06-15-2017, 06:42 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-15-2017, 08:29 AM by Ancient Vizier.)

We'd like to assure regular viewers of The Pyramid Pi Show that it hasn't been cancelled, we're merely taking our regularly scheduled season break...

Here's a tidbit (I hope) - for the data from Lehner & Goodman via Dash's paper, the average of the mean figures for each side come to 231.175 meters = 758.441627 ft

I'm quickly seeing a lot of good arguments for 758.5338511 ft as the "Intended Figure By Original Design" - including that it may have been their only shot at repeating the fine ratio (a geodetic constant when multiplied by prominent Giza constant 2 Pi, at the third power) that appears across proposed untruncated apothem / truncated apothem lengths, as

Sidelength Great Pyramid Platform 758.5338511 ft ? divided by

Sidelength Great Pyramid (proposed unpaved model) 755.6041600 ft

equals 1.003877283 = Earth Circumference in miles (24901.19743 / 100) / ((Pi^2)^3))

Looks a lot like 360 of the Persian Cubit Candidate 2.107038475...

758.5338511 ft / 360 = 2.107038475 ft

Such a Persian Cubit gives a pleasing and meaningful measurement of the perimeter of the Great Pyramid (with pavement aka Yoda Model) at

3018.110298 ft / 2.107038475 ft = 1432.394488 = 1/4 Radian x 100

And may be one of the more literal Persian Cubit values to emerge from sacred geometry (see Piscis Design scheme earlier in thread).

How about I just throw that figure of 758.5338511 at the wall and see how long it can stay stuck there?

I think there's another nearby figure also present, the platform may be slightly larger at the bottom as I think is suggested in photos and diagrams earlier in this thread, but I'm not certain if Lehner & Goodman's data is from measuring it at the top or bottom - I'm assuming the top because this affords extention past the pyramid sides by Alternate Pi Squared Feet at each corner with what I think is very good precision, but I'm not really deep enough into the mathematics or the literature to get more guidance there yet.

What I am neck deep and then some is attempts to better comprehend ancient Mayan math. Had the fool idea to look for more guidance on Venus and planetary math in Andrews' data for the INAH reconstruction of the Chichen Itza Venus Platform, which is purported to give more conventional instructions related to Venus tracking on its sides. Unfortunately I do my best work in Complete Smartass Mode, but even a relatively unassuming structure like the Venus Platform can be a humbling enough experience to knock the Smartass right out of someone. It truly is like going straight from the shallow end to the deep end of the pool without swimming lessons, and really a bad time for it since I do also need to devote a few problem solving skills to maintaining my environment.

Hopefully details are forthcoming if I don't drown in numbers - at least offhand it does look the INAH might have done a good enough job with the restoration to preserve the original numbers. That would of course be absolutely wonderful, but it's still hard for me to tell with the possible flexibility in ancient calendar-related math that I'm running into.

I might dig out Lehner's book eventually for possible clarification on the Great Pyramid platform if it comes to that, if I can resist temptation to get embroiled in the precise details that lead to remarks about his lacking accuracy by a good portion of a mile on pyramid placement at Giza. If he actually is turning up usable data in other areas, I shouldn't overlook it, but I'm really just looking at Giza this moment for a fifteen minute break from Mesoamerica.

Curious what all this may say about ancient peoples - That being a mathematician got very intense on account of ancient specialization, and yet mathematicians might have been generalists at things that required some precise math - namely architecture and astronomy? - and were in a very good position to combine the two into the proportions of architectural designs? Something else I'm looking for in ancient American monuments besides more data on the planets in the Venus Cycle, is something in ancient Mesoamerica that doesn't seem to have Venus written all over it. Don't know if I've studied such a thing yet. I'm not going out of my way to find Venus referenced everywhere, but it sort of seems to be finding me all too often - but then again, it could have been a standard architectural theme?

Hopefully more time and more examples to study can help sort that out.

That does look like what I'm running into a lot, though, is the work of people who may have devoted a whole lifetime to interesting tricks with numbers and relationships between numbers and finding useful math formulas, compared to my spending not all of a decade doing the same. I should probably fully expect to be up to my neck in that. Perhaps working really hard at designing pyramids was how a lucky few got out of having to help build the things? :-)

I could swear I saw evidence of where someone involved in designing Tikal had worked out where you could build the Polar Circumference in Miles figure I'm using in general, from nothing but the half of the "Alternate e' Meg Yard" and the Squared Yoda Meg Yard - the two primary Meg Yards in use at Stonehenge by my reckoning - yet another thing that makes already familiar numbers seem even more useful and versatile than previously suspected.

