The 23.5 Degree Problem and It's Solution

[Don Barone]

Hi all ... well as always a single image can start me off and so it is I am on another "bender". Using an image designed by Gary Osborn I believed I had solved an age old problem and that was to square the circle. That is simply meant to be able to draw a square each side of which is 1/4th of the circumference of a corresponding circle. It is deemed impossible but as always they did not look toward the planets and Giza to try to find their answer, I did. So let's repeat the problem at hand. As part of the squaring problem solution I needed a way to draw a 23.5 degree angle and as far as I can tell there is no classical geometry that will give it to us but I think I have found a way and I found it where I find all my answers in the planets and at Giza and so let us begin ...

Here is the image that started this latest round of revelations and it is deemed to be "The Philosopher's Stone" and is pictured here in it's original form.

Emblem 21” from the book ‘Atalanta fugiens’ by German physician and alchemist Michael Maier (1568–1622)



Now Gary Osborn and I had done a bit of research on this image (him way more than me) but it was this image below that started me thinking about the squaring solution.



Here is what Manly Hall writes:

 The Philosopher’s Stone is an ancient symbol of the perfected and regenerated man whose divine nature shines forth through a chain of purified and unfolded vehicles.

It is a term used to describe the Supreme Wisdom, the union of the divine consciousness or omniscient Solar Principle in man with the lower consciousness or personality, which union has been the goal of Initiates of all ages.
Exoterically, the Philosopher’s Stone is the secret of the transmutation of the baser metals into gold. Esoterically, it is the transformation of the self. This is what is known as the “Great Work”.
The alchemical illustration shown is “Emblem 21” from the book ‘Atalanta fugiens’ by German physician and alchemist Michael Maier (1568–1622)
“Make of a man and woman a circle; then a quadrangle; out of this a triangle; make again a circle, and you will have the Stone of the Wise.”

In the image, the green square, which has been added to the original drawing, has the same perimeter as the outer circle. The squares length may at first seem arbitrary until we rotate it 45 degrees and see that it intersects perfectly with the smaller square containing the man and woman.

So with this image in my mind I turned to Gary Osborn's classic image and his solution where he proposed the larger circle was Earth and then in an inspirational moment put Mercury in the small square. But he wasn't finished. He decided to use the 3 to 11 ratio of The Moon (3 units) and The Earth (11 units) to round off his amazing image The resulting avalanche of discoveries that it yields is remarkable. Here is Gary's image:



Now Gary had assigned a distance of 7920 miles as the diameter of his Earth and of course The Moon would be 2160 miles and Mercury would be 4879.4 kilometres (see various websites online including Wikipedia) which translates to 3031.92 miles (ratio 1 mile = 1.60934 kilometres exactly) So armed with these distances I decided to fill in the blanks on the missing distances. Here is the result of that first foray.


Larger clearer image

Which eventually led to these breakthroughs.

I noticed that 1/2 the "diameter" of Mercury of 1515.96 (1/2 of Mercury diameter of 3031.92 miles) when added to the base of a 23.5 triangle with long side 3031.92 ( tan of 66.5 or about 2.2996 divided into 3031.92 ) gave us 1318.316 and that when added to 1/2 base of Mercury gave us 2834.276. Because they were there and because it is what I do I decided to see what the ratio was of 1515.96 and 2834.276. Imagine my shock, delight and bewilderment when I got this result. The ratio of 2834.276 / 1515.96 equalled 1.86962475. Now to most, if not all of you this would be a meaningless number but I have crunched many, many numbers and realized in an instant that this was very close to the ratio of the semi major axis of Venus divided into the semi major axis of Mercury. Semi major access being simply the average distance from the Sun a planet is since all orbits are elliptical. Venus's semi major axis is 108,208,930 kilometres while Mercury comes in at 57,909,050  kilometres for a ratio of 108,208,930 / 57,909,050 or 1.8686. Not an exact match but reasonably close. (1.8686 / 1.8696 or 0.9995 accurate)

Here is the image it yields ....


Click to see larger and clearer image

I thought that this is where it would end especially after posting this diagram on my image of The Giza Rectangle and getting these results:


See larger and clearer image


See larger and clearer iamge


See larger and clearer image


How this all led me to the solution for the squaring of the circle will be my next post.

