Graham,

> The proof is impervious to cultural argument as it
> makes no cultural assumptions.
> It cannot be brushed aside or ignored because it
> is a logical proof.
> So it must be accommodated. Unless . . .
>
> There are three ways to defeat it
>
> 1. Argue that the equations are wrong - difficult
> as the geometry has been checked by others
>
> 2. Dispute the results from solving the equations
> - no, this is straight mathematics, very
> verifiable.
>
> 3. Dispute Petrie's measurements at Giza - best go
> for this one, it has the most chance !
>
> There is one other way of course, and that is to
> ignore it or deny it - the human mind has a great
> ability to accommodate contradictions !

Unfortunately, I'm afraid that this still doesn't make any sense.

You seem to be trying to persuade people prove a negative, when the question should in fact be one of you proving a positive. If you can't provide a solid cultural justification, backed up with textual support, for the 45 degree angle and 2000 cubit measurement mentioned in your theory, then, as has been previously pointed out, I'm afraid that we have a situation no different from the examples of the Denderah lightbulb and the Abydos helicopter.

It also appears that you are still unable to decide whether you are, or are not, in favour of cultural support. As I said in a previous post, you can't be in favour of both (or you'd be in the position of the Red Queen, believing six impossible things before breakfast).

Furthermore, if, as you have claimed, you have a mathematical proof, then it ought to fit one of the categories on the Wikipedia link. As it is, I'm afraid, all that you've shown is that you can draw arbitrary lines in the sky, and then fit them to pyramids.

One important point to note, incidentally, is that the most important structures, as far as the AEs themselves were concerned, weren't the pyramids, but the mortuary temples.

[www.hallofmaat.com]

Quote

"Whilst it is common to emphasize the mortuary character of pyramids and to
see them primarily as tombs with temples ancillary to them, the way in which
they were in fact organized and referred to suggests that the emphasis
should be reversed, and they be regarded first and foremost as temples for
the royal statues with a royal tomb attached to each, which, acting as a
huge reliquary, gave enormous authority to what was, in essence, an ancestor
cult.." B.G.Trigger, B.J.Kemp, D.O'Connor, A.B.Lloyd, 'Ancient Egypt, A
Social History', 1998, p 85

So, referring to your previous point about "relevant structures", contemporary evidence tells us that these were not the pyramids.

Hermione
Director/Moderator - The Hall of Ma'at

Rules and Guidelines

hallofmaatforum@proton.me