jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
That's just the Russian way to write Jiri.
Those wacky Russians...they don't even know how to spell their own names.
432 shows harmony of Sun, Moon, Earth Design
- Thread starter Davidjayjordan
- Start date
Those wacky Russians...they don't even know how to spell their own names.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Remember, they're using a different alphabet. Transliteration is sometimes optional; e.g. Romanoff or Romanov.
Problem with Jiri's other explanation above: if these artists knew the value of pi to eighteen decimal places, they could have written it thus. Whether they knew the ratio at some level, or just managed, as so often happens, to generate it through geometric fiddling, or whether you are imagining the whole thing, you can't speak of them knowing a value to 18 decimal places unless you have evidence that they had a grasp of what a decimal place is. You can express pi with a crayon and a piece of string, but that doesn't mean you know its value. There's nothing in the evidence at least that you have shown, to indicate that the people who drew that picture even knew how to count to any extent, much less that they counted, calculated, or thought in anything like a decimal system.
As for the question of where you drew the lines, you want a concrete example. Your drawing itself is the example. You have drawn lines on the engraving. The lines do not appear to match the lines of the engraving, deviating in various ways from the lines that are actually there. No reason can be given for this except for the theory you brought with you, the theory that you used to determine where the lines ought to go. Round and round we go with this, but it's working backwards. The same is true of your monkey template. Parts of the monkey are inside the figures, parts outside. Some lines interesect lines of the drawing and some do not. It's impossible to envision these lines by looking at the drawing itself, without the preconceived idea of where and what they should be.
ReligionStudent
Knitter
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2007
- Messages
- 888
So why not use one of the many programs actually made to measure digital images of real world items that are accurate? (These are based on relative pixle length, and I believe this reveals the answer to my question.) Probably because these all require some known frame of reference, ie at least one known measurement or a pictured ruler or other known length etc. Of course since it appears to be a drawing we know its likely distorted and at the very least losing some accuracy, ah GIGO
Last edited:
ReligionStudent
Knitter
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2007
- Messages
- 888
Any society that could calculate Pi that far would have written writting for record keeping, why not write pi?
And expressing mm in whole cm is rounding, that's just not valid (unless all mm measures you use turn out evenly divisible by 10)
That's just the Russian way to write Jiri.
as the christian version of 'yuri' is 'george', George Gagarin is equally valid according to you, george.
Presumably the same way you think they recorded the first 2, 4 or six.
Can you show that people from 12,000 BCE (that's 11,700 years before Euclid, by the way) had any concept of pi? Of course not; your idea is therefore fallacious.
Surely you mean arbitrary lines forced into predetermined associations?
No it doesn't, your fiddling, fudging and cherry-picking show us how it can be retrospectively achieved.
Why would I want to?
Do think the engraving might not be produced by hand?
Why don't you and the frame just get a room.
Really, in any accepted meaning of philosophy?
Why would the prehistoric engraver not believe that direct access would be available?
Or more precisely, you and a few other woolly-thinking science-bothering internet attention seekers.
Looky, if I apply a mathematical function to two different numbers, the result is another number; if I pick the right two numbers, I can make the result seem significant.
Except Pi isn't a whole number.
Wishful thinking governs results.
Much like your falsification of results has been shown to be a sorry failure of mathematics, geometry and history.
It can also be expressed accurately and with a defined and justified system of units and placement.
I probably just missed that. Hey, you could still be a chick and have a wife in like two US states.
Thank you for the words, I do try.
I would also like to know what Jiri believes the answer is, as all he has done previously is quote JSF's answer.
You misunderstood my question.
You propose that the ratios of the lines are significant. My question was: If you did not take precise measurements, why are you so sure that your ratios are correct. What if the line was actually 350 units, and the other line was 120. Your ratio becomes 2.9166..., which is nothing special. Even an error of one unit will make your ratio approximate pi only to one decimal place, which is hardly anything to scream about.
Now, could you answer my question about the precision of your measurement without patronizing me about the frame's being "brilliant?"
I am aware that decimals can be represented or approximated using fractions. Never mind that pi would be better approximated using a circle and not a few straight lines (as you claim these frame makers had an understanding of it, I suppose they might notice its relation to the circle, among other things).
This still doesn't address the issues I presented earlier. If you measured wrong, even by a couple units, the lines aren't special anymore.
