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).

drew Wrote:

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

> Okay...so the seked makes an angle of 51.843

> degrees. Cutting off the 3 to fit with math sums

> doesn't do anything for the seked of 5 1/2 as an

> interaction of 14 and 11. You have 51.84, so you

> would have to explain what 51.84 relates to as it

> doesn't relate to the seked of 5 1/2.

>

> I think we all know that having a seked of 5 1/2

> relating to a circle as Jacob has pointed out

> means the circle isn't a proper circle. Now you

> are making it even more improper.

>

> In the past, I have pointed out (1/5 x 360) - (1/7

> x 360) = 20.5714285...a nice figure for the RC in

> the chambers, which expresses a complete diagonal

> in the upper chamber of 10 x (1/7 x 360).

>

> You start off your math with the square root of 72

> (1/5 x 360) which is all well and good, but then

> you hit 7 x 1260 as a figure to divide by, which

> is just 360 x 3 1/2...then 1250, then 1249 5/7

> with a jump-back of 1/8 x 9 and marry that to 1234

> 2/7.

>

> Then what the heck 30,38194444444452,

> 364,5833333333342 and 4410 mean is anyone's

> guess.

>

> Rod, we can all play with numbers and I can take

> you on wonderful journey playing 192837465 and all

> kinds of multiplications and divisions and even

> add in some stuff like 4 x 65 / 99 x 3.71 but it

> doesn't mean anything. It is just the fun that can

> be had with numbers.

>

> So, while I might have been a little frivolous

> with my comment, it just means that - even with

> what you produced that I am responding to - such

> as 51.84 has nothing to do with pi and therefore

> looks quite out of place in a discussion about pi.

> 51.84 is a number...so are the rest of your

> divisors...just numbers. You might have been as

> well off using 51.83, 51.85 22.96 or even a goat

> and two cows, as all of those don't have anything

> to do with pi let alone a seked of 5 1/2. If you

> want to express 51.84 as the number instead of

> 51.843, then you destroy even Jacob's work, and

> that just doesn't make sense as 51.84 doesn't

> relate to anything...you see?

>

> Jacob's topic is about pi, or values of pi that

> are recognized according to a precedent...not

> shaving one number off something...you might as

> well shave numbers off all kinds of things like

> you were doing in another topic about the beams

> above the upper chamber and 46,656 which had some

> kind of exploration into all kinds of numbers that

> had no sense to them except being a wonderful

> exploration into numbers that were everything but

> 46,656 and applications to that.

>

>

______________________________________________________________

Drew it’s time to come out of the closet: I’m a complainer.

So....keep complaining! It's good for you! And complaining doesn’t get in the way of my happiness.

_______________________________________________________________

DavidK

David, the imperial Anglo-American system that you use has its source in esotericism and mysticism. I did not invent it. I am only quoting the words of people

such as Christopher Knight, Alan Butler, Robert Lomas.

I have expressed respect for Aleksander Tom's work many times and even proposed to create a prize for people who popularize the achievements of Aleksander Tom.

I consistently point to an alternative system that ignores mysticism and esoterism -Is this madness?

(...)I should really like to think there’s something wrong with me —

Because, if there isn’t then there’s something wrong,

Or at least, very different from what it seemed to be,

With the world itself—and that’s much more frightening!(...)

T. S. Eliot, The Cocktail Party (1949)

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

> Okay...so the seked makes an angle of 51.843

> degrees. Cutting off the 3 to fit with math sums

> doesn't do anything for the seked of 5 1/2 as an

> interaction of 14 and 11. You have 51.84, so you

> would have to explain what 51.84 relates to as it

> doesn't relate to the seked of 5 1/2.

>

> I think we all know that having a seked of 5 1/2

> relating to a circle as Jacob has pointed out

> means the circle isn't a proper circle. Now you

> are making it even more improper.

>

> In the past, I have pointed out (1/5 x 360) - (1/7

> x 360) = 20.5714285...a nice figure for the RC in

> the chambers, which expresses a complete diagonal

> in the upper chamber of 10 x (1/7 x 360).

>

> You start off your math with the square root of 72

> (1/5 x 360) which is all well and good, but then

> you hit 7 x 1260 as a figure to divide by, which

> is just 360 x 3 1/2...then 1250, then 1249 5/7

> with a jump-back of 1/8 x 9 and marry that to 1234

> 2/7.

>

> Then what the heck 30,38194444444452,

> 364,5833333333342 and 4410 mean is anyone's

> guess.

>

> Rod, we can all play with numbers and I can take

> you on wonderful journey playing 192837465 and all

> kinds of multiplications and divisions and even

> add in some stuff like 4 x 65 / 99 x 3.71 but it

> doesn't mean anything. It is just the fun that can

> be had with numbers.

>

> So, while I might have been a little frivolous

> with my comment, it just means that - even with

> what you produced that I am responding to - such

> as 51.84 has nothing to do with pi and therefore

> looks quite out of place in a discussion about pi.

> 51.84 is a number...so are the rest of your

> divisors...just numbers. You might have been as

> well off using 51.83, 51.85 22.96 or even a goat

> and two cows, as all of those don't have anything

> to do with pi let alone a seked of 5 1/2. If you

> want to express 51.84 as the number instead of

> 51.843, then you destroy even Jacob's work, and

> that just doesn't make sense as 51.84 doesn't

> relate to anything...you see?

>

> Jacob's topic is about pi, or values of pi that

> are recognized according to a precedent...not

> shaving one number off something...you might as

> well shave numbers off all kinds of things like

> you were doing in another topic about the beams

> above the upper chamber and 46,656 which had some

> kind of exploration into all kinds of numbers that

> had no sense to them except being a wonderful

> exploration into numbers that were everything but

> 46,656 and applications to that.

>

>

__So...well...do you have anything to offer for pi__

> or the actual seked of 5 1/2? If so, add it in. If

> not, well, I'd like to talk about a goat and 2

> cows. Do you have any?> or the actual seked of 5 1/2? If so, add it in. If

> not, well, I'd like to talk about a goat and 2

> cows. Do you have any?

______________________________________________________________

__(...)So...well...do you have anything to offer for pi__

or the actual seked of 5 1/2? If so, add it in. If

not, well, I'd like to talk about a goat and 2

cows. Do you have any?(...)or the actual seked of 5 1/2? If so, add it in. If

not, well, I'd like to talk about a goat and 2

cows. Do you have any?(...)

Drew it’s time to come out of the closet: I’m a complainer.

So....keep complaining! It's good for you! And complaining doesn’t get in the way of my happiness.

_______________________________________________________________

DavidK

David, the imperial Anglo-American system that you use has its source in esotericism and mysticism. I did not invent it. I am only quoting the words of people

such as Christopher Knight, Alan Butler, Robert Lomas.

I have expressed respect for Aleksander Tom's work many times and even proposed to create a prize for people who popularize the achievements of Aleksander Tom.

I consistently point to an alternative system that ignores mysticism and esoterism -Is this madness?

(...)I should really like to think there’s something wrong with me —

Because, if there isn’t then there’s something wrong,

Or at least, very different from what it seemed to be,

With the world itself—and that’s much more frightening!(...)

T. S. Eliot, The Cocktail Party (1949)

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.