|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
In a message dated 7/23/99 2:55:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rrraff@xxxxxxxx
writes:
> doubt that the Great Pyramid was a Fibb ratio when it was constructed.
Over the centuries the limestone outer cover has been striped off for other
uses. If it is a fibb ratio today it is by accident. <
Well, I'm no Egyptologist but there has been plenty of work that implies the
opposite. The business of erosion has been accounted for with some precision
I believe.
> Some tabloids claim that the pyramid's base is a ratio of pi and this
proves aleians designed it <
Not sure why you bring this up, just to disprove it. I'm talking about the
Fibonacci Summation series, and nothing else. Who's talking about Aliens
> Nonsence, not only are the toombs filled with hyroglithics, the workmen
signed their names in hidden places just as construction workers do today.<
A little research will enlighten your thinking immensely. The interest in The
Great Pyramid of Gizeh is because it is different from other pyramids in that
it is not a tomb. It was built pre-literary, and pre-hieroglyphics. The
Egyptian civilization spanned thousands of years, and the hieroglyphics you
refer to came long after this pyramid was built. It is generally accepted by
scientists today that this structure was built to convey their mathematical
discovery.
Some of the Fibonacci "coincidences" include the area of each face of the
pyramid being equal to the square of its height. One edge of the Pyramid of
Gizeh is 783.3 feet long, and the height is 484.4 feet. I'll leave it to you
to divide the length of the edge by the height. The height of 484.4 feet
equals 5813 inches (5-8-13). Ring a bell? I'm only mentioning a few examples,
but the evidence is overwhelming that 1.618 plays an important part of every
measurement.
Similar "coincidences" are actually found in the Mexican stepped pyramids as
well. I'll refer you to the "Mysteries of the Mexican Pyramids" by Peter
Thomkins for the multitude of inter Fibonacci relationships of the steps, the
number of steps, area's etc.
I'll repeat the thrust of my original comment to Ron McEwan. If you are
going to apply a methodology based on a relationship with Pyramids, realize
you are working with the Fibonacci Mathematical Sequence. You will get some
good results, however, you may be far better off using the Fibonacci sequence
directly, rather than muting the results somewhat using Pyramid dimensions or
whatever the "application" calls for.
Peter
http://www4.golden.net/laird/Comment.htm
|