MJ Thomas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hello Kanga,
> I asked, "why was the height of the KC walls
> increased to 80 palms?
>
> You reply, 'Well, I think you have answered your
> own question.'
>
> Oops. I meant to write, In your opinion, why...'
What I meant to say was, "In my opinion, the reason is the same as the one you gave concerning the 22:7 relation.
> You write:
> > I would add this. By making each course 16 palms
> > high, the designers made sure that the dimensions
> > of the wall should be read in palms. So, we have
> > three dimensions for the chamber walls as 80p x
> > 70p x 140p. As you have implied, the perimeter of
> > the end walls then becomes 80 + 80 + 140 + 140 =
> > 440p. This is the same number of palms as the
> > cubits in the base. The ratio 440:140 reduces to
> > 22:7, which we recognize as "pi". This was
> > Petrie's original discovery, as I remember, but I
> > think it is suggestive rather than persuasive.
>
> Multiplication and division by 3 1/7 appears
> numerous times in this Pyramid, so I am inclined
> to think its presence (regardless of whether it
> relates to pi or not) is persuasive rather than
> suggestive.
The evidence from the chamber is suggestive, but taken in conjunction with evidence from the rest of the pyramid, it is persuasive. However, I've never seen this argument presented formally.
> Until I can present in detail my hypothesis in
> support of this we shall have to agree to
> disagree.
I don't think we are in disagreement.
> You write,
> > I think the appearance of phi is unintentional. In
> > fact, I can't really see phi in these dimensions.
> > You would have to add 5 cubits to 11.18 to get 10
> > x phi, and there is no dimension of 5 cubits in
> > the chamber (though there is in the antechamber!).
>
> For an example of how Phi appears in the
> dimensions of the KC's side (north and south)
> walls please see:
That link is to West's book Traveller's Key, which I have. In the section on the KC, he mentions the derivation of phi from sqrt 5, but the derivation is not shown within the chamber. I am not convinced by West's argument.
> You write,
> > Taken in isolation, it may appear that the 3-4-5
> > triangle is unintentional - and I would like to
> > see that argument - but taken in concert with the
> > dimensions of the mortuary temple of 75c x 100c,
> > which is exactly 5 times the dimensions of the 3 x
> > 4 rectangle contained in the King's Chamber, it
> > has to be admitted that the architect was familiar
> > with the 3-4-5 triangle.
>
> I am not entirely convinced that the 4th Dyn
> Egyptians were fully aware of what we know as the
> Pythagoras Theorem.
I never mentioned the Pythagoras. Besides, knowledge of the Pythagoras is demonstrated by the use of square roots.
> I have found that these occurrences of the 3:4:5
> triangle can be produced without recourse to this
> Theorem.
As above.