Cheers
Don Barone
[/font]

[Don Barone]

Okay moving on.

In geometry there are some easy basic angles one can construct. . For example in a 1, 2 sq rt of 5 right angled triangle the angles are tan .5 or 26.565 and (90 - 26.565) 63.435 In a 3, 4 and 5 sides right angled triangle we have tan of .75 or 36.870 and (90 - 36.870) 53.13 degrees ... (We will ignore for the moment the interesting fact that 26.565 is one half of 53.13 from two separate and different right angled triangles.) We also can easily construct 180, 90, 45, 22.5, 11.25, and 5.625. We can also get 120, 60, 30, 15, and 7.5 as well as any angles that relate to Phi but here is what we can not construct using straightedge, compass and marker and that is 1 degree ... AND .... 23.5 degrees.

On the surface this does not seem like a major catastrophe but I had found that by using Gray Osborn's drawing and his 23.5 angle and Mercury and Earth and The Moon I had managed to possibly square the circle. I actually was feeling pretty good until I had the thought that for heaven's sake this "proof" can't work because I can't draw the 23.5 angle to start the darn drawing going. I was quite put out but then I saw where all of this was going. Where it had always been going, back to my favourite geometrical place on Earth, Giza. And there once again among the pyramids I found all the answers I was looking for. And here is the explanation. Why it is there and why it works and how the hell they knew goes a bit beyond me but build it in stone they did . A remarkable solution to an age old problem. And what did they use to show us the solution ... well as they always did at Giza THEY USED THE PLANETS ! Now some will call this yet another co-incidence and to them I give my pity for being so blind as to see the gifts presented to us. Others will simply not be able to understand and so it is my job to make this as simple as possible for what can not be done with The Greek Geometry is quite nicely done at Giza using The Great Pyramid, The Pyramid of Khafre and the planets Earth, Venus and Mercury. It is almost unbelievable in it's perfection and here is a possible solution to not only how to get a 23.5 degree angle but also how the ancient builders managed to square the circle ... in stone.

But first some basic facts, In a 23.5 degree right angled triangle the angles are of course 23.5, 66.5 and 90 degrees but the key are the sides. So if the side opposite the 23.5 angle is 1 the side opposite the 66.5 degree angle will be 2.29984255. So no matter what size the side is opposite the 23.5 degree angle the other side opposite the 66.5 degree angle will be 2.29984255 times larger. So now an example. If the side opposite the 23.5 is 7 then the second side, the one opposite 66.5 would be 7 x 2.29984255 or 16.098898. Actually quite simple really. The only number we need to really be aware of is 2.29984255.

And now ... On to Giza.

Here kudos have to be given to Gary Osborn who has been researching this stuff longer than I have. I always felt that one day our paths of research would collide and it seems today is that day. Gary in his attempt to solve "The Philosopher's Stone" problem came up with the idea of putting Mercury in the square and making Earth represent the larger circle. It was quite an ingenious thought and I have posted and looked at the image many times but I never was comfortable with his 23.5 degree angle fixation because I did not feel that it could really be correctly drawn. Lately he resurrected his drawings on Facebook and the discussion became quite lively. He had posted the dimensions of The Moon at 2160 miles (3 units) and The Earth at 7920 (11 units) and Mercury which is 4879.4 kilometres works out to 3031.9261 miles. So as I explained above it became obvious that we could also fit Venus in there and most importantly of all of that is by using just The Great Pyramid or G1 and The Pyramid of Khafre G2 we can and they do give us the 23.5 angle. Observe from this image.



And my friends it works to with 3/10ths of one inch and allow me to show you that math.

The east side of G1 is measured by Petrie to be 9067.7 inches (try to ignore the beauty of the fact that I am using the east side of my square ) So if my theory holds true then the distance from the east edge of the blue square to the east edge of the green sqaure of G2 should be and is of course 9067.7 / 2.29984255 and calculates to 3942.7482. The the overall north edge of the green square is 1/2 of the blue square plus 3942.7482 or 9067.7 / 2 + 3942.7482 which equals 4533.85 + 3942.75 and equals 8476.60

And from Petrie:
 
N. side = 8471.9
E. side = 8475.2
S. side = 8476.9
W. side = 8475.5

And lo and behold it checks to the south side of G2 to 0.3 inches or 3/10th of one single inch or 0.99996 accuracy.

And thus having solved the question of how do we get 23.5 degrees at Giza I could move on to the solving of circling of the square.

Cheers
Don Barone

[Don Barone]

Okay so let's see how the planets and The Giza Pyramids and The Creator got together to show us their version of "squaring the circle". This problem is quite simple. Simply stated can we get a square who's 4 sides added together is equal to any given circumference. Well the short of it is that no we can't and never will be able to ... EXACTLY ... because calculating a circumference always includes multiplying by Pi and once we do that no other number will ever divide evenly into this again except a mutple of Pi and Pi itself and Pi is a number that never repeats a sequence and is infinite and thus the problem is futile. So you may ask why do I claim to have solved it ? Well read what I put down and you can make your own determination. Well the closest determination of Pi one can really work with is 355 / 113 which yields:

3.1415929203539823008849557522124 .. while Pi itself is :
3.1415926535897932384626433832795

So this ratio is correct to 0.9999999151

Does it square the circle ? Does a square with sides 88.75 meet the requirements ? Well technically no but this checks to 8 / 100,000,000 millionths or about a mile (corrected by author) off the centre of the Sun from Earth. But I confuse the issue. Basically I guess you could claim that depending on the number of decimals involved would determine the accuracy of Pi and so it is that I present my case of The Giza Pyramids and the planets Mercury, Earth and Venus showing how they go about squaring the circle.

In our diagram we have used 7920 miles as the diameter of Earth so the circumference would be 7920 x Pi = 24881.4138164 and to figure out the sides of a matching sqaure we simply divide by 4 and we get 6220.353454 So let us begin to plot this on Gary's diagram.



The major exercise in all of this is where was the diagonal of the square falling. Was it the centre of The Earth globe ? Was it the top of the sqaure that showed us Mercury ? Was it neither but somewhere else ? The answer I think will surprise you. It did me.

Okay so now to fill in the values. As I have stated side of the square is 6220.3534 miles and to calculate the diagonal simply multiply by sq rt of 2 or  1.4142135623731 x 6220.3534  to get 8796.90822 and then divide by 2 to get the measure to the centre point and we get 4398.45411 and we end up with this diagram ... Sorry what was that ? Well yes now that you mention it 4398.45411 is extremely close to the base of The Great Pyramid times 10 in cubits.



Okay in the final diagram below I have filled in all the values ... The actual diagonal of the sqaure that matches the circumference falls about 0.27 off the exact centre of The Earth. Not exact but damn impressive to me.



Larger and much clearer image

So the conclusion is inescapable. along with everything else that I have found at Giza they also squared the circle and left us the 23.5 angle so that Gary's diagram would work. I honestly never cease to marvel at what I uncover here at Giza.

Cheers

[Don Barone]

An epilogue

Okay so what can we conclude and use from this exercise. Well firstly diameter of Earth is 7920. Radius is 3960. The length of the side of the square that has the same perimeter as The Earth's circumference is 6220.353454 ... So now what do we suppose the ratio might be ? Well let's find out. Well the perfect distance or half the diagonal of the sqaure gives us 8796.90822 / 2 or 4398.45411 and this gives us a ratio of 3960.00 / 4398.45411 ... would anyone like to quickly guess what it might be ? Think rectangle ... and Giza .. well the ratio works out to 1.110721 and 0.90031632 ... Looks an awful lot like 9 and 11 want to keep playing. ... And you will note of course that 4398.45411 is very close to 4400 BUT NOT QUITE ! and interestingly the angles we get using these ratio numbers as tans are 48.00 and 52.00 most interesting and there is more coming I believe.

And not to hit you with too much all at one time but as some of you might know the orbital period of Mercury IS NOT 88 days as most would like to believe but is in fact

Orbital period

87.969 1 d
0.240 846 yr
0.5 Mercury solar day

Synodic period
115.88 d[2]

THIS IS EXACTLY, AND I MEAN EXACTLY WHAT WE GET IN THE ABOVE FIGURE FOR SQUARING THE CIRCLE TIMES 100

87.9691 x 100 = 8796.91 and that precisely matches our figure of 8796.91 (rounded)

Oh goodie another chapter for my book


So if we stay with my height of 280.01428 and my new angle of 41.998 (42 rounded) base would then become 622.03475 and within a breath of 6220.353454 actually checking for 0.9999990



Regards
db

[Don Barone]

And a couple of images for clarity ... and could this really be showing us G3 as well ?

