03-13-2017, 05:04 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-14-2017, 02:39 AM by Ancient Vizier.

*Edit Reason: postscript*)
I have the frivolous urge to go back and poke around Giza's mathematics one more time. I don't know whatever happened to my pyramid math message boards but I wore the numbers off of 3 calculators for some of that stuff. Much of it collapsed when Pyramid Guru Carl Munck's geographic math couldn't be made to hold water. He was never proven wrong about it, but the waters were so muddied after Mark Lehner published his data that they remain that way. I went over to Bauval & Hancock's message board where virtually everyone was an Egyptologist and had the photos of themselves fondling pyramid bricks to prove it, and asked why there might be discrepancies between Petrie's data for the spatial relationships of the 3 major Giza pyramids and Lehner's satellite GPS-age data easily as large as 1/4 mile, and for the first time they seemed to be completely stumped. It's inconceivable that Petrie could have made errors of that magnitude even with antiquated surveying equipment, especially considering how many readings he is supposed to have taken there.

It's so absurd that it actually may be less illogical to imagine that Lehner deliberately turned in bad data because he is beholden to the Edgar Cayce Society, the ECS actually believes Munck knows where the Hall of Records is based on geographic data (and believes it somehow belongs to them because Cayce prophesied it), and Lehner was therefore attempting to try to make sure only they know where it really is by pouring a whole bucket of fudge over the data even if this should ideally set off alarms throughout both the archaeological and cartographic communities. Unless he confessed to the crime or published an enormous errata in my absence, talk about some baggage I DON'T need, it's trying to tell people THAT.

It's the non-geographic math that has withstood that, Munck's curious Great Pyramid measurements do give what very much appears to be the correct apothem measure of 500 stadians in accordance with the writings of Herodotus (and the compared proportions of the 3 main Giza pyramids does give what has to be a deliberate reference to the radian value IN FEET). The remen I based this description of the apothem on on varies approximately .001 foot from the unit derived by Algernon Berriman from his own field measurements of Grecian temples, and Munck had already found the matching double remen in the Stonehenge survey data of both Petrie and Thom IIRC. That's also something we pretty much established that the "modern British foot" has to be one of the oldest units of measure on earth and its origins in reference books have to be fairy tales if only for its true origins having been almost completely lost to history.

This system also gave at least one strong reference to tetrahedral mathematics distributed through a number of interrelated ancient metrological units - one of those things that, like doing the math on the inverted pyramid pointing at The White House, does sort of scream that Hoagland is probably quite right about some Masonic priorities, like him or not. I mean, it's actual math and geometry, it's not exactly negotiable.

Anyway, I was wondering what would happen if I went back to Giza and tried NOT to depart from the obvious basic message of Circle / Radian embodied in the 2 Pi ratio of the "Cheops" and "Mycerinus" pyramids. Michael Morton and I got so intense with things that we may well have missed some of things Giza is trying to say at the entry level of signalling geometry. My calculations implied the Great Pyramid was surrounded by a double layered paving, I wonder if there is confirmation of that to be found now? Really haven't kept up with archaeology...

Mostly the whole thing left a bad taste in my mouth, though, where... well, you know - I don't suppose some of us would mind being respectable, some of us have worked damn hard at anomalism to be able to be taken seriously I presume, but my hope was to write an actual academic textbook on ancient mathematics and metrology rather than a "Speculative History" paperback crammed in with all the other pyramidology books that are shaving inches off of Megalithic Yards or 30 feet off of the Great Pyramid's height just to fit their theories. All I would have to do is give Munck the credit he is due and that's where my book would inevitably go, right where it would be taken the least seriously. That still hasn't changed.

But yeah, Giza IS doing what Carl Sagan said aliens would do, it actually is pretty hard to argue with, and the main entry level to mathematics-as-language key was spotted I believe over 100 years ago now. Hard to miss it actually, it's about 480 feet tall and about 756 feet wide as I recall.

