Anthony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The proof of a coincidence being intentional is
> not the further layering of more coincidences.
> The trio of you, and the thousands of others
> before you, have proven nothing more than your
> ability to superimpose your beliefs about geometry
> onto an unrelated set of structures built by a
> people with no demonstrated interest in what you
> happen to find fascinating.

But, Anthony, even you must accept that, broadly speaking, if the same arithmetic/geometry based pattern occurs over and over again in a single structure, then in all probability one is looking at intent not coincidence.
However, these arithmetic/geometry patterns must, IMO, be consistent with what is known about the people/culture that built the structure.
In my experience, most, if not all, of what is proposed by Graham, Chris, Dave, and many others is consistent with what is known about the people/culture involved.
When it comes to arithmetic and geometry there are two main pieces of hard evidence, the actual measurements found in and between the structure/s and the Egyptian Mathematical Papyri (EMP).
Then there’s such things as the circumstantial evidence for the 4th Dyn Egyptians knowing the ratio of diameter-to-circumference as 22/7 or its equivalent.*

Other than the, how shall I say, imaginative analyses of the actual measurements of certain 4th Dyn structures made by, amongst others, Clive and Don, there is no evidence for astronomical, mathematical (beyond the most basics – which can include square roots and pi), and geodesic data being incorporated or encoded in AE pyramids, etc.
In fact there is no substantive evidence of the AEs knowing much at all about astronomy, the solar system, geography and geodesy (outside of their own physical world), and mathematics (beyond what we see in the EMP).

However, one thing is certain: the AEs used, at the very least, basic arithmetic and rectilinear geometry in the planning of their pyramids and temples.
IMO, you fail to consider that whoever was doing the planning would, in all probability, have been very methodical in his/their approach to it, and a maths-based pattern would thus be employed (with allowances for structural requirements).
From the differences in the actual structures’ interiors we can see that the method of planning probably varied from pyramid to pyramid.
Now, was the maths-based method of planning employed meant to do anything beyond that of giving a result aesthetically pleasing to the architect, king, or whoever?
IMO, this is where knowledge of the people/culture behind the structures comes into play.

Your approach, Anthony, is wrong.
You look at the people/culture through the images from their tombs and translations – often questioned - of a comparative few texts (most from after the time of Giza), see no real evidence of an interest in maths-based patterns and conclude that therefore maths-based patterns were not used in the planning of the pyramids, etc.
By ignoring the mathematical evidence you potentially undermine any theories you have about the pyramids, etc.
You also, IMO, make the grave mistake of lumping all maths-based theories on the pyramids in the same category, i.e. Pyramidology.


You wrote, “When one is a serious researcher, it's hard to move on from evidence-based theory and facts into a land of speculation and wishful thinking.”

It is not me to speak for, to use your own words, “the trio of you [Dave, Graham, Chris] and the thousands of others before you”, but I consider it insulting of you to imply (taken in the context of this thread and your comments throughout it) that anybody who has worked, or is working, on a maths-based theory about the pyramids is not a serious researcher and is given to flights of fancy.

Essentially, your not seeing – or being unable to see? - anything intentional in any of the various geometric patterns at Giza and elsewhere, and or the maths-based patterns in the dimensions of the pyramids, means precious little to any pyramids researcher - serious or otherwise.

Here’s a test for you, Anthony.
Measure every dimension – no matter how large or small – of your bathroom and see how many times you can reproduce them through mostly (approx. 80% is needed) multiplication and division by 22/7 in a clear, logical sequence; you can choose your own starting point.
Better still, do the same thing with three rooms and at least two corridors/hallways in your house.
In this way you can put flesh on the bones of your statement: “The proof of a coincidence being intentional is not the further layering of more coincidences.”
I should mention that I am assuming that the architect of your bathroom/house was not a descendent of Khufu’s architect and liked the idea of using 22/7 (or its equivalent) in his calculations of the measurements.

MJ

*I have a copy of but have yet to read Dave L's paper on this

We can't all be right, but we could all be wrong ...