Hi lobo,

lobo-hotei Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Trust me when I say I have seen many number
> crunching episodes with all kind of numbers from
> the Giza 3. This is the only ratio that works with
> your formula. This formula isn't exact but close.

Where is it written it must work with other seked? Each of the Pyramids are different in some aspect, each is a one-off designed with the ratios that work with other components of a complete system. If it would work with all of the pyramids then there would be no mystery or conglomeration of theories would there?

>
> And? If any two pyramids use the same seked then
> they will all do this. Seked 5 will give you two
> pyramids with an appropriate ratio.

What would it mean if the relationship ratios, as above, were possible with pyramids of different seked?

>
> Unless you can prove intentional purpose, yes.
> Read Jon's newest post. There might be meaningful
> numbers that they wanted to use but I don't see
> the square root of the perimeter X 176 as a
> special number. It was chosen but the above
> reason(i.e. sqrt of a perimeter) hasn't been
> proven.

And it cannot be disproved with current knowledge, but remains a tough one; no matter how many calculations, pure mathematics theory can always be chalked up to coincidence.

> So the cubit remained fairly constant. And? Many
> buildings today have a constant foot(my area of
> living) measurement.
> You probably just made Don's whole week with that
>RC value.

Not close enough to phi for Don I am afraid.


> There is loads of that stuff just waiting for hard
> evidence to prove/disprove the idea/theory.What
> about all the pyramids that didn't use that
> "seked"?

They all use a formula based on and derived from 8/9 and what about the pyramids whose seked were logically derived from the seked of G1 by exact mathematical extrapolation?


> > In reality there
> > is no cultural evidence to indicate the AE
> were
> > even cognizant of pi, but seked ratios are
> > cultural evidence so the only thing left to
> prove
> > is methods of application.
>
> Which I haven't seen sekeds done in any examples
> from that time period. Like i said it is an easy
> way to convert but I don't see this formula being
> used by construction crews.

Not by construction crews, but by astrologers and astronomers and for Geodetic applications.

Sorry, I was in too much of a hurry and did not word that question correctly, it should read: Calculate the surface area of a circle from the surface area of a cube with the same perimeter as the spheres circumference.
Then I will reveal how simply the AE accomplished this feat with a seked ratios.

> S*S*6 =
Now show me your interpretation of how the AE could have accomplished this.
Surface area of a sphere from the surface area of a cube

7 * 7 * 6 / (33/28) = 249 5/11 verify 249 5/11 / 4 /(14/11) = 7 * 7
11* 11 * 6 / (33/28) = 616 verify 616 / 4 / (14/11) = 11 * 11

> > lobo-hotei wrote: eliminate a need for "Pi"
> in the
> > formula.
> > I do not believe the AE had a need to
> eliminate
> > pi, just circumvent it for simplicity!
>
> Eliminate, circumvent either way it's not in the
> formula right?

you cannot eliminate it as it is inherent within the formula as the square root of 2 is to the square.

Regards,
Jacob