northstar2595 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Warwick wrote;
>
> >have you tried to express/factor the above via
> Eye of Horus Quotients?
>
> I'm not really up on that system




That's the system they employed




> but 14/99 is very
> close to 9/64, being 9.050505. Real pi is 3 and
> 9.06192983/64. I guess the Eye of Horus version of
> 311/99 would be 3 + 1/8 + 1/64 + whatever 0.050505
> would be. Not every number can be expressed
> accurately the with Eye of Horus system.
> Basically, 3 9/64 would be the closest EoH version
> of pi (however you want to express it). That would
> be 3.140625.




the question is did the AE's want to express it. AS you have just admi9tted You don't even know if they had the mathematical means to do so


>
> How would you carry out the actual pyramid
> construction to maintain the desired slope angle?


THEY appear to have employed a a simple Seked template


> You could use a rise of 1 remen 5.5 digits for
> each remen of run (meaning real digits, 1/20 of a
> remen). It would turn out a little inaccurate, of
> course. The slope would be 51 53' 32.72".
> Interestingly, Petrie's angle for the North face
> at the entrance passage, which he gave the highest
> weight to, was 51 53' 20". If they wanted more
> accuracy they could have split the digits up into
> 32ths (which is known to have been done) and used
> 1 remen 5 15/32 digits, producing a slope of 51
> 51' 30" and a height of 396.0390625. This seems to
> be the most likely seked to have been used. You
> could use a cubit based seked if you wanted but
> since the width of the pyramid is in remens it
> would make sense to also use a remen based seked.




" I have always found that the main obstacle to free
association on these boards is the broad
misconception that what we do not know is more
significant than what we do know."

Warwick L Nixon, March 8, 2019