
Re: Strange Maths (was Re: Why not 13 months?)
Whittet (Whittet@shore.net)
23 Jul 1995 12:30:10 GMT
In article <3ur1g2$frt@hermod.uio.no>, asbjornb@usit.uio.no says...
>
>In article <3upjfc$776@shore.shore.net> Whittet@shore.net (Whittet) writes:
>>
>> >In article <waterrd.50.00137F44@mins2.msfc.nasa.gov>,
>> >waterrd@mins2.msfc.nasa.gov says...
>> >
>> >The theory was that they used a wheel to measure the length of the sides
>> >of the pyramid. It is more accurate and repeatable than using a length of
>> >twine, rope, etc. For a pyramid of height 100 units, take a wheel of
>> >diameter 1 unit and measure off 100 revolutions of the wheel for the
>> >side. This gives you a length to height ratio of pi.
>>
>> How do you calculate the size of the wheel to use for the second course?
>
>Why would you? Shouldn't using 99 revolutions with the same
>wheel do the trick?
Sure, if you made the courses just shy of 5' high, and if you had a wheel,
you could make 49.5 revolutions in either direction from a center line.
Neither of these criteria match the observed facts.
Each stone, if they were 5'x 5'x 12', would weigh aproximately 22.5 tons,
and would require about 450 men apiece to move.
In fact, the height of the courses varies, the blocks are precut off site,
and designed to fit like pieces in a big jigsaw puzzle. The casing stones,
which are dressed limestone, are thought to have been added after the core
was completed, and fit so you can't slide a piece of paper between then.
>
> [asbjorn] [lLd25z*%ds1100/sLlSdI%ds2O/sSl1l2*PlL0<l]sl
> 2121172310731916131628237117 33237142523312SSSLllxq
Steve
