Dr Hawass speaks from EXPERIENCE. He has probably sent more artifacts to be C14 tested in C14 labs around the world than anyone alive.
Yes, rather than allow others to be confused by your inaccuracies, this should likely be addressed.
The original 14C half-life utilized by Libby was 5568 +/- 30. Further research with more sophisticated technology prompted the readjustment of this figure to 5730 +/- 40. This readjustment is known as the Cambridge half-life. This readjustment occurred in 1962, fifty years ago. Due to the number of early dates that utilized the Libby figure, a number of modern radiocarbon dating facilities such as Beta Analytic still utilize the Libby figure in order to maintain record consistency. Conversion is accomplished by a simple multiplication of 1.03.
As to Hawass, he spent much of his latter years in the field in administrative positions. It is rather unlikely that your bold statement could be validated, particularly given the work of Bonani, et. al. In addition, the dating associated with Egypt is merely a small fraction of the global total.
Given that the support for your rejection of radiocarbon dating is based primarily upon the demonstrably inaccurate "perceptions" of YEC/fundamentalist sources and a loose quote by Hawass, your position in this regard is not at all well substantiated.
Another aspect which has been frequently brought up by kmt_sesh and others is your lack of familiarity with the cultural concepts of the population under consideration. The following paper provides some interesting understandings in regards to the spatial conceptualization of said culture:
Though the genealogical principle was not unimportant in Egypt-especially for kings18-the nation regarded itself as a "kingdom of the middle." Though there is no word for the notion as in China, the notion is there as an idea.19 It finds expression, for instance, in words and rites connected with the Egyptian kingship. It is asserted repeatedly that the authority of the pharaoh legitimately reaches out from this center of the world to the ends of the earth, even though in fact-that is, politically-his power is not realized everywhere.20 The idea finds expression in art as well. On a sarcophagus from the fourth or third century B.C., there is a representation of the world as a disk, the center of which is formed by a ring consisting of the provinces of Egypt.21 The purpose of the religious type of early Egyptian cartography is a geographical orientation in the after-world, and hardly anywhere else did such a remarkable geography, or "topography of the otherworld" (J.-F. Sprockhoff),
It is at this point that we observe an interesting bifurcation in the ancient Egyptian's attitude toward the spatial world. He developed at least two different sets of spatial categories, one mythical and one empirical (if we include here the mathematical concept of space in the empirical notion thereof). Both sets of categories could be used at the same time, and the Egyptian felt no need to reconcile them; he could speak on an empirical and on a mythical level almost simultaneously, even if both utterances were seemingly contradictory.
For the Egyptians, as for so many other peoples, space has its ultimate boundary in the primal waters that surround the world, constantly jeopardizing life.45 In Papyrus Carlsberg I, II, 19-31 we find: "The distant area of the heavens is shrouded in darkness and gloom. Its borders are not known toward the south, north, west, and east. These are founded in the primal water.... The sun does not rise there. Nor is this land known to gods and spirits. There are no rays of light there."
Much could be said about the significance of directions in mythicospatial thinking, for the directions of the compass not only have geographic significance but gain their accent, their specific meaning, from the thinking of a "mythical geography." Cassirer rightly emphasizes: "East, west, north, and south are not essentially similar zones which serve for orientation within the world of empirical perception; each of them has a specific reality and significance of its own, an inherent mythical life."
"The four heavenly directions together mean the ordered world," says Brunner in the case of Egypt.42 "The division of the world into four parts represents a primary mythic form." 43 The main directions together imply the totality of the cosmos-even if there is no one word for "cosmos," as in Egypt-a totality representative of the correspondence striven for between man's action and the structure, or order, of the whole universe.
Hence the religiously determined image of the world-in India as well as in Egypt, and certainly in many other cultures-is a spatiomythical symbol of an intellectual understanding of, and feeling for, a religious sphere of existence, expressing in its own manner what the narrated myth does in temporal categories. Thus a systematic "geography of religions" with any degree of methodological reflection and any attempt to take into account the historical as well as the social, economic, and ecological dimension of religion, will not be able to disregard the significance of the concept of space in its general structures as well as its culturally determined peculiarities. Its meaning as a symbol expressive of a religious reality entails the actual problem in terms of hermeneutics, or Wissenschaftstheorie.
Spatial Orientation in Mythical Thinking as Exemplified in Ancient Egypt: Considerations toward a Geography of Religions. Hans-J. Klimkeit. History of Religions, Vol. 14, No. 4 (May, 1975), pp. 266-281.The University of Chicago Press.
You would also appear to once again avoid the topographical constraints of the Giza Plateau, in addition to not adequately addressing the royal constructs that predate G1, G2, and G3. Nor have you adequately addressed the other pyramid constructions that occurred under Djedefre and possibly Nebka. None of the above would be consistent with a "unified plan".