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). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Hi, Jacob

Sirfiroth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From the vagueness of your post I can only assume
> you are asking me to answer my own question
> regarding which survey best reflects the intent of
> the Ancient Egyptian builders.
>
> Surveys of this sort only reflect the ‘as
> built’ dimensions, not intended dimensions. If
> you disagree, please provide what irrefutable
> evidence that exist which would lead anyone to
> assume any surveyed dimension of G1 are the exact
> intended dimensions of the Ancient Egyptian
> builders? That any survey does is an assumption
> with no irrefutable evidence addressing this
> conundrum. Therefore the correct answer can only
> be 'None of them'!

Well, that's brave of you to volunteer that the pyramids are so hard to measure that they're not going to support anyone's premises including your own, lol - and I do agree, everyone's measurements describe the GP as having unequal sides but the troubling thing is that no two may agree what the longest or shortest sides are.

However, I do have some experience working with the mean values provided by Petrie and others and don't recall having that much occasion to second-guess them, at least if we're still at the scale of things the size of pyramids or less.

> So Jim, without knowing the intent of the Ancient
> Egyptians you, like everyone else, are just
> guessing and guessing is not science. Fact: No one
> has yet provided any evidence, let alone
> irrefutable evidence. supporting the Ancient
> Egyptians use of pi, phi, √2, √3 or √5.
> There is no evidence other than yours and others
> training and ability to find these modern
> mathematical operators which occur naturally in
> the mathematics of structures by our current
> system. As stated many times before: [i[ If one
> draws a square, the √2 is an inherent value of
> the diagonal within the square, similarly if one
> draws a circle then л is the inherent value
> within the circle relating the diameter to
> circumference. Is foreknowledge of either of these
> factors is necessary for the completion of either
> task.[/i]

Well, wait a minute here, ok? It's one thing to draw a circle and automatically have the circumference and perimeter ratio be Pi, or take the diagonal of a square and automatically have it be sqrt 2, but if someone makes the perimeter of their circle 360 feet and the radius 57.29577951 ft, that's something different. If someone makes the diagonal of their square roughly 1.414213562 ft, that's something different as well.

If in lieu of a 360 foot circular perimeter, someone makes a circle out whatever they please as long as it's highly interactive with the 2 Pi circumference / radius ratio of any circle, that's something different too.

We can do the same thing with ancient metrology as well. We can say the AEs had no idea what the modern foot was so they had no idea just how brilliant Remens and Royal Cubits are mathematically when expressed in modern feet, they just knew them as 1 of either, but when you start finding the Remen value or Royal Cubit in feet as a ratio between parts, that's again something different.

All of that and much more is capable of talking to anyone who will listen, and I do think it might just be trying to say something.

> A couple of years ago I quit looking for what
> couldn't be prove and started looking for what
> could be proved regarding the Ancient Egyptians
> mathematics. Here is a hint: It doesn't reside in
> our modern mathematical operators like pi, phi,
> √2, √3 or √5 since they are naturally
> occurring factors within our current system. As
> Corinna Rossi determined, from a perspective based
> on the available evidence strongly indicates the
> Ancient Egyptians were not aware of our concepts
> nor did they employ these factors. But I do wish
> you good luck on your quest to prove otherwise.

That seems almost an odd thing to say - I mean, it isn't that Rossi is my source for sqrt 3-riddled equilateral pyramidia because I know what you'd say, they had no idea what sqrt 3 was they just wanted pyramids with edges equal to the base, but where does one really get the opportunity to put things to the test with sqrt 3 or sqrt 5 outside of things like the Vesica Piscis? Sure, every square thing in creation has diagonal of sqrt 2, but how about the rest of it?

If you even have any examples of sqrt 3 or sqrt 5 for this discussion, it would seem like they must quite likely be out of a native context such as the ones you describe that allows their use without understanding them.

Yes, I'd like to see some papyrus for proof too, sigh, and you probably don't want to get me started again on the ephemeral nature of data even in the here and now, but I try to be realistic enough to know that that may not be likely that I get to see the papyrus even if such items had once existed in some number.

Maybe the math we're talking about would have consumed so much papyrus that no one even bothered to write it out - literally. That is NOT some mere glib remark, you should see how much contemporary papyrus I've gone through over this stuff and my mentor is said to have occupied whole rooms with his handwritten calculations prior to the availability of pocket calculators.

As always, I try to put as many demands on architecture as I can possibly think of to try to rule out coincidences - things should multiply, divide, add, and subtract within established parameters, which may take careful choices to achieve, and that's just for starters. That we should see frequent references to what may be established common themes like astronomy and geodesy is an additional rigorous criteria that I've stacked on top of all that.

