Hi Alex,
keeperzz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Robin,
>
>
Quote
There is a discrepancy of a few cubits in
> the width of the bend line. To intersect the
> junction of Bent pyramid slope and bend line, the
> Red pyramid would have to be higher than 200
> cubits. This means the Bent pyramid does not fit
> precisely within the Red.
> I used 362c / 55deg for Bent and 418c / 44deg 44'
> for Red. The resulting discrepancy is 0,17c or
> 1,19p in horizontal (small enough to take it into
> account).
The essential point is that the lower Bent approximates root two. The builders of the final lower Bent casing obviously saw some important symbolic significance in this (and so might we). It may be unclear which approximation for root two the builders used - 10/7 is the steepest giving a height of 258.57. Legon, taking into account the bulge, used a slightly lower angle to give a height of 255.95. While I chose 256, given by the geometry - 396 = 140 + 256.
The horizontal distance from the centre to the 10/7 line, where it cuts the bend is 118 cubits, or with the root 2 slope it is 117.36.
However, the point being addressed here is the height of the Red - if this is supposed to be 200 cubits (whether base is 420 or 418) it will intersect the Bent casing around 115 cubits from centre. The discrepancy, a few cubits, is too large to ignore. Therefore the Red cannot be an 'exact' copy of the Bent . Rather the Red must be higher than 200 cubits to satisfy a perfect 'fit' at the bendline.
Unless no perfect 'fit' was intended - building a pyramid (the Red) which imitated the Bent but whose dimensions were chosen for geometric reasons, apparently as 362/209 = root 3.
> the builders of the Dashur group would
> have chosen different angles for each of the three
> - ranging fom 43.5 to 45 degrees in the various
> reports[/quote]
> It seems that the Red Pyramid and the satellite of
> Bent have the same angle of slope, while the upper
> part of the Bent has a slope about 1 degree less.
Oh dear, a bit of a mess. Perhaps we should not think in terms of angles but of persistent ratios that suggest a deeper design philosophy. For example, Legon's proposition establishing an iconic geometrical relationship between the upper and lower slopes of the Bent, which is quite visible once noticed. Meanwhile I'll wait for the data.
>
Quote
for example the question of star altitudes
> in the south
> Does the data for other pyramids confirm this?
I don't know. The proposition that Betelgeuse and Alnitak culminated on the Meridiam simultaneously in the pyramid age, at altitudes similar to the slope angles of the Bent pyramid, and a possible precursor to the southern shafts of Khufu, only seems to work around the accepted dates for the IVth dynasty. But Chris Tedder would know more about this.
Robin
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2020 04:54PM by robin cook.