affiliator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sirfiroth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > 6 * 60 * 60 * 60 = 1296000 seconds of arc (circle)
> > 1296000 / 4 = sides of 11 units * 7 = radius =
> > 206181 9/11 seconds of arc as the radius of the
> > circle. Which if divided by 1000 equals the width
> > of the Kings chamber, divided by 10 equals the
> > cubit.
>
> This is just another way of saying divide 1296000
> by 4 x 11/7 or 44/7 is it not? Once you know this
> ratio there is no need to invoke a square every
> time you wish to calculate the circumference,
> radius or diameter of a circle.
>
> Regards
> Nick

Hello all,

Jacob wrote, ‘6 * 60 * 60 * 60 = 1296000 seconds of arc (circle) 1296000 / 4 = sides of 11 units * 7 = radius = 206181 9/11 seconds of arc as the radius of the circle. Which if divided by 1000 equals the width of the Kings chamber, divided by 10 equals the cubit.
At long last I can see how Jacob arrived at 20.6181British inches for the length of the royal cubit in the King’s Chamber - and I'm beginning to wish I couldn't...

As I see it, according to Jacob:
The number of British inches in a royal cubit =
The number of degrees in a circle multiplied by the number of minutes in a degree, multiplied by the number of seconds in one minute of a degree, multiplied by 6, divided by 4, multiplied by 7, divided by 11, divided by 1,000, divided by 10.
So, we have:
60 × 60 × 60 = 216,000
216,000 × 6 = 1,296,000
1,296,000 ÷ 4 = 324,000
324,000 × 7 = 2,268,000
2,268,000 ÷ 11= 206,181.821
206,181.821 ÷ 1,000 = 206.181
206.181 ÷ 10 = 20.6181

Now, I see six immediate problems with this.

Firstly, aside from Jacob’s equation (and others similar to it) there is not a single shred of evidence of the Pyramid’s architect(s) knowing about seconds of arc, etc.

Secondly, there is no evidence at all for the Pyramid’s builders using the inch (British or Pyramid), but there is plentiful evidence for the exclusive use of a single length royal cubit (though different lengths of royal cubit might have been employed in other structures).

Thirdly, according to Petrie the actual width (at four points) of the King’s Chamber = 206.04”, 206.16”, 206.3”, and 206.43”, giving a royal cubit equivalent to 20.604” or 20.616” or 20.63” or 20.643” – take your pick folks, or consider Petrie’s conclusion that the royal cubit in the King’s Chamber is equivalent to 20.628” to 20.636”.

Fourthly, the number 6 appears to be purely arbitrary.
The numbers 60, 4, 11, and 7 can be identified with, respectively; degrees/arc minutes/arc seconds, number of sides in the Pyramid’s base, twice the number of palms in the horizontal run of seked 5½, and the number of palms in the rise of the seked.
But from whence comes the number 6?

Fifthly, if I understand Jacob correctly, he argues that different lengths of royal cubit were used deliberately in the planning (hence ruling out builder error) of the Great Pyramid.
His given formula does not allow for different lengths of royal cubit - so what other formula/s was/were used?

Sixthly and lastly, I find Jacob’s formula to be quite nonsensical.

MJ