Not content with all that, I like to further try to rule out coincidence by demanding in addition that I not only see metrological units in modern feet expressed as ratios to help corroborate their validity, but that should often work as mathematical constants that unlock data with exponential use.

Anything you'd like to add to my list of stringent criteria there?

See, using fractions or rounding numbers is all well and good, but there may come a time when doing that is going to affect not just the way one interprets something, but the way someone designs something. If someone else says, "Oh, 162 is close enough" and I'd say "No it isn't, we should be more exacting", they'd pick it and I wouldn't, see? I wouldn't pick a different interpretation, I would pick a different proportion if a particular grouping of proportions is at risk of causing too much confusion about their nature and intent.

If I see all these rigorous criteria met again and again, if I see numbers that looked they were grouped as if someone were designing architecture in the way they would if they were thinking of numbers to at least ten places after the decimal, then hopefully I'm right in reigning in just how much I want to attribute to coincidence.

That may be hard for you to appreciate because like Rossi or Petrie you probably have a seked for every occasion, but that doesn't stop others from describing the very same thing in terms of slope angles, trigonometric functions, precise perimeter/height ratios and other more sophisticated things that have nothing to do with sekeds, and so forth. Getting sekeds to stick has nothing to with the possible actual state of the art, anymore than does rounding Pi to the second or third decimal place.

The question is always just how accurately is something being described by the textbook description, and how accurately is it being described by any unfounded unorthodox theory, on its own terms?

If the GP isn't 440 cubits wide, many may be in a bit of trouble, you know. Mine isn't. Mine's about 439 and a half, show me how to make a seked out of that?

The biggest action in my pyramid model with the Royal Cubit is really that the pyramidion is modelled on the whole thing with 10 Royal Cubits in modern feet as the ratio between pyramid and pyramidion.

Before we consider the evidence, let's give it the chance to accumulate some more. This was originally determined from scattered reports of the GP's current height and "Wow, I bet Munck will be so happy if 452.3894321 ft turns out to be how high it us up to where the pyramidion sat" because he had profound reverence for 452.3893421".

That pyramidion height and 10 Royal Cubit ratio is locked in by that.

Not yet content that the absurd has already been asked of it, given a model that truncates the sides in order to make the apothem 1 stadium in accordance with classic authors, we find the apothem with the pyramidion missing to be the radian in feet, which outrageous demand it meets to an accuracy of .9999726682, the formula giving 572.9734555 for 572.9577951 even after just suffering from the ravages of addition and subtraction. 10 Royal Cubit ratio locked in, again.

Now think about this, proof of modern feet, we'd all like to see the papyrus, I know -- but what I just described to you with its multiple built-in backup checks, is a Royal Cubit to Modern Foot Converter. I think I'm going to stop asking to see the papyrus, ok?

Not content with that, I recycled one of Davidson's and determined that at the altitude where the Great Pyramid's perimeter expresses the Calendar Year in feet, the length of a side is equal to the concave apothem, but I probably wasn't contented with that either. More! - more outrageous demands to try to filter out coincidences.

I should mention that this is after the placing of the hypothetical pavement, not that I have any of that to show you either, but there seems to be circumstantial evidence for it ranging from the state of surrounding features to the equations themselves.

Let's see, what else did I demand? Oh, yeah - I circumscribed and inscribed all three big pyramids in the vertical plane both through the middle and the diagonal, and for Cheop's pyramidion (or missing section) too, and demanded that it should all be fairly impressive as completely unreasonable as the concept may be, and for Cheop's pyramid I also did this with the pyramid before and after paving.

Not that I'm finished describing the model, but that's how I think I might know how tall the GP might be, and how wide. Because I demand the impossible, and the pyramids oblige, although I'm not sure they're doing it for the likes o' me. Probably not.

Did you want to add something to list of evidence I should want to see before resting confidence in a set of Great Pyramid proportions?

I could still be quite wrong of course, but I hope you can tell how hard I try not to be?

Cheers!



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 06-Jan-20 06:28 by thinkitover.

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 3212 Sirfiroth 06-Feb-18 03:26
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 559 drew 06-Feb-18 04:18
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 520 Sirfiroth 06-Feb-18 17:37
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 423 drew 06-Feb-18 23:32
Re: Pi or no Pi ???????????????? 483 Dr. Troglodyte 07-Feb-18 14:44
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 410 molder 08-Feb-18 05:09
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 408 Sirfiroth 08-Feb-18 06:43
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 410 DavidK 08-Feb-18 10:48
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 409 molder 08-Feb-18 11:56
linking egyptian Pi to imperial Pi 345 DavidK 08-Feb-18 15:10
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 347 DavidK 08-Feb-18 13:58
cubit of 20.25? 314 DavidK 08-Feb-18 14:12
where does Fibonacci Pi come from? 351 DavidK 08-Feb-18 14:49
Re: cubit of 20.25? 405 Sirfiroth 08-Feb-18 15:08
Re: cubit of 20.25? 367 DavidK 08-Feb-18 15:15
Re: cubit of 20.25? 366 molder 09-Feb-18 03:58
Mod Note > Off-Topic Posts 384 Dr. Troglodyte 09-Feb-18 16:38
Re: cubit of 20.25? 528 Sirfiroth 09-Feb-18 21:02
Oh...what a shame... 399 drew 09-Feb-18 00:33
Re: Oh...what a shame... 396 Sirfiroth 09-Feb-18 04:47
Re: Oh...what a shame... 416 drew 09-Feb-18 06:02
Re: Oh...what a shame... 446 Sirfiroth 09-Feb-18 13:28
Re: Oh...what a shame... 403 DavidK 22-Jun-18 05:58
Re: Oh...what a shame... 340 drew 22-Jun-18 09:54
Re: Oh...what a shame... 421 Sirfiroth 22-Jun-18 13:32
Re: Oh...what a shame... 497 drew 22-Jun-18 22:27
Re: Oh...what a shame... 369 Sirfiroth 23-Jun-18 01:48
Re: well put 341 drew 23-Jun-18 08:08
To put it bluntly! 383 Sirfiroth 23-Jun-18 12:40
Re: well put 362 Manu 23-Jun-18 18:33
Re: extensions of numbers 315 drew 24-Jun-18 00:40
Re: extensions of numbers 375 Sirfiroth 24-Jun-18 04:50
Re: extensions of numbers 327 drew 24-Jun-18 08:36
Re: extensions of numbers 318 Sirfiroth 24-Jun-18 12:22
Re: extensions of numbers 323 drew 24-Jun-18 20:53
Re: extensions of numbers 321 Sirfiroth 25-Jun-18 16:06
Re: extensions of numbers 298 DavidK 25-Jun-18 16:13
Re: extensions of numbers 305 Sirfiroth 25-Jun-18 16:46
the primitive calculator 303 drew 25-Jun-18 23:23
Re: the primitive calculator 359 Sirfiroth 26-Jun-18 02:24
Re: the primitive calculator 290 drew 26-Jun-18 07:06
Mod Note > Duplicate Post Removed 388 Dr. Troglodyte 26-Jun-18 12:45
Newton's problem solved(the relation between the Roman foot and the Egyptian foot ) 357 rodz111 26-Jun-18 13:55
Re: Newton's problem solved(the relation between the Roman foot and the Egyptian foot ) 259 drew 27-Jun-18 05:18
Re: the primitive calculator 333 Sirfiroth 26-Jun-18 17:00
Re: the primitive calculator 324 drew 27-Jun-18 00:01
Re: the primitive calculator 322 Sirfiroth 27-Jun-18 00:18
Re: the primitive calculator 292 drew 27-Jun-18 01:56
Re: well put 279 cloister 24-Jun-18 09:43
Re: well put 322 Manu 24-Jun-18 12:59
Re: well put 310 cloister 24-Jun-18 18:14
Re: well put 366 cloister 29-Jun-18 08:48
Re: well put 299 drew 27-Jun-18 05:11
Re: Oh...what a shame... 361 Sirfiroth 22-Jun-18 12:21
Re: Oh...what a shame... 391 molder 23-Jun-18 00:24
Re: Oh...what a shame... 370 DavidK 23-Jun-18 21:06
Re: Oh...what a shame... 331 DavidK 24-Jun-18 07:41
Understanding the differences! 329 Sirfiroth 24-Jun-18 12:50
No pie for jacob 368 DavidK 24-Jun-18 08:54
Re: No pie for jacob 306 Sirfiroth 25-Jun-18 16:44
Re: No pie for jacob 331 DavidK 25-Jun-18 20:21
Re: No pie for jacob 335 Sirfiroth 25-Jun-18 23:19
Re: 5 values for pi in GP here are 3 294 molder 26-Jun-18 00:51
Re: what value for pi? 296 drew 26-Jun-18 14:11
Re: what value for pi? 343 molder 26-Jun-18 21:30
Re: what value for pi? 299 drew 26-Jun-18 23:42
Re: 5 values for pi in GP here are 3 284 Sirfiroth 26-Jun-18 14:55
Re: 5 values for pi in GP here are 3 338 molder 26-Jun-18 21:18
Re: No pie for jacob 335 DavidK 26-Jun-18 10:34
Re: No pie for jacob 295 Sirfiroth 26-Jun-18 15:02
Re: No pie for jacob 293 DavidK 26-Jun-18 16:46
Re: No pie for jacob 301 Sirfiroth 26-Jun-18 17:12
Re: No pie for jacob 328 DavidK 26-Jun-18 18:58
Re: No pie for jacob 339 Sirfiroth 26-Jun-18 22:59
Re: No pie for jacob 288 DUNE 26-Jun-18 19:52
Re: No pie for jacob 294 DavidK 26-Jun-18 21:18
Re: No pie for jacob 296 Sirfiroth 26-Jun-18 23:10
Hard evidence for base 100 using egyptian maths 305 DavidK 27-Jun-18 05:37
