Jim Alison Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lehner gives sidelengths 220m, height 105m and
> angle of 43 deg 22 minutes. (1997)
>
> Edwards gives sidelengths of 722 ft, height of 343
> ft and angle of 43 deg 36 minutes (rev. ed. 1985)
>
> Baines and Malek give sidelengths of 220m, height
> of 104m and angle of 43 deg 22 minutes (1980).


I don't think any of them actually surveyed the pyramid thought, but are rather just reporting the flawed findings of others. The number of people repeating a mistaken calculation does not render the calculation suddenly correct.



>
> To begin
> with, we must be talking about subsistence in the
> middle of the pyramid while the outer edges at
> ground level remained essentially at their
> original elevation. Even if the interior blocks
> deteriorated, I do not think their mass could be
> compressed vertically. It had nowhere to go in
> the solid masonry of the interior of the pyramid.
> Also, there is no evidence of deterioration of the
> interior blocks of the pyramid. Even the exposed
> blocks in the interior that are cracked over the
> empty spaces of the passages show no evidence of
> displacement.


I tend to agree with this concept that subsidence would be evidence, in the very least, in the entrance passageway (as we see in the Bent, for example, where the shift in the mantle is clearly evident). I'm more likely to believe that, as Jon has pointed out, the quality of the limestone is so poor that it has eroded significantly, and evenly, thus creating the illusion of a near-perfect pyramid, even though the pyramid itself has lost six meters in height.



>
> If the bedrock below the middle of the pyramid
> sank 5-6 meters, it would have had a devestating
> effect on the chambers at ground level in the
> middle of the pyramid.


Not necessarily. If the center of the whole structure collapsed, we'd only see a shift in the entrance passageway. If it collapsed at an angle, we might not even see that, as the shifting area could have been "funneled" downward toward the center, keeping the chambers relatively intact. This scenario, however, is extremely unlikely. Therefore, by Murphy's Law, it's probably what happened...


> The cracking of the blocks
> above the open spaces of the passages without any
> displacement of the blocks is not in the same
> ballpark as the destruction that would have been
> caused by uneven subsistence of 5-6 meters below
> the center of the pyramid graduating up to no
> subsistence at the outside edges of the pyramid at
> ground level. All of the chambers and passages
> would have been totally demolished.

Passages probably, chambers less likely.



> Instead, we
> see the beutiful corbelled chamber in essentially
> perfect condition. This type of subsistence would
> have stretched the length of the entrance passage
> by at least a few meters from the outside of the
> pyramid to it's terminus near the middle of the
> pyramid at ground level. Since rock does not
> stretch, there would be horrible gaps and offsets
> in the passage blocks, but there are none.


Agreed... that or a physical offset of several meters vertically. Clearly that's not the case, either.


> All of
> the blocks of the pyramid would be tilted towards
> the center. The slope of this tilt at ground
> level would be 10 cubits down for 210 cubits run
> at ground level, and the 10 cubits of subsistence
> would amount to an even greater inward slope for
> the blocks at higher levels as the sidelengths
> shortened. There is no evidence of this. In my
> opinion, if the 45 degree angle of the pyramid is
> correct, the surveys giving a completed height of
> 104-105 m must simply be rejected altogether.


I absolutely agree here. I maintain the 104-m height being used is probably the current height, post erosion.

Anthony

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.