Anthony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jim Alison Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Perhaps you can otherwise explain why the
> king's
> > chamber in the great pyramid is 11.18 cubits
> high,
> > the same phi factor used in my proposed
> > construction of the bent.
>
> Yes. It's five courses high.

An answer which does not actually address the 11.18rc/Phi factor.
The KC is actually 11.4rc high.
The 11.18rc measure comes from the diagonal length of the KC floor @ 22.36rc (half 22.36rc = 11.18rc).
Unfortunately, the floor of the KC is tilted (about 2"?) making it difficult to determine what the height of the Chamber from the surface of the floor (as distinct from the base of the Chamber's walls) was intended to be.
However, the depth of the floor at the Chamber's doorway is 5.2", which equals 0.25rc.
It is, therefore, quite possible that the surface of the floor was intended to be a quarter of a royal cubit above the base of the surrounding walls.
This would make the height of the Chamber from the surface of the floor 11.15rc (11.4rc - 0.25rc) - only 0.03rc (0.6") short of the 11.18rc needed to create the Phi phenomenon in the Chamber's side (north and south) walls.

That this Phi phenomenon can be created completely by accident through at least two different methods suggests to me that its appearance is probably a coincidence.


Jim writes,
> And of course the ratio
> > between the slant height and the half base of
> the
> > great pyramid is 1.618 to one, just to
> mention a
> > couple of well known examples.

True, the Phi factor appears in the superstructure (slant height @ 356.09 divided by half base @ 220 = 1.6186) but it is possible that this is nothing more than the natural product of the builders using seked 5 1/2 for the square-base structure.

Anthony writes,
> All of which are coincidences, stacked on
> speculations, and held together with wishful
> thinking.

IMO Anthony is wrong to dismiss Jim's findings in the manner he does.
Pi, Phi et al do appear in the dimensions of Khufu's pyramid (and others) and until further evidentiary material that settles the arguement one way or the other comes to light, we have to keep in mind that what some of us today choose to see as coincidence may well one day turn out to have been intentional after all.

Yesterday, Homo Habilis was deemed to be directly ancestral to Homo Erectus.
Today, if an article in my newspaper is to be believed, a new fossil discovery in East Africa throws serious doubt over this Habilis-into-Erectus view...
Who knows what awaits discovery under the sands of Egypt...

MJ