Mysteries :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums

For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board).

Right. No knowledge of π was required to design the Great Pyramid. Anyone who wishes to push any theory based on π must falsify and thus rule out the most straight-forward possibility...

...that everything (esoteric math and metrics) is incidental to the

Addendum: I did not address your geometric derivation Jacob. If you wanted to derive 11/14 geometrically without using π on first principle, ie not from astronomical observations or by trivial choice from 13 plausible choices, you derivation presents a plausible way it could have been done. I agree with your derivation. I did not show the geometry to illustrate a first principle but to explain why and how the observable astronomy follows the same geometry as that of the Great Pyramid. The geometry of course is based on Galileo's Law of Odd Numbers and involves surface areas whose computation requires π. I am not saying the geometry needed to be known, but if geometry was used your derivation works. Clearly, the

I hope this clarifies my response to you.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 24-Nov-18 20:40 by Manu.

...that everything (esoteric math and metrics) is incidental to the

*seqed*and one plausible way to explain the choice of this*seqed*is the astronomy of the sidereal periods. However the*seqed*could have even been whimsically chosen from a limited number of choices (ie 13) going from 4 palms per cubit to 7 palms let's say. Personnally think it was astronomical but the ultimate proof would be to demonstrate knowledge of the sidereal period as 27.5 days. There are clues elsewhere but what I would prefer is unmistakable evidence in the base dimensions of Hemiunu's mastaba. This is work in progress.Addendum: I did not address your geometric derivation Jacob. If you wanted to derive 11/14 geometrically without using π on first principle, ie not from astronomical observations or by trivial choice from 13 plausible choices, you derivation presents a plausible way it could have been done. I agree with your derivation. I did not show the geometry to illustrate a first principle but to explain why and how the observable astronomy follows the same geometry as that of the Great Pyramid. The geometry of course is based on Galileo's Law of Odd Numbers and involves surface areas whose computation requires π. I am not saying the geometry needed to be known, but if geometry was used your derivation works. Clearly, the

*seqed*could have been derived from 35/27.5 without geometry. No π needed.I hope this clarifies my response to you.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 24-Nov-18 20:40 by Manu.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.