|
Post by Don Barone on Aug 8, 2015 20:36:24 GMT -5
Probably nothing but .... Doing the same thing for Jupiter we get orbital circumference on the elliptic of 4,888,845,660 and IF the solar system is 4,500,000,000 years old then Jupiter has gone around 4,500,000,000 / 11.8618 yr [orbital period of Jupiter] and this equals 379369067.1 times. Dividing orbital circumference (4,888,845,660 ) by number of times circling our solar system (379369067.1) we get the ratio of 12.88678. Now continuing on our 5.5 ( 1/2 of 11 ) I decided to multiply this number by 11 and was somewhat amazed when I got this result ... 11 x 12.88678 = 141.7546 which when multiplied by 10 to give us 1417.55 is within 5/100 ths of a cubit of the width of our Giza Rectangle which is said to be about 1417.50. A Co-incidence ? Perhaps but let's keep digging and see what else we can uncover. Cheers Don Barone PS: So where am I going with this. Well I have often thought that all is an illusion. Past, Future, Present all of it simply an illusion. Case in point our Solar System. Allegedly 4.6 billion years old ... but is it ? Is it old at all ? Or is it just ... well it. And following so simply the simple ratios or 9 and 11 and now to see other things maybe unfolding using just these two numbers. On a very early web page of mine ... It was suggested that the past was an illusion ... it is a thought I guess but then the solar system is not really 4.5 Billion years old IT WAS MADE TO APPEAR TO US TO BE 4.5 BILLION YEARS OLD. Ridiculous ... perhaps but is explains much of what I am finding. And my prediction that our universe is 4.5 billion x Pi years old or 14.137167 billion years old. It is starting to appear to me that we are stuck in a moment ... or at the very, very least I AM ... Anyway that is way off the topic of this thread and we shall move on. For now back to the calculator.
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Aug 8, 2015 20:49:20 GMT -5
And back to orbital elliptical circumferences ... we have this ... Mercury elliptical circumference, that is the distance Mercury travels in one orbit of our solar system is 359,975,975 kilometers and I know it is probably just one of those annoying co-incidences that keep popping up but ... (Sq rt of 3 / Phi) squared x Pi = 3.5999448446 or matching Mercury's perimeter by 99.99% accuracy. Cheers Don
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Aug 8, 2015 22:13:11 GMT -5
Okay last post for today ... In this image below we have 1/2 base of 255.9727 and from the periodic table of elements we have this: Oxygen: 8 O oxygen 15.999 03 (Minimum) 15.999 77 (Maximum) Square root of 255.9727 is ... 15.99928 so we could stretch it a bit and say that the base is showing us the element oxygen. But in this website of mine I found oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen ... I wonder if I will find all three here. Cheers Don
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Aug 9, 2015 9:00:51 GMT -5
Okay very quickly as I have to go to work. The Min pyramid in China is said to be 1690 by 1591 feet in overall size. This interestingly is 17.0707070707 by 16.07070707 when our base unit is 99 feet. (17.07070707 x 99 = 1690) and 16.070707 x 99 = 1591) 99 of course we have seen at Giza in The Great Pyramid but how about this ... What would happen if we applied this ratio to The great pyramid ... well watch ... 440 / 17.07070707... = 25.775148 and times 16.0707070707 = 414.22485207100591697751479289941 ... so what you might say however watch this ... 414.2248521 + 1000 = 1414.2248521 and squared = 2000032 / 2000000 = ratio of 0.999984 to the square root of 2 To make this exactly equal the ratio of the square root the base at The Great Pyramid would need to only be 439.988 And now we have yet another piece to the puzzle courtesy of China. Cheers Don PS: I found this by trying to figure out the ratio between 1690 and 1591 as seen and heard in this video. 1690 - 1591 = 99 and then I simply divided the two numbers by 99 to get 17.0707 and 16.0707
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Aug 9, 2015 19:46:13 GMT -5
Hi all ...
I have to admit to two things, One is that I have been drinking tonight and the second it is starting to annoy the hell out of me that no one comments on these posts ( except Charlotte, Daz and Fred). Some may think I do it for my health but in fact I do it to get feedback to further our/my research. So what to do ? I am considering deleting accounts over a certain length of time who have not posted recently. I must confess I am even considering banning all present members from posting and reading my threads (certain members of course excluded and you know who you are) until they have re-applied with assurances they will take an active role in the threads.
