It was John Taylor who first proposed the idea that the number PI might have been intentionally incorporated into the design of the Great Pyramid of Khufu at Giza.
He discovered that if one divides the perimeter of the Pyramid by its height, one obtains a close approximation to 2PI.
He compared this to the fact that if one divides the circumference of a circle by its radius, one obtains 2PI. He suggested that perhaps the Great Pyramid was intended to be a representation of the spherical Earth, the height corresponding to the radius joining the center of the Earth to the North Pole and the perimeter corresponding to the Earth's circumference at the Equator.
It is true that if one divides the Great Pyramid's perimeter by its height, one indeed obtains a very good approximation to 2PI. An equivalent statement is that the slope of each face of the Great Pyramid is very close to 4/PI=1.273239.... This relationship is accurate to within .04% or better (depending on the data that one uses). That level of accuracy seems very impressive and is certainly the reason that Taylor's idea has been widely promoted and believed. Could such an accurate and elegant relationship be just a mere coincidence?
The main point that I will make in this essay is that when one takes into account what we know about ancient Egyptian mathematics (based primarily on the Rhind Papyrus), especially their ways of representing lengths and slopes, then the relationship between PI and the Great Pyramid no longer seems very remarkable.
The essential point is that the measurement system which the ancient Egyptians used would lead the architects to use certain slopes in the design of pyramids. One of those slopes just happens to be an excellent approximation to the number 4/PI, and if the architect chooses that slope, then the pyramid would exhibit the famous PI relationship. From this point of view, the probability that the architect might choose that particular slope for at least one of the pyramids is actually rather high. It then becomes quite reasonable to believe that the relationship between PI and the Great Pyramid is just an accidental consequence of their Mathematics.
For the GREAT PYRAMID OF KHUFU at Giza, the angle of slant for each face is 51o50'40"
and the inverse-slope of each face then turns out to be .785667. This is quite close to 22/28 = .785714
they used a system of measuring lengths in terms of "cubits," "palms," and "fingers." A cubit is equal to seven palms and a palm is equal to four fingers. Thus one cubit is equal to 28 fingers, and that is where denominators dividing 28 would come from.
Read the complete writeup Here for the background.
He discovered that if one divides the perimeter of the Pyramid by its height, one obtains a close approximation to 2PI.
He compared this to the fact that if one divides the circumference of a circle by its radius, one obtains 2PI. He suggested that perhaps the Great Pyramid was intended to be a representation of the spherical Earth, the height corresponding to the radius joining the center of the Earth to the North Pole and the perimeter corresponding to the Earth's circumference at the Equator.
It is true that if one divides the Great Pyramid's perimeter by its height, one indeed obtains a very good approximation to 2PI. An equivalent statement is that the slope of each face of the Great Pyramid is very close to 4/PI=1.273239.... This relationship is accurate to within .04% or better (depending on the data that one uses). That level of accuracy seems very impressive and is certainly the reason that Taylor's idea has been widely promoted and believed. Could such an accurate and elegant relationship be just a mere coincidence?
The main point that I will make in this essay is that when one takes into account what we know about ancient Egyptian mathematics (based primarily on the Rhind Papyrus), especially their ways of representing lengths and slopes, then the relationship between PI and the Great Pyramid no longer seems very remarkable.
The essential point is that the measurement system which the ancient Egyptians used would lead the architects to use certain slopes in the design of pyramids. One of those slopes just happens to be an excellent approximation to the number 4/PI, and if the architect chooses that slope, then the pyramid would exhibit the famous PI relationship. From this point of view, the probability that the architect might choose that particular slope for at least one of the pyramids is actually rather high. It then becomes quite reasonable to believe that the relationship between PI and the Great Pyramid is just an accidental consequence of their Mathematics.
For the GREAT PYRAMID OF KHUFU at Giza, the angle of slant for each face is 51o50'40"
and the inverse-slope of each face then turns out to be .785667. This is quite close to 22/28 = .785714
they used a system of measuring lengths in terms of "cubits," "palms," and "fingers." A cubit is equal to seven palms and a palm is equal to four fingers. Thus one cubit is equal to 28 fingers, and that is where denominators dividing 28 would come from.
Read the complete writeup Here for the background.
The earliest attested standard measure is from the Old Kingdom pyramids of Egypt and was called the royal cubit (mahe).
The royal cubit was 523 to 529 mm (20.6 to 20.8 in) in length, and was subdivided into 7 palms of 4 digits each, for a 28-part measure in total.
Evidence for the royal cubit unit is known from Old Kingdom architecture, from at least as early as the construction of the Step Pyramid of Djoser from around 2,700 B.C.
Wiki
So might PI have arisen from the slope used in the pyramids and the units of measure.The royal cubit was 523 to 529 mm (20.6 to 20.8 in) in length, and was subdivided into 7 palms of 4 digits each, for a 28-part measure in total.
Evidence for the royal cubit unit is known from Old Kingdom architecture, from at least as early as the construction of the Step Pyramid of Djoser from around 2,700 B.C.
Wiki