Sirfiroth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Logic would dictate if the AE were aware of pi
> there would be no need to reference a square to
> calculate the area of a circle as in RMP 50 and
> MMP10.

Jacob:
RMP 50 is no more than a quick approximation of circular area to square area as 8/9...it does not signify or dictate that the AE were unaware of the pi ratio.

4/pi at Giza was selected for several reasons and the most obvious is the "area" of a circle is "numerically" equal to its "diameter"...but only when the diameter is 4/pi...no other value works.
Next is your circle to square area ratio or the RMP50 of 8/9 ratio...but this is linear ...not area. If you invert this ratio it equals 1.125...now square the ratio to get 1.265...remembering the 4/pi ratio equals 1.273 then we see some similarity...an error of 0.65%...not good enough for many, therefore the AE did not understand the pi ratio.

Well...the designers of Giza actually knew the true value and that is...pi/4...same ratio as I used for the first example above...!

A circle of pi units in area has a square boundary consisting of 4 units in area....or a pi/4 ratio.
Since this is true then the linear (not area) ratio would equal the sqrt pi/4 = 0.8862...the correct value to four decimal places.

Back to RMP...8/9 = 0.8888...check with above of 0.8862 and the actual error from perfect is 0.3%....not the 0.6% as many believe...that not bad for a quick calculation of circular area...something like us using 22/7 for pi...close but not perfect. But if we use 22/7 does that mean we do not understand the concept of the diameter to circumference ratio?
Problem is...Egyptologists believe this to be the prime example of AE's knowledge for the pi ratio...they couldn't be further from the truth.

The variety of math demonstrated in the RMP lacks the requirements for designing the Giza site; it is no more than an assembly of math examples probably used for teaching purposes. To assume it being the pinnacle of learning at the time of it's creation is folly at its best.

BTW...study RMP's cone/sphere comparisons of volume and you will see perfection, don't know why, but they overlook the complicated calculations.

Best.
Clive