Hi Mark,

Quote

Dr Spence may not have been aware of Petrie's survey of the Bent Pyramid, but if you were aware of Petrie's survey then it would have been better not to gloss over the matter by omisssion I suppose Petrie would have described his determination as another ugly fact destroying another beautiful theory, but I don't want to give your theory a premature burial.

Spence no doubt knew about the Petrie's measurements of the Bent Pyramid.
She did not use Petrie's data for the same reason as me - there is a more complete and recent study of Bent pyramid by J. Dorner.
Dorner writes that Petrie was unable to determine the azimuth of the E. side of the pyramid, because could not find a single point to determine the alignment of this side and incorrectly determined the position of the N.W. corner of the pyramid, therefore his data for the W. side is also not correct.

Two quotes from Dorner's study:
Westseite
An der Nordecke den Eckblock des Fundaments, 33 cm unter der durch das Sockelniveau gebildeten Basisflache, an der Sudecke einen Sockelstein. Dieser Sockelstein lag zwar noch in der richtigen Hohe, aber sicher nicht mehr in situ, wie Petrie irrtumlich angenommen hat. Der Stein mus verschoben worden sein, als man den benachbarten, tiefer reichenden Verkleidungsblock entfernt hat.
Ostseite
Hier fand Petrie keine zur Bestimmung der Flucht geeigneten Punkte, so das auch die Lange der Sudseite nicht errechnet werden konnte. Petrie weist darauf hin, das Basisniveau und die Oberflache des Mortelestrichs nicht exakt nivelliert sind, und gibt einen Fehler von 20,3 cm.

Quote

Petrie surveyed the Satellite Pyramid of the Bent Pyramid which was built at a similar time. He noted that the opposite sides were close to parallel which might well be explained by solar determination with a mean difference from east-west of less than plus 4 arc minutes for the north and south sides and a stellar determination with a mean difference of over 24 arc minutes of opposite sign from the north and south sides, so a true difference of 28 arc minutes or nearly half a degree.

The satellite of the Bent pyramid has the following azimuths:
N. +4' 51"
S. +3' 2"
E. -21' 10"
W. -27' 30"
These data very clearly demonstrates what I wrote earlier: if two different orientation methods, star and solar, were used to determine the two axes of the pyramid (N-S and E-W), then we would observe a greater parallelism of the opposite sides.
However, it would be strange to assume that the pyramid builders used a similar combination of methods in only one satellite pyramid, so I am inclined to think that in the data for this satellite pyramid we see not the usage of the solar method, but an error in determining of the angle of 90deg. by the builders (for example, for the N. side), which was then transferred to the opposite (S.) side by measuring the same distances on the E. and W. sides.

Quote

There is clearly a correlation between build standard and the precision of the orientation of the pyramids due north.

What you mean on "build standard"? Could you create a graph to demonstrate mentioned correlation?

Quote

It still seems obvious to me that parts of the lower section of the Bent Pyramid had been built with a rise of 10 cubits for a run of 7 cubits, but as soon as the overly ambition design had to be abandoned then what remained of the lower section was completed at the seked 5 palms which yields a theoretical perimeter of 25,920 digits at a level of 90 cubits.

Petrie reported 55° 01' for lower part of the pyramid. Dorner reported 55° 05' for it. Seked of 5 palms is 54° 28', more than a half-degree of discrepancy with the real data.

Quote

A few years ago I noticed that the distance between the mid-point of the east side of the Red Pyramid and the mid-point of the north side of the Bent Pyramid is very close to 25,920 palms

How did you calculate the distance so precisely?

Alex.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2020 08:32AM by keeperzz.