432 shows harmony of Sun, Moon, Earth Design
- Thread starter Davidjayjordan
- Start date
Athyrio
Hipster Doofus
Jiri
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 387
;
No, I can't. Whereas there is pre-existent general agreement on what prime numbers are, i.e., the term is a part of mathematical convention, the situation is different with the concept of Osiris numbers. The term is not being used in an exact way by its users. So, I can tell you only what it means to me, or authors such as Deschend and Santillana.
To Deschend & Santillana, Osiris numbers are part of the so called precessional code. They had observed frequent worldwide occurance of numbers such as 12, 16, 30, 36, 45, 54, 72, 108, 144, 216, 360, 432, 649, 864, 1296, 1728 in ancient mythology, art, architecture, and mensuration systems. These numbers sometime came in arrangements, which would simplify to the number 25,920. To Deschend & Santllana these myths seemed to describe the equinoctial precession. To be able to determine the duration of one precessional cycle that close (35,920), they reasoned, there would have to had been a considerably advanced civilisation somewhere in our prehistory.
Hence we could generalize this for Santillana and Deschend : Osiris numbers = whole number factors of 25,920.
As to myself, I often use the term for convenience because there is an overlap between the Osiris #s and the set of numbers forming the Frame (the perimeter of the Stone-Age engraving. Yet, the Frame succeeds in several separate objectives by using this set. Precession is only one of them. I see the engraving's designers as simply mathematicians, who thought in terms of prime, and composite numbers, etc., just like we do
Giving you a definition of Osiris numbers is pointless for me. I prefer the pragmatic approach.
Jiri
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 387
[/QUOTE]
Originally Posted by Jiri
Quote:
actually a natural group within an artificially constructed group.
Paul said
> If the group it is in is artificial then the group is artificial.
According to your conventions. According to mine for the purposes of explaining the Frame, arrtificially constructed groups also have natural groups, as opposed to artificially constructed groups within artificially constructed groups.
Quote:
And remember, the artificially constructed group is a reconstruction of a natural group.
Paul said
> If you go back as far as all numbers.
The Frame is a natural group for the engraving, because that's how it occurs. So, far, we've been looking at it as the set artificially constructed by the criterium of size.
You are being too confrontational, and determined to negate anything I have to say. We won't get far that way.
Quote:
It could also be meaningful, which would compound the overall significance.
Paul said
> It could, if you are determined to fiddle around with numbers until you find some with properties you claim are meaningful.
Determination is futile, if directed at nothingness.
Quote:
Being on an important topic, best of all, several important topics at once.
*
What makes the topics important?
Quote:
The meaning is there, which may or may not be significant by itself.
*
What meaning?
Quote:
Occurring on a Stone-Age artwork, yes, it ought to be extremely significant even by itself.
Paul said
< 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?
Because it is highly meaningful.
Quote:
But, like I said, there is more, which you don't know yet.. _______ Fellow skeptics, I'll be back later
Paul said< Ah, the usual "I'm really important and know something you don't" tactic, grow up kid.
'
False accusations. I said "yet", which means that I am going to tell you as soon as we get to it. That followed by adopting air of superiority over me by calling me a kid. Such arrogance usually indicates someone immature, most likely a kid.
So, grow up yourself, Paul.
Originally Posted by Jiri
Quote:
actually a natural group within an artificially constructed group.
Paul said
> If the group it is in is artificial then the group is artificial.
According to your conventions. According to mine for the purposes of explaining the Frame, arrtificially constructed groups also have natural groups, as opposed to artificially constructed groups within artificially constructed groups.
Quote:
And remember, the artificially constructed group is a reconstruction of a natural group.
Paul said
> If you go back as far as all numbers.
The Frame is a natural group for the engraving, because that's how it occurs. So, far, we've been looking at it as the set artificially constructed by the criterium of size.
You are being too confrontational, and determined to negate anything I have to say. We won't get far that way.
Quote:
It could also be meaningful, which would compound the overall significance.
Paul said
> It could, if you are determined to fiddle around with numbers until you find some with properties you claim are meaningful.
Determination is futile, if directed at nothingness.
Quote:
Being on an important topic, best of all, several important topics at once.
