Clive Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Take our first lesson from Petrie:
>
> His book states:
> 25. “……On the whole, we probably cannot do better
> than take 51º 52' ± 2' as the nearest
> approximation to the mean angle of the
> Pyramid, allowing some weight to the South side.
> The mean base being 9068.8 ± .5 inches, this
> yields a height of “5776.0 ± 7.0” inches.
>
> 46. “…From this the length of the roof of the
> gallery is 1688.9 – 40.45 = 1648.4 horizontal, or
> “1838.6” sloping.
>
> For the “non-believer”…
> (height of structure)/(length of gallery roof) =
> 5776/1839 = 3.1417
>
> The best and have a very merry.
>
> Clive
>

Hi Clive

Hope you had a good Christmas.

I'm happy to accept Petrie's values for internal measurement as they are not based on an absolute value.

Why are you using Petrie's measure of height when later research gives a value of approximately 5771" (not my calculation - Lehner's value 146.59 metres - 5771.26"). Petrie is in error on his external measurements because the base of the GP was not cleared of sand so he could not get an accurate measurement. Without an accurate measurement of the base, he had difficulty in calculating the height. Subsequent research seems to give a more accurate answer and certainly should be used unless you can can a reason why Petrie should still be used.

5771.26/1839 = 3.1382599
Pi = 3.1415927
Error = 0.106%

Had the error been around 0.01%, as you have with your passage lengths, it would have been acceptable as possible evidence. A 0.1% error doesn't prove anything.

Regards


David

"When you do not know where you are going, any road will take you there".