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 Jim

this is the stuff you were throwing at me when we first met started to correspond on the net. It has taken a while to get into it and the Sarsens seem a bit of a nightmare because of all that has happened to them but.

'Flinders Petrie measured the Sarsen circle to the inside edge of the each stone: 1167.9 ± 0.7 diameter He believed this indicated a diameter of 100 Roman feet, because he had found 11.68 imperial inches was a length the Romans had used in Britain. Flinders Petrie did not believe the Romans had constructed Stonehenge but he was of the view the Roman measure was ancient. He wrote ‘Not that this shows Stonehenge to be post-Roman, as the unit was the great Etrurian and Cyclopean unit, unit derived from Egypt, and it may have been introduced at any date into Britain’ (p23). '

So it went one way or the other but certainly the same system. The 'Roman' foot has many incarnations and this one supports the idea that they hid base 100 in plain sight.

It is a variation on the base unit the 12 inch English foot and tells us so much about the systems they were using and produces units that are meaningless to history based metrologists but significant to non historical systems analysts.

2 to the power n is super significant within the systems that appear to have been developed and 11.68 give us... plus 0,32 inches one English foot.32 is 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2.

256 falls into the same category.

11.68 / 0.32 = 36.5 and 12/0.32 = 37.5 [n/(n-1)]

320 is one of the roots of these ancient systems and produces the rod from the mile.

5280 / 320 = 16.5

5440 / 320 = 17

The rod x 6 produces the base 100 equivalent for the system

16.5 x 6 = 99 the imperial

17 x 6 = 102 Thom.

16 x 6 = 96 Welsh

17.5 x 6 = 105 Roman

18,5 x 6 = 111 Scottish.

0.32 can be used to understand the megalithic yard and its imperial equivalent as

32.64 x 33/34 = 31.68 important wuithin Michell's canon.

32.64 / 0.32 = 102

31.68 / 0.32 = 99.

If as is suggested the diameter is 99 feet then based on the unit of 0.99 of a foot being 11.88 inches then base 100 is again hidden.

So we have a unit of 11.88 inches that is a variation on the 12 inch foot.

11.88 inches works with the imperial system so what does 12 inches work with?

5280 / 0.99 = 5333.333r This is the hidden base 100 system i am always banging on about.

5333.333r / 320 = 16.666r x 6 = 100.

Sweet , systematic and sensible 11.88 inches works with the imperial not 12 inches as this is the base 100 unit as the evidence you present suggests. This is a point that i never seem able to get across to anyone, it is a game changer in respect of understanding these systems.

99 imperial using pi as 22/7

100 hidden system using pi as 3.1416

102 Thom using Pi as 40.8/13.

The Aubrey as 897.60 x 3.5 = 3141.6.

The line between the imperial and Thom is defined by 275 imperial to 272 Thom so 102 to 99 holds but is deceptive.

All from 0.32 of an inch using a systems based perspective.

If the Roman foot is in imperial feet it becomes 0.97333r

divide this by 100 - 97.333r = 2.666r and the result is 0.365 so x 100 = 365 days it is a really wonderful and simple association to the solar year as you point out and is Egyptian, they used 365 days and Petrie says the link is Egyptian, not us, so who is going to argue?

The unit 1/9 comes into play with 0.97333r / 0.111r = 8.76

The Aubrey is 8.976 - 8.76 = 0.216 the sacred nuber you speak of.

From working with Peter Harris on his newly discovered unit of Ancient English measure this unit of 2.666r appeared and it chimes with imperial pi as follows. Peter is in exactly the same position now that Thom was all those years ago.

66/56 x 2.666r = 22/7. So 132/56 x 2.666r = 44/7 Peter's unit is 16499/16500 x 66/56 no one is listening to him but his unit is valis as root 2 curtailed 14.142 inches.

'There is an interesting coincidence with Flinders Petrie’s diameter of 1168 imperial inches. If his diameter of 1168 imperial inches is multiplied by the Babylonian value for pi (3.125), then the circumference of the Sarsen circle equals 3650 imperial inches—an interesting coincidence with the number 365. Gerald Hawkins (1989) says ‘The Sarsen circle diameter is 99 feet, 1 inch, measured at the center of the stones’ (p52). So here is another estimate for the diameter of the Sarsen circle, and a remarkable result: 99 imperial feet = 90 Saxon feet Here, a 90 Saxon feet diameter gives a circumference of nearly twice the square root of two; that is 1.414213 × 2 = 2.82842, more closely when the approximate for pi of 22/7 is used: 90 Saxon feet × 22/7 = 282.857 Saxon feet. '

It is all falling together beautifully Jim and supports the calculations in 'The Eclipse' that they used an 8 x 365.25 = 2922 day periob at SH.

If 0.97333r represents 365 days what number represents 365.25 and the answer is

0.97333r / 365 x 365.25 = 0.974 exactly.

0.974 - 0.97333r = 0.00066666r and use half of this unit

0.974 / 0.0003333r = 2922.

To represent 365.25 days the Roman foot needs to be increased to 11.688 inches

So the systems works like this as one interpretation

0.266666667 Base unit a constant
365 Solar days a variable
97.33333333 Diameter feet
1168 Diameter inches
3650 circumferece using pi as 3.125 = solar days x 10.

using 360 solar days

0.266666667 Base unit
360 Solar days
96 Diameter feet another incarnation of the Roman foot
1152 Diameter inches
3600 circumferece using pi as 3.125

using 100 solar days

0.266666667 Base unit
100 Solar days
26.66666667 Diameter feet
320 Diameter inches
1000 circumferece using pi as 3.125

So one solar day in this model is 10 inches but at the GP is is 100 inches, it is the same system efefctively.

cheers

Dave

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 18-Jul-18 11:49 by DavidK.

Subject Views Written By Posted
Aubrey circle and Sarsens. A Link 891 593 molder 16-Jul-18 23:03
Re: Aubrey circle and Sarsens. A Link 891 164 DavidK 17-Jul-18 05:16
Re: Aubrey circle and Sarsens. A Link 891 152 molder 17-Jul-18 08:10
Re: Aubrey circle and Sarsens. A Link 891 112 DavidK 17-Jul-18 08:35
Re: Aubrey circle and Sarsens. A Link 891 180 Manu 17-Jul-18 06:03
Re: Aubrey circle and Sarsens. A Link 891 138 DavidK 17-Jul-18 07:26
Re: Aubrey circle and Sarsens. A Link 891 211 DavidK 17-Jul-18 10:01
Re: Aubrey circle and Sarsens. A Link 891 178 Manu 17-Jul-18 17:41
Re: Aubrey circle and Sarsens. A Link 891 131 molder 17-Jul-18 22:06
Re: Aubrey circle and Sarsens. A Link 891 139 DavidK 17-Jul-18 22:16
Re: Aubrey circle and Sarsens. A Link 891 106 Manu 17-Jul-18 22:19
Re: Aubrey circle and Sarsens. A Link 891 111 DavidK 17-Jul-18 22:35
Re: Aubrey circle and Sarsens. A Link 891 121 Manu 17-Jul-18 22:44
Re: Aubrey circle and Sarsens. A Link 891 142 DavidK 17-Jul-18 22:49
Re:Coincidences Stonehenge 160 molder 18-Jul-18 02:03
Re: Re:Coincidences Stonehenge 247 DavidK 18-Jul-18 10:02

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.