Actually very simple: 1/2 AEMY (2.720174976 / 2) / SMMY squared (2.719715671^2)^2 = 24858.380742 / 10^n

It's actually part of a longer series revealed by throwing SYMY^n at 2.72014976 that also finds the inner Sarcen Circle area of Stonehenge as reckoned by Yoda and myself, and the diameter of Silbury Hill as proposed here previously.

So far, I'm not very sure, yet I may actually seeing evidence that the Tikal temple (Temple V) which points North toward the pole actually could be somewhat preferential to math related to the Polar Circumference, as previously speculated. Something else I'm not going out of my way to prove, yet does give possible appearances of being intended by plausible interpretation of the mathematical design. Not sure which page of my notes its on now but I'm pretty sure that formula is one of the ones that came from working on Temple V.

Also, I am wanting to be very careful with some additional work at Tikal. Maler gives data for the proportions of the outer doorway to Temple V as Width 7.152230971 ft, Height 7.480314961 (and I have no data from Andrews here).

These are slightly strange numbers in that if you throw them into the blender while mincing up data to make ratios out of orbital periods and synodic periods for planets involved in the Long Count aka 1/2 Great Venus Cycle, you may see what looks a curious number of ratios being seemingly repeated. I'm not sure what to make of that, and less sure without having more values for planetary periods that I feel are firm. The designers may have gone with several relatively strange numbers for that very reason, rather than with more obvious ones. Very intriguing, though, and certainly deserves some careful thought.

I'd rather get the Tikal doorways figured out before taking on the vaulted rooms - we have enough data from Andrews to figure some out of these vaulted rooms entirely (with the possible exception of where there may be beveling as shown by some diagrams by Maler and/or Tozzer), although only for the first room each of the five Tikal Temples I-V.

A cursory examination, though, hints that there could have been a practice of selecting lengths, widths, and heights for these rooms that frequently give rational numbered products - something I might have also seen already at Rio Bec Structure B. Fingers crossed there may have actually been a common practice like that to help avoid further confusion on the part of what may have been an aspiring or apprentice mathematician attempting to deduce the original design specifications as an exercise. It's made me curious to see if we will find evidence of this elsewhere such as at Chichen Itza.

Here's a tidbit (I hope) - for the data from Lehner & Goodman via Dash's paper, the average of the mean figures for each side come to 231.175 meters = 758.441627 ft

I'm quickly seeing a lot of good arguments for 758.5338511 ft as the "Intended Figure By Original Design" - including that it may have been their only shot at repeating the fine ratio (a geodetic constant when multiplied by prominent Giza constant 2 Pi, at the third power) that appears across proposed untruncated apothem / truncated apothem lengths, as

Sidelength Great Pyramid Platform 758.5338511 ft ? divided by

Sidelength Great Pyramid (proposed unpaved model) 755.6041600 ft

equals 1.003877283 = Earth Circumference in miles (24901.19743 / 100) / ((Pi^2)^3))

Looks a lot like 360 of the Persian Cubit Candidate 2.107038475...

758.5338511 ft / 360 = 2.107038475 ft

Such a Persian Cubit gives a pleasing and meaningful measurement of the perimeter of the Great Pyramid (with pavement aka Yoda Model) at

3018.110298 ft / 2.107038475 ft = 1432.394488 = 1/4 Radian x 100

And may be one of the more literal Persian Cubit values to emerge from sacred geometry (see Piscis Design scheme earlier in thread).

How about I just throw that figure of 758.5338511 at the wall and see how long it can stay stuck there?

I think there's another nearby figure also present, the platform may be slightly larger at the bottom as I think is suggested in photos and diagrams earlier in this thread, but I'm not certain if Lehner & Goodman's data is from measuring it at the top or bottom - I'm assuming the top because this affords extention past the pyramid sides by Alternate Pi Squared Feet at each corner with what I think is very good precision, but I'm not really deep enough into the mathematics or the literature to get more guidance there yet.

What I am neck deep and then some is attempts to better comprehend ancient Mayan math. Had the fool idea to look for more guidance on Venus and planetary math in Andrews' data for the INAH reconstruction of the Chichen Itza Venus Platform, which is purported to give more conventional instructions related to Venus tracking on its sides. Unfortunately I do my best work in Complete Smartass Mode, but even a relatively unassuming structure like the Venus Platform can be a humbling enough experience to knock the Smartass right out of someone. It truly is like going straight from the shallow end to the deep end of the pool without swimming lessons, and really a bad time for it since I do also need to devote a few problem solving skills to maintaining my environment.

