Pi - Phi^2 = cubit | mathematical secrets of giza

reply to post by TheRedneck


I would like to point something out here that might clear up a few of these circular arguments. WRT speed of light (c) as a discrete value in units of meters/second: this number is derived from a geometrical RELATIONSHIP of the tangent in an Lorentz function.

so, in other words, it is far more accurate to represent the light constant as a relationship of geometrical forms than it is to approximate it using a discrete value.

accordingly, the reason that the maths in the meter/cubit comparison are working out properly is because they are both derived from the same geometric relationship.

the cubit and the meter are not related to each other.... they are BOTH related to the geometry.


p.s. great thread, I have found this info very useful.

reply to post by Harte


You are forgetting something that i feel is very important. Iridium

An alloy of 90% platinum and 10% iridium was used in 1889 to construct the International Prototype Meter and kilogram mass, kept by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures near Paris.[10] The meter bar was replaced as the definition of the fundamental unit of length in 1960 by a line in the atomic spectrum of krypton,[note 4][64] but the kilogram prototype is still the international standard of mass

Which i believe over the course of time this has all changed and the balance is wrong. Look at the units in measures, weights and sizes etc, theyre all different globally.

reply to post by tgidkp

the cubit and the meter are not related to each other.... they are BOTH related to the geometry.

Can you please expand on that concept. I don't see how it could be true, because if the meter were just a bit longer or shorter then a cubit wouldn't be 52.36cm and the connection wouldn't exist. It could pure chance that they used a length which has a pi/phi based relationship to the meter, but the probability of that is fairly slim imo.

reply to post by tgidkp

The speed of light, c, is a measured value. The reason it is presumed to be a constant is that years of experimentation have proved it to be constant regardless of other movement. In order for it to be a derived value, there must be an understanding of its cause; we have no such understanding of why c is a constant - it simply is.

And none of that addresses the problem with using dimensionless rations to obtain a dimensioned value.

I highly doubt the dual-derivation theory you propose behind the meter - cubit relationship. If, as proposed, a cubit is π/6 meters and a meter is 1/1·10^8 the distance from the equator to the North Pole (approximately 1/4 the circumference of the planet; gravitational/centrifugal eccentricity will contribute to the approximation), then the cubit would have been equal to 2π/3·10^8 the planetary circumference. If we relate it to the diameter of the planet, a cubit would be roughly 2/3·10^8 the average planetary diameter.

Now where did that 2/3 coefficient come from? That makes little sense to me so far as being a useful constant, even if the diameter were a constant (which it is not). Why not make the cubit 1/10^8 of the diameter, or of the radius, or of the circumference... why would anyone select a base unit that has that 2/3 relationship to a known constant?

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


I may or may not take a moment to truly understand your mathematical reasoning ...

...but where is the 2/3 coming from?


A: from the golden ratio (applied to a circle divided into six parts), of course!

it seems pretty profound, if you ask me.

Originally posted by knightsofcydonia
this information has been available for a long time. It seems like people are just beginning to actually take note of it.

Drunvalo Melchizedek wrote the Ancient Secret of the Flower of Life, back in 1994 which contains this information and explains what it means to us as humans. You should check it out if your interested in expanding your knowledge of pyramids and sacred geometry.

edit on 17-12-2011 by knightsofcydonia because: (no reason given)

reply to post by tgidkp

I stand corrected. The actual relationship would be 1/24 instead of 2/3. My apologies and calculations in detail below:

1 cubit = 1/6 the circumference of a 1-meter-diameter circle (assumed for the sake of argument).

The circumference of a 1-meter-diameter circle is π · d = π meters.

Therefore, a cubit is 1/6 · π meters.

A meter is (was originally) defined as 1/10^8 the distance from the equator to the North Pole.

Therefore a cubit is 1/6 · π · 1/10^8 the distance from the equator to the North Pole.

The distance from the equator to the North Pole is 1/4 the circumference of the planet (theoretically).

Therefore a cubit is 1/6 · 1/4 · π · 1/10^8 the circumference of the planet, which equals π/24·10^8.

Assuming a perfect sphere for earth, that would reduce to 1/24·10^8 earth diameters, since an earth diameter would be equal to the circumference of the earth divided by π.

1/24 is even a more confusing coefficient than 2/3.

