Hi lobo,
lobo-hotei wrote:
IF people would use what is proven to have existed then there would probably be no mysteries or flood of "theories" either.
You and I both know there is no physical evidence that actually proves the AE even built Giza and Dashur!
lobo-hotei wrote:
The one throwing up new ideas has to prove it positive not others proving it negative.
It is only good scientific practice to present enough evidence to prove a point, It is also good scientific practice, a researchers responsibility to give the evidence presented a fair review, not offhandedly dismiss the evidence because it does not reflect our own world view.
lobo-hotei wrote:
Again you would have to prove those were derived from the G1 seked.
What about those pyramid(s) using the same exact seked prior to G1? Did they look into the future or was the seked chosen for G1 just part of the list of choices for construction?
I do not limit the design factors of the main pyramids at Giza and Dashur, however they do provide adequate sampling of the structures providing the following mathematical extrapolations.
1. 44/63 = (44/7 / 9) (2pi/9)
2. 21 * 22 = (22/7 / 3) (pi/3)
3. 140/99 = rational square root 2
4. 99/70 = rational square root 2
Starting with 8/9 of RMP the ratios between the seked of the main pyramids of Giza and Dashur.
RMP 8/9 / 44/63 = (14/11 = G1 Seked)
14/11 / 21 * 22 = (4/3 = G2 seked)
4/3 / 140/99 = (33/35 Red and upper Bent Pyramid seked)
33/35 / 2/3 = (99/70 = lower Bent seked)
Height and Base ratios reflect the same extrapolations i.e.
Height to height ratio between G1 and Red 140/99 (G1 280 : Red 198)
Base to base ratio between Red and G1 21:22 (Red 420 : G1 440)
Is it good scientific practice to ignore these structurally demonstrated known mathematical ratios relating to the size and seked of the pyramids? Investigating these mathematical elements requires effort, to chalk them up to coincidence requires no effort.
lobo-hotei wrote:
Our formula for the Area of a circle has Pi in the formula(pir^2) while AE formula(8/9D ^2) does not.
A moot argument, since the 14/11 seked of the much older Pyramid G1 demonstrates a value much closer to Pi than the demonstrated solution of the later dated RMP.
Regards,
Jacob
