Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

# How to construct pyramid with PI without knowing what PI is

21 views

### Malachi-Eliyah

Jan 31, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/31/97
to

I would like to discover how to measure pyramid height in constructing.

Many people say that PI is used in the pyramids.
This is not true unless the pyramid has a slope of 52 degrees or
43 degrees. The reason is because when the base and height
are 4:1 they produce a 52 degree slope and when they are 3:1
they produce a 43 degree slope.
I posted a list using Netscape, a list
which charted the multiples of base and height
but I guess some computers cannot translate degree symbols
nor the pi symbol. They seem to be the same computers which place
an = sign as every carriage return.
Of the 25 pyramids I listed, only five slopes are of these two
possible angles of 52 or 43, the bent pyramid being both (52 then 43).
Thus the other slopes were not created the same way;
PI was not used in at least 20 of the 80 Egyptian pyramids.

PI was obtained but NOT deliberately known.
This is how. If a wheel stone were made with a cubit diameter,
it would be done by taking a cubit string and folding the string in half around
an axel pin. With the string folded in half (as a half-cubit)
the string can be swung around the pin to draw a circle with
a cubit diameter. Such a stone can be rolled 7 times and it will
measure 22 cubits. If though the string is used as a cubit-radius it makes
a 2-cubit diameter stone, then rolling it 7 times will measure 44 cubits.
Of course this only measures horizontally; you cannot roll a stone vertically.
ANY SUGGESTIONS for the height?

Drawing a circle with a cubit string (cubit radius) which results in a 2-cubit
diameter stone appears to be how the Great Pyramid was marked off.
This is evident not only by the magical 7 they found but also because
the Great Pyramid is 440 cubits in length (10x44 cubits) which would
mean a cubit-radius stone was rolled 70 times, in contrast to a cubit diameter
being rolled 140 times. (Two cubits is about a 3-foot yard, elbow to elbow.)
Having known this for about 10 years, I have long been interested in how
the height of 280 cubits was measured [?] being 40x 7 cubits.
It is the number 7 which gives this pyramid the Pi relation of base to height.

### gates

Feb 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/1/97
to

In article <32F1D9...@wi.net>, Malachi-Eliyah <eli...@wi.net> writes
er.. hi! I like your style. However, pyramids were built from scale
plans and the ideal division of a tenth or a hundredth implies that you
can reproduce this cubitt to scale with a drawing instrument.

Stonehenge seems to have provided a gold "breastplate" I take as a
square (from a nearby barrow) and there were always the measurements of
the pace (megalithic yard?) and by the eye to a stave and with an A
shape wooden thing with a ball dangling between it for inclines.
(Druidic knowledge so sucks to anyone who disagrees, I know.) However,
accurate measuring/drawing instruments are another matter. Someone on
here may know of something odd being discovered and now realising it for
what it is. However, if not, I think it will be because the things
rotted. What I reckon is that measuring wheels were used both on paper
and ground and that these were not stone but, say, leather and wood or
papyrus. A ouija board spirit claiming to be a pyramid mathematician
(oh alright I know it's whacky) laughed at our ignorance and claimed the
use of a simple slide rule as well as other things. One was the sun
wheel. The 8 paths to magic is an asterisk in a circle and the symbol
is pretty universal. In sanskrit days a swastika was used and this
carried forward into other cultures. Only when lesser tribes started
scratching the symbol, however, did the feet become right angles.
Before they formed a wheel with breaks. My theory is that the spoked
wheel was used for measuring before anyone thought of putting spokes in
cart wheels etc. As you will gather the eight spokes, or four, referred
to here would supply quite accurate measurements. Indeed, a 2.2 inch
wheel representing a 22" cubitt would divide up into approx. 3" sections
when applied. Back then the spoke coming from the centre to the edge to
divide into 8 must have seemed as magical as a mobius loop seems to a
novice riding his bike in space to the underside by just keeping going.

All this stuff is pure conjecture I know but I also know there's none so
blind as those who won't see and so often the answer is before us. So,
who knows what's in those fusty old drawers at the museum? (And I don't
mean the curator's wife's knickers :-)

Regards
--
Les Ballard L...@gates.demon.co.uk

c/o BM: Gates of Annwn (The Pagan contact magazine)
London WC1N 3XX, U.K. 44+(0)1708 670431

No copyright statement is attached as the author is litigious.

### Stix

Feb 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/1/97
to

RICHARD MICHAEL SCHILLER posted the following to alt.atheism,

>I would like to discover how to measure pyramid height in constructing.

Ahh, I checked the headers in this post as well as the cross-posted list,
and it *WAS* you who forged that post by "stix." Nice one, liar for the
lord, but you also gave yourself away by leaving your "a man masturbating
publicly but going unwatched," sig file off this email. Whassamatter? Did
poor widdle Wichy forget to put his sig file back after the forgery?

<snip remainder of garbage>

Stix
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"Mysticism is a disease of the mind."
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

### Malachi-Eliyah

Feb 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/1/97
to

The Great Pyramid was built at 30 degrees latitude.
Only at this latitude does the star Sirius have an absence for 70 days,
from Julian May 8 to July 17 of 2170 BC.

(72 days at 31 degrees, 68 days at 29 degrees)

When king Mesannipada (Peleg) of Ur died in 2030 BC (not 2321 BC)
and king Unas (Unis) of Saqqara (Sakkara) died in 2030 BC (not 2321 BC)
it si the star Sirius who went from setting Canis in the west to become
rising Anubis in the east. (the dog standing up as man) being a symbol of
man's future resurrection. Egyptians mourned Jacob for 70 days
when he died in Egypt.(His embalming for 40 days represented Osiris
the winter moon or winter sun as a symbol of Noah passing thru the water
as good as dead in a coffin for 40 days until the starry sky returned).
Being 440 cubits in length the Great Pyramid base was easily
measured by rolling a cubit radius stone (2-cubit diameter
being about a yard) 70 times. Rolling it 7 times measures 44 cubits,
and rolling it 70 times measures 440 cubits.
This is what produces the Pi factor in the pyramids whose slopes
are 52 degrees or 43 degrees. Pi = 22 / 7 and thus cubit lengths divisible
by 22 or 44 etc are measured by 7 rolls of a stone.

************
A voice crying out and going unheard,
(40 years Oct 7) Nehemiah's (9:1) 50th JUBILEE of Tishri 24
God's 1000 years has begun Sep 14 of 1996.
The 144,000 will rule before this first year ENDS.
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/Ezra1991CE.gif

Discover the world's true chronology thru the Bible at
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah

### Lawrence Sayre

Feb 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/1/97
to

In message <5KA9TCAJ...@gates.demon.co.uk> - gates
<ga...@gates.demon.co.uk> writes:
:>
:>In article <32F1D9...@wi.net>, Malachi-Eliyah <eli...@wi.net> writes

:>>I would like to discover how to measure pyramid height in constructing.
:>>
:>>Many people say that PI is used in the pyramids.
:>>This is not true unless the pyramid has a slope of 52 degrees or
:>>43 degrees. The reason is because when the base and height

My understanding is that the Egyptians had a few catastrophic failures in
earlier pyramid building attempts due to slopes which were too acute! The
evidence is right near the great pyramids. They even had to reduce the incline
of one pyramid that was about 1/3 done (from that point on), after another
nearby fell into a rubble heap!

Then they got smart and started to learn about stability in nature. They
observed that whenever they poured a large quantity of sand the resulting pile
of sand always had the exact same measurable slope (incline). They reasoned
that this is natures most stable slope. They then built pyramids with the
exact same slope, and amazingly they were stable also. No need to have any
knowledge of PI!

