<HTML>Don:
Please pardon my humor, but you are engaging in exactly the practice that I described.
You are looking at YOUR interpretation of the big bang, and excluding MY interpretation of the big bang.
The Wizard of Oz theory is VERY serious, although it has a funny connotation to it. It's like the Kevin Bacon Game. Humans are natural pattern finders... it's our survival tool. Finding a pattern, however, does not mean the pattern was premeditated.
Shapes in clouds.
The geometric perfection of a snowflake.
Math in a geometric state.
The problem with the math applications in the GP, or any other prehistoric site for that matter, is that there is RARELY any contextual evidence to back it up. You need contextual evidence (which is VERY boring to accumulate, but absolutely mandatory for proof) if you're going to make a case. Your interpretation could be WILDLY different from the meaning intended by the original designers... unless you have some contextual evidence to SHOW what they were thinking.
The bullet in the body means many things. You need a smoking gun.
No offense meant or implied, Don... as I stated in my previous post. I've done lots of math, too. It's the easiest way to explore the sites, without actually going there. But, without the backup evidence, it is, in the end, just a set of coincidences.
Would you agree?
Anthony</HTML>