MJ Thomas 2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To all intents and purposes the perpendicular
> height of the Descending Passage (and the
> Ascending Passage) is 2.286rc/47.16"

No MJ...this is the descending passage being discussed. It happens to measure with little variance an average of 47.5”...not 47.16”

> Why 2.286rc?
> Simple, like the width at 2rc it's from
> the King's Chamber doorway.

Again...it’s close to the KC measures but not good enough since this measure is followed throughout the whole interior...be it rock core or formed by stone blocks...the width and height are intentional.

> But why 11.429rc for the height of the Chamber's walls?
> Again its very simple, it's so that the perimeter of
> the Chamber's side (north and south) walls = the length
> of the wall @ 20rc multiplied by 22/7.

It also equals [20x2+(10+sqrt2)x2] = 62.83Rc...no pi required.

> As for the starting point - i.e. the Chamber's width
> and length @ respectively 10rc and 20rc, is there
> anything much more basic than a 1x2 rectangle or
> two squares placed next to each other?

If the 1x2 chamber layout is all you envision then yes...it is no more than the most basic rectangular shape of integer value. But the stones on each course tell us a different mathematical story...begin with the tapered ceiling stones.

> The one-in-2 (26.56 degs) gradient is nothing
> more than what you get by drawing a diagonal
> across the floor of the King's Chamber.


That is true and to think that the angular 4/pi relationship is developed using this 26+ angle and the two "erroneous" width/height measures when compared to the KC...how coincidental.

> Why there should be any need to make things more
> complicated or complex than this is beyond me.

Why go to all of the trouble in precision for something simple?
There is more.

Best.
Clive