So how were the pyramids built??

[casdave]

Clairobscur

Read my post about how pi ended up being a factor in base to height relationship.

Height measured using a standard length pole, baselength measured using a measuring wheel whose radius is the same as the standard length pole.

[Mangetout]

casdave: The claim is that the area of the base and the linear height have a ratio that represents pi - it’s complete nonsense - the ratio will vary according to whether you measure the base/height in square/linear centimetres, metres, inches, feet, yards, cubits, bananas or whatever; you get a different ratio for every unit.

[zut]

RE: PI

What exactly did Von Daniken claim?

From this page:

On the mysteries of the great Pyramid of Cheops: “is it coincidence that the area of the base of the pyramid divided by twice its height gives the celebrated figure Pi = 3.14159?” (p. 77)

Alternatively, from here:

Or a favorite way to prove an advanced intelligence built the Great Pyramid is to point out that the distance around the base of the Great Pyramid divided by twice its height gives a special number called “pi”–3.14 [a statement not directly attributed to Von Daniken, but implied]

So which is it? The former statement is implied by the OP, and is ably debunked by mangetout. However, the assertion that dividing an area by a length to produce something near pi (a dimensionless number) has some significance is so incredibly stupid that I have a hard time believing anyone can make the statement with a straight face. Or did Von Daniken really mean the latter, as covered by casdave?

[Mangetout]

*Originally posted by KarmaComa *
**What the HELL are you talking about? Last time I checked, 66.66 meters is, oh, about 218.7 feet!

What kind of nonsense is that?
:smack:
Some parlour trick! **

You clearly don’t understand that ratios don’t and shouldn’t have any units associated with them.

[zut]

I’m thinkin’ you got whooshed, Mangetout. Leastways, I hope so.

[Mangetout]

I’m not so sure…Karmacoma?
Anyway, watch this:
Lets take our 100mx100m (75m tall) pyramid

I’m going to assert that the ancient Egyptians unit of measure for monumental architecture was something called the flimp - by a process of painstaking research which I will not bother to explain to the reader, I can reveal that one flimp is equal to precisely 21.22065944 metres.
therefore:
100 metres = 4.7123889 flimps
75 metres = 3.534291675 flimps
I calculate that the area of the base (4.7123889[sup]2[/sup] = 22.20660914) divided by twice the height (2 * 3. 534291675 = 7.06858335) comes out to 3.1415926
Incredible, eh?

Now lets take a pyramid that is 100 metres by 100 metres and 95 metres tall, I merely need to assert that a flimp is equal to 16.75315219 metres:
then:
100 metres = 5.96902594 flimps
95 metres = 5.670574643 flimps
I calculate that the area of the base (5.96902594[sup]2[/sup] = 35.62927067) divided by twice the height (2 * 5.670574643 = 11.34114929) comes out to 3.1415926
Incredible, eh?

My point (which I hope is clearer now) is that you can make the ratio of an area and a line come out to any number you like; pi, phi, 1, 99 whatever you like by very carefully defining the unit of measure.

[APB]

What Von Daniken clearly meant to refer to was the famous observation that the perimeter of the Great Pyramid divided by the height approximates to 2pi and, in fairness to him, it ought to be remembered that, as his books have had to be translated into English, he may not be to blame for that confusion. The real point, however, is that that particular ratio is just not very interesting.

http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/PiPyr.html

[bonzer]

*Originally posted by Arnold Winkelried *
I remember reading, in my teenage years, a french book that claimed that the pyramid stones were lifted through the use of a “magic rod”. The rod could emit a musical note causing the air to vibrate in a certain way. By pointing the rod at the stone, you could use the air vibrations to lift the stone and place it in any spot desired.
Was this idea taken from “Chariots of the Gods”, or did the french author (whose name I forget) think of it himself?

Some light on this question appears to be shed in this thread.