“OUR INHERITANCE
IN
THE GREAT PYRAMID.”

  LONDON: ALEXANDER STRAHAN AND CO. 1864.

copertina di ourinheritance
pagina 38 di ourinheritance

The most com­pla­cent con­clu­sion reached by the ‘lear­ned ig­no­rance’ of re­cent cen­tu­ries is that the build­ers ‘had come very close’ to solv­ing this e­nig­ma, so cru­cial to math­e­mat­i­cal know­ledge, some even add­ing ‘for such a prim­i­tive civ­i­li­za­tion’, per­haps in the be­lief that man de­scends from the mon­key; oth­ers, how­ev­er, did not con­ceal an in­stinc­tive dis­ap­point­ment at see­ing the most fas­ci­nat­ing of mi­rages van­ish, which on the ba­sis of cur­rent π could not even be con­ceived.

The es­sen­tial cause of the fi­as­co of our times is un­doubt­ed­ly be­ing con­di­tioned by an in­ev­i­ta­bly ap­prox­i­mate π, as if it were an ab­so­lute truth, ir­re­press­i­ble even if it does not cor­re­spond to the true cir­cle - which will nev­er be a pol­y­gon with an in­def­i­nite num­ber of sides (and I don't say 'in­fi­nite' so as not to fall into the ab­surd) - but which no one in the ac­a­dem­ic field dar­es to ques­tion as such.

This is pre­cise­ly where my cur­rent re­search has tak­en shape and fo­cus­es.
In fact, there are two his­tor­i­cal pos­si­bilities:

  1. The py­ram­i­dal con­struc­tion's ap­proach to ech­o­ing the Squar­ing of the Cir­cle is a com­plete­ly ac­ci­den­tal re­sult; but in that case there would have been no rea­son or in­tent to trans­mit to pos­ter­i­ty the "vexed ques­tion," il­lus­trat­ed on page 12 of the work of the as­tron­o­mer Pi­az­zi Smyth by a sim­ple graph, des­tined for who knows how many re­pro­duc­tions and de­tailed dis­cus­sions (tap its cov­er to open it).
    A page that a­lone introduces the two properties which are even more than synergistic: squar­ing of the cir­cle and π, roots of an as­ton­ish­ing se­ries of ge­o­met­ric cor­re­spond­ences dis­cussed in the 2nd part, which would not exist with a π other than 3.14460.
  2. Its de­sign­ers knew this math­e­mat­i­cal and ge­o­met­ric prin­ci­ple so well that they im­ple­mented it in this pro­di­gious work, and in this case cer­tain­ly not only to give form to an ar­chi­tec­tur­al vir­tu­os­i­ty - im­per­cep­ti­ble as such - but to be able to ex­ploit its phys­i­cal and met­a­phys­i­cal prop­er­ties; some­thing that lies well be­yond our u­su­al know­ledge, which is not yet con­so­nant with high­er-or­der math­e­mat­i­cal prin­ci­ples.

What es­capes con­tem­po­rary thought, al­though ful­ly ded­i­cat­ed to the so-­called Ar­ti­fi­cial In­tel­li­gence, is pre­cise­ly the fact that it is the most com­mit­ted E­gyp­tol­o­gists who have only just ap­proached, al­be­it with dis­cord­ant meas­ure­ments, this multi­-mil­len­ni­al re­al­i­ty, not its cre­a­tors whose er­ror quo­tient could not de­vi­ate from zero, to see their mul­ti­di­men­sion­al de­vice work.

