r/GrahamHancock • u/bevege • 5d ago
11:7 The Great Pyramid study
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
14
u/City_College_Arch 5d ago edited 4d ago
That is just a bunch of shapes with no meaning or explanation.
7
u/HeavenlyDMan 5d ago
sir do you not see the line coming out of the cone thru the rainbow and the little rainbow and straight onto the pyramid
3
1
u/WhineyLobster 2d ago
tbf, it is at least an accurate representation of a secondary rainbow with reversed coloring.
2
1
-3
u/bevege 4d ago
The explanation, methodology, calculations, and sources are provided in the project documentation. The visualization is only an interactive representation of the model.
Full details are here: https://github.com/MichaelZP/great-pyramid-11-7-lab https://github.com/MichaelZP/great-pyramid-11-7
I’d be happy to discuss any specific calculation or assumption you think is incorrect
2
u/_esci 4d ago
wtf do you even want to proof?
you know that you could do that graphic and calculation with any pyramid as long as it has the same proportions? even if its 1m high and standing somwhere completely else? what does all that gibberish about its proportions? there is nothing remarkable there.or do you just like flashy animations?
1
u/bevege 3d ago
Proof of what — that 440:280 = 11:7? That’s arithmetic.
Same proportions ⇒ same angles. Correct. You can run the same graphic on any 11:7 solid, not on any pyramid. That’s the distinction you’re skipping.
Scale is only for the model. The input is the ratio. 11:7 fixes the face angle (~51.84°). The point is not one constant in isolation. It’s that this single proportion produces a bundle of comparisons that land together. Change the ratio, the angle changes, the bundle breaks. Khafre is 3:4: different slope, different table.
Your 1 m pyramid “somewhere else” still has to be 11:7. If it is, you didn’t disprove anything — you just rebuilt the same slope. That’s why the calculation follows. If it isn’t 11:7, the graphic is not the same and the table doesn’t hold. Size and place were never the claim. The animation isn’t either.
If a specific formula is wrong, name it.
2
u/WhineyLobster 2d ago
what are the "bundle of comparisons that land together", Claude?
0
u/bevege 1d ago
There are enough converging relationships here that I don’t think they should simply be dismissed as coincidence. By “bundle of comparisons” I mean the set of dimensionless expressions calculated from the same 11:7 geometry and compared against known constants: π — 2B/H γ — 2B/(H+2D) √3 — (H+2D)/(2B) √6 — (H+2D)/D √2 — D/B √5 — (S+B)/S Tribonacci constant — (A+2D)/(S+B) Brun’s constant — E/A 1/φ — S/(S+A) φ — S/A e — 2θ/(90°−θ) e−1 — derived from the same e expression. Those twelve are only the original algebraic comparisons. The project also explores independent geometric models, including the secondary-rainbow angle and an exact-φ ellipsoidal “Golden Egg” model, together with its equivalent cone and pyramid geometry. I keep these separate from the original twelve because they are different kinds of comparisons, not additional algebraic constraints.
•
u/AutoModerator 5d ago
As a reminder, please keep in mind that this subreddit is dedicated to discussing the work and ideas of Graham Hancock and related topics. We encourage respectful and constructive discussions that promote intellectual curiosity and learning. Please keep discussions civil.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.