Hi Spiros,

Thanks for your post.

You've raised an important matter because its a valid alternative theory, but actually more orthodox than my theory. The theory of the internal volume is based on a model without lid or rebate so the theory of the external volume should be based on a model without lid or rebate.

The internal diagonal is 4 cubits so the essence of your theory is that the volume of granite is equal to a cube with a side length of 2 cubits which equates to 8 cubic cubits.

This was the theory of John Taylor based on an anachronism of the double cubit of Karnak with the internal volume equal 8 cubic cubits and the external volume equal to 16 cubits. It was a straightforward historical theory, but I was laughed out of court when I tried to raise the matter on this forum within the last year or so.

There is indeed a possibility that internal volume represented a sphere with a diameter of 2.5 cubits, as agreed by Petrie (he accepted the possibility), but he disproved the theory that the true external volume is double the internal volume so I proposed (actually I read this somewhere, now long forgotten where) that the external volume is equal to a sphere with a diameter of 22/7 cubits supposing that a practical determination may make it appear the design was based on complex calculations regarded as beyond the wit of the designer in orthodox Egyptology.

Let's just evaluate the model for a cubit of 0.524 metres then consider the apparent length of the cubit in the manner adopted by Petrie because it is impossible to differentiate between very slight build error and an error in the assessment of the length of the cubit.

I will try to do calculations as I type, so please check.

The internal volume is a sphere with a diameter of 2.5 cubits then the volume is 1.1776 cubic metres for pi = 22/7.

The volume of 8 cubic cubits of granite is 1.1510 cubic metres for a cubit of 0.524 metres.

Therefore the total volume is 2.3286 cubic metres, or precisely 142,100 cubic inches, which is 99.7% of Petrie's determination.

Petrie assessed the volume 142,530 cubic inches and as 142, 590 cubic inches or a mean of 142, 560 cubic inches.

The 22/7 diameter sphere theory requires a volume of 142,773 cubic inches for a cubit of 20.63 inches (524.0 mm) from 22/7 ratio, or 100.15% of Petrie's determination.

Quite simply, your model does highlight the weak point in my theory of the external volume equal to a sphere with a diameter of 22/7 cubits.

I have delved into the theory from the front door open to the modern mind as parallel theory to the internal volume as a sphere, but you have entered through the back door of ancient theories open to conventional Egyptologv, but the figures I have put together for you to check do rely on the premise of an internal volume equal to a sphere, so your theory wouldn't satisfy an Egyptologist.

A double theory may have been in the mind of the designer, but the modern mind is trained to reject double ideas in favour of one idea or the other idea, and if unable to decide then to reject both if not necessarily one or the other, which is the case here, especially where ideas are mutually exclusive from a modern perspective.

Mark