432 shows harmony of Sun, Moon, Earth Design

[Macoy]

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

[My emphasis]

This is interesting, i hadn't come across this term before.

I've noticed in the past that on some days, (i haven't been able to find a common cause), I'd be walking down the road & been distracted by thinking that certain passing individuals were known to me. I'd take a second look, realise they were not the person i thought they were, and walk on. Then it would happen again. Obviously casting sudden glances at random passers-by is not conducive to a quiet life, & when this situation is occurring, i will try to suppress my reaction, though it can be difficult. Generally all that happens is that I get annoyed with myself for this strange behaviour. Fortunately it is a somewhat rare phenomenon in my life.

But now I have a word for it!

Thank you, Paul.

 

[Belz...]

Once the Square took its place in the engraving, the rest of the design did likewise. It was an event beyond my control.

Except you rounded off the stuff that "almost" fit.

Kilometers aand nautical miles are both geocommensurate. Both have logical reasons for existence. Both allow for regular division of Earth's circumference.

Er... no. You're making stuff up, again.

We differ, because our perceptions differ.

And yet there is only one truth.

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

Still waiting for those sources.

 

[Jiri]

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.

*
Hokulele said:
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?
*
Perhaps, we have some confusion here. Indeed, standards are not dynamic. It is what they do that can be dynamic. You can take a standard, and develop it, build around it, or on it. The template of the Cone&Square from the Athena engraving is exactly the same as the one used in the Nazcamonkey glyph. You can verify this for yourself.

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.
..

What are you talking about? The Frame makes sense by itself, and can be applied independently elsewhere, You could design a completely differnt graphic, and incorporate it there.

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...

*
Hokulele said:
Never heard of them before now. Not impressed.
*
Your loss.

 

[JonnyFive]

Jiri:

[quote=PERSON'S NAME] What they said. [/quote]

Will give you this:

What they said.

That way you don't have to keep typing "Hokulele said" and all that, just put Hokulele's name where I wrote "PERSON'S NAME."

It's difficult to read your posts when you don't check the quote parsing to see if it looks right. The "preview post" button can help you make sure the formatting is correct before you submit your reply.

 

[bruto]

Ok, Jiri, how about this, then?

Proponents of "dynamic symmetry" in art are wont to claim that these principles are a natural part of human aesthetics, as well as occurring in nature. This should come as no surprise, since they follow naturally on natural patterns of growth, the obvious methods of packing things into spaces, and on the basic geometry of dividing up rectangles. The spiral defined by the Fibonacci series is simply a cone defined by an additive sequence, rolled up tight. The ancient Greeks were aware of these principles, and appear to have applied them explicitly in art and architecture. The ancient Egyptians appear also to have apportioned spaces in their artistic work using rectangles, divided by diagonals, which will almost inevitably produce predictable proportions, ratios and additive sequences such as the fibonacci series. Even though the extent of such analysis by the original artists is in some dispute (Jay Hambidge had to fudge some of his measurements too), there's really no mystery or magic in finding geometry implemented in art.

Let us assume, then, that you have found an example of elegant "dynamic symmetry" in a primitive work of art, embodying some of these principles, complete with the almost inevitable pentagrams. With benefit of doubt, let's ignore the question of whether or not you've gotten the measurements right, or made it up, and let's even ignore the very real possibility that just about any drawing can be framed and crisscrossed with diagonals to produce an interesting set of figures and ratios. Anybody with a piece of string or a stick can make elegant geometric patterns, which in turn will embody interesting and fascinating geometric principles, whether or not they are understood analytically by their creator. My question is still, what of it? Why should we believe anything more than that you have stumbled on a fortuitously well designed artistic creation? It would be more surprising if no such example could be found somewhere in the world. If you could find a consistently proportioned "frame" around other, similar creations, I'd begin to believe that you had discovered something of at least aesthetic interest - evidence that the creators of that drawing were early adopters of geometric principles we hadn't suspected - but no such evidence can be deduced from a single drawing. What have you actually found? Why should this fortuitious, anecdotal piece of art be of more than passing interest to us?

 

[Jiri]

*******************************************************************************************************
Polar circumference - 40008.6 km / 21600 n. miles = 1852.25 meters per n. mile
*********************************************************************************************************

Originally Posted by Jiri

Kilometers and 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?