Scales pretty close.



And the three pyramids together again ...



Click for a larger and clearer image

That's it for now folks ...

Cheers
Don Barone

[Don Barone]

Hi all I couldn't leave it hanging. I couldn't leave anyone with the impression that G3 was there without doing the math. I did not do it yesterday because I was being lazy so I have done it this morning. The results are not what I expected or wanted but they do pose an interesting question. Here is the image ...



Mercury in this image represents G1 and so in this image is 439.845 cubits (read this thread to see where I got this value from) . At Giza G3 is said to be 201.46 cubits and thus the ratio is 439.845 / 201.46 or 2.18329. So if this diagram was to be correct G3 on my drawing would have to be 3031.92 (value of Mercury in miles on the diagram) divided by 2.18329 and should equal 1388.695. Sadly it does not. It equals 1375.155 and this translates to  2.2048 and gives us 199.49 cubits using 439.845 as our base for G1. Is this a total catastrophe ? Well according to Mark Lehner ... an ex Cayce disciple turned Egyptologist he has this to say ... on page 134 of his book "The Complete Pyramids" ..



Click for a larger and readable image

He claims that G3 is  102.2 x 104.6 metres or 335 feet by 343 feet or 4023.62 inches by 4118.11 inches ... And I am sure you are saying yeah well so what !

Well in our diagram above if we assign "G1" or Mercury a value of 9069 we get G3 in our diagram equalling 9069 / 2.20478 or 4113.33 or within 5 inches of Lehner's value of 4118.11. Not great but acceptable. so now is Lehner correct. Does this diagram prove him correct ?

We are still waiting for the jury to return ... But if I was on that jury I might be inclined to trust in the pyramids and the 23.5 degree angle ... Online there are a variety of sizes which range from a high or largest of 4258 inches down to the smallest of 4023 inches. All the more reason to trust in this diagram and assigning the value of G3 as 199.50 cubits (or 4113.33 inches or 342.777 feet)

Best
Don Barone

[Don Barone]

Okay so what's in an angle you might ask ... as a poster on Graham did and so I decided, because it is what I do, to see when it was exactly that our Earth was at this "sacred angle" of 23.5. We are currently at 23.44 degrees axis tilt. So now we need data and it is pretty easy to come by.

It is agreed by those that know these things I guess that we follow a cycle of about 40,000 years to change from our smallest tilt of 22.1 to our largest tilt of 24.5. That change is 2.4 degrees and we are said to be decreasing so that means we are on our way to 22.1 and were "just recently" at 23.5 degrees but when ?

It actually is a very easy calculation and here is is. Since we change 2.4 degrees in 40,000 it stands to reason and the math says so that 1 degree takes 40,000 / 2.4 or 1666.67 years. Pretty easy eh what ?

But we haven't changed 1 degree no we have only changed from 23.5 to 23.44 or 0.06 of a degree. So we simply multiply 16666.67 x 0.06 and we arrive at 1000 years ! And interestingly this puts us right in the middle (+ or -) of the Viking discoveries and their settling of Iceland and Greenland (we all know it was warmer then ) and also it was a period where the magnetism was at it's peak and navigation was made simple because of the strength of the magnetic north pole. Yes ... we will have to do a bit more study on this. But as always ... "Houston we have a problem" ... The pyramids were obviously built well before around 1000 AD yet they can be found in this 23.5 diagram ... Maybe I need to look a little further back at the next to last time if was at 23.5 degrees ... will do that and keep you posted.

Best
Don Barone

[Don Barone]

Hi all ... A sneak peak at my latest web site. Most interesting ...

The Tilt Angle Page: A Study of where we were, tilt wise, as we made our way through history.


Cheers and as always enjoy.

db

[Charlotte]

Nice historical timeline, Don, agrees with my relatively short Asian/European migration period. Informative images also concerning the Philosophers Stone, above and below.
You know me and math.

Cheers Don!

[Don Barone]

Thanks Charlotte and now another image with dimensions to be shown when I return from "The Salt-mines".



