Your premise, as stated, is entirely flawed (and in all likelihood, entirely false):

Quote

The diagrammatic derivation methods for the descending passages of the Red, Bent, and Khafre Pyramids, have been detailed by the author in separate essays. There it is explained that the designs of these three pyramids appear to each be based upon a diagrammatic 'squaring' of the circle, a squaring that is done both in terms of the circle's area and the circle's circumference. (emphasis added)

As a result, everything that follows from that premise is also most likely false.

Coincidences are not evidence. Finding more coincidences does not bolster the assertion that the first coincidence is now to be considered "evidence". Measurements, alignments, or correlations alone cannot prove anything of consequence regarding intent; only that the measurement itself was intended. The reason for the choice of the measurement, however, cannot be proven simply from measurements or correlations themselves.

According to the evidence we posses, the shape of the Egyptian pyramid (stepped or smooth) has nothing whatsoever to do with circles, spheres or any other round shape. To understand Egyptian pyramids, one must study the people who built them...not the latest version of Autocad.

Good luck with your studies.

Anthony

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.