MJ Thomas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I must confess that I am not at all sure what you
> mean by, ‘…deriving Khufu's
> controlling ratio from a whole number
> approximation to Pi as 22/7’

The pyramids are a form of sacred architecture and the dimensions given to them presumably were selected with the same degree of care that they lavished on the actual construction. Under these dimensions lie geometry, and the perfect geometrical figure is the circle. I can see no reason why the Egyptians could not have measured the circumference of a circle with reasonable accuracy, it involves nothing more than stretching a cord at a large enough scale and measuring around the circumference. It is difficult to believe that the standard approximation cited in Egyptological literature represented the extent of their knowledge, they might well have been aware of approximations involving much larger numbers (indeed the 38/12 approximation found at Giza and Dashur), yet it seems they preferred the simple and elegant solution 22/7 according to a principle that small numbers are more powerful than small ones, a concept not unknown outside Egypt.
If we imagine Khufu really was built to relect this perfection then it appears that they conceived of a pyramid of half base 1 X 1000 units, superimposing the vertical section to produce segments of 560 and 440 units, and taking the latter as the base of Khufu.

> Instead I draw your attention to the three granite
> blocks and single limestone block forming the
> floor from the King's Chamber through to the face
> of the Great Step.
>
> Starting at the King's Chamber these four blocks
> measure in length 70.63”, 86.26”, 47.25”, and
> 126.22”. Combined length = 330.36”
>
> According to my hypothesis these four blocks were
> intended to measure (with the royal cubit @
> 20.632”)
> 3.42 royal cubits or 70.56” – difference to actual
> = 0.07”
> 4.177 royal cubits or 86.18” - difference to
> actual = 0.08”
> 2.289 royal cubits or 47.23” - difference to
> actual = 0.02”
> 6.114 royal cubits or 126.14” - difference to
> actual = 0.08”
> Combined length 16 royal cubits or 330.11” -
> difference to actual = 0.25”
>
> I think I can safely say that these blocks were
> not intended to be whole numbers of royal cubits
> long.
> In case you are wondering, I can tell you that all
> four dimensions were derived from the width and
> height of the King’s Chamber doorway (as 2 royal
> cubits x 2.286 royal cubits).
> I should mention that the 3rd block @ 2.289 royal
> cubits is not simply directly as the height of the
> Chamber doorway; it is the product of something
> else derived from the doorways dimensions.

I am still wondering. Show us what you mean and give us a chance to evaluate it

> You write:
> > I agree there was one standard of measure
> used. But what features compel you to
> > assume 0.524 m?
>
> If you’ll forgive such a sweeping statement for an
> answer; literally all of them – right down to the
> recess in the west wall of the Subterranean
> Chamber…

I have already shown that the ascending passage, grand gallery, and pyramid perimeter, produce whole numbers of cubits of value 0.5236 m. This is also near to the mean at Dashur. If you explained your statements with worked examples instead of providing lists of dimensions we might better be able to evaluate your hypothesis and the case for a larger cubit.

> Either way, the architect ended up using as part
> of his system the multiplying and dividing of
> numbers by 3 1/7.
> However, IMO in practice he would have multiplied
> by 22 and divided by 7, and multiplied by 7 and
> divided by 22.

You listed nine controlling equations in an earlier post but give no indication if you are applying them in a systematic manner, one construction leading smoothly to another, or are applying where you get a good fit? Again we have no way of knowing until you describe your constructions. We cannot guess what you have done and so we cannot discuss it.

poundr17