stereologist, on 14 August 2014 - 03:32 AM, said:

You have not shown that the ratio is the square root of 5. What you have shown is that the ratio is approximately the square root of 5. You seem to think that square roots are special. Is there anything important in them? The answer to that depends on the context. In this case I see nothing special since you can't show a reason for it. In this context then, the square root of anything is of no interest.

When you laid out the construction you purposely tried to introduce the square root of 5 and did it in a rather bizarre way. You did it with no purpose other than to introduce the square root of 5. Consider the Egyptians. They don't know the Pythagorean theorem. They don't know about irrational numbers. They don't know about decimal expressions. Yet, you think that people completely unaware of any of this are going to consider the square root of 5 of interest.

What you need to do is to create a geometrical construction that introduces the square root of 5. That is what I originally meant. Figure out a construction which reduces the size of the the pyramid and leaves it with a height reduced by the desired ratio. Think about it. Maybe it is due to the reduction in the basal area, or maybe it is due to the reduction in volume.

Your other claims about the sqrt roots are dependent on the units of measure that are used. I could claim that my height is the square root of 1,234,567,890 - if you use the right units.

This raises an important point that I failed to mention in my previous post. For all of the posters who write about fancy mathematical exp

ressions for the pyramids, how many are familiar with the math known and used by the Egyptians themselves? Parsing such monuments into modern mathematical formulae doesn't mean much if the exercise strays beyond mathematics we know the Egyptians used.

While there is scant evidence for mathematical applications in the Old Kingdom, mathematical papyri are known from later periods and reveal to us a number of approaches the Egyptians used in their engineering projects (such as

*seqed* for determining slope). What Bennu needs to do is find tangible evidence that the square root of five was significant in ancient Egyptian culture (including engineering and building practices). While certain numbers were sacred or significant in ancient Egypt (e.g., eight and nine), I'm not sure how or if five played a significant part.

There's a lot of New Age fuss over "sacred geometry" and related concepts

*(especially* where Giza is concerned), but much if not most of this is fantasy. As many of us have said many times at UM, if you look hard enough for something you want to see, you

*will* see it eventually. I remember a poster in one forum or another who was convinced Giza was laid out to represent the Christian cross, and he posted a diagram showing where on the ground you could see it. Sure enough it was there. You just had to look hard enough—despite the fact that the earliest origins for Christianity lay over 2,500 years after Giza became a burial ground.

I'm not saying Bennu's idea is

*that* far afield from the realm of logic because it certainly is not. All I'm cautioning is proving how the idea fits in with the culture and practices of Dynasty 4 Egypt. Context is everything.