Semi major axis' being shown ...

Cheers

[Don Barone]

The follow-up diagram with the measurements



Cheers
Don Barone

[Don Barone]

Hi all ... well since they called this diagram "The Philosopher's Stone" and it is said one is brilliant if one understands or has "The Wisdom of Solomon" (Maybe The Sun [Sol]) and The Moon) I have decided to look a little deeper into this image and some strange things lurk in the midnight sun to be sure. If we use the polar diameters of the Moon and Earth we get what we see in the following image. The distance down to where the 23.5 diagonals cross is now very nearly 1/10 of the circumference of our Earth. And The Moon and The Earth for all intents and purposes "square the circle". The Creator has struck again. "KISS" was and remains "IT'S" motto.

Observe as we look even deeper into Gary's image and please note a lot of these new ideas are coming from my work at Giza.



Cheers
Don Barone

[Don Barone]

I "stole" the image off of Scott Onstott but I filled in the measurements ...




Cheers and welcome strangers from stranger lands.

"Moses"

[Don Barone]

Hi all here is an interesting image from Scott O on something we had discussed but he suggested "Furlongs" so I decided to see what a furlong equalled and as always quite interesting. But first his image:



What he fails to mention in this diagram is that he has not been totally transparent. He has a lot of 63360 and such but let's look at his numbers ...

63360 miles on the circumference would equal a square of 63360 and each side would then equal  63360 / 4 = 15840 so far everything looks good because 7920 x 2 = 15840  BUT   63360 / Pi = 63356.858 so although it is close and same as mine it does sort of square the circle but it is unfair to make it appear like it all checks exactly.   It really bugs me when things are "rounded" to the point of being misleading.

But interestingly:

1 furlong = 220 yards ! (220 cubits is half base of The Great Pyramid" 

1 furlong = 201.168 metres (number of cubits in G3 ? )

1 furlong = 660.001 feet or divides into the perimeter of The Great Pyramid (1760 / 660.001 = 2.66667)  and if we subtract The Moon from The Earth and then divide by The Moon we get 2.666667 (7920 - 2160 = 5760 / 2160 = 2.66667)



1 furlong = 7920.02 inches or the number of miles in an Earth diameter

Anyway for now I think we are ...



Cheers
"Moses"

[Don Barone]

Good Morning all. I was thinking that I should add or emphasize that of all the possible places or sizes that the square could be drawn there is only one place or size where it could be drawn with it's diagonal meeting the diameter of our larger circle which we have called "Earth" What may go unnoticed or un-commented on is the fact that the square we have or Gary has labelled Mercury is the only square that can be drawn that allows this to take place. That is that a larger of smaller internal square would not allow this diagram to occur. Also only the 23.5 degree angle and it's corresponding square which is produced allows this "squaring of The Earth circle" and only the 23.5 angle produces the smaller square.

Philosopher's Stone indeed.

Regards
Don Barone

[Don Barone]

Hi all ... I was thinking about this problem again and you know what ... we assume that the "quadrangle" in the centre is to be a square but nowhere does it say that. Here is the definition of quadrangle from Wiki ...

In Euclidean plane geometry, a quadrilateral is a polygon with four edges (or sides) and four vertices or corners. Sometimes, the term quadrangle is used, by analogy with triangle, and sometimes tetragon for consistency with pentagon (5-sided), hexagon (6-sided) and so on.

The origin of the word "quadrilateral" is the two Latin words quadri, a variant of four, and latus, meaning "side".

Quadrilaterals are simple (not self-intersecting) or complex (self-intersecting), also called crossed. Simple quadrilaterals are either convex or concave.

The interior angles of a simple (and planar) quadrilateral ABCD add up to 360 degrees of arc, that is

Angle A + Angle B + Angle C + Angle D = 360 

This is a special case of the n-gon interior angle sum formula (n − 2) × 180°.

All convex quadrilaterals tile the plane by repeated rotation around the midpoints of their edges.

Here again is what it says:

“Make of a man and woman a circle; then a quadrangle; out of this a triangle; make again a circle, and you will have the Stone of the Wise.”

So is it to be a square ? Well one has to wonder if it was going to be a sqaure ... why did they simply not just say square instead of quadrangle ?

