lobo-hotei Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RLH Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > That’s true I asked something like the RMP
> would
> > so no reason to think the answer would be in
> unit
> > fraction.
>
> Glad you finally understood. Perhaps next time
> simply ask for it in unit fractions. When someone
> is lazy to the point of typing up seked 5 + 1/2 as
> 5.5 throughout their post then expect others to
> respond only in unit fractions is absurd.
You were the first one to use 7 and 5.5
[
hallofmaat.com]
When I responded I was using your values of 7 and 5.5
[
hallofmaat.com]
But I understand 8 10/11 looks a lot better then Seked 8 + ½ + 1/3 + 1/22 + 1/33
It’s ok no big deal.
>
> But as for your request it is the Seked 5.5 on
> it's side as I have said already. Which to some
> who can't grasp it quickly:
>
> Seked 5 + 1/2 = 14 rise/ 11 run.
> seked 8 + ... = 11 rise/ 14 run.
>
> Now we might have difficulty showing it as a long
> winded unit fraction value but how hard is it
> really to reverse the values?
Well one would results in a pyramid 14 tall with a base of 22 and the other would results in a pyramid 11 tall with a base of 28. I think the king would notice and you would lose your job building pyramids.
>
> > But I understand all those pesky unit
> > fraction would not make it easy to build to
> a
> > seked of 8 + ½ + 1/3 + 1/22 + 133 as opposed
> to
> > using something easy like seked 5 ½.
>
> Sure it is easy, as already stated, it is a ratio
> of 11 rise to 14 run. Why you want it as a Seked
> value is the pesky problem.
>
I like the pesky details sometimes it reveals a lot.
>
>
> > I don’t see how Seked 5.5 and Seked 8 + ½ +
> 1/3
> > + 1/22 + 1/33 can be the same Seked.
> > Also I believe the Seked would apply to the
> slope
> > of any rise/run.
>
> Where have you seen, in the AE cultural evidence,
> an interior ratio, for any rise/run, referred to
> as a Seked?
>
It could just as easy be a ramp of 22 rise and run of 28 it’s your internal/external definition that is causing the spin.
>
> > Well using Petrie’s preferred value for the
> height
> > of the GP 5776 inches then the slope would
> be
> > 51.8666 degrees and the slope of seked 5.5
> is
> > 51.8428 so close but not exact.
>
> And how "Exact" do you think Petrie was when he
> measured the height of the GP? Do you honestly
> think it was measured to "Exactly" 5776 inches? Do
> you know what that plus/minus seven inches means?
>
Yes I know about his plus/minus that is why I said Seked 5 + 1/2 is (close) to his preferred value.
> The fact that you used the word "preferred" shows
> that you must know it wasn't an "Exact"
> measurement but an educated guess based on the
> known evidence. OF course deteriorated sides of
> the pyramid lend to exact measurements.
>
> The difference you talk about above is within
> Petrie's margins of error.
>
First there is no casing up there so its all an educated guess, but not based on the Seked. It would be wrong for him to go looking for the preconceived idea that all pyramids were built using the Seked.
I agree about the margin of error but the difference is still about 5 inches so like I said close to Petrie’s preferred value but not exact. He could have said the preferred value was 5771 ± 7 inches.
If you extend the difference between 51.8666 degrees and 51.8428 degrees to the size of the earth’s diameter the difference is huge.
>
> > > No. Your 22 units in a 28 units system
> would
> > get
> > > you 11/14 which gets you 5.5/7 which
> gets
> > you
> > > 0.78571428571428571428571428571429 which
> gets
> > you
> > > 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/28.
> > >
> > > Not even close to 3 + 1/7.
> >
> >
> > Not even close! Are you sure?
>
> Absolutely. Perhaps you can use your expertise in
> unit fractions to show how 22/28 equals 3 + 1/7?
>
½ * 4 = 2
¼ * 4 = 1
1/28 * 4 = 1/7
2 + 1 + 1/7 = 3 + 1/7
> >In this drawing 5 ½
> > and 3 1/7 are exactly the same length. Both
> are 22
> > units long.
>
> I never argued that they weren't the same length.
>
>
> You get 3 + 1/7 when you change the grid units to
> 4.
> You get 5 + 1/2 when you change the grid units to
> 7.
>
> That doesn't change the fact that 22 units in a 28
> unit does not equal 3 + 1/7. It equals 1/2 + 1/7
> +1/28.
>
> They all will be the same length as long as the
> original length used is consistant between all
> three.
>
Typo > I think you mean ½ + ¼ + 1/28 not ½ + 1/7 + 1/28
½ * 4 = 2
¼ * 4 = 1
1/28 * 4 = 1/7
2 + 1 + 1/7 = 3 + 1/7
Just like some people see 22 digits as 5 ½ palms. Why? Because they change the 28 digits to 7 palms.
½ * 7 = 3 + ½
¼ * 7 = 1 + ½ + ¼
1/28 * 7 = ¼
3 + ½ + 1 + ½ + ¼ + ¼ = 5 + ½
>
> > Yes that’s because 22, 5 ½ and 3 1/7 are the
> same
> > units of a 28 unit system.
>
> No they aren't.
>
> 28/22 = 1.2727272727272727272727272727273
> 28/5.5= 5.0909090909090909090909090909091
> 28/3+1/7=8.909090909090909090909090909091
>
> 22 of 28 units =
> 1.2727272727272727272727272727273
> 5.5 of 7 units =
> 1.2727272727272727272727272727273
> 3 + 1/7 of 4
> units=1.2727272727272727272727272727273
>
> Those are all equal. get it straight.
>
I should have said 22, 5 ½ and 3 1/7 are the same length in a 28 unit system depending on how you look at it. My mistake!
>
> > 4 * 5.5 = 22
> > 7 * 3.1428571 = 22
> > 4 * 7 = 28
>
> My weight divided by sqrt of 1/3 the year length =
> 22.023 can I say that fits within the 28 unit
> cubit as well and was intentional?
>
Sounds like spin.
> > > > If anything is astounding then it’s
> that
> > the
> > > > designers could have put the exit
> points
> > of
> > > > the KC shafts anywhere. I’m just
> hoping
> > to point out
> > > > a logical reason for why they put
> them
> > where they
> > > > did.
> > >
> > > Yeah they could have put them on a
> ratio
> > oppposite
> > > the Seked used to build the outside of
> the
> > pyramid
> > > so it hit at a 90 degree angle. Hard to
> > > understand.
> >
> >
> > The casing would be about 51.86 degrees so 90
> -
> > 51.86 = 38.14 degrees. The KC shafts are
> about 45
> > degrees and 32.47 degrees so if they wanted
> the
> > shafts to hit the casing at 90 degrees
> wouldn’t
> > the two shafts need to be about 38.14
> degrees?
> > Also wouldn’t that make for a shorter
> distance to
> > the casing?
>
> Well I was referring to the Queen's shafts as we
> were talking about 11/14 ratios. But yes the
> King's shafts don't follow that ratio.
>
No problem we all make mistakes sometimes.
> Now you remember you attempt at a Rhind papyrus
> problem? remember the answer?
> It was 8.9090909090909090909090909090909
>
> 28 / 3 + 1/7 = 8.9090909090909090909090909090909
>
> You know what 8.9090909090909090909090909090909/
> 14 equals?
>
> It equals 32.47119229084848923132012643871
> degrees.
>
>
> Any more number crunching games we can play?
>
> Regards,
> Lobo-hotei
> lobo
>
32.412 degrees are not 51.8428 degrees. You can’t just tip the pyramid over 90 degrees and say they are the same Seked.
Regards,
RLH