L Cooper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lobo,
>
> As I stated, it all depends on the context. if you
> multiply it out in a modern context - as you
> appear to have done - it will not work out.

Well then the circumference wouldn't have measured 28 units then.

> If you
> multiply it out within what may possibly have been
> the AE context - it will work out exactly.

"What may possibly have been?"

> 8 1/2 1/4 1/16 1/32 1/64 units multiplied by 4 and
> then by 8 times 8 (i.e., by 64) and then divided
> by 9 times 9 (ie, by 81) will equal 28.

Yep that would get you 28 alright. Now go measure the actual circle drawn and see that the 28 falls short of actual measurement. I asked for a circle with a circumference of 28, not work out an approximation of 28 using an approximation of Pi.

>A number
> of researchers (Neugebauer, for example) have
> suggested the possibility that the scribes knew of
> this method (ie, of C = 4Dx64/81). It is, of
> course, not proven that they did, but we are here
> only engaged in a little hypothetical exercise
> that has been presented by Sirfiroth - not in a
> strict documentation of AE capabilities.

Which is why I was using Pi to find the exact diameter needed. If I was using strict AE capabilities I wouldn't have used Pi.
Though 3 + 1/9 + 1/33 is closer then the above attempt(4/64/81). Of course Add 1/5602 to the preceeding will get you an error of 2.26 inches on the Earth's circumference from true Pi.

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