> Yes it does, but I do not lay claim on this
> insight whatsoever. This work is by Rudolf
> Gantenbrink and you can find it
> here. In
> essence, he lays a 7-by-11 cubit grid over the
I assume, since you did not use quotes, that the above is in answer to MJT's question...
Does this design include the Great Pyramid's interior (the interior is taken to include the subterranean section)?
If not, then why not?
I find it impossible to follow your posts. You jumped from Kepler's Triangle & Akhet Khufu to Gatenbrinks's grid. Somehow the 3 are related? Would this be a 3 dimensional grid, or just a one dimensional grid on paper?
You speak as if it were so simple, a triangle & a grid were all that was needed to design G1. But that in no way begins to address the design of the interior.
> My published findings are consistent with this
> grid because 8x35 is 40x7 and 8x27½ is 20x11. I
> realize there are other ways to think about this
> when you look at Khufu Akhet in isolation, but my
> argumentation derives much, though not all, of its
> weight from the apparent common design theme
> discernible in prior monuments' dimensions (which
> I argue stems from astronomical observations) most
> importantly the casing of Meydum whose design is
> not consistent with a 28 r.c. architectural unit,
> and the theology with which this theme jives.
> There is a key insight by Gantenbrink which is
> worth emphasizing and to which the other poster's
> admonishment also alludes: The idea that one must
> look for an exterior design metric which yields
> whole numbers, if one wishes to elucidate the
> designer's thought behind his/her framework
> design. The interior then closely, but not always
> perfectly, falls on that framework. My findings
> relate to the idea behind the exterior framework,
> over and onto which the 7/11 interior framework
> almost flawlessly fits*.
A one dimensional frame on paper is a far cry from 3 dimensional construction.
> You can and should read the rest. The point is,
> you cannot get into Hemiunu's mind if you think in
> meters or inches. You gotta think in cubits. There
> is no plausible way around it.
I read the rest and it did not take me into Hemiunu's mind. It did not show that Hemiunu was the architect of G1. It did not tell me WHY G1 was constructed the way it was.
> I merely use the term Khufu Akhet to make the
> point that G1 is not the Great Pyramid as is
> widely stated, at least not in the view of an Old
> Kingdom scribe and priest overseer buried right
> next to it.
> 2018/03/Idu-Tomb.jpg]Idu is my witness[/url].
The reason for your links to the hieroglyphics escapes me. I also do not see your point on Akhet Khufu or why you used "the term".
> Also, we cannot be sure that the
> below-ground features were made in the same era as
> the super-structure. Maybe the unfinished
> appearance was meant to be a decoy to mislead tomb
> robbers to look elsewhere and Khufu is actually
> buried somewhere there or this was a tomb carved
> for an early dynastic official later abandoned.
We also cannot be sure that it was a tomb. Maybe, probably, most likely, it was not a tomb.
We also cannot be sure when it was built and what it's original function was.
You proceed from the traditional premise that it was a tomb, that the PT's can explain it's purpose and construction. I consider this to be a faulty premise having no basis in fact.
> In any case, I wouldn't make too much of any
> deviations from the 7/11 grid down there just
> like, as per Gantenbrink, some deviations above
> where the grid mostly does apply are actually to
> be expected. A grid is a guide not a guard.
This isn't surprising, as egyptology constantly makes excuses for 'deviations' in every aspect of their dogmatic theories.