So if you think it is garbage tell me it is garbage but tell me why you think it is.
If you think it is interesting tell me it is interesting ... and why.
As they say the ball is in your court.
Regards Don Barone
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Aug 10, 2015 8:32:57 GMT -5
Hi all ... I have to admit to two things, One is that I have been drinking tonight and the second it is starting to annoy the hell out of me that no one comments on these posts ( except Charlotte, Daz and Fred). Some may think I do it for my health but in fact I do it to get feedback to further our/my research. So what to do ? I am considering deleting accounts over a certain length of time who have not posted recently. I must confess I am even considering banning all present members from posting and reading my threads (certain members of course excluded and you know who you are) until they have re-applied with assurances they will take an active role in the threads. So if you think it is garbage tell me it is garbage but tell me why you think it is. If you think it is interesting tell me it is interesting ... and why. As they say the ball is in your court. Regards Don Barone Don, frustrated as you are, maybe just temporarily, please take it easy. I post almost daily without any response and expect none, simply write what's on my mind and learn a bit doing so. Perhaps people just like to read and accept or reject the read without engaging in discussions. Daz hasn't been here for ages, not that he ever actually 'discussed' anything, and Fred L has not visited for a while. To engage in discussion takes time researching a subject to agree or dispute, ala GHMB, Ma'at, and many other sites. Deleting accounts and banning all present members from posting or reading your threads, even compelling people to partake in a thread, would not only be highly unfair and overhasty, but not in keeping with intellectual generosity and the freedom people have to speak or be silent, maybe like me, persons can't follow your information. I don't know who our guests are, nevertheless they are 'Guests'. Cheers Don Charlotte
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Aug 10, 2015 17:01:14 GMT -5
Yes you are of course correct Charlotte. I guess just a tad too much beer last night. Readers ignore the man behind the curtain Cheers Don
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Aug 10, 2015 19:21:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Aug 10, 2015 20:06:13 GMT -5
Okay watch for next website (or post) of mine. It is going to be entitled...
The Power of 99
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Aug 10, 2015 20:29:46 GMT -5
A hint of what's to come ... Square root of 2 x 197.9898989 (height of The Red Pyramid) = .... EXACTLY AND PRECISELY 280.0000000 and height of G1 Cheers Don Barone
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Aug 11, 2015 6:34:12 GMT -5
Just another proof of intent ... Base of The Bent Pyramid as viewed on edge is 511.94531 cubits Angle of G3 is 51.20 degrees or 1/10 th of the base of The Bent Pyramid as viewed on edge. ... and now we have yet another piece to the puzzle. Using 201.46 as a base for G3 we now get the height of G3 as 125.28041 This appears to be 1/2 the distance between north face of G2 and south face of G1 Cheers Don
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Aug 11, 2015 7:44:24 GMT -5
Yes you are of course correct Charlotte. I guess just a tad too much beer last night. Readers ignore the man behind the curtain Cheers Don I didn't want to say it, but I was thinking it
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Aug 12, 2015 20:30:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Aug 13, 2015 9:16:08 GMT -5
Good to have everything belonging on one site, Don, for those who can follow your diagrams and measurements resulting in new revelations.
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Aug 13, 2015 12:49:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Aug 13, 2015 19:01:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Aug 13, 2015 23:25:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Aug 14, 2015 13:55:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Aug 16, 2015 0:29:59 GMT -5
Hi all ... For those who have followed my work over the years they will know that the one main constant in my beliefs was that the ancient builders built the pyramids for a common purpose. They were never tombs. The idea is preposterous. A second major belief I have had for quite a while is that the pyramids were gigantic geodetic survey monuments that helped the ancient Egyptians lay out their fields after the flood. But I could not find the method they employed to do this.
Fast forward to this afternoon at work and as I was explaining to a co-worker how I had started to solve how they (may have) read directions and azimuths or angles and mentioning that I still needed to solve how to measure distances all of a sudden I had a eureka moment of the fourth kind. It is the kind of mental break through that is extremely rare. It is an idea that I think will revolutionize how ancient Egypt is viewed. It will also revolutionize how we perceive the achievements of The Ancient Builders and in a way take away some of the things I thought them capable of but will elevate their thinking to a degree of simplification that escapes us now because we no longer dare to think out of the box. However in learning these new things I have had to abandon some of my most cherished beliefs. Here is a list of the things I have had to abandon (for now)
1) I am afraid to have to admit it but I now no longer think the ancient builders knew (or even cared about) Pi
2) I am afraid to have to admit that the ancient builders knew neither decimals nor angles
3) And I am afraid to have to admit that all those Egyptologists who told me all along that is was all about Seked were right. It is all about Seked they just did not have a clue how to apply it.
It will take me a couple of days to fine tune my ideas although because of their simplicity it really will take even the average reader but moments to become adept at. It is an idea born in an instant of insight but conceived over so many long years ago when I first started asking why and nurtured over those same many years. . Of course there will always be detractors who will say well okay yeah it works perfectly but prove that this is what they did. To those I will simply say ... show us another way of doing it. This should shut them up. I am really excited about this discovery of mine and as is the usual protocol I will publish it here first, then to my new website and then ask for reinstatement at Graham's and post it there. I will also probably ask Charlotte to post it at Ma'at . It is amazingly simple and it ties in so many thoughts and things you won't believe it. So as it was once said" If it seems that I see further than some it is simply because I have stood on the shoulders of giants" (Clive Ross. Jim Allison, Nick L., DUNE, John Legon and several more all of whom have helped me in some way or another. And then we have Pythagoras. A supposed giant of geometry but I can now see he but borrowed from the ancient builders.
So please be patient, let me clear my head and make the explanation as clear and simple as possible and then my friends enjoy what is going to be one hell of a fantastic Tsunami ride !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cheers Don Barone
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Aug 16, 2015 9:27:21 GMT -5
Hi Don, Concerning point 2, Arthur M. Young, disagrees with you on angles. He lectured at the PRS (Philosophical Research Society of Mr. Hall), telling us of his journey from physics to metaphysics during the process of inventing the Bell Helicopter, in which process he discovered that the "builders of Egypt were all about angles". Reason I mention this is because Mr. Young was an extraordinarily learned Man on many subjects. Ride on
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Aug 16, 2015 17:24:53 GMT -5
Hi Charlotte ... The Ancient Builders DID NOT KNOW ANGLES. They did not need them. He is in error. They knew only "Seked"
I will explain and prove it soon.
Best Don Barone
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Aug 16, 2015 19:36:31 GMT -5
| The Pyramids of Egypt
The Secrets Revealed
Part VIII
The Secret Surveyors and The Methods They Used
| |
Hi all this chapter is going to tie up and tie in an awful lot of loose ends. It will also answer some intriguing questions. One answer that it seems to answer in a very unique and novel way is where the cubit may have originated. It also indirectly ( or maybe directly) answers the question of why are the pyramids the size that they are. It also I think (for the time being anyway) lays to rest the notion that The Ancient Builders knew and used Pi and decimals, and finally I think it also ends speculation that The Ancient Builders knew and used a 360 degree circle. All those "crazy" ideas I had appear to have been shattered with a clearer understanding of how things may have worked in Ancient Egypt. But before we get to the meat of my theories I have to preface it by saying this: "In my estimation there is no proof that The Ancient Egyptians of 2500 BC actually built the original pyramids at Giza. They may have stood there for untold millennia and were simply reused in the manner I suggest here. The argument can go both ways. Notwithstanding this it is my contention that what follows in my theory is what the pyramids were used for and possibly designed for and the methods I am about to propose were forgotten and discarded when that "Thief of Greece" Pythagoras, stole the idea and made it into something else. And a final note here. I am 65 years old and I remember quite vividly that up until Grade 11 the accepted approximation for Pi was 22/7 or as they called it in my school, "Greek Pi" or 3 and 1/7 th as in those days we used fractions a lot. This chapter I hope will be a learning experience for you as it has been for me. Is it the correct solution ? Well I have been asking for a solution to this problem for 16 years. Here is the simple question that has once again opened a Pandora's Box of knowledge. "How did The Ancient Egyptians lay out the fields again after the inundation had washed away all of the property corners" In 16 years I was never given an answer. Even George Johnson, an Egyptologist over at Ma'at was unable to answer the question so as I am apt to do I decided to try to figure it out myself and the solution I have found is ingenious and even if this is not what they used, this concept is so simple you will be hard pressed to not believe they used it in this manner. So please hold your questions until the end of the lecture and I will be more than happy to fill in any gaps. When most people think about this they see surveyors with transits and levels and 100 cubit long ropes measuring ... but you know what - did they or you ever stop to think from where were they measuring and more to the point ... to what were they measuring. Also I was dumbfounded by the notion that such a rich and cultured and advanced civilization could not even tell or read angles. It simply did not make sense and so I went in search of a way to read angles ... but not have angles. Sound like double speak ? Well I don't blame you for in reality it is. But from pondering that question the floodgates of ancient measures and design came flooding into the harbor of enlightenment. The seas of darkness had been breached and the people had been flooded with the knowledge that had been held back. It is so ingenious it will make you smile. I had managed to find a way to read angles, measure distances and lay out literally all of Ancient Egypt WITHOUT A TRANSIT OR A LEVEL. It is wild and soon I will slowly post the solution for as some say about a fine wine and I say about a nice new break through in knowledge it has to be savored and enjoyed for it can never ever be enjoyed in the same way again. To be continued ... db
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Aug 16, 2015 21:23:23 GMT -5
| The Pyramids of Egypt
The Secrets Revealed
Part VIII
The Secret Surveyors and The Methods They Used
| |
Here is how it unfolded. For several months I had been working on an idea of how could I, in the middle of the Egyptian deserts be able to know where I was. And as in the old problems of Greece there were limitations on what I could have with me. Only utensils that were available in 2500 BC would I be able to use. And so I started the thought experiments. I have a little model pyramid given to me by my daughters and as I turned this way and that an idea slowly started to form. And then out of nowhere I saw it. I guess it is partly due to our indoctrination and the way we are taught to think but I suddenly saw a pattern emerging. We all know that the majority of the pyramids are aligned to the cardinal points, that is north, east, west and south and we really for the longest time, and most still today have no real idea of why they went through this much trouble to try to get it perfect but after reading my solution you will see it clearly. In a way it ties into my being able to tell what day it was by simply looking at the phase of The Moon. It was extremely easy to teach myself and as long as I worked it it remained but as soon as I stopped looking at The Moon and trying to figure it out it now escapes me. And so it was that I started examining pictures of the pyramids, mainly The Red Pyramid trying to figure out a way I could tell what angle I was at. And as usual in these instance I had an amazing insight. I finally saw what I had been unable to see before and as I explain it to you you will see it clearly also. The Pyramids has been aligned to the cardinal points to allow travelers to get their bearings out in the wild open spaces of the deserts where getting lost usually meant losing your life and here is how they accomplished this simple feat. Firstly we need an image of The Red Pyramid as viewed directly on it's face or from a cardinal direction. Here is one I found. This is the south face. And I guess since I was doing research on The Giza Pyramids as viewed on edge I decided to take another look to see if I could find an image that viewed this pyramid on edge. Here is one I found. Here is a small simplistic diagram I did early in my research to show this concept a little clearer. The image to the right is of course 420.0 cubits It is pretty obvious to anyone that in order to move from viewing any of the faces dead on around to the edge we of course have had to travel 45 degrees left or right. Not at all rocket science and extremely simplistic except for one itsy bitsy teeny tiny problem. We can't use angles. Oh no what are we going to do. How are we going to get across the idea of what you and I mean as 45 degrees to someone who has absolutely no concept of any degrees or circles let alone 45 degrees. Well I have to admit I struggled with this idea and concept and I really have not solved it completely because I was swept away on a tide of revelation in regards to the measure of distances but the seeds are planted and I pretty well know how I am going to solve it but let's move on just a bit. Let us now look at another example where we have no clue what the angle is from true south. How are we ever going to figure it out ? Well amazingly it is quite simple. This time let us view the pyramid as seem from above. On the surface it looks impossible to solve but it is very simple as I will demonstrate below. The only known we have is the diagonal and that is 420.0 cubits as show in the diagram below but with a little ingenuity we can form an object that can make our quest a little easier. Observe. Now we have turned it into a right angled triangle but the beauty of this comes from the fact that since we obviously can not measure the depth of field of field shown by the furthest left 187.83 we can simply "measure" to right from the edge to what we perceive as the right hand corner to get the results as shown. Since the diagonal or hypotenuse is always going to be 420 for this pyramid we simply have to divide the right and the left measures, in this case 187.83 / 375.66 and come up with a ratio. So now here is the punch line ... THE RATIO BECOMES THE ANGLE !!!!!!!! Or as it is better know TAN OR SEKED !!!!!! but oh oh wait here is the definition of Seked: "The seked of a right pyramid is the inclination of any one of the four triangular faces to the horizontal plane of its base, and is measured as so many horizontal units per one vertical unit rise. It is thus a measure equivalent to our modern cotangent of the angle of slope. In general, the seked of a pyramid is a kind of fraction, given as so many palms horizontally for each cubit of vertically, where 7 palm equal one cubit. The Egyptian word 'seked' is thus related to our modern word 'gradient'." But as I have just showed you the only constant here is the hypotenuse so this does not seem to fit the exact meaning of seked but not to worry we will come back to this problem for we still need to come up with the method ( I have it by the way) of measuring the two distances in question. So what have we accomplished here. Well we have stepped outside the box and instead of simply applying seked to up and down we (I) have used it to measure angles on the ground east and west. I have turned myself into a transit and have manged to figure out, using basically a form of trig to find the angle of approach to any pyramid in Egypt. Here is what I mean. The values by the way I preset for demonstration purposes at 26.5656 but since we do not know angles we will simply call it 0.5 seked since they are in the ratio 1 to 2 as shown by the image below. Because as you can see the ratio will always be from 0 to 1 since what we used to call 45 degrees has "a" and "b" equal to 1 and thus we will now call simply seked 1 Here is the iamge. So now whenever you look at a pyramid you should be able to figure out what angle it is being viewed from. And that concludes today's lesson. However do we really want to call what we used to call angles simply 0.5 and 0.66 and 0.75 and 1 or can we find another more interesting way to label them. That is what I will have to find out for you for I have not got that far yet for next up is how I solved the problem of the measuring or "The Stretching of The Chord" Cheers and I hope you are enjoying ... Don Barone
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Aug 17, 2015 7:15:09 GMT -5
| The Pyramids of Egypt
The Secrets Revealed
Part VIII
The Secret Surveyors and The Methods They Used
| |
Hi all ... in this posting (if I have time) we are going to get to the meat of my theory on how The Ancient Surveyors were able to do what they did, that is re-measure the fields of Egypt. Even the name of the ceremony --- "The Stretching of The Chord" evokes images of ancient Egyptians scurrying around and measuring with their 100 cubit rope "chains" however few have stopped to ask ... what were they measuring from and to where were they measuring. This method of surveying would have been adequate for local small distance surveying but how was Egypt itself measured. How the devil did those ancient surveyors manage to quickly and efficiently and accurately lay out the fields each and every year. It was the life blood of the nation and so it was imperative that each year all the fields were put back in place in as close a position to what it was before as possible. So the question has been , at least to me and the child who asked how they got the Cadbury milk chocolate in the Cadbury milk bar, how did they do it ? How did they re-lay out the fields each year ? Well I think I know and along the way I have found some very interesting things. I have discovered why in Ancient Egypt everything was a fraction. I have also learned that The Ancient Egyptians definitely DID NOT know the decimal system and that the reason for the pyramids is not that they were tombs but something else entirely. Were the pyramids maybe taken over some time later after their construction for tombs ? Possibly but I doubt even that. The pyramids had a very specific purpose. How many of us have wondered why 440 and 280 for The Great Pyramid ? Why 200 and 420 for The Red Pyramid ? Why 200 (maybe 198) and 360 (maybe 362) for The Bent Pyramid ? And why oh why is their such a strange number of inches in the Royal Cubit. Well my solution answers all these questions and more. Along with answering these questions it will also show you an extremely easy trick of measuring the deserts of Egypt. It will also allow you to figure out your distance from some of the great landmarks of our planet. Creighton has his cross and now I have ... well let's just call it "The Barone Contraption" ... with this simple device which I will show you when I get home from work, you will become a surveyor extraordinaire and join the ranks of the learned of the ancient world. Excited ? I hope so ...I am. Cheers Don Barone
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Aug 17, 2015 8:49:42 GMT -5
Hi Charlotte ... The Ancient Builders DID NOT KNOW ANGLES. They did not need them. He is in error. They knew only "Seked" I will explain and prove it soon. Best Don Barone Hi Don, I wouldn't know about the angles, but will try to find Mr. Young's comments in his book "The Bell Notes". Cheers to your research!
