Thanks for reply.

First of all I should point out that I posted this new topic on 'ancient Egyptian discussions', but it was switched to this forum without a note to that effect, as has been standard practice, as far as my topics have been concerned, in the past.

This is an important point as I would not want anyone to think that I thought that my post was actually 'alternative geometry and numerology'. This is not a comment on a moderator's notice, since no notice was issued.

My post is based on the royal cubit which was divided into 7 palms and 28 digits, with 4 digits per palm.

The division of the royal cubit should have been apparent to Petrie, not only from cubit rulers, but because the cubit was divided into 7 parts by the corbels on the side walls of the Grand Gallery, and into 4 parts by the corbels in the Queen's Chamber. The simplest way to achieve this is by dividing the cubit into 28 parts, although the design does not rule out a division into say 56 parts.

You make a good point regarding Sneferu. That's why I presented similar evidence for the Bent Pyramid to the Hall of Maat when I first joined this community. My website on Sneferu's Bent Pyramid is now off line, but there may come a day when two independent surveyors agree on many dimensions. We would then be able to evaluate survey data with confidence. Robin Cook recently posted data on Khafre's pyramid, but had to point out that measurements from different surveys are different. We may note that this means that either one or both surveys are poor, even if mid-way between the measurements.

The Great Pyramid has been surveyed most precisely, and includes the most important connection between the interior and exterior of the pyramid. There is missing for all other pyramids. We have had to rely on Petrie for this connection, but my model fits the facts without ever trying to construct a model that fitted the particular theory that I now propose.

It is simply the case that the model which I proposed in 2006 has a special feature that I had overlooked, namely that the bottom edge of the anomalous lowest corbel, which is unusually deep, is at the very level where the theoretical perimeter of the rising pyramid equates to 4 x 365 royal cubits.

I have mentioned this before on Hall of Maat, but Tim's post led to me to ask another question:

Was the design of the lowest corbel, or rather the overhang underneath, related in some way to the circumference of a circle?

I knew that I could calculate the theoretical depth of the corbel that would result in a vertical rise of pi digits, simply by assuming that the intended slope of the overhang was intended to be the same as the sloping floor of the gallery. I calculated the depth in inches, and found that it was exactly the same as Petrie's measurement on rounding to the nearest 0.1 inches.

And pi digits x length of sloping profile of overhang is the circumference of a circle whose diameter is the length of the sloping profile. This hardly deserves to be described as an alternative theory. It's a simple theory, and anyone with modest mathematical ability can check the conformity of the theory to the facts.

It was, however, ingenious to incorporate the circumference of a circle in a 'key stone' that marked the virtual circumference corresponding to a perimeter of 1,460 royal cubits. Each and every level of a pi pyramid may be regarded as having a perimeter equal to the circumference of a virtual circle.

We know that the base side length is 440 royal cubits, so it should have been natural to ask if the architect had incorporated an anomaly where the side length is 365 royal cubits.

This matter is now beyond question to anyone who can understand my model.

You have asked why there is nothing similar for Sneferu. On the contrary, there is a structure rather like the Grand Gallery in the satellite pyramid of Sneferu's Bent Pyramid. Unfortunately the levels inside this small pyramid have not been surveyed. The slope of the passageway was reported as very similar to that of the Grand Gallery, if memory serves me correctly. The angle is, I think, very close to 26d 18m as the precise angle to square the circle.

Mark



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2016 12:03PM by Mark Heaton.