Keith M. Hunter

Although the 1 / 43200 theory for the size of the Great Pyramid would
appear to be in error, the general idea of relating the structure to the
earth via such an association is in fact not entirely wrong. Indeed,
the basic premise of the theory, that in some way the base-line length
of the pyramid is harmoniously integrated with the earth form, does
appear to be correct. But this is only revealed to be so *if one selects the right earth-form component measure*
against which to set the Great Pyramid. The full equatorial
circumference of the earth for example, as is employed under the 1 /
43200 theory, is not the right measure. As to just what exactly is, one
may note that the relevant component has already been identified.

In the previous essays concerning the latitude placement of the Great Pyramid it was shown how a ratio of 10 times the measure of the tropical year increase was the defining principle that dictated the latitudinal position of the structure. In the course of the analysis, the two components of the earth that actually formed this ratio were the small circle circumference of the earth at the latitude of the pyramid, and also the elliptical arc length from the equator to the centre of the structure. It is this latter earth measure – the elliptical arc length separation of the pyramid to the equator – that would appear to be the key measure that dictated the overall size of the structure.

To understand just why the Great Pyramid was built to its chosen size, one must realise that the primary concern of the builders was to achieve a state of physical harmony between the structure, and the earth itself. To this end, they sought to relate it to both the earth form and earth frequency; the latter being none other than the orbital frequency of the planet in terms of the number of days in the tropical year. Moreover, in doing so, the construction of the pyramid would appear to have necessitated that the very building blocks as composed its outer skin, were also selected with a view to harmonic integration. The key figure indeed to note in this regard, is that originally, the total number of casing stones that formed the outermost layer was exactly 144000 [1].

*From the above picture one may note of the Great Pyramid that as it
stands today, it has in fact been stripped of all of its outer casing
stones. However, the pyramid of Khaefre just next to it does itself
still possess some of its own original casing stones, near to the top of
the pyramid. As one may see in the the images below:*

*Close up of the top of Khaefre's Pyramid and its intact casing stones:*

From a careful consideration of the numeric value 144000, it would
appear that a basic harmonic of this figure was employed to actually
determine the very size of the Great Pyramid, as the following analysis
reveals:

As was shown in the previous essay concerning the global
placement of the Great Pyramid, under the WGS84 earth model, the
elliptical arc-length separation between the structure and the equator
was equal to the following:

10885784.94485787 feet

Furthermore, as a result of extensive surveys, the established
measure for the base-line length of the structure has been determined as
follows [2]:

755.7875 feet

With these two measures in hand, a simple division sum to express the ratio produces a highly intriguing answer:

10885784.94485787 / 755.7875 = 14403.23496

As one can see, the figure returned is almost exactly 1/10th of
144000 - the total number of casing stones as originally formed the
outer layer of the Great Pyramid itself. There is thus the suggestion
therefore that the builders may have deliberately intended that the
base-line of the structure should be exactly 1 / 14400 of the elliptical
arc length distance between the centre of the pyramid and the equator
of the earth. But just how accurate is the association?

According to William Petrie, a noted surveyor of the Great
Pyramid, the margin of error one would be dealing with in determining
the base length of the structure would be about 1 / 4000 of the actual
distance itself. Using this as a standard, the following can thus be
had:

755.7875 / 4000 = 0.188946875 feet

0.188946875 x 12 = 2.2673625 inches

With the above established, one may note that a perfect ratio of 1
/ 14400 under the WGS84 model may be had for the pyramid, quite well
within the margin of error as outlined by Petrie:

10885784.94485787 / 14400 = 755.9572875 feet

755.9572875 – 755.7875 = 0.1697875

0.1697875 x 12 = 2.03745 inches

Such a result demonstrates therefore that were the Great Pyramid to have originally possessed a base-line length of some 2.03 inches greater than that determined under the 1925 survey, then under the WGS84 earth model, the mathematics indicates that a perfect ratio of 1 / 14400 is evident. Consequently, it is thus suggested that in line with the desire to harmonise the structure with the earth form, that the governing principle that determined the base-line measure of the structure was the decision (of the builders) to chose a distance length of 1 / 14400 of the elliptical arc separation between the centre of the structure and the equator of the earth.

Based upon the above evaluation, including that given previously
concerning the latitudinal placement of the Great Pyramid, it would
appear that there is clear evidence to suggest that two primary
principles were employed, to fix both the global (latitude) position of
the structure, and also its relative size to the earth. And that they
were practically realised in sequence:

1) Firstly, the builders determined the precise latitudinal
placement upon the earth, as gave a ratio between the small circle
circumference of the planet and the elliptical arc up from the equator
of 10.14561622 (x 10 the value of change for the earth tropical year).

2) When the latitude had been fixed, the builders then took the full measure of the elliptical arc length from the established centre of the structure to the equator, and divided it by 14400. In doing so they thus further determined what would be the primary physical base of the pyramid.

[1] *The Crystal Sun*, by Robert Temple (2000), Century, p.418

[2] NB: This is the average base-length measure of all 4 sides:

(9065.1 + 9073.0 + 9070.5 + 9069.2) / 4 = 9069.45 inches.

And 9069.45 / 12 = 755.7875 feet

The actual figures for each of the 4 sides are from the 1925 survey, and cited from the following publication:

*The Bridge to Infinity*, by Bruce Cathie (1997),

Adventures Unlimited Press, p.59

All images of the Giza Pyramids above are from Sarah's recent visit to the Plateau in Egypt.

Return to Great Pyramid Main Page