*
What makes the topics important?
Quote:
The meaning is there, which may or may not be significant by itself.
*
What meaning?
Quote:
Occurring on a Stone-Age artwork, yes, it ought to be extremely significant even by itself.
Paul said
< 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?
Because it is highly meaningful.
Quote:
But, like I said, there is more, which you don't know yet.. _______ Fellow skeptics, I'll be back later
Paul said< Ah, the usual "I'm really important and know something you don't" tactic, grow up kid.
'
False accusations. I said "yet", which means that I am going to tell you as soon as we get to it. That followed by adopting air of superiority over me by calling me a kid. Such arrogance usually indicates someone immature, most likely a kid.
So, grow up yourself, Paul.
And, i imagine, equally pointless for everyone else.
If you're going to base your ideas on someone else's ideas, at least learn their names; it's Giorgio De Santillana and Hertha Von Dechend.
Convention has nothing to do with it.Jiri said:
If the initial construction is artificial, any group within that must ultimately also be artificial.
According to you.
We haven't been looking at much of anything.
Try presenting something new or useful.
It doesn't look like we're going to get anywhere at the moment.
Yet you still think you have something important to say.
Is that the best answer you can give; it's meaningful because it's meaningful?
If it's so useful, interesting or important why wouldn't you include it in the initial post?
Everyone who comes here with 'new' number hypotheses, although hypothesis seems a bit strong in this case, thinks they are the first and that we will just hang on their every word until they are ready to reveal the big secret.
Well, if you didn't behave like every other kid with a pet idea...
Ah, a demonstration of maturity.
Jiri
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 387
Whether you like it or not those simple arithmetic operations on apparently random small whole numbers do produce a systematic result.
Last edited:
Only if you cherry-pick the numbers to shoehorn the results into your sequence.
Psiload
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2001
- Messages
- 2,102
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
Ok, I can accept that as a working definition of Osiris numbers. Since 25,920 = 26 34 51, it is a simple matter to enumerate all 70 factors of 25,920 (including 1 and itself).
If those 70 numbers are the entire set of Osiris numbers, then you gave a precise definition. Are there other Osiris numbers that are not a factor of 25,920? Are any of the factors not Osiris numbers?
Also, given the construction of the set, why are you surprised that products of set elements behave the way they do? The behavior was guaranteed by the set's definition. After painting a barn blue, one should not be surprised upon encountering a blue barn.
What do you mean by "pragmatic approach"? How can a definition be pointless? If you cannot tell which is or is not an Osiris number, how can you discuss them in any meaningful way?
Jiri
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 387
Originally Posted by Jiri
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.
Yes, you would come up with numbers which have a lot of factors for their size. Numbers 54, 108, 216, 432, 864, 1,296, 1728, would be the numbers with most whole number factors for their ranges. In the still higher ranges, these numbers would always be whole multiples of 432
.
[/QUOTE]
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.[/QUOTE]
A number by itself is just a number, some are interesting more than others. A collection of interesting numbers - number sets - can be very significant.
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.
.
Yes, you would come up with numbers which have a lot of factors for their size. Numbers 54, 108, 216, 432, 864, 1,296, 1728, would be the numbers with most whole number factors for their ranges. In the still higher ranges, these numbers would always be whole multiples of 432
.
[/QUOTE]
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.[/QUOTE]
A number by itself is just a number, some are interesting more than others. A collection of interesting numbers - number sets - can be very significant.
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
Let's take 54 as an example. It has exactly 8 factors: 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 18, 27, and 54. The number 36, on the other hand, has 9 factors: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 36. So, 36 has more factors than 54.
Your statement, above, is false.
(And, if you think 36 isn't really within 54's range, maybe you'd accept 48. It has 10 factors.)
Oualawouzou
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2007
- Messages
- 490
What do you do when your findings don't match the definition of what you were looking for?
Change the definition!
Man, I'm glad we solved all those pesky mysteries.
Jiri, you haven't yet answered these simple questions:
1) Which prehistoric engraving are you talking about?
1a) Can you provide us with any independant data that confirms this engraving's existence and properties?
2) How did you determine which elements were "significant" to measure and which were not?