-----------------------------------------
Man's mind is his basic tool of survival!

lsa...@en.com <Lawrence Sayre>
-----------------------------------------

### Malachi-Eliyah

Feb 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/1/97
to Lawrence Sayre

Lawrence Sayre wrote:
> My understanding is that the Egyptians had a few catastrophic failures in
> earlier pyramid building attempts due to slopes which were too acute! The
> evidence is right near the great pyramids. They even had to reduce the incline
> of one pyramid that was about 1/3 done (from that point on), after another
> nearby fell into a rubble heap!
> Then they got smart and started to learn about stability in nature. They
> observed that whenever they poured a large quantity of sand the resulting pile
> of sand always had the exact same measurable slope (incline). They reasoned
> that this is natures most stable slope. They then built pyramids with the
> exact same slope, and amazingly they were stable also. No need to have any
> knowledge of PI!
> lsa...@en.com <Lawrence Sayre>

Happy to get a reply from a sincere behaved scholar...you.
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/Pyrmid/PyrmdPi.GIF
This is a textbook scan of the use of Pi occuring from rolling a stone.
A cubit diameter must be rolled 7 times to make 22 cubits.
The number 7 was of heaven because of the visible moving objects,
the sun, moon, and 5 planets. It was like magic to discover the number
of times to circle an object to arrive at a whole number of any unit measure.
However a cubit radius rolled 7 times is 44 cubits. Because rolling this the
religious number of 70 times gives us the Great Pyramid base of 440 cubits,
it is definate fact that is what they did.

As regards incline causing collapse. I never thought of the sand and am
happy to have learned this from you (no matter whoever you are).
But my post revealed 25 pyramids that do NOT have the same slope
as sand would have. Here is what they did to resolve the collapsing tower.
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/Pyrmid/NDashurPyrmd2.GIF
Previous pyramids were laid horizontally so that weight caused pressure
to slide them outward. They learned that a slanted footing is perpendicular to
the pressure; and that this need be done ONLY to the internal mass to
prevent collapse of the Tower which God kept making collapse.

### Mark Waluk

Feb 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/2/97
to

Malachi-Eliyah wrote:
>
> The Great Pyramid was built at 30 degrees latitude.
> Only at this latitude does the star Sirius have an absence for 70 days,
> from Julian May 8 to July 17 of 2170 BC.
>
> (72 days at 31 degrees, 68 days at 29 degrees)
>
> When king Mesannipada (Peleg) of Ur died in 2030 BC (not 2321 BC)
> and king Unas (Unis) of Saqqara (Sakkara) died in 2030 BC (not 2321 BC)

Since your such an expert on ancient dates perhaps you could answer
I question I have had for some time, what were Charles Russels sources
for obtaining 607 BC as the date for the destruction of the temple?

Mark Waluk

### Malachi-Eliyah

Feb 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/2/97
to

Morgoth <mor...@nome.net>
>I do find it interesting that one of the names of Odin/Thor was
>Tiwaz. Crucifixtion was a form of sacrifice, that some say was
>invented by the Phonecians, but it might be a common form of
>sacrifice. Much like Odin/Woden sacrificing himself on the world
>tree (crucified), or was it originally hung (a form of
>punishment, but also a sacrifice to Odin) (Where we get how
>common people are hung, but royals are decapitated).

Ah, I see.
The confusion is from Tau (leter-T) meaning crossing.
Kramer's (and others) study of Sumerian and Akkadian
show that it evolved from an asterik which meant
heaven or star. Thus the crossing of Jupiter or Mars
could be debated as I have discovered last year
between Jupiter-Marduk and the original Mars-Marduk.
It comes from people thinking they are listening to the
same words or seeing the same thing. Like the woman
who admires the late nite church choir in the horizon,
and the husband hearing the crickets says
To think they do that with their legs.
Marduk was east-west when it was started
observation for 52 years. But upon rising in 2009 BC
to determine the average as a 780-day cycle, Jupiter
was rising east-west as Marduk's temple had been built
52 years earlier.

Thor is Zeus, both having the description of weather.
Both are given the epoch (Noah's Flood) as their birth.
The creation of the current world created them, or reversed
they created the new world. Jupiter marked this year,
despite the fact that the planet is not our weather, nor
air, of which its clouds can over power our seeing Jupiter.
Of course, this does not mean that the planet has actually
proved inferior to our atmosphere. But certainly the air
(Thor = Zeus) effects us more than Jupiter does.
Yes Jupiter has a crossing; my site shows this.
As of 2009 BC every 12 yrs but 83 yrs the planet
crosses Taurus in the west in spring before its
solar conjunction. So I have chosen the two terms
Jova for Jupiter (jehova) and Tau for crossing so that
Jova-Tau and Mars-Tau are the two Tamuz (crossings)
which are followed by heliacal-rise (Marduk),
birth of the SON, of Utu, the sun, or God.

So I have caught your implication that Tiwaz is Tamuz,
though you didnt actually come out and say so.
But gee, look how stupid all these scholars keep posting
that I am.

************
A voice crying out and going unheard,
(40 years Oct 7) Nehemiah's (9:1) 50th JUBILEE of Tishri 24
God's 1000 years has begun Sep 14 of 1996.
The 144,000 will rule before this first year ENDS.

Asteroid impact following March 23 Passover Palm Sunday
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/Ezra1991CE.gif
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/me.gif

### Malachi-Eliyah

Feb 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/2/97
to Mark Waluk

Mark Waluk wrote:
> Since your such an expert on ancient dates perhaps you could answer
> I question I have had for some time, what were Charles Russels sources
> for obtaining 607 BC as the date for the destruction of the temple?
> Mark Waluk

The fact that there are two scriptures. One which says the
captivity would be 70 years in Babylon. And one that says the land would stay
vacant and desolate for 70 years to fulfill Sabbath of the farmland.
They did not crop rotate and so the 7-year rest was to prevent mineral
depleting which causes famine. It came from Joseph's day where Egypt
was already depleting the farmland and Joseph pushed it for 7 years more
causing a 7-year famine (1730-1723 BC).
The start of 1730 BC famine was the end of 213-year 12th dynasty Egypt
(1943-1730 BC based on Phaophi 16 Jan 6 of 1824 BC record
confused as Pharmuthi 16 July 10 Quban Sothis of 1824 BC;
date was formerly calculated as July 20 of 1884 BC, and last calculated
by Oriental Institute Parker as July 17 of 1872 BC...he confirmed lunar dates).
Russell actually said 606 BC to 536 BC, based on the then popular figure
536 BC, and Russel's common practice of sticking with our January years.
While regarding January as the 4th Jewish month of the previous
YEAR-number A.D. , he sometimes broke this consistency by looking
to the next autumn as the year he was calculating. Though skeptics claim
606 BC was changed to 607 BC to fit a correct 2520 yrs to 1914, the fact is
that the 536 BC was proven to have referred to specifically the 7th month
autumn of 537 BC (4 months before Russell's jan 536 BC he kept using).
So the alignment of Autumn 607 BC was automatic and did not require
changing Russell, merely being more precise as to the New Year as
October not January.
Russell wrongly uses 450 years of judges, thus 580 to the temple,
and his kings are 393 yrs instead of the correct 390.
Thus his 1615 BC Exodus to 1035 BC temple to 999 BC division
is incorrect from the 1513 BC Exodus to 1034 BC temple to 997 BC division
of the 40-year current Watchtower which I can now verify by astronomy
and all world calendars. HOW?
Keep knocking and God will give. Even to the sinners God whom God
gives rain and sun to, he gives true answers even to atheists if they keep
knocking on the door for truth and not fabrication. Seek truth and you are
my brother even if you are atheist.
Your seeking truth is what changes and corrects you.