Just a thought ... what are yours ?

Further thoughts ...

Any four-sided shape is a Quadrilateral. The other name for a quadrilateral is Quadrangle ("four angles"). Quadrangle is a word often used for an open space where people get together, for instance on a school or university campus. In this case the quadrangle is typically a rectangle or square. A quadrangle is a plane figure consisting of four points, each of which is joined to two other points by a line segment. Quadrangle is often used identically with quadrilateral or tetragon, particularly in geometry. The definition of a quadrangle alters, depending on the milieu. In geometry, a quadrangle, or, usually, a quadrilateral is a figure with four sides and four corners. In architecture, the term is used for a courtyard that is bounded on all sides by a building. The word quadrilateral is a combination of words quad, meaning "four" and lateral meaning "of sides".

Link to above quote:

Regards
Don Barone

EDIT: Not thinking too clearly this morning ... the only "quadrangle" that can enclose a circle on all sides is of course the square ... I could delete this post but it is always interesting to see when I have a senior's moment.

[Don Barone]

Okay I have been thinking on how "The Builders" could have shown us Mars on The Giza Plateau. We have seen how The Great Pyramid is representing Earth and Mercury while The Pyramid of Khafre is showing us Venus and The Sun. G3 is the average of Mercury and Mars diameter wise but I had not really been able to find a definitive way of finding Mars itself. Well actually I have (in ratio anyway) but here is another interesting way of finding an approximation of Mars ...

G1 = 9069 inches

G3 = 4155 inches

Total = 13224 ... Now if assume this is a circumference in miles we get for a diameter 13224 / Pi = 4209.33 miles

And from Wiki:

Mean radius 3,389.5±0.2 km
0.531 Earths

4209.33 miles = 6774.24 kilometres / 2 = 3387.12 which is within 2 kilometres of the mean radius of Mars ...

But then I went through some older images I have and found this and then simply added our exercise on Gary Osborn's diagram and got this ... very interesting ...so does The Bent Pyramid give us the 23.5 degree angle as well ?




Click for a larger and clearer image

The pyramid in light blue is of course G2 moved downward to meet the centre of G1.

And just a note to all who are reading this ... you know you are allowed to post and comment either for or against these ideas. Not that I mind talking to myself, I find it therapeutic actually, but human interaction has it's advantages as well. So please don't be shy.

[Don Barone]

Above diagram is still not correct. I will change it when I figure out what is wrong with my brain today ...

[Don Barone]

Well not like me to be sloppy with my diagrams but the original G1 was not square. Once I corrected that it all worked out nicely



and our usual larger and clearer image:

Cheers
Don Barone

[Don Barone]

BUT ...

I have contended in the past that G1 represents the square root of 3 (1.73205...) while G2 represents Phi (1.618033...) How does that fit in with what I am proposing here. Well it can but unfortunately then the angle of 23.5 must be modified a wee bit. The angle using these figures of sq rt of 3 and Phi yield an angle of ...

sq rt of 3 = 1.73205081

Phi = 1.61803398875

Going back to our diagram Mercury/Earth then becomes sq rt of 3 or 1.73205081 while Venus becomes Phi or 1.61803398875

The angle this produces is 1/2 of sq rt of 3 - Phi = 0.75200858496545620144086366361266 Sq rt of 3 then gets divided by this (0.75200858496545620144086366361266) to give us 0.434172358963 and using this as a "tan" gives us an angle of 23.46915316 degrees checking to Gary's 23.5 angle to 0.9987. So which angle works best ? 23.5 or 23.469 in our various previous endeavours ? I will take a look when I come back from "The Salt Mines"

Regards
Don Barone

[Charlotte]

They would have loved you at the Hallstatt Salt Mines, look at the axes needing adjustment to 23.5° or are they?

cdn.hallstatt.net/assets/Hallstatt/Artikel/ueber-hallstatt/sehenswertes/salzbergwerk-hallstatt/salzbergwerk/_resampled/WebsitePicture-salzberg-sepp.jpg

[Don Barone]

[Don Barone]

Okay always something new to ponder ...

