Mysteries :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums

almost 100% agree but if you use Berriman's measures this works out exactly. 0.3704 is not quite right. 14.58 is not quite right and 20.62 is not quite right. It all has to be exact and the royal cubit is 20.625 inches as 14.58333r x 99/70.

this is 20 digits(one remen) as 14.58333r the digit is 0.7291666r x 54 is the metre = 39.375, this is the one used by Magisterchessmut.This is the one that was used by the designers not the French one.

This can be converted into centimetres because if 39.375 is 100 centimetres then 14.58333r is 37.037037037r or 0.370370r against your 0.3704.

So your figures can be adjusted

The cubit is 37.037037r x 99/70 = 52.38095238 not 52.38 centimetres

52.38095238 x 7 =146.666r exactly the eclipse unit.

37.037037 is the remen

111120 metres / 0.3704 x 0.37037037 = 111111.111r metres

everything is worked out exactly to Berriman who starts with 14.58 as his remen but alters it for his Egyptian remen.

I am not making this up it is directly from his book.

Berriman suggests that the relationship between the circle and inscribed square length are 9 to 10 being 1.11111r

He has the metre as 39.375 and the cubit as 20.625. Root 2 as 99/70.

He has the Egyptians using 1.296296296r being 35/27 x 20 x 1000 x 99/70 = 36666.666r.

the first line in his book

So what you are doing without realising is repeating Berriman's calculations to support his argument without quite getting them to agree his.

Berriman was an Oxford professor and had access to the Oxford library and his studies were his private work.

The point i am trying to make here is that until we all realise whose analysis we are using or almost using correctly the same theories will appear with different calculations over and over again.

This was happening over 10 years ago on this very website, nothing has changed.

Michell and Neal use Berriman's figures but Neal gives him scant credit and actually says his findings are almost miraculous because he got his measures wrong.

111111.1111111111111 x 360 = 40000000 so the french got one bit correct.( Berriman's 10/9 bit.)

The square inside the circle of 40000000 is 36000000. This is Michell's canon.You could also say it is Thom's canon.

As well as being geodetic it is astronomical and geometrical.

Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 12-Dec-19 13:45 by DavidK.

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).

*'Given .5238 meters, or 20.62 inches, for the length of the royal cubit, the length of the remen is .3704 meters or 14.58 inches. The meridian circumference of the earth is 40,008,000 meters or 111,133 meters per average degree of latitude. 300,000 remen times .3704 equals 111,120 meters. 5000 remen equals one minute of latitude and 500 remen equals one tenth of one minute of latitude. Given 20.62 inches for the length of the royal cubit, the remen expresses the length of an average degree of latitude with greater accuracy than the modern meter, that was fixed before the exact length of the meridian circumference was known to its creators, and unlike the meter, the remen is in unity with minutes and degrees of latitude. Archaeological and textual evidence from throughout ancient Egyptian history, as well as textual evidence from ancient Greek and Roman sources, support a conclusion that the correspondence between the length of the remen and royal cubit, and the meridian length of Egypt and the earth, was known to its creators.’*almost 100% agree but if you use Berriman's measures this works out exactly. 0.3704 is not quite right. 14.58 is not quite right and 20.62 is not quite right. It all has to be exact and the royal cubit is 20.625 inches as 14.58333r x 99/70.

this is 20 digits(one remen) as 14.58333r the digit is 0.7291666r x 54 is the metre = 39.375, this is the one used by Magisterchessmut.This is the one that was used by the designers not the French one.

This can be converted into centimetres because if 39.375 is 100 centimetres then 14.58333r is 37.037037037r or 0.370370r against your 0.3704.

So your figures can be adjusted

The cubit is 37.037037r x 99/70 = 52.38095238 not 52.38 centimetres

52.38095238 x 7 =146.666r exactly the eclipse unit.

37.037037 is the remen

111120 metres / 0.3704 x 0.37037037 = 111111.111r metres

everything is worked out exactly to Berriman who starts with 14.58 as his remen but alters it for his Egyptian remen.

I am not making this up it is directly from his book.

Berriman suggests that the relationship between the circle and inscribed square length are 9 to 10 being 1.11111r

He has the metre as 39.375 and the cubit as 20.625. Root 2 as 99/70.

He has the Egyptians using 1.296296296r being 35/27 x 20 x 1000 x 99/70 = 36666.666r.

the first line in his book

*'This inquiry reveals the oldest extant weights and measures linked by significant magnitude ratios to those current in historical times, and suggests that this ancient metrology was geodetic in origin.*So what you are doing without realising is repeating Berriman's calculations to support his argument without quite getting them to agree his.

Berriman was an Oxford professor and had access to the Oxford library and his studies were his private work.

The point i am trying to make here is that until we all realise whose analysis we are using or almost using correctly the same theories will appear with different calculations over and over again.

This was happening over 10 years ago on this very website, nothing has changed.

Michell and Neal use Berriman's figures but Neal gives him scant credit and actually says his findings are almost miraculous because he got his measures wrong.

111111.1111111111111 x 360 = 40000000 so the french got one bit correct.( Berriman's 10/9 bit.)

The square inside the circle of 40000000 is 36000000. This is Michell's canon.You could also say it is Thom's canon.

As well as being geodetic it is astronomical and geometrical.

Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 12-Dec-19 13:45 by DavidK.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.