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, David

Looks like you've booted up another thread I won't be able to catch up on without my head exploding. If words were pennies we'd all be gazillionaires :-)

DavidK Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Virtually everyone on this website will know that

> the GP appears to be designed as 280 height 440

> base side and this is 2 pi as 22/7

You know me, I'm quite sure that trying to make all of ancient Egypt into whole numbers of cubits was Petrie's downfall as a metrologist and that the road to Hades is a large even number of cubits wide, but enough of that. It's not why I'm replying here.

> There is another unit suggested in my book 'The

> Eclipse' and it is 3.1416.

>

> This can be presented as a smoothing of real pi by

> using Thom's megalithic inch of 0.816.

>

> Real Pi 3.141592654 / 0.816 = 3.849990997 rounding

> to 3.85

>

> 3.85 x 0.816 = 3.1416.

>

> This unit is hidden on page 47 of Thom's book

> 'Megalithic Sites in Britain'

You've probably figured out by now that offhand 3.849990997 is possibly an alternate take on that dreaded metrological mystery known in my work as "Dos Ellifinos" (my figure is 3.842777382 ft), and that of course the "Ellifino" is trying valiantly to be identified as a bona fide ancient metrological unit because it relationships to known ones very strongly imply that it would have been accepted as one, independent of any other evidence or lack thereof.

The standard "Ellifino" I work with is 19.21388691 and the double "Ellifino" is of course 19.21388691 x 2 = 384.2777382. 19.21388691 registers on my radar as (16 Remens x (Pi^2)) / 10^n.

Numbers in the range of the double "Ellifino" tend to resemble the reciprocal of the very important calendar number (this is not just the Maya here) 260, and at least some of them should probably be treated as if that's what they are.

There seems to be something very similar to the "Ellifino" that may be some kind of long form of it that has additional calendrical function, specifically (half Venus Cycle) / (Pi^2) / 10^n. To use the most obvious form of that in my work, that's

18983.99126 / (Pi^2) = 1.923480465 x 100.

The other main form of the half Venus Cycle that I use gives the reciprocal the outer sarcen circle radius:

18997.72194 / (Pi^2) = 1.924871674 x 100 = (1 / 51.95151515) x 1000 = (1 / ((120 x 2.720174976) / Pi)) x 10^n

Now there are still a lot of problems here, and one may be that if we choose to grapple with things at such a scope, we may not only need to sort out numbers into whose "school" they belong to, but what subdivisions of a particular "school" they belong to. I'm already working with two sets of calendar numbers here but there are constantly signs of several more that I still haven't mastered, and every formula I try to come up with tries to segregate these numbers in different ways rather than in harmonious ways.

Also, I can use the main value I use for the "Ellifino" as case in point as to some of what we're in for using the classic Vesica Piscis roots to define relationships between metrological units.

19.21388691 x sqrt 2 = 2.717253945 as

You see why I think they kicked sqrt 2, 3, and 5 in a literal sense right straight out of the math I use?

What I think is interesting is that, for example, if for a minute we humor Thom with his projected division of the bluestone "oval with corners" into 26 parts, and furthermore take him very literally that he has provided us with 260 / 10 thereby, and retrofit (260 x 2) / 10 into the equation for "large Ellifinos"

(1 / (260 x 2)) x (Pi^2) = 18980.00846, which I'm certain everyone must recognize as the canonical half Venus Cycle to remarkable accuracy.

So yeah, what can I do at this point but to dredge up that dusty old hypothesis that certain architecture was left rough in places even though it was well within the capabilities of the builders to do a much more polished job, because it may not have been out to establish absolute exactitude, but rather by being "rough around the edges" leaves room for multiple sets of valid numbers which can be very similar to one another.

Creative ambiguity, another mathematical art perfected by the ancients?

For my usual purposes, no doubt I'll generally want to take Thom's 26 divisions as meaning "25.7575758" (51.95151515 / 2) divisions, but see what can happen when I don't.

Numerous people's work may not be mutually exclusive when it comes to things like that, but again it may be a matter of successfully sorting things out into working systems. IMHO, ANY working system is nothing to take lightly because of the inherent difficulties, not to mention that most of us are making what must be some fairly insane demands on numbers in the first place in trying to create such all-encompassing grand schemes as we do - but anyone with a working system must have proven that such things are possible, the question now perhaps being just how many working systems are there?

