432 shows harmony of Sun, Moon, Earth Design

Tirdun very well done........

Paul

:) :) :)

Magical thinking begets more magical thinking begets more......
 
http://www.vejprty.com/namon.htm

There is a way to solve a practically unsolvable puzzle - by knowing the solution a priori(my emphasis). Such uncommon luck was on my side. I had known the solution to the Nasca monkey beforehand, since it was basically identical to the geometrical solution I had found for a 14,000 years old Stone Age engraving from La Marche, France!
Click to expand...


Drawing bullseyes around the bullet holes.
 
It always amazes me that numerologists place special significance on units that are entirely manmade. There is nothing magical about seconds or inches, base ten itself is a human construct and has no relation to the universe at large. I very much doubt that whatever units Jiri has chosen to use were known by the prehistoric artist, or even invented yet.
 
Marcus said:
It always amazes me that numerologists place special significance on units that are entirely manmade. There is nothing magical about seconds or inches, base ten itself is a human construct and has no relation to the universe at large. I very much doubt that whatever units Jiri has chosen to use were known by the prehistoric artist, or even invented yet.
Click to expand...

Well, as we all know from listening to DJJ, the modern mile is a sacred unit.

It's exactly 5280 feet! And, get this... a foot is exactly 1/5280th of a mile!!!

That's amazing, isn't it? ;)

I wouldn't hesitate to call it an "Osirus number"... whatever the heck that is.
 
jsfisher said:
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.)
Click to expand...

Very good, I never worked all these out. Thank you. I was wrong. Therefore, being the number with most factors is not among 432's strength.
So, I take it that numbers with most factors are always such multiples of 16, or 8, which are not at the same time multiples of 9?
 
jsfisher said:
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?
Click to expand...

Alright, let's stick to that definition (Dechend&Santillana's).
 
Jiri said:
Hmm, had to look the guy up to learn what kind of insult you treated me to. It was a bad one. You must be blind to think that that guy and me have anything in common.
Click to expand...


It is Mr. Ray who should feel insulted. He holds a patent on a chum dispensing attachment for fishing rigs:

United States Patent #3,974,591 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Ray

What've you got that has any utility in the real world?
 
jsfisher said:
If those 70 numbers are the entire set of Osiris numbers, then you gave a precise definition.
Click to expand...

IF an Osiris number is any number that is a factor of 25,920 then here is the entire set:
1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 12 15 16 18 20 24 27 30 32 36 40 45 48 54 60 64 72 80 81 90 96 108 120 135 144 160 162 180 192 216 240 270 288 320 324 360 405 432 480 540 576 648 720 810 864 960 1080 1296 1440 1620 1728 2160 2592 2880 3240 4320 5184 6480 8640 12960

A jsfisher said, using groups of these numbers in your calculations is bound to bring you right back to where we started.

You know what? Use 22680 : it has every single digit number as a factor.
Or if you insist on 432, go with 45360. It's a prime-1 and it has 100 factors (big round number), including the first 10 integers and 432

Plenty of room to juggle and dance.

jiri said:
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.
Click to expand...

649 isn't on the list, so either it isn't an Osiris number or your definition needs to be updated.
 
Last edited:
Oualawouzou said:
What do you do when your findings don't match the definition of what you were looking for?

Change the definition!
Click to expand...

That's the pragmatic approach, I guess :)

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?
Click to expand...

You already know about the engraving since my website was found.
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.
Click to expand...

I could cut and paste from my website, but I am tired. Let me just tell you that I believe that everything about that engraving is significant. The Frame itself is the simplest category to subject to testing I could think of.
As to the units, I had tested them by reconstruction of the geometrical system in CAD after first working them out for myself with the traditional tools (before even having a computer).
 
Psiload said:
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!
Click to expand...

Kind of a miracle, really, because if you try the same with other things, Blue Moon does not come around often enough.
BTW, I have not really applied to the Face on Mars. Just checked it out for being a Golden rectangle, and was rather surprised that its perimeter turned out to be a composition of three such rectangles.
 
Jiri, could you please explain to me the following:

1-What units of measurement you are using for distance.
2-Why you chose these measurements. Also, why you chose modern measurements of time.
3-Why you believe those specific units are significant.
4-Why you chose the operations on your "Osirus numbers" in your original post.
5-What, precisely, an "Osirus number" is, what application it has, and what additional descriptive power it posesses.
 
Jiri said:
BTW, I have not really applied to the Face on Mars. Just checked it out for being a Golden rectangle, and was rather surprised that its perimeter turned out to be a composition of three such rectangles.
Click to expand...

Uh... you have, of course, viewed the latest photos of the "face," right?

How are you determining where the perimeter is, anyway? It's fairly amorphous.
 
Oualawouzou said:
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.
Click to expand...


Since Jiri is feeling a little sluggish today, allow me...

http://www.vejprty.com/silence.htm

The engravings are being stored away in secure vaults, I understand.
Click to expand...

All the fifteen hundred La Marche engravings should be published. Since it is hard to distinguish the often finely engraved lines from a photograph, scale tracings of all engraved lines would be preferable.
Click to expand...

Since I have only a few reproductions of engravings from La Marche in my possession, I must have gazed at those a great deal more than others. In this case, familiarity breeds admiration, as so often happens with great art. The chaos in the engravings is illusory, and due to overloaded senses.
Click to expand...

http://www.vejprty.com/atma.htm

The engraving's distance units find parity with our metric system, when magnified to double-size. Understandably, my measurements were rounded to the nearest millimeter, the finest detail available on my ruler.
Click to expand...

http://www.vejprty.com/complex.htm

I must confess that I first saw the engraving in Däniken's much villified "Chariots of the Gods"... To many this is an utterly negative reference. But, look at the difference in our respective depths of approach.
Click to expand...
 
Just a side note: Although Davidjayjordan and Jiri had some similarities in how they each entered this thread, they have clear differences.

Jiri has so far proven he can engage in a dialog. He responds to facts, and he acknowledges evidence contrary to his own.

Davidjayjordan, on the other hand, remains immune to facts, discussion, and logical analysis.

Jiri and I may not find common ground in our separate appreciations of 432, but (currently at least) he has my respect for not living in a complete fantasy world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom