So I was daydreaming at work today... again, this time about the whole magnetic pole shift while our solar system oscillates through the center plane of our Milky Way galaxy any old month now business. I wondered... if the Earth's magnetic field flips will it be strong enough to drag the Earth's core
along with it? Which got me to thinking about where on the Earth's surface would be the place least affected by such a thing if the core should indeed flip.

The only thing which crossed my mind was, 'center of balance'. Not the center of mass of the Earth, that's a given, but the center of landmass. I imagined that the core would, all things being equal, be influenced by this center of surface mass and if you were standing in that exact spot you'd just see the stars pull-a-180 overhead. Turns out someone has already figured out the center of landmass and it just happens to be the Great Pyramid.

I thought that was pretty cool so I got to checking out all of the funky math involved in its construction... and I even understood some of it! Something I saw repeated over an over again from different sources is that the sides and base are curved, and that this curve is equal to the curvature of the Earth.

Well, since the Pyramid at one time sported a shiny outer layer this would mean that its sides at one time were not only mirrored, but parabolically mirrored.

So, given that this parabola is the same as the Earth's curvature, and that the tilt from horizontal plane of this parabola can be found, as the pyramids' apexes touch an imaginary near-perfect sphere, and that the exact elevation of the pyramids' base is also known, can the focal point of this parabola then be determined by the measurements which are already catalogued?

If so, where would this focal point be? Are other pyramids also curved? If so, are they set off kilter so that these focal points align?

With all of the math that has been thrown at these things over the centuries I can't believe someone hasn't figured it out already. If it has, I can't find it.

My hunch is that it will intersect with the moon at certain times of the year but that's just a flight of fancy. Any halfbakers math-savvy enough to take a crack at it?

ps, I somehow managed to talk myself out of posting this after running it through a hieroglyphic translator just to see if it would work. It wasn't easy.

...would it have given me the "over thirty characters" bounce? I just gotta know.

//can the focal point of this parabola then be determined by the measurements which are already catalogued?// Would you care to suggest what error margins are on the known measurements, and therefore what margin of error the calculated results might have? Thanks!

//It's field reversal, not rotational reversal …// That's the thing about day-dreams; they go where they want to, just like sleep-dreams. If you try to insert logic then they are no longer dreams they are ponderings. That said, if the core itself is magnetic and spinning and it does physically flip its axis then the waves produced in the magma which the continental plates float on will affect the plates themselves. It may not be a rotational reversal but it could cause an axial rotation which would leave the Earth rotating in the same direction and yet still have the effect of making the sun appear to rise in the west. It takes very little effort to flip a spinning gyroscope 180 degrees from inside the gyroscope using wave propagation.

Which is quite secondary to this idea itself, those were just the meanderings which made me look up the Earth's center of landmass and are irrelevant.

//Probably a very magnetic houseboat with a glass roof would be best// Maybe if you were at the Great Pyramids' antipode...

// Would you care to suggest what error margins are on the known measurements, and therefore what margin of error the calculated results might have? Thanks!// Sure. Forget the accuracy of the measurements taken and assume that there are no errors to the math incorporated into the pyramids construction. If its sides are perfect parabolas which follow the Earths' curvature exactly and sits nested in a perfect imaginary sphere... where would the focal point be?

I would crunch the numbers myself but the pole reversal may very well happen before I learn how to do the math in my spare time. <hangs head in shame>

The myth that the bases and sides of the pyramids
curve to correspond to the Earth's curvature is an
old one, up there with von Daniken and Geller.

The base is about 230m across. That means that
the centre of the pyramid would have to be
almost exactly 1mm higher than the corners, to
accommodate the curvature of the Earth.

Sometimes a little bit of elementary maths is
worth the effort, [Twof].

//sides are perfect parabolas which follow the Earths' curvature exactly and sits nested in a perfect imaginary sphere//

If the base of the pyramid was levelled by line-of-sight, having it curve to match the Earth would be extraordinary.

If it were levelled to, say, a water-filled perimeter trench (meaning you could even extend the level-line around corners where you couldn't see) then matching the Earth's curvature would be... inevitable. The builder wouldn't even have to be conscious of it.

The "perfect parabolas" part I'm having trouble with, though. A parabola is a two-dimensional figure; I think you're trying to express something about the face of the pyramid being a 3-dimensional paraboloid surface, but can't come up with a shape which would be forced by the pyramid into doing what you are describing.

Imagine a perfectly pyramidal pyramid, with all edges being perfectly straight line segments, and all faces being perfectly flat surfaces. Now take the bottom edge, and let it be distorted by the earth's curvature - that causes it to bend upward. Upward would cause the center of the surface to deflect slightly farther from the vertical axis of the pyramid - so now I've got an imaginary pyramid with the faces being paraboloids with the foci on the *inside* of the pyramid, which leaves me scratching my head wondering, because I'm pretty sure that's not what you were describing in the first place.