### g...@3-cities.com

Feb 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/3/97
to

Malachi-Eliyah <eli...@wi.net> wrote:

Fuck off.

You are not worthy of a reasonable response.

Forger and asswipe RICHARD SCHILLER.

Lying for your lord again, DICK?

Geo
"No I don't understand." - Jahnu (aka smurf-breath)

### Dionysius

Feb 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/3/97
to

>John the Foreskin wrote:

>But gee, look how stupid all these scholars keep posting
>that I am.

Maybe there onto something there Mr. mumbo jumbo!

>************
>A psychotic crying out and going unmedicated,
>(40 years of Thorazine overdosing)
>1000 years of hallucnations have begun Sep 14 of 1996.
>144,000 outpatients will pity him before this year ENDS.
>complete mental meltdown following March 23 Passover Palm Sunday

>Discover the comedic ramblings of a borderline personality at:

### R. Gaenssmantel

Feb 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/3/97
to

Malachi-Eliyah (eli...@wi.net) wrote:
[...]
: a cubit diameter. Such a stone can be rolled 7 times and it will

: measure 22 cubits. If though the string is used as a cubit-radius it makes
: a 2-cubit diameter stone, then rolling it 7 times will measure 44 cubits.
: Of course this only measures horizontally; you cannot roll a stone vertically.

That sounds approximately right. However, it is only an approximation, since pi
is not a rational number (meaning: it can not be obtained by multiplying,
adding, subtracting, dividing, or squaring any full numbers). Therefore
22/7 ~ pi, but not exactly pi.

Ralf

### Malachi-Eliyah

Feb 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/4/97
to

Morgoth
>Just got home from work, and I am a bit mentally drained..

I was wondering if you were implying that Tiwas came from Tamuz.
If so, I see the connection thru Thor.
Thos is weather with thunderbolts as is Zeus,
and these have been equated as Jupiter.
Jupiter comes from Zeus-pitar.
And Hislop makes it clear that it can be translated
either way as Father Zeus or father of Zeus.
And unfortunately since Zeus also comes from God (Theos)
it could also be Father God or father of God.
The point is that in studying mythology I found
the religions of the world marking the creation of
this world by Noah's Flood with the planet Jupiter.
Genesis clearly indicates the concept that our
current weather was born or created after a sphere
of water had collapsed. The Jupiter rise I accept is
January 6 of 2369 BC in Capricorn aside venus who
is another god claimed to stop the Flood.

So with Thor and Tiwas
compared to
Jupiter and Tamuz
The link is that Jupiter who many claim is Marduk
was observed for an 12-year, 83-year, and 996-yr crossing
(a Tau or Tamuz) between the two stars (horns) of
Taurus in 2009 BC the same year that the rise of Mars
rose on the summer solstice as the real Marduk.
A rise of Mars (or Jupiter) always occurs after a
Tamuz or crossing of the sun.

### erikc

Feb 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/5/97
to

On Tue, 04 Feb 1997 07:56:25 +0000
REICHARD SCHILLER aka Malachi-Eliyah <eli...@wi.net>
amateur net-forger and professional psycho
as message <32F6EB...@wi.net>
-- posted from: alt.atheism:

[incredible horseshit snipped]

Smack it up your ass where it came from you lying sack of shit!

>|************
>|A voice crying out and sounding like a fart,
>|(40 years Oct 7) whacked out of his mind

[blah, blah, blah]

Erikc -- fire...@insync.net

********************************************************
* Fundamentalism -- a disease whose symptoms include *
* diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain. *
********************************************************
Luke 19:22 sez: "He said to him, 'I will condemn you out
of your own mouth, you wicked servant!'"
********************************************************
http://www.christiangallery.com/sick1.html#bugger *sick*
/* These people are actually call themselves CHRISTIANS */

### Martin Fox

Feb 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/5/97
to R. Gaenssmantel

But the Bible says that pi is 3. Read it in the description of one of
the vessels in Solomon's temple.

Sorry, I can't give the referrence, I'm not a thumper who quotes ch. and
v. It would be in I Kings.

Martin Fox

### Malachi-Eliyah

Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to Martin Fox

> R. Gaenssmantel wrote:
> > That sounds approximately right. However, it is only an approximation, since pi
> > is not a rational number (meaning: it can not be obtained by multiplying,
> > adding, subtracting, dividing, or squaring any full numbers). Therefore
> > 22/7 ~ pi, but not exactly pi.
> > Ralf

This is false because to carry out pi to 5 decimals or 100 decimals
or a million decimals you must have a formula to calculate.
And that formula is and always has been 22/7 or 3 1/7.
Every figure ever shown for pi has always been 22/7 no matter how
far the decimal has been carried.

3.14
3.1428
3.1428571
3.1428571428

Otherwise you tell me what formula or math do they get their
3.1428571428 from.
Pi was discovered by wraping a cord around a column or tree until
the cord was the same equal units as the diameter. It proved to be that
7 times around was 22 times the diameter. You cant change that, nor could
you ever show me how pi is calculated if not by dividing 22 by 7.

is that they throw into confusion all the readers who then do not
know what to believe and thus do not care. This is why death rates rise.
There is a time to keep your mouth shut lest you be like Saul of Tarsus
whose bloody hands was washed cleaned by a never-ending life of
preaching to save lives. He still had to change his name to Paul to start over;
who in the world would ever again listen to Saul?
(both sides would have hated him, and he DID face that)

### Timothy Schmits

Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to

Malachi-Eliyah <eli...@wi.net> wrote:

>This is false because to carry out pi to 5 decimals or 100 decimals
>or a million decimals you must have a formula to calculate.
>And that formula is and always has been 22/7 or 3 1/7.
>Every figure ever shown for pi has always been 22/7 no matter how
>far the decimal has been carried.

>3.14
>3.1428
>3.1428571
>3.1428571428

You're in the dark ages of mathematics. PI is about 3.14159. PI is
irrational and cannot be expressed as a fraction involving whole
numbers. 22/7 is just a short cut for approximating PI. One way to
calculate PI is to use calculus to express PI as a limit of rational
numbers as the limit approaches the actual irrational value:

3.14
3.142
3.1416
3.14159
3.141593
3.1415926

etc.

22/7 becomes inaccurate at the third decimal point.
Another thing: 22/7 is a REPEATING FRACTION. After a few decimal
points it just repeats the same sequence of numbers, and someone would
have to be an idiot to try and calculate it to millions of decimal
points. 22/7 is rational since it can be expressed as a fraction,
even though it repeats.

People used to think that PI was exactly 3 if you can believe that.

### John Charnock

Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to

Malachi-Eliyah <eli...@wi.net> wrote:
>> R. Gaenssmantel wrote:
>> > That sounds approximately right. However, it is only an approximation, since pi
>> > is not a rational number (meaning: it can not be obtained by multiplying,
>> > adding, subtracting, dividing, or squaring any full numbers). Therefore
>> > 22/7 ~ pi, but not exactly pi.
>> > Ralf
>
>This is false because to carry out pi to 5 decimals or 100 decimals
>or a million decimals you must have a formula to calculate.
>And that formula is and always has been 22/7 or 3 1/7.
>Every figure ever shown for pi has always been 22/7 no matter how
>far the decimal has been carried.
>
>Otherwise you tell me what formula or math do they get their
>3.1428571428 from.

