432 shows harmony of Sun, Moon, Earth Design

jsfisher said:
Is it there that the original measurements were in millimeters? ...and a few of the claimed revelations in nautical miles?
Click to expand...

Yes, those measurements were in millimeters. Nautical miles, what did I claim about them aside from observing that they are consistent with the ancient system of measures?
 
I wrote: 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!

Psiload said:
http://www.vejprty.com/namon.htm


Drawing bullseyes around the bullet holes.
Click to expand...

You may not know it, but you owe me an apology.
 
Jiri said:
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?
Click to expand...
Many, many will be multiples of 9, just not some of the smaller ones.

I assume by this "most factors" concept we are defining a set of whole numbers in which for all integers N > 0, X is an element of the set if and only if X is the smallest positive integer with N distinct factors.

I've never seen this particular set in any of the Mathematics courses I've taken (maybe I was asleep that day), so without a good deal of study, I don't know what interesting properties the set might have. I am sure, though, that some would be intellectual curiosities, but none, prophetic.
 
Jiri said:
Yes, those measurements were in millimeters. Nautical miles, what did I claim about them aside from observing that they are consistent with the ancient system of measures?
Click to expand...
I admit I did not follow that particular link cited. There was a set of web pages I had seen, however, that linked Osiris numbers to at least two distances measured in nautical miles.

However, since the association with you was incorrect, I apologize for the misstatement.
 
Originally Posted by Jiri View Post
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.

Psiload said:
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?
Click to expand...

Since the fishing stocks are being depleted in the dying oceans I feel that there goes his advantage :)
 
Tirdun said:
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.



649 isn't on the list, so either it isn't an Osiris number or your definition needs to be updated.
Click to expand...

Obvious typo, correct it to 648.
 
Why is there no significance to the distance between points A & E or points C & G ?

I'll bet one could find cosmic significance in the dimensions of this image as well.
 

Attachments

  • stimpy.gif
    stimpy.gif
    14.5 KB · Views: 92
Okay, so you're using millimeters. Care to explain why, given that the mm is a modern unit of measure? For reference:

Please explain:

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.
Click to expand...
 
Foster Zygote said:
Why is there no significance to the distance between points A & E or points C & G ?

I'll bet one could find cosmic significance in the dimensions of this image as well.
Click to expand...

He has 4 appendages
He has 3 hairs on top of his head
He has 2 eyes

Wow, it's DJJ! Though I'd say Stimpy is a lot smarter
 
Foster Zygote said:
Why is there no significance to the distance between points A & E or points C & G ?

I'll bet one could find cosmic significance in the dimensions of this image as well.
Click to expand...

My wife and I own a cat she named "Osirus." He's fat. Stimpy is fat. I don't think this is a coincidence here!

Also, our cat weighs like 24 pounds. There are 24 hours in a day! Did you know a second is 1/86,400th of a day, and 86,400 divides evenly into the number of minutes in a second, which then harmoniously divides back into hours? The synergy is amazing!
 
jsfisher said:
Many, many will be multiples of 9, just not some of the smaller ones.

I assume by this "most factors" concept we are defining a set of whole numbers in which for all integers N > 0, X is an element of the set if and only if X is the smallest positive integer with N distinct factors.

I've never seen this particular set in any of the Mathematics courses I've taken (maybe I was asleep that day), so without a good deal of study, I don't know what interesting properties the set might have. I am sure, though, that some would be intellectual curiosities, but none, prophetic.
Click to expand...

Thanks again, very interesting.
 
JonnyFive said:
My wife and I own a cat she named "Osirus." He's fat. Stimpy is fat. I don't think this is a coincidence here!

Also, our cat weighs like 24 pounds. There are 24 hours in a day! Did you know a second is 1/86,400th of a day, and 86,400 divides evenly into the number of minutes in a second, which then harmoniously divides back into hours? The synergy is amazing!
Click to expand...
That really is amazing. No wonder the ancient Egyptians worshiped cats.
 
bruto said:
That really is amazing. No wonder the ancient Egyptians worshiped cats.
Click to expand...

I'm going to measure him when I get home to see if I can find any golden ratios! :)

I'll post results tommorrow, unless he decides it would be more fun if I not measure him, and he decides to maul my face and hands instead.

If you don't hear from me about this, assume the aforementioned face/hand-mauling has come to pass, as foretold in the book of Zebuliah.
 
JonnyFive said:
My wife and I own a cat she named "Osirus." He's fat. Stimpy is fat. I don't think this is a coincidence here!

Also, our cat weighs like 24 pounds. There are 24 hours in a day! Did you know a second is 1/86,400th of a day, and 86,400 divides evenly into the number of minutes in a second, which then harmoniously divides back into hours? The synergy is amazing!
Click to expand...

Please, don't overlook the natural harmonic synergism between 24 and the most sacred 42, praise be to Saint Douglas of Adams.
 
Foster Zygote said:
Why is there no significance to the distance between points A & E or points C & G ?

I'll bet one could find cosmic significance in the dimensions of this image as well.
Click to expand...

Excellent! Bet taken - see what you can do. It better be good, this cosmos deserves it.
 
Jiri said:
I wrote: 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!



You may not know it, but you owe me an apology.
Click to expand...

Yeah... that'll happen.

I curious... what margin of error would you consider acceptable in your calculations? How far can you be off before your "formula" begins to break down?

It seems to me like you must have to allow for lot's of "slop" in your measurements. You're dealing with ancient, weathered items that don't have sharp features, so there must be a certain amount of guesswork regarding where to place your data points.

Since you don't/can't work from originals, how do you even determine the correct sizes and proportions of the item in question? For example... how do you know the scale of the "Athena engraving?" If you're working from a picture, how do you know the picture is to the exact scale of the etching? Or with the "face on Mars"... how can you place data points on a topological featured that has obviously been subject to extreme erosion... it's seems highly doubtful that the data points you're choosing would be in the exact location of where they were when the ancient builders carved the formation.

Same goes for the "Athena engraving"... wouldn't you expect natural erosion to have changed the dimensions of the engraving since it was carved those many thousands of years ago?

How do you correct for these inevitable errors?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom