Anthony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MJ Thomas Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > > Why would the Pyramid's designer not have
> > incorporated seked 5 1/4 (the AE equivalent
> of a
> > 3:4:5 triangle?) in a pyramid's chamber?
> >
>
>
> Absurd question. No different than "Why wouldn't
> they incorporate the price of a gallon of milk in
> 2007 in the pyramid?"
>
> You, or anyone arguing they did it intentionally,
> must demonstrate why they would have done so.
> Just saying they did is completely irrelevant.

As I see it, there are three scenarios here.
1) The AEs of the 4th Dyn. did not know what we refer to as the Pythagoras Theorem.
2) The AEs of the 4th Dyn. did know what we refer to as the Pythagoras Theorem but did not intentionally incorporate it in the King’s Chamber (as a 3:4:5 triangle).
3) The AEs of the 4th Dyn. did know what we refer to as the Pythagoras Theorem and did intentionally incorporate it in the King’s Chamber (as a 3:4:5 triangle).

However, I am labouring under the impression that yourself and others are arguing that not only did the 4th Dyn AEs not know the Pythagoras Theorem, but also that even if they did know it they would not have incorporated it in the design of a king’s burial chamber.
In which case I have to ask: why wouldn’t they have incorporated it in a king’s burial chamber?


You wrote:
> > > This "triangle" doesn't actually appear
> at
> > all.
> > > It is created by modern people
> selecting
> > various
> > > dimensions of a structure and then
> imagining
> > that
> > > they form a triangle.

To which I replied:
> > I see the actual appearance of this triangle
> in
> > the KC as currently unprovable because of the
> 2"
> > or so tilt in the Chamber floor.

You respond:
> No, MJT. The triangle does not exist because it
> only has two sides! That, by definition, is not a
> triangle!

Actually it only has one side – the corners where the walls meet – but it doesn’t really matter.


> I'm not the one doing the AE mindreading act here,
> pretending I KNOW that they saw the third side of
> a triangle that simply did not exist.

I don’t see anybody doing that here, Anthony.
I thought we are here to consider the phenomenon from every view point we can.
Not dismiss it simply because it isn’t mentioned in any of the handful of Mathematical Papyri.


> If it was so bloody important, why not draw one
> single stupid picture of it in all of 3000 years
> of Egyptian history???????
>
> Obvious answer: IT WASN'T IMPORTANT.

But why did it have to be important, Anthony?

Yet again I remind you that no two 4th Dyn pyramid interiors are the same – which suggests to me that none of the arithmetic and geometry employed in the designing of these interiors was particularly important anyway.


> There is no further discussion unless you discover
> and present evidence of intent. Sorry. That's
> just reality.

There’s precious little evidence of any intent for anything beyond: the AEs intended to build the pyramids.
Rather limits discussions on the pyramids, doesn’t it…
Unless one is prepared to loosen up a bit and ask: Well, what if …
MJ