Greetings!
I’d like to be certain I clarify something for anyone who might be reading some of the posts here, or any of my work posted elsewhere.
Very often while talking about one one monument, I will end up talking about another.
The radius of Stonehenge x (2 Pi) = the height of the Great Pyramid (after pavement – i.e., Carl Munck’s model of the Great Pyramid)…
The perimeter of Silbury Hill / the Radian 57.2957791 = the perimeter of the Great Pyramid (after pavement)…
The edge length of the Mycerinus pyramid = the outer sarcen circle perimeter of Stonehenge…
And so on and so forth.
The point of making statements like these isn’t to insist that the architects of one monument were necessarily thinking of another when choosing their proportions, as opposed to these simply being good choices arising from common objectives and coming from the same pool of numbers and the same school of logic.
The point of remarks like these is simply to tell the reader where else we can find a particular number, as a place to go to learn more about them, with different lessons about them coming from different settings in different locations.
Metrology in theory allows us to trace the migration of a number or a metrological unit, but it of course cannot reliably tell us what monuments ancient architects were or were not consciously thinking of when crafting their designs.
I thought I might clarify that so that no one thinks I’m saying anything more unbelievable than I already am. 🙂
–Luke Piwalker
Luke Piwalker 