432 shows harmony of Sun, Moon, Earth Design
- Thread starter Davidjayjordan
- Start date
Jiri
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 387
Hello, fellow skeptics.
It is time to set the record straight regarding this # 432. You've laughed at a certain guy in this discussion a lot, which is fine with me, and you can laugh at me as well. There is not much ground to laugh at the #432, however since it is just a number, but what a beautiful number. It has some very special properties. Above all, it is outstanding as - you guessed it - .a composite number. A composite number is one that can gotten by multiplying two or more whole numbers. The #432 and its multiples simply translate into more variations than other composite numbers. That is all.
However, this one property has been noticed a long time ago, and it made 432 and its relatives like 216, or 864 famous throughout recorded history. The family of these numbers is sometimes called "Osiris numbers". For instance, it would seem practical to base one's system of measures on it, and so this was done already in Prehistory. Hertha von Deschend and Giorgio Santillana had co-authored a book "Hamlet's Mill" on this subject, which was published in the late sixties
The scholarly pair tends to think that the Osiris Numbers are involved, because they lend themselves to encoding knowledge on the equinoctial precession. Until the advent of powerful telescopes and such, the best estimate for the duration of precession was 25,920 years - an Osiris number.
This is where My work comes into spotlight, for it documents the same thing further back, yet, 14 millenia ago.
You see, I had measured and compared the distances between peripheral points of a certain prehistoric engraving. Here are the measurements, which are also the intended values quite evidently. We have thirteen whole numbers between 16 and 175. Here they are ordered by size:, 16, 27 (twice), 54, 80, 81, 108, 113 (twice), 139, 146, 147, and 175, altogether thirteen numbers. Of course, on the perimeter of the engraving these come in a different and seemingly pel-mell order.Still, there was something special to this order, and I was studying it, when I learned of the above mentioned Hamlet's Mill, and the so called precessional code.
So, here was a completely 'new' thing relating to important matters just like the collection of the thirteen values, from the perimeter of the Stone-Age engraving which I refer to henceforth as the "Frame" . Myself, I had never progressed to the stage, where I would be thinking of the Frame as precessional code, but I was so impressed by what I learned from the Frame already that it seemed like the Frame should be also competitive in this aspect. As a matter of fact, I was confident that the Frame will work this way, too. I looked at it as the set of unique numbers ordered by size to begin with.
First the two smallest numbers:
16 * 27 = 432 !! This does deserve the exclamation marks, doesn't it?
432 * 60 = 25,920
54 & 80
The next two values multiply to 4320.
54 * 80 = 4,320 !! How about this?
4320 * 6 = 25,920
80 & 81
The same 80 multiplied by the neighbouring 81
80 * 81 = 6,480
6480 * 4 = 25,920
The same 80 & 108
80 * 108 = 8640
8640 * 3 = 25920
25920 / 0.3 = 86,400 the number of seconds in a day
Pair4) 16 & 108
Naturally, if we make a pie-chart of these Osiris numbers, 16 and 108 become neighbours. That makes them a legitimate pair.
16 * 108 = 432 * 4 = 1728
1728 * 15 = 25,920
All the values of the Frame below 113 (16, 27, 54, 80, 81, 108) have a common denominator of 6480, or one-fourth of 25920. Ever since antiquity until the Steam Age, the latter number had been the standard for one precessional cycle.
The six smallest values are all overtly Osiris numbers.
The five numbers (113, 139, 146, 147, 175) after the six overt Osiris Numbers have nothing whatsoever to do with those - or so it seems. The impression is wrong, however. These numbers do compose into Osiris numbers, which directly address the duration of the precessional cycle.
First, 108 is a link carrying the spirit of Osiris to the following group.
108+113+139 = 360
Of course, 360 is an important Osiris Number The combinations of segments that follow it here, also give even multiples of 36.
113 & 139 = 252
252 = 36 * 7
139 & 146 & 147 Total 432 !!
146 & 147 & 175 Total 468 = 432 + 36 = 36 * 13
288 = 144 * 2 = 36 * 8
Now all five numbers
113 & 139 & 146 & 147 & 175 = 720 = 144 * 5 = 36 * 20
The five longest unique values of the Frame add up to 720 - a major Osiris Number.
