What numbers do you need? I have all of that. Cladking is only supporting my concept. He will not be able to supply that information. If you can define your area of math needed, I will supply those numbers to you, with supporting evidence. Just try and not be vague. The more specific you are, the better I will be able to assist you. Presently, I am working on pulling all that information together, in a comprehensive manner. I'm dedicated, and have self taught myself 3D animation, ie. Blender, C4D, Houdini and Unreal 5.0 engine. Mixamo custom characters... It's difficult to learn, though fun once you have. The math I have accumulated over the years.
It's kind of a shame, we refer to this method as a "Funicular". I brought that name into discussion here on the Graham Hancock website, as I had nothing else, which could represent the engineering principle. And additionally, provide video links emulating said principle.
It is really just a Counter Balance. Not like Houdin's, which does not work, as it requires you to pull the stone weight back up, to serve as a counterweight. That is just plain stupid. The only reason (dare I say) the Funicular works, is that the Counter Balance weight (water) is continually being supplied from a higher level. If you had to pull a vessel full of water back up,ie. Houdin, to serve as the counter weight, it would not make any sense at all...
The minimum angle in my research is approx. 4.6 degrees. More likely 5.0 degrees. You do not want the operation to find itself in a run away situation. It would need to be managed, and not move, unless Men applying additional pressure, cause it to move. It is an assist, in lifting weight from a lower elevation to a higher elevation.
Fundamentally, it's just a tool. They AE could have used the principle, and then again maybe the pulled those stones up ramps, which I highly doubt. The math behind such an endeavor, does not support it, not does the evidence.