SPIRALS, everywhere in the ancient world why ?

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Yeah that's a fascinating analysis of the Comma of Pythagoras. It's important to emphasize again the difference between the "divide and average" measurement from China and Babylon instead of the "complementary opposites" which are noncommutative.

So for "divide and average" the measurement is to SQUARE the fifths and SQUARE the octaves. So you have
(3 / 2) to the 12th = 129.746338 in ratio to
(2 / 1) to the 7th = 128

So the octave is being squared. Logarithmic measurements comes from this concept of squaring the octave -- but it's based on measuring time as distance. So it was published in the 1960s that Newton got his inverse square law straight from Pythagoras -- in the Royal Society of London. A string stretched to 4 times it length using a weight of 4 times makes a frequency twice as high -- and THIS is why the octave or how the octave is squared.

But in the Law of Pythagoras the wavelength is the INVERSE of the frequency -- not the inverse SQUARE as distance. In other words a string length twice as long, instead of 4 times as long, makes half the frequency -- an octave lower. It's just based on length -- not on weight. So the octave is DOUBLED not SQUARED. The Fifth is measured as frequency OVERTONE as 2/3 -- not 3/2.

This is a very subtle difference between overtone of the fifth as 2/3 frequency versus UNDERTONE of the fifth as wavelength -- 3/2. In the ORTHODOX PYTHAGOREAN tradition the overtone was used not the undertone -- and it was JUST the Tetrad -- the fourth and fifth ratios -- as 1:2:3:4. But in the Western interpretation of Pythagoras -- from Philolaus and Archytas -- this was changed -- so that the octave was doubled as being SQUARED.

I call this the "bait and switch" tactic -- so if you SQUARE the fifth you get 9/4 -- as the first squared fifth -- and then this is HALVED as 9/8. But 9/4 was not allowed in Orthodox Pythagorean tradition NOR WAS 9/8. I document this using academic references in my blogbook DEEP DISHARMONY. My research was VETTED by math professor Luigi Borzacchini and math professor Joe Mazur.

I know I'm way off topic but this also includes the ratio 8:5 -- which was the minor sixth as the GOLDEN RATIO -- again it's NOT ALLOWED under Pythagorean Orthodox tradition -- but, again, this does not rule out the creation of spirals through the complementary opposite harmonics.

naturalresonancerevolution.blogspot.com...

"Any who doubt that the musical ratios are all of greater inequality, i.e., that the antecedent or first term in each is greater than the consequent or second term, should consult Archytas DK 47 B 2. This Fragment requires that the ratios be of this form if the assertions about the three means [arithmetic, harmonic and geometric] are to be true. Accordingly, the ratios assigned to the octave, fifth, fourth and minor sixth, must be 2:1, 3:2, 4:3 and 8:5, and not 1:2, 2:3, 3:4 and 5:8, respectively, as Mosshammer and others would have them. Indeed, there is early proof deriving from the Pythagorean school that intervals, such as the fifths, which are represented by superparticular ratios cannot be partitioned into any number of equal subintervals because the terms of these ratios admit no number of geometric means. Consider now the question of the status of the ratio (8:5) in the Pythagorean harmonic science that dates from the late fifth century B.C. to the time of Apollodorus. One should not expect that this ratio was recognized as melodic by every school of Pythagorean musical theory. For example those who sought to derive all the musical ratios from the Tetrad of the decad by compounding and dividing the ratios of the primary and most familiar intervals, the concords of the octave, fifth and fourth, would find the minor sixth unascertainable. There is reason to believe that these were supplied by Archytas in the early fourth century B.C."

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
My idea of thinking for the spiral being so important to the ancients is from observing the stars in the northern sky.

If you watch over time, the north star seems to be a center that all the rest of the sky revolve around.

This would be like a spiral that stars with the north star and then spans outward more and more.

Just a thought...they could of noticed that the sky seems to spiral out...from the north.

Funny story....


