432 shows harmony of Sun, Moon, Earth Design

[JonnyFive]

And if he's measuring in "half millimeters" doesn't that just mean that at least one measurement came out to n.5 millimeters?

Yes. Yes it does.

It's not good to cram things into the box of your preconceptions and then claim it's significant because you somehow made those things fit.

 

[jsfisher]

It's not good to cram things into the box of your preconceptions and then claim it's significant because you somehow made those things fit.

Add to that the fact the significance attributed to these Osiris numbers is inherent in their definition.

All Osiris numbers [according to the definition accepted in this thread] are of the form 2^a 3^b 5^c, and so the product of any two Osiris numbers will be of the form 2^a 3^b 5^c. That's just how Mathematics works. The product will therefore be yet another Osiris number or some otherwise meaningless multiple of one or more Osiris numbers.

Nothing to see here; just move along, please.

 

[Oualawouzou]

Furthermore, millimeters are darn small. Normal, modern hand-writing creates lines that are about half a millimeter thick. If you are measuring prehistoric engravings, chances are every line of the art piece is at least a few millimeters thick. So depending on your choice of measuring the line from the outside, the inside or smack in the middle of it, you are given an additionnal leeway of a few millimeters. Any feature of the art piece stated to be 432 millimeters apart could be said to be anywhere from 428 to 436 millimeters apart, as an example. But then, it wouldn't be highly significant (of what?), so...

 

[JonnyFive]

Add to that the fact the significance attributed to these Osiris numbers is inherent in their definition.

All Osiris numbers [according to the definition accepted in this thread] are of the form 2^a 3^b 5^c, and so the product of any two Osiris numbers will be of the form 2^a 3^b 5^c. That's just how Mathematics works. The product will therefore be yet another Osiris number or some otherwise meaningless multiple of one or more Osiris numbers.

Nothing to see here; just move along, please.

That's one of the things I love about mathematics - it's all about connections and numerical relationships. Everything works together, and has its own place in things. Mostly.

However, those properties apparently lead some people to believe that numbers are more significant than they really are.

Add in stupid stuff like adding multiple "Osirus numbers" and such, and you can pretty much do what you like.

I was born on April 21st, 1983. 4 (April) is an Osirus number, 21 is the combination of 1 (Osirus) and 20 (Osirus) and its digits add up to 3 (Osirus number), and 1983 is the combination of 1440 (Osirus), 540 (OSIRUS!), and 3 (OSIRUS!5^$%&$%BBQEKD!)

Also, I'm turning 24 this month. 24 is also an Osirus number, apparently. Also, I like the TV program "24" and as I mentioned before we own a cat who is roughly 24 pounds named "Osirus." My wife, who named him, is currently 24, and she was born in 1982 (digits add up to 20... guess what that is!). Osirus numbers abound.

I must be really, really special.

 

[ReligionStudent]

And of course the Osiris numbers can be linked to 3,4,5 right triangles. Unfortunatly, they can also be linked to an infinite amount of other numbers as well, allowing for almost any interpretation.

 

[JonnyFive]

And of course the Osiris numbers can be linked to 3,4,5 right triangles. Unfortunatly, they can also be linked to an infinite amount of other numbers as well, allowing for almost any interpretation.

Also, equilateral triangles! All three angles are 60 degrees!

Ah, the magic of Osirus numbers. And all numbers.

Did you know anything in the world can be linked up to these magical things called Real numbers? It's amazing!

 

[ReligionStudent]

and 45-45 right triangles, and 30-60-90 right triangles

 

[Macoy]

and 45-45 right triangles, and 30-60-90 right triangles

And as parallel lines meet at infinity, you have a triangle with 2 90⁰ angles & 1 of 0⁰.

 

[JonnyFive]

And as parallel lines meet at infinity, you have a triangle with 2 90⁰ angles & 1 of 0⁰.

And all triangles have 180⁰!

I like to play games on my Xbox 360 when I get the chance. I even play them in 1080p resolution.

Osirus numbers everywhere!

 

[Belz...]

Why do you hate Hemidall?

DR

I don't. But using him as an exponent in said equation makes everything bonkers.

Don't you understand ANYTHING about Osiris numbers ????66??66six

 

[Belz...]