3) What numerical system did you use for your measuring?
3a) Would that numerical system be significant in any way to a prehistoric man?
4) What tools did you use to measure?
Until you answer these questions, we'll treat your "findings" as nothing more than numbers pulled out of thin air because hey, you can.
Change the definition!
Man, I'm glad we solved all those pesky mysteries.
Jiri, you haven't yet answered these simple questions:
1) Which prehistoric engraving are you talking about?
1a) Can you provide us with any independant data that confirms this engraving's existence and properties?
2) How did you determine which elements were "significant" to measure and which were not?
3) What numerical system did you use for your measuring?
3a) Would that numerical system be significant in any way to a prehistoric man?
4) What tools did you use to measure?
Until you answer these questions, we'll treat your "findings" as nothing more than numbers pulled out of thin air because hey, you can.
Last edited:
Jiri
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 387
Go ahead, and use concrete examples. Not one of you had actually annotated my entire original post.
Oualawouzou
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2007
- Messages
- 490
That'd be because your original post has nothing more than numbers that are, for all we can tell, pulled out of thin air. You provided numbers, then did a few simple arithmetics on them. Contrary to DDJ, at least, you didn't make gross mistakes in simple multiplications. But you want us to believe your original set of numbers are extraordinarily significant (significant of what? nobody knows, including you, but that's another story). We won't believe it is extraordinarily significant until you provide solid proof that this set came about in an extraordinary fashion. Any half-decent math enthusiast can come up with a set of numbers that have interesting properties. You are claiming much more than that, without any proof to offer other than "trust me on this, guys!", the name Osiris (that can be applied to any set of numbers one wants to, apparently) and the word "frame" capitalized to lend it some Special Significance.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Well done. I think Davidjayjordan is from Vancouver too. I wonder if there's something funny about the water there, or whether it's just a coincidence. I see he's signed on with the pharaonic helicopters too.
Psiload
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2001
- Messages
- 2,102
Atlantis, The Nazca lines, The "face" on Mars, etc... the usual suspects. He seems to have applied his... ahem... whathaveyou, to all of them.
And get this... it worked! What a coinkydink!
Tirdun
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2006
- Messages
- 637
Which you have yet to show us in any form.
Measured in what? Inches? Millimeters? Cubits? Zorkodz? AUs?
175 WHAT? How big is this frame supposed to be?
No. 432 has a lot of factors, nineteen to be exact, and you've yet to show that 432 (or any other number) is any more interesting or exciting than any other number.
And the 60 comes from where? And why multiply it?
How about that. You've found two of the FORTY SEVEN factors of 4320. A number that is ten times another wholly uninteresting number. And why are we multiplying by 6 this time instead of 60? So that your 52,920 carries, I suppose...
Again, you've picked 25,920 and are working back to it, this time by 4.
And again.
You've broken your own pattern of
*(n+1), thrown in an entirely arbitrary number (3) as a multiple and back divided to get to 86400. The number of seconds in a day by modern measurement, which has nothing whatsoever to do with how the ancient whoever-you're-talking-about measured segments of a day.WHAT? You're shoehorning your own numbers into a system you invented and they don't even work?
Again, the 15 comes from WHERE?
And why did it change? Because it was wrong. And what does this have to do with anything? We don't know. And why not use the actual precessional (25765)? Because it only has 3 factors.
I see shoehorning in our future
Why not 108+113+113? Aren't those the next numbers?
Oh, because it doesn't work.
As hard as I try, I can't see how this is in any way significant to anything above or below.
By your original rules, 139*146*147=2,983,218, which can't be finagled into 432 or 36 or 25920.
It CAN be divided evenly by 42, as the great scientist Douglas Adams figured out. But that's a different thread.
We're adding now, are we? and what (pray tell) does 144 have to do with anything? That's not on your list of numbers, nor is it one of your Osiris or Apollo or whatever numbers.
And 36 suddenly pertains to this argument because??
Because it has a lot of factors, I'd guess, and those are the magical ingredient to your cake.
All over the calculator, aren't we? I'm skipping ahead, because your conclusions are based on a quagmire of assumptions and calculator gymnastics.
Last edited: