Spiros Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The angle of this chart is incorrect and has not

> been measured as far as I know with accuracy. It

> is simply based on a seked of 5 1/2. No proof that

> this was the design. Petrie has the angle at 51°

> 52'. Imho it is hard to disprove the rainbow idea

> based on a slope divergence of 0° 8', or even 0°

> 10'.

How is the chart wrong when you say the angle has not been measured with accuracy? Nevertheless if one were to build an enormous building for the sole purpose of 'encoding' a particular angle one would hope that they'd get it right. It was also interesting that if they did so and it was so important - yet they never did it again.

If that was the sole purpose I suspect the AE could have gotten in correct. I suspect they did and it wasn't the number 52.