MJ Thomas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Could these people have achieved what they did
> only using maths up to the levels we see in the
> Mathematical Papyri (Rhind , Moscow et al)...
> I find the answer to be a resounding yes.

That's a given MJ.
To cut, shape and position stones requires the tools and labor for cutting, measuring and positioning...that's all...no contest.

But it is the planning of quantity, location/placement and sizing of these stones that tells the story.
IOW...the "design" of the site overrules the process of assembly...and it's the design that includes ratios indicating knowledge of the diameter to circumference association.

> I am waiting for somebody to come up with
> unequivocal evidence of 4th into 5th Dyn Egyptian
> architecture that could not have been designed
> without maths skills beyond the Rhind papyrus,
> etc., and therefore without knowledge of
> irrational pi, Phi, Pythagorus, etc.

Keep Pythagoras out of it...not relevant...born 2000 years after the fact.
As for phi...I have no idea why people, such as yourself, keep introducing this ratio...never did...never will like the concept.

Here is the problem...
First:
It is a fact that you do not know if there is/was a design, therefore your personal statement is meaningless. And that being true, then whatever you do claim, with regards to the site, is no more than an assumption on your behalf...that’s simple logic. Again...no contest.

Second:
When you are shown multiple examples of the same ratio it is up to you to prove it coincidental...because...the ratio is factual and cannot be altered. That's why these structures are so big and made of stone...they knew it is human to be lazy. There was never anything inside and they didn’t want anything destroyed. What you see is what you get.
But...given the chance, we would destroy them completely. Visit Meroe, Sudan and see what we are capable of doing to smaller pyramids.

Best.
Clive