That's what the astronomer Piazzi Smyth very appropriately calls it

W

ether it's sci­en­tif­ic re­search or mere pas­sion, the top­ic of the Great Pyr­a­mid of Giza stands far be­yond the spot­light of tour­ism, as well as that of his­to­ry, since al­most noth­ing has been con­firmed a­bout its true or­i­gins. The same goes for ar­chi­tec­ture, which has yet to ex­plain any of its many con­struc­tion mys­ter­ies, ex­cept with sup­po­si­tions and with most var­ied the­o­ret­i­cal mod­els. And per­haps the an­swer stands right here, ac­tu­al and un­der the eyes of those who want to see…
The most sig­nif­i­cant and de­fin­i­tive term for com­par­i­son can only be a math­e­mat­i­cal one which could tran­scend the count­less con­flict­ing meas­ure­ments; based, there­fore, on the only par­a­digm ca­pa­ble of sat­is­fy­ing and con­firm­ing the in­for­ma­tion that has floated on the tides of cen­tu­ries, nev­er find­ing a de­fin­i­tive land­ing point, but in­stead leav­ing only doubts and chal­lenges to nor­mal know­ledge.
The phys­i­cal and met­a­phys­i­cal es­sence of the Great Pyr­a­mid re­presents and is it­self an ex­pres­sion of that Cos­mic Ge­om­e­try which can be sum­ma­rised sole­ly in its me­di­an ver­ti­cal sec­tion pro­file, that is, that Di­vine Tri­an­gle from which my first re­search a­rose in 2002, un­til I dis­covered it to be a di­rect rul­er of the π for the cir­cle cir­cum­scribed to it, as well as tan­gent to, and de­fined by the cir­cles in­scribed in gold­en ra­tio to each other.
So it is this vir­tu­al pro­file that my ef­fort reck­ons, tran­scend­ing the in­ev­i­ta­ble deg­ra­da­tion of mil­len­nia, to trace its most de­bat­ed mys­tery back to the in­te­gral com­mun­ion of π and Φ, in­side and out­side the mon­u­ment, in an ab­so­lute math­e­mat­i­cal a­gree­ment; like­wise the Squar­ing of the Cir­cle that the Great Pyr­a­mid ad­mi­ra­bly re­presents and sol­id­ly syn­the­sizes.
Piazzi Smyth, whose sur­veys, con­sid­ered a­mong the most re­li­a­ble af­ter a cen­tu­ry and a half - be­fore the of­fi­cial UPUAUT pro­ject [1992], which even ex­plored the in­te­ri­or of the pyr­a­mid with robotic e­quip­ment - stat­ed in a sin­gle page (tap above) the two fun­da­men­tal truths: that py­ram­i­dal pro­file whose height is the ra­di­us of the cir­cle e­quiv­a­lent to the pe­rim­e­ter of the base; and the π pre­cise to the thou­sandth, 3.14403 with a dif­fer­ence from the truth of 5.7 ten-thou­sandths (  a gap that in any case had no rea­son or way to rec­ti­fy ) but nev­er­the­less a re­sult de­cid­ed­ly more re­spon­sive than the sur­ro­gate bound­a­ry of at least 3.14159, which pres­ents a gap of at least 3.1 thou­sandths.
You will find the main ex­tremes in a de­tailed ex­cur­sus in the se­cond part of the dis­cus­sion, which I'm just intro­duc­ing here.
Alternatively, it re­mains eas­i­er to ac­cept and a­gree that the Great Pyr­a­mid was built by a large team un­der the phar­aoh Che­ops, to serve as his tomb, re­liev­ing E­gyp­tol­o­gists and mu­se­ums of the em­bar­rass­ment of hav­ing to ad­mit mysteries out of their control.
Nev­er­the­less, 'ac­cepting' is not 'as­cer­taining' and not eve­ry­one is will­ing to be­lieve it, also be­cause there are too many things to con­tex­tu­al­ize and jus­ti­fy, more­o­ver in­ex­pli­ca­ble yet ex­ist­ing, such as his­tor­i­cal in­i­ti­a­to­ry tes­ti­monies, the lo­ca­tion of the pyr­a­mid due to its very spe­cif­ic co­or­di­nates on the plan­et as well as its as­tro­nom­i­cal o­ri­en­ta­tion, and more; all top­ics not the sub­ject of my dis­cus­sion, but am­ply doc­u­mented eve­ry­where and cer­tain­ly not at­trib­ut­a­ble or re­ducible to any se­pul­chral func­tion.

 
This re­flective in­terlude suggests the extent of the da­ma­ge these 3.1 thousandths can ca­u­se, both to the na­tu­ral flourishing of knowledge and to scien­ce itself.
If, instead, we ac­cepted that it is pre­cisely this seventh and last re­maining wonder that pro­vi­des us with proof of this, we could truly con­si­der it our most im­por­tant legacy.
As a direct con­se­quence, the di­scus­sion of the Great Py­ra­mid of Giza has de­veloped within this web domain na­med af­ter pi, even though it likely de­served its own. However, there could not be mis­si­ng a facade do­mi­nating the scenery on the Giza Pla­te­au, in the form of the majestic Sphinx stan­ding tall like a chal­len­ge to the de­sert sands.

This di­scre­te in­tro­duc­tion will then be followed by a review of the most re­presentative studies con­ducted on the sub­ject of the Great Py­ra­mid, in a straightforward, clearly ge­o­me­tric e­di­to­rial key. Its e­xa­mi­nation should lead to what I in­tend to de­mon­strate from the very first steps - without ads, pro­fits and in­vi­tations to re­gister, beyond all the spe­cial web effects, of which this page is in­ten­ded to be only a sti­mu­lating ty­pifiyng, an hors d'oeuvre that makes an in-depth examination more palatable.