Hi Lee,

Very simple, pi, phi, decimals and angles are our methods and are incapable of revealing the intended fractional components of the structures.
Egyptian unit fraction mathematics, are relatively simple once the operational process is understood.
In mathematical study of Ancient Egypt would it not be reasonable to employ their methods of unit fractions, seked, cubits and the ‘Eye of Horus (binary addition) to determine the various intended dimensions of G1 and other pyramids? The Ancient Egyptians system is unique in that it allows each cubit and unit fraction to express a very exact and precise collection of ideas in the world of mathematics without adhering to our imposed rules of system and sequence.

The cubit is a physical quantity. The cubit is a unit that represents a definite predetermined length. When we say 10 cubits, we actually mean 10 times the definite predetermined length called cubit.

The thing researchers fail realize is using our methods of angles, decimals and meters etc as expressed in Steve's presentation, were meaningless to Ancient Egyptians and actually obscure their intent . More naive is believing the Ancient Egyptian intended to build pyramids like G1 to our surveyed dimensions free of inevitable errors which always occur in buildings the size and scope of G1.
[www.cheops.org]
Rudolph Gantenbrink states: A present-day architect is hardly likely to plan a house from the start which is 20.63 m long and 10.95 m wide but if we follow the rules of logic will initially have a house of 11 by 20 meters in mind.  Even if a whole-number criterion of this kind could not be put into practice on structural grounds, the first mental step is nonetheless always in whole figures. When I find whole-number values in a structure, they must essentially be regarded as primary construction steps to which the non-whole-number, secondary construction steps are subordinate.

Other than Petrie’s survey, what evidence is there to support his measured 9068.8” as being the intended length of the South Side Casing Base of G1 and not simply the result of a building error from the intended? Glenn Dash puts this figure 9070.3 inches, which one is correct? If divided by 440 cubits each gives a different dimension for the cubit. The source of this apparent inconsistency could stem from a host of assumptions and our lack of understanding regarding the intended purpose of the cubit as a unit of measurement.

Once the intended dimension of the Royal Egyptian cubit is established we no longer have to guess at the margin of error present in the construction surveys when compared to the intended dimensions.
We have been chasing speculative claims about G1 for 400 years with no solid results. So if nothing changes we will just chase them for another 400 years.

Regards,
Jacob