Home Discussion Forums Papers Authors
 May 30, 2020, 7:33 am UTC
 April 28, 2019 11:29AM Registered: 10 years ago Posts: 1,158
Petrie did not think the palm was divided into 4 digits so he overlooked the fact that the perimeter of the long walls of the King Chamber not only corresponds to the circumference of a circle with the length taken as the diameter of the circle, but also corresponds to 1760 digits with 5 courses of 64 digits to the footing of the floor and a length of 560 digits.

This hypothetical circle is a 1/28 scale model of the size and shape of the intended dimensions of the Great Pyramid, so the height of the pyramid was intended to have a height of 560/2 cubits as the radius of the circle and the perimeter of 4 x 440 cubits was intended to be equal to the circumference of the virtual circle which equates to 1760 cubits as calculated from the pi approximation 22/7.

It follows that the King's Chamber Circle is a model of the exterior on a scale of 1 digit to 1 royal cubit because there are 28 digits in a cubit.

The niche in the Queen's Chamber shows the division of the cubit into 4 parts with 4 corbels on either side of the chamber reducing the width from 3 cubits to 1 cubit.

The roof of the Grand Gallery shows the division of the cubit into 7 parts with 7 corbels on either side of the gallery reducing the width from 4 cubits to 2 cubits.

The division by 4 and a division by 7 means implies the cubit probably had 7 times 4 divisions as apparent from surviving cubit rods.

In my monograph on the Grand Gallery I pointed out that the length of the cubit apparent from the interior is incredibly close to the cubit apparent from the exterior which could have been achieved with 2 master stones 10 cubits in length.

These stones could have been made very square and moved around the base of the pyramid. The very same stones could then have been used to mark out the King's Chamber at every level of the chamber.

It would then have made sense just to leave the 2 master stones in the top course of the King's Chamber. There are in fact two such stones in the top course of the King's Chamber, and these stones define the width of the chamber at the top.

The east side of the pyramid was probably built first according to Maragliogio and Rinaldi. If so the best estimate of the length of the cubit is the length of the east side divided by 440 cubits. All the other sides may be very slightly different than 440 cubits in the attempt to make a square.

If the faces of the 2 stones on the ends are not perfectly flat, or were not fitted together perfectly, then this might add up to 1/25 inch for each length of 10 cubits or 1/250 inch per cubit, so if the master stones had a mean length of 20.610 inches then the cubit apparent from the base square may be as much as 20.614 inches.

The best estimate of the cubit inside the pyramid may prove to be the aforesaid so-called master stones which should be measured for length near the top and bottom of each stone as well as the mid point.
I would expect all 6 measurements to be in the range 206.00 inches to 206.15 inches if these were the master stones because a length of 10 cubits apparent from the east side is 206.08 inches from Petrie's survey and 206.15 inches from Cole's survey.

Can we find anyone who can measure a length of around 206 inches accurate to a hundredth of inch?

Mark

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/28/2019 11:31AM by Mark Heaton.
Subject Author Posted

#### Which Survey?

jacob boaz April 12, 2019 04:21PM

#### Re: Which Survey? (Master Stones)

Mark Heaton April 28, 2019 11:29AM

#### Re: Which Survey? (Master Stones)

jacob boaz April 30, 2019 02:18PM

#### Re: Which Survey? (Master Stones)

Mark Heaton May 02, 2019 02:55PM

#### Re: Which Survey? (Pendulum / Pi)

Mark Heaton May 04, 2019 03:15AM

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.