The Gravity Cubit

Hello Everyone,

Before I begin I would like to ask you a simple hypothetical question:

Q) Imagine the Earth is overwhelmed by a natural disaster of some description and our civilisation collapses. Over time, the few survivors have resorted to a primitive existence. All knowledge has been forgotten - the priority is about feeding, clothing and shelter. Math, astronomy etc will have to wait until we can get ourselves better organised.

So generations later we are better organised. We want to explore our environment once more, measure it. We need weights and measures to trade, to know how far it is from London to Paris, to construct things to a particular standard so that we are all reading from the same script, so to speak. In short - to organise our human lives.

So - what measuring system do we use? That's my question to you.

This might, at first, seem a relatively simple question to answer but in truth the reality is quite different. If, for example, we use as our base unit of measure the length of a man's elbow to the tip of his middle finger and call that 1 cubit, what we find is that - over generations - humans have been (on average) getting taller. So, if we now compare the average length of a modern man's elbow to the tip of his middle finger it will be slightly longer than ancient man's. If we wanted to replicate the GP, for instance, we would find our structure was slightly larger than the original even though we are using 440 "modern" cubits. (We found in some ancient text that the cubit was the length of elbow to finger tip and that the GP base used 440 of them).

How do we "fix" the unit of measure for all time so that if civilisation were to fall again (and perhaps again), new civilisations could use a simple principle to arrive at a unit of measure for their use but one that was in use also by previous civilisation(s)?

The ideal unit of measure would require to be based upon some physical entity or process that is CONSTANT i.e. no matter how many generations of humans come and go, the physical entity or process upon which the unit of measure is based remains the same - for all time.

If we look at nature we find that there is little if anything that could be regarded as producing a consistent unit of length that could become the benchmark length. And yet the paradox is that the benchmark length requires to be a naturally occurring process and yet there seems nothing in nature that can satisfactorily be used for the benchmark measure!

Enter GRAVITY and EARTH ROTATION.

Imagine you have a length of pole at the top of which is a small "drop platform - the length of the pole is immaterial at this point. From the drop platform you release a small granite ball. The ball freefalls to the bottom of the pole and is collected into a "collecting tray". The moment the ball hits the collecting tray, you release another ball from the drop platform.

Now imagine you start this process when the base of the sun's solar disc has just touched the Earth's horizon. Down goes the first ball, freefalling down the length of the pole. You continue this process until the top of the sun's solar disc finally sets below the horizon. (See diagrams below):
















At latitude 29.97*N (Giza), the sun will take 147.757 seconds from arriving on the horizon to having fully set below the horizon. In turn this will produce x number of balls that have been dropped down the pipe. The pipe length times the number of balls dropped down it becomes the benchmark unit length. This is what I have called, "The Gravity Cubit". It is a process that relies on the constant of gravity and the constant of the Earth's diurnal rotation - two naturally occurring processes that can be used for all time to arrive at the same unit of measure.

Now, with much thanks to Don Barone who did the calculations for this, 1 Gravity Cubit turns out to be equal to 66.5 miles! Now, if we consider this number in terms of degrees then it represents the distance (in degrees) from the Earth's equator to the Arctic circle which is, in turn, perhaps a reference to the Earth's obliquity of 23.5* (23.5 + 66.5 = 90).

Other curious things have been surfacing about this Gravity Cubit. For example, I have found that 1 second of the Gavity Cubit's length divided by Pi (3.14) is equal to the base size of the Great Pyramid. Spiros Boutsikos also found a clear distance relationship between G1 (Khufu's pyramid) and G3 (Menkaure's pyramid) centres using the Gravity Cubit.

In summary then, the Gravity Cubit allows us to create a standard benchmark unit of measure that is repeatable and simple to create. The question now is - did the ancients conceive of such a relatively simple idea? Well, it certainly adds a new spin to the term "Khufu's Horizon".

Regards,

SC

reply to post by Scott Creighton


Excellent post scott, I also enjoy your posts over on the Graham Hancock website. Sad to say you're mostly completely over my swede due to my being cranially challanged when it comes to arithmatic, and Don Barones number crunching has the same effect on me as a bottle of scotch.

Nevertheless keep up the good work and I will keep trying to keep up with you.

Scott, Great idea I wonder if it’s been thought of before. Tell me is it possible to work out the Gravity Cubit (GC) of any other planet from earth. Now at the moment I can’t think of a reason for it except that if more things on earth are found to have a GC relationship and we ever find another world with say Pyramids and there is the same relationship – woo stop, just dreaming I guess…

Either you left something out of your explanation or there is something seriously wrong with your calculations. You say the length of the drop tube is irrelevant, lets try a few examples:

With a one meter tube it will take 0.452 seconds for the ball to drop, giving you time to drop 327.0741 balls. Let's round down to 327 balls, giving the length of your "cubit" equal to 327 meters.

With a three meter tube it will take 0.782 seconds for the ball to drop, giving you time to drop 188.836 balls. To be consistent, let's round down again. In this case "cubit" would now be 564 meters.

One more. With a 10 meter tube the drop takes 1.429 seconds, 103 balls, and the cubit is now 1030 meters.

As you can see, the length of the drop tube is very relevant. It is impossible for a gravity cubit to be equal to 66.5 miles unless the ball is dropping in a vacuum. If it is not in a vacuum, the longest a the cubit could be would be about 6,000 meters and the tube would have to be 6,000 meters tall. If it is in a vacuum, the tube would have to be 66.5 miles tall!

[edit on 26-10-2008 by Phage]

[edit on 26-10-2008 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


Hello Phage,

Thanks for your post. I am quite happy with the calculations and figures I have presented and I can let you know that I would not post such had I not first had them verified by a number of qualified sources.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Scott Creighton


Hello Everyone,

Some further musings on the Gravity Cubit.............

A pendulum bob of 1 second duration at Giza's latititude would require to be 39.1 inches in length.

A very interesting length indeed.

If we multiply this value (39.1 inches) with the length of sunset at Giza (147.757 seconds) then we have 5,777.30 inches.

Now, if we divide 5,777.30 inches with the length of an AE cubit (20.62 inches) then we have 280.17 AE cubits - which is the height of the Great Pyramid.

Now, if we assume then that the Gravity Cubit is thus defined as 5,777.30 inches, it would seem logical that the creators of such a measure would require it to be sub-divided into smaller units of measure just as we do with the kilometre and mile.

Interestingly, when we perform 17 iterations of dividing 1 G-Cubit (5,777.30 inches) by Phi (1.618) this is what we find:

5777.300 ( / 1.618 = )
2206.825
1363.921
842.968
520.994
321.998
199.010
122.998
76.018
46.983
29.038
17.947
11.092
6.855
4.237
2.619
1.618
1.000

And so the humble inch is defined as the 17th division of the Pendulum G-Cubit by Phi. I call this unit the "Phinch".

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

I was not arguing with your figures. Just the use of them to create a standard. You said a gravity cubit was equal to 66.5 miles. It is true that an object in a vacuum, will fall 66.5 miles (66.499, actually) in 147.757 seconds. But obviously a 66.5 mile drop is impractical. The problem with using multiple drops is that the acceleration is not constant, each ball ball starts with a velocity of zero.

Other curious things have been surfacing about this Gravity Cubit. For example, I have found that 1 second of the Gavity Cubit's length divided by Pi (3.14) is equal to the base size of the Great Pyramid.

Do you mean "1 second" as an angular quantity (1/3600th of a degree)? If you are taking the entire cubit to represent 1 "degree" then your formula yields 0.000088 (1/3600/pi) "somethings". If you are using 1 mile to represent 1 degree the result is .0059 "somethings". Can you clarify the calculations and units you used to compare with the base of the Great Pyramid?

But now you've redefined your "gravity cubit" from 66.5 miles to 5,777.30 inches so that point has become moot. Never mind. The way you mix unit measurements and do odd things (like use half of swing of a pendulum rather than the full swing) to find relationships, I'll never be able to follow the explanations.

[edit on 27-10-2008 by Phage]

Hi Scott! A well-thought out idea as usual.

I think the confusion over calculations is arising because you initially stated that "the length of the pole is immaterial at this point" but didn't later specify a length on which your conclusive calculation is based... or perhaps I missed it.

Fascinating that the lengths relate to Giza. Sure you haven't been channeling some ancient sage in your spare time?

Interesting idea, but the Earth's rotation isn't constant:

Scientists estimate that the Earth's rotation is slowing at the rate of 2.2 seconds every 100,000 years.
pages.prodigy.com...

Maybe close enough to constant, though, within a given timeframe, to be useful?

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by Phage

 

Hello Phage,

Thanks for your post. I am quite happy with the calculations and figures I have presented and I can let you know that I would not post such had I not first had them verified by a number of qualified sources.

Best wishes,
Scott Creighton

Hi Scott,

Im sure your calculations are spot on, but to my simple mind, Phage has a very good point, doesnt it depend on the length of the drop tube? A pebble dropping 1 metre will hit the ground quicker than a pebble travelling 2 metres?

