Let's review a little mathematics, here....


Goldcalf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So am I to take it that you DON'T see how the
> pendant is directly related to hexagonal geometry
> even after I drew you a picture?

All you've done is hammered a design for the pyramid onto a piece of jewelry and added various angles to it until it fit, and then announced you had the answer.

Pictures aren't proof. Aesthetic standards mean that a design has balance and regularity -- and you've proved that the pyramid is a balanced, regular shape when viewed in that drawing.

This isn't a terribly new observation.

As to the geometry, might I suggest you check on the state of Egyptian math at the time? Their number system was extremely cumbersome and it was difficult to do any sorts of calculations in it. Furthermore, Egyptian society also didn't have the "intelligesia" class; scholars who were paid to sit around and teach society at large -- unlike the Greeks. The social structure of the Greek civilizations made it possible for thinkers to emerge from classes other than the aristocrats.

> What WOULD
> convince you, John? Do I have to conjure up the
> ghost of the pendant designer and have him show
> you his drawings?

You haven't seen many architectural drawings, I take it (either modern or ancient)?

- one view is NOT sufficient for an architectural plan.
- architects need floor plans as well as elevation plans, and they need them from all sides.
- an architect using complex tools keeps those with him. In ancient days, they were buried with him. If this was a model or taken from a model there would be models of this linear figure you drew around... and rather a lot of them.
- architects can't run into the royal harem and say "excuse me, Princess, I need to borrow your necklace because I need to make a new pyramid." He'd get about 3 steps inside before being executed.
- why give an illiterate woman a piece of jewelry with architectural gridsn it? It would have been given to the Pharoah or the princes, and copies would have been put in the hands of the priests.


> Until you can provide a more plausible theory for
> how the Pyramid's dimensions were arrived at which
> better matches the actual survey data than mine,
> I'm not particularly concerned about your denial
> of certain facets of reality.

No, in order to triumph, you have to prove that they did not and could not have designed it by stacking blocks and that they did not and could not have developed it from earlier more primitive structures, including the mastabas.

Then you have to prove that they used geometry.

And then you have to address the issue of "if they had that wonderful geometry, howcome the thing is off by 10 feet or so on each side (yes, it really isn't perfectly proportioned) and you have to address other irregularites in the structure.