Hi Chris,

Thanks for your detailed comment.

Your arguments are logical and correct, on the condition that you do not question the "ideal" model of the Gantenbrink pyramid. I suggest leaving the KCN shaft aside for now, because it is more difficult to analyze (it has a strong curvature, supposedly consists of two sections - geometric and astronomical, etc.), and consider in more detail the KCS shaft.

As you may have seen, I have calculated the average angles for the KC shafts here [www.hallofmaat.com]. I needed this calculation in order to check whether the Gantenbrink's "measured" angles correspond to his theoretical shaft outputs at the level of 154c. I came to the conclusion that the angles for KC shafts were calculated and not measured by Gantenbrink, which I am writing about in addition here [www.hallofmaat.com].

What we get from the results of calculating the average uniform angle for the KCS (44° 06’ 34’’):

1) Since the outer part of the shaft, measured by Petrie, has an angle of more than 45°, the inner parts of the shaft must have an angle of less than 44°, so that the average uniform angle would correspond to the calculation and would be about 44°, and so that the shaft exits onto the casing and surface of the pyramid exactly in those places in which it is observed. Consequently, the angle of inclination of the shaft increases to the outside, that is noted by Petrie: “It is striking that the slope of both passages continuously increases up to the outside (except just at the mouth of the S. channel)”.



2) Since the angle of the shaft is not uniform, then, as I wrote earlier, the results of dating by the angles depend on the preferred part of the KCS shaft. We can use:
a) calculated average uniform angle (44° 06' 34''), and assume that the fluctuations of slope angle are caused by the difficulties in the time of construction;
b) the angle of measured outer part considering it as a "hose tip" (45° 14’);
c) the angle of some inner part (less than 44°), the exact value of which we do not know.

3) If we use a calculated average angle of 44° 06' 34'' and assume the culmination of Alnilam as a stellar target for the KCS, then the obtained dates according to Stellarium will be about 180 years earlier than conventional (~2730 BC).

Obviously, in such a situation, the results of dating directly depend on the dates preferred by the researcher, and in accordance with them, everyone will look for arguments in favor of using a certain "suitable" part of the shaft (or whole shaft).

Also, an important role is played by the acceptance or rejection of the Gantenbrink's ideal model of the pyramid, which, although harmonious, does not quite correspond to reality (is it possible to seriously consider the discrepancy of 19 palms in the elevation of the KCN outlet as an accidental mistake of the builders?)

Alex.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/17/2020 10:27AM by keeperzz.