Mysteries :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums

For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board).

Hi Stephen

you say

'Good post and data, but if only things were so simple concerning the Meter's definition and the SOL it is fixed by. Unfortunately, the current definition of the Meter isn't 39.37 ins., but a host of trailing digits that skews things up considerably. The ratio of your differential using 39.37/39.375 is a 1/7874th. part, but the actual differential between the current Meter and the Old Meter is a 1/8024th. part. There is no reconciliation between the Current definition of the Meter and the old Imperial Metric system. '

this is a bit 'off piste' for me and i am not sure about where the SOL fits in with the French metre but I know that SI for the metre to imperial seems to be very sloppy.

100 / 39.37 is 2.54000508 and this is very sloppy but 39.37 works perfectly with 132000000 feet to produce 40000000 metres as the Polar circ. The calc is exact.

The question is why does this work so perfectly using Jim Wakefilds units and 39.37?

I see now how 175 and 176 produces your ancient metre but it does not produce the equatorial circumference. Both calculations work inside Michell's canon so i don't see how my calcs are affected. Your definition gives the speed of light and my calc gives the French modern metre which fits exactly into the canon using 39.37 and 39.60.

The point i make is that the French metre is exactly 39.60 x 2.52525252525 cms and this means that the french system is actually the imperial in disguise, scaled down by 39.37/39.60.

The inch here is 2.54000508 x 39.37 / 39.60 and this is exactly 2.5252525252525r. This is a stunning calc in my book producing numerical harmony from something that is real dog's breakfast.

This only works with 2.54000508 the messy fraction as 2.54 is too small.

Surely this tells us that the SI definitions are flawed for the foot to metric conversions because they are not exact.

I have not come across anyone who gets this yet but what it means is the French have just scaled down the imperial system using 39.37 x 2.54 and this is flawed.

The metre should be restated as 2.525252525r x 39.60 units and then there are 40000000 x 39.60 units in the circumference 1584000000 units not imperial inches but metric inches ( not actually invented yet).

This gives the polar circumference 1584000000 / 12 = 132000000 units.Not imperial units.

The difference betweeen the units is 39.37/39.60 and is 0.994191919 and is an important number in metre pendulum theory.

It is a difficult scalar calculation as is used at the GP based on Hugh's calculations.

It takes nothing away from 39.6 x 175/176 this is equally valid and part of the same Michell canon.

39.375 is 131250000

39.370 is 131233333.33333r

difference is 16666.6666666666666666r numerical harmony we are both singing the same tune.

Richard

going back to the drawing board on this because it does not address what you originally posted alough it dioes address the relationship between the old meter and the french one.

this is the polar crcumference

[answers.yahoo.com]

40008 kilometers.

i can test your calc against this.

WIKI The metre (British and original French spelling) or meter (American spelling) (from the Greek noun μέτρον, "measure") is the base unit of length in the International System of Units (SI). The SI unit symbol is m.[1] The metre is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 second

Speed of light definition. ... The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 second. This definition fixed the speed of light in vacuum at exactly299792458 metres per second (≈300000 km/s).

Using your numbers i get 40009 kilometers as the polar circ in your calcs so they are well supportd and as you say quite remarkable.

Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02-Jan-18 16:14 by DavidK.

you say

'Good post and data, but if only things were so simple concerning the Meter's definition and the SOL it is fixed by. Unfortunately, the current definition of the Meter isn't 39.37 ins., but a host of trailing digits that skews things up considerably. The ratio of your differential using 39.37/39.375 is a 1/7874th. part, but the actual differential between the current Meter and the Old Meter is a 1/8024th. part. There is no reconciliation between the Current definition of the Meter and the old Imperial Metric system. '

this is a bit 'off piste' for me and i am not sure about where the SOL fits in with the French metre but I know that SI for the metre to imperial seems to be very sloppy.

100 / 39.37 is 2.54000508 and this is very sloppy but 39.37 works perfectly with 132000000 feet to produce 40000000 metres as the Polar circ. The calc is exact.

The question is why does this work so perfectly using Jim Wakefilds units and 39.37?

I see now how 175 and 176 produces your ancient metre but it does not produce the equatorial circumference. Both calculations work inside Michell's canon so i don't see how my calcs are affected. Your definition gives the speed of light and my calc gives the French modern metre which fits exactly into the canon using 39.37 and 39.60.

The point i make is that the French metre is exactly 39.60 x 2.52525252525 cms and this means that the french system is actually the imperial in disguise, scaled down by 39.37/39.60.

The inch here is 2.54000508 x 39.37 / 39.60 and this is exactly 2.5252525252525r. This is a stunning calc in my book producing numerical harmony from something that is real dog's breakfast.

This only works with 2.54000508 the messy fraction as 2.54 is too small.

Surely this tells us that the SI definitions are flawed for the foot to metric conversions because they are not exact.

I have not come across anyone who gets this yet but what it means is the French have just scaled down the imperial system using 39.37 x 2.54 and this is flawed.

The metre should be restated as 2.525252525r x 39.60 units and then there are 40000000 x 39.60 units in the circumference 1584000000 units not imperial inches but metric inches ( not actually invented yet).

This gives the polar circumference 1584000000 / 12 = 132000000 units.Not imperial units.

The difference betweeen the units is 39.37/39.60 and is 0.994191919 and is an important number in metre pendulum theory.

It is a difficult scalar calculation as is used at the GP based on Hugh's calculations.

It takes nothing away from 39.6 x 175/176 this is equally valid and part of the same Michell canon.

39.375 is 131250000

39.370 is 131233333.33333r

difference is 16666.6666666666666666r numerical harmony we are both singing the same tune.

Richard

going back to the drawing board on this because it does not address what you originally posted alough it dioes address the relationship between the old meter and the french one.

this is the polar crcumference

[answers.yahoo.com]

40008 kilometers.

i can test your calc against this.

WIKI The metre (British and original French spelling) or meter (American spelling) (from the Greek noun μέτρον, "measure") is the base unit of length in the International System of Units (SI). The SI unit symbol is m.[1] The metre is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 second

Speed of light definition. ... The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 second. This definition fixed the speed of light in vacuum at exactly299792458 metres per second (≈300000 km/s).

Using your numbers i get 40009 kilometers as the polar circ in your calcs so they are well supportd and as you say quite remarkable.

Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02-Jan-18 16:14 by DavidK.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.