Hi Mark,

Mark Heaton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would agree that my work is remedial, but
> remarkable in that my research could have been
> done around 130 years ago, which would have put
> the pi theory beyond all reasonable doubt.

There is no amount of evidence you can present that will make Egyptologist believe the Ancient Egyptians were any thing more than a bunch of superstitious third graders.

>
> There is now such a division between those who
> support the pi theory and those who reject the pi
> theory that the prospect of a reconciliation is
> low unless there is an archaeological discovery to
> the satisfaction of all.

The biggest example of pi sits in front of them and still they reject it in fear of upsetting the status quo!

>
> I agree that you are working in an exciting new
> field in that a purely geometric theory for the
> positions of G1, G2, and G3, has the potential to
> quash the Orion Correlation Theory in the popular
> mind-set, should such a theory gain wide
> acceptance. It was enough for me to address a
> small problem:
>
> I was asked by brother to consider the geometric
> design of the Grand Gallery, and I came across a
> geometric solution after a few hours study in the
> spring of 2003. I expected that it would take a
> year or so to write up, but it took 3 years to
> write a draft monograph, and a few months more to
> publish privately in October 2006. Looking back, I
> should have done a website to get a wide
> audience.

LOL, that would not have helped with the current mindset of the Egyptology.

>
> The problem with your theory, even if it is
> correct, is getting it across to a wide audience.
> There are rival theories out there, and a
> geometric theory is unlikely to appeal to a wide
> audience, or even Egyptologists, as I have
> discovered.

I am not interested in reaching a wide audience, just the audience interested in the truth.

>
> I didn't investigate the slots in the walls as
> they were filled in. I assumed, perhaps
> incorrectly, that they had a temporary functional
> role in construction; ie without any symbolic
> meaning.
>
> I have posted detailed reasons for the lengths of
> both the Ascending Passage and the Grand Gallery
> on this forum, not only this year but also
> previously.
>
> I should have posted my monograph on the Grand
> Gallery on a website to help with debate.
>
Yes I read most of your monograph and even communicated with you about it last year.

Just for fun a sphere generated with base dimensions of G1 440 cubits,
440 ^2 = 193600 cubits square. Perimeter 1760 cubits.
193600 * 14/11 = 246400 area of a circle with the same circumference as squares perimeter 1760 cubits.
246400 * 4 = 985600 cubits square surface area of a sphere with a circumference of 1760 cubits = (modern notation 4pi r^2)
985600 / 27 = 36503 19/27 = 36503 + 1/2 + 1/6 + 1/27 = 36503.7037037037037037...
Petrie's measure for the Socket Base perimeter for G1 is mean 9125.9 * 4 = 36503.6
<[www.ronaldbirdsall.com];

The examples of cubit to inch scale abound within and without the pyramids.

985600 / 2 = 492800 surface area of a a hemisphere based on a square with a base of 440
1760 * 280 = 492800 Circumference times radius = surface area of a hemisphere
1760 * 560 = 985600 Circumference times diameter = surface area of a sphere.
I learned that from G1 and the Papyri several years ago.

Kings Chamber radius 10 cubits,
62 6/7 * 10 = 4400/7 circumference times radius = Hemisphere
62 6/7 * 20 = 8800/7 circumference times diameter = Sphere
Explaining why they had hieroglyphs for 10, 100, 1,000, 10,000, 100,000, 1,000,000.
<[en.wikipedia.org];

Regards,
Jacob