Hello Anthony,
Please could you add to your post the posts by me in which I mention that, naturally, there were practical considerations involved.
Without them your post is a tad misleading.
You've missed the point I made recently that the maths determined the
precise locations and dimensions.
As we all know, the entrance to the Pyramid and the axis of the passage system is off-centre to the north side at the base.
According to Petrie, the distance between the mid-length of the north side and the mid-line of the entrance is 287” +/-0.8”, which is 13.91 royal cubits (the axis of the passages varies slightly from this at different points).
If memory serves, this business of having the entrance and passage axis offset was traditional (or whatever).
Now, the question is what determined the distance between the two points?
Did Khufu tell his architect that he wanted the entrance and passage axis 13.91 royal cubits (or whatever) east of the Pyramid’s N-S axis?
If he did, then we have to consider that all of the dimensions (and there’s an awful lot of them!) found in the Pyramid were the product of Khufu saying to his architect: I want that, that long; I want this, this wide; I want that, that steep, and so on.
I think this scenario to be highly unlikely.
A more likely scenario is tradition (or whatever) placing the entrance and passage axis east of the Pyramid’s N-S axis, and mathematics determining that the distance between the two was to be 13.91 royal cubits (or whatever).
Here’s another example, the foot of the entrance is 668”/32.377 royal cubits vertically above the base of the Pyramid.
It was tradition (or whatever) that dictated that the entrance be above the base of the Pyramid, but it was mathematics that determined what the actual vertical distance was to be.
I hypothesise that this scenario applies to most of the Pyramid’s dimensions (some of them are, of course, natural products).
You wrote, “The maths established the dimensions of the passages. Not any practical consideration, like "this is the normal height we use in ALL of our pyramids, because it is just big enough for the workers, but it will make life a bear for the tomb robbers", but the maths established the dimensions and shape.”
As I wrote above, you missed out my posts mentioning practicalities being involved.
As far as anybody has been able to determine, the intended width and perpendicular height of the Pyramid’s passages are respectively 2rc and 2.286rc.
The King’s Chamber’s carefully wrought doorway measures 2rc wide by 2.286rc high.
Petrie and others have opined that this doorway determined the width and perpendicular height of the Pyramid’s passages, and I agree with them.
Pertinently, the width of this doorway is one-tenth of the Chamber’s length and one-fifth of the Chamber’s width; the height of the doorway is one-fifth of the height of the Chamber’s walls.
Are you going to argue that the dimensions of the King’s Chamber and the dimensions of its doorway are not mathematically related?
But, of course, we are not looking solely at maths here.
Dividing the chamber length by 10 (or the chamber width by 5) and the wall height by 5 would have been influenced (heavily, in my opinion) by what was thought to make a
practical passage width and height.
I’m not convinced that making things difficult for tomb-robbers was part of the passage-size ‘formula’.
MJ