DavidK Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Manu
>
> I don't think Jim and I are as hung up on pi at
> the GP as you seem to think we are. in terms of
> the GP design I am more than happy with 44/7 or
> 1760/280 and accept Jacob's explanations.

I am going to wait for Jacob to explain once more why he believes 1760 (fingers I think) is significant and where he sees it. He mentioned the north wall perimeter, but I didn't understand what that means. I am currently working on a paper with JP Bauval in which we describe evidence that even 1760 cubits had no primary meaning in this design because another metric mattered more. My own work tells me that 1760 is merely the result of a scaling-up from a smaller model from which also the Meydum Pyramid was designed. If anything, it's the scale-up factors, five and eight, which had theological meaning then, not the result of the computation. However, if Jacob shows a length, 1760 fingers long, which makes less sense expressed in palms or cubits, then I am all ears.

Jacob...if you're reading this...take a look at John Legon and Petrie. I was confused by your projected length value for the GG (the sloped length being 88 to the Great Step). I believe you stated 80 rc. Is it not 82? Did I miss something?

> I am more interested in putting a circle around
> Jacobs square of 8 units being 8 x 1.111r = 8.888r
> x 1.111r = 9.87654321.

You can always draw a circle around a square. There is no actual circle at Giza, only virtual circles you and Dune want to draw. I agree that "8" mattered (see above).

> now I know Jacob has found 1.41414141r as 140.99
> as well as 99/70 the evidence for 9801/9800 is
> established.

Any square incidentally has √2 built in. No intent is established as such..especially not by a ratio. You have to show a length expressed in a subdivision of a metric which reveals this knowledge when it does not make sense to express in the higher, less subdivided, partition. This I think is the same rationale Jacob is following and I agree with that approach. Remember, we are trying to establish intent and separate it from incidental occurrences. Incidental occurrences are not same thing as coincidences.

> 99/70 x 9800/9801= 140/99 no loose ends.
> n/(n-1) Jacob has this also The two faint lines
> too close to the sekhed to call are definitely
> known to the designers.

You have to prove to me that all these conversions are not facilitators you created to make your theory work as opposed to intended by the architect. Philosophically speaking I ask: If an architect wants to make a statement why not make it direct? Why require strings of conversion to get from what is in front of your face to what you want to say with it....see Jim's crazy idea that the GG holes feature the foot via the solar year when the cubit is towering above like a Damocles Sword over his Indus Foot Theory.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 28-Nov-18 17:23 by Manu.