Talk:Pyramid inch
 | Measurement Start‑class (defunct) | ||||||
| |||||||
Sacred Jewish Inch? If this isn't a joke, the article really needs more information... 81.232.72.53 01:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
This looks to me like balderdash, but maybe it's not. I couldn't find any useful information on the internets, but it is mentioned: http://library.thinkquest.org/C0118421/py2.html --Smajie
It does sound like a joke... it made me chuckle anyway. (I had my sacred inch removed too, and I'm not even jewish!) Anyway, the figure 1/25 of a cubit is not mentioned at all in the cubit article. NB: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubit
Trivia for the day... 1 inch = 254 000 000 Å
--JAMES
You are all quite right to be suspicious. I hope my new edits clarify the situation; feel free to ask for more information. Also, I'm moving this to "Pyramid inch" since that is by far the most common name used for it. One thing I did not determine is exactly where the value 1.00106 comes from; probably it is a back-calculation designed to make some approximate numerical coincidence into an exact coincidence. McKay 10:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- To answer my own question, 1.00106 inches is 1/500,000,000 of the Earth's polar diameter. What, you may ask, does the earth's polar diameter have to do with it? This is a good illustration of how this "science" works. It goes like this: the side of the pyramid is 9140 inches, so all four sides total 36560 inches, which is suspiciously close to 36524 (days in a century), therefore it must have been exactly 36524 inches according to the inch used then, so the inch used then (the "pyramid inch") must have been 36560/36524=1.0009856 modern inches, which means that the polar diameter of the earth is 500,038,788 pyramid inches, which is suspiciously close to 500,000,000 pyramid inches, therefore it must be exactly 500,000,000 pyramid inches, so the pyramid inch must really be 1/500,000,000 of the polar diameter, which is 1.00106 modern inches, so the side of the pyramid must really be 9140.68 modern inches. The coincidences now all come out exactly, which proves they are correct. Get it? The actual mean side of the pyramid is 9069 inches, but don't let the facts get in the way of a good trick. McKay 15:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The genesis of the 'pyramid inch' or (?) Sacred Jewish Inch seems to have resulted from an approach that attempted to conform the sum of the base sides of the pyramid to equal the number of days in a calendar year (365.2422). It reminds me of a person trying to fit size 10 feet into a pair of size eight shoes. Any criticism that the actual measurements fall short of a full calendar year (as analyzed) may be faulty because of a presumption that the length of a year (in days) is a constant. There is a contemporary theory called "The Orbital Variance Theory" [1] that posits that the actual length of a year varies (over the eons) by as much as 2.5 days on either side of the mean year. The variation in the Earth's orbit causes the Earth's distance from the Sun to vary over geologic time periods and explains the climate fluctualtions that vary from Ice Ages to global tropical conditions (Global Warming). If the Orbital Variance Theory is true then the pyramid measurements (base sides) are in actual British Imperial Inches. Additionally, some criticism of Flinder Pietrie's work (a masterwork) indicates that a portion of the base of the Great Pyramid was buried under sand and, perhaps, Pietrie's measurements of the base may have been slightly smaller than what they actually are (speculative). User:John Charles Webb 5 May 2007
- This information is not correct. (1) The rate of change of the Earth's rotation is known accurately for the past 2000 years or so. It is far too small for this explanation to be plausible. (2) The corner stones have long since disappeared, so measurements are done on the horizontal stones that contain indentations that the corner stones fitted into. So sand is not an issue McKay (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
K) Wasn't there a limestone sheath covering the pyramid? As this has disappeared (due to erosion, Napoleon's cannon, etc.), perhaps that's what Greaves, et al, measured. 71.22.155.114 (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the revert (May 13 07) from: (Quote) This "also found numerous mathematical correspondences between the measurements of the pyramids and the geometry of the earth and the solar system" (end quote) to this (Quote) "also found numerous apparent coincidences between the measurements of the pyramids and the geometry of the earth and the solar system". (end quote) This revert is POV (point of view). Argument - Many of the mathematical correspondences were also ratios and operate independent of whatever measurement system is used. Please see, http://www.templeofsolomon.org/Pyramids/pyramid_symbolism.htm for a truncated list of actual mathematical associations between the pyramid and astronomical and geologic data, and consider correcting the language in the main article. To call these clear associations "coincidences" is POV. The mathematical relationships (correspondences) are actual and apparent and go way beyond the discussion of inches in the main article. Thank you User:John Charles Webb 5 May 2007
- The word "coincidence" used in scientific writing just means things coming together, it doesn't imply it is accidental. The explanation of the coincidence is a different question. McKay (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't have the details, but I remember hearing several shortwave broadcasts by Dr. Gene Scott where he mentioned the "Pyramid Inch". His premise was that the internal structure of the pyramids was designed to function as a prophecy; that a room or other structural element appearing at a particular distance along the main corridor corresponded to a significant even occurring at a particular point in time. Pretty outlandish IMO, but it might be worth including in this article, as it represents a recent revival (of sorts) of interest in the Pyramid Inch. Skyraider (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Conversion to metric[edit]
The conversion to metric is done at the current value of 2.54 cm / imperial inch.
Should it not be done at the then-current value of 2.5399977, to give 2.542690098 cm ?
Thanks. 165.73.112.52 (talk) 09:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
References