Petrie did not report his actual measurements, but what he thought the measurements would have been at the time the chamber was built.

Petrie assumed that the length of the chamber had increased because he could see cracks in the walls, so subtracted the width of those cracks from his measurements.

The east and west walls appear to have been built in between the long north and south walls of the chamber with no rigid connection, so any cracks in the walls do not increase the length of the chamber because the east and west walls would remain in the same position.

A good indication that I am correct is that the length of the chamber is precisely the same on both sides of the chamber at the bottom and also at the top by taking what must have been Petrie's actual measurements.

Petrie drew a large scale plan of the chamber which clearly shows that the length of the chamber is less at the top compared to the bottom.

The Queen's chamber has a similar design. Petrie measured the lean in of the east and west walls as 14 arc minutes for both which would be a highly unlikely coincidence if not intended, and so the length of the chamber is precisely two inches less at the ridge compared to the length of the floor below the ridge.


The most precisely built aspect of the pyramid appears to be the Entrance Passage. Petrie explained that his extremely precise measurements to a hundredth of an inch had not reached the level of the builder's accuracy.

The pyramid builders measured in cubits, and we know that the masons were able to cut stones very precisely.

If the builders had made two master stones of 10 cubits in length then it would have been possible to mark out a base square with 440 cubits by moving those stones around the base of the pyramid. The average length of the master stones would then define the length of the cubit, exact by definition.

The same stones could then have been used to mark out an area of 20 cubits by 10 cubits as the floor of the King's Chamber, so a modern survey would make it appear that the the length of the cubit was defined to a hundredth of an inch or even to a thousandth of inch, as apparent from the base square of the King's Chamber and the base of the pyramid, but it was not necessary for the builders to measure to a hundredth or a thousandth of an inch.

Pistol and others have been concerned that the extraordinary precision of the pyramid in some respects is not quite as good as it should be with respect to the cubit derived from the base square and the King's Chamber.

Pistol takes the view that the intended base side length of the pyramid must have been less than 440 cubits which does show a keen grasp of the measurements.

I have taken the view that the floor length of the King's Chamber must have been designed slightly longer than 10 cubits, and I propose 10 cubits and 1 digit.

I proposed that the length of the Queen's Chamber at the floor was 11 cubits and 1 digit, so 309 digits (which I connected to a lunar cycle of 309 months).

On this basis the length of the cubit determined from the base square is very close indeed to the cubit apparent from the King's Chamber and the Queen's Chamber.

The critical objective for the architect appears to have been a burial chamber in which the long walls had a circuit of 1760 digits as a scale model of the perimeter of the base square with a circuit of 1760 cubits, as my previous post makes clear is the case.

It is possible to argue that the both have no connection to a circle because this could have been the design if the architect was oblivious to the fact that the selected slope of a rise of one royal cubit for a run of 11/2 palms for the Great Pyramid corresponds to the exact angle which makes it appear that AE had grasped the Pi approximation 22/7.

My view was that the architect understood the connection, (even if no other ancient Egyptian understood it), because the length of the chamber can be regarded as the diameter of a circle, but that argument falls flat because a chamber 20 cubits long and 10 cubits wide is what one might expect without any notion of a circle, and the wall heights don't appear to be connected to the geometry of a circle.

In my model, the architect introduced subtle anomalies which I have not yet explained, so as yet Petrie's pi hypothesis is merely credible rather than certain if I take the view of those like Rossi who can see no evidence of the 22/7 ratio.

There are, however, two grooves running the entire length of the Grand Gallery, one on each side, which are clearly separated by 22/7 cubits because the gallery is 4 cubits (28 palms) below the corbels, and the grooves are on the third pair of corbels where the width has reduced by 3 x 2 palms from 28 palms to 22 palms, so to 22/7 cubits.

There are numerous other unexplained anomalies which make it appear to me that the architect was obsessed with making sure his design could not be misinterpreted, presumably believing that the gods would see his design in perpetuity.

Somewhere in the pyramid we might expect to find two master stones that are 10 cubits in length, and where better to place those master stones that at the place where a length of 10 cubits is required as a crucial dimension.

There are two such stones below the ceiling of the King's Chamber, one in the east wall and one in the west wall. It is as if the architect is highlighting that the ceiling is 20 x 10 cubits, but not the floor (which would have been the natural place to put the stones, with smaller less heavy stones higher up).

Mark

PS
All these measurements are listed on page 27 and page 28 of Petrie's second edition with a table of his adjusted measurements ay the bottom of page 27. Petrie did this by just examining the openings on just the second course and applying these to the other courses which might have been valid if the north and south walls had been built in between the east and west walls rather than the other way around.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/20/2022 04:37PM by Mark Heaton.