Sirfiroth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Evidently you did not understand what I wrote in
> my opening post.

Jacob:

Perhaps "I" didn't explain myself clearly.

Yours
"...There is controversy about which is the design factor of G1, because it exhibits characteristics of both 22/7 and 14/11 seked. There is a logical explanation for the controversy that exists..."


There is absolutely "nobody" that "ever" measured G1 as 280 Rc high.
What you are dealing with is an angle extracted from the base casing stones only.

Take a width of 440 and a angle of 51.8 degrees (28:22 ratio) and the 280 is "derived".
But...climb to the apex at 263 cubits and you will measure a width of the platform as 19+ cubits. Now the calculations will total (263 + 12) Rc...or 275 Rc.
This being true then the actual slope of the structure is 275/220 = 5:4 ratio...as noted by Petrie and the Vyse/Perring team.

That being clarified then:
Your post:
...if you select the number 4 and divide by x and you make x equal 22 divided by 7 then 4/(22/7) = 28/22...
All that you are achieving is the manipulation of a 22/7/4 affiliation...by the law of mathematics...a controversy cannot exist.

What I think you are trying to say is...
A circle enclosed by a square of perimeter 4 will have a circumference of 22/7...AKA pi...that's factual.

But there is another added fact relating to the 28:22 (4/pi) association that is being overlooked.
The "only" numerical value where a circle's diameter equals its area is 4/pi.

D = 4/pi....A = 4/pi

That's what the builders wanted us to realize...the more complex geometric circle/square/linear/area association. And it is successfully illustrated using a single triangle built on a (7x4)/22 ratio...or...[14/11]...or 4/pi. Then they confirmed using the base angle of G2.


Best.
Clive