Dave Hawkins

My understanding is that the concavity is very slight ... Dean mentioned the angle. The only way to see it is if the light is just right, which is why this photo is described as "lucky." Dean makes a good point that we should question the validity of the photo. I'll see what I can dig up. Also, I think I can get Petrie's book Monday. I think he documented this concavity and its regularity on all four sides. I wonder if anyone has used artificial lighting at the site to obtain additional photos.

Dean Anderson

According to A Brief History Of Pi (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Petr Beckman, the Egyptians used a figure of 256/81 for pi.

I don't have a quote to hand, but Wikipedia agrees with this value, saying...

These particular examples are both from after the pyramid was built, of course, but it shows that claims of an ancient Egyptian knowledge of pi are not extraordinary (like a claim of ancient Egyptian knowledge of quantum physics would be).

Dean Anderson

In the real world, we do see only a rough (and bumpy) curvature.

In Davidson's diagram (which afdave claims is accurate), we see a trapezoid shape - with smooth slopes coming in from either corner, but the mid section of the concavity is flat and parallel to the line of the corners.

In afdave's own description (and in that rather dubious photo), we have smooth slopes coming in and meeting at precise angle.

Of course, you must realise what sort of concavity we are talking about here. The entire width of the pyramid is about 228m long, and is made up of large stone blocks that have been subject to about four and a half millennia of erosion and subsidence.

The maximum extent of the concavity along that entire 228m length is less than a metre.

The pyramid is, to within 99% accuracy, square. The only reason the slight concavity is ever even mentioned is because people like Smyth and Davidson need to add a crucial few extra inches to their measurements in order to make them have values that look significant. The concavity gives them most of what they need - so what you do is you add the concavity to the corners (for no reason) and make sure that rounding is done in your favour; and Hey Presto! Your pyramid is now a cosmic numerological artefact.

Pappy Jack

Dave,

If this is the volume you are looking for, The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh by W. M. Flinders Petrie, 1883

can be found here:

http://touregypt.net/petrie/index.htm

Dean Anderson

If anyone is interested, Petrie's book has long since gone out of copyright, and the full text is available here.

Pappy Jack

Dean,

Like BWE I was surprised by your remark which seemed to imply a knowledge of the exact value of pi. My best on-hand source (The British Museum Dictionary of Ancient Egypt by Ian Shaw & Paul Nicolson) gives the same value as you quote Ahmes referencing, but suggests that the process of calculating the area of a circle involved squaring 8/9ths of the diameter's length, resulting in the pi value of 3.16. There seems to be no evidence that the Egyptians who designed and built the Great Pyramid were aware of the value of pi to the accuracy claimed by Smyth.

Dean Anderson

I totally agree.

Not least because the accuracy claimed by Smyth is utter bullshit and is based on (I kid you not) numerological interpretations of Bible verses rather than actual measurements of the pyramid.

However, the ratio of the actual dimensions of the pyramid is vaguely close to pi. That closeness could well just be coincidence (if, for example, they measured out the base using a wheel that had a radius that was a fraction of the desired height).

But one of the arguments commonly made by pyramidologists is that the Egyptians had no concept of pi - and therefore anything that is any ratio of pi (no matter how vague) must be miraculous - which is simply wrong.

Constant Mews

Dean, I note that Dave has adopted his usual pattern and is responding to only a fragment of your comments. Don't be disappointed - anything he can't deal with he ignores.

Pappy Jack

Kurt Mendelssohn, The Riddle of the Pyramids (or via: amazon.co.uk), London 1974 and 1976, provides an interesting analysis in which he argues convincingly that the impetus behind the century of pyramid-building during the 4th Dynasty was primarily political and economic, aimed not so much at providing gigantic tombs but rather at moulding and uniting a new form of society.

In the process of supporting his arguments, Mendelssohn calculates a seasonal workfore of around 70,000 men fully employed for three months each year for the c.100 years in question. He warns the reader that this figure of 70,000 is an order of magnitude calculation and could be out one way or the other. He also stresses that 70,000 is an average figure and would oprobably have been less to begin with, increased to more than 70,000 in the middle period and tailed off towards the end.

This summary does less than justice to a well-researched and interesting book which is worth the effort of searching out if you can find it. I hope I haven't misrepresented Mendelssohn's ideas in attempting to give you the essence.

What this 70,000 labour-force says about the overall population of Egypt is another question, but at least provides a starting point.

Steviepinhead

Dave, you keep adroitly avoiding the question of why it is that you even care about the super-cool construction of the Great Pyramid. You have stated here that you don't think it was built by God, gods, or aliens. Perhaps you'll now tell us who you thing did build the frickin' thing?

My memory tells me that you've asserted that the pyramid was designed by some fellow named Philitis (or variations thereon) who, for some reason that's less than clear to me, you apparently believe was an Israelite.

One of your sources for this was that eminent historian Herodotus. As you'll no doubt recall, dave, Herodotus states that the Egyptian priests of his time, whom he consulted, refused to call the Great Pyramid by the name of the pharoah usually associated with it, because they greatly disliked that pharoah, and would not let his appellation cross their lips. So, instead, they referred to that pyramid using the name of a shepherd, one Philitis, who grazed his flocks near the pyramid.

There's nothing in this account by Herodotus to suggest that Philitis was other than a simple shepherd, that he lived at any other time than the self-same priests who were Herodotus's contemporary sources, and certainly nothing to suggest that Philitis was either--in his leftover time from herding his flocks--a world-class pyramid-designing marvel, much less an Israelite.

So what's the real deal with Philitis, davey? Why are you so eager, without warrent that you've yet shared with us, to heap all these other accolades upon this humble shepherd?

And, while you're at it, you've been asked several times how the building of the Great Pyramid assists your Noachian Deluge delusion, in any event. Even if it was built when you say it was, for the purposes you say it was, by whoever you say built it, how does this add one single item of evidence to your Flood claims?

I'm still unclear on that...