Many assumptions relating to Gizeh were published, and however no unquestionable answer exists yet.

New assumptions will thus continue to appear...

Let us guarantee that instead of thinking that the designers had a reasoning very complex or mystical, it will undoubtedly be confirmed that those used only rigorous and simple methods at the level of a bachelor and over which still rests most of our knowledge...

It will not minimize their genius, on the contrary it will be their glorification...

It is known that Ancient Egypt had an advanced knowledge in many fields as the observation of the stars and of the time and it results for example pyramids' cardinal orientations nearly perfect.

For my own point of view the design of the whole layout of the area of Gizeh as for the pyramids themselves results only of the use of simple rules or calculations which have nothing to do with unspecified mysteries.

The use of grids, i.e. while using to draw a grid of identical squares a such net is known since the antiquity.
The mathematical concept of Cheops could be explained with the use of a grid on which the proportions were given by simply counting the squares horizontally and vertically then by tracing the diagonal of the obtained rectangle. The process certainly was complexed by the simultaneous use of several reciprocally shifted grids.

The point of convergence and the very particular angular relations of the Cheops' shafts are a physical reality which had not been the subject of any former publication.

Regarding the general constructions'layout it is also the method of the grids which was used with particular values and divided in accordance with the Euclidean division. (Ancient Egypt knew neither division nor multiplication).

The proposal by he grids' method which I explained on year 2003 would lead by respecting it to a positioning of the pyramids rigorously identical to that physically noted nowadays.(Difference is less ten meter for an an area of 1 kilometer).

It is all that we can say and that does not demonstrate at all that it is this method which would have been used. It has simply the merit to answer rationally at a question remained without any answer until today, and to show many relations between the numbers which cannot be the result of the chance and which are in agreement with the supposed knowledge of the Ancient Egypt. This reality induced that the design of the internal elements was obtained by the simple use of the diagonals of the rectangles generated by the grid'squares constitutive with length and width desired ratios.

Idem about the coherence of the numbers, of the proportions and of the mathematical relations of the whole of the Giza plateau.

We find there the precursors of traditional mathematical research which continued until our days. It is for example the use of the continuations of prime numbers odd as Pythagorean triples.

This was carried out since Babylon, Alexandria untill nowadays with Pierre de Fermat,Euler, Gauss etc,..

Pyramids, what a splendid testimony!

What a splendid homage to the human genius!

Testimony of the emergence of the knowledge and the culture, of the founding man.

The lack of tool was compensated only by rigour and the acquired knowledge thanks to the incessantly renewed experiments.

The mathematical concept of Gizeh and the use of its special values which have been remained imperceptibles for 4700 years strongly refute the thesis of a megalomaniac will construction to the glory of an individual; this would be really an insult to Ancient Egypt.

Such perfection, such a quality in the realization, the absence of documents connected with the person, but on the other hand animated texts by the solar variations for example shows well that it was acted more than one will of transmission and communication.

A comprehensible testimony beyond the words with a permanent sensory interpellation.

The communication is done by mathematics, tool not liable to interpretation contrary to the languages or sciences.

Communication also exists by the harmony and the cosmic conjunction.

I can say today that I take part so easily in this way of thinking that it would be easy for me to take a sit with Acient Egypt people and to take part in their discussions connected with the concept of Gizeh.

Several reasons make however that I communicate only one share on these pages.

Firstly that is due to the immense respect which I have to these men who beyond times knew how to accompany me and also the fact that there is a safeguarding duty.

Moreover I think that our society is not well disposed towards ways of thinking which are not identical than it's, and the heretics ones always finished in roughing-hew.

What I found beyond all this will bring me neither to richness nor celebrity and at the autumn of my life I don't need any.

They are unutterable and incommunicable certitudes which by themselves are enough to make intellectually happy and which are called quite simply a truth.

Now, a new research took seat in order to know what could precede this knowledge, knowledge acquired or received?
After the decline of this civilisation, was there a loss, a transmission or a safeguarding?
And finally for what precedes, which could have been the means for it and in particular the human vehicle?

Welcome	Page Previous	Top