I've gone back to the unsolved question of what an Eclipse Year is supposed to look like to someone who used the same math I do, I have two main candidates thus far but since they aren't separated by the 1.000723277 as my two primary sets of calendar numbers are, then I'm apparently still missing something. What's interesting, though, is that I think Stonehenge may be able to readily provide me with both figures were I not already working on it.

At this point I'm still completely unsure what to make of the following - when I had a go at the specks of data I have on Asian Pyramids, the numbers I get looked steeped in Megalithic Yards and/or Lunar calendar values, and something came up that has not only puzzled me ever since, but has started recurring in my experiments, for no good reason that I know of.

I have a side length value in my data for the "Zangkunchong" pyramid of "29.34 m" (I'm still trying to figure out if it may be a misplaced diagram of the "Tomb of the General").

[www.crystalinks.com]

That's 96.2598430 ft. It's half of an "Ellifino"-like number, 96.2598430 x 2 = 192.5196860 but is one of those numbers which goes "over the top" and exceeds 19000 when we try to multiply it by Pi^2 to make it into the half Venus Cycle/Mayan Long Count: 192.5196860 x Pi^2 = 19000.9314 / 10^n. Does anyone want to declare that the half Venus Cycle went that high? I already feel terrible that even a ratio as fine as 1.000723277 tries to add 17+ disposable days onto the canonical 18980 value.

Let's let the Cubiteers of Petrie's legacy have a minute to catch up and make 96.2598430 ft into 56 Royal Cubits of 1.718925760 ft each, bring on the controversy...

Now let's look at that diagonal - assuming symmetry, 96.2598430 x sqrt 2 = 136.1319755 ft = 272.2639510 / 2, which is why I'm also talking about Megalithic Yards in the context of Asian pyramids, ok?

What most interests me here may be that 1 / 96.2598430 = 1.038854801, and this number from raw data is suspiciously close to not only the 103.9030303 ft outer sarcen circle diameter I use for Stonehenge (51.95151515 x 2), but it's also suspiciously close to at least one more additional number, 1.038679451, which is the one that's started recurring.

It makes 1.038679451 look like it belongs in there somewhere that 360 / 1.038679451 = 346.5939363, which is one of the two current contenders among the numbers I use for the honor of representing a "346.620076 day" Eclipse Year. If we use 1.039030303 instead, it finds the other current nomination, 360 / 1.039030303 = 346.4769015.

I could only hope that maybe if I had a little more data on those Asian pyramids or more than this pea-sized brain of mine, maybe it would help to sort out what they mean by "272.2639510" - the Megalithic Yard, the Draconic Month, or are they wanting to give us an important lesson in both?

See, when I started thinking about Lunar themes there, I came up with the Meg Yard / reciprocal of the Lunar Year, which in my usual terms would be

2.720174976 / (1 / 353.9334578) = 96.27609351 = 1 / 1.038679452 to use the "Alternate e' Meg Yard" of 2.720174976

2.719256444 / (1 / 353.9334578) = 96.24358376 = 1 / 1.039030303 to use the "Incendental Meg Yard" of 2.719256444

And we might be able to retrofit 2.721223218 (Draconic Month = 27.212220817 days) into that successfully. What I'm thinking is basically that if the numbers I use are able to approximate the Draconic Month that well, why wouldn't they do so, even if the figure can be a little awkward to work with?

Pretty sure I'm looking at some working systems here, and that they are enthusiastically conveyed by at least some ancient architecture, including Stonehenge, but they look complex and hard to prove when there are things that haven't quite fallen into place yet like that.

I guess in summary what I mean to say is 'Ellifino how many "Ellifino"-like numbers are at large and what functions they are trying to serve, so be careful of them?

Very happy if you have a system of numbers that's a done deal. Still working on mine, lol.

Cheers!

Edited 10 time(s). Last edit at 03-Jan-20 23:15 by thinkitover.

