Thanks for your response.

Just to clarify, the sphere with a diameter of 2.5 cubits (not my idea) can be regarded as a 1/112 scale model of a sphere with a diameter of 280 cubits (my idea) because the triangular cross-sections of the pyramid on the north-south and east-west axes of the pyramid are each equal to a circle with a diameter of 280 cubits for the pi approximation 22/7 based on Petrie's interpretation of the original size and shape of the Great Pyramid, so these two circles can be regarded as outlining a sphere.

I am not suggesting that you multiply 112 digits x 2.5 cubits to get 10 square cubits, as I think you know, but that '112' is a symbolic multiplier, because I have a separate model in which the cubic diagonal of the King's Chamber (25 cubits) is a symbolic multiplier of 25.

Rossi and others agree with Petrie's model of the size and shape of the pyramid (ie a base side length of 440 cubits and a height of 280 cubits as the design) but argue that there is no evidence that this was related to the geometry of a circle.

The evidence is the perimeter of the long walls of the King's Chamber with a circuit of 4 x 440 digits, so the these walls are an elegant model the size and shape of the Great Pyramid on scale of one digit to one cubit, and bear out the relationship of both to a circle.

Keith Hamilton now has my sketch from 2004 showing the elegance of the relationship at a glance, which I would have posted here if I knew how, but I am happy for Keith to post on this forum.

If you take Petrie's measurements you will find that his assessment of the external volume of the sarcophagus is very close to that of a sphere with a diameter of 22/7, as calculated from the pi approximation 22/7, but you could argue for another value of Pi. Either way, this does account for the peculiar anomaly of surfaces that are not flat.

My post was intended to make the point that some Egyptologists, like Dr Lightbody, are convinced by the 22/7 proportions of the King's Chamber and the shape of the Great Pyramid (before my observation of the '1760' digit model), and may one day decide that the sphere theory is not only tenable but very likely based on a complementary digit model for the sarcophagus.

It has now become rather silly to reject Petrie's 22/7 pi theory, but Petrie and Dr Lightbody have not, as far as I know, ever accepted Smyth's theory on squaring the area of a circle which I converted to a simple expression for the pi approximation 22/7:

The height of the north end wall of the Grand Gallery is the square root of 280 in cubits which converts to 468.5 digits and the perpendicular height is 15 cubits or 420 digits so the angle of a virtual triangle is the exact angle to square the circle for the pi approximation 22/7.
This angle is 26 degree 18 minutes 30.24 seconds in modern maths (cosine = 15/sr280), but Smyth promoted 26 degrees 18 minutes 10 seconds based on pi to several decimal places.
The virtual triangle can be flipped over so that this angle is the slope of the floor.

I have taken my model one stage further to show how the designer of the sarcophagus represented the volume of the pyramid as the volume of a sphere.

In my opinion the concept was of the sun rising as a sphere from primordial earth, so the Great Pyramid represented that sphere, because Khufu envisaged an after-life with the sun-god.

Mark