Mysteries :  The Official 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). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
"Sacred Circumference", "Sacred 100 miles", "25 units", "366"

David, all of this is a second revival of Isaac Newton's "Sacred Cubit" of 25 inch which John Taylor picked up 200 years later to proclaim the "Pyramid Inch" in an attempt to Christianize the Great Pyramid. Piazzi-Smith got involved because his wife ate the cotton candy. And the rest is history. A great astronomer tainted the field of archaeoastronomy and that aftertaste on the palates of archeologists lingers to this day.

Here are the astronomic facts:

Orbital periods are proportional to the third power of the semi-major orbital axis in any elliptical orbit, whose degree of flattening in turn depends on the eccentricity of the orbit. The ancients could have gotten a sense of this by counting the days from spring equinox to fall equinox (now ~186 days) and realizing that it is longer than the time from fall to spring (~179 days): You get 186-179/365 = 0.019.
Eccentricity is a function of orbital precession. 12,000 years ago until time of Stonehenge it was about that, i.e. 0.02 or 1/50. Now it is about 1/60.

A circle is 360 degrees/21600 minutes, but a sidereal Earth year is 365.25636 solar days or 366.25678 sidereal days. Earth's orbit is not a circle but a very slight ellipse with a current eccentricity of 0.0167, ~1/60. This almost perfect numerical match (circle in degrees and year in days) is what gave rise to the search for a metric which measures the movement of the heavenly bodies. This search began a long time ago. In England, it was John Greaves, who thought he might find it at the Great Pyramid.

An approximate conversion between a circle and the sidereal year counted in solar days is 731/20 / 72 x 360. Counting in sidereal days the conversion is ~731/4/ 72. [Note, the superscripts denote fractions, not root powers]
That is close to 73/72 which is where your n/(n-1) idea comes from. From here, you can model any fractional deviation by finding the right n/(n-1). Here, you set yourself up for a huge potential pitfall unless you can prove that the conversion was knowingly employed. I am up against the very same challenge as you are (89/88, 57/56). I know here I can find the answer, which is why I am going to Egypt in fall.

Since the imperial system is based on the duodecimal way of counting, it is conducive to converting in the following numerical ways:
1) 1 degree is 1 inch: Then a circle is 30 feet
2) 1 arcminute is 1 inch: Then a circle is 1800 feet
3) 1 arcsecond is 1 inch: Then a circle is 108,000 feet

Cycles can be modeled with circles!

A Saros Cycle divided into sidereal years each 366 sidereal days long yields ~18 such periods, or ~1800 periods of 3.66 sidereal days...

...or 450 periods of 4 x 3.66 days = 14.63 days.

This is where days and feet become conflated. In other words, monumental design based on astronomy involves assigning a certain number of units of the metric to a certain number of days, the ancient measure of astronomical time. In this case, it's 4 feet per 3.66 days on a Saros cycle 6585 days long. The burden of proof is to show that this was intentional and not just in the mind of the modern researcher.

With all that in mind, here is what you have done:

A Saros Cycle, the time between two eclipses, is 6585 days long which could be divided into 90 731/6 day-long segments or 45 1461/3 day-long segments....or 450 segments each 14.63 days long. Why do I emphasize "could be". Because that is in the eye of the beholder, the It is your job to prove that this is how the ancients also put it together. Did they subdivide the cycle, if they recognized it, like that? How do you prove that?

This numerical identity is the basis for the idea that a duodecimal metric like the imperial system may have been at play at Stonehenge. I cannot comment on the Stonehenge part of this theory. I only focus on the Egyptian side of your theory...the idea that such a metric was exported from prehistoric England to (pre-)dynastic Egypt and used to design the Great Pyramid.

From that, you have built a bridge to the Great Pyramid's 1760 rc perimeter. How did you do it?
You divided 1760rc by 120 and came up with 14.67rc (~25 feet, the "Sacred Pyramid Foot" in this case no longer John Taylor's "Sacred Pyramid Inch"m with sacred denoting a heavenly origin), a close match to the above 14.63 days. Close but not perfect. Which is why you adjusted with 450/449. Red Flag Number 1 What is your proof that the ancients recognized this adjustment and why did they need to perform it in the first place?

Moving on. Why did you divide 1760 by 120? Because the imperial foot is 12 inch long and you are looking for a duodecimal metric into which you wish to fit the Great Pyramid.