*
You shock me. Of course, I am saying that, Are you saying that it wasn't the intention of Napoleon's savants to divide the polar circumference of Earth into 40,000 equal parts (kms)? Do you take the fact that they didn't fully succeed as proof that it cannot be done?
Of course, you can divide the same circumference into 21,600 equal parts with no fractional remainder, as well.
BTW, check out the following site:
Metrology: The Forgotten Science - A site devoted to the memory of Livio Catullo Stecchini.
www.metrum.org/

I seem to recall that Stecchini says that nautical miles were obtained from the equatorial circumference at some time in prehistory. A nautical mile is also the same as geographical minute. Thus, 360 degrees times 60 minutes equals 21,600 minutes (nautical miles) It was meant as the distance the sun travels along the Earth equator in four seconds (21,600 x 4 = 86,400 seconds = 24 hours)
This would mean that if you lost your watch in prehistorical times, but you did not lose your n. mile measuring rod you could have regained your time by noting how long it took the sun to cover the distance of a given number of n. miles. I hope you understand this concept..

Equatorial circumference - 40, 076.5 km / 21,600 = 1851.8553935185185

So, one nautical mile should be 1851.855.. meters
One stadium should then be 185 meters 18 centimeters and 5.5 millimeters long.

 

[Psiload]

*******************************************************************************************************
Polar circumference - 40008.6 km / 21600 n. miles = 1852.25 meters per n. mile
*********************************************************************************************************

Originally Posted by Jiri

Kilometers and 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.
*

*
You shock me. Of course, I am saying that, Are you saying that it wasn't the intention of Napoleon's savants to divide the polar circumference of Earth into 40,000 equal parts (kms)? Do you take the fact that they didn't fully succeed as proof that it cannot be done?
Of course, you can divide the same circumference into 21,600 equal parts with no fractional remainder, as well.
BTW, check out the following site:
Metrology: The Forgotten Science - A site devoted to the memory of Livio Catullo Stecchini.
www.metrum.org/

I seem to recall that Stecchini says that nautical miles were obtained from the equatorial circumference at some time in prehistory. A nautical mile is also the same as geographical minute. Thus, 360 degrees times 60 minutes equals 21,600 minutes (nautical miles) It was meant as the distance the sun travels along the Earth equator in four seconds (21,600 x 4 = 86,400 seconds = 24 hours)
This would mean that if you lost your watch in prehistorical times, but you did not lose your n. mile measuring rod you could have regained your time by noting how long it took the sun to cover the distance of a given number of n. miles. I hope you understand this concept..

Equatorial circumference - 40, 076.5 km / 21,600 = 1851.8553935185185

So, one nautical mile should be 1851.855.. meters
One stadium should then be 185 meters 18 centimeters and 5.5 millimeters long.

Kindred spirits, you and Stecchini, eh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livio_Catullo_Stecchini

His work on metrology, based on his work on ancient numismatics, ends in conclusions which are rejected by most academics today, and which some label as pseudoscience. His method consists of starting with an assumption, namely that all ancient measures are by definition related. An old and intriguing idea, but one for which no proof has been found.

 

[jsfisher]

Jiri, the following is very muddled. I hope your actual thought process behind it is not as muddled.

I seem to recall that Stecchini says that nautical miles were obtained from the equatorial circumference at some time in prehistory.

Prehistory? The caveman invented the nautical mile?

A nautical mile is also the same as geographical minute. Thus, 360 degrees times 60 minutes equals 21,600 minutes (nautical miles)

One does not usually multiply degrees by minutes. I think you really meant to say that a nautical mile originally was (not is) defined to be one minute of meridian arc. There are 21,600 minutes in 360 degrees.

It was meant as the distance the sun travels along the Earth equator in four seconds (21,600 x 4 = 86,400 seconds = 24 hours)

Whoa!!! You have jumped from minutes of arc to seconds in a day using a magic conversion factor, 4. Still, this has little to do with the nautical mile since it's origin is in meridians, not the equator.

This would mean that if you lost your watch in prehistorical times, but you did not lose your n. mile measuring rod you could have regained your time by noting how long it took the sun to cover the distance of a given number of n. miles. I hope you understand this concept..

Approximately, I suppose.

Equatorial circumference - 40, 076.5 km / 21,600 = 1851.8553935185185

So, one nautical mile should be 1851.855.. meters
One stadium should then be 185 meters 18 centimeters and 5.5 millimeters long.

No, no, no. Meridians. Depending on where one measured, the original nautical mile was anywhere between 1849.12 and 1855.34 meters. (The United States used 1853.249 meters.) But, again, was. The International nautical mile is 1852 meters, exactly.