353 / 116 = 3.04310344827... What the hell is that?
A pie chart is an abstraction used to represent a group of figures as percentages of their total. It's significance is not in the fact that it is a circle, as it serves the same function as, say, a stacked bar graph.
If you're trying to connect the "circuit" of the frame to the "circuit" of a pie chart in a meaningful way, you're abusing the abstraction.
How do you know what the designers intended?
"Falsificate?" That's not a word, at least not an English one.
Do you mean "falsification?"
Again, you miss the point. I am concerned that your level of precision is only at the cm level, at best. This would cast doubt on every number you claim to have calculated exactly below that level. I was not, in fact, laughing at you.
So you aren't planning to justify this, then?
You have taken a crude drawing of what is probably a relatively rough carving to begin with and drawn approximate lines on it using a computer paint program. There are monumental measuring errors that can be introduced, even assuming you used an original source, which you have admitted you did not.
As I have pointed out, even an error of one unit of measure will throw your ratios off to the point where they aren't special anymore. Because you've chosen to connect the points the way you did for your ratios, a few unit errors on one line will affect many of your ratios.
As you know PI is an irrational number, and so no fraction (22/7 etc) will ever be a true representation of it.
Ah yes, that old sticky wicket.
As I asked Jiri: Why not use a diagram involving a circle to show how much you know about pi?
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Jiri, asking for a "concrete example" of where your lines are arbitrary is like hanging a picture upside down, and then complaining when somebody points it out, that they haven't shown you what part of it is upside down.
ReligionStudent
Knitter
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2007
- Messages
- 888
Ah yes, that old sticky wicket.
As I asked Jiri: Why not use a diagram involving a circle to show how much you know about pi?
Why not make a circle and scratch a line across it. That would be good way to show pi.
Also people of 12,000 years ago, your talking no complex socieities at all, that's pretty much the level of "Oh my god farming is good". Certainly no writing or record keeping is attested in any manner (have to wait till maybe 7000-8000 YAG give or take for things such as that to occur.
Belz...
Fiend God
That's just the Russian way to write Jiri.
Who cares ? "Belz..." is spelled "Christopher" in some languages, I'm told. As in CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS!
Booyah.
The lengths some people will go to in order to feel special...
That would do it. BAM!
If today's mathematicians were as obtuse as Jiri's framers appear to be, math would be a lot more "interesting" (the bad kind of interesting, not the good kind), but a lot less informative.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to draw a series of crude MS Paint lines to calculate the loss ratio on an insurance policy.
Jiri
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 387
Constructed art
Look how long the Frame article is. It is one long list of facts, numbers, simple calculations, but overall it is one big corroboration of the central idea - their knowledge of these things, and of course, coding exact ideas into art.
You said, "if these artists knew the value of pi to eighteen decimal places, they could have written it thus."
.
Well, they did write it using a symbolic language, while at the same time achieving something more than could be had by your method. Simply writing it down to 18 decimal places would mean that you would hold their knowledge to that limit.
Write it down where? How? The engraving is what it is, and not what you would want of it.
The Frame works several concepts, or threads simultaneously. Therein is its brilliance. To me it reads like a newspaper with different sections. If the Frame squeezes in the first 18 decimals of Pi on top of other things, I consider it a strong indication that they had a limitless knowledge of Pi decimals like we do, because they managed to state Pi to the maximum extent under the circumstances. With a bigger frame, they could state Pi further. I don't know about the other things, though.The Frame may be stopped, where all the synchronicity suddenly ends.
My methods of analysis are stated. It's all just common-sense. The same methods can be used on any art, which was constructed.
I'll give an example of how you misrepresent my results. Regular figures are represented in the engraving by short-hand. In that way, a regular star can be denoted by a single triangle. Only the triangle has to coincide with the image, because we look to the derived star to see above all, if and how it integrates into the overall geometrical system. Only then we look for the harmony between the complete derived figure, and the image itself. To you it's a mess, to me it's beautiful order. Conclusion: You cannot see the order, because of all the mess You see nothing constructive, I see a construction like the Hex-Machine. Three generations of hexagons work together in an intricate exact design. Incidentally this configuration is courtesy of the Frame. Now, tell me how does one come up with such designs if basing on nothing significant? You say that I brought the design from somewhere - tell me from where? Obviously, the design happens on the spot, one way or another. Just as obviously, when points of the Frame imply three hexagons, you don't know how and if they work together until you draw them out fully. So, I am not creating anything, I am just following instructions. Whose instructions?