First of all, apologies for the cross-posting, I don't know where this
joker (eliyah) is sending this crap from, and he ought to read this
answer (though I suspect I am wasting my time)

The fraction 22/7 is an approximation to pi
The first few digits in the decimal expansion of pi are (from memory):-
3.141592653589793238462643383279... NOT 3.142857142857...
pi is not only irrational (cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integers)
it is also transcendental (it cannot be expressed as the solution of a
finite polynomial. There are formulae for calculating pi, generally in
the form of infinite series which converge more or less rapidly.
Is that clear? 22/7 is not exactly equal to pi.

John Charnock

### Sieve

Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to

On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Malachi-Eliyah wrote:

> This is false because to carry out pi to 5 decimals or 100 decimals
> or a million decimals you must have a formula to calculate.
> And that formula is and always has been 22/7 or 3 1/7.
> Every figure ever shown for pi has always been 22/7 no matter how
> far the decimal has been carried.
>

> 3.14
> 3.1428
> 3.1428571
> 3.1428571428

OK, fool, now go to a mathematics BOOK and look up the value of pi,
and then apologize for your incompetence. Pi cannot be expressed exactly
as a fraction, especially not as 22/7, which repeats after a few decimal
places. Pi is also not the solution to any finite polynomial. It can be
approximaed through cal...um, big, hard math.

> Otherwise you tell me what formula or math do they get their
> 3.1428571428 from.

> is that they throw into confusion all the readers who then do not
> know what to believe and thus do not care. This is why death rates rise.

I conceed you the point about confusion, as you are an unwitting example
of just such a phenomenon. I would like, though, for you to tell me
exactly how deat...oh, never mind.

> There is a time to keep your mouth shut lest you be like Saul of Tarsus
> whose bloody hands was washed cleaned by a never-ending life of
> preaching to save lives. He still had to change his name to Paul to start
> over; who in the world would ever again listen to Saul?
> (both sides would have hated him, and he DID face that)

Look, you walking repository of god-spunk, nobody gives a good goddamn
why you keep changing your name all the time? Because you think no one
will believe you? Like Saul of Tarsus? Got some blood on your hands,
Elie?

sieve

### Malachi-Eliyah

Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to Timothy Schmits

Timothy Schmits wrote:
> You're in the dark ages of mathematics. PI is about 3.14159. PI is
> irrational and cannot be expressed as a fraction involving whole
> numbers. 22/7 is just a short cut for approximating PI. One way to
> calculate PI is to use calculus to express PI as a limit of rational
> numbers as the limit approaches the actual irrational value:

> 3.14
> 3.142
> 3.1416
> 3.14159
> 3.141593
> 3.1415926

> 22/7 becomes inaccurate at the third decimal point.

My dad says he lost a job in his teens because he didnt know Pi,
which I presume he meant x22 / 7 . ( I impressed him !
First listening ear I ever got. )
Like all American schools teaching that scholars who spoke against Columbus
claimed the world was flat as if they were stupid and Columbus smart !
1992 books revealed that a scholastic lie;
common records which show common knowledge that
scholars knew the world was 24,000 miles around (presuming a huge
15,000 mile ocean to Japango) while Columbus insisted Earth was 8000
miles smaller and only 7000 miles to Asia. They fought Columbus with facts
and the Queen let Columbus go for religious reasons and greed for jewels
and gold power.

> Another thing: 22/7 is a REPEATING FRACTION. After a few decimal
> points it just repeats the same sequence of numbers, and someone would
> have to be an idiot to try and calculate it to millions of decimal
> points.

I knew this since high school. But look what people do for novelty and
Guinness records...who ever said that the decimals were being carried
out by rational men. Take Mount Everest as an example of how many
scholars or those rich-minded in business are rational in mind. And as
long as a person doesnt understand me, they wont regard me as rational either.

>22/7 is rational since it can be expressed as a fraction,
> even though it repeats.
> People used to think that PI was exactly 3 if you can believe that.

I see dumb things people believe, but those that believe it did nothing
to check it out with proof.

### Malachi-Eliyah

Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to Timothy Schmits

> 22/7 is only an approximation. PI can not be expressed via any
> rational fraction; it is an irrational number.

> 3.1415926536

This doesnt look anywhere near 22/7 to me.
So then you are saying that the only way to carry Pi out
to further 1000s of decimal places
is not merely by continuing the method
used for dividing (as can be done with any fraction)
but rather by taking finer measurements of units...
like millimeters versus inches,
and like microns versus millimeters.
If that's what you mean, I can understand that.
So how would you alter 22/7 into a more accurate Pi...
give me an example like 22.13 / 7 or 22 / 7.11 ???

I excuse my misunderstanding with these words....
we live in a world where you guys never seek
to educate anyone because you are too exalted in the fact of
what you know and dont care if others do.

Martin Fox has just replied with name calling,
at least you followed up with a 10-decimal figure different than 22/7.
But you have now produced a problem of how I or others could
calculate Pi by ourselves...with our own calculators.
To me the biggest brains know nothing if they cant teach,
because then.....who can ever teach them !
The higher you go by yourself...
the more certainty you'll die when you finally fall...
and we ALL fall.
Perfection is not the state of impossibility to fall,
it is the state of impossibility to HEAL from the fall.
Common knowledge...big falls heal slow...or not at all...
or even kill you. So it is with today's TOP educators.
I say this stuff to better you and to better me.
And so goes unresolved the Pi issue of determining Pi.
It is also a sidetrack from the issue that 80 pyramids
do not measure Pi as five are claimed to.

### Alan M. Dunsmuir

Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to

In article <32FAF3...@wi.net>, Malachi-Eliyah <eli...@wi.net> writes

>This is false because to carry out pi to 5 decimals or 100 decimals
>or a million decimals you must have a formula to calculate.
>And that formula is and always has been 22/7 or 3 1/7.
>Every figure ever shown for pi has always been 22/7 no matter how
>far the decimal has been carried.
>
>3.14
>3.1428
>3.1428571
>3.1428571428

Actually, as has been pointed out, pi is an irrational whose value
starts 3.14159265...

Mathematicians use a variety of sequence calculations to generate its
value to as many decimal places as are required, speed of convergence
being the prime criterion of choice of the sequence.

As you demonstrate above, the approximation 22/7 is rather poor and only
accurate to three significant figures, or 0.04%.
--
Alan M. Dunsmuir

Were diu werlt alle min von deme mere unze an den Rijn
des wolt ih mih darben,
daz diu chunigen von Engellant lege an minen armen!

### John P. Boatwright

Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to

Malachi-Eliyah wrote:

> > R. Gaenssmantel wrote:
> > > That sounds approximately right. However, it is only an approximation, since pi
> > > is not a rational number (meaning: it can not be obtained by multiplying,
> > > adding, subtracting, dividing, or squaring any full numbers). Therefore
> > > 22/7 ~ pi, but not exactly pi.
> > > Ralf

> This is false because to carry out pi to 5 decimals or 100 decimals
> or a million decimals you must have a formula to calculate.
> And that formula is and always has been 22/7 or 3 1/7.
> Every figure ever shown for pi has always been 22/7 no matter how
> far the decimal has been carried.

> 3.14
> 3.1428
> 3.1428571
> 3.1428571428

> Otherwise you tell me what formula or math do they get their
> 3.1428571428 from.