I was reading your post, and it occured to me that the Earthly "precession" appears to be changing in speed. I wondered if there might be a spiral associated with such a change in speed, since it indicates that perfect balance is not there.

So i did a quick Google search on the concept, and lo and behold:

Scott Creighton alrady has a thread about it

Read his OP. Very interesting as thought fodder.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


As I said before the Fibonacci spiral is a solution to the problem of logarithmic spirals. It is not the general solution which are logarithmic spirals. A moth approaches on a logarithmic spiral. It would be a daunting task to find a moth approaching on a Fibonacci spiral. Here's why. Of all the possible angles to maintain, what is the chance of the moth maintaining the angle for that spiral which is 17 degrees. Any other angle and its a logarithmic spiral.

I draw sprials in my art all the time. It is just a shape that looks nice. Humans today artistic creatures.

reply to post by King Loki


Can you post a link to one of these statues. I looked all over the place and saw nothing to indicate man's hand on this supposed underwater pyramid. It looks natural to me. Graham Hancock's ideas appear to have no academic backing. It seems that he is another Velikovsky, Berlitz, Sitchin, Von Daniken, etc. I would prefer to begin research at the wikipedia and not end there. It certainly is going to start with more validity than Hancock's work.

As far as the wikipedia goes, my comment was directed at your point that maybe the wikipedia was old news. Well it has recent information. Lots of people have been getting steamed up because the guy in Bosnia has reported their affiliation with the project to lend it some sort of authenticity. The place is a hill and a fraud is being committed using respectable people's names.

Thanks for the trolling comment. I've also been accused of being a paid disinfo officer, a member of the NWO, and maybe other things as well. It's the sort of comment that comes up right before someone plays their last card and bows out.

I hope you stay in there because I am looking forward to seeing the turtle statue links and photos.

I just wanted to add that at first I did not realize that Hancock was the ECD guy.

[edit on 25-4-2010 by stereologist]

Check out Junji Ito's horror manga "Uzumaki", it's about a mad spiral obsession in a small town... wont spoil anything more, read it!

Those spirals have always fascinated me. Coincidentally, as an aspiring archaeologist from Sweden, I had actually intended to write a paper about the spirals of Bronze Age Culture in Sweden, but I decided to write about another subject instead. Would really love to write something about it in the future though.

I don't believe the spirals found all over the world is any sort of evidence for an ancient "global" culture/civilisation. Spirals are found everywhere in nature - just look at the snail's shell! They are a common symbol.

As a symbol spirals (or any other symbol really) doesn't simply represent any single meaning, they could or probably do/did represent a multitude of different meanings (subjected to variations through time of course) - all utilized depending on the different circumstances or contexts. In bronze age northern Europe, for example, spirals appear on tombs and varying items like axes, swords, etc. The spirals appear in very different forms. They could represent the cycle of death/rebirth which would fit in well with the apparent sun worship, and its appearance on items (after being used they should be restored - sacrificed- back to nature, from where it came from) and tombs (ensuring the rebirth of the dead).

Could it be how the ancients percived "time"? We see time as a straight line, could the ancients have a different view? As a cyclical spiral that gets shorter and shorter until it gets to the end, when all time meets at the same time?

I have noticed that most ancient spirals have 5 rings until the center... Could each ring represent a thousand years and life expectencies? We start out with the first ring being a wide arc.... Could that have correlation with biblical life expectencies?

According to tradition, Noah's flood occured 5000 years ago... He was reproted to have lived to over 900 years... Just a few thoughts here

Years ago I read the book the Sacred and Profane by Eliade. It describes early people as seeing cyclical time, which is not a spiral. In a cycle, time goes back to the very start. You do not celebrate an event happened. Instead you experience that same time again.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by King Loki

 

Can you post a link to one of these statues. I looked all over the place and saw nothing to indicate man's hand on this supposed underwater pyramid. It looks natural to me. Graham Hancock's ideas appear to have no academic backing. It seems that he is another Velikovsky, Berlitz, Sitchin, Von Daniken, etc. I would prefer to begin research at the wikipedia and not end there. It certainly is going to start with more validity than Hancock's work.