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.

The only "strength" a number can have is usefulness TO US, which is why we use 360 degrees for full circles.

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.

Are you talking about that stupid mesa again ?

And did you forget to answer this:

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.

List, please.

 

[Belz...]

The 'face' contains a very eminent highly perfect right angle.

No, no it doesn't.

Okey, metric measures are not modern, since we see them in the engraving. As well, Schliemann had found a measuring rod in the ruins of Troy, which was pretty well an accurate half-a-meter. Note, this is the same as the engraving, which actually uses half millimeters.

Okay, now you're just making things up.

 

[Paulhoff]

The only "strength" a number can have is usefulness TO US, which is why we use 360 degrees for full circles.



Are you talking about that stupid mesa again ?

And did you forget to answer this:

Simply put, while there are 360 degrees in a circle, there are 400 grads in a circle. Grads are frequently used in Europe, and perhaps elsewhere

And don't forget Radians is an other way to measure a circle, but DJJ knows all this too.

Paul

 

[Jiri]

No, meters and millimeters are modern measurements. You are simply assigning them as meaningful since they happen to fit your theory. If they had not, you would probably use inches.

By "fit your theory" do you actually mean "fit a theory"? If not then it sounds like you have a notion that my theory was preconceived, and I sort of pulled it over the engraving like a nylon stocking.
Is it hard to see that my approach to the engraving is essentially reactive? With this realisation it becomes impossible to believe that I could impose ideas on the engraving. Things are rather the other way around - the engraving is imposing ideas on us.
Of course, I do admit to having some preconceived ideas now, got them from the Athena engraving. It is also true that I had approached the Nazca monkey glyph, and the Abydos Helicopter scene with these preconceived ideas - and found to my surprise that they were already there - conceived long before I was preconceived

"Pretty well accurate?" In other words, not accurate.

,
I've read it in Peter Tompkins' Secrets of the Great Pyramid. I think he may have had said exactly half-a-meter, but my wife has hidden the book somewhere. i just wanted to be sure that I didn't exaggerate, whence the pendulum swung to excessive modesty. So, edit my words to "accurate'.

Which is a cherry-picked engraving, not necessarily representative of all engravings.

OTOH, imagine that it is representative of all the engravings at La Marche. It would be nice having units of distance for the whole lot, wouldn't it?

Jiri said<.. if I let the Square dictate the actual size of the Cone, instead of the other way around - then I might find that the Cone's unit circles had adjusted to an accurate 80 mms.
This hypothesis had worked out beautifully. The two kinds of units meshed.
.
"

I fudged the data."

.
I crossed the Rubicon with all my elephants. That's the problem with templates - they have to fit everywhere, and to the minutest detail. Once the Square took its place in the engraving, the rest of the design did likewise. It was an event beyond my control. Now, consider how complex the design is already - there is just no room for trickery.

"And the ancients fudged their data too."

.
Think again. The Cone & Square formation - the basis of the constructed image - is utterly dynamic. There is the dynamic process of construction, to begin with. There is ithe subject data, Golden Ratio, five pointed stars transforming into other 5-pointed stars, or what I named the "HexMachine" involving at once a three-generational family of hexagons, which by the way. is also the Frame's doing, as it is encoded by it entirely, and so on.
So, it is not surprising that the original Cone moved again, although just a millimeter, or so. It moved, and also grew slightly, but you can see that it went according to the plan. Key things didn't change: the orientation of the Cone did not change at all, and neither did the elevation of the center of the big top circle of the Cone.
Please, give the designers of La Marche some respect, for these guys are at the absolute top of the food-chain regarding the History of Science. They are the missing link for a lot of stuff.
For the closing remark on metric measures in prehistory:
Kilometers aand nautical miles are both geocommensurate. Both have logical reasons for existence. Both allow for regular division of Earth's circumference. The existence of one geocommensurate system makes the other one more likely, rather than the other way around.

 

[bruto]

Kilometers aand nautical miles are both geocommensurate. Both have logical reasons for existence. Both allow for regular division of Earth's circumference. The existence of one geocommensurate system makes the other one more likely, rather than the other way around.

