432 shows harmony of Sun, Moon, Earth Design

[Jiri]

I think that most people here do not have a problem with someone posting ideas and or beliefs that they may think are true, as long as they state that it is only as ideas and or beliefs of theirs. It is when they state them as facts without the proper documentation that we question their ideas and or beliefs in earnest. I think that this is true……….

It is a fact that the Stone-Age mathematicians have me sold on their system. I know what I learned from them, while realizing that I could never learn the same from something mathematically chaotic, and I know proper documentation is just a matter of good will on the part of the museum in Paris. Then what will you think, when it turns out that I was right all along?

 

[Paulhoff]

It is a fact that the Stone-Age mathematicians have me sold on their system.

A picture is not math proof...............

Paul



You have sold yourself.................

 

[Jiri]

No. If you are using different scales on one image, the image itself is no longer defining a unit system. Although your software may say "inches" or "millimeters", there is nothing internal to an artifact that defines a unit system, unless the artifact itself can be proven to be a measuring device. I can measure the same image in millimeters, inches, or parsecs and come up with three different answers. Most CAD software will even convert from one unit system to another quite happily. Besides, if this artifact defines its own measurement system, why is it upside down? Wouldn't that just make references to it unecessarily difficult?

"this artifact defines its own measurement system". There we go, now you got it!
"why is it upside down"
Now, you've lost it again..
The engraving is not upside-down, it is on one of its long sides, which coincides with our monitor screen conventions - the horizontal is longer than vertical

Provide a reference showing this scale. Indicate what units are present on this scale.
You can derive 8 directions, or even 20 if you feel like it. What do you mean by a "derived geometrical system"?

Derive 8 cardinal directions, sure..

I have absolutely no idea. You tell me what you mean by internally generated units. It appears to be a meaningless phrase.

.
The concept was explained here a number of times. It is also explained in my web-site articles.
Does anyone here know what it means?

 

[Macoy]

.
From the right image, you can generate its units internally at any scale. .

complete toss

 

[Hokulele]

"this artifact defines its own measurement system". There we go, now you got it!

Nowhere in that image is anything that says "I am a standard millimeter! Pick me! Pick me!" It is far more likely that the carver would have used a reference to his own body for measurements. Something like "OK, that is about one arm's length, and that is three thumbs." Where do you think measurements such as feet, inches, and fathoms came from in the first place?

"why is it upside down"
Now, you've lost it again..
The engraving is not upside-down, it is on one of its long sides, which coincides with our monitor screen conventions - the horizontal is longer than vertical

Many desktop publishers prefer a monitor with the long axis oriented vertically, to match print conventions. Anyway, why would a rotated orientation be used for the engraving, since monitors wouldn't be invented for thousands of years? Shouldn't it match visual reality?

Derive 8 cardinal directions, sure..

Cardinal can be translated as "significant" directions, there is nothing in the term cardinal that implies four. Eight? Sure, here we go:

N NE E SE S SW W NW

The concept was explained here a number of times. It is also explained in my web-site articles.
Does anyone here know what it means?

If you do, please tell me as I don't see anyone else replying.

 

[ReligionStudent]

.
From the right image, you can generate its units internally at any scale. .
.

.
Lwoff had published the Athena engraving with a scale next to it. I made a few mentions of it already. However, the coincidence between the image's internal units and the metric system is of only secondary importance. Of primary importance is that we are able to derive the image's own units.
The same principle applies at Nazca. There we can derive the four cardinal directions from the monkey glyph. The fact is secondary to the fact that these are the main axes of the derived geometrical system. The relation between the monkey glyph's units of length, and the rest of Nazca figures and lines is of primary importance, the geocommensurabity of these units is not, no matter how important it may be..



.
Please, tell me what do I mean by internally generated units?

It's nice that Lwoff published it with a scale, but there is no reason to say the origional artist thought he was doing something in ratio of 3.14.... etc, he could have been doing somthing without any measuring.

As for Nazca, its more likely that the monkey would have been derived from the cardinal derections than the other way around. It is known that south American cultures were able to orient sites (likely by the stars etc) to North, but this doesn't make the dirrections derivable from the monkey, if they alligned it to the directions (which I would be questionable of since their is no actual pointing part of the Nazca monkey), it would simply mean they did so, and not present any other information as to why they did so.

