Dave L Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Don't assume that they applied the same
> design
> > rules in every case.
> >>Who said anything about same design
> rules?" I asked what they represented with the
> other two?
>
> Me: You did: "So what do the other two pyramids'
> "perimeter divided by the height" tell us they
> knew"
Well three dimensional objects have perimeters and height. Those aren't design rules. Design rules would be square based vs. triangular based vs. cube vs. sphere shaped or 2 rooms with bathroom vs. 5 bedrooms with 3 baths.
> >If one-offs, then how do you know they were
> purposeful inclusions in the design?
> Me: Not one offs, but applied in different
> contexts in different ways at different times.
So....one-offs. If it wasn't repeated the same way in, lets say 3-4 pyramids, then how can you prove any one "application" was purposeful vs. accidental?
> >And why repeat "old news"(i.e same 5.5 seked)
> from previous billboard displays in a new pyramid
> fit for a Pharoah?
> Me: I think they were trying to reach the best
> combination of factors. Once they had done that
> they wanted to try something slightly different
> after G1/.
What you think they were doing isn't as important as what you can prove they were doing.
> > The cultural context suggests each pyramid
> was an
> > original new expression of traditional forms.
>
> >>What evidence suggests that the Pharoah's
> tomb was a depository of mathematical knowledge?
> Me: It wasn't. But they used mathematics to apply
> the desired symbolic proportions.
Yes they used mathematics.(period) The application of desired symbolic proportions has yet to be proven as dictating the dimensions.
> > G2 has a section that is a 3-4-5 triangle, G3
> may
> > be the same as G1, but the final dimensions
> are
> > uncertain.
> G2 has a section that is (5 + 1/4)-7-(8 + 3/4)
> according to their ways and you interpret it as a
> 3-4-5 triangle.
> Me: Their way was to consider the base and height
> dimensions and then work out a Seked from it,
> going by the Rhind papyrus.
Really? New one on me. Where can I find this evidence, not personal belief?
> >>A circle has an inherent Pi inclusion,
> that you can find if you want it there, but you
> need to prove the person drawing a circle on the
> beach meant to show that relation and not simply
> had drawn an interpretation of the moon/sun.
>
> Me: You need to understand what teh symbolism
> meant to realise why they included it. Hopefully
> my forthcoming publication will finally make the
> facts quite clear.
First you have to have evidence they did include it.
A + B = C
Find for A.
Find for B.
Find for C.
You only assume they started with base and height. All that problem shows is someone finding"B".
Regards,
Lobo-hotei
lobo
Treat the earth well, It was not given to you by your parents, It was loaned to you by your children.
Native American Proverb