|
Post by Rob on Jun 17, 2008 23:48:12 GMT -5
Hey Scott,
I took the stuff down.. until it can be thoroughly analyzed... I am pretty sure i solved Euclid's Elements #47 like nobody else has..
I see some proof's ... but, i think i put it on steriods... ...etc... but, it works nicely for geometry too..and art...
You guys seen any Gary Osborn stuff? PMac sent me a few images that look real good.. i have yet to work them... but, interesting...
I'll check back in a few days Scott. Too many numbers... but, always bounce the old school digits to test... if you get whole numbers... you "have" to look at it... Pi = 22/7 Pi = SQRT2+SQRT3 Phi=89/55
1/.81 is interesting
SQRT3/SQRT2 is crucial!
etc....
variations using the cyclics... is what Derek Skhane uses... there is something to all the old school numbers... Don always has the gems too!
I think i need to unplug too 4 a while!
peace Rob
|
|
|
Post by spaceyhippie on Jun 18, 2008 8:29:10 GMT -5
i wonder on what curve all these different derivations might be plotted n why n y'know, anybody who calls me by any o me given names hasta dressup like me ma for the resta the day gettin back into it, slowly but surely gradually pickin up where i left off still open to suggestions on the circle diagram thingy here, i'll post that pic again, so it's on the current page
|
|
|
Post by spaceyhippie on Jun 19, 2008 11:00:58 GMT -5
don, did you give me the chase line to apply to the 3 circles in oct ?
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Jun 20, 2008 4:59:53 GMT -5
Hi spacey ... no not really. However I am interested in what the radii are of the three circles you are usign and how they were arrived at.
Cheers Don Barone
|
|
|
Post by spaceyhippie on Jun 21, 2008 4:38:57 GMT -5
that's what i'm trying to determine, as well - and you win the prize for being the first lonely soul to inquire such silly abstract thingies, even excluding SC... which, do you really find him exemplary o disingenuosity, or are ya jus yankin his chain with yer whip to make him dress n numbers fly right ? last week, when i first did the above thingy i measured the circle's diameters in pixels ...and found them to be... 2:1 roughly... as purple and orange to green obviously ...but... from... near the top of page 1, here www.dudeman.net/astra/giza/oct1.html(201.5/440 cubits = 65/142 pixels... as G3 to G1) (201.5/411 cubits = 65/133 pixels... as G3 to G2) and as usual, i ended up goin off in several different directions, simultaneously - but, yesterday (so, i'm goin off memory) i got out the hi rez image of OB n measured larger circles etc with pixels (exactly), n i found that the middle short orange line does not bisect exactly, actually, but it's like 2 pixels off at 1000 pixels wide for the whole thingy (circles' edges) - still, close enough for me... n perhaps even lending to G2's virtual portability but i haven't put them in the model yet, cuz those numbers, specifically, i'm waiting on you math guys to do - n no one seems to be interested in this, what i feel is, conspicuous geometry... unless, of course, this is your way of starting... ok, i'll upload what i got... www.dudeman.net/astra/giza/oct4.htmln if ya have the mind or half the time go have another look at pages 2 n 3 i am in the process of measuring them, in pixels, so it's all... relatively... just have a look at what i got so far, n see if you can chip in where i'm stuck before i go any further in the model, i'm laying down dots for reference points ...all the corners n centers o sides for all 9 pyramids i got in, so far... 36 in all n the product of that, todays, meanderings will go on the points page then connections between, such as the chase line, on the lines page ...n it jus seems like everything i do, in this... i'm ahead of myself, already i keep getting the feeling like i'm missing something really extraordinary so i keep going back to finish up half finished other thingies, like this pic: and here's this thingy again ...n they're both on... page 3... www.dudeman.net/astra/giza/oct3.htmland may be for SC's L5 n L3, either approximately or exactly but the line G1se-G3se is at that weird 43.264 degrees
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Jun 25, 2008 13:06:44 GMT -5