In other words, if your theory is right then the monkey is somehow allighned to the North/South etc. yay, that does not mean anything more.

 

[ReligionStudent]

It is a fact that the Stone-Age mathematicians have me sold on their system. I know what I learned from them, while realizing that I could never learn the same from something mathematically chaotic, and I know proper documentation is just a matter of good will on the part of the museum in Paris. Then what will you think, when it turns out that I was right all along?

Museums don't give "proper documentation" they give people access to the collection to study it.

 

[Apathia]

This stone age "ostrich rider" figure?
Pardon an ignorant question, but of the lines in the drawing of it, what of them are the artist's markings and what are cracks or features of the surface it was drawn on, and is it possible to tell?

 

[bruto]

Interestingly it seems that what those cave artists had on their minds was Not necessarily geometry!

I hope that Jiri gave permission for the Falun Gong folks to use his stuff. At least they listed the copyright.

edited to add another page. Seems some of this stuff was just teenage porn!

A question of Jiri comes out of all this: since La Marche is apparently covered with drawings, it stands to reason that other drawings would demonstrate similar principles, and corroborate your theories. And yet it seems that most of the drawings there are crowded together, and intermingled in a rather chaotic way. How can you be sure where the boundaries are between one image and another? I notice, for example, that the figure that appears like a flame is incorporated into the frame of your figure, and obviously your frame would be terribly compromised if it turned out not to be part of the figure. Can you give us some rationale for including the flame that does not depend on the preconception of the frame? Is there a reason in the apparent pictorial content of the engraving why that little part should be included in it? If you have not seen the whole wall on which the engraving is found, how can you be sure what is part of which pictures?

 

[bruto]

In a review of a book on the subject, I find this curious passage:

Surely it is important for the reader to know that the vast majority of the hundreds of animal and human images from La Marche were "defaced" by a mass of finely incised lines that make reaching an understanding of the original drawing an enormous visual challenge.

Here's another use of Jiri's drawing without attribution, though I imagine the general tone of the site would be to his liking.

By the way, a final question for Jiri. Is the figure in question on a wall, or on a portable stone tablet, and if the latter, is there any indication of its original size? I gather that some of those tablets were quite small, which could make even minor errors of measurement critical with relation to proportion.

 

[ReligionStudent]

Ok, I did a little fun with math and picture tonight
I found a random picture on my HD, greyscaled it and set up the "obvious" frame.
Measurment ensued. Check if this is close to Jiri's method everyone
I did origional measurement in MM, but then realized this was in America so I should convert to inches.



A-B 0.56
B-C 2.73
C-D 2.79
D-E 2.85
E-F 1.41
F-G 0.59
G-H 1.29
H-I 3.89
I-J 0.91
J-A 1.31


Now lets look

Obviously the lengths from B-C and C-D are almost e, so I must have been chaneling something

E-F, followed by F-G is 14159, the 2nd through 6th digits of Pi

But if you look at E-F alone, the answer is clear 1.41 is roughly equal to the square route of two, I must have been channeling a Pathagorean when I took this picture. It also makes a nifty five pointed star, just like what the pathagoreans used as a symbol!!! How cool is that.

If however, you want to be worldly and use MM, you get

A-B 14.22
B-C 69.42
C-D 71.11
D-E 72.42
E-F 36
F-G 15
G-H 33
H-I 98.85
I-J 23.34
J-A 33.42

Well, J-A and B-C both contain 42, the answer to life the universe and everything, as well as the number of nomes in ancient Egypt. Apparently Narmer was also involved in the picture!!!!! Cool one fo the first people to unite upper and lower Egypt!!

If we add A-B, B-C, I-J, and J-A (wraps around) we get 140 (round off some there) which obviously represents 1.4, roughly the square route of 2 again!!!


Now the diagonals in inches
H-C 5.95
A-E 6.56
J-D 5.23
C-E 5.23
H-D 4.97
, add all of those up and you get 27, which is obviously what I meant to represent e.
Even better, if you take 5.23 and square it (since their are two) you get 27 again!!! (rounding because its just not important really)

Now look at the decimal places on the mm lengths of the diagonals:

H-C 151.23
A-E 166.68
J-D 133.54
C-E 133.54
H-D 126.47

No you are not seeing things, that is 68 adn 54, what is that you ask? Well 68 is hex code for T and 54 is hex code for h, the first two letters of my first name!!! I was meant to find it !!

