Anthony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I
> provided the exact quotes where he said the maths
> drove the design... not that they were a product
> of the design.
You provided quotes ... but they didn't really say what you said they said.
> Here's what he called his mathematical conjecture:
> "My hypothesis on how the Pyramid was designed".
>
> Or, as he described it in another post:
>
Quote:I have yet to finish writing my theory ...
> on how Khufu's pyramid and its passages and
> chambers were designed
>
> That's not what I thought. It's not my
> interpretation. That's what he wrote. He
> specifically used the word "design" on multiple
> occasions.
Yes, but by "design", I think MJT actually means "method" ... not "motivation, reason for" (which I think is what
you mean by "design").
> Please reread what I've posted under
> the "proof" post as there are numerous examples
> demonstrating these facts. There is no doubt
> about his words, or their meaning.
(That's this one: [
www.hallofmaat.com]). You provide various quotes from MJT in which he argues that his analysis demonstrates that various dimensions inside the GP appear to follow a rational sequence. Applied to other dimensions within the GP, this rational sequence would seem to show,
inter alia, that the QC shafts don't go to the outside of the GP. On this basis, therefore, MJT believes your theory is wrong. He also disputes your view of AE cosmology, etc. There are also many other points of disagreement with your views on the GP, including the purpose of Khufu's chamber, whether there is another undiscovered chamber within the GP, etc. etc.
In various other posts, he said the following:
MJT:
I have - entirely unexpectedly, I assure you - found what appears to be the methods (maths-based) Khufu's architect used to establish the size of the Pyramid and the sizes and shapes its passages and chambers and their various features.
I remind you that I hold the view that the general layout was probably based on religious and traditional factors combined with the king's personal wants.
(Hermione) You see, this isn't saying that the GP was designed
solely in accordance with a sequence of ratios and measures, is it ??
But, notwithstanding this, you say:
AS:
No, your hypothesis is that the maths dictated the dimensions the priests selected, and by examining those maths one can divine the true intent of the builders.
MJT:
Let me try again; what I am saying is that maths was used in the planning of the Pyramid in the manner of, for example, the length of the KC was made equal to the width multiplied by 2; the height of the KC doorway was made the height of the KC walls divided by 5; the vertical distance between the base of the Pyramid and the Scored Line was made equal to the horizontal distance between the apex and a side at the base divided by 10; and so on and so forth.
If this is maths driving the design, then I'm a dutchman.
I'm astonished that you cannot see that from this very simple application of basic arithmetic and rectilineal geometry it is possible to work out the sequence of the designing of the Pyramid's passages and chambers.
(And again):
MJT:
For the record, I do not assume "that maths were the driving motivational force behind the design elements we find in the pyramid,"
This is purely Anthony's persistent misinterpretation of what I am actually hypothesising.
I do not believe or even suggest that "we can divine the true meaning of the design by simply crunching numbers again and again until we find (or create) a pattern."
What I do believe is that in knowing how Khufu's architect went about designing the Pyramid's passages and chambers we can gain a better or wider understanding of the thinking behind it.
For example - and a very simple one at that - in my hypothesis the King's Chamber was designed first, and therefore adds weight to the view that this Chamber was the Pyramid's single most important internal feature.
I do not argue or even suggest that maths influenced directly the design of the Pyramid* and its interior - the overall design being down to religious and traditional needs, no doubt with a few suggestions from the king thrown in to the mix (IMO this is particularly true until standardisation crept in).
***
From this, it is clear that MJT's present position is that he is
not arguing that "maths drove the design of the GP". He seems to be suggesting that his work can throw some insight on the sequence in which the various structures and measurements were implemented. The
conclusions to which this line of thinking leads him are diametrically opposed to your own, of course, but that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Whether it's possible to (or whether there's even any point in trying to) reconcile the two opposing theories, I don't know. For all sorts of reasons, MJT's theories might be wrong, while yours might be right; or vice versa; or perhaps neither theory is right, and still others will come along to replace them.
Anyway ... "throws some insight on", but not "drive".
Hermione
Director/Moderator - The Hall of Ma'at
Rules and Guidelines
hallofmaatforum@proton.me