Clive Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From Petrie’s book:
>
> 36. …Distance from original entrance along the
> descending passage to horizontal floor…”4140
> inches”
>
> 37. …Distance along horizontal subterranean floor
> “1318 inches”.
>
> Once again for the “non-believer”
>
> (descending passage length)/(horizontal length) =
> 4140/1318 = 3.1411
Hello Clive,
The figure of 4140" is the rough measurement of the Descending Passage (DP) taken by Petrie in 1881-2.
The first reliable measurements of this Passage were taken by John and Morton Edgar in 1909.
The length of the Passage floor on its west side is 4148.32"
The length of the Passage floor on its east side is 4146.42"
Mean length = 4147.37" +/- 0.95"
Which gives 3.1465 +/- 0.0005, which is an interesting result because of its close proximity to 3 1/7 (3.143).
But which came first, the sloping length of the Descending Passage floor (4147.4") or the horizontal distance between the start of the Subterranean Passage floor and the south end of the Blind Passage (1318")?
Whichever was first, how was its length arrived at?
Pointing out that Dimension X multiplied by 3.14*** = Dimension Y , or Dimension Y divided by 3.14*** = Dimension X is not, IMO, enough.
I consider it necessary to show how Dimension X or Dimension Y came to be what it is.
In royal cubits of 20.62", the Descending Passage floor is 201.135 royal cubits long and the horizontal distance between the start of the Subterranean Passage floor and the south end of the Blind Passage is 63.92 royal cubits.
So, why 201.135 royal cubits or, alternatively, 63.92 royal cubits?
Regards,
MJ