Don Barone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks Warwick ... a very reasoned response.
>
> > " ... I think they planned the base exactly,
> I think they planned the slope ... < "
>
> However as you say if they had planned the base
> length and the slope then they would have known
> the height ... EXACTLY ...
>
> However with this diagram below ...
>
>
>
> If we study this diagram we get as a radius "in
> decimals" square root of 3 or 1.73205...
>
> Thus the circumference is square root of 3 x 2 x
> Pi or 10.8827962 units.
>
> Now for many years it has been argued that Pi is
> hidden in the great Pyramid in a 1/2 situation so
> I propose this ...
>
> If we take Pi and divide it by 2 we get
> 1.5707963268 and if we then take this value and
> divide by our radius of square root of 3 we get
> 0.90689968... and if we multiply by 10,000 we get
> 9068.9968 and precisely what the base measures in
> inches. So I propose that in giving the base,
> which you yourself have admitted was planned
> exactly, in the form {(Pi/2) / sq rt of 3} x
> 10,000 gives us precisely the exact value of
> inches in the base and thus if the slope was
> designed exactly the height can be no other than
> .... 5773.50 ( 11547.00 / 2)
>
> Cheers
> Don Barone
>
>
> “Coincidence is God’s way of remaining anonymous.”
> -Albert Einstein
Don't know if this applies but, re accuracy:
many of the levels of the GP are of different thickness, surely if the intent was finite accuracy every level would be the same thickness?
Warwick
" 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