> MJ Thomas Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> Clive, unless and until you take the trouble to
> explain step-by-step how the architect got from a
> ‘blank page’ to the dimensions you claim

How do you think they designed these structures...with a wet thumb stuck in the air and a whim of fancy to boot?

They had a grandiose concept of putting together an assembly of what they had learned and in their wisdom they decided that every aspect of the structure would be related to something, be it math, astronomy or the sciences. There is no set format, but if you had applied your knowledge to the Kc and its passages and Antechamber without knowing the length of the Rc then you would have realized these square root values 30 years ago. You didn't...I didn't and neither did any other individual. The reason? We assumed all is in Rc measure and it isn't.
You, as a mathematician, should also realize that ratios overrule actual numerical values and the Kc is set out using ratios of squares, circles and triangles. But, if you actually place the AE's intelligence level lower than that then I am sorry, you are never going to see much more out of Giza.


> > who said they planned the Kc and Antechamber assembly to
> > demonstrate simple math ratios?
>
> You did.
> You are the one who describes square roots as
> simple maths ratios.

Stop there MJ...
Now read my words.
I never "ever" told you that the Kc was constructed to demonstrate simple math ratios. It's there to demonstrate one heck of a lot more.
But here we are once again. I show you the grade two material and you claim me convoluting…it never fails.

> You are the one who has presented a series of
> drawings and calculations that you believe prove
> your contention that these square roots were used
> in the designing of the King's Chamber,
> Antechamber, etc.

You are missing it completely MJ:

This was a golden opportunity for them to demonstrate what they knew…they “didn’t” miss it!
Why do you think glyphs are absent from the interior?
Why do you think they made it easy for invaders to break into the chambers?
They knew we would destroy while looking for the obvious...treasures!
They fooled us...nothing there but intelligence, and an abundance of it.

> You do not appear to me to have given in your
> posts to date any examples of this “large amount
> of knowledge that others have yet to realize.” –
> unless, of course, you are referring to your
> diagrams concerning the square roots of certain
> numbers.

MJ…you are playing a broken record again.
I have enough to keep you busy for the rest of your life...believe me.


> > You asked me to prove it...

> Which to date you haven’t; but, then, no
> hypothesis on how a pyramid and its interior was
> designed can be proven without the original
> plans.

Wow !!!
Who informed you that one?
If you apply the above concept to Egyptology then the institute will close instantly...throw out those books why don’t you?

> Layering a collection of lines and circles over
> the plan of an existing structure without
> explaining the sequence involved is not, IMO,
> evidence of intent.

It is also evident or very obvious that you are not an architect, designer or builder…never have…never will be.

> I don’t have the time or the inclination to deal
> with your constant prevarications, Clive.

Told you once before...that's a strong word.

> Show me how, in your opinion, the architect got
> from a ‘blank page’ to the plans and elevations
> you believe intentionally contain the square roots
> of certain numbers.

You are repeating yourself...see above.

> My arguing that the planning of the pyramids did
> not necessarily involve sophisticated mathematics
> and advanced geodesic and astronomic knowledge
> does not mean that I think that the AEs were a
> bunch of simian simpletons.

Then what does your argument indicate, that they were intelligent but elected to use crude implements?
The math I have introduced you to is not sophisticated and, as you have stated, is simple to derive from squares. And the astronomy I present is no more than the days and degrees for planets to orbit the Sun, and that is as easy to calculate as square root values…simple counting of days compared to star locations. Please…don’t deny the AE that one.

> Clive, it is folks such as
> yourself who actually belittle these ancient
> peoples by refusing to credit them with the wit
> and intelligence to achieve what they did using
> only the most basic of mathematical skills and
> building technology.

You do not construct Giza-style pyramids using basic math and building skills. Modern engineering will verify that fact in a flash.

> Do you not find it frustrating that to date you
> appear to be the only person alive who is able to
> read this “book of knowledge”?

Read the life-story of Champollion. I chuckle sometimes over the similarity of circumstance.

> If you explain step-by-step how the architect got
> from a ‘blank page’ to the King's Chamber and
> Antechamber, etc., square root based dimensions
> you claim were intended, then perhaps we can get
> somewhere.

There was this king named Sneferu who…."had a dream" !

Best.
Clive