Yours "You are taking something which already exists & then looking for a mathematical reason, a geometric proof that will expain everything away."
Mine : yes that is fair comment
Yours : "If your theory was correct, you'd have the formulae from AE & then go around applying it until you found the monuments/sites that fit. Instead you are taking the monuments and playing with math until you get something that more or less fits."
Mine : It does not more or less fit, it exactly fits. Not sure about the meaning of your comment on AE
Yours "And I get the feeling that if the Queen's pyramids didn't fit the theory, they'd be tossed out and various mastabas, temples & walls would be employed instead."
Mine : Where on earth do you get your feeling ? It's without substantiation.
Yours : "This is why you can't divorce culture from science when dealing with a sacred site. If you know nothing about a people, their culture & beliefs, you can too easily fall int the trap of assuming tht they were just like us & believed the same things, and that the same things mattered to them that matter to us. This is a very dangerous path to take--it will lead you into all sorts of unsupported fantasy."
Mine : You havn't shown 'why' anything. Giza was laid down by people who were skilled at building in stone, from a plan, which they followed. They were skilled in geometry and translating it into stone. We have tried to discover the plan from the physical evidence of what was built.
Graham Chase