waggy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And perhaps most
> interesting, what is the theoretical slope of the Red?'
I agree with you that this is one of the more interesting questions to be settled. And it seems to me that it was a much debated issue during the design phase for this pyramid.
I think most will accept that the so-called Pythagorean Theorem was not a recognized factor at this point in time. I believe, though, that the AE were well acquainted with a whole roster of what I term as "Empirical Triples" - these being the apparent right-angle triples that could be "confirmed" via direct measurement. As surveyors of long standing I should think that they would have uncovered a large number of these, and would have made use of them regularly in their line of work.
The slope of the Red Pyramid strikes me as an homage of sorts to those triples that hover around the 1-1-sq rt of 2 triple. Based on his survey results, Petrie proposed the very nearly true triple of 98-100-140 for the Red Pyramid, although he bungled his math a bit for these parameters and gave the slope of the arrangement as being about 9 minutes too steep.(p. 27 'Seasons')
Based on Dorner's actual findings, it could be the case that the slope was chosen to be something of an averaging between two "extremes" - that is, on a blending between the 98-100-140 and the 99-99-140 near triples. This then giving a 98-99-139.3 'quasi' triple to be used in the construction.
All this being said, and as I argue in my paper, the interior compartments of the Red Pyramid structure were clearly (in my opinion) designed on the basis of the 68-72-99 empirical triple. The design of this pyramid strikes me as an almost playful excursion intended to utilize the "99" thematic within the right-angle triple - and the squaring of the circle - frameworks. It also seems possible that the final slope angle was decided after the interior layout design had already been agreed upon. Possibly even after some of the interior work had been completed.