rich Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In a previous topic, somebody published the Petrie
> survey of the Great Pyramid, showing the different
> heights in each of the layers... there didn't seem
> to be a good pattern.
A lot of independent work has been done on the courses during this century. Here's one example that uses Petrie Giza digit, or rather its half value of .363 inches as it would apply to the courses.
Petrie's Giza digit .727 +/- .002 inches
[
members.westnet.com.au]
Chart 2
[
members.westnet.com.au]
Patterns ... No
Metrology ... Yes
The above chart takes the view (as did Petrie) that the corner blocks of each course across the diagonal were meant to be positioned at identical heights above base. The core levels between corner blocks are unknown but we assume they would also give a good account of themselves.
The highlight of the chart becomes known on course 38 where across the diagonal both level above base and block thickness have been given an absolute zero by Petrie. It appears to be no coincidence that this is where the 100 multiple occurs.
This additional chart is not Ron's so don't go emailing him.
Graham Oaten
The great amount of labour involved in quarrying and transporting such a mass of masonry as even the casing, has always been a cause of astonishment - Sir Flinders Petrie.
