432 shows harmony of Sun, Moon, Earth Design

Ok, so just this one:

8640 * 3 = 25920
25920 / 0.3 = 86,400 the number of seconds in a day
Click to expand...

Today? Maybe. I don't know the exact figure, but I don't believe it is significant in any other way than in the human standard of 24 hours * 60 minutes/hour * 60 seconds/minute, because this count is very slightly off. One thing is certain though: in prehistoric times? Doesn't match. That pesky Earth rotation slowdown, y'know.

Well, the whole thing smacks of cherry-picking. We have no way to determine what prompted you to use these numbers instead of any other numbers you may have found studying that alleged artwork, no way to determine how you got these numbers (the means you used, the precision of your instruments, any rounding you may have made)... Some reading on playing "The Numbers Game. Read what Phil has to say about Hoagland's claims; barring any new and shocking info on your part, it applies to your claims as well.
 
Originally Posted by Jiri
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 your point is that some numbers are divisible by some other numbers and this makes them special?
*
Yes, under the circiumstances. Another point was proving the other guy wrong. Job well done, wouldn't you agree?


Quote:
I did it just to see what the total would be of this natural group -

Natural group?


Quote:
three successive numbers in our set.

So an artificially constructed group then.
*
No, actually a natural group within an artificially constructed group. And remember, the artificially constructed group is a reconstruction of a natural group. It could also be meaningful, which would compound the overall significance.

Quote:
It's just data processing if you would, hoping to strike it rich..

What would make the result important?
*
Being on an important topic, best of all, several important topics at once.


Quote:
There is nothing wrong with that, is there? SETI does it..

Except if SETI succeeds they will have an intelligent extraterrestrial signal and you will have some numbers to which you attach unnecessary significance.
*
The meaning is there, which may or may not be significant by itself. Occurring on a Stone-Age artwork, yes, it ought to be extremely significant even by itself. But, like I said, there is more, which you don't know yet.. _______ Fellow skeptics, I'll be back later
 
Last edited:
Quote tags please.

Surround what you want to quote with [ quote] [ /quote] (remove the extra spaces in this example). Makes for a much easier read.
 
Jiri, help me out with a little basic idea: if you multiply a number of numbers together, especially numbers which are themselves the product of many factors, then you will have a product with many factors, and sure enough, it will have many factors, and it will share those factors with many other numbers. Why is this special?

By the way, it would certainly help if you would learn to use the "quote" feature.
 
bruto said:
Jiri, help me out with a little basic idea: if you multiply a number of numbers together, especially numbers which are themselves the product of many factors, then you will have a product with many factors, and sure enough, it will have many factors, and it will share those factors with many other numbers. Why is this special?
Click to expand...
If you do it the way you describe, you will wind up with an astronomical number. That could be very cumbersome. Yet, the same quality (a multitude of factors) deserves to be the more appreciated the more compact the actual number is. This compactness is the domain of the so called Osiris numbers. For an excellent example: # 432, or 25,920.
Is this a satisfactory answer for you?

By the way, it would certainly help if you would learn to use the "quote" feature.
Click to expand...
 
Jiri said:
This compactness is the domain of the so called Osiris numbers. For an excellent example: # 432, or 25,920.
Is this a satisfactory answer for you?
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll play along. If I wanted to discuss with you the concept of prime numbers, a concept let's assume unfamiliar to you, I'd need to provide a better explanation than just citing a few examples. Offering 2 and 17 as prime examples (pun intended) doesn't convey much information to you as to what a prime number actually is.

You've done the same thing, here, with Osiris numbers. I can construct a simple, unambiguous rule for whether a number is or is not prime. Can you do the same for Osiris numbers, please?
 
Jiri said:
If it were, how would you know?
Click to expand...
Well, it was directed specifically at me, implying that it should indeed have a meaning I could discern; your inability to impart any such meaning would seem to be an error in communication on your part.
 
Jiri said:
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.
Click to expand...


<< Snip a bunch of simple arithmetic operations on apparently random small whole numbers>>

I'm late to this thread. But, so what?

Jiri (your fellow skeptic)
Click to expand...


Not mine! :boggled:
 
Jiri said:
Yes, under the circiumstances. Another point was proving the other guy wrong. Job well done, wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...
No.


actually a natural group within an artificially constructed group.
Click to expand...
If the group it is in is artificial then the group is artificial.


And remember, the artificially constructed group is a reconstruction of a natural group.
Click to expand...
If you go back as far as all numbers.


It could also be meaningful, which would compound the overall significance.
Click to expand...
It could, if you are determined to fiddle around with numbers until you find some with properties you claim are meaningful.


Being on an important topic, best of all, several important topics at once.
Click to expand...
What makes the topics important?


The meaning is there, which may or may not be significant by itself.
Click to expand...
What meaning?


Occurring on a Stone-Age artwork, yes, it ought to be extremely significant even by itself.
Click to expand...
First, we only have your word for the existence of this artwork, let alone it's exact proportions, and second, why should it be significant at all and not just chance?


But, like I said, there is more, which you don't know yet.. _______ Fellow skeptics, I'll be back later
Click to expand...
Ah, the usual "I'm really important and know something you don't" tactic, grow up kid.
 
So-called science done by DJJ, take a number any number, multiply, divide, added and or subtract it by any number, and look thru an almanac and or the internet till you find a match and it doesn’t even have to be a close one, this works for DJJ and he need to kiss up to his so-called god.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
I sometimes wonder who the bigger fool is - DJJ? or us for trying to have a constructive argument with him?

What is the point talking to someone who wants to tell you the sky is purple?
 
Jiri said:
If you do it the way you describe, you will wind up with an astronomical number. That could be very cumbersome. Yet, the same quality (a multitude of factors) deserves to be the more appreciated the more compact the actual number is. This compactness is the domain of the so called Osiris numbers. For an excellent example: # 432, or 25,920.
Is this a satisfactory answer for you?
Click to expand...

In a word, no. Obviously some numbers are smaller than other numbers, and obviously if I played around with factors, I'd come up with numbers which have a lot of factors for their size. It's as if you made a nice cube out of wood and dropped it on the ground, and I picked it up and said "Wow, all the sides match! What an extraordinary coincidence!" A number can be interesting without being particularly significant.
 
Jiri said:
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.
Click to expand...


Your set is completely random. You took measurements off of a single carving, then went about multiplying and dividing using other numbers cherry-picked to fit your conclusions. Do all prehistoric carvings fit the same sizing? I doubt it. What measurement system are you using? If I measure something in millimeters, inches, and angstroms, I will get three completely different numbers. The size is the same, but the numbers that express it are different. I declare that you have cherry-picked your carving, units, and multipliers just so you can believe whatever theory it is that you have glommed onto.
 
The JREF Forum is owned by the James Randi Educational Foundation, a not-for-profit organization founded in 1996. Its aim is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today. The James Randi Educational Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit educational organization, making all donations to the JREF Forum fully tax deductible.
Click to expand...
DJJ the important part of this forum is to PROMOTE CRITICAL THINKING not your type of thinking DJJ.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Jiri said:
First the two smallest numbers:
16 * 27 = 432 !! This does deserve the exclamation marks, doesn't it?
432 * 60 = 25,920
Click to expand...

It does indeed

Terry Pratchett said:
"And all those exclamation marks, you notice? Five? A sure sign of someone who wears his underpants on his head."
Click to expand...
-- in "Maskerade"
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Discworld_novels#Maskerade


I have invented the Jimmy numbers: 2,3,6, 12

2x3=6 and 3x6=18!!!
This is nearly twelve using DJJMaths(TM)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom