MJ Thomas Wrote:
> The measurement of 9068.8"...the mean distance
> from edge of casing stone...to> edge of casing
Correct.
> If the Pyramid had its full coating...then at the top of the
> 201st course the length of the Pyramid’s sides
> would be 539.4” to 583.8”
Correct.
> ...438” for the length...at
> the top of the 201st course ...we have to remove our imagined
> casing stones for a depth of between 50.7” (539.4”
> ÷ 2 – 438”) and 72.9” (583.8” ÷ 2 – 438”) at each
> face.
Correct.
> I can't see the sense of this.
What can you not see MJ?
You have told me that you are working with an imaginary casing line. Since you created the line then you should be able to see what it is you started with.
> Please can you post a diagram of how the elevation
> of the Pyramid would have looked with the change
> of gradient you assert, say, from the top of
> course 200 upward?
Of course not...I'm not allowed up there to measure. The numbers I use are from Petrie as I have explained over and over again.
> Question, why the top of course 201 or the
> equivalent to 5408”?
> What was significant about this level above the
> Pyramid’s base?
Simple
I'm confident that Petrie knew something was odd with the measures. You may have noticed that he never entered the "actual" height of G2...very odd of him to miss this important measure, but I'm betting that he did know the value because it's simple to determine from the top of G1 with his instrument. Plus he ventures to the identical level several years later to confirm.
Soooo...what did he do?
After measuring the height of G2 he climbed to the top of G1 at the very location that is equal to the "truncated" height of G2.
Then he "shot" a line to G2 from G1 to determine their difference in height above sea level..! The easiest and most accurate method.
Course 201 of G1 is 262Rc above base...identical to the truncated height of G2.
> Question, why the ratio 4/5 only for the section
> of the Pyramid from base to top of course 201?
Think of the above. You being the designer of the structures, which of G1 or G2 and at what point do you think others would climb to "compare" their height?
Answer..
a) It has to be G1 (G2 is higher)
b) Must shoot a line from a known height of G2...the height of it's present truncated apex.
> Question, why the ratio 4/pi only for the section
> of the Pyramid above course 201?
The ratio of 4/pi is set at the base and from it you derive a set of measures...those that have been published for centuries.
However, if you don't believe the numbers true then you climb to the top and measure to confirm. It is here that you discover the builders did a fast one on us, they designed a secondary angle within the primary angle for a secondary reason.
The base angle og G2 provides 280 height, but the 5:4 top angle provides a 275 height...identical to G2 if it were constructed on a 4:3 ratio.
Now we move over to G2 and use the 4:pi ratio from G1 along with it's base measure of 411.3Rc and discover that the height would reach 262Rc...the "exact" height of its truncated apex as witnessed today and the exact location that Petrie selected...course 201 of G1.
> If these ratios were employed as you assert, then
> the length of the sides at the top of course 201
> would be shortened by 67.5” at each end (you
> mention 70” in your post).
The 70" was an approximation from memory...the drawing shows the exact numbers as you have calculated.
> At the N.E. corner of the actual Pyramid there are
> two more layers of core blocks.
> The tops of courses 202 and 203 are, respectively,
> 5430.4” and 5451” above the base.
> As far as I can tell, these courses are not taken
> into consideration by you: why not?
Actually there are other layers missing, but how many will always be a mystery, unless the original design/plan is discovered.
I believe, from the measures of G2 that the truncated apex of G1 was ceased at the 267 Rc level (course #206)...but it is impossible to prove.
Best.
Clive