PS: We had a slightly different sidereal year value in our system of mathematical necessity, it's an extremely resonant number with the system that seems to frequently cross reference other data. Since this divergence was never really explained in an any other terms, it's interesting to find this written here before my post

"As one will recall from the evaluation of the earth tropical year, it was shown via a set of proportional laws that the earth did at some point in the past increase its orbital period from one of 360 days per year, to one of 365.24218408 days per year. And that the critical ratio between the two values is as follows"

Would this deviation have happened all at once, or could there be significant values between these two due to a less abrupt change?

Postscripts: Stonehenge isn't necessarily the best place to demonstrate the double remen since it may not be a primary metrological unit in use there. This is implied by the fact that it may tend to give some curiously pedestrian integral values when applied. While Thom's Megalithic Yard surveys also observe integral units of the MY, it might be somewhat peculiar if the ancients actually went to the trouble to build monuments to simple integrals. It may be roughly akin to saying the ancient Egyptians built three massive pyramids at Giza simply because they wanted to prove to later generations that they could all the way to 3.

It also might be noted that Munck's "Pyramid Matrix" system excludes certain inharmonious whole numbers such as 7, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 23, 26, 27 and etc. One compelling thing to emerge from following up on his work was that where we seem to find numbers that "do not belong" to this system in ancient monuments (specifically but not necessarily limited to stone circles residing in the UK), there's frequently a nearly apologetic antiquated local myth that gives a preposterous origin to the stones and their number. My best recollection is that even in folklore motif indexes, such legends seemed to be more sparse when it came to sites with harmonious "matrix-friendly" numbers of features.

Postscript 2: I think I found it (my poor old calculator only works now if I constantly hold it up to the lamp, which lends a bit of a challenge), it's 365.0200808 that Munck was using for the Sidereal Year value. The exact value can be arrived at formulaically in a number of ways including

Remen = (sqrt 15 x Pi) / 10 = (e' / sqrt 5)* = 1.216733603 (ft).; 1.216733603 x 2 = Double Remen = 2.433467206 (ft).; 2.433467206 x 15 = 365.0200808 / 10; 365.0200808 / 3 = 1.216733603 x 100

*(Hoagland, Torun: The Message of Cydonia. e' = (Pi/2) x (sqrt 3) = @ surface of sphere/surface of circumscribed tetrahedron)

It's so absurd that it actually may be less illogical to imagine that Lehner deliberately turned in bad data because he is beholden to the Edgar Cayce Society, the ECS actually believes Munck knows where the Hall of Records is based on geographic data (and believes it somehow belongs to them because Cayce prophesied it), and Lehner was therefore attempting to try to make sure only they know where it really is by pouring a whole bucket of fudge over the data even if this should ideally set off alarms throughout both the archaeological and cartographic communities. Unless he confessed to the crime or published an enormous errata in my absence, talk about some baggage I DON'T need, it's trying to tell people THAT.

It's the non-geographic math that has withstood that, Munck's curious Great Pyramid measurements do give what very much appears to be the correct apothem measure of 500 stadians in accordance with the writings of Herodotus (and the compared proportions of the 3 main Giza pyramids does give what has to be a deliberate reference to the radian value IN FEET). The remen I based this description of the apothem on on varies approximately .001 foot from the unit derived by Algernon Berriman from his own field measurements of Grecian temples, and Munck had already found the matching double remen in the Stonehenge survey data of both Petrie and Thom IIRC. That's also something we pretty much established that the "modern British foot" has to be one of the oldest units of measure on earth and its origins in reference books have to be fairy tales if only for its true origins having been almost completely lost to history.

This system also gave at least one strong reference to tetrahedral mathematics distributed through a number of interrelated ancient metrological units - one of those things that, like doing the math on the inverted pyramid pointing at The White House, does sort of scream that Hoagland is probably quite right about some Masonic priorities, like him or not. I mean, it's actual math and geometry, it's not exactly negotiable.

