Hi C Wayne,

> I can understand why you might think that is true.
> If you look more closely, however, I think you
> will find that the results do not seem to fit
> random results. Take G1c as an example. There
> are 15 arcs that pass through this pyramid. Of
> these 15, 5 (33 percent) pass within 1 meter of a
> corner or the center. The total area of the five
> "targets" is 15.7 square meters. The total area of
> the base is 2,070 square meters. The targets,
> therefore, are .759 percent of the total area.
> Multiply this by 15 and you get 11.4 percent. As
> you can see, the actual "hits" are almost three
> times the expected number. The actual ratio will
> be a bit less due to the possibility of multiple
> hits from a single arc. (I think my analysis is
> sound.)
>
> If this were an isolated case, one could
> reasonably think that it was unusual but not
> necessarily compelling evidence. Given that the
> method also establishes the location and size of
> G2 and G3 in only three steps each and also works
> for G3a, I believe the method should not be
> dismissed. (I need to check my work before
> posting G3c, then start on G3b.)

Well, could you produce a diagram just showing a main pyramid with four (or
five - if you include the one and a quarter base length radius) circles from
each of your sixteen (or seventeen - if you include the apex) points?

I have a feeling it might look rather like a spider's web, though ...

Hermione
Director/Moderator - The Hall of Ma'at

Rules and Guidelines

hallofmaatforum@proton.me