Blind nature's? God's? Is it not simpler to suppose that there was a normal designer?
p.s.
Are you well familiar with the Cone & Square concept by now? Because if you look at the monkey glyph, you almost see it, i.e., what you see is a simple step away from showing the Cone & Square configuraton. The Free Masons also have a derivative of it as their symbol - the compasses and the half square. But, the compasses hold a different angle, and the square is out of the needed position, I must add. Still, interesting.
Look how long the Frame article is. It is one long list of facts, numbers, simple calculations, but overall it is one big corroboration of the central idea - their knowledge of these things, and of course, coding exact ideas into art.
You said, "if these artists knew the value of pi to eighteen decimal places, they could have written it thus."
.
Well, they did write it using a symbolic language, while at the same time achieving something more than could be had by your method. Simply writing it down to 18 decimal places would mean that you would hold their knowledge to that limit.
Write it down where? How? The engraving is what it is, and not what you would want of it.
The Frame works several concepts, or threads simultaneously. Therein is its brilliance. To me it reads like a newspaper with different sections. If the Frame squeezes in the first 18 decimals of Pi on top of other things, I consider it a strong indication that they had a limitless knowledge of Pi decimals like we do, because they managed to state Pi to the maximum extent under the circumstances. With a bigger frame, they could state Pi further. I don't know about the other things, though.The Frame may be stopped, where all the synchronicity suddenly ends.
My methods of analysis are stated. It's all just common-sense. The same methods can be used on any art, which was constructed.
I'll give an example of how you misrepresent my results. Regular figures are represented in the engraving by short-hand. In that way, a regular star can be denoted by a single triangle. Only the triangle has to coincide with the image, because we look to the derived star to see above all, if and how it integrates into the overall geometrical system. Only then we look for the harmony between the complete derived figure, and the image itself. To you it's a mess, to me it's beautiful order. Conclusion: You cannot see the order, because of all the mess
You see nothing constructive, I see a construction like the Hex-Machine. Three generations of hexagons work together in an intricate exact design. Incidentally this configuration is courtesy of the Frame. Now, tell me how does one come up with such designs if basing on nothing significant? You say that I brought the design from somewhere - tell me from where? Obviously, the design happens on the spot, one way or another. Just as obviously, when points of the Frame imply three hexagons, you don't know how and if they work together until you draw them out fully. So, I am not creating anything, I am just following instructions. Whose instructions?Blind nature's? God's? Is it not simpler to suppose that there was a normal designer?
p.s.
Are you well familiar with the Cone & Square concept by now? Because if you look at the monkey glyph, you almost see it, i.e., what you see is a simple step away from showing the Cone & Square configuraton. The Free Masons also have a derivative of it as their symbol - the compasses and the half square. But, the compasses hold a different angle, and the square is out of the needed position, I must add. Still, interesting.
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
My impression is that all your methods were post-hoc.
How about this, though. Can you concisely describe the algorithm you applied to the drawings that led to the meanings you concluded? Not a lot of hand waving, just a reasonable set of instructions we could follow to reproduce your results. The algorithm, of course, would need to be independent of any particular art work, but of course everyone knew that. We can accept a certain amount of imprecision, too, so don't fear attack based on language quibbles.
Can you do that?
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
NO, because if you need a designer, who designed the designer, that designed the designer, that designed the designer etc.
Paul
And nothing is truly explained and or understood.
So why did you draw the lines where you did? Why are you so sure it's the outer points on the "frame" that are important? Why are you so sure the ratios are correct? Why are you so sure you aren't just seeing what you want to see?
Can you post any of your algorithms or explicitly state your models without the muddle or, as JSF put it, the hand-waving?
ReligionStudent
Knitter
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2007
- Messages
- 888
So Jiri, I spent some time trying to go through your website today, and I cannot find any sort of record of provenance or such for the drawing. I would really love to read this and see, for instance, how it was dated etc. how something from 14,000 years could have this understanding when people still hadn't developed even basic writing or intensive agriculture or more importantly mathamatics is interesting.
Belz...
Fiend God
Ah! So you're not using reason, after all.
Are we going to see those line-holders, anytime soon ?