The maths is above me, im honest enough to admit it

reply to post by expatwhite

Hello Expatwhite,

Expatwhite: ... doesnt it depend on the length of the drop tube? A pebble dropping 1 metre will hit the ground quicker than a pebble travelling 2 metres?

SC: A shorter length drop will require more pebbles to be dropped in the time-frame of 147 seconds therefore you would be multiplying half the length by twice as many pebbles giving you the same over all length. If, for example, a 2 metre length was exquivalent to 1 second then one metre would be equal to .5 seconds requiring 2 pebbles to be dropped in a 1 second time-frame.

There is, however, also the issue of the acceleration of gravity and air resistance to contend with (as Phage pointed out) but with 148 one second drops, this works out to be an error of around 17 inches in just under half a mile (0.449 miles).

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Cythraul


Hello Cythraul,

Nice of you to post and really good to hear from you. It seems the more I research into this idea, the more that is being uncovered. I'm sure you'll be familliar with the Masonic pendulum symbolism (Lewis Keystone). Have a look at these numbers.....

... or 147.757 (Giza sunset in seconds) x 39 inches (1 second bob length)

5762.523 ( Div 2 =)
2881.2615
1440.63075
720.315375
360.1576875
180.0788438
90.03942188
45.01971094
22.50985547
11.25492773
5.627463867
2.813731934
1.406865967

And then have a look at the video on this page:

www.code144.com...

Very best,

SC

reply to post by Scott Creighton


OK, now we have something to work with. Defining the number of balls to drop while the sun sets will give us the length of the drop tube. To drop 148 balls (1 per second) the tube will be 4.9 meters long. With a reasonable length such as this, air resistance isn't too much of a problem. So the gc = 725.2 meters (4.9 * 148 = 725.2).

The only problem now is that to calibrate our standard, one must undertake a journey to the latitude of Giza. It could be considered a sacred journey, undertaken only by the Keepers of the Cubit. I believe the season will also affect the timing of the sunset but I don't know if it would be enough to matter. We've already rounded the duration up .243 seconds. Still, to be safe (a one second difference would change the length of the gc by 4.9 meters) the pilgrimage should be carried out on the same date each time.

I'm not sure just how we would know how long a second is or that the sunset takes about 148 seconds though. Presumably our cesium clocks don't work anymore. It seems it would be more reasonable to pick a number like 100 balls, making the gc = about 1069.8 meters.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by Phage]
edit: corrected slight error in the length of the tube

I found that 148 second duration of the sunset at the 30th parallel occurs at the equinoxes (the figure I found is 147.801 seconds). At the solstices the duration is 171.688 seconds. So the time of year turns out to be very important.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by Phage]

[edit on 28-10-2008 by Phage]

reply to post by Scott Creighton

Hello Everyone,

The research into a repeateble, "universal" unit of measure goes on. Sincere thanks to Mike Nordberg and Phage for pointing out to me the shortcomings of my previous attempt at this.

Is it possible to define distance as a measure of time? And is it possible that the ancients might have conceived of such a notion? I'm not entirely sure but the research goes on nevertheless and the findings are intriguing to say the least. Here's my latest Flash presentation which demonstrates how the simple pendulum could have been used to define time as distance.

Enjoy!

The Pendulum Gravity Cubit

Flash 1.5mb

www.scottcreighton.co.uk...

Regards,

SC

PS - For the sleptics - yes, I know there is little if any evidence of the AEs of the 4th Dyn. or earlier having used pendulums, water clocks or hourglasses but neither is there any evidence that the AEs of this period used plans to build the Gizamids but we really suspect that they did have plans of some kind in spite of the lack of evidence!!

reply to post by Scott Creighton

Hello Everyone,

Some more deliberations concerning the 'Gravity Cubit'.

For those unfamiliar with this concept, the Gravity Cubit is a unit of measure which converts time (2 seconds of Earth's rotation) into a linear measure using the swing of a pendulum. A pendulum cord of little over 39 inches in length will produce a 2 second swing (i.e. 1 second outward swing and 1 second return swing).

By then multiplying this unit length of 39 inches by the duration of the sunset at Giza on the equinox (148 seconds), we find this produces 5,774 inches which is almost precisely equal to the height of the Great Pyramid at 5,773 inches. (Please note that values have been rounded).

By simply multiplying this value by Pi (3.14159) and dividing by 2 we have the value of 9,069 inches which is equal to the base length of the Great Pyramid.

