jacob boaz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Kanga,
>
> Sadly other than Petrie's calculations (by
> trigonometry) based on his the measured angle and
> length of the hypotenuse (sloping length of the
> Grand Gallery) there is no evidence or reasonable
> Ancient Egyptian assertion supporting Legon's
> 79/39 figure for the seked.

This is not Legon's figure. It is my figure.

> Petrie did not measure
> the 39 cubit height, nor did he measure the
> horizontal, they are products of calculations and
> therefore subject to possible error caused by the
> difference between our system and the demonstrated
> Ancient Egyptian system of mathematics.

Absolutely correct.

> So to say
> emphatically 79/39 run rise is the actual figure
> for the Grand Gallery is just a compounding error.

I was not being emphatic. Stop putting words in my mouth.

> What evidence do you have, other than being an
> average value, 20.62 is the correct cubit length
> to employ?

This is Petrie's value for the cubit. It's the best we've got. Besides, a seked is really a ratio, so if you use a shorter or longer cubit, you'll still get the same seked. Think about it.

Hail Atlantis.