Re: Pyramidiocy (was Re: Strange Maths)
Whittet (Whittet@shore.net)
26 Jul 1995 14:19:19 GMT
In article <1995Jul26.005824.25153@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov>, kdq@emoryi.jpl.nasa.gov says...
>
>Whittet@shore.net (Whittet) wrote:
>>Because the Great Pyramid is the only one actually constructed as a standard
>>of mensuration. The same proportions are not found on other pyramids.
>>You would think though, that if any old random measurements could be
>>worked into some sort of correlation with something, that these correlations
>>would have been found on the other pyramids as well, right?
>
>And how do you know they can't? Has anybody taken the measurements? Do
>you realize that with almost any 20 integers you can generate any ratio or
>number? That's why numerology's bogus in general.
>--
> _
>Kevin D Quitt
Where are you getting the twenty integers from?
In the Great Pyramid you have
1.) the perimeter of the base
2.) the height
3.) the apothem
Architectual proportions are not quite the same thing as numerology.
The ratios used in buildings have to be easy enough to communicate
to a workman that the building can be built.
So far in this discussion it has been shown that the units most compatible
with observed measurements, or most often found in even increments throughout
the structure, agree well with those found on Egyptian rulers, namely the
finger, palm, foot and cubit.
These happen to agree well with other known units of measure from the ancient
world such as the Greek and Roman foot and cubit and with units from the modern
world such as the English foot and inch.
Using those units of measure only; the relationships of the Great Pyramids
perimeter, height and apothem agree well with the values they were claimed
to incorporate in their design in antiquity, such as the length of a stadium.
The slope works out well as a 1:1 relation of an Egyptian cubit of 28 fingers
to a Greek foot of 22 fingers.
Here we see the patient study of apparent mysteries has resulted
in reasonable answers.
Steve
|