Re: Strange Maths (was Re: Why not 13 months?)
Whittet (Whittet@shore.net)
22 Jul 1995 22:22:11 GMT
In article <dougDC4Kv8.HBI@netcom.com>, doug@netcom.com says...
>
>In article <3upj3a$776@shore.shore.net> Whittet@shore.net (Whittet) writes:
>>In article <dougDC2uDG.EC7@netcom.com>, doug@netcom.com says...
>>> r = sqrt( (100*pi/4)^2 + 100^2) [...]
>>> theta = 51 degrees 51 minutes
>>>
>>>Tada. Simple, and easily within reach of Egyptian technology. All
>>>they have to do is measure 100 units for the height and 100 rotations
>>>of the wheel for the base.
>>
>>So since the base is for each new row of stones is a little smaller than
>>it was for the last one we laid, do we build a new wheel for each course?
>>
>>How do you keep the coursing straight as we go up?
>>
>>How do you get this to give the slope equal to 1 stadium which is equal to
>>1/600 of the Earths circumference at the equator?
>
>So here I answer one question, about the angle of the side, and you
>immediately challenge with a slew of other questions. Why don't
>you just go read a good book about pyramid construction? There are
>some excellent archaeological theories on the subject that you would
>do well to acquaint yourself with. If you had, you'd already know
>the one about 51d51'.
>
>Others have already answered at least some of your questions; I just
>threw in the 51d51' calculation because I figured no one else would
>bother to do the math. The rest of the answers are there for the
>taking, if you have an open mind about it. (Questionable.)
> Doug
>
>Doug Merritt
What's the question I am asking here Doug?
Your "Tada. Simple, and easily within reach of Egyptian technology. All
they have to do is measure 100 units for the height and 100 rotations
of the wheel for the base." is almost mindlessly innocent.
There are at least three things your solution neglects besides the inavailability
of the wheel.
It only correlates one of at least three major interrelated proportions.
It fails to address the fact that the total height of the pyramid is divided
into a number of courses of unequal height which can't be incorporated into
any regular or systematic application of your principle
The blocks were cut ahead of time off site and transported to the pyramid
ready to be installed in a particular place where they would fit. They are
not generally interchangable.
I want you to think of this in terms of what an Egyptian of the 4th Dynasty
has to work with. The wheel hasn't been introduced to Egypt, what you are
looking at is an artifact of a people to whom accuracy in measurement was
sacred. It was what was right and proper and expected.
I don't want glib thoughtless solutions that spin wheels. If you think all
the answers are in some book, or a TV program you can watch for 15 minutes
and understand the marvelous sophistication this building incorporates in
its proportions, you must be tuned to a channel I don't get yet.
The way the courses were laid out had to follow a regular system or it would
not have been possible to communicate it to the workmen or to oversee their work.
Some interesting ideas I had not thought of have been proposed. Because the
Egyptians used unit fractions, I like the suggestion that the ratio of 14:11
rise to run was used in the form of 1:1
( 1 Egyptian cubit of 28 fingers to 1 Greek foot of 22 fingers).
That is more along the line of what I am looking for and it explains how the Pi
ratio has incorporated into the Pyramid, but not why the Cubit and the Foot
have that relationship.
Although I have been studying the architecture and archaeology of this monument
for a quarter of a century, there is still a lot about it which I find both
astounding and worth properly appreciating. I would welcome more thoughtful
insights.
Steve