Not only is this 720 a whole multiple of 36, but so are four of its subsections:
252 = 36 * 7
288 = 36 * 8
432 = 36 * 12
468 = 36 * 13
720 = 36 * 20
The average of the five segments is 144 per segment.
The total also divides into two subsections, which are multiples of 144:
288 = 144 * 2
432 = 144 * 3
Observation:
The character of this set of 720 is to repeat 36 and 144.
720 * 36 = 25,920 - Again, the classic duration of one precessional cycle.
But, what about the cycle of 25,920 years, and 144? Anything special?
The Precessional Cycle of 25,776 years
On this higher level of accuracy, the precession takes:
71.6 years for 1 degree,
25,776 years for the entire precessional cycle
25,920
- 25,776 = 144 years, or two degrees. Herein is our answer, as 144 is the difference in duration between the two basic levels of accuracy. This difference is itself an Osiris number..
180 * 144 = 25,920
179 * 144 = 25776
71.6 * 360 = 25776
No doubt, the Frame like this seems entirely concerned with the Osiris numbers, and precessional code. Yet, this was just a taste of what the Frame offers. Hope you liked it and found enlightement in the fact that someone 14 millenia ago knew more about composite numbers than the lot of you,
Jiri (your fellow skeptic)
It is time to set the record straight regarding this # 432. You've laughed at a certain guy in this discussion a lot, which is fine with me, and you can laugh at me as well. There is not much ground to laugh at the #432, however since it is just a number, but what a beautiful number. It has some very special properties. Above all, it is outstanding as - you guessed it - .a composite number. A composite number is one that can gotten by multiplying two or more whole numbers. The #432 and its multiples simply translate into more variations than other composite numbers. That is all.
However, this one property has been noticed a long time ago, and it made 432 and its relatives like 216, or 864 famous throughout recorded history. The family of these numbers is sometimes called "Osiris numbers". For instance, it would seem practical to base one's system of measures on it, and so this was done already in Prehistory. Hertha von Deschend and Giorgio Santillana had co-authored a book "Hamlet's Mill" on this subject, which was published in the late sixties
The scholarly pair tends to think that the Osiris Numbers are involved, because they lend themselves to encoding knowledge on the equinoctial precession. Until the advent of powerful telescopes and such, the best estimate for the duration of precession was 25,920 years - an Osiris number.
This is where My work comes into spotlight, for it documents the same thing further back, yet, 14 millenia ago.
You see, I had measured and compared the distances between peripheral points of a certain prehistoric engraving. Here are the measurements, which are also the intended values quite evidently. We have thirteen whole numbers between 16 and 175. Here they are ordered by size:, 16, 27 (twice), 54, 80, 81, 108, 113 (twice), 139, 146, 147, and 175, altogether thirteen numbers. Of course, on the perimeter of the engraving these come in a different and seemingly pel-mell order.Still, there was something special to this order, and I was studying it, when I learned of the above mentioned Hamlet's Mill, and the so called precessional code.
So, here was a completely 'new' thing relating to important matters just like the collection of the thirteen values, from the perimeter of the Stone-Age engraving which I refer to henceforth as the "Frame" . Myself, I had never progressed to the stage, where I would be thinking of the Frame as precessional code, but I was so impressed by what I learned from the Frame already that it seemed like the Frame should be also competitive in this aspect. As a matter of fact, I was confident that the Frame will work this way, too. I looked at it as the set of unique numbers ordered by size to begin with.
First the two smallest numbers:
16 * 27 = 432 !! This does deserve the exclamation marks, doesn't it?
432 * 60 = 25,920
54 & 80
The next two values multiply to 4320.
54 * 80 = 4,320 !! How about this?
4320 * 6 = 25,920
80 & 81
The same 80 multiplied by the neighbouring 81
80 * 81 = 6,480
6480 * 4 = 25,920
The same 80 & 108
80 * 108 = 8640
8640 * 3 = 25920
25920 / 0.3 = 86,400 the number of seconds in a day
Pair4) 16 & 108
Naturally, if we make a pie-chart of these Osiris numbers, 16 and 108 become neighbours. That makes them a legitimate pair.
