The review by 'ancient architects' seemed reasonable to me.

At the present time the muon data indicates a large void. Dr Lightbody has pointed out that the same signature could be due to voids on either side of the Grand Gallery which might easily double the expected signature. His paper suggested a reason why this might so (ie it would have been difficult to make an interface between the courses and the rising structure of the gallery).

In my opinion there was no need to leave a void either side of the Grand Gallery because it could easily have been filled with sand which would have added some stability, allowing some movement without the potential for collapse into an empty space. I suspect the specific gravity of bulk sand may be say 67% of the specific gravity of limestone so any void filled with sand would then need to be three times as large as the the predicted void. The idea of a really huge void filled with sand seems unlikely as such a large void wouldn't serve any purpose.

It is, however, important to rule out lateral voids with a non-invasive technique before drilling yet more holes in the pyramid.

Elsewhere on this forum, I have noted that a 'double escalator' would have facilitated the transfer of the huge granite stones up to the top roof chamber of the King's Chamber complex.

I see the existing Grand Gallery as the first crane to take the granite stones to the foot of the King's Chamber, and possibly an upper gallery as the second crane to take more granite stones to a higher level. There were no escalators or cranes, but two large ramps may have been required.

If Dr Lightbody is able to do work proving that there is no lateral space either side of the gallery then the next stage would be to determine the size and shape of the space above the grand gallery.

In publishing the muon data, which is inconclusive as regards the position of the void, the authors invited others to share their expertise on what the structure might be.

My guess is that the authors of the muon report will not argue that Dr Lightbody is definitely wrong, but will respect his opinion. Even if archaeologists were to find an upper gallery above the existing Grand Gallery (and no voids either side of the existing gallery) then this does not necessarily invalidate the proposition made in Dr Lightbody's paper. A scientific investigation of this kind should investigate the possibilities in a sensible way. It is not a case of who is right and who is wrong.

It may be the authors of the muon report knew their work was over, and that it was time to hand over their work to others with alternative ways of investigating the muon anomaly. But why walk away without claiming anything if it may be that others would then claim the discovery using another technique?

In my monograph of the Grand Gallery (2006) I left out a spatial analysis of the high south end wall of the gallery because I wanted to research further without helping others. I thought the design connected to some other space in the pyramid, and hoped it might be an undiscovered passage and chamber under the floor of the gallery similar to the horizontal passage leading to the Queen's Chamber.

I now think the high south end of an upper gallery may rise to a level of 140 cubits which is the half height of the pyramid. This would then bear out the geometric design of the Grand Gallery in a remarkable way.

The floor level of the King's Chamber is at 82 cubits and the peak of the top chamber is close to 122 cubits as 40 cubits higher, so an upper gallery similar to the Grand Gallery could rise to a level of 140 cubits.

Dr Hawass and Dr Lehner may not have wanted a premature claim of a great discovery, but it has resulted in Dr Lightbody's paper. Let's hope the paper is the basis of further research.


Mark






Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2018 02:58AM by Mark Heaton.