Clive Wrote:
> > I see plenty of room for variation here
> Clive...
> > +/- 7 inches... is 14 inches in height
> according
> > to Petrie... more then a foot in height one
> way or
> > another?
>
> Rob:
> True, but we are discussing over 140 inches of
> pyramid width missing near the apex...not 12
> inches.
Hence, the trianglulation [rectangulation] of the points based on the slope Clive...that is all anybody can do to even attempt to guage what is missing...and put a height on it.
**I will review your suggestion on the two varying slopes though... would that or would that not... cause larger casing blocks the higher up you go?
You mention below that angle i used for the geometry? I couldn't tell you the angle..
I connected the dots.. based on height...and width...which is written all over the place..
Which naturally creates an inverse seked ratio.. which reflects well with the 22/7 ratio..
specific digits are not as important to my research... it is proprotion that i am analysing.... one measure can be convered to another... but, all measures used...have to flow in relation to one set of principles, so, i can apply a ratio... and convert all the data to say...cubits... or meters... or... palms and fingers.. or..?
... not variation in principles... So, it should not matter what i use to measure if they convert from one to another...
I am studying the underlying weights and measures and their corresponding relations to other weights and measures...
> > a fraction of an inch ..can be a complete
> ratio of
> > planetery orbit...
>
> Don't assume that I promote planetary data most of
> the time...far from it.
>
the statement was not directed at you specifically Clive.. I see many theories using fractional ratio's to link to Planetary rotations etc... between 1 inch and two inches...
I can convey many planetary rotations based on simple ratio's .. it was a point... not to be directed at anybody specifically...
A "System" of relativity as suggested in planetary rotations... must reflect to a system of measure and principles... Else, the system is non existant.. I develop software Clive... Therefore i analyze systems in flow... to me cyclics... are "flow"...in relativity... given numbers like 1/3... or 2/3 or 4/11 ... etc... rounding breaks the relations...
SQRT2 is irational... yet, it is basic geometry that must exist between the square and circle... how can you explain it? You cannot "round" it off... or else you break the link.
> > I think i was trying to convey that the AE
> say
> > they used a seked ratio...
>
> No...Egyptologists use the word seked and all it
> means is "ratio".
> You can apply any two-digits / combo to create a
> seked/ratio.
>
That is my point to Clive... i agree... and was trying to show the ratio in relation to 22/7 ratio... they are just ratios... one is a fraction of the other
inverse seked to 22/7.... is 1/4 Pi when Pi = 22/7 ....the math does not lie..
> > You ask : "what is What is 440x20.61 inches?"
> ....
> > 9068.4 inches...
>
> Width of G1...!
>
I respectfully disagree.
> > hence, why i use 20.618 RC
> >
> > 1 ROYAL CUBIT = 20.620 Â± 004 according to
> PETRIE.
>
> You are restricting all measures at Giza to the KC
> chamber’s Rc and Petrie's suggested value from
> that chamber is questionable.
>
Because i believe the Chamber says it all... it "is" the precision in the GP.
Are you telling me Petrie had a floating Royal Cubit? One for the inside and one for the outside? Or, are we adjusting his data to make other data work... then, keying on the stuff that fits? "IF" ...there is a message to be conveyed hidden from plain site... then, we need to assume precision, Else we are proving the lack of precision...
I have no agenda... and really have no set in stone view here... I am re-doing everyone's data to make decisions what to keep and what to toss...
I personally reverse engineered your diagrams...and compared to many others.
I did not get one set of the same data... So, i gave up.
> > I have reviewed ..and do respect your work
> Clive.
>
> I believe you.
Don B. has done a good job presenting your data.... and has been an inspiration to my own search.
>
> > my apologies again if you feel offended by
> > anything i said.
>
> Again...you have not offended...not in the least.
>
> > I am willing to make adjustments... based on
>
> > math and logic... and fact...
>
> You'll be a winner if you stick with what you
> state. Review what I have just given you and do a
> little digging up above...about 260+ Rc
>
Not looking to win... just looking for truth sir.
> BTW...I normally attempt to provoke readers into
> doing their own thinking…the results stick in
> their minds a little longer.
>
I hope once you have reviewed "some" of my data linked above...
maybe your assumption that i am not doing my own thinking will change.
> Best way to learn has always been hands-on.
That can be accomplished through geometry too... you don't have to touch the stones..
to understand the stones.
>
> As before...best.
> Clive
>
Best 2u2