Microsoft and Google FINALLY FROM AROUND 2015+:

Almost a completely DESTRUCTED READABILITY

IN A PERFECTLY CLEAN AND CLEAR ORIGINAL :

Whenever we see these web browsing issues in Universe History and others alike,

we know starting from around 2015+ that it is a concrete proof on a proceeding copyright infringement from Microsoft + GOOGLE and alike associated:

— After roughly 2015 these Microsoft + GOOGLE web browsing world leading company programming global Top Asshole Leading suck up fuckers HACKED INTO OUR COMPUTERS and CHANGED OUR COMPUTERS HARD CORE MACHINE PROCESSING READING STYLE: WHAT WE before AND ALL AFTER HAVE DECIDED TO BE our PRODUCTION HAS BEEN ATTACKED BY MICROSOFT AND GOOGLE BY THEIR WEB BROWSERS: SEVERELY DESTROYED/VANDALIZED ORIGINAL READABILITY.

— SUCH DAY LIGHT PROVABLE GLOBAL LEADING ADMINISTRATIVE ENTERPRISE FUCK-UPS have — provably — no interest at all in Natural Science:

— Interest in READABILITY as presented from the individuals who wrote, worked and planned to make a perfectly clean and just readable original. Microsoft+: ”We want to hear your opinion, from you, what you think of us”? Yes:

— Who invited you, and when did that happen? Please share on Liberated Slavery.

— Do correct if wrong: These fuck-ups don’t understand the concept of human cultural development:

— IT COMES FROM INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEINGS. NOT FROM A COMPANY. NOT FROM A GROUP:

— Kepler. Galileo. Newton. Bradley. Euler. Planck. .. YOU.

— If YOU can’t keep up on SERVING INDIVIDUAL PROVISION FOR INDIVIDUAL CREATIVITY, you’re done: A29.1.

— It is the one single human individual’s choice that counts. Not Microsoft, GOOGLE or others. Breakthroughs, improvements in technology have always come from one single individual. And will so continue to come from one individual person with one unique individual right to choose.

The Opinion from Microsoft&GOOGLE in this has no meaning: attacking and removing the individual’s own right to make a choice. And that is an attack upon humanity.

A17:

1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

2. No one shall be arbitrary deprived of his property.

And when WERE these human rights abrogated, Microsoft&GOOGLE?

— YOU DON'T TAMPER WITH MY MICROPROCESSOR:

what we see, what we write, what we draw, what we serve, when we do it, and how.

MY INTERESTS. My personal property. In IT Microsoft&GOOGLE have no say, says Universal Human Rights.

INTERNET INCREASES HUMAN RIGHTS HOSTILITY

INTERNET 2020 SHOWS INCREASINGLY LIMITED SITE ACCESS IN DEMANDING COOKIE CONSENT FOR FREE SIGHT:

— SITES ARE 100% OR PARTIALLY BLOCKED UNTIL a c CONSENT IS EXECUTED: Loke Type Internet. Not my culture.

The former Free and open Internet shuts down 2016+

SOME INTERNET PAGES ON THE CHEOPS SUBJECT

Mar2020 — Planet Earth is Still Round

DOES NOT EVEN ALLOW HUMAN RIGHTS ACCESS

— site locked:

SITES ARE 100% OR PARTIALLY BLOCKED

UNTIL a c CONSENT IS EXECUTED

INTERNET 2020 SHOWS INCREASINGLY LIMITED SITE ACCESS IN DEMANDING a COOKIE CONSENT FOR FREE SIGHT:

— It seems there are (very) strong movements these days REGISTERING

to SORT a difference between humans A and humans B,

also showing it openly to be so: no more open free Internet.

— We don’t know what that Internet type Enterprise stands for, except

NO FOREMOST HUMAN RIGHTS MENTIONED. Not my table.

— Maybe 1932 again.

Compare UDHR10Dec1948 P1:

— CLAIM — statement: any, especially any a the foremost — without RECOGNITION of the inherent DIGNITY

IS A DEFINITION OF OPPRESSION,

”Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and

inalienable rights of all members of the human family is

the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”,

everything else is a definition of oppression. Pick one.

A27:

1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community,

to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

NOBODY IS ALLOWED TO PUT OBSTACLES IN FRONT OF A FREE AND OPEN SIGHT

— UNLESS THE UNITED MISSION IS TO INTRODUCE FASCISM OVER HUMAN RIGHTS.

Say it.

STOP PROMOTING — slavery — FASCISTIC ATTITUDES.

A4:

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

— Internet (2010¦15¦16+) is so enveloped by shit claimed to be a global concert of welfare, that even, soon, the pixels start spelling it right out, if nobody else does. Do correct if wrong. Please.

Cheops ATLAS Pyramids — Jan2020

innehåll: content SÖK på denna sida Ctrl+F · sök alla ämnesord överallt i SAKREGISTER · förteckning över alla webbsidor

Universums Historia — Cheops ATLAS Pyramids

ämnesrubriker

innehåll

Cheops ATLAS Pyramids

CallingAtlantis

BaG

AchEx — A few challenging examples

NotedFacts

AchEx2

AchEx3

WikiIncaEmp

PetrieSourceRef

ATBP — AN ASSERTED BUILDING PLAN

AsIs

PyDe — PYRAMID DETAILS

PyStoneD — PYRAMID STONE BLOCK DETAILS

JoCh2009

SESQB — SEISMIC STRESS QUALITY BUILDINGS

CompMeES

ClariPePo — CLARIFYING PETRIE POINTS: ON THE GREAT STEP

ColPeGeS

CPtgs

ConicGallery — THE Abstruse Conic GALLERY HEIGHT

GalHeight

rJ338ref

Petrie339ref

Maragi8Mref

Petrie1658ref

PetrieSlabRef

PEARLineRef — PEARL LINE REFERENCE

GenGOLD

yKINGref

TheQuan

NotePetriesD

GalSPECIFICS

Petrie166Ref

GalleryConicity

PetrieGroove

PetrieGrooveTable

Petries19p2 — WHAT ABOUT THE PETRIE 19.2’’ OFFSET DOWN AT THE NORTH END?

