
Re: RMP # 48
Posted:
Oct 11, 2007 8:42 AM


Franz,
Your analyses are most interesting, and may indeed represent some of the thinking that went into the designing of these pyramids. However, one must bear in mind that just because a certain correlation (or set of correlations) can be extracted from a diagram, it does not then necessarily follow that any of these correlations were either recognized or intended by the designer. There is always the possibility of it being a consequence of yet some other design intention.
This is where the desirability of finding some method of testability comes in. Even in a situation where many things seem to point in a certain direction, this clearly lends weight to an hypothesis but does not make it a certainty. It is not I who "asks for proof", it is I fear the nature of the beast.
For instance, as I have stated, I am convinced that a major concern of the pyramid's architects was with the squaring of the circle (for both area and circumference). I am astounded to find that even with the area formula used in the RMP there are still those who feel this does not "prove" that the Egyptians thought in terms of squaring the circle for area  in other words, that they would have pictured the 8/9ths x D squared situation graphically (diagrammatically, if you will) and seen it as representing an actual square. To me, the proof here is black and white and I cannot understand the inability of some to make this particular connection. However, there it is.
This is why I feel that one must be prepared to devise some form of experiment by which to remove all doubt and objection.
By the way, there is much ongoing debate in regard to the height to base ratio of the Red Pyramid, with the 20/21 ratio now being considered incorrect. The interior design of this pyramid is, according to my analysis, based on the 17/18 ratio (ie, the 687299 rt triangle), while the exterior gives evidence of perhaps having been designed on the 90/91 and the 70/70 ratios (2 sides to one, 2 sides to the other  with some fudging near the top). The Red Pyramid is deceptive  it appears simple, yet is quite nuanced. My theory for the design of this pyramid leads to the finding that the center of the second chamber does not lie on the pyramid's central axis (as previous surveys assume), but instead lies about 4 feet to the north of it. This is one of the testable predictions I spoke about in an earlier post.
This is a prediction that should not be all that hard to prove or disprove, but if proven would then have implications of truly great magnitude. It would, in part, also help support the theoretical assumptions in some of your work.
All the best,
Lee