TheRedneck

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


I am sorry that i have been unable to come up with a better description of this geometric relationship. I spent several hours yesterday exploring many concepts (the most interesting of which was using phi and/or pi as the values of the radius), however, nothing clicked.

the foundation of my original argument stems from the concept that, in a spacetime of four dimensions, two concentric bodies (projected as hyperbolae into the space-like minkowski 2D lightcone) will share the same area at a fractal dimension of D=squareroot(2)=1.41 (which is slightly less than half in 3D, or D=1.5). this represents the maximum value of the rate of exchange of information from each body to its conjugate, as required by the second law of thermodynamics (increasing entropy).

fractal dimension

consumedbywanderlust.wordpress.com...

minkowski light-cone

this is my best rationalization for the derivation of the lightspeed constant as the difference of their radii. that same relationship can be expressed in both cubits and meters individually, and presents a possible link to their mysterious consonant relationship through pi.

i am convinced now more than ever that the pyramids are instruments of (at least attempted) spacetime manipulation. were they successful?




p.s. it occurs to me that in order to exceed lightspeed, it would be necessary to alter the fractal dimension very slightly so that the larger radius is somewhat smaller and/or the smaller radius is somewhat larger. I wonder if using a fractal dimension of 1.68 (phi) rather than 1.41 (sqrt 2) would yield an appropriate relationship to accomplish this.... certainly worth exploring.

Aren't numbers amazing? Hermes/Mercury/Thoth created an interesting 'building'.

The original video has been removed from YouTube for some reason. So here it is again:



And another copy just in case: backup video

Great thread.

Let's not forget the original significance of the metre - Metric Numbers to remember - in 1790 " the meter was originally specified as 1/10 000 000 of the distance between the Equator and the North Pole". Science has taken this original meaning away, and the fact that the Earth is not spherical.
So it interesting that the Egyptians were using special numbers in their construction and then we at least 2,000 years later are also using special numbers.

reply to post by templar knight


Perhaps you should look at the reason for the naming of 2 of the moons of mars

and their connection to the astronomers of Laputa.



Note that I am referencing Gulliver's Travels written in 1726 when in the real world they were discovered in 1877.

Are we missing something here?

Paz

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


reminds me of Carl Munck

reply to post by TheRedneck

The problem is that both π and φ are dimensionless ratios, while the answer in your relationship is not. The equality of a dimensionless equation cannot contain a dimensional unit. In other words, you plucked the units out of thin air. It might be an interesting relationship, but you need to explain where the meter or cubit value enters into the equation.

I have listen to the documentary for the first time yesterday and found also myself skeptical about the non respect of the units in the following equation:

π - φ² ≈ 1 cubit ≈ 0.5236 meters.

However, to respect the dimensionless form, the equation should simply be reworked to become:

π - φ² ≈ 0.5236 ≈ ( 1 cubit / 1 meter ) = ratio between 1 cubit and 1 meter

which is much more logical in term ratio in order to respect the dimensionless number. This suggest that the Egyptian had the knowledge of the meter which would be very bizarre, but maybe not impossible. I believe that this is one of the main point of the documentary. It is like if the meter is encoded in the definition of the cubit in relation with π and φ. In fact, one may combine π and φ in a finite mathematical expression to approximate any number that contain a finite number of significant digits. So it could be only a rare coincidence that the expression π - φ² is very simple, who knows!

Anyway, in any case the documentary was indeed very interesting.

Im glad my sentiments of linking this documentary in nearly every thread on ATS paid off with only having to do it twice

Im trying to use this definition of a cubit on unrealted structures in peru to see what kind of further evidence i can collect as the the validity of this.

Replying to Scott:

But here's the rub - you have to prove INTENT. I have shown you how it is entirely possible to unwittingly...

I appreciate the detail. This comment led me to the thought, though:

How would it ever be humanly possible to 'prove' the intent of something which could, with a great deal of layered coincidence involved, BE coincidental?

Should the author go back in time, find whomever planned the pyramid, bring them forward in time and get them to testify, "Yes, yes, that is what we really intended to do. It isn't obvious?"

You can demonstrate what IS, based on things in the past.

.

I don't know that "proving intent" is always possible.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Excellent thread ChaoticOrder! S&F!!!

Though I am versed in ancient monuments, math is most
undeniably non understandable in my brain.

But alas, my question to this now defunct thread -
( a thread needing resurrecting IMHO) - is in regards to 'PI' and the number 13.

Years ago I stumbled upon a math essay stating something to the effect
that Pi and the number 13 equate to each other as no other number does.

Can ANYONE answer this correctly..[please]

The reason I ask this is because many ancient monuments across
our planet exude the number 13 in some way, but none other
is it more prominent than at Giza;
(some examples)

Giza sits 13[0] feet above the Nile river.
Giza is built on 13.1 acres.
G.P. of G is 481 feet tall..or - 4+8+1 = THIRTEEN.
(there are more 13's at Giza)

So my riddle of Pi and the number 13 is in need of an answer

Any help or link providing truth to this equation would be most helpful!

Be well all

Harte
You imply here (I hope without realizing it) that the Ancient Egyptians knew the meter, a unit wholly invented in the year 1960 (the type of meter your using.)

Harte

No, the implication is that they knew of the cubit.

The cubit can be defined by its relationship to the modern meter. It is the relationship of a cubit, to Pi and Phi that results in the creation of a meter sized cap in ancient Egyptian architecture.

They knew about a cubit, Pi and Phi; the results of which created a meter cap, which lines up with global scaled geometry.

God Bless,