Re: Hard evidence for base 100 using egyptian maths 333 drew 27-Jun-18 06:16
Re: Hard evidence for base 100 using egyptian maths 305 DavidK 27-Jun-18 10:25
Re: Hard evidence for base 100 using egyptian maths 316 drew 27-Jun-18 21:18
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 363 rodz111 25-Jun-18 17:48
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 336 Sirfiroth 25-Jun-18 19:54
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 306 rodz111 26-Jun-18 03:13
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 325 molder 26-Jun-18 03:19
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 323 rodz111 26-Jun-18 03:30
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 318 molder 26-Jun-18 21:52
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 368 rodz111 28-Jun-18 07:44
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 315 drew 28-Jun-18 09:56
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 345 rodz111 28-Jun-18 11:09
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 335 drew 28-Jun-18 17:13
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 349 DavidK 28-Jun-18 20:00
Tripping over museum rods 344 drew 28-Jun-18 23:52
Museum rods 311 drew 29-Jun-18 00:20
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 335 rodz111 29-Jun-18 00:37
You're as much as a complainer as anyone but you're not... 326 drew 29-Jun-18 01:24
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 397 rodz111 30-Jun-18 01:21
You down and dirty so-n-so 331 drew 27-Jun-18 05:29
Re: You down and dirty so-n-so 277 Sirfiroth 27-Jun-18 08:17
Re: You down and dirty so-n-so 273 drew 27-Jun-18 09:49
Re: You down and dirty so-n-so 411 Sirfiroth 27-Jun-18 17:12
The math or the pyramid? 348 drew 27-Jun-18 20:46
Re: You down and dirty so-n-so 266 DavidK 17-Jul-18 23:04
Re: You down and dirty so-n-so 289 Sirfiroth 17-Jul-18 23:16
Re: You down and dirty so-n-so 282 DavidK 17-Jul-18 23:20
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 391 spaceyhippie 19-Jul-18 10:32
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 309 molder 19-Jul-18 11:21
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 352 Sirfiroth 19-Jul-18 12:05
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 478 spaceyhippie 19-Jul-18 23:57
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 332 DavidK 20-Jul-18 08:20
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 387 spaceyhippie 20-Jul-18 21:58
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 268 DavidK 22-Jul-18 09:41
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 372 spaceyhippie 23-Jul-18 02:15
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 305 DavidK 23-Jul-18 08:09
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 328 Sirfiroth 23-Jul-18 13:49
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 302 DavidK 23-Jul-18 22:23
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 534 Sirfiroth 23-Jul-18 23:52
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 320 DavidK 24-Jul-18 09:11
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 267 Sirfiroth 24-Jul-18 13:11
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 257 DavidK 27-Jul-18 06:13
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 294 Sirfiroth 27-Jul-18 15:45
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 356 spaceyhippie 24-Jul-18 02:44
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 366 DavidK 24-Jul-18 17:10
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 416 spaceyhippie 27-Jul-18 00:51
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 327 spaceyhippie 27-Jul-18 14:36
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 447 spaceyhippie 29-Jul-18 11:01
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 329 DavidK 06-Aug-18 19:15
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 302 DavidK 07-Aug-18 05:16
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 305 spaceyhippie 08-Aug-18 09:20
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 314 DavidK 08-Aug-18 09:39
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 342 spaceyhippie 09-Aug-18 02:32
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 370 DavidK 09-Aug-18 08:00
ROTFLMAO! 262 Sirfiroth 09-Aug-18 13:22
Re: ROTFLMAO! 269 DavidK 09-Aug-18 14:12
Re: ROTFLMAO! 354 Sirfiroth 09-Aug-18 14:28
Re: ROTFLMAO! 254 DavidK 09-Aug-18 14:49
Re: ROTFLMAO! 263 Sirfiroth 09-Aug-18 15:03
Re: ROTFLMAO! 276 DavidK 09-Aug-18 21:39