On what do you base this rather surprising statement? Are you actually stating that the actual circumference of the earth can be divided into both kilometers and nautical miles with no fractional remainder in either? Are you saying, for example, that the circumference of the earth is, at some commonly measured point, an exact multiple of 1852 kilometers (which would be "close enough for folk music" at least)? Are you suggesting that the actual circumference of the earth is an even number of either kilometers or nautical miles? If so, can you provide a reasonably reputable reference to confirm the figures? (n.b. the golden ruler Davidjayjordan used to measure his way to the moon doesn't count )

 

[Hokulele]

By "fit your theory" do you actually mean "fit a theory"? If not then it sounds like you have a notion that my theory was preconceived, and I sort of pulled it over the engraving like a nylon stocking.

That is exactly what I mean. You either developed a theory, or found a theory you liked, then tried to apply it to things. If this were not the case, why were you measuring this engraving in the first place?

Is it hard to see that my approach to the engraving is essentially reactive? With this realisation it becomes impossible to believe that I could impose ideas on the engraving. Things are rather the other way around - the engraving is imposing ideas on us.

It is extremely easy to impose ideas on artwork. Have you read much art criticism?

Of course, I do admit to having some preconceived ideas now, got them from the Athena engraving. It is also true that I had approached the Nazca monkey glyph, and the Abydos Helicopter scene with these preconceived ideas - and found to my surprise that they were already there - conceived long before I was preconceived

How about artwork that does not fit your preconceptions? You are still cherry-picking just a few items from a few cultures.

I've read it in Peter Tompkins' Secrets of the Great Pyramid. I think he may have had said exactly half-a-meter, but my wife has hidden the book somewhere. i just wanted to be sure that I didn't exaggerate, whence the pendulum swung to excessive modesty. So, edit my words to "accurate'.

Please reread Wollery's comment regarding the "helf-ell". If you cannot correctly cite a work (which edition, page number, etc.), you should not bring it up in the first place. Please do your homework before presenting an idea.

OTOH, imagine that it is representative of all the engravings at La Marche. It would be nice having units of distance for the whole lot, wouldn't it?

You cannot assume one work is truly representative of all. You do have to have measurements for the whole lot, and be able to coherently explain the findings. Error bars, descriptions of standard deviations from your theorized "norm", etc.

Think again. The Cone & Square formation - the basis of the constructed image - is utterly dynamic. There is the dynamic process of construction, to begin with. There is ithe subject data, Golden Ratio, five pointed stars transforming into other 5-pointed stars, or what I named the "HexMachine" involving at once a three-generational family of hexagons, which by the way. is also the Frame's doing, as it is encoded by it entirely, and so on.

How can a standard be dynamic? Isn't that a violation of the definition of a standard or template. If the template changes for each use, how can it be a template?

So, it is not surprising that the original Cone moved again, although just a millimeter, or so. It moved, and also grew slightly, but you can see that it went according to the plan. Key things didn't change: the orientation of the Cone did not change at all, and neither did the elevation of the center of the big top circle of the Cone.

See, there is the template changing again. This time by "just a millimeter" which completely destroys your Osiris numbers.

Please, give the designers of La Marche some respect, for these guys are at the absolute top of the food-chain regarding the History of Science. They are the missing link for a lot of stuff.

Never heard of them before now. Not impressed.

For the closing remark on metric measures in prehistory:
Kilometers aand nautical miles are both geocommensurate. Both have logical reasons for existence. Both allow for regular division of Earth's circumference. The existence of one geocommensurate system makes the other one more likely, rather than the other way around.

See Bruto's comments. In addition, if meters were so logical, why were they not invented until the 1700's, long after cubits, furlongs, fathoms, feet, and inches?

 

[Jiri]

As others have pointed out, you are retrofitting modern measures onto something that wasn't built using them.