Wrong, pi to a few places is:

3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937511 ....

22/7 is only a "rough" approximation of pi.

For proof, just enter 22/7 into the Windows scientific calculator,
give zero when the true value for pi is used. Of course it doesn't
and gives -0.001264488.... which is wrong. Then try the number
given above and you'll get about 10 billion times closer to zero
for the same calculation. Since you can never get exactly to the
value of pi, the "sin" calculation will never go fully to zero
(but close enough for this example).

Best wishes.

### John P. Boatwright

Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to

Malachi-Eliyah wrote:

> Timothy Schmits wrote:
> > 22/7 becomes inaccurate at the third decimal point.

> My dad says he lost a job in his teens because he didnt know Pi,
> which I presume he meant x22 / 7 . ( I impressed him !
> First listening ear I ever got. )

Well, 22/7 is reasonably accurate for those back 2-4000 years ago.
It's 0.04% high from the true value and the error is more than lost
in the measurements (1 part in 2484) for small projects.

### stufnten

Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to

On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Malachi-Eliyah wrote:

> > R. Gaenssmantel wrote:
> > > That sounds approximately right. However, it is only an approximation, since pi
> > > is not a rational number (meaning: it can not be obtained by multiplying,
> > > adding, subtracting, dividing, or squaring any full numbers). Therefore
> > > 22/7 ~ pi, but not exactly pi.
> > > Ralf
>
> This is false because to carry out pi to 5 decimals or 100 decimals
> or a million decimals you must have a formula to calculate.
> And that formula is and always has been 22/7 or 3 1/7.

Wrong!

> Every figure ever shown for pi has always been 22/7 no matter how
> far the decimal has been carried.

Wrong!

pi~ 3.1415927
22/7=3.1428571

Discrepencies by the 4 sig fig, fool.

> Pi was discovered by wraping a cord around a column or tree until
> the cord was the same equal units as the diameter. It proved to be that
> 7 times around was 22 times the diameter. You cant change that, nor could
> you ever show me how pi is calculated if not by dividing 22 by 7.

Wrong.

Mathematics has advanced some since the days of the ancient egyptians.

> is that they throw into confusion all the readers who then do not
> know what to believe and thus do not care. This is why death rates rise.

Confusion over halfwits like yourself posting inaccurate accounts of pi?

stufnten, Toby
***
reason is, and ought to be, the servant of the passions -Hume
http://members.tripod.com/~Tesseract

### stufnten

Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to

On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Malachi-Eliyah wrote:

> > 3.1415926536
>
> This doesnt look anywhere near 22/7 to me.

Of course it doesn't!

Eejit.

> So then you are saying that the only way to carry Pi out
> to further 1000s of decimal places
> is not merely by continuing the method
> used for dividing (as can be done with any fraction)
> but rather by taking finer measurements of units...
> like millimeters versus inches,
> and like microns versus millimeters.
> If that's what you mean, I can understand that.
> So how would you alter 22/7 into a more accurate Pi...
> give me an example like 22.13 / 7 or 22 / 7.11 ???

PI IS NOT A RATIONAL FRACTION!!!!

Pi has not been known as 22/7 for centuries!

<bleating snipped>

### Don Judy

Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to

In Article<Pine.SOL.3.91.970207...@godzilla3.acpub.duke.edu>,
<sd...@acpub.duke.edu> write:
> Path:
news1.epix.net!news3.epix.net!cdc2.cdc.net!ais.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!hammer.
uoregon.edu!news.mathworks.com!newsgate.duke.edu!godzilla3.acpub.duke.edu!sdk2
> From: Sieve <sd...@acpub.duke.edu>
> Newsgroups:
alt.mythology,sci.archaeology,alt.archaeology,alt.religion.christian,alt.atheis
m,alt.bible,soc.history
> Subject: Re: (pyramid) Pi is always 22/7 and always has been always will be
> Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 12:20:32 -0500
> Organization: Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
> Lines: 46
> Message-ID:
<Pine.SOL.3.91.970207...@godzilla3.acpub.duke.edu>
> References: <32F1D9...@wi.net> <5d5lkk\$d...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
<32F8FF...@stt.msu.edu> <32FAF3...@wi.net>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: godzilla3.acpub.duke.edu
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> Xref: news1.epix.net alt.mythology:37373 sci.archaeology:61065
alt.archaeology:11599 alt.religion.christian:225053 alt.atheism:425087
alt.bible:10338 soc.history:82763

>
>
> On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Malachi-Eliyah wrote:
>

> > This is false because to carry out pi to 5 decimals or 100 decimals
> > or a million decimals you must have a formula to calculate.
> > And that formula is and always has been 22/7 or 3 1/7.

> > Every figure ever shown for pi has always been 22/7 no matter how
> > far the decimal has been carried.
> >

> > 3.14
> > 3.1428
> > 3.1428571
> > 3.1428571428
>
> OK, fool, now go to a mathematics BOOK and look up the value of pi,
> and then apologize for your incompetence. Pi cannot be expressed exactly
> as a fraction, especially not as 22/7, which repeats after a few decimal
> places. Pi is also not the solution to any finite polynomial. It can be
> approximaed through cal...um, big, hard math.
>

> > Otherwise you tell me what formula or math do they get their
> > 3.1428571428 from.
>

>

> > is that they throw into confusion all the readers
> >
>

> sieve

The decimal figure he's giving for pi is even wrong. It's 3.14159... if memory
serves, not 3.1428571.. which he probably got from 22/7 (as a result of
wrongly assuming that was the actual method to calculate pi) on the Windows
calculator which computes to 3.142857142857; whoopsy, he rounded the decimal
off wrong, this master of numbers and mathematics, not too mention the totally
incorrect way
he went about arriving at the wrong value. A basic error of telling magnitude.

Yours,
DJ <hsa...@epix.net>

### Wayne Delia

Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to

In <5dfkof\$p...@mserv1.dl.ac.uk>, John Charnock <J.M.Ch...@dl.ac.uk> writes:

>The first few digits in the decimal expansion of pi are (from memory):-
>3.141592653589793238462643383279...

Sounds like somebody has entirely too much time on their hands. :-)

>pi is not only irrational (cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integers)
>it is also transcendental (it cannot be expressed as the solution of a
>finite polynomial.

Perhaps you can help me remember what x is in the following formula:
It is known that pi is transcendental, as well as the base of the natural
logarithms (e). There's a number x, 100 < x < 200, where the square root
of x is irrational. (I seem to remember x = 163). Anyway, you've got two
transcendentals and one irrational, but the expression (e) to the power of
( (pi) times (square root of x) ) not only appears to be rational - it seems to be
an integer.

>There are formulae for calculating pi, generally in
>the form of infinite series which converge more or less rapidly.
>Is that clear? 22/7 is not exactly equal to pi.

The person to whom you're responding, Richard Schiller, is a noted net.loon
on the verge of a complete schizophrenic breakdown. He has predicted the
end of the world on March 22 or 23, caused by the impact of Hale-Bopp with
the earth. I'm sure your correct explanation went right over his head (assuming
he was paying any attention) and he will now issue a curse on your house, with
something to do with Nehemiah. It's really quite amusing.

Wayne Delia, red...@ibm.net
"I am evil Ho-mer! I am evil Ho-mer!" - Evil Homer Simpson,
dancing on the grave of Good Homer Simpson

### Pharaoh Chromium 93

Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to

### John Cartmell

Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to

In article <32FAF3...@wi.net>, Malachi-Eliyah
<URL:mailto:eli...@wi.net> wrote:

> Every figure ever shown for pi has always been 22/7 no matter how
> far the decimal has been carried.
>
> 3.14

fair approximation
> 3.1428
wrong
> 3.1428571
stupidly wrong
> 3.1428571428
XXXXX
>

3.1415926535 etc
pi is *not* calculated from 22/7.
pi *cannot* be worked out from *any* fraction.