Re: ROTFLMAO! 301 Sirfiroth 10-Aug-18 02:06
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 314 spaceyhippie 09-Aug-18 20:40
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 371 DavidK 10-Aug-18 07:59
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 376 Steve Clayton 12-Aug-18 18:16
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 160 DavidK 27-Dec-19 23:13
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 147 Sirfiroth 28-Dec-19 03:46
Pi. All Pi. All The Time. 162 thinkitover 28-Dec-19 04:59
Re: Pi. All Pi. All The Time. 134 molder 28-Dec-19 10:35
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 134 DavidK 28-Dec-19 10:20
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 144 Sirfiroth 28-Dec-19 15:13
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 160 Thanos5150 28-Dec-19 16:30
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 151 thinkitover 28-Dec-19 21:49
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 149 Thanos5150 29-Dec-19 04:35
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 140 Sirfiroth 29-Dec-19 02:17
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 144 molder 29-Dec-19 04:14
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 138 Sirfiroth 29-Dec-19 12:51
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 137 molder 29-Dec-19 22:31
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 130 Sirfiroth 30-Dec-19 14:11
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 177 magisterchessmutt 30-Dec-19 15:16
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 135 Sirfiroth 31-Dec-19 03:33
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 180 magisterchessmutt 31-Dec-19 04:33
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 154 Sirfiroth 31-Dec-19 15:04
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 161 spaceyhippie 31-Dec-19 23:37
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 155 Thanos5150 29-Dec-19 04:29
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 142 DavidK 29-Dec-19 09:32
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 145 Sirfiroth 29-Dec-19 14:09
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 144 spaceyhippie 01-Jan-20 23:18
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 160 Sirfiroth 02-Jan-20 01:33
Pi vs Pudding 149 thinkitover 02-Jan-20 21:45
Re: Pi vs Pudding 141 spaceyhippie 03-Jan-20 00:06
Re: Pi vs Pudding 157 seasmith 03-Jan-20 00:24
Re: Pi vs Pudding 141 spaceyhippie 07-Jan-20 23:06
Re: Pi vs Pudding 182 seasmith 08-Jan-20 02:54
Re: Pi vs Pudding 149 Sirfiroth 03-Jan-20 03:36
Re: Pi vs Pudding 146 molder 03-Jan-20 06:56
Re: Pi vs Pudding 149 Sirfiroth 03-Jan-20 18:25
Re: Pi vs Pudding 144 spaceyhippie 04-Jan-20 00:02
LOL, now that was hilarious ! 142 Sirfiroth 04-Jan-20 05:51
Re: LOL, now that was hilarious ! 185 hendrik dirker 04-Jan-20 09:32
Re: LOL, now that was hilarious ! 132 spaceyhippie 04-Jan-20 23:37
Re: LOL, now that was hilarious ! 141 spaceyhippie 04-Jan-20 23:39
Re: Pi vs Pudding 160 molder 04-Jan-20 11:03
Re: Pi vs Pudding 149 Sirfiroth 05-Jan-20 20:11
Re: Pi vs Pudding 140 molder 06-Jan-20 02:55
Re: Pi vs Pudding 171 magisterchessmutt 06-Jan-20 02:58
Re: Pi vs Pudding 137 molder 06-Jan-20 05:26
Re: Pi vs Pudding 138 spaceyhippie 07-Jan-20 01:32
Re: Pi vs Pudding 128 DavidK 07-Jan-20 02:02
Re: Pi vs Pudding 141 thinkitover 06-Jan-20 06:13
Re: Pi vs Pudding 156 Sirfiroth 07-Jan-20 02:18
Re: Pi vs Pudding 125 DavidK 07-Jan-20 14:25
Re: Pi vs Pudding 138 Sirfiroth 07-Jan-20 15:16
Re: Pi vs Pudding 137 DavidK 07-Jan-20 19:03
Re: Pi vs Pudding 130 Sirfiroth 07-Jan-20 20:08
Re: Pi vs Pudding 131 DavidK 07-Jan-20 20:11
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 157 DavidK 28-Dec-19 11:21
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 153 engbren 28-Dec-19 12:34
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 153 Sirfiroth 28-Dec-19 15:55
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 141 engbren 29-Dec-19 01:14
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 140 Sirfiroth 30-Dec-19 16:52
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 143 engbren 30-Dec-19 22:23
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 200 magisterchessmutt 30-Dec-19 23:24
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 166 engbren 31-Dec-19 11:31
Re: Pi or no Pi ?????????????? 148 spaceyhippie 04-Jan-20 00:42


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.