keeperzz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Kanga,
>
>
Quote
Why this shift? Because it creates an
> easily distinguishable horizontal line of length
> 200 cubits, drawing attention to the significance
> of horizontal lengths, especially the length of
> the horizontal line at the 154c level, the course
> above it, which is 198 cubits.
> In my opinion this is a somewhat confusing
> explanation. If builders wanted to turn our
> attention to the level with 198c horizontal
> length, they would just put the shaft's exits there.
> According to my calculations, a horizontal with
> the exact length of 200c is at the elevation of
> 152.76c = 79.98m = 3149in. while the top of 103
> course is located at the elevation of 3145 in. (Petrie)
Petrie gives 3148.4" as the elevation for the top of course 103 at the NE corner and 3149.5" as the elevation for the top of course 103 at the SW corner. Which one better represents the true elevation of this level? Or is it somewhere in between as you propose?
In my analysis of the thicknesses and elevations of the courses around the shaft exits, I have proposed a model of whole palm thicknesses for these courses. Petrie gives the thickness of course 104 as 26.3" for the NE corner and 26.5" for the SW corner. Using a cubit of 20.62", these convert to 8.9 palms and 9.0 palms respectively. Presumably this course is meant to be 9 palms thick.
Petrie gives 3174.7" as the elevation for the top of course 104 at the NE corner and 3176.0" at the SW corner. Using a cubit of 20.62", these convert to 153.96 cubits and 154.03 cubits respectively. I think it is safe to say that the intended elevation for the top of this course is 154 cubits, and this corresponds to the idealized exit level for the shafts in Gantenbrink's model. Subtracting the 9 palms thickness of course 104 from 154 cubits, we obtain the ideal elevation of the top of course 103 as 152 cubits 5 palms. I use this value to obtain the horizontal length of the top of this course as 200.02 cubits.
>
Quote
The significance of this measure, 198
> cubits, is that the diagonal at this level is
> virtually 280 cubits, the same as the height of
> the pyramid, implicating and indicating a rational
> approximation to sqrt 2 of 280/198, or 140/99.
> This same value is then used to create the level
> of the floor of the King's Chamber, 82 cubits
> above the base (280c - 198c = 82c). This is the
> "half-area level," but another way to view this is
> that the diagonal at this (82c) level is 440
> cubits, the same as the length of the base,
> linking it strongly to the 154c level, whose
> diagonal, 280 cubits, is the same as the
> height.
> Could you show the mentioned relationships in the drawing?
Let me express it very simply: The diagonal at the 82c level (the KC floor level) is 440 cubits; the diagonal at the 154c level (Gantenbrink's ideal shafts exit level) is 280 cubits. Both of these levels incorporate 280/198 as a rational approximation to sqrt 2.
You may ask: where does the 198c value appear at the KC floor level? Well, if a new pyramid were to be constructed at this level, its height would be 198 cubits.