Hello Don... mars earth 1881 correlation blew me off my seat.... 1 and 8 popping up all over all of a sudden... circling the square hugh... more synchro mysterio? been trying to convey that for some time... posted it to hippy last night... www.grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=243052&t=242360when you do this.... it proofs my formula of relations through SQRT2/1:1/SQRT2 !! anyway... i popped over to see what was on the menu Don... ?? cheers... keep up the inspiration... you get that new relational SQRT2\1:1/SQRT2 formula to work yet? and lock in on something? even try? i quit... it all seems to fit.. numbers all convexing... has to be coincidence.... numbers can mean so much...!! Hippy seems to have faded away.... or just taking a break from it all?? cheers Rob Hi Rob then you will love this latest "anomaly" I have found ... Large blue circle's circumference is equal to 9616.41 cubits or 14 Mars years in Earth Days ... Contained angle is 44 degrees 360 degrees divided by 44 equals ... ... 8.18181818181818181818181818181818 or 1.711111111 years Honest ! Best Don Barone
|
|
|
Post by spaceyhippie on Jun 26, 2008 3:33:20 GMT -5
o ye wise n powerful sages, who've been at this for far longer'n i
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Jun 26, 2008 8:24:03 GMT -5
Man o Man...!! Welcome Back Don!! Hope the job is going well... Now, that is some good correlating data....! You keep this up... And, your going to fill in all the blanks to that first way way back¡K. abstract paper i started... yet, removed from the public eye... involving Mars and Earth..and Khufu..and a particular pattern of numbers... Of course all speculation and written off as more imagination¡K. until good data like you have presented ¡Kcontinues to fit together.... And, this "44" angle is awesome my friend... along with your calculation... more support¡K! I keep trying to walk away... then, out pops another gem to keep the fire burning!! Plus Derek Skhane is back and tweaking his data¡K and setting up to go through some geometry¡K! So, might get a blast of interesting cyclics¡K? I know you are on Clive¡¦s team, per say...!! hahaha! But, you might want to stop into Hippy¡¦s WWW and look around... he has put in some good quality work on trying to string stuff together... If nothing else... might pop another inspiration from you..!! He¡¦s close to having highly respectable data there¡Kif more people chip in and work with him. For the record¡K I still haven¡¦t sided with anybody¡K until there is good reason for G2 offset¡K IT is hard for me to go with OCT¡K but, if you have been following¡K Hippy¡¦s data which is from all good sources¡K has setup for potential 44:14 [rectangle] Pi-tangle offset for SC¡¦s center¡K ?? Who knows¡K ?? But, still not enough to make me jump aboard¡K. Yet!! ¡K..But, modeled after 3 stars in the sky¡K. Doesn¡¦t sound like a half backed idea either¡Kgiven the ancient astronomy¡K.! ƒº Good stuff Don....
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Jun 26, 2008 8:28:04 GMT -5
Sorry about the "iK" formating... I pulled it into word to check my spelling for a change... guess word reformats my "..."'s and apostrophes....or something ?? i'll let my sloppy typing, spelling and grammar... flow next time!
|
|
|
Post by spaceyhippie on Jun 26, 2008 8:43:15 GMT -5
dearest robo-rob... dude, nobody visits out websites but us put alla yer silly stuff the fuzzy furry flyin whatevers back up ...n the 44° angle... o course, i find jus beyondo interestingk as i already been in there n measured it exactly, G2sw-G1ne ...maximally zoomed in, it works out to 44.02° almost exactly the actual intersection o 44° is at G1 coordinates (198,198) at the disc o the sphere o G1, 280 cubit radius, G1's height so a 22 cubit square... 22 cubits west... n 22 south o G1ne those pix, all on that page n posted here, back a few see, man, you's nipples don even read my breakthroughs www.dudeman.net/astra/giza/4445.html...i'm justa sad, silly wretched alleged furry hippie n ya still need to explain that 14/44 thingy to me ...ok, n now for some slightly irrelevant comedy... n then i took off for the resta the day
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Jun 26, 2008 18:20:14 GMT -5
Hi Rob I just measured the angle very roughly using a program I have but have not calculated the angle EXACTLY so it may not be 44 degrees exact.