The statements by the previous writer are so far from reality that it
is not worth replying to - except that some poor misguided person
might believe him. Don't believe me - look in any mathematical text
book. You can derive pi - from a formula not a fraction but seeing
as I am paid to teach mathematics professionally I'll refrain from
commenting further - unless you are willing to pay the appropriate
fee. ;-)

--
_/_/_/ _/ John Cartmell
_/ __/_/ _/_/ _/_/ using Acorn Risc PCs - and StrongARMed
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ UK designed and made - British software
_/_/ _/__/ _/ _/ _/ _/ supporting our own; even if it is the best ;-)

### Malachi-Eliyah

Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to J.M.Ch...@dl.ac.uk, bgr...@acca.nmsu.edu, bog...@uwlax.edu

From a mass of email....
BTW...the topic is pyramid construction for these newsgroups

>I think this lies under the branch of integral calculus. Before
>integration, men would use smaller and smaller units to find a better
>measurement for an area or a measurement. For example, the area of a circle
>can be approximated by taking the area of smaller and smaller triangles
>inside the circle that fill up the circle. The larger number of small
>triangles used, the more accurate the approximation would be. Finally,
>after this exhaustion method, the area seemed to be equal to PI x r squared.
>Integration allows us to use an INFINITE number of subdivsions to find the
>exact value without having to use the exhaustion method of just using
>smaller and smaller subdivisions.
>I haven't really given you a specific solution for solving for PI, but I
>have explained the concept of integration. Formulas such as Area = Pi x r
>squared and Volume = 4/3 x PI x r cubed required integral calculus to
>discover. Although they were thought to be the right formulas before
>calculus just from the exhaustion method. I'll try to look into a more
>specific solution for PI. If you have any problems understanding this,
>write back. -- Timothy Schmits

>Archimedes, in 240 BC (over 2200 years ago) *proved* (mathematical idea)
>that pi is *smaller than* 22/7.

>Claudius Ptolemy of Alexandria 150 AD used 377/120 (it's wrong,
>but far closer than 22/7

>The Chinese Tsu Ch'ung-chih 480 AD used 355/113 (it's wrong,
>but far closer than 22/7

3.141592653589793238462643383279501971
3.141592653589793238462643383279
Hey Charnock, the guy above has you beat by six digits.

KIND AND CONSIDERATE QUOTES.....
>WHAT IS YOUR FUCKING PROBLEM? 22/7 is an APPROXIMATION. Look it up
>APPROXIMATION.

>It is a LIE to say that pi "IS ALWAYS" 22/7.
>You (RICHARD) do NOT always tell the truth. (WE KNEW THAT, DID YOU?)
>And this LIE is also *irrelevent* to most of the groups you have posted to.
>Do you have ANY idea how STUPID your subject line is?

Why do people like you make an ass of yourself first
(see above paragraph) before you supply anything good like below.
(see further paragraph).

>pi IS the relationship between the circumference and the diameter of a
>circle, it is NOT a formula, it does NOT depend on a formula, and *any*
>formula for pi (so far) is wrong, but some are more wrong than others.

>Yours is ENTIRELY wrong, and everyone ELSE knows that.

You are the WRONG person to teach anyone, to hold any authoritative position,
school, politics, because you preseume EVERYBODY.
You are STILL an ass because MOST do NOT know that,
and it proves that you think most are NOBODYs because you only
recognize those who do know as being EVERYBODY. I am NOT the only one.

>It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool
>than to open it and remove all doubt.

ABSOLUTELY WRONG
My opening my mouth has just gotten all of you to supply
additional info that many of you make no effort to do
unless your ego is threatened as I did. I dont mind asking a stupid
question wjen it brings out good answers for all to see.
So you havent hit my pride like you thought.
Instead you have raised my happiness at what I am in personality.

John Charnock wrote:
> The fraction 22/7 is an approximation to pi

> The first few digits in the decimal expansion of pi are (from memory):-

> 3.141592653589793238462643383279... NOT 3.142857142857...

> pi is not only irrational (cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integers)
> it is also transcendental (it cannot be expressed as the solution of a

> finite polynomial. There are formulae for calculating pi, generally in

> the form of infinite series which converge more or less rapidly.
> Is that clear? 22/7 is not exactly equal to pi.

>there are several different formulas by Vieta, Brouncker, Wallis,
>and Leinbniz. The formulas are derived from the fact that in radians the
>inverse tangent (tan^-1) of 1 equals pi/4

>Archinedies (287-212 BCE) approximation for pi was 3 1/7 > pi > 3 10/71.
>Some of the resoultions of tan^-1 (1) = pi/4 are are really hard to show.
>For example Vieta's formula involves square roots and Brouncker's involves
>an every expanding fraction.
>Wallis and Leinbniz however are easy to show:
>Wallis: pi/4 = 2/3 * 4/3 * 4/5 * 6/5 * 6/7 * 8/7 * ...
>Leibniz: pi/4 = 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + 1/9 - 1/11 + 1/13 - ....

>> According to my calulator pi ~= 3.141592654
>3.1416 is the correct one to this many signifigant figures.
>Please note that this makes all of the longer values of pi incorrect.
>pi ~= 3.141592654.
>Pi is accually calculated today through the resolution of tan^-1 (1) = pi/4.
>The accual formula is tan^-1 (x) = summation from n = 0 to n = infinity
>of [(-1)^n * (x)^(2n+1)]/(2n+1)
>For x = 1 you get Leibniz's exquation and the equation simplifies to
>summation from n = 0 to n = infinity of [(-1)^n]/(2n + 1)

>Even Archinedies knew over 2,000 years ago that pi *not* 22/7 nor was it
>223/71 but that it was *between* these two values.
>Please note that if the Egyptians had used measuring wheels of one cubit
>in diameter to lay out the base of the pyramid, pi would have been
>incorperated into the structure even if they had been totally ignorent of
>its value.

That was my original statement. But I had the figures to show that
a one cubit diameter rolled 7 times is 22 cubits; rolled 140 times
is the Great Pyramid base of 440 cubits. Because a cubit diameter is so small
it is more probable a cubit radius was used and rolled 70 times.
Especially because the star Sirius disappears for 70 days at that latitude only,
and came to be known as 70-day Anubis when it rose.
Thus this issue was not of Pi but of pyramids since only 5 of 80
have proportion ratios to Pi. Great Pyramid is 440 cubits squared
and 280 cubits high. Thus the 20x 22 and the 40x 7....factors 22 and 7.
No way can a person roll a wheel up...so how did the Pi get into
the pyramid if only the base length can be rolled. Nobody answered
because they were so busy preferring I look like a fool if they
bring up contraversy with 22/7. So your showing my ignorance to
a more accurate Pi also shows all you repliers to be equally ignorant
about both Egyptians and pyramids. THE PYRAMID? It is a general term.
The Pyramid ...are not all Pi. Therefore my knowledge of my topic...
math in pyramids (plural) is far greater than you people showing me
to Pi to make me a fool. You have only advanced my knowledge in
correcting how well I myself know Pi. You have corrected nothing
about the fact that I showed how the Egyptians DID use 22/7
when founding Giza in 2170 BC.