New image posted by Alex Arsu



But I saw something else (as usual)



Okay now we have another value for how many inches is a "Royal Cubit" I have run into this one before and here it is ...

sq rt of 5 + 3 =  5.2360679775 in we assume this is in metres we get 206.144408563 inches and divide by 10 we get 20.6144408563 inches in a Royal Cubit. But does this check with anything else ? Well you be the judge after you see this. As I have said I have come across this value before so this is "old hat" for me. Firstly the total numbers of inches according to Petrie from north to south on The Giza Rectangle (Plateau) is 35714.28 inches. When we divide this number of inches by 20.6144408563 we get 1732.49 and very close, actually almost identical to our favourite value of 1732.50 cubits.

And now one last thing to think on for now ... I am really not in the mood ... listening to Juice Newton ... Queen of Hearts ... distracting to be sure

Anyway ... Cole has the diagonal of The Great Pyramid as 325.699 metres which equals precisely 12822.7953 inches which is we use our new value for The Royal Cubit of 20.6144408563 we get 622.03097 cubits. Now I wonder how many were paying attention because this number is almost identical to this number ...

"Okay so now to fill in the values. As I have stated side of the square is 6220.3534 miles and to calculate the diagonal simply multiply by sq rt of 2 or 1.4142135623731 x 6220.3534 to get 8796.90822 and then divide by 2 to get the measure to the centre point and we get 4398.45411 and we end up with this diagram ... Sorry what was that ? Well yes now that you mention it 4398.45411 is extremely close to the base of The Great Pyramid times 10 in cubits."

So we have side of our square at 6220.3534 and diagonal of The Great Pyramid at 622.03097 and times 10 gives us 6220.3097 and divided by 6220.3534 gives us 0.999993 so have we proved that The Great Pyramid truly represents Earth yet ?

[Don Barone]

Hi all I have a few new ideas but it is imperative that you watch this video first ...

[Charlotte]

Thanks Don,

I attendet a few lectures at the MERU organization here in LA, but much time was taken up studying at the PRS.

Watched the video, understood some, liked the particle/wave duality and have a scientific view of what goes around comes around. As you know, the concept 'as above so below', can be applied in other ways also, in particular the Hermetic Axiom, where here below are mediated and projected all operations which govern and actuate heavely forces, which I love most.

Egypt, the copy of Heaven

[Don Barone]

Yes always more food for thought ... probably from The Garden of Earthly Delights

And a continuation of an earlier drawing and why it works ..



Two reds become one blue and then the one adjacent red becomes the blue and so on and on to infinity ... and beyond ? Reminding one of this image ...



aw yes "The Serpent in The Sky"


Cheers
db

[Don Barone]

And just a very quick post here ...

a) 227,939,100 - 149,598,261 = 78,340,839 ---- 149,598,261 / 78,340,839 = 1.9095820635773379960865622079947

b) (1 / sq rt of 5 + 3 ) x 10 = 1.9098300562505257589770658281718

c) ratio of a cube to a sphere = 6 / Pi = 1.9098593171027440292266051604702

a) = 1.9095820635773379960865622079947
b) = 1.9098300562505257589770658281718
c) = 1.9098593171027440292266051604702

b to c = 0.99998468
a to c = 0.99985483
a to b = 0.99987015

Cheers
db

[Don Barone]

And now the angles

First of a 1, 2 and sq rt of 5 right angled triangle = 26.565051177077989351572193720453 and 63.434948822922010648427806279547

Tan of 63.434948822922010648427806279547 = 2
Cosine of 63.434948822922010648427806279547 = 0.44721359549995793928183473374626 WHICH IS 1 / SQ RT OF 5
Sine of 63.434948822922010648427806279547 = 0.89442719099991587856366946749251 which equals (1 / Phi - 0.5)

1 / 2 of 63.434948822922010648427806279547 = 31.717474411461005324213903139773

Tan of 31.717474411461005324213903139773 = 0.61803398874989484820458683436564 ( 1 / Phi ! )

Cheers
db

[Don Barone]

Okay let's go back to square root of 3 and Phi and we get this diagram ... Enjoy.



Top of green G2 is Phi which equals 1/2 of sq rt of 3 or 0.8660254 + (Phi or 1.6180334 - 0.8660254) = 0.752008 nads divided by 1.73205 or height of G1 or blue square gives us 0.43417256 which is tan of 23.4691629

Cheers
Don

[Don Barone]

And another interesting image ...