Jon_B Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >Notice where the blue circle intersects the
> north face of the structure.<
>
> So what? I don't see any significance in another
> of these exercises in circle drawing.
Hello Jon:
You don't see the significance?
Let me try and explain...
To find two or more points of equal distance on an unknown design takes considerable effort. It is common knowledge that drawing a circle from one reference point will indicate other points of equal distance. IOW...use circles to find equal distances from that point.
Having said that...the builders give you the clue by incorporating the "coincidental" pi value in the slope of this structure, the number it also prevalent throughout the site. For us to consider it a mere fluke reflects our complete lack of understanding and ignorance of mathematic probability.
The location of the two center points is factual and derived using pure mathematics. They are not the results recorded by an individual climbing and crawling up tunnels and passages with tape in hand and fingers crossed hoping that he is correct. However, it is the measures of these curious and dedicated individuals that are used as a reference to hopefully establish a reason why the builders elected to construct these features within the structure...they are there for a specific reason...not for the pleasure of keeping stonemasons employed.
However...if you feel that the measures I present are incorrect then you, as with MJ, have made identical fatal mistakes.
Use your head and think hard...what point have you missed?
> on my scale drawing your circle doesn't quite hit
> the point at which Petrie reconstructed the lower
> point of an entrance at the outer casing level 19
> but, as I said, even if it's within your
> tolerance, so what?
Dunno...just that it hits the point of entry. Do you think the builders were aware of that fact?
There are no bonus points...but...it links the two angles given to the entrance...doesn't it? And the two angles do involve the use of pi.
> Anyway I thought you claimed that the Pyramid had
> no casing above the first level in which case your
> circle just hits an unremarkable point on the 16
> layer.
I still maintain that “fact”...if nobody ever saw or produced a single stone from the upper portion of the pyramid then what is there to conclude?
But...that said...you forgot to include what I also told you specifically.
Each of the three pyramid at Giza is set on two distinct angles...one derived from the angular base casing and the other from their actual constructed upper measures. Petrie did not include the “actual” upper measures for G2 and G3…he calculated them from the base stone angles only.
G1 has a base angle measure of 4/pi and an upper angle measure of 5/4.
The posted illustration uses the 4/pi ratio, but using the 5/4 ratio then a second set of mathematics kicks in. IOW...I am only treating you to the simpler aspect of this structure...not the complicated part.
> I'm not clear what figure you are using for the
> gable of the King's Chamber as my drawing using
> M&R's figures produces a circle that misses
> the top by around 3 feet.
Post your drawing with measures attached for all to examine...saves time and confusion.
Best.
Clive