waggy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Byrd,
>
> Years ago l did an experiment on friends and
> relatives, measuring their arms. The result was
> widely different measures, even amongst people of
> the same height.
> Might a new king insist that the measure be taken
> from his arm, which could be a few inches more
> than his predecessor; and yet the value of the
> cubit is remarkably consistent.
> This made me think if another standard for the
> cubit was used which is more consistent than the
> large variance in human anatomy.
> Anyway some architecture and textural clues led me
> to take a closer look at the moon, and
> specifically a five day transit of the moon.
> Living in Ireland, one is lucky to see the moon,
> let alone for 5 clear days:-) though observing the
> moon would be no problem for the ancient
> Egyptians.
> So l gave the problem to an astrophyicist to
> calculate, and 4 pages of mathematical formula
> later, he provided the result, which was 52.4cms.
> Of course the A.E. would not have mathematical
> computer programs, or advanced math to work it
> out, and they didn't need to; they only had to
> observe the moon by a simple method, possibly
> record their measurement on a stone, and create
> wooden rods from such a standard. Though l
> understand why they might use palms, digits to
> subdivide the cubit.
> Mad idea l know, but another one to throw into the
> frying pan of cubit theories:-)
Re. your Guide to the Red Pyramid, pg.17, in your reconstruction of the interior chamber layout, you must, though, have used a cubit-length of ~20.55" / 52.2 cm, since that's the only way you could have arrived at whole cubit dimensions for the interior spaces. Which, in turn, corroborates Perring's figures for the Red Pyramid. All Dorner did was to employ a value roughly corresponding to the cubit-lengths employed in the Khufu and Khafre, multiply, convert to meters, and back to cubits – which is why his work is so inaccurate. Wrong cubit value in, flawed results out...
A value corresponding to 20.5548" would be accurate for the design of the Red Pyramid, corresponding to a 20th part of the average Stride of Re only in 2587 BC, and, since the cubit computation of the Red derived from the ground-speed of the Tropic in the first year of its construction, its chronology can be specified to Midsummer Day of 2587 BC for the Pyramid's foundation. As the '24th Occasion of the Census' is the highest yet found at the Red, shows construction of the Pyramid took 12 or, more-likely, 12.5 years to complete,
Perring's figures for the dimensions of the Red Pyramid are further confirmed since the base dimensions of the Red were designed to both one average and one specific Stride of Re shorter than the Khufu. Hence, the profile of the Red Pyramid indeed equates to a 20-21-29 'Pythagorean' triple, which, as you mentioned, Varille noted.