Now look to the inch measure of E-F, 41!!! yea that's hex for A!!

As far as I know I am the only Thaddeus who spells the short form of his name Thadd, with two d's, so the fact that we have 54 is really amazing. See the hex code for d is 44 and D is 64, so 54 is the nice even middle, and it appears TWICE!!! (J-D, C-E) Obviously this is spelling out ThAdd, that's me and only me!!!


And there you have it

 

[ReligionStudent]

Sorry here's what I meant to attach

 

[Jiri]

Nowhere in that image is anything that says "I am a standard millimeter! Pick me! Pick me!" It is far more likely that the carver would have used a reference to his own body for measurements. Something like "OK, that is about one arm's length, and that is three thumbs." Where do you think measurements such as feet, inches, and fathoms came from in the first place?

Many desktop publishers prefer a monitor with the long axis oriented vertically, to match print conventions. Anyway, why would a rotated orientation be used for the engraving, since monitors wouldn't be invented for thousands of years? Shouldn't it match visual reality?


Cardinal can be translated as "significant" directions, there is nothing in the term cardinal that implies four. Eight? Sure, here we go:

N NE E SE S SW W NW

Yeh, let's bicker over the definition of everything!
Let's have a poll: How many cardinal directions do we have on this planet? Anybody?
,

If you do, please tell me as I don't see anyone else replying.

In the image there was an entire class of arcs, which were almost identical. It appeared possible that all these arcs might have come from the same circle.
There were also some geometrical figures derived from the image. The Cone was one of those, and the Square another. Measuring the Cone with the circle standard (because the Cone held one such circle already) had explained the construction of not only the Cone, but also the Square.

One side of the Cone's 5-pointed star equals five radii of this standard circle. Finer measurements are needed for the Frame, and so the standard circle's diameter is taken to be 80 small units long. These are the Frame millimeters.

 

[Hokulele]

Yeh, let's bicker over the definition of everything!
Let's have a poll: How many cardinal directions do we have on this planet? Anybody?

How about we only bicker about definitions that apply to the discussion. Most meteorologists refer to 16 cardinal directions when discussing wind directions. A typical compass rose shows 8. If you would like, feel free to start a poll. There are directions in the on-line help.

In the image there was an entire class of arcs, which were almost identical. It appeared possible that all these arcs might have come from the same circle.

"Almost identical?" "Appeared possible?" "Might have come?"

There were also some geometrical figures derived from the image. The Cone was one of those, and the Square another. Measuring the Cone with the circle standard (because the Cone held one such circle already) had explained the construction of not only the Cone, but also the Square.

One side of the Cone's 5-pointed star equals five radii of this standard circle. Finer measurements are needed for the Frame, and so the standard circle's diameter is taken to be 80 small units long. These are the Frame millimeters.

Why 80 small units? Why not 10, 67, or 432? Why were finer measurements needed in the first place? This is still cherry-picking and an arbitrary assignment of units.

 

[Jiri]

In a review of a book on the subject, I find this curious passage:
Quote:
Surely it is important for the reader to know that the vast majority of the hundreds of animal and human images from La Marche were "defaced" by a mass of finely incised lines that make reaching an understanding of the original drawing an enormous visual challenge.

Here's another use of Jiri's drawing without attribution, though I imagine the general tone of the site would be to his liking.

By the way, a final question for Jiri. Is the figure in question on a wall, or on a portable stone tablet, and if the latter, is there any indication of its original size? I gather that some of those tablets were quite small, which could make even minor errors of measurement critical with relation to proportion.

The figure is on one of the 1,500 La Marche tablets. If you look at my measurements of the frame, you'll get an idea of its size, just bear in mind that those measurements are double lifesize. So, the circuit is 61.3 mms long, so if it were a circle, its diameter would be about 20 cm

"even minor errors of measurement critical with relation to proportion"

Absolutely! That's why I worked on at least 2x lifesize copies. Working with lifesize would make such fine work impossible for me, and I dare presume the artist as well - yet, the fact is that the design is that fine a work.. How was the feat achieved? You know my opinion..

