The pyramids of Giza are all three very precisely oriented to the cardinals, and therefore ultimately to the geographic North pole. Egyptologists have oversimplified methods to explain how the builders must have done this. But while doing so they overlooked a few crucial topics which makes their work more amateurish and unscientific than it appears at first hand.
How Did They Do It?
There are in the mainstream circles two competing ideas as to how the builders of the pyramids of Giza might have aligned their tall structures so accurately, within 0.06° to True North.
The proposed methods are:
- Indian Circle Method,
- Pole Star Method.
The question of the precise orientation of the pyramids to the cardinals seems to be solved already long time ago. On top of that it is said that orienting that accurate is not such a big thing. So what’s the point of this article? The point is that the widely accepted theories are based on false assumptions and wrong ideas, and therefore must be labeled as the work of amateurs.
The proposed methods by archaeologists are based on what the “Egyptians” were supposed to know about devices, instruments, methods, and mathematics. They lived in the Bronze age and there were no devices found, so archaeologists started to speculate wildly within their constrained paradigm. Many experiments are performed to “simulate” the Egyptians’ method with simple tools.
Achieving such high accuracies with large structures cannot be done with the simple proposed tools. This article will disprove the presented methods with facts.
Both methods will be discussed in this article. But we will first tackle the two most important starting positions which are wrong in the ruling theories.
The Indian Circle Method in Short
What is Wrong in the Ruling Theories?
There are basically two important issues neglected in the currently ruling theories, which are:
- the original orientation of the pyramids at the time they were supposed to be built. The Nubian plate (African plate) on which the pyramids are built moves a little bit. It moves counterclockwise and the pyramids are slightly counterclockwise oriented. So, there’s clearly a point of correction. The question is only how much? Valuing these tiny movements is important because they add a significant portion to the current deviation of the pyramids.
- archaeologists measure the specs of the pyramids as built but only after 4,500 years, and base their theories upon it without giving it a second thought. Any measuring device must be more accurate than the process requirements, at least by a factor of two. The general accepted international standard is a ratio of 4 to 1, meaning that the equipment must be 4 times as accurate as the manufacturing process requirements itself, in order to prevent out of spec errors in the end products. For gauges even counts a ratio of 10 to 1. We can easily see that archaeologists have insufficient knowledge of this subject while constructing their theories.
These are the two most important issues which are neglected when archaeologists reconstruct the builders’ surveying and building methods. We will examine how these two very important issues must have impacted the builders’ processes.
Nubian Plate Movements
We can estimate the amount of rotation the Nubian (African) plate has made since the time the pyramids were built. The results differ depending on which plate tectonics model we use. Note that the different models generate different results (!). After studying on this issue we’ve chosen to use HS2-NUVEL1 as the reference. This model generates for the Nubian plate the following data:
- Location of Interest: 29.979°, 31.134°
- Location Euler Pole: -5.50°, 3.60°
- Angular velocity: -13.0″/kyears
- Direction = -48.9 degree
To understand how the African plate has moved relative to the geographic pole, and so the pyramids as well, you need absolute data. It is the best data we can get for this purpose.
The conclusion is that the Nubian plate rotated 59″ counterclockwise since the time the pyramids were built. The pyramids are nowadays aligned at -205″ relative to True North, the geographic pole. So, based on the calculated tectonic plate movement we can conclude that the pyramids were aligned within a range of error of: -205 + 59 = -146″ (or 0.041° West of North).
Like already mentioned before was their surveying instrument at least 2 to 4 times as accurate as the errors we observe in the building’s orientation. That means that the builders used an instrument able to detect True North within 0.01 to 0.02° (or 36″ to 72″), which is just beyond the angular resolution of the human eye. Compare it with a sniper hitting a basketball at a distance of 1 kilometer. Show us one ancient instrument able to do that. Not only that, you must reproduce that also three times.
How Plate Movements Affected the Current Orientation
Theoretical Age of Pyramids at Breakeven Point
The pyramids of Giza were never reliably dated, so the first grandiose assumption was already made by pinpointing them at about 4560 years old. Because radiocarbon datings are pointing to an older age, it forced archaeologists to construct difficult theories how that could have happened, because it contradicts the time the alleged builder of the great pyramid, pharaoh Khufu (Cheops), reigned over Egypt.