Now I have a question? Since the diagonal of a square is
the side times square root of 2. Does this then mean that
what ever mathematically happens to an angle of a triangle
will also happen to the side opposite of it. What I mean to say
is that the Great Pyramid has a side whose half is 220 cubits
from outside base to center so that the base diagonal to center is
220x square-root of 2. Now the base-upward slope is 51 degrees 52 minutes [?]
so that its complement (the peak-downward slope) is 38 degrees 8 minutes.
Since the diagonal increases by square-root 2,
then wouldnt the complement angle also increase by square-root 2.
Of which you could then take its complement and that would be the slope
of the corner diaginals which point NW and NE. I am looking for the
NW and NE altitude, and the celestial latitude of the pyramid diagonals
which point to the north eternal stars. Basically because some
pyramids have a 70 and 60 degree slope, too high for the Big Dipper.
And so I pondered the diagonals I wish to calculate.
************

### Martin Fox

Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to Malachi-Eliyah

Malachi-Eliyah wrote:
>

A lot of blabber about pi that any mathematical professional, such as I
am, can tell is a lot of ignorant blabber.

Martin Fox

### Paul Sherman

Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to

If anyone cares, there is a really neat little book called
"A History of PI." It is a short history of Mathematics,
which takes as its basis the continual search for increasing
accuracy in PI. I forget the author's name now, but if
anyone is interested, email me.

BTW, I believe that they are over (2 or 5?) million decimal
places for pi. It is still irrational (and thus, emphatically
*NOT* 22/7).

Paul Sherman
pa...@ht.com

### David J. Vorous

Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to

Malachi-Eliyah wrote:
>
> > 22/7 is only an approximation. PI can not be expressed via any
> > rational fraction; it is an irrational number.
>
> > 3.1415926536
>
> This doesnt look anywhere near 22/7 to me.
> So then you are saying that the only way to carry Pi out
> to further 1000s of decimal places
> is not merely by continuing the method
> used for dividing

I am no math expert, but PI is 3.14159... The elipse (the three dots)
means that the number goes on forever without repeating any number
sequence. If you want to get closer divide 355 by 113. That will get you
6 digits past the decimal point. 22/7 only gets you 2 places.
--
David Vorous
da...@snakebite.com
http://users.aimnet.com/~dvorous/home.html

### R Mentock

Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to

Wayne Delia wrote:

> Perhaps you can help me remember what x is in the following formula:
> It is known that pi is transcendental, as well as the base of the natural
> logarithms (e). There's a number x, 100 < x < 200, where the square root
> of x is irrational. (I seem to remember x = 163). Anyway, you've got two
> transcendentals and one irrational, but the expression (e) to the power of
> ( (pi) times (square root of x) ) not only appears to be rational - it seems to be
> an integer.

e^(pi * sqrt(163)) = 640320^3 + 744

--
D.

men...@mindSpring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~mentock/index.htm

### Patrick C. Ryan

Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to Steve Whittet

<snip>

> >Pi is calculated by using the series:
> >
> >Pi = 4 * ( 1/1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + 1/9 - 1/11 ... )
> >with the signs alternating and the denominators increasing by 2 for each
> term.
> >Carry it out for a few million iterations and you get:
> >
> >Pi = 3.1415927+ (to eight places -- pi has been calculated to several
> million
> >places)

Dear Steve:

I thought I was familiar with what PI is until I saw your formula.

Thank you. It is always pleasant to learn something new.

Pat
--
PATRICK C. RYAN {Pro...@mail.idt.net} * (501) 227-9947
9115 W. 34th St. * Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 * USA
Veit ek, at ek hekk, vindga meidhi, naetr allar niu,
geiri undadhr... a theim meidhi er mangi veit
hvers hann af rotum renn.' * (Havamal 138)
******************************************

### Kim Burkard

Feb 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/7/97
to

In article 1B...@wi.net, Malachi-Eliyah <eli...@wi.net> () writes:
<snip>

>Martin Fox has just replied with name calling,
>at least you followed up with a 10-decimal figure different than 22/7.
>But you have now produced a problem of how I or others could
>calculate Pi by ourselves...with our own calculators.
>To me the biggest brains know nothing if they cant teach,
>because then.....who can ever teach them !
>The higher you go by yourself...
>the more certainty you'll die when you finally fall...
>and we ALL fall.
>Perfection is not the state of impossibility to fall,
>it is the state of impossibility to HEAL from the fall.
>Common knowledge...big falls heal slow...or not at all...
>or even kill you. So it is with today's TOP educators.
>I say this stuff to better you and to better me.
>And so goes unresolved the Pi issue of determining Pi.
>It is also a sidetrack from the issue that 80 pyramids
>do not measure Pi as five are claimed to.

*Please* the value of Pi and pyramid construction have nothing
nothing to do with alt.mythology. Please remove alt.mythology from
this and other Pi and pyramid threads. My apologies to the groups to
which I don't think this should be cross-posted to either. I don't know
where all the folks following up on these threads are posting from
and so I had to leave the newsgroup list as is. Follow-ups are set
accordingly.

Elijah- Do us all a *BIG* favor and read some FAQ's on Usenet
posting guidelines and etiquette. They are available from a number
of sites. One such site is:

Look under the category "Usenet". The FAQ's there will give you lots
of useful information about posting to the Usenet.

-kim
---
Kimberly Burkard | _ Everything I needed to know in life, I
Eastman Kodak Company| _____C .._. learned from my ferret:
Rochester, New York | ____/ \___/ Frolic and dance for joy often, have
bur...@kodak.com |<____/\_---\_\ no fear or worries, and enjoy life.

### erikc

Feb 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/8/97
to

On Fri, 07 Feb 1997 09:20:55 +0000
Malachi-Eliyah <eli...@wi.net>
as message <32FAF3...@wi.net>
-- posted from: alt.atheism:

>|> R. Gaenssmantel wrote:
>|> > That sounds approximately right. However, it is only an approximation, since pi
>|> > is not a rational number (meaning: it can not be obtained by multiplying,
>|> > adding, subtracting, dividing, or squaring any full numbers). Therefore
>|> > 22/7 ~ pi, but not exactly pi.
>|> > Ralf
>|
>|This is false because to carry out pi to 5 decimals or 100 decimals
>|or a million decimals you must have a formula to calculate.
>|And that formula is and always has been 22/7 or 3 1/7.
>|Every figure ever shown for pi has always been 22/7 no matter how
>|far the decimal has been carried.
>|
>|3.14
>|3.1428
>|3.1428571
>|3.1428571428

>|
>|Otherwise you tell me what formula or math do they get their
>|3.1428571428 from.
>|Pi was discovered by wraping a cord around a column or tree until
>|the cord was the same equal units as the diameter. It proved to be that
>|7 times around was 22 times the diameter. You cant change that, nor could
>|you ever show me how pi is calculated if not by dividing 22 by 7.

Once again, Richard Schiller demonstrates that he still lives in the stone age.

FYI:

Pi is calculated by using the series:

Pi = 4 * ( 1/1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + 1/9 - 1/11 ... )
with the signs alternating and the denominators increasing by 2 for each term.
Carry it out for a few million iterations and you get:

Pi = 3.1415927+ (to eight places -- pi has been calculated to several million
places)

A better approximation to Pi is: 355 / 113 = 3.1415929
Pi = 3.1415927
--------------
0.0000002 = pretty close.

This approximation is used in a lot of embedded computer applications where
floating point arithmetic is unavailable and calculations are done using scaled
fixed point arithmetic. It's also handy to remember if your calculator doesn't
have a key for Pi (most scientific calculators do).

