MJ Thomas Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Firstly, I consider referring to the Seked 5½ as

> the 4/pi ratio highly misleading.

MJ:

You started this thread with the following....

"...It occurs to me that if I wanted to convey through geometry that I knew pi (be it as the irrational number 3.1415926xxx or the approximation 22/7),

"pi" is set...you are stuck with it...no issue.

> Seked 5½ is equivalent to our cotangent 1.272727

A cotangent is the inverse of a tangent and a tangent is the opposite side of the angle compared to the adjacent side (SOCATOH)...the 4/pi is the "tangent".

> recurring, which equals 51:50:34; whereas 4/pi is

> equivalent to our cotangent 1.273239545, which

> equals 51:51:14.31.

What's with all of these decimals suddenly?

> Another point we need to keep in mind here is that

> the pi ratio is a product of fairly sophisticated

> mathematics, whereas the 3 1/7 ratio can be found

> by practical measuring and the simplest

> arithmetic.

How can you actually type such nonsense?

The term "pi" was derived by a mathematician 2,600 years ago who "discovered" that the circumference of a circle measures (3 + 1/7th) of its diameter. He actually ran about town telling everybody.

Now you are attempting to convince the reading public that it's "a product of fairly sophisticated mathematics". Since when were you the judge ?

> Secondly, I don’t follow what you mean by, ‘why

> does it "coincidently" fit into the Rc design?’

> (I’m presuming you mean Kc – i.e. King’s

> Chamber)

You avoided the first part of my question...answer that then I'll follow .

> This highlights the highly important and pertinent

> fact that there is more than one way of

> arithmetically or mathematically reproducing the

> dimensions of the side (north and south) walls of

> the King’s Chamber, which then begs the question:

> which of the two methods, if either, was the

> method used by Khufu’s architect?

It does not...!

It shows that you "assumed" the total perimeter is equal to the pi ratio and I'm being the Devil's advocate by explaining that it is equal to the sum of integers and the sqrt of one of those values.

You tell me that AE mathematical papyrus does not provide proof of the AE understanding pi and now you are driving your car from the other side of the road...all within 24 hours of posting.

> Firstly, Clive I am not proposing “the designers

> used the wall of the Kc to provide us with the pi

> ratio”.

> I am suggesting that the architect utilised the

> number 3 1/7 in his planning of the side (north

> and south) walls of the King’s Chamber.

> I am most certainly not suggesting that pi is

> encoded in these side walls.

MJ...please...!

> Secondly, there is here no need what-so-ever for

> “knowledge of the entry location into G1...to be

> known/provided.”

But they did provide information of its whereabouts...in fact...the exact point of entry.

> I suggest that the architect started with a simple

> 2 x 1 rectangle floor plan (possibly as 2 10x10

> squares) and went on from there.

Then why didn't they use this simple 2:1 arrangement for the Queen's Chamber?

> I’m afraid that the bulk of the remainder of your

> post comes across to me as nothing more than

> rhetoric which is, I feel, best ignored for now.

It's not rhetoric...never been discussed previously.

It's actually confirming what you are trying to suggest regarding the Kc walls, but you are missing the point once more.

Recalculate all that you know of the Kc and review what I typed...then you will see the connection.

Best.

Clive