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Aug 17, 2015 19:53:52 GMT -5
| The Pyramids of Egypt
The Secrets Revealed
Part VIII
The Secret Surveyors and The Methods They Used
| |
Hi again I have thought of nothing all day but continuing on with these postings. A question, why 440 cubits for the base ... why 280 cubits for the height. I mean really why not 260 and 415 ? Why oh why did they choose these measurements and distances and the answers are so profound that I really feel like I am back in Ancient Egypt because I suddenly understand so much so well now. I have been told a zillion times to get rid of my decimals and to really understand Egyptian Mathematics you have to understand fractions but you know what those learned mathematicians never once attempted to explain to us WHY DID THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS USE FRACTIONS ?. Seriously have you ever given it any thought ? I know I hadn't. Well I am going to explain it to you and once you see it you will marvel with me and wonder did Pythagoras ruin us or help us ? And speaking of Pythagoras let us go back to an earlier image where the significance may have been overlooked. Here is the image. Here is the image I would like us to examine again:
Think about this for just minute. What we have done is taken "Pythagoras' theorem and changed it completely. No longer do you need angles or anything else. All you need is a straight line and a diagonal. Or in reality a "square". Allow me to demonstrate.
And surprisingly I learned something form this diagram. In a 1, 2 sq rt of 5 right angled triangle (as featured above) d squared (which is b + a squared) subtract c squared or hypotenuse and we are left with b squared . Very neat and unusual. It is my contention that the ancient Egyptians were using this way before the time of The Greeks and to me shows me that there can be little doubt that Pythagoras got his ideas directly from the Ancient Egyptians.
But for heavens sake Don on with the measuring ! For those who know me they know that way, way back I spent 8 years as a surveyor first as a rodman and then as an instrument man and then as a Party Chief building an oil refinery. And although I really never totally understood it all I did retain a few ideas that stuck with me. One of the things that never left me was the idea of "stadia" Here is a definition of stadia: Here is the link Now to make it quick and simple the transit instrument that measures angles can also double as a level and when one looks through the scope one sees this:
The distance you are away from the rod is equal to the distance between the top and bottom cross hairs x 100. I was convinced that The Ancient Egyptians used some form of stadia and so for many years on and off when I was thinking of this topic I always thought this was the way I needed to go and where the solution lay but I was to be found not even close. I was convinced that Khonsu played a key role but again I think I was wrong. Here is the image that led me to believe that this might be where the solution lay as Khonsu sure looks like he was holding a rod.
Don you are starting to annoy even me Okay out with it. Okay the solution came to me in a flash of insight when I was looking at my earlier work and trying to figure out how I was going to measure the "a" and "b" side of the pyramid sides. I was thinking what could I use and then I thought well really the only instrument of measure that would have been available to me back in 2500 B.C was the cubit so it would have to be the tool I used. While I was sitting there figuring out if I would be able to calculate the ratios of the two pyramid sides in order to calculate the azimuth or approach angle to the pyramid form the cubit the tsunami hit the brick wall of ignorance and shattered it it into a million pieces. Now I have ridden tsunamis of knowledge and enlightenment before but this was to a bit different. It wasn't hurried. I had learned so much over the last 16 years, when I first received my enlightenment that I could enjoy this to the fullest and I has also learned to jot everything down for I had found out the hard way that sometimes things only come to you once. So as I was sitting there thinking about the cubit and of course the pyramids always enter the picture and I suddenly thought hey wait a minute maybe I can use the cubit in some way as a measuring rod. But how ? And then I had a break through in thinking that I am sure will change the course of Egyptology. I thought hey wait a minute I can use the cubit as a rod and then use a form of stadia. However after the initial rush of excitement I realized that it would not work because to read the rod you would need a very powerful lens and although I had done research that did show the Ancient Egyptians did use and possess lenses. And then the tsunami broke through the last barrier of the darkness and I was bathed in the light of knowledge for I instantly saw the solution. Here is it.
If one holds a measuring device, in this case the cubit and holds it up in front of him, if he could some how figure out the angle between the top and bottom of the rod to the pyramid he could figure things out. Allow me to post and illustration of what I mean.
