Hermione Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ogygos Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > We know how the height of the GP encodes pi.
> But
> > do we?
>
> For the first - and, I suspect, the only - time,
> Ogygos, I find myself in absolute agreement with
> you ...
>
> > The height is supposed to be 280
>
> ... and the side is supposed to be 440. But 440
> divided by 280 doesn't equal 22/7; it's 11/7. To
> get 22/7, you would have to divide the height by
> the length of two of the sides ; and why on earth
> would the AE (or anyone) do that to show that they
> knew about pi? Or you could divide the height by
> the length of four of the sides and get 44/7, or 2
> x pi ... but why on earth would the AE (or anyone)
> do that? As a method of letting on that, although
> you haven't actually constructed any significant
> circular architecture or made any recognizable
> reference to the formula anywhere, you really did
> know about pi all the time, the concept of using
> the dimensions of a square and four triangles to
> supposedly incorporate divisions or multiples of
> the said formula is really a trifle clumsy, to say
> the least ...

Hello Hermione,

The point is that the height of the Pyramid (280rcs) is seen as the radius of a circle, and the perimeter of the Pyramid's base (1,760rcs) is seen as the circumference of that circle.

Therefore it is quite correct to say that pi as 3 1/7 or 22/7 appears in the Pyramid's superstructure.

If the appearance of pi as 3 1/7 or 22/7 in the Pyramid's superstructure is intentional, then a reason for the height being seen as the radius of a circle becomes clear.
280rcs seen as a diameter instead of a radius would produce an impossibly steep and much smaller pyramid (280rcs rise to 110rcs run = 68.6 degrees).

MJ



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/13/2008 06:40PM by MJ Thomas.