h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A602858

This is an entry on the Great Pyramid of Giza, one of the Seven Wonders of the World. There is already an edited article on "The Pyramids", but it concentrates entirely on numerical properties of the pyramids. I propose that should this article be recommended, the other should be renamed as "Numerical Properties of the Pyramids".

This article gives most of what is known about the Great Pyramid and finishes with some of the crackpot theories that have been proposed.

Looks great to me!

I admit that the current entry on the Pyramids does not cover it all, but I would think you could at least link to it from this one?


Mikey, the ferocious linkinator, who only recently went through the Pyramids entry to add lots of new links

"Have I ever mentioned that I really like links?"

Gnomon - thanks a lot! ...for writing this entry so soon! It IS a lot nicer than the already existing edited entry! Containing so much more information! I've linked it to '7 wonders'....

Could you change that (link) part to:
The Seven Wonders of the World?

There's not much point in my linking to your Seven Wonders at this stage, as your entry will change number when it is Edited. I'll do it then.

Oh all right. I'll do it now and change it later.

I've also added a link to the original edited entry "The Pyramids".

Great Stuff Must continue with these Seven Wonders entries - can't believe they're not already in the guide.

Loved the penultimate theory - did David Icke come up with that one?

Gnomon, I've noticed you've written several edited entries - would you happen to know if it's allowed to link an URL to an entry that HASN'T been edited?

An edited entry is not allowed have a link to an unedited entry. One of the things the subeditor does is to strip out any such links.

This is annoying if you submit two entries linked to each other. Inevitably one of them gets in first. It can only refer to stuff that's already in the edited guide. The second entry can refer to the first entry.

If you have a lot of separate entries that are all linked to each other, I think you are supposed to put them in as a University Project, but I have never looked into that.

I've done a little bit more research and have had to make three minor changes to this entry:

1. The inscriptions on the outside were apparently graffiti! I've mentioned this.

2. I've mentioned that the place where the ascending and descending passages joined was covered with a slab to hide the ascending passage.

3. I've removed the reference to "incredible precision" in relation to the sarcophagus. According to Flinders Petrie, the eminent Egyptologist, "It is not finely wrought ... On the outer sides the lines of sawing may be plainly seen ... On the N. end. is a place, near the W. side, where the saw was run too deep into the granite, and was backed out again by the masons; but this fresh start they made was still too deep, and two inches lower they backed out a second time, having altogether cut out more than 1/10 inch deeper than they intended".

I still consider this entry finished.

Nice article, full of interesting stuff. I like the crackpot section at the end particularly!

This should be recommended, in my opinion.

I think you should add the Petrie quote, as it would lend to the scholarliness and authority of the entry. I'm always fascinated by the writings of people who were there, who saw and did it first.

OK. I've added the Flinders Petrie quote about the sarcophagus.

This is a wonderful article and should, IMO, definitely be included as an Edited Entry. Although I also think it would be good if the Orion's Belt bit (from the comments after the actual entry) was added, but not in the crackpot's section. I say that as the vents from the Queen's Chamber lining up with starts in Orion's Belt, is a statement of fact rather than a theory. Of couse, if someone comes up with a theory as to *why* they line up, then I could easily see the crackpot's list getting longer

Jon D.

I'll have to check that fact personally before I put it in. I'm trying not to rely on hearsay. (Sound of furious research...)

4000 years ago the Pole Star was not the pole star as the axis of the earth's rotation precesses with a period of 25,000 years and the axis pointed somewhere else then. So would they have lined up with Orion's Belt then? I doubt it - but it *is* worth checking.

I have a shareware planetarium program somewhere which will show the stars as they were at any time, so I'll have a look later when I find it. How close an alignment does it have to be before it is significant?

It is true that one of the four "ventilation shafts" lined up almost exactly with one of the stars of Orion's Belt in about 2620 BC. But I don't think this is significant:

1. we don't know when the pyramid was built exactly, so the alignment might have been much less exact than that at the actual time of construction.

2. the ventilation shafts are not exactly straight, so the published values for slope are only means. You can take your pick of values until you find one that fits.

3. The earth rotates on its axis, so the ventilation shaft traces out a circle in the night sky which is sure to line up with some star.

4. The star in Orion's belt is not a very significant star in the night sky. Nearby are much brighter stars Betelgeuse, Rigel, Aldebaran and Sirius.

5. The three small pyramids which "give a map of Orion's Belt" are just three pyramids evenly spaced in a line. They were built long afterwards, according to traditional accounts.

So this theory would go into the cranks section. But there's enough in there already.

Of course the real crank would assume the theory to be true and then bend all the rest of the facts to fit. The date at which the alignment was perfect would be taken as the exact date at which the pyramid was built. The dating of the building of the three small pyramids would be changed to fit. The other ventilation shafts would be examined to see why they don't exactly align with any stars and the misalignment would be explained invoking pi.

3. The earth rotates on its axis, so the ventilation shaft traces out a circle in the night sky which is sure to line up with some star.


Is the most significant point there methinks

I'm glad you mentioned the Orion's Belt thing - as you say, it's just three stars in a straight line. Heck there's three pubs in Broad Street Birmingham that are built to the image of Orion's Belt!

Now it all the pyramids lined up exactly with the *entire* constellation of Orion - *then* I would be impressed.

Was not the great pyramid the tallest man-made structure for some ridiculously long time?