Hi Brendan,

I have written an academic style paper since Easter which is currently 6700 words including a conclusion, but I need to edit / check before sharing with one or two people perhaps including Keith Hamilton.

The last three sentences may be as follows:

Further research may reveal other aspects of the internal architecture, but some aspects may require a more detailed survey. The location of the internal elements of the pyramid in relation to the exterior of the pyramid may have been important to the architect so a survey to determine the configuration may provide a better insight into the design. The extent to which the architect understood the geometric observations considered in this paper is debateable.

I am aware that the slope of the roof may not be the seked of 19 palms because it is reliant on a survey of the height of the gable as 36 inches (one British yard). We should expect a very close fit to the theoretical slope with a few arc minutes if it was an important feature of the design.

As such my proposition, or at least a part, has an uncertain element which may falsify that part of the model if Keith is able to assess the height of the chamber which should be 11.75 cubits to the ridge of the roof from floor level, so 11.75 x 20.62 inches x 25.4 millimetres per inch = 6154 millimetres

If the slope has a build standard of 1 part in 1000 on the rise and the run and there is no survey error or movement since built then the measured slope should be the proposed slope to a very small fraction of one degree.

My paper is based on how the ancient Egyptians did calculations..

If a number of curious design elements appear complex or haphazard, but then an elegant solution presents itself, then a model may commend itself as more likely than not or even beyond all reasonable doubt if the basis of a proposition is in accord with what we know about ancient Egyptian mathematics, particularly if the limitations of ancient methods such as unit fractions yield a perspective which would not attract the attention of the modern mind. There is a possibility that the ancient Egyptians were aware of a geometric model which the modern mind has overlooked. This would then be remarkable with or without being able to prove that the ancient Egyptians had grasped such a perspective if the ancient Egyptians had the tools to spot such a perspective. I have developed some new equations based on a unit fractions.

My first simple proposition was:
The long walls of the King's Chamber of the Great Pyramid conform to a model of the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle for the approximation of the ratio as 22/7 with the diameter taken as the length of the chamber and the perimeter of the five courses of granite blocks taken as the circumference of the circle which is itself a model of the size and shape of the Great Pyramid on a scale of one digit to one cubit'.

This proposition is self-evident, but you may, of course, have an alternative proposition linked to observations on planets or some other curious aspect of the geometry of the Great Pyramid.

An alternative proposition may then call my proposition into question. Indeed others may then prefer your proposition. Perhaps those most interested in such matters would then show you had only scratched the surface of a rather more complex design as if working from a premise that the more fanciful the proposition the more likely it is to have been the case.

My model explains the size and shape of Khafre's pyramid based on the dimensions of Khafre's burial chamber without the area of the roof..

If you are able to accept that the dimensions of the burial chamber of the Great Pyramid are a model of the pyramid then you will have no problem accepting my model as beyond all reasonable doubt.

It would be good if you forget Saturn and apply your skills to the matter in hand.

Mark



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/28/2021 04:31AM by Mark Heaton.