Have you been read Petrie’s pendulum theory in Nature 1933?

Petrie claimed the natural standard of time for ‘decimalists’ should be a day divided by 100,000 rather than the Babylonian division into 86,400 seconds, and then found that such a natural standard has a pendulum length of 29.157 inches at the latitude of Giza 30 degrees north of the equator which is then the diagonal of one square Egyptian cubit.

His natural Egyptian time theory requires a cubit of 20.617 inches, with the best examples, as he pointed out, in the range 20.615 to 20.625 inches.

This theory is, quite frankly, absurd.

Have you read Petrie's treatise on Inductive Metrology from 1877?

He 'proves' that the digit was not a division of the palm.

This theory is also absurd. Have you really understood Petrie?

What's the point of understanding something that is ridiculous?

Have you read Petrie's theory on the decimal division of the cubit in the Fourth Dynasty?

This is yet another flawed theory.

Have you read the detail of Petrie's survey of the King's Chamber?

The measurements he gives are after subtraction of cracks. Any cracks in the north and south wall would not be expected to have shaken the chamber a little larger. If a one inch crack appeared tomorrow due to an earthquake then the east and west walls may remain in the same position.

Another flawed theory in which theory and fact are mixed together.

(Petrie's mixing of theory and fact is at its worst in his presentation of the survey of the Ascending Passage and Grand Gallery in which the foot of the gallery is actually a virtual point above the level of the floor at the foot of the gallery. I worked out all his offsets.)

Have you read the sliding grid theory of John Romer? (in his book on the Great Pyramid published by Cambridge University Press)

Unfortunately the theory was based on Petrie's measurement, but it wasn't actually Petrie's measurement because of a typographical error, so the theory fails in my opinion. I had spotted the error before publication of the theory, and went to view an original copy of Petrie's first edition in London, just to check the on line edition was the same as the original edition.

The point is don't rely on Petrie without checking if possible to do so.

There is a long list of Petrie's publications available from the desk in the library at the British Museum. I tracked down one of his little known works on the Pyramid written before 1877.

Don't bother reading it unless you want to build up a profile of Petrie.

Have you read the pyramid theory of W. Petrie (senior) on the relationship between the the dimensions of the Great Pyramid and the distance to the sun?

Don't forget Petrie was not sent to school but home educated. This would help you build up a profile of Petrie if that's what you want to do.

Petrie's review of some of Smyth's measurements claimed Smyth's rod must have slipped in measuring lengths on the floor of the Ascending Passage. I was able to reconcile both sets of measurements based on the detail in Smyth's survey and Petrie's survey, but Petrie was apparently unable to do that. Indeed he seems to have made a special attempt to measure in a different way so Smyth's survey appears to be different.

I checked Smyth's survey around the plug blocks, which he thought might be inaccurate, but it is the same as Petrie's within a small fraction of an inch, unless the latter just relied on the former.

Petrie gives Smyth little credit for his incredible skill which had hitherto been unmatched in the field of archaeology, and set a new standard.

The best example of Petrie reporting measurements very precisely, but seemingly making Smyth's measurements seem inferior to his own is the sarcophagus, because, yet again, he presented theory with facts. Petrie does not give us the actual dimensions in his summary, but the effective dimensions after taking into account the depressions in the sides. I have managed to reconcile the two surveys to a remarkable degree of precision because the raw measurements can be deduced from tables of offsets.

Sadly, this means Petrie spoiled Smyth's theory in the minds of Egyptologists.

PAGE 183 FIRST EDITION

From other cases (in the interior) of the ratio of radius to circumference, it seems probable that a closer approximation than 7 to 22 was in use.

Petrie not only thought the design of the pyramid was based on a Pi approximation, but that AE were aware of an approximation closer than 22/7.

Unfortunately, Petrie missed really simple theories. The external volume of the sarcophagus is precisely equal to the volume of a sphere with a diameter of 88 digits (Pi cubits from the pi approximation 22/7).

This requires a volume 356,962 cubic digits or 16.261 cubic cubits or 142,607 cubic inches for a cubit of 20.622 inches.

Petrie determined the volume as either 142.530 cubic inches or 142,590 cubic inches.

(My theory of the apparent length of the cubit as 20.622 inches does not depend on this Pi theory. The intended volume as sphere with a diameter of 88 digits was a secondary observation.)

Forget Petrie's idea on the pendulum, which was based on his obsession with squares. I hope you haven't been influenced by his complex theories on square roots which are riddles of no consequence throughout his first edition because there are much simpler explanations.

Petrie did have a tendency to over complicate things, and seems to have found difficulty in following simple geometric propositions, unless his aim was just to prove no theories but his own. There is little credit or fame from proving someone else's theories, and in this regard Petrie was very successful.

Mark