However how could we ever hope to figure out what the distance was from the 1 cubit mark to the end of the line and further how could this even help us figure out the distance and then the final mists of non understanding passed and I was sitting there with the solution. I had to figure a way of knowing what the distance was from the cubit rod to the end point and then I thought of the pyramid and the cubit and then realized that both had 28 units. The cubit had 28 digits and The Great Pyramid had 28, 10 cubit spacing. There had to be a logical connection and there was. In a 45 degree angle the height is equal to the base. So in this diagram below we are showing a 45 degree angle with height and base of 280 cubits.
Now using my brain I finally figured out that if I held up a cubit rod at the right place I would simply have to line the top of the rod with the top of the pyramid and I should know how far way I was. But this would only work as below:
So how in the middle of the desert would I be able to do this. I immediately thought of my arm and when I measured, or actually got someone at work to measure from the tip of my fingers to my eyes I was very disappointed to see that it was 24 inches. I needed 20.62 inches and then my heart raced for I knew now what the solution was. I called the girl back and I said, while gripping my phone in my hand I said Belinda measure the distance now from the phone to my eyeglass and as she started to measure I said ... IT IS 20.62 INCHES ISN'T IT ! Her face turned white and she yelled at me how the hell could you know that. You are really starting to freak me out Don. And so there you have part of it. The distance from the eye to the center of a clenching fist is none other than 20.62 inches... THE CUBIT !!!!!!!!! and I am sure a gift from the gods to allow us to figure all of this out with only using our body. And so it came about that the ease of calculating distances followed. And here is how we now do it. In a 45 degree angle ( I am going to use 7 units for ease of clarity) when we stand at a spot that is 280 cubits from the Great Pyramid and hold the cubit rod out in front of us this is what you would see. I am going to use the cubit rod found in The Louvre.
So just so you understand what we have discovered and what we are doing. If we hold a cubit rod out in front of us and the pyramid completely fills the 7 units then we are 280.0 cubits from the center of the pyramid. Now how neat is that. But I hear a question from the back of the room "what happens if it only fills 6 of the 7 units and that folks is where the miracle and genius of Egyptian Mathematics and what we have discovered come into effect. First allow me to post a picture of the pyramid only going to the sixth marking.
So now we are standing at a spot where holding the cubit out in from of us we see that the pyramid just covers the first six markings. The question would be how far away am I and the answer is the work of Grade 3 school work. We simply divide 280 by 6 to get 46 AND TWO THIRDS and then multiply by the 7 units we still have on the bottom. Correct answer equals 326 and TWO THIRDS !
Let's try 5.5 our favorite from The Great Pyramid. Here is the image when The Great Pyramid fills up to the 5 1/2 marking. Here is that image.
By now everyone of you should be able to figure out how far away from the pyramid we are. We simply divide 280 by 5.5 and then multiply by 7 to get 356 AND 4 / 11THS (our way is 356.3636363636). And things to note and learn,. Every one of these results yields a fraction and so that is why The Ancient Egyptians were quite content to get about their business using just fractions for there base was not 10 or 5 or 2 no their base was what they have tried to tell us all along was that THEY USED BASE 7 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You know I have spent almost all my life saying to myself and others, Keep searching for the truth and one day it just might find you" I think that day is now. I hope you realize what we have discovered here. It is an entirely new way to look at The Ancient Egyptians. Gone are the circles and the decimals and the other fringe ideas and in their palace we have a new reality ... or have we ? Why base 7 ? And here is something to ponder ... rather than asking which came first the chicken or the egg let us ask ourselves which came first ... The Great Pyramid or the cubit. For in my research I have proved that the ancient measurements were a gift from The Creator, they mimic the proportions of our solar system almost exactly and now using "base 7" I am certain that the values I was getting 99.98 for will now be close to certainty. For maybe the creator did not rest on the seventh day, maybe he used the 7th day and his base 7 to help mankind along ...
PS I almsot forgot. For those who may think this is all fanciful thinking I will point you to one single image which tells a story far greater than we could ever have imagined. Here is the image. Thoth the wisest of the wise. the giver of measures, doing ... well what does it appear to you he is doing ?