16 * 108 = 432 * 4 = 1728
1728 * 15 = 25,920
All the values of the Frame below 113 (16, 27, 54, 80, 81, 108) have a common denominator of 6480, or one-fourth of 25920. Ever since antiquity until the Steam Age, the latter number had been the standard for one precessional cycle.
The six smallest values are all overtly Osiris numbers.
The five numbers (113, 139, 146, 147, 175) after the six overt Osiris Numbers have nothing whatsoever to do with those - or so it seems. The impression is wrong, however. These numbers do compose into Osiris numbers, which directly address the duration of the precessional cycle.
First, 108 is a link carrying the spirit of Osiris to the following group.
108+113+139 = 360
Of course, 360 is an important Osiris Number The combinations of segments that follow it here, also give even multiples of 36.
113 & 139 = 252
252 = 36 * 7
139 & 146 & 147 Total 432 !!
146 & 147 & 175 Total 468 = 432 + 36 = 36 * 13
288 = 144 * 2 = 36 * 8
Now all five numbers
113 & 139 & 146 & 147 & 175 = 720 = 144 * 5 = 36 * 20
The five longest unique values of the Frame add up to 720 - a major Osiris Number.
Not only is this 720 a whole multiple of 36, but so are four of its subsections:
252 = 36 * 7
288 = 36 * 8
432 = 36 * 12
468 = 36 * 13
720 = 36 * 20
The average of the five segments is 144 per segment.
The total also divides into two subsections, which are multiples of 144:
288 = 144 * 2
432 = 144 * 3
Observation:
The character of this set of 720 is to repeat 36 and 144.
720 * 36 = 25,920 - Again, the classic duration of one precessional cycle.
But, what about the cycle of 25,920 years, and 144? Anything special?
The Precessional Cycle of 25,776 years
On this higher level of accuracy, the precession takes:
71.6 years for 1 degree,
25,776 years for the entire precessional cycle
25,920
- 25,776 = 144 years, or two degrees. Herein is our answer, as 144 is the difference in duration between the two basic levels of accuracy. This difference is itself an Osiris number..
180 * 144 = 25,920
179 * 144 = 25776
71.6 * 360 = 25776
No doubt, the Frame like this seems entirely concerned with the Osiris numbers, and precessional code. Yet, this was just a taste of what the Frame offers. Hope you liked it and found enlightement in the fact that someone 14 millenia ago knew more about composite numbers than the lot of you,
Jiri (your fellow skeptic)
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
Athyrio
Hipster Doofus
Oh God, how many are my fears?
Oh god, did i say "God"?
Whoops - did i say "God" again?
Yeah, the drugs will wear off...
Last edited:
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
Do you read Tarot cards, too?
Jiri
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 387
Hello, fellow skeptics,
Rather than wait for the drugs to wear off, maybe you shouldn't do any to begin with, and no I don't do Tarot, too, if you are looking for (bad) company.
It's shocking, how many of you readily admit to doing drugs while reading Tarot cards. It would be more to the point if you actually read my article in its entirety rather than Tarot cards.
Jiri (your fellow skeptic)
Rather than wait for the drugs to wear off, maybe you shouldn't do any to begin with, and no I don't do Tarot, too, if you are looking for (bad) company.
It's shocking, how many of you readily admit to doing drugs while reading Tarot cards. It would be more to the point if you actually read my article in its entirety rather than Tarot cards.
Jiri (your fellow skeptic)
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Because it looked like an early April Fool's joke. I mean really. Just to highlight this, consider the following:
What is with the random multiplying by 3, then dividing by 0.3? Why not just multiply by 10? This whole thing is just a bunch of arbitrary numbers selected to make your favorite numbers match up with other arbitrary numbers. That kind of irrational thinking led to the less than serious replies.
Jiri
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 387
"What is with the random multiplying by 3, then dividing by 0.3? Why not just multiply by 10? This whole thing is just a bunch of arbitrary numbers selected to make your favorite numbers match up with other arbitrary numbers. That kind of irrational thinking led to the less than serious replies."
Quote:
8640 * 3 = 25920
25920 / 0.3 = 86,400 the number of seconds in a day
Unquote
Well, Hokulele, you'd be right, if you were right, because in general there is nothing wrong with your statement, that's how general and all encompassing it is - with the exception of the number set, which is the subject of our numeratical analysis. That set is not random in that it is a set to begin with and not a set I made up. It is a set of measurements of distances between points of the perimeter of a certain artwork.