But what has this to do with anything?

 

[Hokulele]

Hoo boy, where to begin.

<snip>

I seem to recall that Stecchini says that nautical miles were obtained from the equatorial circumference at some time in prehistory. A nautical mile is also the same as geographical minute. Thus, 360 degrees times 60 minutes equals 21,600 minutes (nautical miles) It was meant as the distance the sun travels along the Earth equator in four seconds (21,600 x 4 = 86,400 seconds = 24 hours)

OK, so now you are trying to redefine both meters and nautical miles? At one point in time, the nautical mile was linked to one arc-minute of length along any meridian. It has absolutely nothing to do with a day, the apparent path of the sun, or any of that. I think you are confusing a minute as a measurement of arc, with a minute as a measurement of length (geographically speaking, it means something else to astronomers), with a minute as a measurement of time, and getting all three of them wrong.

This would mean that if you lost your watch in prehistorical times, but you did not lose your n. mile measuring rod you could have regained your time by noting how long it took the sun to cover the distance of a given number of n. miles. I hope you understand this concept..

Nautical mile measurements work only along a meridian, which is a line from pole to pole, and unfortunately, earth's rotation is almost perpendicular to this, so the sun's apparent path of travel could not be used as a reference. It would be going in the wrong direction. Also, nautical miles are not a good measuring stick for earth-based, fixed phenomena, as the earth is not a perfect sphere, so the length of a nautical mile varies depending where on the planet you are.

Equatorial circumference - 40, 076.5 km / 21,600 = 1851.8553935185185

So, one nautical mile should be 1851.855.. meters
One stadium should then be 185 meters 18 centimeters and 5.5 millimeters long.

A nautical mile is currently defined as being 1852 m, regardless of what you would like it to make it be to fit your theories. Neither the nautical mile nor the kilometer can be evenly divided into the earth's circumference, as was bruto's point earlier.

 

[Paulhoff]

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/books/12/02/alder.measure/

The bottom line is that all measurements are man made and are do to have errors, big deal.

Paul

 

[bruto]

Even if we allow enough slop in the figures to allow for the earth to be "about" 21600 miles around when it's really more like 21639, for the nautical mile to be significant to the theory, wouldn't you have to provide evidence that prehistoric people had some way of getting a fairly accurate estimate of the earth's circumference, and then that they had both the motivation and the numerical or geometric knowhow to divide it up into useful units? Extrapolating the proportions of a single cave painting into that is a very very far fetched notion even if you are correct about the painting itself.

 

[Beleth]

One nautical mile was originally defined as one minute of arc of a great circle of the Earth. (The definition has changed because the earth is not a perfect sphere, and thus great circles are not all equal in length.) There are, by the original definition, 21,600 nautical miles in any great circle of the Earth.

One meter is defined as one ten-millionth of the length of the straight line which starts at the North Pole, passes through Paris, and ends at the Equator.

So yes, they both (at least originally) produce integer measurements of great circle distances, provided the right great circles are selected.

A nautical mile was first used as a unit of measurement, as far as I can tell*, in 1929. A meter was first used in 1797. Both of these dates are substantially more recent than the Athena engraving and the Nazca Monkey glyph, so one is left wondering how they apply.



[*] read "I looked it up on Wikipedia and couldn't be bothered to look any further."

 

[Hokulele]

A nautical mile was first used as a unit of measurement, as far as I can tell*, in 1929.

I know the Wiki definition is a little vague on this point (Wiki? Vague?), but the 1929 reference is to the first standardization of the nautical mile, not necessarily the first usage. The concept of the nautical mile originally came from the Greek natural philosophers who were trying to determine the circumference of the earth. Nautical miles really took off during the explosion of commercial trading via sea, with a companion unit of "knot" for describing speed.

As a random FYI, nautical miles, knots, and other methods for determining distances and locations are not absolutely necessary for sucessful voyaging, as can be seen by the Polynesians and the current renaissance of traditional navigational techniques promoted by the Polynesian Voyaging Society.

 

[Jiri]

Kindred spirits, you and Stecchini, eh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livio_Catullo_Stecchini

Quote:
His work on metrology, based on his work on ancient numismatics, ends in conclusions which are rejected by most academics today, and which some label as pseudoscience. His method consists of starting with an assumption, namely that all ancient measures are by definition related. An old and intriguing idea, but one for which no proof has been found.

