Clive Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MJ Thomas Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Because I consider the 'pattern' as
> coincidental
> > (and, again, that is because I do not believe
> the
> > AEs could have done it even had they wanted
> to)
> > there seems little point in presenting it.
>
> You are talking riddles beyond "my" comprehension,
> and you thought I was bad.

Hmm. It is a bit muddled and muddling, isn't it.
Never mind, it's not important.
Moving on…


> > Apart from this, there is also the fact that
> > presenting it would require my divulging
> parts of
> > the method I believe Khufu's architect used
> to
> > plan the Pyramid's interior, and I am quite
> simply
> > not prepared to do that just yet.
>
> Khufu's architect?
> Are you implying each pyramid is designed by
> different individuals at different times?

I have yet to find any sound reason to doubt that Giza 1, Giza 2, and Giza 3 were not built by, respectively, Khufu, Khafre, and Menkaure.
Whether or not the interiors of each of these pyramids were planned by the same person is hard for me to say.
What is clear to me is that Khufu’s architect was well acquainted with the interior designs of the pyramids belonging to his king’s predecessors. - whether this was through inspection of the actual pyramids or consulting original plans remains to be seen.

> You're
> drifting back into past theories…the site is
> linked together as one...it's a given…!

Past theories?
I think you’ll find that the current consensus amongst people who know about these things is still very much that these three pyramids were planned and built essentially independent of each other.
As for your, ‘it’s a given…’, it is anything but.
And you have to take into consideration that there are more potential ‘intended layouts’ of the Giza necropolis than one can shake a stick at, and they can’t all be right…


> I know you are wanting to lock the Rc measure of
> 20.63" in the King's chamber as a standard, but it
> can't work.

I do hold that the royal cubit used in the planning of Khufu’s pyramid is equivalent to 20.632” or 524mms, but I have never suggested it was a standard measure used elsewhere.


> I'll give you an example; it provideds
> a two-fold answer to some of your previous
> questions.

Oh dear, not another of your tortuous mathematical relationships that only exists in your imagination…


> The sub passage is dug to a depth of 1181 inches
> below base level (Petrie).

You missed the +/- 1”

Petrie wasn’t able to measure the full length of the Descending Passage because of the debris at its lower end so he adopted Howard Vyse’s roof measure as 4140”
J & M Edgar later determined that the floor is 8+” longer.
1184” is more likely for this dimension.


> The base width of this
> structure is 9067.7" (east side view toward
> west).

Or 9070.5” (after Cole) or 9073” if you take Cole’s measure for the south side.


> Setting the base as 440Rc, as used on the initial
> posted illustration of the Kc above, then the
> depth of the sub floor is (1181/9067.7)x440 Rc
> below the base line...or 57.3 Rc below the base.

Or something slightly different if you use the other available measurements.


> The 35th course level is much thicker than any
> course above and thicker than any below, excluding
> the first five layers; its height is 57+Rc above
> base level.

Actual figures are 1186.9” and 1187.4” = 57.56 royal cubits and 57.585 royal cubits (taking the royal cubits as 20.62”) – an appreciable difference to your vague 57+

> Now check Petrie's measures with reference to the
> decending passage and read what distance that he
> first encounters solid rock from the entrance.

From the original entrance to the bedrock varies.
Top of west wall 1318.5”
West roof 1340.1”
East wall top 1347.5”
East roof 1350.7”
Difference max. 32.2”


> Put it all together and the result should be 360.

Or not, depending on whether or not the reader follows what you are on about – which I don’t (no surprises there, folks) – and which set of actual dimensions one uses.
Then there’s to be contended with your un-evidenced hypothesis that the builders of this pyramid worked in degrees…

I find it hard to believe that there is any intentional connection between the level of course 35, the vertical height of the Descending Passage from the Pyramid's base down, and the varied distances between the original entrance and the bedrock.
I think I’ll put it in the same category as your linking the height of the niche in the Queen's Chamber with the length of the Grand Gallery roof, i.e., nonsense.

MJ