But how do we get from the Gravity Cubit to the Ancient Egyptian cubit which is equivalent to around 20.615 of our inches?

Simple.

As we know, the Gravity Cubit is defined by a pendulum swing of 2 second duration x the Giza sunset duration of 148 seconds.

We use TIME.

In half of 1 day (sunrise to sunset at the equinox) there are 720 minutes (12 hours x 60 mins).

When we add the height and length of the GP in inches together we have the following:

9,069" (base wifth) + 5,774" (height) = 14,843"

14,843 / 720 minutes = 20.615".

Thus the AE cubit of 20.615" can be derived from the Gravity Cubit divided by the number of minutes in half of 1 day.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Scott Creighton

I always enjoy reading your threads on subjects like these and I would like to offer a few thoughts of my own.

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
Is it possible to define distance as a measure of time? And is it possible that the ancients might have conceived of such a notion?

Perhaps the question should be when will we understanding how time relates to distance.
Time is the measurement of distance traveled, 3600sec=1hr 24hr=1day 365.25636days=1 sidereal year, all of these equate to motion or the amount of distance traveled. Compare this to geographical coordinates, 60"=1' 60'=1deg 360 degrees in a circle, a circle is represented by a 12hr analog clock and 12 months in a year (or 12 constellations) represent a circle. I often wounder about the origin of how these relate to each other yet it seems something is still missing.

The problem with using gravity to measure distance over time compared to the rotation of the Earth is relying on both the Earth's gravity and rotation as remaining constant. For whatever reason Earth's gravity has slight changes or anomalies at different locations on the surface and with the catastrophic event theory exists the possibility of the Earth's rotation changing slightly, i.e. 360 to a 365.25636 day year. Never the less this system requires a measurement of the drop tube in the first place making this a comparative ratio.

For a comparative ratio to remain reliable over time one of the factors needs to be constant, i.e. the velocity of light, gravitational force or the inverse square law. The inverse square law describes a pyramid much like pi describes a circle and phi a rectangle. The base of the pyramid is a factor of the force squared, 1 radius=a 1 square base 2r =4sq and 3r =9...

Phage commented on the manner in which you measure a pendulum swing and I think this is an important point. A pendulum oscillates like a sin wave and the wave length or frequency is the point of return to the original spot. I think it is crucial to remain consistent in the measurement of wave oscillations for reasons that may not yet be apparent. The wave function of matter is something I do not understand yet but I feel it pertains to this.

Add: I was mistaken in assuming you were measuring only a half swing for your pendulum. Since then I had the time to watch your flash video on The Pendulum Gravity Cubit and I see my last comment is redundant.



[edit on 12/17/2008 by Devino]

reply to post by Devino

Hello Devino,

Many thanks for your post. Glad to hear you enjoy reading this material.

Devino: Time is the measurement of distance traveled...

SC: Quite correct. I think my question in the OP relates more to whether the ancients understood this concept, given that their world view was quite different to ours. I think the research here with the Gravity Cubit demonstrates that the ancient astronomer-priests did indeed understand and use this concept.

]Devino: The problem with using gravity to measure distance over time compared to the rotation of the Earth is relying on both the Earth's gravity and rotation as remaining constant.

SC: Again, absolutely correct. The influence of gravity varies very slightly all over the Earth. The result of this is to make the pendulum cord produced alsewhere a fraction shorter on longer than the Giza cord. However, the difference would be almost negligible. And if Giza was considered as the "Meridian of Measure" (i.e. that all cords in the world were to be made to the Giza Standard), then there would be no difference.

And your point of the Earth's diurnal rotation is also interesting. I am presently researching this very question, assuming an Earth annual orbit of 360 days!

The ancient Egyptain hieroglyph "Akhet" may actually tell us how the Great Pyramid's height was determined, using the setting sun:



Thanks again for your intelligent post.

Scott Creighton

[edit on 17/12/2008 by Scott Creighton]

Great Post, quite interesting. My question is: wouldn't it be easier to just use the golden arch or phi as the standard. Phi is constant and exists just about everywhere.

reply to post by CHRISplusT

Hello Chris,

Chris: My question is: wouldn't it be easier to just use the golden arch or phi as the standard. Phi is constant and exists just about everywhere.

SC: Phi (like Pi) is but an irrational number - it is not an actual known unit of measure of any physical entity. By way of illustration, let's say I have created a diameter of a circle that is 1.618034 (phi) units in length - what then is the circumference of my circle in say, metres?

Regards,

Scott Creighton