Mysteries :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums

(1) is not correct based on our discussions and the error is very signifiacnt and it is mixing up Petrie's findings with Berriman's so it is very misleading.

That the standard digit is to be fixed at 0.729 ( this is 3x3x3x3x3x3/1000) I think you should mention this.

Berriman did not do this calculation, i did it using his findings and it is mega significant.

0.729 x 20 = 14.58 x 140 / 99 = 20.61818181818r imperial inches being Neal's Royal cubit x 1760 =36288.

The reason this is so important is because this is what Neal says in Opus 2. Basically he says the ancients did not use root 2 and dumps Berriman.

20.62 - 20.61818r = 0.00181818r meaning the two units are in the ratio 11341 to 11340 so this explains the difference between Petrie's cubit and Neal's and also refute's Neal's claims about root 2.

I have looked at what the problems are with modern metrology and this one is huge. Petrie is 11341 and Neal is 11340 and his unit is reconciled to Berriman's methodology.All 3 are correct but some are more correct than others.No clues for guessing!!

So you should change the cubit value to 20.618181r to avoid any confusion and retain consistency with Neal and Berriman. You will have to explain where 140/99 comes from.

So the two Royal cubit values are

0.729 x 20 x 140/99 =

0.7291666r x 20 x 99/70 =

The two meter values are cubits x 1.90909090r so 39.66 and 39.375.

Also 1 degree is 40000000/360 metres and this should be altered because you know this is the better option

The arura proposal will only work if you add 14.58333r and 14.58 together and divide by 2 the x 100 and square

The cubit used in the calc will also have to be [(20.625 + 20.618181r) / 2 x 100] and square

I have checked the calc and it works.

The reason is that squaring the two cubits in isolation means that root 2 actual is not realised so they need to be added and then averaged to get real root 2.

In terms of circumferences you will be working with 40000000 x 39.375 and also 40000000 x 39.366 and this will impact on your current analysis

It means you will be working with a mean metre of 39.3705 so close to the French one it is virtually identical.

Obviously you don't have to do anything it is your call but MC uses 39.375 and Jim Wakefield uses 20.625 and consistency is the best way forward.

20.625/39.375 is the Royal cubit in metres

cheers

D

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).

*This coincidence of results from three probable hypotheses, two of which are absolutely*

independent of each other, shows that the assumptions are correct: -

(1) That the standard digit is to be fixed at .729 inch when the cubit is at 20.62 inches.

(2) That the remen of the cubit rods is to be fixed at 20 of the real digits, or at 14.58 inches.

(3) That the half arura is named remen owing to its being a square of 100 remen of the cubit

rods (while the arura itself is a square of 100 cubits).independent of each other, shows that the assumptions are correct: -

(1) That the standard digit is to be fixed at .729 inch when the cubit is at 20.62 inches.

(2) That the remen of the cubit rods is to be fixed at 20 of the real digits, or at 14.58 inches.

(3) That the half arura is named remen owing to its being a square of 100 remen of the cubit

rods (while the arura itself is a square of 100 cubits).

(1) is not correct based on our discussions and the error is very signifiacnt and it is mixing up Petrie's findings with Berriman's so it is very misleading.

That the standard digit is to be fixed at 0.729 ( this is 3x3x3x3x3x3/1000) I think you should mention this.

Berriman did not do this calculation, i did it using his findings and it is mega significant.

0.729 x 20 = 14.58 x 140 / 99 = 20.61818181818r imperial inches being Neal's Royal cubit x 1760 =36288.

The reason this is so important is because this is what Neal says in Opus 2. Basically he says the ancients did not use root 2 and dumps Berriman.

20.62 - 20.61818r = 0.00181818r meaning the two units are in the ratio 11341 to 11340 so this explains the difference between Petrie's cubit and Neal's and also refute's Neal's claims about root 2.

I have looked at what the problems are with modern metrology and this one is huge. Petrie is 11341 and Neal is 11340 and his unit is reconciled to Berriman's methodology.All 3 are correct but some are more correct than others.No clues for guessing!!

So you should change the cubit value to 20.618181r to avoid any confusion and retain consistency with Neal and Berriman. You will have to explain where 140/99 comes from.

So the two Royal cubit values are

0.729 x 20 x 140/99 =

**20.6181818r**

0.7291666r x 20 x 99/70 =

**20.625**(0.7291666r is 315/432 or 630/864 or 945 / 1296)

The two meter values are cubits x 1.90909090r so 39.66 and 39.375.

Also 1 degree is 40000000/360 metres and this should be altered because you know this is the better option

The arura proposal will only work if you add 14.58333r and 14.58 together and divide by 2 the x 100 and square

The cubit used in the calc will also have to be [(20.625 + 20.618181r) / 2 x 100] and square

I have checked the calc and it works.

The reason is that squaring the two cubits in isolation means that root 2 actual is not realised so they need to be added and then averaged to get real root 2.

In terms of circumferences you will be working with 40000000 x 39.375 and also 40000000 x 39.366 and this will impact on your current analysis

It means you will be working with a mean metre of 39.3705 so close to the French one it is virtually identical.

Obviously you don't have to do anything it is your call but MC uses 39.375 and Jim Wakefield uses 20.625 and consistency is the best way forward.

20.625/39.375 is the Royal cubit in metres

cheers

D

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.