////Forget the accuracy of the measurements taken and assume that there are no errors// No chance.// Pleeeease... pretty please... just for the sake of simplicity and round numbers, if it 'were' constructed perfectly then the parabola should have a focal point. Where would that point be?

//von Daniken and Geller// Ooooh new search terms. Love it.

This part; //That means that the centre of the pyramid would have to be almost exactly 1mm higher than the corners, to accommodate the curvature of the Earth// ,I don't really get.

The curvature could be the same but inverted. Same curvature, just concave instead of convex. So the center of the pyramid would need to be one centimeter lower than the edges using your numbers... now just tilt it upwards from horizontal until it matches the angle at which the pyramids sides' slope, and you'll have what I'm trying to get at.

If the sides of the pyramid form parabolic dishes then where would the focal point be if those sides were still polished and shiny? It should be a simple equation, I just don't happen to know what it might be.

If for instance the focal point happens to correspond with the orbital distance of the moon at the time of the pharaohs then at certain times of the year reflected sunlight would have illuminated the moon and would have appeared to have been powerful-strong-juju to the masses reinforcing the divinity of the ruling class as people would be convinced that some ceremony or other had 'caused' it to happen.

Like I said it's just an idle daydream, the maths should disprove it quickly enough.

//Sometimes a little bit of elementary maths is worth the effort// M'workin on it...

Sorry [lurch], your anno squeaked in front of mine and I've got to get back to work. Think concave not convex.

According to a direct translation from a
contemporary papyrus:

"And Thoth commanded that a pyramid should be
builded. And his architect did say 'what sort of
shape?', and Thoth did say 'I know not; sort of a big
square base and slopey walls that meet up there'.
And the architect did say 'Does Thoth want the
walls aligned with the rising and setting of the
sun, and the edges to curve infinitesimally in a
parabola?' and Thoth did say 'I know not; how
much extra would it cost?' And the architect
replied 'A fair bit'. And thus Thoth said 'Nay, then,
just make it pointy and big.'"

First item, you have the order of action reversed. A pole shift is triggered by a magnetic re-alignment of the core, not the other way around.

Second, calculating the center of land mass thing is complete and utter bunk. If you accept the merridian as a half, not full circle, then a point a few degrees west covers more land, if you take the full circle, then the 70W/120E merridian covers more. As far as north/south, a lattitude through Europe covers more.
Alternatively, if you take the center of land mass as the center hemisphere which contains the most land, you end up somewhere in France. Any way you calculate it, not Giza.

Third, please lay off the new age websites before posting. I really don't have time to track down and debunk every single weirdo on the internet.

[Max] - is that the papyrus which, down at the bottom, has a pyramid-ish sketch, a scrawled "That's not phallic" and the heiroglyph for puzzlement, and then the rest is burnt off?

No, I think it's from the one that continues "By the
way, this business about pulling my brain out
through my nostrils - you're quite sure that's OK?".

[Max] - I thought that one was still under copycurse.

I think the focus of the pyramid face will be at about the distance to the moon if the center of the face is indented by exactly the height of the gesture a scarab beetle uses to indicate "this is a ball of shit".

Which, further, depends on the size of the beetle, the consistency of the material, and how far it had to fall from the camel.

(Remember that the scarab beetle uses it's hind legs to roll the ball, so the gesture - done with one mandible and an antenna pointed back over its shoulder - er, carapace - is lower with a bigger ball. But - since the beetle doesn't like to drag his jaws in the sand, the size of the ball is adjusted to the size of the beetle, and the gesture ends up being just-above-surface level. Or in other words, not very high.)

//the scarab beetle uses it's hind legs to roll the
ball//

Actually, that is a popular myth. Scarabs (and
indeed all dung beetles) use their *middle* legs
for dung rolling. However, the middle legs of
most species are longer than either the front or
rear legs, and thus extend backward more.

In several species of scarabs, the thorax actually
undergoes a sort of rotation and distortion during
development, so that the middle legs in fact
emerge from the thorax behind the rear legs. This
is sort of analogous to the way that some
flatfishes' skulls twist during development to put
both eyes on the top; or the way an eel's
jawbones migrate to become the twin bones of its
penis.

First off, if I ran into any new-age websites it's only because I googled "center of Earth's landmass". Try it before you jump down my friggin throat. Any "new-age-iness" is strictly in the minds of you readers I assure you and not the intention of the author of this idea. It's not my bloody fault that every hit for that particular phrase gives that same information. I didn't write the damned internet people! Take a pill or something.

Every website I find states that the Great pyramids' edges and base are inwardly curved. This suggests to me that the stones between those curved edges might also curve slightly inwards as well and the resulting shape would be a triangular parabola, wouldn't it?... and the Earth isn't round its oval.

Daaaaaang people. If the pyramids' sides were shiny and slightly indented then those sides had a focal point... that's all I was getting at. If they weren't indented then no-harm-no-foul.

Maybe y'all need to take a little step back and look at your own reactions to my perfectly reasonable question. Wow. Is it really so far fetched?

