12-13-2011, 12:01 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-13-2011, 12:06 PM by Tenet Nosce.)
(12-13-2011, 12:09 AM)zenmaster Wrote: I read it differently. By "perimeter of the base", I read measuring from base to apex (from center for height) then from that point to the perimeter. Why would one would need to measure a 4-equal-sided perimeter when dealing with such a proportion? Doesn't make sense.
Yeah it is worded strangely. Maybe they did that on purpose?
Quote:In other words, in that type of pyramid, it seems that its dimensions can be expressed more simply in terms of the lengths of that right-angle?
I think the minimum information necessary is the base width and the angle, yes.
Here are some Cliff's notes I found on equations for pyramids. Maybe useful, maybe not.
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Regular-Pyramids.topicArticleId-18851,articleId-18836.html
(12-13-2011, 09:17 AM)zenmaster Wrote: As people have been experimenting with simple pyramid shapes for centuries, you'd think those which 'energize' would be discovered and noted by now. If not noted, their perceived effects would either be way too slow or way too subtle. The steep-angled shape could indeed be the one intended.
I thought some healing effects of pyramids were documented in Russia?
(12-13-2011, 08:05 AM)Namaste Wrote: I wonder if Ra meant 1.61, instead of 1.16? Closer to the golden ratio.
That is an interesting thought. Well at the least we all know how bad Ra is with numbers. (Funny... didn't they teach humanity mathematics?!) I'm still trying to get the timeline of contacts straight after fifteen years! For example, in the same quote Ra talks about building the pyramids 8500 - 4500 years ago, then talks about the later contact with Ikhnaton (Akhenaton) which was only about 3300 years ago.