However so far I think the best thing I have found is the circumference of circles equalling 14 and 10 Mars years in Earth days respectively.
This can not be a co-incidence.
Cheers Don Barone
PS: Job is going just fine !
|
|
|
Post by spaceyhippie on Jun 26, 2008 19:08:01 GMT -5
don, if that angle yer saying is 44° ...is from G1ne to G2se, it's 44.02°
n no comments on the comic typical
spit out those numbers for me for earth n mars circumferences etc n i'll get to em eventually one o many facets
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Jun 26, 2008 20:03:34 GMT -5
Thanks spacey ... Here is another very interesting one to check. It appears to draw a 3,4, 5 right angled triangle. Please check the angle and the point where it appears to hit the north face of G1. This is of course the configuration of G2 ... Cheers Don Barone
|
|
|
Post by spaceyhippie on Jun 27, 2008 7:59:01 GMT -5
nice doodling, but before i do anything, if you could confirm more precisely the angle hypotenuse is... running from G3sw, thru G2ne, to G1n center ?
and how close does the earth-mars correlation tie into any other rounded off sacred geometry ? n i'm not saying it's not representative intentionally just wondering what others to look for, eventually
|
|
|
Post by spaceyhippie on Jun 27, 2008 8:34:15 GMT -5
n this is jus me assuming planetary orbits are not randomly but setup by nature, n thus figuring to phi etc accordingly it'll go on this page, ultimately eventually www.dudeman.net/astra/giza/triangles.htmln this groovy 3D pic, from there, already
|
|
|
Post by spaceyhippie on Jun 27, 2008 10:04:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by spaceyhippie on Jun 28, 2008 7:17:52 GMT -5
i guess this is bauval's original classic oct theory layout arrangement ? i like this one, i think it's obvious they were meant to respect this if you take it in the context that they were meant to represent other thingies as well
|
|
|
Post by spaceyhippie on Jun 29, 2008 17:20:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by spaceyhippie on Jun 29, 2008 18:30:36 GMT -5
so interested in this, etc but could you write some numbers on it ? assuming all large geometry centered on G3 i have (from legon etc) 1411.25, not 1414.21, for NS distance G1-G3 so thus i am somewhat dismayed (n not jus cuz your number's cooler) but i am determined to prove these on virtual grounds, if you'll have me from: www.dudeman.net/astra/giza/layout.html
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Jun 29, 2008 19:45:21 GMT -5
Hi spacey ... Not sure if I want you to burst my bubble but I guess it has to be done but first a companion image to the one you posted at Ma'at. but now to this other image below: Radius of the circle is sq root of 10 x's 1000 = 3162.28 cubits Distance to center of G1 from center of G3 = 1414.21356 cubits REASON I HAVE USED THIS What I did was square up the plateau. I did this because I felt that since The Chase Line measured almost exactly 2000 cubits ( actual about 1999.5 + or -) I felt it was logical to assume a 1 by 1 by sq root 2 right angled triangle and since the long side was equal to to 2[000] the other sides would equal 1414.21356 or sq root of 2 as opposed to 1417.25 and 1411.35 which Petrie measured. This of course made the angle along The Chase Line EXACTLY 45 degrees. Everything else runs from there. Master Image: Cheers Don Barone
|
|
|
Post by spaceyhippie on Jun 29, 2008 21:00:49 GMT -5
well, that's a very touching story n everythingy - n i do wanna hear the rest - but for now, i don have enough information to replicate the phenomenon, however staggering - see, what i do is: provideth a service to you nutcases (a lil self-celebratory, perhaps, but it's only natural, n prolly deserving enough) - what i thought i might do, to begin, is get a starting point: center of circle, n then how long lines are etc - n i'm happy n comfy enough rounding Chase (G1n-G3s) to 2k (long as we're all static, rounding G1 to 440), but herein is where the discrepancies (n reasons for em, therein) present themselves - as you know, at vast distances, teeny inclinations produce a few cubits o interpretable error - as in OCT, we have stars floating around near centers, near edges - but i suspect, they're all exact on some misty level we're as yet unacquainted with - that 1414, so sandwiched between 1411 n 1417: i see 3 n i see 6... diameters n radii, hinting at triangles n hex - but to put em in the model, i hafta tell an object where to be n how far to span - i will begin where you suggest - pretend i don't know anything (which isn't much of a stretch)
|
|
|
Post by spaceyhippie on Jun 29, 2008 22:36:07 GMT -5
wow, rough crowd - dude, i jus checked out that post at maat, n there is not a nipple there who dunno yer right, but they'll never admit - the problem is where this information goes, next logical step, ad infinity - lil wee puny beings, such as ourselves, are unworthy to see - n it pains none of them to disperse ye emotionally - you could put it all together n assemble it conclusively, comprehensively, inconsolably; n they'd still lay in wait with "it could be anything, you can do that anywhere" - n a waste o time to draw those lines, but days wit cheetos in their laps, mocking u digitally; "so silly" their refuge, proving there's nothin to prove - n even if there's un-malicious among em, what scribers n arcers to show phi all hexed out inna common intersection ?