Well I'll be dipped. The dang thing is indented [link], and at least has the framework for being concave... and nobody's got any better idea just why that might be and they didn't know about it until after aviation became mainstream.

So really? Are parabolically reflective sides really such a stretch of the imagination?

So when you come out of your daydream with 11 concatenated kook memes, we kind of figured you were intentionally giving us a once-over with the freaky brush.

If it's not intentional, then... ok, you managed to pick up a pretty dazzling array of weirds - don't go off on us if we're not quite sure how to look at you for a few minutes.

Sorry. I just... I'm not a con man. I daydream. I can't not daydream, that's how far I got dunked into my head as a kid and that's where I'm stuck. When I daydream, things pop into my head unbidden and I research them to see where they go. I don't know math, I know shapes.

You guys have known me for more than a decade now. It hasn't stopped in all that time and it isn't likely to change any time soon.

Yes, some of this kind of question are interesting, and some are nutty, and some of the nutty ones are nevertheless interesting.

As someone with an archaeological background, it is interesting to me how the questions that get all the attention are not the ones that engage most directly with the subject at hand, but are rather the questions that reflect the neuroses and preoccupations of the here and now.

My response was a genuine question about the initial assumptions and working methods. It is asserted (non-quantitively) that the sides are not straight to within the tolerances of our measurements. But what shape are they? Is there a difference between a spherical surface and a paraboloid surface within the tolerance we can or have measured them to? We need to know that before we can go further. Otherwise we get lost in an endless line of “if ... then what ....?” which has no sensible end point.

I will apologize for the snark, but not the general skepticism about the topic. Attributing all sorts of wonderful traits to the pyramids in general, or the great pyramid in particular are very much new-agey things. And, some of them hold true, but as a famous example proves, you can get similar results if you do the same sort of numerical manipulation on a local news stand.

As far as the concavity of the sides (again, this is the understone, not the now missing facing), it's variable, around 1/2-1 degree. It's also more of a faceting than a curve, so it doesn't have a focal distance as such. In fact, at the base, it would focus over a line some 13km long.

//I suspect that the sides just sag// Yes - here again it's one of those things that's inevitable, once you understand it.

There's a helluva lot of weight per square cubit in the middle of the pyramid, and a lot less on the edges.

Buildings built on uncompacted soil tend, over time, to compact the soil under them. Giza has had plenty of time. So, the middle has sagged; the corners, being farther from center and better supported by arch-effect from the stone courses in two directions, sag less.

Ok, now on to another topic - the reflections to the moon. Problem the first: if we're getting full sun on a pyramid face, it's 'cause it's daylight. Sun above the horizon, thus being not dark in Egypt-land. Not prime moon-viewing time.

The best time for reflection would be when the inbound rays are as close as possible to face-on to the reflector - and that's good, new moon, unlit face and all that - except the new moon is very difficult to view while the sun is shining. Of course, the worst viewing (for our reflector's purposes) is at full moon - the lunar surface is fully lit and our reflector has no bite at any sunshine. So... we're going to have to talk about a compromise at quadrature (first quarter or last quarter) - which means that the incoming sunlight will need to reflect at more-or-less a right angle to get to the moon. So the pyramid face would have to be, not the center of the paraboloid, but a chunk well off to one side of the axis.

There are three possibilities:
1. Pole flips, earth doesn't. Boring.
2. Pole flips, earth flips. No magnetic evidence that anything has happened, only the change in sunrise direction and broken crockery gives the game away.
3. Earth flips, pole remains unmoving. This one is interesting I think.

//The pyramid shafts do point to major constellations though e.g. Orion.//

Only if you take them over about three hundred years.
And of course there's also the fact that Orion wasn't a major Egyptian constellation. And that at least two of the three shafts don't make it to the outside.

//I wonder if there is any proof that the earth doesn't turn upside down during pole reversal ?//

If it did, volcanic rock wouldn't show the magnetic reversals. Also the whole law of conservation of energy/momentum thing.

Put a good size electromagnet in a room - big enough to make a magnetic field as strong as earth's within the room. Then reverse the field. Nothing much happens.

//The pyramid shafts do point to major
constellations though e.g. Orion. //

The funny thing is that they don't, particularly.
It's one of those ideas that
seems to have arisen from nowhere with no
supporting evidence. The funny thing about the
earth is that it moves, so the shafts sometimes
point towards some bits of some constellations,
but it would be hard to avoid this.

However, it *is* an odd but interesting fact that, if
you draw lines between all
four corners of the great pyramid of Giza (ie, the
four sides of the pyramid,
plus the two diagonals), and extend those lines
around the earth as great
circles, one of them passes through each of
Stonehenge, the World Trade
Centre, Tunguska, and Chicxulub. (There are only
four, not six, because
there are two pairs of parallel lines only 230m
apart, corresponding to the
parallel sides of the pyramid).

The lines converge on the opposite side of the
world, in Tahiti. At the point
where they meet, are found some of the oldest
archaeological remains on the
island, including earthworks which appear to
delineate a square area or
structure about 200-250m on a side.