I've read some of his work a while ago, and my recollection of it is somewhat muddled, but I must say that at the time it all seemed backed by facts extensively. Beautiful work, so don't believe "An old and intriguing idea, but one for which no proof has been found." Stecchini cites tons of proof. Incidentally, my discovery would seem to support his work, as well. Of course, no one in the academic world seems to be willing to review all these various works as a whole, so that the elements could function as one body of evidence.

 

[bruto]

One nautical mile was originally defined as one minute of arc of a great circle of the Earth. (The definition has changed because the earth is not a perfect sphere, and thus great circles are not all equal in length.) There are, by the original definition, 21,600 nautical miles in any great circle of the Earth.

One meter is defined as one ten-millionth of the length of the straight line which starts at the North Pole, passes through Paris, and ends at the Equator.

So yes, they both (at least originally) produce integer measurements of great circle distances, provided the right great circles are selected.

A nautical mile was first used as a unit of measurement, as far as I can tell*, in 1929. A meter was first used in 1797. Both of these dates are substantially more recent than the Athena engraving and the Nazca Monkey glyph, so one is left wondering how they apply.



[*] read "I looked it up on Wikipedia and couldn't be bothered to look any further."

I have no argument with the idea that as originally conceived, they both are "geocommensurate" at least in intent, since they were designed precisely to be so. My argument with Jiri is, first of all, that they are not actually so with relation to the actual dimensions of the earth, and thus those dimensions are not integral, and the conversion from one to the other is not integral when the earth is actually measured; and that finding that they are in some way geocommensurate is anyway a meaningless discovery, given that they are both arbitrary, man-made divisions of approximations of the earth's circumference: to see some significance in their both being divisions of the earth's circumference is backwards thinking.

As far as I know, the nautical mile goes much further back than 1929, to the use of a drag anchor and a knotted rope as a speed calculator. "One knot, " or the passage of a length of rope 47 feet three inches long in 28 seconds, is one nautical mile per hour. The ratio of 47.25 to 6080 is the same as the ratio of 28 to 3600.

 

[Jiri]

"dynamic symmetry" in art

The ancient Greeks were aware of these principles, and appear to have applied them explicitly in art and architecture. The ancient Egyptians appear also to have apportioned spaces in their artistic work using rectangles, divided by diagonals, which will almost inevitably produce predictable proportions, ratios and additive sequences such as the fibonacci series.

Overload! Attention, the countdown has started - Jiri will self-destruct in one minute

So many good posts deserving an answer, and I'm going to try, but I am short on free time. This dynamic symmetry is particularly interesting, although I think that you misunderstood it a bit. I'm looking forward to dealing with its impact on my findings, just not right now.
Meanwhile, note how the Greeks are given credit for discovering things they were taught in Egypt. And, no I am not African.
How simply put is this?
"ancient Greeks were aware of these principles"
Very simple.
How arcane is this?
"Egyptians appear also to have apportioned spaces in their artistic work using rectangles, divided by diagonals, which will almost inevitably produce predictable proportions, ratios and additive sequences such as the fibonacci series. "
Now, that's mumbo jumbo: "almost inevitably produce predictable proportions, ratios and additive sequences such as the fibonacci series. "
What rectangles? Rectangles can have an infinity of proportions - unlike squares. Ergo, there is nothing inevitable about them.
The Golden Rectangle is another matter. See the lot of golden rectangles I had identified in the part of Seti I's temple at Abydos, which is known as the mysterious scene showing an array of ancient craft - the Abydos Helicopter scene.
http://www.vejprty.com/abyhelic.htm
I consider my study of the Abydos Helicopter one of my better exploits in the field of Chair Archaeology.

 

[Oualawouzou]

(edited because it's late and that I shouldn't post when I should be in bed )

 

[jsfisher]

note how the Greeks are given credit for discovering things they were taught in Egypt.

Can you back this statement up with hard evidence?

The Greeks get credit for a lot of things because they documented their study, findings, and use of those things. Got something similar for the Egyptians regarding, say, phi? Finding examples in Egyptian art and architecture where phi seems to be in play doesn't rise to the required standard for proof.

