Ogygos Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >>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.

Thanks for the catch... Now, did you mention star orientation off pyramid slopes?
So the accuracy of a stars position some 5000 years ago (give or take) is less than .5%?

> >>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.

Hmm pyramid shafts in Giza start out at 45 degrees.
The sin of 45 is 1/2 the square root of 2.

No pyramid (of 20 that I checked) has a slope angle at any point of 45 degrees, making it conspicuous by its absence.

However, the slopes of all those pyramids do bring about the number 3 in comparing the height to the base and computing the ratio.

So I change my claim to a fascination with proportions and prime numbers...

(note I'm doing this math off the top of my head with my best recollection of numbers for things, to illustrate the point of how to relate 2 unrelated concepts mathematically)

> 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.

Please note: you can't have either one without math.


But as for picking specific stars..
Given the number of stars in the sky, you can easily commit the fallacy of cherry picking data points. Trying to find multiple stars that the airsshafts would have pointed at or that the slopes of the pyramids would have pointed at... Is there only 1 set of stars to satisfy both (or either) or are there multiple sets?


Math is fairly strict and rigorous. As you pointed out with the 1% over the .02%.
So when you consider your measurements and your extensions of lines into skies past... How sure are you of your precision?? For stars, even a .1% error on an angle could give you a different star at a different year.