 

[Jiri]

Ok, I did a little fun with math and picture tonight
I found a random picture on my HD, greyscaled it and set up the "obvious" frame.
Measurment ensued. Check if this is close to Jiri's method everyone
I did origional measurement in MM, but then realized this was in America so I should convert to inches.

View attachment 6496

A-B 0.56
B-C 2.73
C-D 2.79
D-E 2.85
E-F 1.41
F-G 0.59
G-H 1.29
H-I 3.89
I-J 0.91
J-A 1.31


Now lets look

Obviously the lengths from B-C and C-D are almost e, so I must have been chaneling something

E-F, followed by F-G is 14159, the 2nd through 6th digits of Pi

But if you look at E-F alone, the answer is clear 1.41 is roughly equal to the square route of two, I must have been channeling a Pathagorean when I took this picture. It also makes a nifty five pointed star, just like what the pathagoreans used as a symbol!!! How cool is that.

If however, you want to be worldly and use MM, you get

A-B 14.22
B-C 69.42
C-D 71.11
D-E 72.42
E-F 36
F-G 15
G-H 33
H-I 98.85
I-J 23.34
J-A 33.42

Well, J-A and B-C both contain 42, the answer to life the universe and everything, as well as the number of nomes in ancient Egypt. Apparently Narmer was also involved in the picture!!!!! Cool one fo the first people to unite upper and lower Egypt!!

If we add A-B, B-C, I-J, and J-A (wraps around) we get 140 (round off some there) which obviously represents 1.4, roughly the square route of 2 again!!!


Now the diagonals in inches
H-C 5.95
A-E 6.56
J-D 5.23
C-E 5.23
H-D 4.97
, add all of those up and you get 27, which is obviously what I meant to represent e.
Even better, if you take 5.23 and square it (since their are two) you get 27 again!!! (rounding because its just not important really)

Now look at the decimal places on the mm lengths of the diagonals:

H-C 151.23
A-E 166.68
J-D 133.54
C-E 133.54
H-D 126.47

No you are not seeing things, that is 68 adn 54, what is that you ask? Well 68 is hex code for T and 54 is hex code for h, the first two letters of my first name!!! I was meant to find it !!

Now look to the inch measure of E-F, 41!!! yea that's hex for A!!

As far as I know I am the only Thaddeus who spells the short form of his name Thadd, with two d's, so the fact that we have 54 is really amazing. See the hex code for d is 44 and D is 64, so 54 is the nice even middle, and it appears TWICE!!! (J-D, C-E) Obviously this is spelling out ThAdd, that's me and only me!!!


And there you have it

Congratulations!
I suggest posting your masterpiece to the whole internet! Just don't show it to your doctor.

 

[Hokulele]

Oh one more point on compass directions. You are assuming that the people who drew the Nazca lines were using a Western compass. Many Native American and Mesoamerican tribes and civilizations used 5 "cardinal directions" (as do several Asian cultures). Native Hawaiians had no compass points at all, but used directions referring to the landscape, "mauka" (towards the mountain and "makai" (towards the sea). There may be astronomical links between orientations of archeological artifacts, but not necessarily any links between these artifacts and modern directional calculations.

 

[Jiri]

Oh one more point on compass directions. You are assuming that the people who drew the Nazca lines were using a Western compass. Many Native American and Mesoamerican tribes and civilizations used 5 "cardinal directions" (as do several Asian cultures). Native Hawaiians had no compass points at all, but used directions referring to the landscape, "mauka" (towards the mountain and "makai" (towards the sea). There may be astronomical links between orientations of archeological artifacts, but not necessarily any links between these artifacts and modern directional calculations.

That is all very nice, thank you, but the system of the monkey glyph at Nazca generates its x,y-axes, which then coincide with the cardinal directions. I must go with what's given.
Because framing parts of the monkey between these directions was so successful, it could be enormously interesting to apply that same principle to other things at Nazca, too. One never knows..

 

[Paulhoff]

Paul

 

[Belz...]

Am I the only one who wants to see Jiri's "lineholders" ??