>>Well, within .02% anyway. Which is about the same error of margin that you used yes? <<
The error in your calculation is not 0.02% it is 1%. This is too large for any correlation at Giza.
>>So I calim the square root of 2 was important to their pyramid design. <<
If there was an accurate match and you could also prove that other Giza pyramid placement angles – or slopes encode other square roots like 3 , 5 etc, them your theory could start to look good.
>>However, on the more serious side, by applying a few tricks of mathematics virtually any two numbers can be made to appear related in very short order. There are quite a few mathematical coincidence sites online.<<
Yes there is no mathematics in my correlations. You just look at the sky at a certain time at a certain place. If important stars when they are at their highest position or on the horizon – rising or sinking could relate to the same direction of a pyramid as seen from a pyramid of reference – either the most central(Kafre) or the grandest(Khufu). Or their angle (altitude) up could match the slope of a pyramid or a shaft etc. No arbitrary arithmetic necessary. It is an astronomic(star) correlation not a mathematical one. But simple geometry is part of astronomy – you cannot have astronomy without geometry.
>>In addition, here's a tricky question. If you pick any point on earth and extend the line into the sky, you will a) hit a star, and b) hit a different star 26 weeks later (to the day and minute) that is, essentially, diametrically opposed to the first star.<<
If you mean extend it from the center of the Earth up , you are right. But when you have the whole sky, what’s also important is what star you hit. The basic parameter of a star visual wise – as an observer is it’s apparent magnitude (how shiny it is). But because the Earth revolves around itself you point to a different star each moment of the day. That’s why this is not important. Its true that if someone is looking for a certain angle he can choose a position on the earth that is favorable for a certain date , or the other way around. But for such a theory to be convincing we need events where a certain place is linked to a certain date and also we need to find correlations when we decide not to change the date or placement. When this is done with great accuracy then we know we are on the right track. Regarding the above we know that star data like greatest altitude, setting azimuth etc change as time passes. But to find significant differences we need to consider years going by not days.