Hopefully details are forthcoming if I don't drown in numbers - at least offhand it does look the INAH might have done a good enough job with the restoration to preserve the original numbers. That would of course be absolutely wonderful, but it's still hard for me to tell with the possible flexibility in ancient calendar-related math that I'm running into.

I might dig out Lehner's book eventually for possible clarification on the Great Pyramid platform if it comes to that, if I can resist temptation to get embroiled in the precise details that lead to remarks about his lacking accuracy by a good portion of a mile on pyramid placement at Giza. If he actually is turning up usable data in other areas, I shouldn't overlook it, but I'm really just looking at Giza this moment for a fifteen minute break from Mesoamerica.

Curious what all this may say about ancient peoples - That being a mathematician got very intense on account of ancient specialization, and yet mathematicians might have been generalists at things that required some precise math - namely architecture and astronomy? - and were in a very good position to combine the two into the proportions of architectural designs? Something else I'm looking for in ancient American monuments besides more data on the planets in the Venus Cycle, is something in ancient Mesoamerica that doesn't seem to have Venus written all over it. Don't know if I've studied such a thing yet. I'm not going out of my way to find Venus referenced everywhere, but it sort of seems to be finding me all too often - but then again, it could have been a standard architectural theme?

Hopefully more time and more examples to study can help sort that out.

That does look like what I'm running into a lot, though, is the work of people who may have devoted a whole lifetime to interesting tricks with numbers and relationships between numbers and finding useful math formulas, compared to my spending not all of a decade doing the same. I should probably fully expect to be up to my neck in that. Perhaps working really hard at designing pyramids was how a lucky few got out of having to help build the things? :-)

I could swear I saw evidence of where someone involved in designing Tikal had worked out where you could build the Polar Circumference in Miles figure I'm using in general, from nothing but the half of the "Alternate e' Meg Yard" and the Squared Yoda Meg Yard - the two primary Meg Yards in use at Stonehenge by my reckoning - yet another thing that makes already familiar numbers seem even more useful and versatile than previously suspected.

Actually very simple: 1/2 AEMY (2.720174976 / 2) / SMMY squared (2.719715671^2)^2 = 24858.380742 / 10^n

It's actually part of a longer series revealed by throwing SYMY^n at 2.72014976 that also finds the inner Sarcen Circle area of Stonehenge as reckoned by Yoda and myself, and the diameter of Silbury Hill as proposed here previously.

So far, I'm not very sure, yet I may actually seeing evidence that the Tikal temple (Temple V) which points North toward the pole actually could be somewhat preferential to math related to the Polar Circumference, as previously speculated. Something else I'm not going out of my way to prove, yet does give possible appearances of being intended by plausible interpretation of the mathematical design. Not sure which page of my notes its on now but I'm pretty sure that formula is one of the ones that came from working on Temple V.

Also, I am wanting to be very careful with some additional work at Tikal. Maler gives data for the proportions of the outer doorway to Temple V as Width 7.152230971 ft, Height 7.480314961 (and I have no data from Andrews here).

These are slightly strange numbers in that if you throw them into the blender while mincing up data to make ratios out of orbital periods and synodic periods for planets involved in the Long Count aka 1/2 Great Venus Cycle, you may see what looks a curious number of ratios being seemingly repeated. I'm not sure what to make of that, and less sure without having more values for planetary periods that I feel are firm. The designers may have gone with several relatively strange numbers for that very reason, rather than with more obvious ones. Very intriguing, though, and certainly deserves some careful thought.

I'd rather get the Tikal doorways figured out before taking on the vaulted rooms - we have enough data from Andrews to figure some out of these vaulted rooms entirely (with the possible exception of where there may be beveling as shown by some diagrams by Maler and/or Tozzer), although only for the first room each of the five Tikal Temples I-V.

A cursory examination, though, hints that there could have been a practice of selecting lengths, widths, and heights for these rooms that frequently give rational numbered products - something I might have also seen already at Rio Bec Structure B. Fingers crossed there may have actually been a common practice like that to help avoid further confusion on the part of what may have been an aspiring or apprentice mathematician attempting to deduce the original design specifications as an exercise. It's made me curious to see if we will find evidence of this elsewhere such as at Chichen Itza.

"Work and pray, live on hay, you'll get Pie In The Sky when you die." - Joe Hill, "The Preacher and the Slave" 1911