And because you see this close numerical match, you (and Jim and others) have concluded that this cannot be coincidental. Red Flag Number 2. The usual leap of logic in alternative historical arguments is that if something cannot be coincidental (because the odds are too small), it must be intentional. The fact that some things occur incidentally in monumental design, i.e. neither due to random chance or intentional choices, is left out of this brand of logic. For example, designing a monument with a square foot-print does not mean the designer knew that the diagonal is proportional to √2. The appearance of √2 must neither be intentional nor is it by random chance. Its occurrence is incidental to the square design. Proving intent goes beyond demonstrating incidental occurrences of things to which you attach special meaning.

Red Flag Number 3: The conversions.
Yes, the numbers are close, but not perfect. That's why you need the conversions, the n/(n-1). That is how the small variances are smoothed. But the problem is you have to prove the ancients were aware and performed these conversions. They make sense to you, but that's not the same thing. I don't have to tell you this. But worse yet, the need to convert ruins the entire argument for a global standard. It's like a one-world currency. No need to exchange money. Your theory amounts to saying different prehistoric cultures imported a one-world money and decided to still exchange it into local money to buy stuff. Isn't it more likely all these cultures had their own money to begin with...independent parallel development? The idea of conversions doesn't help the lost founder civilization theory. It weakens the case, if anything, if you want to claim that the metric was part of the lost heritage.

Add to that this:


"However one of the advantages of my approach is that I started trying to prove Thom's findings so rather than want to rubbish anyone's findings usually the opposite is the case. So if i find someone' work aligns with what is being looked for then it can be embraced, for example Hugh Franklin's work, Peter Harris work and of course Thom and now most importantly John Michell."

Red Flag Number 4. This translates into confirmation bias at the exclusion of anything which contradicts it. You set yourself up for self-deception, David.

Red Flag Number 5: Egyptian monuments should be teeming with things 12 inch long, if the imperial system was imported from prehistoric England. So far, none of you folks have even supplied one example while I found two examples which should/could have been 12 inch long but are not.

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 18-Jun-18 20:43 by Manu.

Options: ReplyQuote

Subject Views Written By Posted
Understanding Michell's Canon and Thom using n/(n-1) 711 DavidK 10-Jun-18 09:11
The n/(n-1) ancient systems 103 DavidK 11-Jun-18 06:24
the ancients are laughing at us 118 DavidK 11-Jun-18 06:57
Stonehenge using 561/560 118 DavidK 12-Jun-18 06:25
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 97 magisterchessmutt 16-Jun-18 06:26
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 101 DavidK 17-Jun-18 06:27
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 115 Manu 17-Jun-18 17:04
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 96 DavidK 18-Jun-18 12:34
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 92 rodz111 18-Jun-18 19:02
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 85 Manu 18-Jun-18 19:56
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 84 DavidK 18-Jun-18 22:13
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 89 Manu 19-Jun-18 03:19
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 96 DavidK 19-Jun-18 05:38
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 81 Manu 19-Jun-18 07:04
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 91 DavidK 19-Jun-18 10:42
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 117 Manu 19-Jun-18 18:11
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 159 DavidK 20-Jun-18 19:12
Understanding “n/n-1” 111 Dr. Troglodyte 11-Jun-18 16:50
Re: Understanding “n/n-1” 110 DavidK 11-Jun-18 18:35
Re: Understanding Michell's Canon and Thom using n/(n-1) 230 rodz111 12-Jun-18 19:48
Re: Understanding Michell's Canon and Thom using n/(n-1) 93 DavidK 13-Jun-18 07:08
Re: Understanding Michell's Canon and Thom using n/(n-1) 97 DavidK 13-Jun-18 07:30
GP perimeter using n/(n-1) 106 DavidK 13-Jun-18 13:38
The sekhed using n/(n-1) 126 DavidK 13-Jun-18 09:14
Re: Understanding Michell's Canon and Thom using n/(n-1) 110 Sirfiroth 19-Jun-18 00:17
Re: Understanding Michell's Canon and Thom using n/(n-1) 89 DavidK 19-Jun-18 20:17
Re: Understanding Michell's Canon and Thom using n/(n-1) 90 Sirfiroth 20-Jun-18 03:12

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.