Pistol Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The best weighted mean for the Royal cubit is
> 20.62”, used against the weighted mean of the top
> 3 surveys of Khufu’s pyramid base dimension
> (Petrie,Cole,Dash) of 9069.21 inches makes the
> mean side length of the pyramid base dimension
> equal to 439.82 RC, which happens to have a whole
> number length of 622 RC for its base diagonal.
> Moreover, 439.82 RC divided by the whole number
> 140 (1/2 the pyramids height) gives a result that
> provides 3.14157. 3 + 1/8 + 1/60.
This reasoning shows a confirmation bias of the "pi hypothesis," which a historian of mathematics would reject. The Egyptians did not have a concept of pi. That is a modern conceit. The RMP shows that they calculated the area of a circle by taking 8/9 of the diameter and squaring it.
> None of this occurs when we assume the pyramids
> base sides equal to 440 RC. The archaeological
> results induced with the best scholarly result for
> the Royal cubit of 20.62 inches provides the
> highest probability for the intended side length
> as 439.82 RC.
Petrie said in Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh that from measurements of seven monuments of the Old Kingdom, the royal cubit was indeed 20.62". The most parsimonious explanation for the GP's dimensions is that its base length was intended to be 440 cubits, but it varies slightly from this because of builder's error.
> It also occurs with Menkaure’s pyramid base
> dimension… it’s base diagonal is 285 RC which
> provides a non-integer side length of 201.52 RC at
> 20.62” per royal cubit.
How can you start with the diagonal? You can only calculate the diagonal from the base length. You cannot calculate the base length from the diagonal. Besides, the base lengths vary due to builder's error.
Hail Atlantis.