Looks like you've booted up another thread I won't be able to catch up on without my head exploding. If words were pennies we'd all be gazillionaires :-)

DavidK Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Virtually everyone on this website will know that

> the GP appears to be designed as 280 height 440

> base side and this is 2 pi as 22/7

You know me, I'm quite sure that trying to make all of ancient Egypt into whole numbers of cubits was Petrie's downfall as a metrologist and that the road to Hades is a large even number of cubits wide, but enough of that. It's not why I'm replying here.

> There is another unit suggested in my book 'The

> Eclipse' and it is 3.1416.

>

> This can be presented as a smoothing of real pi by

> using Thom's megalithic inch of 0.816.

>

> Real Pi 3.141592654 / 0.816 = 3.849990997 rounding

> to 3.85

>

> 3.85 x 0.816 = 3.1416.

>

> This unit is hidden on page 47 of Thom's book

> 'Megalithic Sites in Britain'

You've probably figured out by now that offhand 3.849990997 is possibly an alternate take on that dreaded metrological mystery known in my work as "Dos Ellifinos" (my figure is 3.842777382 ft), and that of course the "Ellifino" is trying valiantly to be identified as a bona fide ancient metrological unit because it relationships to known ones very strongly imply that it would have been accepted as one, independent of any other evidence or lack thereof.

The standard "Ellifino" I work with is 19.21388691 and the double "Ellifino" is of course 19.21388691 x 2 = 384.2777382. 19.21388691 registers on my radar as (16 Remens x (Pi^2)) / 10^n.

Numbers in the range of the double "Ellifino" tend to resemble the reciprocal of the very important calendar number (this is not just the Maya here) 260, and at least some of them should probably be treated as if that's what they are.

There seems to be something very similar to the "Ellifino" that may be some kind of long form of it that has additional calendrical function, specifically (half Venus Cycle) / (Pi^2) / 10^n. To use the most obvious form of that in my work, that's

18983.99126 / (Pi^2) = 1.923480465 x 100.

The other main form of the half Venus Cycle that I use gives the reciprocal the outer sarcen circle radius:

18997.72194 / (Pi^2) = 1.924871674 x 100 = (1 / 51.95151515) x 1000 = (1 / ((120 x 2.720174976) / Pi)) x 10^n

Now there are still a lot of problems here, and one may be that if we choose to grapple with things at such a scope, we may not only need to sort out numbers into whose "school" they belong to, but what subdivisions of a particular "school" they belong to. I'm already working with two sets of calendar numbers here but there are constantly signs of several more that I still haven't mastered, and every formula I try to come up with tries to segregate these numbers in different ways rather than in harmonious ways.

Also, I can use the main value I use for the "Ellifino" as case in point as to some of what we're in for using the classic Vesica Piscis roots to define relationships between metrological units.

19.21388691 x sqrt 2 = 2.717253945 as

*roughly*the Megalithic Yard, while 19.21388691 / sqrt 3 = 1.109314278,*roughly*the Indus Foot, but 19.21388691 / sqrt 5 = 1.718642290 / 2, almost exactly the consensus Royal Cubit of ~1.718873385.You see why I think they kicked sqrt 2, 3, and 5 in a literal sense right straight out of the math I use?

What I think is interesting is that, for example, if for a minute we humor Thom with his projected division of the bluestone "oval with corners" into 26 parts, and furthermore take him very literally that he has provided us with 260 / 10 thereby, and retrofit (260 x 2) / 10 into the equation for "large Ellifinos"

(1 / (260 x 2)) x (Pi^2) = 18980.00846, which I'm certain everyone must recognize as the canonical half Venus Cycle to remarkable accuracy.

*Almost*makes me want to beat someone gently about the head with a cubit rod and ask if they can do that with 22/7, but apparently that someone no longer wishes to be named?So yeah, what can I do at this point but to dredge up that dusty old hypothesis that certain architecture was left rough in places even though it was well within the capabilities of the builders to do a much more polished job, because it may not have been out to establish absolute exactitude, but rather by being "rough around the edges" leaves room for multiple sets of valid numbers which can be very similar to one another.

Creative ambiguity, another mathematical art perfected by the ancients?

For my usual purposes, no doubt I'll generally want to take Thom's 26 divisions as meaning "25.7575758" (51.95151515 / 2) divisions, but see what can happen when I don't.

