At the root of the calculations is Hugh's megalithic yard which is Real Pi x root 4/3 = 10000th of Petrie's 3023 feet G1 base.
The link from Stonehenge is falling off a log simple.
Thom gives 330 meg yard circumference at the Aubrey the first phase of SH circa 3200 BCE.
My suggestion is that they did not design SH against the foot but against 11.88 inches or 0.99 of a foot.
So the number of units used is 330 x 2.7207 x 100/99 at SH = 906.9 units
All that is required at the GP is x 40 to get Petrie's analysis.
906.9 x 40 = 36276 taking us into Dune's last calculation to hit 3.1416.
Now when 'The Eclipse' was written Dune's work was not on my compass, but Jim's very much was.
This is my 3.1416 base 100 Pi calculation supporting the intro to the Eclipse, 3.1416 is base 100, 22/7 is base 99 and 1632/26 is base 102.
3.1416 is obviously the focal point as base 100 and is such a pragmatic version of Pi.
Dune has G2 designed against 3.1416 and it make me wonder if G2 is not the most significant pyramid of the three because of its position. I really have not studied it and the book will be about G1.
It strikes me that Dune's work and mine at SH find 3.1416 as the focal point of Pi as engineered by the designers. Not a coincidence.
The GP is a Pi calculation device as is SH. The difference is The diameter is fixed at Giza but variable at SH with a fixed circumference.
Thom Pi at the GP appears at 36266.666inches base perimeter the radius being 11155.555r inches and this is 10400 UOIO's.
the radius is 52000 UOIO's x 7 = 364000 or 1000 years.
This is the run in to my book 'The Eclipse' and SH is designed against 364 x 8 = 2912 = 560 x 52. with a 10 day addition every 8 years.
this link shows how the 3 versions of Pi at SH work together and how the various systems are part of one overarching system and Jim's numbers are base 110. 3.1416 is the base 100 system.
Note that the base 100 Welsh system is also base 32 and that the Roman system is base 96. This analysis fits the Giza design and Thom's base 102 system comes out as 36266.666r at Giza. There are no loose ends in these calculations and the Scottish system is well researched but now I am more inclined to the Welsh system being base 96 and the base 100 system remaining a secret.
So no Egyptian analysis here at all but all of it links to Dune's outputs.
And when Egyptian Pi x Babylonian Pi = 9.87654321 and the square root of this is a very passable version of pi the question to ask is were they building Pi squared into their designs and the answer the evidence suggests is emphatically yes.
1760 / (22/7x22/7) = 178.1818182 / 100 x 99 =176.4
14.7 147 is a very well known number in sport
It is very deliberate once the system is understood.
Manu said to Jim
'A right triangle whose legs are one to two has a base of square root of five. This is geometry Jim. It existed before the pyramid. So did e-1 and square root of five.
1.718 ft/rc x 30/33 Ind/Imp x (2.236+2+2) = ?
You are looking at all these relationships in a one-sided way making one-sided conclusions when all this could just be incidental to the geometry at play. No knowledge of π is proven by your rectangle and and Indus foot conversion. This is the same systemic oversight you commit in all of your theorems.
I am pointing out the obvious and Jacob did so long before me. '
The point Manu constantly overlooks is the deliberate manipulation of these universal constants using Thom's system linked to the imperial system.
Root 5 used by the designers of Carnac using the figures of Howard Crowhurst comes out as 19008/8500
8500 is 3.125 Babylonian Pi x 2.72 the megalithic yard x 1000, Thom's system
19008 is 10.8 x 1760 the imperial system
When this version of root 5 is divided into 816 Thom's base number the result is 364.9262939 x 360 x 1000 / 5280 is exactly 24883.20 the canon of ancient measure.
You are looking at all these relationships in a one-sided way making one-sided conclusions when all this could just be incidental to the geometry at play.'
just demonstrates that the evidence has not been followed through and you most certainly have not looked at Hugh's workings because Hugh asks the question - could it all just be incidental to the geometry and concludes it is not.
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 08-Dec-18 13:28 by DavidK.