Hi Graham

1

Quote

Redrawn to 440 royal cubits.

revised royal cubit 20.632.

So you are adding 10 inches to Petrie's published figures for the base of G1. The previous attempt only required 8 inches to bring it inline so why have you abandoned circles for triangles?

If the builders of G2 used G1 as a reference and employed mathematical calculations, they would have started by preparing a scaled drawing of G1. I think it reasonable to believe that they would have treated the base length as 440 cubits.

Regarding the cubit length: "The four sides there yield a mean value of 20.632 ± .004, and this is certainly the best determination of the cubit that we can hope for from the Great Pyramid."
Petrie. Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh, 1883, 81.

Since all data except the platform widths were in inches, the only deviation using 20.632 rather than 20.63 would be an insignificant difference in the widths of the platforms.

Circles have not been abandoned. Circles are a graphic representation of equal distances from a common point. If the distances are equal but do not originate from a common point, other means of graphic representation are required.

2

Quote

Even if this is just another overnight attempt, and I suspect that it is, most surveyors are sympathetic to triangles. If the Egyptian did survey then I guess they would have discovered triangles too .... to set out the bases of each pyramid but not necessarily in relation to each other. Some say the topography prohibits it.

I do not think that the Giza topography is prohibitive nor even problematic. Running a course and distance up or down a slope is done the same as on level ground, except that the measured segments are shorter and one end-point of the measuring device must be projected to the ground using a plumb bob. (For very accurate work, they would have kept the measuring device horizontal by using a level.)

3

Quote

Finally what happened to G3?

Since there are four lines that are projected to G3, it is relatively easy to judge "best fit". If they all demonstrate the same deviation, it is reasonable to assume that the information is reliable. The best fit for G3 is to the actual position and size of the G1 and G2 casing bases. Since G2 did not have a platform, it makes sense to use the element common to both--the casing base. As to why the builders of G3 used the actual corners of G1 rather than the theoretical "perfect" base, I suspect that G3 was positioned and sized, at least in part, by using visual alignments. In any case, the fit for G3 is so remarkably accurate that a relational design concept is clear.


C. Wayne Taylor
Richmond, Virginia USA