 

[bruto]

Overload! Attention, the countdown has started - Jiri will self-destruct in one minute

So many good posts deserving an answer, and I'm going to try, but I am short on free time. This dynamic symmetry is particularly interesting, although I think that you misunderstood it a bit. I'm looking forward to dealing with its impact on my findings, just not right now.
Meanwhile, note how the Greeks are given credit for discovering things they were taught in Egypt. And, no I am not African.
How simply put is this?
"ancient Greeks were aware of these principles"
Very simple.
How arcane is this?
"Egyptians appear also to have apportioned spaces in their artistic work using rectangles, divided by diagonals, which will almost inevitably produce predictable proportions, ratios and additive sequences such as the fibonacci series. "
Now, that's mumbo jumbo: "almost inevitably produce predictable proportions, ratios and additive sequences such as the fibonacci series. "
What rectangles? Rectangles can have an infinity of proportions - unlike squares. Ergo, there is nothing inevitable about them.

No, if you divide a rectangle by drawing a diagonal between two corners, and then draw a perpendicular to that diagonal from one of the other corners, and so on, you will inevitably generate a number of proportional spaces, including series of proportional triangles which correspond to those that would be drawn inside a spiral. When you create nested series of right triangles you inevitably are working with powers of two, and the progression is inevitably logarithmic. It's interesting but not terribly arcane. The illustrator Jay Hambidge coined the term "dynamic symmetry," I think, and provided a number of details on how various spaces can be apportioned using the simple geometry of rectangles and diagonals. He theorized that the Greeks used these proportions systematically not only in architecture but in art and craft, and measured a number of Greek vases by way of illustration. For more on the subject, I recommend you find a copy of his 1920 work, Dynamic Symmetry: The Greek Vase. My point in all this is not to sell Hambidge's theory so much as to point out that if you play around with rectangles, squares, and diagonals, it is not difficult to come up with interesting proportions and numbers. I haven't spent a great deal of time on Hambidge, but suspect that if one measures a vase with a large enough arsenal of different root squares and diagonals, one will almost certainly find one that is a pretty good fit, especially if, as Hambidge occasionally did, one "corrects" errors in the vase itself. I suspect that your work is similar, in that if you try hard enough with an a priori principle, you will find a way to fit it to just about anything you find. I am not saying that this is dishonest, but I think it is illusory. Hambidge does at least have the advantage that he measured physical objects with unquestionable boundaries; that he did not need to rely on any specific units of measure (only proportion); and that he did not attribute to the designers any technology or geometrical knowledge that would insult our understanding of their history and their technology.

The Golden Rectangle is another matter. See the lot of golden rectangles I had identified in the part of Seti I's temple at Abydos, which is known as the mysterious scene showing an array of ancient craft - the Abydos Helicopter scene.
http://www.vejprty.com/abyhelic.htm
I consider my study of the Abydos Helicopter one of my better exploits in the field of Chair Archaeology.

Aside from the fact that there's no reason to believe the heiroglyphics mean what you seem to think they do, I'm not convinced that your choice of where to draw the outlines is meaningful. Even if it is, it's not novel. Again, I refer you to Hambidge, who provided a number of illustrations to support his theory that the Egyptians at least occasionally used systematic geometric principles to lay out their work, creating complex figures derived from simple geometric rules.

 

[Jiri]

Even if we allow enough slop in the figures to allow for the earth to be "about" 21600 miles around when it's really more like 21639,

.
40,008.6 / 1852 = 21,6029...

Nautical miles seem to be off by less than three miles, or less than 5.556 kilometer - Superior by three kilometers to the effort of learned Napoleonic savants. Not bad for the source prehistoric civilisation.
BTW, look at that nice transition: 3NM=5.556KM
Almost commensurate in some subtle way.

for the nautical mile to be significant to the theory, wouldn't you have to provide evidence that prehistoric people had some way of getting a fairly accurate estimate of the earth's circumference, and then that they had both the motivation and the numerical or geometric knowhow to divide it up into useful units? Extrapolating the proportions of a single cave painting into that is a very very far fetched notion even if you are correct about the painting itself.

I've always known about the issue of advanced ancient civilisations, or even alien astronauts. But, it was my own findings, which convinced me, many years later. Specifically, my doubts were eliminated (for all the theoretical purposes) after finding the La Marche - Nazca connection. Knowledge of the fact is a good anchor to prehistoric reality, a good starting point for extrapolation. There are great many facts to reconcile. We have the archaeological record, which gives us evidence of primitive societies versus evidence of advanced science, which can only be formed in advanced civilisation.
My take on this is that the area where AC originated and thrived must have been very small and isolated, like a large island, for instance.