MJ Thomas Wrote:

> I must confess to being very unhappy with Butler’s
> (and others) ascribing building error to
> differences from whole cubits.

In some cases I must agree with you. However, when the difference in a whole cubit length is very small this may be due to building error.
My take is that the builders were thinking primarily in terms of whole numbers. You effectively say this yourself by deriving Khufu's controlling ratio from a whole number approximation to Pi as 22/7. I have no problem with this since it, as well as the Pi ratio 38/12, was noted by Butler in the chambers of the red pyramid (as well as in Khufu mortuary temple). Admittedly he draws his data from M & R and I do not know if this has been refined by later measurements. These are the quantities he identifies derived from chamber and passage dimensions :-

'22' cubits represented as 11.55 m giving cubit 0.525
'22' 11.525 0.5239
'22' 11.56 0.5254
'7' 3.65 0.5214
'7' 3.64 0.520
'38' 19.885 0.5233
'12' 6.25 0.5208

The base of the red quoted by Butler is :-

'420' 219.28 Perring 0.5221
'420' 220 Fakhry 0.5238

...but I don't know if there are better figures?
For comparison, figures extracted from the bent are :-

'362' Dorner mean 189.61 0.5238
'362' Petrie mean 189.46 0.5233

...and the satellite pyramid :-

'100' Petrie 52.44 0.5244

The approximate mean of these figures is sensibly no different from that obtained from Khufu base, ie. 0.52326 m.

> I am equally unhappy with the ascribing of
> different royal cubit lengths to dimensions that
> are not in whole number royal cubits of
> 20.632”/524mms

I agree there was one standard of measure used. But what features compell you to assume 0.524 m?

> The actual length of the Ascending Passage
> (starting at the floor of the Descending Passage)
> is 1546.8”, which equals 74.971rc.

Yes, which is 75.03 cubits of 0.5236 m. ie. the same as that derived from the pyramid base circuit. It looks as if the builders wanted to achieve a vertical rise of 33 cubits and sloping length of 75 cubits and lowered the angle of the passage to achieve this.

> Another example of this massaging of figures to
> suit individual tastes/theories can be seen in the
> Grand Gallery.
> Its floor is 87.994rcs long, but you’ll be told by
> many that it was meant to be 88rcs - and for no
> better reason than 87.994 is very close to 88, and
> nice round whole numbers are very much de rigueur
> with many Pyramid theorists.

Or 88.06 cubits of 0.5236 m.

> Interestingly, you’ll rarely see this happen with
> the Pyramid’s myriad of smaller features.
> The distance between the south wall of the
> Antechamber and the north wall of the King’s
> Chamber is 100.8”, i.e. 4.886rcs @
> 20.632”/524mms.

Here there is a significant departure from whole unit dimensions, as is the case for the subterranean chamber. If this is not an error, what is your explanation for the proportions of the subject of your thread?

As far as overall plans go Butler managed to include more features than anybody else by showing how chamber sizes approximated layout dimensions. (He did not include the subterranean chamber in this). In spite of this his scheme has excited little interest, though I don't think that this was because of the discrepancies you have noticed. More likely it was because of his sea level hypothesis, as well as a general reluctance to entertain transgenerational pyramid schemes. I am not sure from what you have written whether you support an overall layout. If so then should we expect the internal layout of Menkaure to have been designed around its 7/11 slope as well? Alternatively pyramids were designed for individual kings. If Khufu was designed around 7/11 do you believe that the interior of other pyramids were designed according to pyramid slope?

poundr17