DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.15#0079
THE RELIGION OP THE GREAT PYRAMID. 69
of difference in the base measures, it might be sup-
posed that the exactness of the approximation to
this ratio could not be determined very satisfac-
torily. But as certain casing stones have been
discovered which indicate with considerable exact-
ness the slope of the original plane-surfaces of the
pyramid, the ratio of the height to the side of the
base may be regarded as much more satisfactorily
determined than the actual value of either dimen-
sion. Of course the pyramidalists claim a degree
of precision indicating a most accurate knowledge
of the ratio between the diameter and the circum-
ference of a circle ; and the angle of the only
casing stone measured being diversely estimated
at s i° 50' and 51° 52J', they consider 50o 51' 14-3"
the true value, and infer that the builders regarded
the ratio as 3-14159 to 1. The real fact is, that
the modern estimates of the dimensions of the
casing stones (which, by the way, ought to agree
better if these stones are as well made as stated)
indicate the values 3-1439228 and 3-1396740 for
the ratio ; and all we can say is, that the ratio
really used lay probably between these limits,
though it may have been outside either. Now the
approximation of either is not remarkably close.
It requires no mathematical knowledge at all to
determine the circumference of a circle much more
of difference in the base measures, it might be sup-
posed that the exactness of the approximation to
this ratio could not be determined very satisfac-
torily. But as certain casing stones have been
discovered which indicate with considerable exact-
ness the slope of the original plane-surfaces of the
pyramid, the ratio of the height to the side of the
base may be regarded as much more satisfactorily
determined than the actual value of either dimen-
sion. Of course the pyramidalists claim a degree
of precision indicating a most accurate knowledge
of the ratio between the diameter and the circum-
ference of a circle ; and the angle of the only
casing stone measured being diversely estimated
at s i° 50' and 51° 52J', they consider 50o 51' 14-3"
the true value, and infer that the builders regarded
the ratio as 3-14159 to 1. The real fact is, that
the modern estimates of the dimensions of the
casing stones (which, by the way, ought to agree
better if these stones are as well made as stated)
indicate the values 3-1439228 and 3-1396740 for
the ratio ; and all we can say is, that the ratio
really used lay probably between these limits,
though it may have been outside either. Now the
approximation of either is not remarkably close.
It requires no mathematical knowledge at all to
determine the circumference of a circle much more