.
Speaking in judgements is wrong form of carrying on a debate even if you are fully confident of being right. We differ, because our perceptions differ. You see a work by somebody from the Stone-Age, period, which means to you that the artist was not a mathematician, but rather someone whose mathematical savvy a smart first-grader could easily eclipse today.
My perception was different. There were things about the engraving, which definitely got me all perked up. A human in a pensive pose, let me call it the pose of a thinker, artistic technique worthy of a genius, and with the image on its left side - scenery with modern craft surrounding a pyramid within a dome. Definitely not an agglomeration of separate drawings - a palimpsest - which is the consensus of today. Just as definitely not something to get you anywhere except a loony-bin. So, the engraving was a cruel joke on people with my kind of perception? Revelational, but stopping just short? Well, maybe not. The presence of portrayals of modern technology could be attested to by exact design.
And so, I went back to the engraving looking for exact ideas. I found an entire system, designs I could never even dream of, because I was ignorant, blissfully unaware of things like Golden Section, or what the decimals of Pi were after 3,14, or equinoctial precession. Today, I know about a lot of important things, because the engraving led me to them, and then there they were all around me in the modern world, and in all of our history. So, the engraving wasn't just a big tease, after all! Consequently, I feel respect and gratitude for the ancient designers (there must have been a team of them). They have my loyalty.

You mention two things that you should give more serious consideration to:

1-"pretty well an accurate half-a-meter" indicates that the measure is hardly exact. This, like DJJ's rounding of some number or other to 432 to fit his preconceived notion of things, creates significance where there is none. If I would like to say I am six feet tall because 6 is a special number, I could say I am "pretty well six feet", which would be inaccurate. more accurately, I am approximately 5'11", or 5'10 3/4" according to one measure I had taken, although human height is probably too variable for that level of precision.

I suppose my English will always be visited by some idiosyncrasies. This may be due to the fact that I had only begun learning it in my twenties, but let that be no excuse. Point taken. The meaning I wanted to convey is that I had read a single sentence alleging an exactly half-a-meter long measuring rod found in the ruins of Troy. Since I wasn't there, and the information was scant - I said "prety well accurate". Byte moi

.
2-When you measure in units as small as 1/2 of a mm (or even in mm), then you begin to be able to measure all kinds of things "evenly". It's not very impressive to use a large, awkward unit like the foot, because it often doesn't divide evenly. But the mm and half a mm are nice and small, so it's easy to fit things to those units.

.
Excuse me, but your agument strikes me as too arcane. Okay, so the perimeter of the engraving's lines (not the tablet) is pretty well an exact two feet, i.e., 2.011.. feet, or if you prefer 0.000330.. of a nautical mile. Interesting, but care to work with those? Oh, I forgot - you just want to negate

Most critically, as I said above, you're still just retrofitting. You need more information before you can jump to a conclusion.

.
You sound like you were there peering over my shoulder, which of course is nonsense. When I set out to draw lines between the peripheral points, there were several things in my mind. I believed that that the designer's units of length were different from mine, and so I just wanted to: a) check out angles between the lines, and b) to check out ratios between the lines. That is when I concocted the sinister intention of measuring with the finest units available to me - millimeters rather than inches, feet, or nautical miles. Naturally, I was obliged to round my measurements to the nearest millimeter.
I always realized that there were limitations to overcome. It would have been vastly better to be able to work with the original in a well equipped lab, thus avoiding for instance the problems of resolution, slipped pixels and so on. But face it, would you lend me your lab at the Paris Museum of Man, if you were its director Henry de Lumley?
Anyhow, back to how I drew the Frame: I had a rule that the lines between points should meet in a point (on the engraved line), and as far away from the centre as possible. To do that some of these lines had to enter the tip of the engraved line to get to the outside point on its surface, but, if at all possible, the lines should just touch the engraved lines. I did all this as best I could, and then I started taking measurements, coming up with numbers, which were utterly meaningless to me at first (remember, I was a mathematical primitive, much more so then than now).
Of course, finding highly significant meaning meant to me that I was on the right track. May I ask you if you realize what the odds are that you can pull a preconceived system over some innocent and unsuspecting artwork and have it fit to a tee?
.

Now, what exactly are "Osirus number", and what do they do?

Sorry to disappoint you, but I haven't been to California recently, and I am not much into the American rap culture, and neither am I the guy's accountant, taylor, nor physician to know his numbers.

 

[Jiri]

No, no it doesn't.
.

Yes, yes, yes, it does.
Threee yeses beat two nos, so I win

 

[Paul]

Speaking in judgements is wrong form of carrying on a debate even if you are fully confident of being right.

