affiliator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MJ Thomas 2 Wrote:
>
> > The royal cubit of 20.632” ± 0.004” is known from
> > the King’s Chamber.
>
> Hi MJ
>
> Petrie obtains the 20.632 value by taking the mean
> of the base perimeter of the chamber only
> (1237.9/60 = 20.631667). If you take the mean from
> the perimeter of the walls at the top of the
> chamber you get 20.606 inches ((1236.36 inches/60
> = 20.606). The mean between top and bottom
> perimeters is then 20.6188333 inches.
Hello Nick,
But, then, Petrie went on to opine that the most accurate readings would be found near the base of the Chamber's walls (the actual base is inaccessible for the most part because of the flooring); which seems common sense to me.
As you know, I refute the idea that different lengths of royal cubit were used in the planning - note planning and not building - of the Pyramid and its passages and chambers on the grounds that there is no plausible reason for it.
Consequently, I have had to settle on a single royal cubit length.
My findings (which I still hope to one day make public) are that a royal cubit equivalent to 20.632"/524mms is the best fit for the entire Pyramid.
But does it matter?
Well, only if one thinks that there is something mathematically significant in those dimensions of the Pyramid that are measured in hundreds of royal cubits.
For example, there is a difference of 5.8" between a side at the base seen as 440 x 20.6188333" and a side seen as 440 x 20.632".
Is this 5.8" difference over some 756 feet a critical factor?
Well, you tell me...
As I say, I see no need for a royal cubit of different lengths, and so settle for what I believe is the most likely intended equivalent length, i.e. 20.632" (I think it safe to ignore the +/- 0.004").
IMO, arguing for the employment of different length royal cubits in the planning - note planning not building - of a structure is actually altering the facts to suit the theory instead of altering the theory to suit the facts.
As for how the royal cubit came to be in some cases approx. 20.6", my money is on a standard cubit of 6 palms/24 digits derived from certain but unidentifiable people's forearms/hands/fingers and increased for reasons unknown by 1 palm/4 digits to 7 palms/28 digits.
I really cannot be doing with this malarkey akin to: 'Think of a number between X and Y, multiply it by the sum of the numbers in your great-grandmother’s 122nd birthday (even though she passed away at 72), divide it by the number of inches between A and C via B, and multiply it by the sum of the number of dots on two dice after three shots out of a catapult; if the result is not as required then alter the value of one or more of these factors to resolve it’.
Hmm, once again my exasperation with Jacob's formula and others like it bubbles to the surface...
Which reminds me that I'm still waiting for Jacob to identify the number 6 in his formula.
Regards,
MJ