As far as the wikipedia goes, my comment was directed at your point that maybe the wikipedia was old news. Well it has recent information. Lots of people have been getting steamed up because the guy in Bosnia has reported their affiliation with the project to lend it some sort of authenticity. The place is a hill and a fraud is being committed using respectable people's names.

Thanks for the trolling comment. I've also been accused of being a paid disinfo officer, a member of the NWO, and maybe other things as well. It's the sort of comment that comes up right before someone plays their last card and bows out.

I hope you stay in there because I am looking forward to seeing the turtle statue links and photos.

I just wanted to add that at first I did not realize that Hancock was the ECD guy.

[edit on 25-4-2010 by stereologist]

nah i don't think your a disinfo agent or anything like that ... u just have different opinions and thats fine, you may look at things more critically then other people but thats ok to. I have no problems with being wrong because if we are never wrong how can we ever really learn anything.

Graham Hancock is very credible he has written many books and has completed multiple full length documentaries ... give me a sec to find you the sea turtles and stuff.

here if u watch Graham Hancock - Underworld on youtube .... u will see the 90 degree angles and everything that he discovered down there ... i think he has done some ridiculous amount of dives there like 1000+ in the last 10 years or so, he is not the type of person to make up complete bull#, his reputation relies on him being correct and so far no one can scientifically dispute what he has found anywhere.

[edit on 26-4-2010 by King Loki]

[edit on 26-4-2010 by King Loki]

Graham Hancock has been a prolific writer and has made a ton of cash espousing things that really aren't correct. He has pushed the pole shift idea through his ECD claims. Guess what? If you look at the earth and ask what sorts of effects would be seen when a pole shift occurs, nothing is there for at least 200 million years. Pole shifts in general, be it Hancock's false ECD claims or whatever, do not match the earth we see about us. It's an idea that is known to be wrong.

But back to this underwater site. When the site is inspected it is seen to be a sedimentary rock. This type of rock and others can break in natural right angles. Photos have been shown of this type of formation on land. I found the so-called turtle statue. It hardly looks like a turtle. That's stretching the imagination.

Let's suppose that this were a site built by man. Look at the awful construction. It's not symmetrical. The steps are weirdly placed. The layout is awkward. Wow. Maybe the people that built this mess got fired for their ramshackle construction methods.

Very little of Hancock says has shown scientific merit. His ECD claims are indisputably dead wrong. His Atlantis claims have been shown incorrect since 2000. His numerical machinations are nonsense. He gives no other reason for his arithmetic manipulations other than he can do it. There is no rhyme or reason whatsoever.
BBC2 reports on Atlantis Reborn Again
You might want to read what happened when Hancock was face slapped by this show.
Horizon: Atlantis Reborn and
the Broadcasting Standards Commission

Though the Commission found some unfairness in our treatment of one aspect of the debate, this cannot be interpreted as support for Mr Hancock's or Mr Bauval's theories. The Commission made no judgement on the evidence for and against those theories, and did not cast doubt on Horizon's scientific assessment of it.

Hancock comes up with little new on his own. He rejuvenates old, trite, long debunked ideas. He adds new dressing and ships them out as hopelessly flawed as they were the day he picked up the old idea.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

As I said before the Fibonacci spiral is a solution to the problem of logarithmic spirals. It is not the general solution which are logarithmic spirals. A moth approaches on a logarithmic spiral. It would be a daunting task to find a moth approaching on a Fibonacci spiral. Here's why. Of all the possible angles to maintain, what is the chance of the moth maintaining the angle for that spiral which is 17 degrees. Any other angle and its a logarithmic spiral.

yes, but it is splitting hairs.

as i mentioned, nothing will be exact. the "formula" that the universe uses is approximate. There is uncertainty designed in. I would expect it to be discernable some day as we decipher it.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


It's splitting hairs to claim that a specific solution is the solution to a problem in which a moth maintains a constant angle with a point source of light. Splitting hairs would be more like when you said the moth uses Fibonacci sequence and the solution was a Fibonacci spiral. The F. spiral is a construction based on using F. sequence to form a spiral. That construction does not tell how a moth comes to a light.

reply to post by VonDoomen


Shweet.
I'll definently keep a look out for your post, and look that up in the mean time.