Anyway, I was wondering what would happen if I went back to Giza and tried NOT to depart from the obvious basic message of Circle / Radian embodied in the 2 Pi ratio of the "Cheops" and "Mycerinus" pyramids. Michael Morton and I got so intense with things that we may well have missed some of things Giza is trying to say at the entry level of signalling geometry. My calculations implied the Great Pyramid was surrounded by a double layered paving, I wonder if there is confirmation of that to be found now? Really haven't kept up with archaeology...

Mostly the whole thing left a bad taste in my mouth, though, where... well, you know - I don't suppose some of us would mind being respectable, some of us have worked damn hard at anomalism to be able to be taken seriously I presume, but my hope was to write an actual academic textbook on ancient mathematics and metrology rather than a "Speculative History" paperback crammed in with all the other pyramidology books that are shaving inches off of Megalithic Yards or 30 feet off of the Great Pyramid's height just to fit their theories. All I would have to do is give Munck the credit he is due and that's where my book would inevitably go, right where it would be taken the least seriously. That still hasn't changed.

But yeah, Giza IS doing what Carl Sagan said aliens would do, it actually is pretty hard to argue with, and the main entry level to mathematics-as-language key was spotted I believe over 100 years ago now. Hard to miss it actually, it's about 480 feet tall and about 756 feet wide as I recall.

PS: We had a slightly different sidereal year value in our system of mathematical necessity, it's an extremely resonant number with the system that seems to frequently cross reference other data. Since this divergence was never really explained in an any other terms, it's interesting to find this written here before my post

"As one will recall from the evaluation of the earth tropical year, it was shown via a set of proportional laws that the earth did at some point in the past increase its orbital period from one of 360 days per year, to one of 365.24218408 days per year. And that the critical ratio between the two values is as follows"

Would this deviation have happened all at once, or could there be significant values between these two due to a less abrupt change?

Postscripts: Stonehenge isn't necessarily the best place to demonstrate the double remen since it may not be a primary metrological unit in use there. This is implied by the fact that it may tend to give some curiously pedestrian integral values when applied. While Thom's Megalithic Yard surveys also observe integral units of the MY, it might be somewhat peculiar if the ancients actually went to the trouble to build monuments to simple integrals. It may be roughly akin to saying the ancient Egyptians built three massive pyramids at Giza simply because they wanted to prove to later generations that they could all the way to 3.

It also might be noted that Munck's "Pyramid Matrix" system excludes certain inharmonious whole numbers such as 7, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 23, 26, 27 and etc. One compelling thing to emerge from following up on his work was that where we seem to find numbers that "do not belong" to this system in ancient monuments (specifically but not necessarily limited to stone circles residing in the UK), there's frequently a nearly apologetic antiquated local myth that gives a preposterous origin to the stones and their number. My best recollection is that even in folklore motif indexes, such legends seemed to be more sparse when it came to sites with harmonious "matrix-friendly" numbers of features.

Postscript 2: I think I found it (my poor old calculator only works now if I constantly hold it up to the lamp, which lends a bit of a challenge), it's 365.0200808 that Munck was using for the Sidereal Year value. The exact value can be arrived at formulaically in a number of ways including

Remen = (sqrt 15 x Pi) / 10 = (e' / sqrt 5)* = 1.216733603 (ft).; 1.216733603 x 2 = Double Remen = 2.433467206 (ft).; 2.433467206 x 15 = 365.0200808 / 10; 365.0200808 / 3 = 1.216733603 x 100

*(Hoagland, Torun: The Message of Cydonia. e' = (Pi/2) x (sqrt 3) = @ surface of sphere/surface of circumscribed tetrahedron)

"Work and pray, live on hay, you'll get Pie In The Sky when you die." - Joe Hill, "The Preacher and the Slave" 1911