I would agree with things being rather contrived. When ancient monuments are analysed mathematically all manner of contrivances appear out of thin air with little or no justification beyond fitting the chosen equation, and where they come from and what they are supposed to achieve beyond making the sums add up is another mystery. The rather inconvenient fact that in order to obtain the parameters needed to slip into these convenient equations in order to make them work is that the level of sophistication and technology that is needed is demonstrably missing, not just from the time in question but for thousands of years afterwards, something that is conveniently "overlooked"
If you think this is unfair then I again would like to know how the length of a day was measured to be 86400 seconds long( a contrived timeframe), in ancient Egypt. A little bit of time spent( I should say better spent) on the practicalities and problems involved in that soon shows how totally inadequate ancient technology was to take on that task, and how silly it is to base a theory on it or anything like it.
You could apply the same criteria to just about any of the parameters that are supposedly encoded in ancient monuments with the same inconclusive results. The solid verifiable evidence does not support the number theories, especially when scientifically derived parameters are used. There is a huge disconnect between theory and reality here.
This is a real problem for me, because I find these things too, and more besides. This is why I question the certainties that are expressed on here, and why I find it so frustrating when it's found to be empty beyond the equations, just more numbers adding up to nothing very much and daft claims built on sand to justify it. The same theories abounded on these forums 20 years ago and they haven't gone anywhere since.
So, Hendrik, if you applied the sort of analysis that is found on your impressive website to modern day structures with the same diligence, what would you find? I'm sure the pure number theorists would find much the same encoding in a football field as they find at Giza if they try hard enough, which would be the scientific thing to do, as a control on theory-bias.
Has anyone done that?