But--"_according_ to Sir Isaac Newton"--the Sacred Cubit of the Jews was _not_ 25.07, as Professor Smyth makes him state in this table, but 24.75 British inches, as Sir Isaac himself more than once deliberately infers in his Dissertation.[261] Besides, in such inquiries, is it not altogether illogical to attempt to draw mathematical deductions by these calculations of "means," and especially by using the ninth quantity in the table--viz. Sir Isaac's own avowed and deliberate deduction regarding the actual length of the Sacred Cubit--as one of the nine quantities from which that length was to be again deduced by the very equivocal process of "means?" Errors, however, of a far more serious kind exist. The "mean" of the nine quantities in Professor Smyth's table is, he infers, 25.07 inches; and hence he avows that this, or near this figure, is the length of the Sacred Cubit. But the real mean of the nine quantities which Professor Smyth has collected is not 25.07 but 25.29--a number in such a testing question as this of a very different value. For the days of the year (365.25) when multiplied by this, the true mean of these nine quantities, would make the base line of the pyramid 9237 inches instead of Professor Smyth's theoretical number of 9142 inches; a difference altogether overturning all his inferences and calculations thereanent. And again, if we take Sir Isaac Newton's own conclusion of 24.75, and multiply it by the days of the year, the pretended length of the pyramid base comes out as low as 9039. _Alleged "really glorious Consummation" in Geodesy._