08-04-2017, 01:02 AM
(This post was last modified: 08-04-2017, 01:54 AM by Ancient Vizier.)

I think it's safe to say that from the data I've scrounged up so far, it may not be uncommon to find cases where the radius of this calendar stone here is the diameter or the circumference of that calendar stone there. There definitely appear to be a number of cases like that already even in the data presently at hand. (One of these apparently recurring numbers is a strange one that I still can't figure out, and might think was a mistake if this figure didn't already appear to recur even in what relatively little data I have).

I might also point out that in Teobert Maler's Explorations in the Department of the Peten, Guatemala, Tikal* (page 86 pdf pagination, page 71 original pagination) Maler reports a circular altar of diameter 118 cm:

"North Side (Plate 16, Fig. 1). The carving of glyphs on this side is adapted to the considerable unevenness of the stone. The photograph held in the right position and compared with my sketch,1 will give a correct idea of the glyphs. At the top is the large initial glyph, below it are two glyphs, and then (counting the horizontal rows) four sets of three glyphs : — Thus 14-2 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 15 glyphs. Before this shattered stela stood a circular altar (No. I in my enumeration) 118 centimetres in diameter and of considerable thickness (or height). This stone was not deeply buried and it seemed to me to have on its upper surface remnants of sculpture very much worn away. Badly weathered glyphs on the cylindrical side were more plainly recognizable."

*can be downloaded as a free Google pdf here - Download PDF option in Tools menu

https://books.google.com/books/about/Exp...dZAAAAYAAJ

In this case (as in possibly some others), inexactitude of measurement might have managed to balance out impact from erosion to show us what may have been the original specifications:

Diameter 118 cm = Diameter 3.871391076 feet = ~3.872983346 (sqrt 15) ft

Radius = Diameter / 2 = 3.872983346 / 2 = 1.936491673 (sqrt 3.75)

Circumference = Radius x 2 Pi = 1.936491673 x 2 Pi = 12.16733603 (ten Remens or 365.020081 / 30)

(No data on the thickness to try to see if this is part of another stunning calendar formula)

I'm even less certain of this one, but in the same text (page 96 pdf pagination, page 81 original pagination) describes as altar paired with Stela 11

"In front of Stela 11, on the general level of the cement pavement, stands a circular altar 170 cm. in diameter. It is sharply and smoothly dressed and is the largest in Tikal, which proves that its stela must have been of a certain importance in sacrificial ceremonies."

Diameter 170 cm = Diameter 5.577427882 ft = ~5.577096019 ("Giza Vector" / 1000) ft

Radius = Diameter / 2 = 5.577096019 = 2.788548009

Circumferene = Radius x 2 Pi = 1.752096388 (8.760481940 x 2; 3.504192776 / 2)

8760.481944 being a probably standard figure for hours in a year as previously suggested (365.0200808 days x 24 hours) = 8760.481944, and 350.4192776 (360 / .027340740) having also appeared previously in work on Thom's flattened circle types; 17520.96388 and its "decimal harmonics" can probably be considered to be a "tried and true" number for Yoda having assigned it as a Grid Coordinate of the Pyramid of the Magicians at Uxmal, original Grid Coordinates 17520.96388 / 129600 (360^2) = 7.396853329 (the Squared Yoda Meg Yard).

Regarding the Tizoc Stone, that work has gone up "in the air" (as did work on Teotihuacan) since I actually have two sets of data for the Tizoc Stone and I'm not entirely sure if I should believe either one, but the quotes for diameter are 2.60 m and 2.67 m...

Diameter 2.67 m = Diameter 8.759842520 ft = ~8.760481944 ft

(The original circumference by design would be exactly 1/10 of what is proposed to be the radius of Silbury Hill by original design).

Diameter x Pi = Circumference = 8.760481944 x Pi = 27.52186570 ft

And then at Yaxchilan, Structure 40, Altar 13 (Tate, Yaxchilan..., Google Books preview)

Diameter .84 meters = 2.755905512 ft = ~2.752186570 ft

Which may (or may not) be a repetition of same, divided by 10.

Also, I get at least one instance of Diameter .97 m from Maler (via Tikal Reports No.33 in Google Book preview) for Tikal

Diameter .97 m = Diameter 3.182414698 feet, which is suspiciously close to the reciprocal of Pi, times 10

(1 / Pi) x 10 = 3.183098862

Not sure of that, that would make the Circumference to be 3.183098862 x Pi = 10.0000000 feet, but unless they were that intent on an homage to Pi, it could still be something like 10.00723277 (or some other fine ratio) according to original design? (This same question still confounds the quest for the true and intended original diagonal length of the Chephren pyramid, which is about 100 times either one of those).

Likewise, I have two figures from Maler for an Altar 3 at Tikal, both 1.01 m (Tikal Reports 33) and 1.00 m (Maler, Explorations...) which could make for another fairly blatant advertisement for basic circular math, with Circumference possibly being 10.31324031 ft (generic area of a circle = 57.29577951^2 x Pi = 10313.24031 square arc-degrees) - but that extra centimeter can make a difference.

Other than to go over a few of the other numbers that seem to repeat in the data, I think that's about all I have on the metrology of calendar stones at the minute that might offer further insight? I'd probably rather work on temple and palace rooms and doorways, both for them hopefully having seen less erosion, and for them hopefully having more "checks and balances" built in to help guide the proceedings, which may be a big part of the point of all the vaulted ceilings in the architecture of the ancient Maya.

