On page 54, in the book, "The Great Pyramid Decoded", by E. Raymond Capt, the length of The King's Chamber (within The Great Pyramid of Giza) is given in "pyramid inches" as 412.13186, the width as 206.06593, and the height as 230.38871.

E.Raymond Capt states that a "pyramid inch" is 'slightly larger' than a regular inch, by a ratio of 'approximately 1.001 : 1 or so'. As soon as I saw the first 3 digits of his given length (above) ... "412" ...

I thought of the decimal harmonic of the Surface Area on a Sphere .... "4125296125" (to ten digits). This figure comes from a geometry 'formula' ; using the RADIAN (deg) NUMERICAL VALUE as the radius of a 'generic sphere'. In other words, we are taught (hopefully) in school that the "formula for the Area of a Circle" is .... Pi x 'r' Squared.

What I'm saying, here, is to actually substitute the figure "57.29577951" (degrees of arc) for the "r" in that generic formula we learn in school. The RADIAN (deg) is equal to (assuming 360 arc-degrees on one complete circumference) 57.29577951 degrees-of-arc on any true circumference. This curved length ... the RADIAN (deg) ... is equal, as close as possible, to the straight-line length of the actual radius of that *same* circle or sphere.

The formula (generic) for Surface Area on a Sphere is :

4 x Pi x ('r' Squared)

So ; if we substitute 57.29577951 (deg) for "r" .... 4 x 3.141592654 x (57.29577951 x 57.29577951) ... = 41252.96125 .... an actual numerical value we can use.

What would the ratio be, of "pyramid inch" to regular inch, if we look at the possibility of the length of The King's Chamber as 412.5296125 regular inches ?

412.5296125 / 412.13186 = 1.00096511 ... yes ... this is very close to the (above) stated approximate ratio of "1.001 : 1" ... for "pyramid inch" to regular inch, according to the research of E.Raymond Capt, and according to the research of other 'pyramidologists' as well. The dimensions of The King's Chamber have *not* been altered by such factors as wind & sand, rain, or temperature extremes.

This reference material, from the writing of E. Raymond Capt, prompted me to take another look at this so-called "pyramid inch". And my study of the work of Carl P. Munck, had already alerted me to the importance of The Radian (deg) ... and its numerical value of "57.29577951" (deg). My proposed Royal Cubit of precisely 20.62648063 regular inches, was thus based on my thinking that 'IF' the builders/designers of the superb ancient monuments were actually utilizing a *precise* 360 arc-degree system, which they 'encoded' in their precise positioning (and structural designs, as well) of these monuments ... then they probably also would have 'encoded' the numerical value of The Radian (deg) into their measuring parameters. We often think of "360" and the Pi constant, but The Radian (deg) is also a key geometric relationship.

As it turns out, my proposed Royal Cubit length reveals an 'encoding'... a specific integration" ... of the Regular Inch length with the numerical value of The Radian (deg), out to an impressive number of decimal places ... indicating "precise tolerances".

Thus ... I recognized the 'decimal harmonic' match ... the floating decimal point ... of "20.62648063" with the "20626.48063" Square Arc-degrees of generic Area on a Hemisphere. And, of course, the apparent "206.2648063" regular inches of width of The King's Chamber. The length of The King's Chamber ... exactly double its width ... is therefore numerically a decimal harmonic of generic Area on a Sphere ... "412.5296125" regular inches.

Previous Assumptions ...Past Research

I think the general assumptions of almost all past research into metrological considerations involving very ancient structures ... have included an assumption that the builders/designers "would not have had the knowledge, nor the technical means" to actually utilize and to 'encode' a 360 arc-degree system ... let alone a PRECISE 360 arc-degree system, including numerical values out to 8 or 9 decimal places. This assumption, then, effectively 'blinded' researchers to the reality of the situation ... until the pioneering work of Carl P. Munck opened-up a new perspective. I also must refer, here, to the work of Zecharia Sitchin.

His work provides a full, integrated contextual background which does support the idea that 'certain people' in the ancient past did indeed have the advanced knowledge and technology required to produce the tangible evidence we are now "figuring out".

-- Michael Lawrence Morton (c) copyright 2000

Copying and forwarding of this article is encouraged, provided the copyright is included. Thanks -- MLM.