Khazar-khum Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Would you prefer we use radians?

There's a problem with radians Khazar...the concept is good but it doesn't work that well.

To demonstrate pi degrees or even twice its value would be too small an angle to claim it part of an intentional design.
To factor/multiply a number/angle by ten, as demonstrated, makes it easier to detect.
A system should be used that falls within the central part of the structure. That's why the 100/pi and the 20 times pi is ideal.
If you use radians (57.30 degrees per radian)...then you are automatically working with divisions of pi...that's not practical. The fractions you would be working with are too cumbersome. The circle of 360 is operational friendly, the best overall, since it is divisible by the numbers 1 thru 9, excluding the number 7.

There is one other factor...the structure has two designs. The one shown is derived from the base casing stone measures. The structure, as viewed today, (275 high) provides more accurate measures.
Also they elected to use another system, along the same concept as you propose but a smaller angle than the 57.3 degrees.

Best.
Clive