Example: You have a rectangular picture, whose height is 1,618 abd the breadth is one. Considering these two values together is not the same as selecting random numbers. They simply occur together. They are a set whose ratio then has a clear significance, i.e., Phi is involved.
Note that I haven't done anything different. I looked at a set of numbers, and noticed regularities far exceeding statistical expectations with respect to specifically the so called Osiris numbers also known as precessional code numbers.
A serious way of refuting my observations would be to prove that the same set actually relates to some other topic in a more intense manner, or that my calculations are simply wrong.
Please, note that I didn't invent the topic. It is out there.
Just making baseless accusations is Irrational thinking on the other hand. Of course, you had to isolate the above example to make it look irrational, and I agree that it would lok irrational if I only came up with this isolated observation out of the blue.
But, the fact is that the above example was one of an entire set with a common denominator.
Quote:
8640 * 3 = 25920
25920 / 0.3 = 86,400 the number of seconds in a day
Unquote
Well, Hokulele, you'd be right, if you were right, because in general there is nothing wrong with your statement, that's how general and all encompassing it is - with the exception of the number set, which is the subject of our numeratical analysis. That set is not random in that it is a set to begin with and not a set I made up. It is a set of measurements of distances between points of the perimeter of a certain artwork.
Example: You have a rectangular picture, whose height is 1,618 abd the breadth is one. Considering these two values together is not the same as selecting random numbers. They simply occur together. They are a set whose ratio then has a clear significance, i.e., Phi is involved.
Note that I haven't done anything different. I looked at a set of numbers, and noticed regularities far exceeding statistical expectations with respect to specifically the so called Osiris numbers also known as precessional code numbers.
A serious way of refuting my observations would be to prove that the same set actually relates to some other topic in a more intense manner, or that my calculations are simply wrong.
Please, note that I didn't invent the topic. It is out there.
Just making baseless accusations is Irrational thinking on the other hand. Of course, you had to isolate the above example to make it look irrational, and I agree that it would lok irrational if I only came up with this isolated observation out of the blue.
But, the fact is that the above example was one of an entire set with a common denominator.
Irij, to discover if a number is wholly divisible by 9, you should add all its digits, & if the total is 9, then it is. All you have done is multiply numbers by numbers that are divisible by nine, & then saying: "Look! The product is divisible by 9!"
April fule to you too, blue.
April fule to you too, blue.
Jiri
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 387
It is easy to spot people without much to say by their one-liners. There are situations in life, which require more than one-sentence treatment. It is easy to start rambling a bit, when you have things to say.
Even your one sentence was too much to handle for you, as it already contains a serious mistake: It should have been "rambling coherence", not incoherence. There is a big difference between the two, you know.
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
I am well aware of the difference, you, apparently, are not.
As it is by their meaningless pontification.
I'm sure there are, this however, is not one of them.
And also when you have nothing to say.
Jiri
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 387
Sorry, you miss the point completely. Thanks for advice, but what do you add to determine that a number is at the same time divisible by not only nine, but also eight, six, five, four, three, and two, in addition with even more numbers?
So, you've reduced everything to number nine. You did that to 432, 86,400, and 25,920, and so on. You totally eliminated the architecture.
How does what what you say I do exclusively (multiplying by nine) have in common with me adding three numbers together, for instance, 139, 146, 147, none of which is divisible by nine?
I did it just to see what the total would be of this natural group - three successive numbers in our set. It's just data processing if you would, hoping to strike it rich.. There is nothing wrong with that, is there? SETI does it..
Jiri
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 387
I actually find one easier to do than the other. Sorry, I don't have the actual numbers for you.
Last edited:
So your point is that some numbers are divisible by some other numbers and this makes them special?
Natural group?
So an artificially constructed group then.
What would make the result important?
Except if SETI succeeds they will have an intelligent extraterrestrial signal and you will have some numbers to which you attach unnecessary significance.
Is that reply supposed to mean something?
Jiri
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 387
'
So you may be, but you don't know it when you see it.
Last edited: