Hi Sirfiroth

Great reply to my post I always enjoy chatting with you. So please don’t take any of my responses the wrong way.




Sirfiroth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Exactly, and it is a pretty slick system, Since it
> is a given that the perimeter of the square is
> equal to the circumference of the circle, they
> already knew the circumference of the circle.
> Therefore had no reason to calculate any dimension
> using pi and therefore not necessary calculate the
> diameter or circumference ratio, Pi is our concept
> not theirs,

Aha! This is where I see an uncertainty on my part. It is a given that seked 5 ½ has a natural pi byproduct. So they could have used seked 5 ½ and be completely unaware of any circular byproduct. But as you say “Since it is a given that the perimeter of the square is equal to the circumference of the circle, they already knew the circumference of the circle” then how would they know this? In order for them to know this wouldn’t they need to do something like side 440*4 = 1760 then 1760/ 3 1/7 = 560 diameter and 560/2 = 280 radius.
Just to be clear I understand they could have used seked 5 ½ and were unaware of the circular byproduct. But if they knew the perimeter of the square was equal to the circumference of the circle wouldn’t that imply they understood 3 1/7?



> All of their calculations were
> accomplished using seked, which is their version
> of trigonometry. All of the Exterior of G1 was
> accomplished using only the 5 1/2 seked.
> The square's perimeter 1760 / 4 = 440 therefore
> the circumference of the circle is 1760 This
> demonstrates the circle's circumference is equal
> to the perimeter of the square as found in G1.
> Therefore: 440 / 280 = 11/7 as the ratio between
> one side of the square and radius of the circle.
> Calculating the diameter is simply multiplying the
> radius by two. in the example since the radius is
> seven the diameter would be fourteen. Side to
> diameter ratio is 11/14 or the diameter to side
> ratio is 14/11.

Hate to sound repetitive but how would they know the squares perimeter equaled circle circumference without some form of pi like 3 1/7 ?


>
> Side times diameter = area of the circle
> 11 * 14 = 154
>
> Side squared * 14/11 = area of the circle
> 11^2 * 14/11 = 154
>
> diameter squared / 14/11 = area of the circle
> 14^2 / 14/11 = 154
>
> area of the circle / 14/11 = area of the square
> 154/ 14/11 = 121 or 11^2 the area of the square.
>

Understood but this about area of a square and circle not the circumference.


> All of the above were calculated with the 5 1/2
> seked and gives the appearance of pi and that is
> what we see, because that is what we were trained
> to see! Where is the need for pi?

Agreed no need for pi unless they were equating perimeter of a square to the circumference of a circle.

> Now, whether anyone can see it or not, the above
> is based on the seked and a very sleek n
> dimensional system of hyperbolic geometry. A
> system built which allows geometry to drive the
> dimensions such as the Royal Egyptian cubit being
> derived from the arc second circle.
>
> Regards,
> Jacob
>
>


Good stuff thanks for the great reply.

Regards,
RLH