Anthony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since you don't want to answer the serious
> questions, I see no point in beating you over the
> head with them.

The pertinent (in preference to the more subjective ‘serious’) questions here are:
Were the 4th Dyn. Egyptians aware of the diameter-to-circumference ratio?
If they were aware of it, then did they know it as 22/7 (or the equiv. of – e.g. 3 1/7)?

In both cases the answer is: we don’t really know.

So, let’s change the questions to:
Could the 4th Dyn. Egyptians have been aware of the diameter-to-circumference ratio?
If they could have been aware of it, then could they have known it as 22/7 (or equiv. of)?

In both cases the answer is a resounding yes.


> You can poo-poo proper methodology all you want,
> but until you adhere to it (and suffer the
> consequences thereof) you are contributing nothing
> of value to historical research. I can't change
> that. It's not about opinion. There is an ideal
> to which you could aspire, but instead you appear
> to be seeking acceptance from the lowest common
> denominator.

Oh dear, yet more disparaging remarks and pointless rhetoric.
What you are not grasping here, Anthony, is that your strict adherence to the ‘Scientific Method’ and constantly falling back on what you consider to be logical is simply not suited to Egyptology – particularly a period about which comparatively little is known.
And your constantly refusing to look beyond what a handful of variously translated texts and images - most from times post-dating Khufu - tell you (and you choose to accept because they fit in with what you already rigidly think) doesn’t help things along either.
You really do need to put aside your preconceived notions and entrenched views and look again, but more closely this time, at what little evidence is available to us.
And your taking into full and serious consideration works by, for example, David Lightbody and Chris Tedder would probably help you understand the situation better than you do.

Actually, it wouldn’t do you any harm to accept the use of multiplication and division by 22/7 (or equiv. of) in the fine planning of Khufu’s pyramid and then to look into the question of why it was used.
You could quite easily do this, but – there’s always a but - it does require you to first drop your preconceived idea that 22/7 had anything to do with the diameter-to-circumference ratio – which, broadly speaking, is what I had to do to get started on my hypothesis about the, um, fine planning of the Pyramid (oh, how I hesitate these days when writing what my hypothesis is about )

No doubt you will jump on this with shouts of glee about my starting my hypothesis with an assumption, and this being a sin against God and the Universe, etc., etc., and so on, and so on, ad nauseam.
Well, once you’ve done that and calmed down, Anthony, stop and ask yourself this:
Does this recurring use of 22/7 (or equiv. of) in the fine planning of Khufu’s pyramid actually have anything at all to do with pi?
Let’s face it, Anthony, we all do it, including me; if anybody mentions 22/7 or 3 1/7, then immediately our minds home in and lock on pi.

This should help explain why I’m currently constantly wavering between a) the 4th Dyn. Egyptians knew pi as 22/7 (or equiv. of) and used it extensively in the fine planning of Khufu’s pyramid and its interior and b) the 4th Dyn. Egyptians used 22/7 (or equiv. of) extensively in the fine planning of Khufu’s pyramid and its interior but the number had no connection with the diameter-to-circumference ratio we know as pi.

Anyway, the overall point is that we cannot dismiss reasonably the appearance of 22/7 (or equiv. of) in Khufu’s Pyramid as nothing more than a coincidence on the grounds that there is no evidence that the AEs knew the diameter-to-circumference ratio, and, if they did know it, they wouldn’t have used it in their architecture - or whatever.
I can demonstrate – and shall in due course - that multiplication and division by 22/7 (or equiv. of) could have been used extensively in the precise planning of Khufu’s pyramid and its passages and chambers and their various features.
My hypothesis (odd thought - can I properly call it a theory?) is that it was.
Question is: why 22/7 (or equiv. of)?

So, Anthony, are you going to continue seeing 22/7 as pi and carry on doing nothing more than making derogatory remarks and issuing forth pointless rhetoric every time the Pyramid and pi subject comes up, or will you now consider what I have written here and review the whole subject matter in a methodical manner?

MJ