geometry fans - control mechanisms - that's what's missing from this equation
|
|
|
Post by spaceyhippie on Jun 30, 2008 10:35:15 GMT -5
and, further ranting, tellem for me, that with few notable exceptions, my house does not align to anythingy - nor do any of the buildings slash structures in my area, as they were built mostly in the 80s, n as far as i know none of the contractors or architects were freemasons but as for stuff that does, albeit strangely full story n more www.dudeman.net/siriusly/cyd/city.htmlwww.dudeman.net/siriusly/cyd/start at the beginning
|
|
|
Post by spaceyhippie on Jun 30, 2008 19:36:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Jun 30, 2008 22:04:07 GMT -5
Look out Doonesburry Cheer db
|
|
|
Post by spaceyhippie on Jul 1, 2008 12:08:41 GMT -5
19.5 - 23.5 = 4 360 / 4 = 45
|
|
|
Post by spaceyhippie on Jul 1, 2008 19:57:58 GMT -5
ok, in case you didn't understand that last post above n that's the reason why ya din reply
19.5° from cydonia, the tetraheydral latitude 23.5° from another post you made recently on giza etc their difference is 4 one 4th of a circle is 45° and half of that is 22.5 plus one gets you 23.5 or minus 3 gets is 19.5 these angles are all in ready reference and i'm not saying the architects left clues for us to follow but these are the thingies i'm noticing, today
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Jul 1, 2008 20:19:10 GMT -5
Hi spacey ...
19.5 is also extremely important in hexagonal geometry and I believe 19.5 degrees is where the spot is on Jupiter.
cheers Don Barone
|
|
|
Post by spaceyhippie on Jul 1, 2008 21:22:36 GMT -5
what i'm saying is, there's no way you don't understand that classic oct pic i did (G3w, 1/3-phi), n i don mean to blow whatever cover or anything, but if you wanna humor each other for awhile, i guess we could help each other explain that concept more simply to our grandmothers n i'm not claiming to be the most intelligible nipple on the face of anythingy, but this is your area here's those pix again, please tell me whatcha don understand, do i need to label more thingies ? ... ok ... this is G1 (in purple) ... and kinda in the middle, this is G2 (in orange) ... and this one is G3 (usually green) ... if i'm not mistaken that is the classic OCT theory, with the brighter stars, Alnitak and Alnilam, on G1 and G2, respectively the fainter star, Mintaka, falls almost on the WEST edge of G3, but what i'm saying is it's not really misaligned, at all wouldn't it be interesting if that distance it was marking, between the NW and SW corners, was phi or something ? this is a screenshot of the overhead of G3 in wireframe mode, which i scribbled on a little between one third and half of phi, from G3sw to G3nw, is where the Mintaka marker lands but it's not right exactly halfway between, it's demonstrating phi proportions to those points tell me you don't understand that, n i will go away n never bother any of you nice people again
|
|
|
Post by Don Barone on Jul 1, 2008 21:53:11 GMT -5
See response on new spaceyhippie thread ...
db
|
|