The following observation is the kind I have in mind:
The volume of a pyramid can be calculated from the height and the slope of the faces.
For Khafre's pyramid the cotangent of the sloping faces is equal to 1/4 + 1/4 + 1/4
Volume of Khafre's pyramid is (1/4 + 1/4 + 1/4) x cube of height
In modern maths:
Cotangent = 3/4
Volume = 3/4 x h x h x h
Now if we think the architect may have understood this then we can search for how it might have been incorporated in the design and if we find a model it may or may not be a coincidence.
Therefore, the extent to which the architect understood a whole series of similar observations is debateable, but would require more and more coincidences if the architect was oblivious to all the observations. It is, however, possible that the design could be explained without all the observations, so it is possible that the architect missed some of the observations.
I may have missed some observations, and perhaps there are more observation which would only be apparent with a more comprehensive survey.
If someone were to show that Petrie had made a mistake in his measurements or a typographical error then that would spoil my observations. For example, everyone appears to be relying on Petrie for the slope of the faces and dimensions of the base.
I appreciate that there is a possibility that Petrie was wrong,
John Romer's sliding grid theory for The Great Pyramid is flawed because there is a typographical error in Petrie's publication on the Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh.
I share your approach in trying to disprove my own theory. That's what all this is about. ie posting on this forum
So it will take me much longer to try to disprove my theory and to frame it in a way which will be robust enough to stand up to your criticism.
Mark
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/29/2021 11:53AM by Mark Heaton.