Numerous people's work may not be mutually exclusive when it comes to things like that, but again it may be a matter of successfully sorting things out into working systems. IMHO, ANY working system is nothing to take lightly because of the inherent difficulties, not to mention that most of us are making what must be some fairly insane demands on numbers in the first place in trying to create such all-encompassing grand schemes as we do - but anyone with a working system must have proven that such things are possible, the question now perhaps being just how many working systems are there?

I've gone back to the unsolved question of what an Eclipse Year is supposed to look like to someone who used the same math I do, I have two main candidates thus far but since they aren't separated by the 1.000723277 as my two primary sets of calendar numbers are, then I'm apparently still missing something. What's interesting, though, is that I think Stonehenge may be able to readily provide me with both figures were I not already working on it.

At this point I'm still completely unsure what to make of the following - when I had a go at the specks of data I have on Asian Pyramids, the numbers I get looked steeped in Megalithic Yards and/or Lunar calendar values, and something came up that has not only puzzled me ever since, but has started recurring in my experiments, for no good reason that I know of.

I have a side length value in my data for the "Zangkunchong" pyramid of "29.34 m" (I'm still trying to figure out if it may be a misplaced diagram of the "Tomb of the General").

[www.crystalinks.com]

That's 96.2598430 ft. It's half of an "Ellifino"-like number, 96.2598430 x 2 = 192.5196860 but is one of those numbers which goes "over the top" and exceeds 19000 when we try to multiply it by Pi^2 to make it into the half Venus Cycle/Mayan Long Count: 192.5196860 x Pi^2 = 19000.9314 / 10^n. Does anyone want to declare that the half Venus Cycle went that high? I already feel terrible that even a ratio as fine as 1.000723277 tries to add 17+ disposable days onto the canonical 18980 value.

Let's let the Cubiteers of Petrie's legacy have a minute to catch up and make 96.2598430 ft into 56 Royal Cubits of 1.718925760 ft each, bring on the controversy...

Now let's look at that diagonal - assuming symmetry, 96.2598430 x sqrt 2 = 136.1319755 ft = 272.2639510 / 2, which is why I'm also talking about Megalithic Yards in the context of Asian pyramids, ok?

What most interests me here may be that 1 / 96.2598430 = 1.038854801, and this number from raw data is suspiciously close to not only the 103.9030303 ft outer sarcen circle diameter I use for Stonehenge (51.95151515 x 2), but it's also suspiciously close to at least one more additional number, 1.038679451, which is the one that's started recurring.

It makes 1.038679451 look like it belongs in there somewhere that 360 / 1.038679451 = 346.5939363, which is one of the two current contenders among the numbers I use for the honor of representing a "346.620076 day" Eclipse Year. If we use 1.039030303 instead, it finds the other current nomination, 360 / 1.039030303 = 346.4769015.

I could only hope that maybe if I had a little more data on those Asian pyramids or more than this pea-sized brain of mine, maybe it would help to sort out what they mean by "272.2639510" - the Megalithic Yard, the Draconic Month, or are they wanting to give us an important lesson in both?

See, when I started thinking about Lunar themes there, I came up with the Meg Yard / reciprocal of the Lunar Year, which in my usual terms would be

2.720174976 / (1 / 353.9334578) = 96.27609351 = 1 / 1.038679452 to use the "Alternate e' Meg Yard" of 2.720174976

2.719256444 / (1 / 353.9334578) = 96.24358376 = 1 / 1.039030303 to use the "Incendental Meg Yard" of 2.719256444

And we might be able to retrofit 2.721223218 (Draconic Month = 27.212220817 days) into that successfully. What I'm thinking is basically that if the numbers I use are able to approximate the Draconic Month that well, why wouldn't they do so, even if the figure can be a little awkward to work with?

Pretty sure I'm looking at some working systems here, and that they are enthusiastically conveyed by at least some ancient architecture, including Stonehenge, but they look complex and hard to prove when there are things that haven't quite fallen into place yet like that.

I guess in summary what I mean to say is 'Ellifino how many "Ellifino"-like numbers are at large and what functions they are trying to serve, so be careful of them?

Very happy if you have a system of numbers that's a done deal. Still working on mine, lol.

Cheers!

Edited 10 time(s). Last edit at 03-Jan-20 23:15 by thinkitover.

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.