By Liaf
I know that fantastic claims are made about the Great Pyramid. It supposedly has measurements whose actual length depict a "time-line" representation of history and prophecy. In addition to its supposed fantastic predictions, and there is no absence of stellar and mathematical amazements either. Many, including myself on this web site, have shown that the pyramid uses the "pyramid inch" from which most of this can be derived. We are told how various experts have painfully measured the pyramid and came up with amazing relationships that show constants, mathematical and scientific knowledge, and prophecy.
What is the layman to make of all this? Can he be certain? Short of actually going over to Egypt and making one's own measurements, not absolutely. But we can compare sources to see if the pyramid stands the test. One can even compare any given source of these claims to itself to see if it stands the test. It is this approach I want to share in this message, and then you can see for yourself whether it stands the test or not.
I'm going to give you the mathematical "tools" or concepts whereby any average guy or girl can use to derive their own conclusion. Actually, maybe one needs to be just a wee bit above average in math, as these ideas encompass trigonometry. However, they are somewhat simple enough to be easily understood by one with a moderately good high school or some college math background. (Many of us were told we needed to "know" this stuff for whatever reason with the other courses we took.) So we might as well use our gray matter a little. I have a diagram below (and two later places in the message for easy reference) of a pyramid with lines representing ascending and descending passages to chambers. This is not an exact diagram of the pyramid, but that does not matter. It's the concept I want to convey which will easily be applied to the real pyramid diagram.
We can see from this diagram a red descending passage from entry point A down to the chamber near E. Actually, E is not the label for the chamber, but rather the intersection of the vertical dividing line with the base of the pyramid diagram. Segment AD is the vertical height of the entry point from the base. The red ascending passage BC ends at the vertical centerline near an upper chamber analogous to the King's chamber. Segment CE is the vertical height of the end of this passage from the base. Angles t and w represent the descending and ascending angles from the horizontal dotted line respectively. Notice that when we are talking about vertical heights such as AD and a horizontal dotted line, we automatically make right triangles in the diagram. This is important because when using trigonometry, the sine of an angle is the ratio of the opposite leg of a right triangle to its hypotenuse (diagonal side). The cosine is the ratio of the adjacent leg to the hypotenuse. The tangent function is the sine value divided by the cosine. Likewise, one can calculate angles if the sine, cosine or tangent ratios are known by using inverse trigonometric functions. This is not supposed to be a trig lesson. You should be able to have this stuff come back to your memory. I am merely pointing this out for those of you versed in this subject to take note and get those rusty brain cells moving.
Now whenever these "time-line" predictions are made relative to the passage lengths in pyramid inches (an inch to a year), you will read text stating something like: "Entry point A is so-and-so above the base level. We travel down at such-and such an angle for so many inches to "scored lines" (a point between A and B) and these aligned with certain stars at such-and-such a date. That gives us our time reference point. From there we travel another so many inches down to point B. Then if we travel in the upward passage at such-and-such an angle, we come to the center of the pyramid at point C which is x inches above its base. etc. etc. etc."
If you are perceptive as any good student was told to be, the text just gave height AD. We know the lengths of AB and BC since these relate to "time". We also know angles t and w (actually, these are the same in the real pyramid and is called the "Christ angle"). We were told the vertical height CE as well. We were NOT told DE, however. But not to worry. We know that the perimeter of the pyramid divided by twice its altitude equals PI. Therefore the pyramid's side slope angle relative to its base is easily calculated by trig. This will effectively give us DE. "How?" you may ask. I'll show you shortly. However, what I am trying to do is compare the known base value of the pyramid (and from that derive DE) and by using trigonometry, see if the horizontal displacements of the passages agree with the base. The same can be said for vertical displacement. If the prophetic numbers, in pyramid inches, do not come reasonably close, say within just a few inches of the base, then you know the author(s) of such books are all wet---- the lengths they quote would not be mathematically possible without some contradiction somewhere.
Let's just dig into this and show you what I mean. The given lengths from the prophetic time-lines are AB and BC. As already stated we know the angles and the vertical heights (AD and CE) of the entrance and the end to the ascending passage. The Horizontal displacement of these passages are given by the simple trig relation:
AB cos(t) + BC cos(w)= DE
Now DE is calculable by understanding that the perimeter divided by twice the altitude is PI (3.14159). That's:
4*base/2*height=3.14159 or 2b/h=3.14159
Notice that the ratio of twice the base divided by the altitude is PI. Or, just the same, one half the base divided by the height is PI/4. This is important. What this establishes is that the ratio of the height to half the base is 4/PI and from the inverse tangent function the pyramid base angle can be figured. Even more importantly, we do not even need to know this angle but similar triangles can be used to figure DE. You see, we have a bunch of right triangles here, and the height of the pyramid to half its base forms a right triangle of similar proportions as AD to the length from the right base corner (we'll call point "S") of the pyramid to point D. Well, we know the height AD, therefore by virtue of the pyramid's proportions we know the length of DS (i.e., AD/DS=height/Half base).
Thus... DE=(1/2)*Base-DS
You see where I'm going here? The dimensions of the Great Pyramid can be obtained from several sources. Usually the base length is given (minus the thickness of the stripped casing which conventional sources may NOT give, so be careful). By virtue of the pyramid's "PI" proportions and AD, we can figure the horizontal displacement of the entrance from the corner (point S) of the pyramid to obtain DS. From that we know the horizontal displacement from point A to point C (same as DE). Now if somebody is kooky enough to make prophetic claims based on the passage lengths, then they'd better at least fudge lengths AB and BC and the angles of the passages such that:
AB cos(t) + BC cos(w)=(1/2)*Base-DS
In addition, those measurements should be reasonably close to what many sources say. Likewise, the vertical displacements must work out... so there are two checks to do:
BC sin(w)-AB sin(t)=CE-AD
Our "kook" must not only fudge for the horizontal, but also the vertical to make it balance to fit the overall dimensions of the pyramid. Actually, angles t=w in the real case are very accurately agreed upon as are the vertical heights of the entrance and the end to the ascending passage (on level with the King's chamber). Since DE is known, as are the angles and vertical heights, can you see what I see? This forces the passage lengths to be a certain length. You can easily see this if you have a good feel for geometry. One cannot fudge them unless there is a contradiction in the dimensions of the pyramid, the angles, or heights somewhere.
My conclusions from this type of "layman" analysis show that I have NO REASON to doubt the lengths of the pyramid passages. And if the lengths are what they say they are, then the numbers (hence the dates) speak for themselves. You be the judge, you do the math. And oh, please try it out before making a judgment. If you find any serious contradictions, then you have every right to be critical of it (I do not believe you will find contradictions, however). On the other hand, don't be like some mindless evangelists who once told me, "I caution you to avoid such things." or "That's witchcraft". Such people probably did no five minutes of study of it themselves, they ignorantly warn people who do study it that they will go to hell, and foremost, I doubt if those type even know a sine from a cosine function.
In the near future, I want to show the layman's validity of the 2141 BC date from the scored lines in the pyramid (they are the lines between point A and B mentioned earlier). It's not enough to know the lengths, hence the time elapsed, but one must set the time-line at some starting point. Setting a timer for two hours does not tell me when it began or ended; it only states how long it was between the start and stop. This is why it is so critical to establish a starting point in addition to the passage lengths. Since this will involve more pictures relating to the stars and calculations, this may not be in the next message before another one. However, I intend to have this out in the near future so stay tuned.