Clive Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

It is the design element that I have in mind, Clive; and the onus is on you to show that the appearances of said ratios in the designing are intentional and not coincidental.


> > 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.

I mention pi, Phi and Pythagoras merely as examples of the knowledge the Pyramid Builders need not necessarily have possessed to achieve what they did.


> 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....'

I'm not sure what you are referring to here.
If you are thinking in terms of a pyramid and its passages and chambers, then obviously deliberate designing was involved - try creating a pyramid with passages and chambers without plans...
But if you are referring to an overall plan/diagram in the layout of the Giza pyramids, then nobody (and that includes you, Clive) knows for a fact whether or not such a plan was ever intended.


> 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.

Of course it is an assumption, Clive, just as almost anything you or anybody else claims about the site is an assumption.
Without contemporary textual evidence assumptions are all we can make - though some assumptions are seen as more sound than others.


> 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.

No, Clive, this is where you keep going wrong.
It is for you to show how the repeated appearance of a ratio in the dimensions of a structure was (or at least could have been?) intended and is not simply the by-product of a different design technique.
Assuming I understand your work correctly, you have some of your ratios appearing between two completely separate parts of the Pyramid and its passages and chambers.
My thinking on this is that if the appearance of the ratio (whatever it may be) was intentional, then it is perfectly reasonable to expect there to be a fairly logical sequence in the use of it in the designing or planning of the structure.
For example, I would consider it more likely for the dimensions of the Niche in the Queen's Chamber to be somehow derived from the dimensions of the Queen's Chamber itself than, say, the length of the roof of the Grand Gallery.


> 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.

The idea that Khufu's pyramid - or, indeed any pyramid - has mathematical/geodesical/astronomical knowledge intentionally incorporated and or encoded in its dimensions for use by a future generation is something I find rather ludicrous.
This is mainly because it is always far from clear which and whose future generation was supposed to benefit from this 'secret' knowledge.
Are we really to believe that Khufu's architect knew that some four-and-a-half thousand years after his time people from outside Egypt would start turning up at the edifice, equipped with sophisticated surveying equipment and set about discovering his people's 'secret' knowledge of the Heavens, etc.?


> But...given the chance, we would destroy them
> completely. Visit Meroe, Sudan and see what we are
> capable of doing to smaller pyramids.

But, Clive, we humans have had some four-and-a-half thousand years in which destroy the pyramids at Giza and elsewhere.
If we wanted to destroy them, then don't you think we would have done so by now?

MJ