The beauty of my alternative model of Khafre's pyramid, right or wrong, is that it shows that there is no need to be concerned about whether the side length of the base was 410 or 411 cubits if it is accepted that the intended slope was a rise of '4' for a run of '3', but you will have to be patient until I can get round to writing up my research which only began a few weeks ago at Easter.

It has been useful to me sounding out my ideas in a veiled way because I don't want to spend many hours writing up my model only to find that someone else is well known for the very same model.

The Entrance Passage of the Great Pyramid has a simple rise of 1 for a run of 2 which converts to the seked of 14 parts, at least for the section in the bedrock, although the upper section is about 6 arc minutes less than the theoretical angle.

Theoretically, if the error on the rise is a positive error 1 part in 1000 and the error on the run is negative error of 1 part in 1000, or vice versa, then the actual slope would be less than 3 arc minutes adrift so it is not possible to claim such a high build standard for the upper part of the entrance passage if the the intended slope was a 1 in 2, and yet Smyth and Petrie both regarded the precision of the entrance passage as incredible.
I proposed various reasons for a seked of 14 palms plus 1/16 palms which corresponds to the observed angle most precisely so, including the length of the passage equal to 100 x seked and width of the passage as 14 palms plus 1/16 palms and a square platform at the top of the platform (56 + 1/4) x (56 + 1/4) digits which has an elegant interface with the slope of the pyramid for the seked of 5 palms plus 1/2 palm.
(14 palms plus 1/16 palms is 56 plus 1/4 digits)

For Khafre's pyramid:

Have you read Smyth's survey of the Entrance Passage which Petrie deferred to with respect to the deviation from true north? Azimuth 5 minutes 37 seconds west of the pole of sky.

For the slope, Smyth's final conclusion was 26 degrees 30 minutes 17 seconds so 3 minutes 27 seconds adrift from a 1 in 2 slope and precise enough to claim it was a 1 in 2 slope on the architect's plan because probably much less important than the azimuth..


Petrie's theoretical model of Khafre's pyramid in his 1883 edition remains the best published model as far as I know, so all I have to do is come up with a model that is self-evident as better even if not a perfect solution which you are others may then be able to improve upon.

Mark



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2021 02:58AM by Mark Heaton.