Hello Lobo,

Thank you for responding to my post so fully.
It makes a refreshing change to have somebody respond to one’s post with constructive comments and observations instead of just dismissing it with ‘There is no evidence’ and so on.

You write, ‘Without seeing these occurrences and how you derived them, and/or how they are positioned in the structure they might be intended, coincidences, artefacts, or pattern finding.’

A very fair comment.
Frustratingly, my work is not yet fully prepared for, how shall I put it, public consumption.
I’m currently plodding through my mountain of roughly drafted notes and diagrams and turning them into something readable and, hopefully, easily understood.
I’m roughly half way through (the work is exhaustive and runs to a few hundred pages of diagrams and accompanying text).
But my health is poor (recent mild heart attack – my third) and I am finding the work a struggle.
However, being a stoic Englishman and all that, I will finish it eventually and I plan to send a copy of the finished item to any interested party.


You ask, ‘What are your "formulas" found within the King's chamber, besides the obvious 2:1 rectangle ones?’

Well, there are there are two occurrences of: A = B × 3 1/7, then there’s the obvious: the height of the doorway = the height of the north wall divided by 5; and the width of the doorway = the length of the north wall divided by 10
What may be of particular interest to you and others here is that I have ‘discovered’ that the ‘Golden Section’ seen in the Chamber’s side (north and south) walls was not intended, and the raised floor to ceiling height of the Chamber is only coincidentally close to half the diagonal length of the floor.


You write, ‘They might explain such, big difference from does explain such.’

Yes. Sorry about that. I should have said ‘might’ not ‘does’… I got a touch over-confident there.


You write, ‘I would have to agree with Anthony on this point. With 40 out of possibly thousands of relationships between measurable points doesn't rate overly high. With a Seked of 5 + 1/2 it seems even lower. The 5.5 Seked has a natural tie with approximate values of Pi and circles just like the Seked 5.25 lends itself to the pythagorean formula.’

If I were in your position I would have to say exactly the same.
However, it is the way that these 40+ occurrences (occasionally combined with other simple formulae) appear in a seemingly logical sequence that is, IMO, so telling.
But as you so rightly say, you need to see these occurrences and how I derived them, and how they are positioned in the structure.

Because of the dispute over the existence/non-existence of pi as 3 1/7 in 4th Dyn Egypt I have been searching for an alternative explanation for the appearance of this number in the dimensions of Khufu’s pyramid.
It occurred to me not that long ago that seked 5½ is probably the key to resolving the problem.
It is obvious that both the height of this Pyramid (taken as 280 royal cubits) and the horizontal distance between its apex and a side at the base (taken as 220 royal cubits) are taken directly from seked 5½ expressed as 28 digits rise to 22 digits run.
To put it in somewhat simplistic terms, this seked contains, so to speak, the numbers 5½, 7, 11, 22, and I’m looking for the equivalence of multiplication and division by 3 1/7.

This should explain why I’m rather pleased and taken with your example “You have 4 blocks of height equal to 7 palms and width of 5.5 palms(each block having the Seked 5.5) and symmetry…” etc.

At the moment I feel that if I can get from seked 5½ to the equivalence of multiplication and division by 3 1/7 without any reference to radii, diameters and circumferences, I shall be one very happy bunny…


You continue, ‘As the AE preferred symmetry and a palm unit it seems more an artifact at the moment.’

Agreed, but I do like to think that when (if?) you read my entire step-by-step work you may, just may be inclined to change your mind.


You close with, ‘So without seeing the occurrences and their intent/relation to the pyramid I can only say they are coincidences (this doesn't mean that they can't be true just not proven to be meant).’

I appreciate the respectful element of caution. Thank you.

Regards,

MJ