Humbly Yours Don Barone ... and I have to repeat here the wisest saying I think I have ever heard ... If I seem to see further than some it is simply because I have stood on the shoulders of giants. Amen Emhotep
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Aug 17, 2015 23:18:02 GMT -5
Okay I had gone to bed but when I am in this state the mind never rests. And so it is I have figured out that to measure the sides on the turned pyramids we will simply use the cubit and base 7 for that is how they saw their world. And to the Greeks I turn a thumbs down because they indeed were wrong. They pondered on the circle and did it exist and interestingly I have argued for many years that the true circle exists only in the imagination. So when they measure the two sides it is always a multiple of 4 or 7 or 28 for they use the cubit and that is what it consists of. And in the circle the next point is always a fraction smaller. No decimal in the world of the circle. And so I now agree with The Ancient Egyptians who like me knew then as I have known for a very long time ... the circle DOES NOT EXIST. It is a meaningless concept and that is why they never used it or discovered it. They knew it did not exist. Now there is no longer any doubt whatsoever that Pythagoras took the ideas of The Ancient Egyptians and turned them into something unrecognizable. And as I think back to that Grade 9 class where we were told that 22 / 7 was Greek Pi a smile now comes to my face for I now know it was never Greek Pi but EGYPTIAN PI !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Aug 18, 2015 23:44:14 GMT -5
Okay just a short post today and an update. Because of the simplicity of the system if you know the distance or have to set a specific distance ... let's say 380 feet then you would simply divide it by 280 and then subtract if from 7. For example staying with the 7 unit you would divide 380 cubits by 280 to get 1.3571428 (1 and 2/7 ths) and then subtract that from 7 to get 5 and 5/7 ths. So you would know that your pyramid of 280 cubits would hit the 5 and 5/7th mark on your cubit rod when held out in front of you. To prove that simply divide 280 by 5 and 5/7th and then multiply by 7 and we will get 380 again. Extremely simply really. So for example let's say you had to measure 1250 cubits. You could guesstimate a point close to that distance and then rapidly proceed to that point and then fine tune it by holding your hand and cubit up to the pyramid. So if you say guesstimated to within 70 cubits then you could simply measure the 70 cubits. It would actually be extremely quick to do. But let's have a closer look at that concept of no angles. What we call 45 degrees to the Ancients would simply be 1. But now we have to measure the distances with no decimals either. So we would get out our cubit of say 28 units and let's say we get 3 on the short side and 4 on the longer side. This is of course a very simple example to keep things clear. One would be 3/28th and the other would be 4/28ths since that is our scale and ruler. So we have in fact divided our ratio of 1 into 28 parts. So if you remember we will always be between 0 and 1 and we find that 3 divided by 4 = in our units 0.75 but to the Egyptians it was simply seked 3/4 ths or 3 quarters. So basically they did not use angles they used seked but really they simply used ratio of two line segments and because they used base 7 they always arrived at a fraction. So what they had done is divide our 45 degrees (their 1) into 28 parts. They of course could get much more accurate if they needed it and so basically 45 was divided by 28 and the ratio became 1 degree modern = 1.6071428571428571428571428571429 or 1 and 17/28ths ! So if they went to 56 division of a cubit the ratio to a degree would become 1 /2 of 1.607 or 45 / 46 = 0.80357142857142857142857142857143 or 45 / 56ths which would equal 1/2 (28/56) + 1/4 (14/28) + 1/28th (2/56) + 1/56 = 45/56ths. So in this case the "angle" or ratio of deflection really I guess is 45/56ths. So if they divided it again they would then get 45/112th and so on.
Cumbersome but I think that it because I am new to it. I will keep practicing and see if I can improve.
And now just a little update. I asked for reinstatement at the two message boards I had been barred from, Graham's and Ma'at. Surprisingly I got a thumbs DOWN from Graham's site but Hermione felt I deserved another chance. Who would have thought ... So I am now posting at Ma'at again after I think 4 years.
Cheers Don
|
|
|
Post by Charlotte on Aug 19, 2015 7:52:04 GMT -5
Reinstated at Ma'at! Congratulation Don, bring out your fencing equipment I haven't been there in a year or so, there used to be and probably still are posters who have interesting views to learn from. I hope you enjoy productive discussions there.
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Aug 19, 2015 13:55:05 GMT -5
Actually I have made some interesting posts already Charlotte et al so come on over. Least of which I have gone on record as saying it would have been impossible for The Ancient Egyptians to have used Pi and Phi ... and best of all ... I prove why. Cheers and hope to see you there Charlotte. Don
|
|