In this case, the opinion, or judgement if you will, formed by others after comparing your method with any sound system of evaluation, is entirely valid.

We differ, because our perceptions differ.

We differ because you are cherry-picking, imposing inappropriate concepts and misusing language to your own ends.

You see a work by somebody from the Stone-Age, period, which means to you that the artist was not a mathematician, but rather someone whose mathematical savvy a smart first-grader could easily eclipse today.

Why do you think that "14,000 years ago - Someone on Earth had profound knowledge of Mathematics, and a method of encoding exact ideas into Art"?¹

My perception was different.

It certainly was.

There were things about the engraving, which definitely got me all perked up.

You should get out more.

A human in a pensive pose, let me call it the pose of a thinker, artistic technique worthy of a genius, and with the image on its left side - scenery with modern craft surrounding a pyramid within a dome.

I think you're reading far too much into it:

Definitely not an agglomeration of separate drawings - a palimpsest - which is the consensus of today.

That's not what palimpsest means.

Just as definitely not something to get you anywhere except a loony-bin.

Depends how far you push it.

So, the engraving was a cruel joke on people with my kind of perception?

Your perception is the cruel joke on people like you.

The presence of portrayals of modern technology could be attested to by exact design.

The presence of portrayals of modern technology could be attributed to pareidolia.

And so, I went back to the engraving looking for exact ideas.

Preconceived ideas...

I found an entire system,

...because you were looking for one.

Today, I know about a lot of important things,

Apparently not.

because the engraving led me to them, and then there they were all around me in the modern world, and in all of our history.

Like if you look for a blue car and suddenly they're everywhere.

Excuse me, but your agument strikes me as too arcane.

It seemed perfectly clear to me and definitely requires no special knowledge to understand.

Okay, so the perimeter of the engraving's lines (not the tablet) is pretty well an exact two feet, i.e., 2.011.. feet,

So the arbitrary points at the edges of an enlargement of a copy of an ancient carving are not exactly two feet apart.

or if you prefer 0.000330.. of a nautical mile.

Why would anyone use the nautical mile, only relatively recently standardised, to measure a land based object.

Interesting,

Not at all.

I believed that that the designer's units of length were different from mine,

You started with the assumption of a designed image governed by mathematical rules, bad science.

and so I just wanted to: a) check out angles between the lines, and b) to check out ratios between the lines.

So why did you only join some points to some other points?

Naturally, I was obliged to round my measurements to the nearest millimeter.

Why, couldn't you tell if the measurements were nearer a half millimetre?

But face it, would you lend me your lab at the Paris Museum of Man, if you were its director Henry de Lumley?

Perhaps that might indicate that your particular delusion is not considered a genuine area of research.

May I ask you if you realize what the odds are that you can pull a preconceived system over some innocent and unsuspecting artwork and have it fit to a tee?

Depends how much fudging and cherry-picking you are prepared to do.


1 - www .vejprty.com/atma.htm

 

[JonnyFive]

Sorry to disappoint you, but I haven't been to California recently, and I am not much into the American rap culture, and neither am I the guy's accountant, taylor, nor physician to know his numbers.

What are you talking about? Is there some rapper called "Osirus" or some crap like that? I'm sorry, if you're making a dumb joke it went right over my head there.

I simply asked you to explain, in more detail, what precisely constitutes an "Osirus number", as you've mentioned them several times. I'll presume they are factors of 25,920 (as another poster mentioned), as you haven't explicitly stated that they're anything else.

So what? What is special about these numbers? What usefulness do they have in the real world? What mathematical value do they have above and beyond what they have by virtue of simply being numbers?

Numbers have no inherent meaning. Neither do measuring systems, scales, or any of that. Those are things given meaning by humans. The numbers relate to each other in that way because we decided they do. It's like claiming that the number of degrees in a circle or triangle has some innate meaning. No, it doesn't. Humans chose those numbers. They can, and do (see: radians), designate other systems of measure.

If you measure with a fine enough unit, everything will always come out evenly. I fail to see the significance of this.

You haven't bothered to address the issues with the "face" on Mars either. I think you read into things too much.