Monty J. Bowen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi MJ,
>
> I will use your # 1001 in a way you will never
> believe possible, and then explain how the whole
> of the GP's dimensions were put together.

Hello Monty,

It is not my 1.001!!!!
It's completely, utterly, totally, irrefutably nothing what-so-ever to do with me.

With respect, you can use 1.001 British inches - or 1 Pyramid Inch - to make any and as many calculations as you like, but not a single one of them will have any relevance to any Egyptian pyramid what-so-ever.
The Pyramid Inch of 1.001 British inches simply does not exist and never has existed outside the imagination of Herschel.
Herschel took what was in his time thought by some to be the polar axis of the Earth at 7898.78 miles, which is equivalent to 500,466,700.8 British inches.
Herschel took this to be 500,500,00 then rounded this down to 500,000,000 by introducing an inch equivalent to 1.001 British inches.

Do have any evidence other than a selection of questionable dimensions from Khufu’s pyramid (see: Petrie v. Piazzi Smyth) to support your choice of numbers and your method of calculation?


You write:
> 1001 / 231;
>
> = 4333 (point removed).
>
> Add;
>
> 43 + 33;
>
> = 76.

I think I am right in saying that what we have here is a form of what is today known as numerology.
AFAIK, numerology did not figure at all in 4th Dyn. Egyptian life.
If you have evidence to the contrary, then please can you cite it?


You continue:
> The design angle at the junction of the slant
> sides taken at the middle of the opposite sides.
>
> In other words the angle of the slant sides (at
> the middle only) is 52°.

Hmm. Clearly I am missing something here.
You start with Herschel’s 1.001 British inches expressed, for no apparent reason, as 1001.
You conjure out of the proverbial magician’s top hat – or so it appears to me – the number 231.
You divided the first number by the second number – with no explanation of why.
You multiply the result by 1000 for who knows what reason, and then mysteriously drop the decimal completely (here it is worth noting that the AEs did not have a decimal system).
Following this you for some inexplicable reason split the four figure result into two separate numbers.
These two numbers you add together without reason.
Then - and here you really do lose me – you unfathomably get from the number 76 to an angle of 52 degrees (and here note that the AEs did not measure angles in degrees).

I do try not to be dismissive about other folks hypotheses and theories about Khufu’s pyramid, but your post has me struggling not to do just that…
There is a lot about Khufu’s pyramid that we know and a lot that we don’t.
But when tackling what we don’t know, or are not sure about, it makes sense does it not to at least take on the task fully mindful of what we do know – IMO what is known and what is speculated should be reasonably compatible.
IMO, your, um, exercises in numerology are totally incompatible with 4th Dyn. Egypt in general and Khufu’s pyramid in particular.

Again, if you have any evidence in support of your theory other than a selection of questionable dimensions from Khufu’s pyramid, then please do cite it.

Regards,

MJ