MJ Thomas 2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> affiliator Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Hi MJ
Yep he did. I just think it is interesting that the mean value between top and base perimeters gives 20.619 and thought I would point it out.
> 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.
I would agree with you about only one cubit being used throughout the pyramid except maybe in the Queen's Chamber where I suspect a different cubit may have been employed from that of the KC. We have to remember there must have been hundreds if not thousands of cubit rods in use at the time of construction, slight differences in the rod lengths may account for what appear to be varied cubit lengths. However personally I believe Petrie got it spot on with his 20.62 +/- final value which he derived.
> 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...
At the scale of the pyramid the discrepancy is fairly marginal, at the scale of the overall site (north-south) it enlarges to about a cubit difference, and then exponentially from there. Personally I feel it does matter, from a mathematical perspective and a practical one. Just my opinion though.
> 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.
You could be right, personally I feel the standard was set well before the Great Pyramid was built even, and after many years slight inaccuracies had begun to set in. The original source of the cubit was lost and it eventually became anthropomorphic.
> 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’.
It is ok to play with numbers, but it only becomes meaningful in a practical sense when the results converge into a plausible theory which can be tested in the real world... not a chance "hit" here and there. One needs to be careful when "swimming" in the numerical ocean... it is quite easy to get lost at sea or worse submerged completely.
Regards
Nick