What would you trust more, scripture or mathematics? Graffiti or Numbers?
By using the movement of the Nubian plate, we can calculate a theoretical breakeven point date at: 205 ÷ 13 ≈ 15,800 years. The age of the pyramids could be well around 15,800 years.
There is a good reason why we should take this date seriously, which is the following: if you are able to built something that withstood “4,500 years” of environmental influences like earthquakes and floods, and still stand that tall and accurately like it obviously still does, then what might have prevented them to built with almost 0 tolerance?
In a future article we will show the mathematical likelihood for this date to be accurate and true based on a set of converging data.
Indian Circle Method
The bar, to detect True North, is set at 0.02° or 72″. Without making too much fuzz about the Indian Circle Method, we can say this method is good for finding North during bush camping. When we use this method we accumulate in about 8 steps so much errors that we are unable to find North within ±2°. A well trained professional might be able to achieve outliers within ±1°. When we repeat this method 3 times we have to count with errors that lie between ±2-3°. Not as accurate as we would like to see it.
This method is accurate enough to align just a building close to the cardinals or for finding your way in the wild. But to explain the orientation of the pyramids with this method is amateurish.
We accumulate at least 8 errors in the following procedures:
- levelness of surface,
- verticality of pole,
- registering 1st point,
- registering 2nd point,
- drawing line between two points,
- finding midst on line,
- drawing line between mid pole and mid line,
- copying the direction of that line to the actual building process.
Pole Star Method
The Pole Star Method is in principle the same as the Indian Circle Method only with the differences that it is performed at night and it is more accurate because it more directly aims at the virtual spin axis of the Earth, the geographic pole. Because the Pole Star is never exactly on top of the spin axis so to speak, are we also relying on a division step similar as with the Indian Circle Method (step #6).
The Pole Star Represents the Spin Axis
This method is about 2 times more accurate as the Indian Circle Method, because it cuts the first four steps. A well trained professional could be able to find North somewhere between ±0.25° to ±0.5°. But the difficulty is to displace that direction to the actual construction.
Let’s assume this last step takes place with 0 error, which in fact will never happen, we are still left in the best case with a method that’s even unable to measure the current orientation of the pyramids with a factor of 5 to 10, let alone to be able to serve as a master measuring device. According to the international standards the device must be able to measure within ±0.02°. Even if we don’t correct the Nubian plate movements, we will still end up close to the aforementioned ±0.02°. That is not something you can do with just sticks, stones, and some ropes. For that you will need something far more advanced.
On top of that, when archaeologists construct their theories they are accompanied with advanced theodolites which the “Egyptians” weren’t suppose to have to confirm their surveying.
Which device they might have used? That question is still open to any speculation. I know the answer to that. Do you?
© 2017 by Mario Buildreps
: The standard for the uncertainty of measurements is defined as the root of the sum of the squares, for example √(a2+b2+c2+d2+e2). The sum as a whole determines the accuracy of the measuring process.This is the international standard as accepted by the BIPM.
For example, we want to measure the diameter of a aluminum disk which has the specifications ∅498±0.02 mm. We measure the disk with a micrometer which has the following specifications and influences: a. uncertainty micrometer 5μm; b. uncertainty calibration 6μm; c. temperature variations 10μm; d. placement errors 5μm; e. reading error 2μm. Sum = 190 ⇒ √190 = 13.8μm. Process = 13.8÷5 = 2.76 times less accurate as the instrument itself
This simple example shows why we are not dealing solely with the instrument itself but with the measuring process as a whole. The final result, which is the final orientation of the pyramids as built must be back-engineered by using this method.
: The mentioned data are converted from relative data to absolute data. The alleged absolute methods like NNR-NUVEL-1, NNR-NUVEL-1A, HS3-NIVEL-1A, and NNR-MORVEL are absolute in relation to the so called hotspot frames, which are active volcanic areas, like Hawaii and Iceland. The reason why we don’t use these methods is because they make the assumption that these hotspot don’t move.
: The location of Giza is close to a vault zone with the Arabian plate, which makes this part of the African plate less stable. The Egyptian Mountain Ranges are a result from the push of the vault zone between the African plate and Arabian plate.