DiffMas

TOH

CheopsSources

Inet2020 — SITES ARE 100% OR PARTIALLY BLOCKED

CONTENT in detail

referenser

[HOP]. HANDBOOK OF PHYSICS, E. U. Condon, McGraw-Hill 1967

Atomviktstabellen i HOP allmän referens i denna presentation, Table 2.1 s9–65—9–86.

m_n = 1,0086652u ...................... neutronmassan i atomära massenheter (u) [HOP Table 2.1 s9–65]

m_e = 0,000548598u .................. elektronmassan i atomära massenheter (u) [HOP Table 10.3 s7–155 för m_e , Table 1.4 s7–27 för u]

u = 1,66043 t27 KG .............. atomära massenheten [HOP Table 1.4 s7–27, 1967]

u = 1,66033 t27 KG .............. atomära massenheten [ENCARTA 99 Molecular Weight]

u = 1,66041 t27 KG ............... atomära massenheten [FOCUS MATERIEN 1975 s124sp1mn]

u = 1,66053886 t27 KG ........ atomära massenheten [teknisk kalkylator, lista med konstanter SHARP EL-506W (2005)]

u = 1,6605402 t27 KG .......... atomära massenheten [@INTERNET (2007) sv. Wikipedia]

u = 1,660538782 t27 KG ...... atomära massenheten [från www.sizes.com],

CODATA rekommendation från 2006 med toleransen ±0,000 000 083 t27 KG (Committe on Data for Science and Technology)]

c₀ = 2,99792458 T8 M/S ........ ljushastigheten i vakuum [ENCARTA 99 Light, Velocity, (uppmättes i början på 1970-talet)]

h = 6,62559 t34 JS ................. Plancks konstant [HOP s7–155]

[BA]. BONNIERS ASTRONOMI 1978

— Det internationella standardverket om universum sammanställt vid universitetet i Cambridge, The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Astronomy, London 1977.

[FM]. FOCUS MATERIEN 1975

[BKL]. BONNIERS KONVERSATIONS LEXIKON, 12 band A(1922)-Ö(1928) med SUPPLEMENT A-Ö(1929)

t för 10^–, T för 10⁺, förenklade exponentbeteckningar — simplified notations: t for TEN RAISED TO minus and T for TEN RAISED TO plus.

MAC, här ofta använd förkortning för Modern ACademy — etablerad vetenskap sedan början av 1800-talet

TNED — Related PHYSICS And MATHEMATICS — Se särskild djupbeskrivning av innebörden i begreppet relaterad framställning.

(Toroid Nuclear Electromechanical Dynamics), eller Toroidnukleära Elektromekaniska Dynamiken är den dynamiskt ekvivalenta resultatbeskrivning som följer av härledningarna i Planckringen h=m_nc₀r_n, analogt Atomkärnans Härledning. Beskrivningen enligt TNED är relaterad, vilket innebär: alla, samtliga, detaljer gör anspråk på att vara fullständigt logiskt förklarbara och begripliga, eller så inte alls. Med TNED förstås (således) också

RELATERAD FYSIK OCH MATEMATIK. Se även uppkomsten av termen TNED i Atomkärnans Härledning.

See also TNED FROM THE BEGINNING (Swedish edition only Aug2019).

SHORT ENGLISH — TNED in general is not found @INTERNET except under this domain

(Universe[s]History, introduced @INTERNET 2008VII3).

TNED or Toroid Nuclear Electromechanical Dynamics is the dynamically equivalent resulting description following the deductions in THE PLANCK RING, analogous AtomNucleus’ Deduction. The description according to TNED is related, meaning: all, each, details claim to be fully logically explainable and understandable, or not at all. With TNED is (hence) also understood RELATED PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS. See also the emergence of the term TNED in AtomNucleus’ Deduction.

Senast uppdaterade version: 2024-03-01

*END.

Stavningskontrollerat 2020-03-26¦26Mar2020.

rester

*

åter till portalsidan · portalsidan är www.UniversumsHistoria.se

≈ Δ Ĵ ∫ α √ π → ∞ τ π ħ ε UNICODE — often used charcters in mathematical-technical-scientifical descriptions

σ ρ ν ν π τ γ λ η ≠ √ ħ ω → ∞ ≡ ↔↕ ħ ℓ

Ω Φ ϕ ϕ Ψ Σ Π Ξ Λ Θ Δ ~

α β γ δ ε λ θ κ π ρ τ φ σ ω ∏ √ ∑ ∂ ∆ ∫ ≤ ≈ ≥ ← ↑ → ∞ ↓

ζ ξ

Arrow symbols, direct via Alt+NumPadKeyboard: Alt+24 ↑; 25 ↓; 26 →; 27 ←; 22 ▬

23 ↨ — also 18 ↕; 29 ↔

åter till portalsidan · portalsidan är www.UniversumsHistoria.se