[edit on 4/26/2010 by FoJAk]

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

It's splitting hairs to claim that a specific solution is the solution to a problem in which a moth maintains a constant angle with a point source of light. Splitting hairs would be more like when you said the moth uses Fibonacci sequence and the solution was a Fibonacci spiral. The F. spiral is a construction based on using F. sequence to form a spiral. That construction does not tell how a moth comes to a light.

No, it is splitting hairs when you have to argue such an insignificant piece of information as two effectively synonymous items.

I made reference to the appearance of the way it looked, using terminology that most people in this forum would understand. I understand your need to be technically correct. If that is all you want, then have it. Pissing matches are silly.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


A construction and a sequence are not synonymous terms.

I haven't read through the entire thread but I can tell you that most art historians consider the use of spirals as a representation of water; including the water which is encased in the womb. Just a little side note, the ph level of the womb is almost identical with that of the salt water oceans, probably do to our evolutionary past. So if you look at most spirals in ancient art they are usually in conjenction with water or life. They show up in many civilizations with a great flood theory as well. Which also made it a common symbol for a goddess hence the womb.

reply to post by K_OS


Thank you K_OS. I had mentioned that much earlier and was immediately asked for supporting evidence although the supporters of other more extravagant claims produced no evidence at all for other claims.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by King Loki

 

Can you post a link to one of these statues. I looked all over the place and saw nothing to indicate man's hand on this supposed underwater pyramid. It looks natural to me. Graham Hancock's ideas appear to have no academic backing. It seems that he is another Velikovsky, Berlitz, Sitchin, Von Daniken, etc. I would prefer to begin research at the wikipedia and not end there. It certainly is going to start with more validity than Hancock's work.

He cannot post a link to any "statue" at the Yonaguni Jima underwater formation because there are no "statues" there, just as you asserted.

Hancock is one of maybe three people on Earth that today believe there is anything special about this natural formation (other than, of course, its beauty.)

Even Dr. Kimura, the Korean (IIRC) geologist that has studied it more than anyone on Earth says now that it sank sometime around the year one AD due to tectonic activity.
Cormac MacAirt started a thread here about the new date for this sinking right here in this section of ATS.

I suggest that Loki use the search function. More than enough has been said around here concerning Yonaguni to educate even the most dense among us to the undeniable fact that the entire formation is completely natural

As far as the wikipedia goes, my comment was directed at your point that maybe the wikipedia was old news. Well it has recent information. Lots of people have been getting steamed up because the guy in Bosnia has reported their affiliation with the project to lend it some sort of authenticity. The place is a hill and a fraud is being committed using respectable people's names.

Stereologist,

We need more people around here that are willing to call a fraud by its real name. Thank you.

Harte

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

A construction and a sequence are not synonymous terms.

especially when you split the hairs so finely.

It seems that you are the only person that did not understand what i was saying. No one else took exception to it. This tells me that they understood what i was getting at.

I would also assume you did, too...but would rather make pissing matches.

but i will acquiesce. now, go ahead and reply so you can have the last word.

Originally posted by Mahasamadhi
As a symbol spirals (or any other symbol really) doesn't simply represent any single meaning, they could or probably do/did represent a multitude of different meanings (subjected to variations through time of course) - all utilized depending on the different circumstances or contexts.

What's interesting here is that often people shout about how scientists disregard "myth" and "legend."

However, when we pay attention to myth and legend we find that spirals mean different things in different culture. For instance, some old ethnography on the Native Americans of the California desert reveals that the spiral represents the weather formations that we call "dust devils".