...

Quote:the difference between 1.62231147 and Phi

if and when written in feet would be harder to sort out at a small scale than on a scale of 1:1000, obviously.

I do try to keep my liberties with accuracy to a minimum,

and I do hope I'm in general accordance with the ancients on that.

in planetary timeline cycle accuracy I require myself to find:

a factor of error of no more than

1 second per Lunar month
this is 99. 99996 % --- well enough exceeding 6 sigma

{6 sigma accuracy produces ugly error factor of 10 seconds per lunar month}

The record that I know of in equations for the Lunar month -- 29.53059 days

is off by 1 second. Some Israeli math mojo.

I have discovered a few Lunar Month cycles that are well below one second in factor of error.

The problem with that is fluctuating data.

For instance the ancient Tzolkin is 260 days,

and all

ancient calendar counts for the Earth and Mars synod is 780 days = 3 x 260

Calendar count is a completely differnt accounting based upon cycles using primes.

the pyramids at Gizah could do both in the geometry,

calendar count

and

NASA data efficiency produced planetary cycles.

NASA sets the value for that Mars synod at 779.94 days.

So that is what I used in my last research vectors -- as pure of NASA data as possible.

But even NASA's data can be rounded at the last decimal.

If you use the -- synod formula <---

the Mars synod is 779.9358922 days.

however I used the NASA published data.

Point being,

that your 1.62231147 has no ancient attribute that is tangible from my perspective,

and it is a concoction of modern math boulliabaise.

In pure terms,

it has 99.7 percent accuracy to phi,

and that percentage correlated to pi ... pi would be 3.133309347

numbers like that 1.622311wtf

... well hundreds of them can be concocted with universaal constants like pi and e ... etc ,

when you look from the perspective of such a wide range of spread,

between that and true phi

Certainly there are a plethora of "phi variants" or progression positions,

in the ancient phi progressions.

1.625

1.619047619

1.618 18 18 18

1.6180 55555 ... but they are part of the ancient progression which is essentially fibonacci

are the first four

and where most of ancient cultural math cosmology evolves,

they occupy the phi position,

in the progressions,

but they are not meant to be phi.

they occupy distinct extrapolations to cubits and known studied ancient pi values as well.
"ancient pi" values are not pi,

they are cultural cosmological aspects of math progressions,

and cubit systems etc.

there are several "ancient pi values"

the khufu pyramid is simple

280 cubit height 440 cubit base length --- is the standard model

you can use ANY cubit

and the slope will always be the same -- in a standard square base pyramid.

the slope tangent of the Khufu pyramid by the above ancient formula

can only be

14 / 11

which also equals 4 divided by aPi --- when aPi = {22 / 7}

22 / 7 is not pi ... but it is an ancient cultural pi value,

and well documented.

Using

aPi = 22 / 7 ... and the ancient pi value {

355 / 113} -- together <--

is how you fast track the ancient pi progressions,

to the fraction

104348 / 33215

for pi

ten decimal accuracy

which by the ways has the denominator 91 x

365 = 33215

That is all by no means exclusively Egyptian.

Another progression was used in Kerala India for the same pi value,

and 355 / 113 is as ancient as mankind,

along with the Khufu pyramid geometry which is found in much earlier Saqqara as well.

You cannot vary the height, that is fixed,

but each base length that is variable -- produces a new or different slope per side.

2 slope and 3 slope pyramids are easy to make in that regard.

Offset pyramid peaks offer multiple pyramid slope venues in tandem with variable base lengths.

EA' post on the indented sides of the GP

the aspect of the indented sides can have a lot of interpretations.

I always hoped it had an acoustic component, but I don't know that.

I did come up with an excellent design from a geometry perspective,

to offer a direct comprehensive possibility for purpose.

this image below is a construct using modern constants,

to arrive at the Petrie Royal Cubit

average --- 20.62 inches.

I came up with it spontaneously

in a facebook debate with a crazy Jew author named David Ritchie,

who wrote a 600 page book and claimed that the Royal Cubit

was the ...

square root of the number of Jews that escaped Bablyon in ancient histroy

or some

like that

this old image shows how fractional convergence dynamics can operate,

note the denominator 490025 in the square root two fraction, {7 sigma}

and how that number sequence can create fractions ...

bottom of image

ps --- Grand Unification tropical Earth year is my creation <---

it aligns modern square roots two and five,

into the cubit 20.625 GP height