Not feeling all that swell at the minute and just thought I'd throw this stuff out here half-baked before my doctor finally does me in...

Cheers!

I might also point out that in Teobert Maler's Explorations in the Department of the Peten, Guatemala, Tikal* (page 86 pdf pagination, page 71 original pagination) Maler reports a circular altar of diameter 118 cm:

"North Side (Plate 16, Fig. 1). The carving of glyphs on this side is adapted to the considerable unevenness of the stone. The photograph held in the right position and compared with my sketch,1 will give a correct idea of the glyphs. At the top is the large initial glyph, below it are two glyphs, and then (counting the horizontal rows) four sets of three glyphs : — Thus 14-2 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 15 glyphs. Before this shattered stela stood a circular altar (No. I in my enumeration) 118 centimetres in diameter and of considerable thickness (or height). This stone was not deeply buried and it seemed to me to have on its upper surface remnants of sculpture very much worn away. Badly weathered glyphs on the cylindrical side were more plainly recognizable."

*can be downloaded as a free Google pdf here - Download PDF option in Tools menu

https://books.google.com/books/about/Exp...dZAAAAYAAJ

In this case (as in possibly some others), inexactitude of measurement might have managed to balance out impact from erosion to show us what may have been the original specifications:

Diameter 118 cm = Diameter 3.871391076 feet = ~3.872983346 (sqrt 15) ft

Radius = Diameter / 2 = 3.872983346 / 2 = 1.936491673 (sqrt 3.75)

Circumference = Radius x 2 Pi = 1.936491673 x 2 Pi = 12.16733603 (ten Remens or 365.020081 / 30)

(No data on the thickness to try to see if this is part of another stunning calendar formula)

I'm even less certain of this one, but in the same text (page 96 pdf pagination, page 81 original pagination) describes as altar paired with Stela 11

"In front of Stela 11, on the general level of the cement pavement, stands a circular altar 170 cm. in diameter. It is sharply and smoothly dressed and is the largest in Tikal, which proves that its stela must have been of a certain importance in sacrificial ceremonies."

Diameter 170 cm = Diameter 5.577427882 ft = ~5.577096019 ("Giza Vector" / 1000) ft

Radius = Diameter / 2 = 5.577096019 = 2.788548009

Circumferene = Radius x 2 Pi = 1.752096388 (8.760481940 x 2; 3.504192776 / 2)

8760.481944 being a probably standard figure for hours in a year as previously suggested (365.0200808 days x 24 hours) = 8760.481944, and 350.4192776 (360 / .027340740) having also appeared previously in work on Thom's flattened circle types; 17520.96388 and its "decimal harmonics" can probably be considered to be a "tried and true" number for Yoda having assigned it as a Grid Coordinate of the Pyramid of the Magicians at Uxmal, original Grid Coordinates 17520.96388 / 129600 (360^2) = 7.396853329 (the Squared Yoda Meg Yard).

Regarding the Tizoc Stone, that work has gone up "in the air" (as did work on Teotihuacan) since I actually have two sets of data for the Tizoc Stone and I'm not entirely sure if I should believe either one, but the quotes for diameter are 2.60 m and 2.67 m...

Diameter 2.67 m = Diameter 8.759842520 ft = ~8.760481944 ft

(The original circumference by design would be exactly 1/10 of what is proposed to be the radius of Silbury Hill by original design).

Diameter x Pi = Circumference = 8.760481944 x Pi = 27.52186570 ft

And then at Yaxchilan, Structure 40, Altar 13 (Tate, Yaxchilan..., Google Books preview)

Diameter .84 meters = 2.755905512 ft = ~2.752186570 ft

Which may (or may not) be a repetition of same, divided by 10.

Also, I get at least one instance of Diameter .97 m from Maler (via Tikal Reports No.33 in Google Book preview) for Tikal

Diameter .97 m = Diameter 3.182414698 feet, which is suspiciously close to the reciprocal of Pi, times 10

(1 / Pi) x 10 = 3.183098862

Not sure of that, that would make the Circumference to be 3.183098862 x Pi = 10.0000000 feet, but unless they were that intent on an homage to Pi, it could still be something like 10.00723277 (or some other fine ratio) according to original design? (This same question still confounds the quest for the true and intended original diagonal length of the Chephren pyramid, which is about 100 times either one of those).

Likewise, I have two figures from Maler for an Altar 3 at Tikal, both 1.01 m (Tikal Reports 33) and 1.00 m (Maler, Explorations...) which could make for another fairly blatant advertisement for basic circular math, with Circumference possibly being 10.31324031 ft (generic area of a circle = 57.29577951^2 x Pi = 10313.24031 square arc-degrees) - but that extra centimeter can make a difference.

Other than to go over a few of the other numbers that seem to repeat in the data, I think that's about all I have on the metrology of calendar stones at the minute that might offer further insight? I'd probably rather work on temple and palace rooms and doorways, both for them hopefully having seen less erosion, and for them hopefully having more "checks and balances" built in to help guide the proceedings, which may be a big part of the point of all the vaulted ceilings in the architecture of the ancient Maya.

Not feeling all that swell at the minute and just thought I'd throw this stuff out here half-baked before my doctor finally does me in...

Cheers!

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