Erikc.

Fundamentalist: a bible college graduate whose commencement
exercises consist of demonstrating that he can walk without
scraping his knuckles on the floor.

/* Here's an example of how whacked out they are */

### Steve Whittet

Feb 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/8/97
to

In article <32fbcdca...@news.insync.net>, firew...@insync.netm
says...

>
>On Fri, 07 Feb 1997 09:20:55 +0000
>Malachi-Eliyah <eli...@wi.net>
>as message <32FAF3...@wi.net>
>-- posted from: alt.atheism:
>>|> R. Gaenssmantel wrote:
>>|> >...it is only an approximation, ...pi is not a rational number ...

>>|> > 22/7 ~ pi, but not exactly pi.
>>|> > Ralf
>>|
>>|...you must have a formula to calculate.

>>|And that formula is and always has been 22/7 or 3 1/7.
>>|Every figure ever shown for pi has always been 22/7 no matter how
>>|far the decimal has been carried.
>>|
>>|3.14
>>|3.1428
>>|3.1428571
>>|3.1428571428
>>|
>>|Otherwise you tell me what formula or math do they get their
>>|3.1428571428 from.

The Egyptians used unit fractions
3 + 1/8 + 1/64 + ...
more exactly
3 + 1/8 + 1/61 + 1/5020 + 1/128205129 ...

>>|Pi was discovered by wraping a cord around a column or tree until
>>|the cord was the same equal units as the diameter. It proved to be that
>>|7 times around was 22 times the diameter. You cant change that, nor could
>>|you ever show me how pi is calculated if not by dividing 22 by 7.

The Egyptians calculated Pi by counting the number of squares it
took to fill a circle. This is at least one method which has been
preserved on the Egyptians mathematical papyri.

>
>Once again, Richard Schiller demonstrates that he still lives in the stone
age.
>
>FYI:
>
>Pi is calculated by using the series:
>
>Pi = 4 * ( 1/1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + 1/9 - 1/11 ... )
>with the signs alternating and the denominators increasing by 2 for each
term.
>Carry it out for a few million iterations and you get:
>
>Pi = 3.1415927+ (to eight places -- pi has been calculated to several
million
>places)

Try calculating it by the Egyptian method which is really pretty easy.

>
>A better approximation to Pi is: 355 / 113 = 3.1415929
> Pi = 3.1415927
> --------------
> 0.0000002 = pretty close.

more exactly

3 + 1/8 + 1/61 + 1/5020 + 1/128205129 ...

355/113 is handy to arrive at PI, but consider the calculation
the builders of the pyramids needed to use to cut their stones to
size in the quarry. I think it is likely they measured in Horus eye
fractions using 1/8ths and 1/64ths.

>
>This approximation is used in a lot of embedded computer applications where
>floating point arithmetic is unavailable and calculations are done using
scaled
>fixed point arithmetic. It's also handy to remember if your calculator
doesn't
>have a key for Pi (most scientific calculators do).

The rough value, 3 + 1/8 + 1/64 + =3.140625;
is better than 22/7 and easier to use in practical measurements

(pi - 3.140625 = .000967654
22/7 = 3.142857143;
3.142857143 - pi = .001264489)

>

>
>
>
>
>Erikc.
>
>

steve

### Malachi-Eliyah

Feb 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/8/97
to sa...@mail.teleport.com

John P. Boatwright wrote:
> 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937511 ....

I like your post title but here are two previous Pi I was sent
and somebody is wrong.

3.141592653589793238462643383279...
3.141592653589793238462643383279501971
3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937511 ....

So which is it 1971 or 2884 ?
Hey, just saw your 2884 precedes 1971 and
people dont think I'm observant !
I take it he skipped the 2884.

### Malachi-Eliyah

Feb 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/8/97
to

Sieve wrote:
> OK, fool, now go to a mathematics BOOK and look up the value of pi,
> and then apologize for your incompetence. Pi cannot be expressed exactly
> as a fraction, especially not as 22/7, which repeats after a few decimal
> places. Pi is also not the solution to any finite polynomial. It can be
> approximaed through cal...um, big, hard math.

I should not have to apologize for ignorance.
Pi is not all that easy to find nor get out of a world which claims
it is so great in number of great intellectual brains to hand out
Nobel prizes like a Oscar or Grammy contest of recognitions.

No apology...I am just merely corrected, and as ALWAYS,
I remember the new correct knowledge I now have.

3.141592653589793238462643383279...
3.141592653589793238462643383279501971
3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937511 ....

These three figures from considerate users reveal that others
also flaw...the second person skipped over 2884
of course I am too stupid to notice that, RIGHT !

I give no apology because what I stated is a fact, the Egyptians
used 22/7, or more accurately they rolled a cubit radius stone
70 times to obtain 440 royal cubits because they knew every 7 times
produced 44 cubits. This is because a cubit diameter
rolled 7 times is 22 cubits.....so merely because my knowledge was
no more accurate than the Egyptians...it is your American junior high
teachers who were told by you educators to tell me that, as if a
12-14 year old couldnt comprehend the truth, and I am still
stating a fact about the Egyptians

Basically you people listen to a person looking for the first
mispronounced word so that you can create a tangent of how
the word should be pronounced rather than permit the person
speaking any consideration of continuing.
I would not grieve if your life and death was placed on the same
balance with a jury who does the same to you.

### Malachi-Eliyah

Feb 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/8/97
to Sieve

3.141592653589793238462643383279...
3.141592653589793238462643383279501971
3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937511 ....

************

### Malachi-Eliyah

Feb 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/8/97
to

Now I have a question? Since the diagonal of a square is
the side times square root of 2. Does this then mean that
what ever mathematically happens to an angle of a triangle
will also happen to the side opposite of it. What I mean to say
is that the Great Pyramid has a side whose half is 220 cubits
from outside base to center so that the base diagonal to center is
220x square-root of 2. Now the base-upward slope is 51 degrees 52 minutes [?]
so that its complement (the peak-downward slope) is 38 degrees 8 minutes.
Since the diagonal increases by square-root 2,
then wouldnt the complement angle also increase by square-root 2.
Of which you could then take its complement and that would be the slope
of the corner diaginals which point NW and NE. I am looking for the
NW and NE altitude, and the celestial latitude of the pyramid diagonals
which point to the north eternal stars. Basically because some
pyramids have a 70 and 60 degree slope, too high for the Big Dipper.
And so I pondered the diagonals I wish to calculate.

***********

### Don Judy

Feb 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/8/97
to

On Fri, 07 Feb 1997 11:44:01 +0000, a certain elija/johnthebaptist-possessed
Wisconsinian formerly from Tennesseen blabbered falsely about Martin Fox's
accurate description of his (prophetboy's) loud-mouthed, self-ordained, self
righteous and self involved posting and will undoubtedly make excuses about
other postings or general tenor of replies to his rude, invasive, defensive,
inexcusable blather.

DJ

### Dave Seaman

Feb 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/8/97
to

In article <32FBCB...@mindspring.co>,

R Mentock <Men...@mindspring.co> wrote:
>e^(pi * sqrt(163)) = 640320^3 + 744

Correction. That should be

e^(pi * sqrt(163)) = 640320^3 + 744 - alpha

where alpha is approximately 7.4992740280181431112 * 10^(-13).

--
Dave Seaman dse...@purdue.edu
++++ stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal ++++
++++ if you agree copy these lines to your sig ++++
++++ see http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm ++++