Thanks for the valuable feedback
> I have a side length value in my data for the
> "Zangkunchong" pyramid of "29.34 m" (I'm still
> trying to figure out if it may be a misplaced
> diagram of the "Tomb of the General").
> i would interpret this as follows
> 29.33333r metres is the actual intended measure.
> Because your metre is 39.37 it has distorted the
> using 39.375 x 29.333r = 1155 inches and this is
> surely the intended number because it is base 7
> and base 11
Good observation. I haven't had the easiest time working with the ~1155 range because of the apparent diversity - typical "trying to find the one but there's three of them or maybe five" kind of stuff - but happy to see that is it's still classic 260 / 225 = 1.155555555 in some form or another.
> 1155 / 11 = 105 this is 9 egyptian feet of 11.666r
> 1155 / 7 = 165 The imperial rod (10 off)
> So 1155 x 22/7 = 3630 / 20.625 = 176
More good observations. I hadn't actually starting taking my own measures seriously yet, but I did want to point out some of the things the inquiry led to.
> If you read Berriman you will realise the chisnese
> system was based on root 2 as a measure on the
If I take Berriman at face value, you mean, lol.
> if you are getting numbers such as 101.818181818r
> then they will divide by 99/100
> 101.818181r / 100 x 99 = 100.8
> 101.81818181r x 22/7 is 320 and the hekat is being
> 101.81818181r is the sum of a proven Egyptian
> series summed proving the use of 22/7.
> 20.61818181818181818r / 100 x 99 = 20.412
> Everything can be resolved into whole numbers
> because all the whole numbers have been
> fractionalised using Egyptian methods.
> 132000000 / 3600 = 36666.666r
The big thing I'm looking for is the 360 / Lunar Year that goes with a third set of calendar numbers, and in spite of being a great suggestion, 360 / (~320 / Pi) doesn't seem to be it. As things presently stand, I have 1.017532310, one of a great many new numbers since a renewed looked at Stonehenge, that I've barely begun to explore.
Still, I'd probably be wise to explore your suggestion and mine further. I've had to revise a few planetary values already, they seem to be tricky.
Interestingly, if I try to fit your suggestion with a couple of workhorses from Stonehenge ((51.95151515 x 10) / 2) / 224.8373808 = 1155.31311 inches. Converted to feet, that still seems to be trying to head the same place
1155.31311 in / 12 = 96.27609250 = 1 / 103.8679462, but I'm still not sure if I've gotten that right or wrong.
I still don't know some of these numbers well enough, it's only been the past several weeks I've watched Stonehenge explode like that. At least I have the very good fortune of having Stockdale and Harris making me think I'm right about a lot of things before I've had to work out all of it for myself, and all I've read from them so far is Harris' paper from that thread you linked to.
I really wish I had more data on the Asian pyramids, though - I still don't even know where those diagrams originated - but I'm a lot more comfortable with the idea of having more parts to cross-reference to each other to help keep things on the right track before getting too invested in interpreting them. That might help me to get a feel for the reliability of the measurements also - I was a long time trusting even Petrie as to accuracy.
A value of 1152.833215 in isn't impossible, and might be more elegantly simple, but I think I'll try to continue to explore the complexities because I'm hoping they might further illuminate the way forward with the planetary and lunar numbers.