In Newton’s thesis on ancient cubits the authentic example of the sacred Jewish temple cubit had been measured as 23¼ French inches, as found in Jerusalem. This equates to 24.83 English inches from the conversion factor of 1.068 used by Newton.

Piazzi Smyth proposed that the base side-length of the Great Pyramid was 365.242 temple cubits as a precise reflection of the number of days in the solar year.

Petrie’s mean side length of 9,068.8 British inches for the base of the pyramid equates to 365.242 times 24.83 inches.

Therefore the base side-length of the Great Pyramid proved to be 365.242 times Newton’s estimate of the temple cubit.

Newton did not know the true base side length of the Great Pyramid, and came to the conclusion that the 5 temple cubits was exactly equal to 6 pyramid cubits.

In my opinion one Jewish temple cubit was equal to one pyramid cubit because both were divided into 7 palms. Ezekiel described the temple cubit as 'a cubit and a palm' and the regular cubit was 6 palms. The Israelites adopted the numbers and units of lengths of the Egyptians.

As far as I know pyramidologists have not spotted this pseudo scientific proof of Smyth's interpretation of Newton's temple cubit in relation to the Great Pyramid

In conclusion, Newton's temple cubit leads to a conundrum, and the answer to riddle requires a proper overview of history.


Mark

PS
I spotted this unusual connection between Petrie, Smyth and Newton (in which they all appear to be correct) just a few minutes ago. Is my arithmetic correct having rounded figures to the nearest 1/100 inch?





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2017 04:36AM by Mark Heaton.