Earthly coincidences...or not.

Nicely put together, but it is what it is, coincidence, other posters have already said what I could have said, and Chad already explained that eclipses aren't always so perfectly fitting (he was right, it is called annular).

As for the crop circles, after seeing one being made (a very, very good one) with my own eyes, by ordinary human beings, I am convinced none are of ET origin.

...and wasn't the stonehenge rebuilt?
Pics

Revelation of the pyramids.

reply to post by chr0naut

Actually, according to Wikipedia, the size of the base The Great Pyramid (Khufu's Horizon) averages 204.4 meters (note that this is approximate because the base of the Great Pyramid isn't even square). This means that the diagonal size is 325.8 meters. Subtracting 204.4 from 325.8 gives 95.4 which is NOWHERE NEAR the speed of light.

Why are you subtracting the length of the base with the diagonal length? Maybe you need to take another look at the claim. This is about circles, which means you have to multiply by Pi.

I don't remember where I heard it, but someone once told me that coincidence was God's way of remaining anonymous. I always took comfort in that. Cool post, I have always liked the crop circle phenomenon, it is a wholly original art form.

reply to post by chr0naut


According to wikipedia, the length of the base of the Great Pyramids is 230.4m, not 204.4m (for the "Khufu" Pyramid). Regardless, using pythagrous's theroem for a right-angled triangle, the hypotaneous of the base (ie, the diagonal length) is 325.83m.

The length of the outer edge of the base, 230.4 m, is the same as the diameter of the smaller circle that can be inscribed in the base. This circle has a circumference (=pi*diameter) of 723.8229 meters squared.

The length of the base's hypotaneous is the same as the diameter of the outer circle. This gives a corresponding circumference of 1023.625 meters squared.

Subtracting these two numbers, 1023.625 - 723.8229 = 299.8, which is the speed of light, minus of course several magnitudes since the speed of light is around 299,800,000 m/s. (Note that the decimals in 299.8 will vary slightly depending on how you round the lengths of the bases and the level of accuracy you wish to keep).

It is not mathematically accurate to simply subtract the length of the diamters to compare the difference in circumference for circles. This does yield a difference result. However, if you wished to take this approach, then you need to multiply the difference by pi. In other words, 325.83-230m = 95.83 (difference in diameters). to get circumference, 95.83*pi=301.06. (again, due to rounding this number is a little higher. If there was no rounding in the previous calculations, then the result would really be 95.43480477......*pi=299.817)

Hmmm,

In Police investigations, two coincidences, make a clue... Three coincidence make a proof.

How many coincidences here?

Nice thread.
S&F.

Hey nice thread, I enjoyed the read.

one question however: Do you know where the other center of earth landmass is located at? the one in the ocean?
i'd like to know what might be down there.

If you play around with m, foots, miles, pi and then subtract arbitrary dimensions from other dimensions then yes at the end you will find some coincidences (like how the speed of light was calculated, in m which the Egyptian of course didn't know).

This being said, sure the architects love to put some math in their creations. It has been done all the time, and it has obviously been done in the pyramids. Those where great architects and astronomers.

Removed

Interesting, thought provoking thread.

I would just like to add, that if you look at the Earth with the moon rotating around it,

It's the exact atomic structure of hydrogen, the most abundant resource on our planet, and
a fundamental component of life.

Coincidence?

I would like to just point out that units in these comparisons do not matter as much as some of you think. There is still a correlation between the size of these objects, whether it is in moon-units, earth-units, 10-based units, or whatever. They all relate to each other in what seems a standardized form.

Originally posted by woogleuk
As for the crop circles, after seeing one being made (a very, very good one) with my own eyes, by ordinary human beings, I am convinced none are of ET origin.

The ability of ordinary humans to imprint a pattern or design into crops by various means has never been in question, I think...of course humans can do that.

But there are other reported aspects of crop circles that should be addressed before deciding they are entirely a result of human activity, IMO.

For instance...you say you saw a circle being made. Was it made in a single night, in secret, with no lights, without killing the crops, by bending the stalks instead of breaking them, using ellipses instead of true circles, with the crops laid down in an overlapping weave several layers deep?

There are a many other oddities associated with some crop circle formations than just those, such as crystallization of clay minerals in the soil below the formations, stretching and distortion of crop stalk nodes, expulsion cavities in crop nodes, and drastic alteration of fluid structure of crops within formations....just to name a few.

On the other hand, determining that certain crop formations could not have been made by humans does not mean that they must have been made by aliens, and suggesting that this is so is, IMO, disingenuous.

Originally posted by NeoVain
reply to post by chr0naut

 

Actually, according to Wikipedia, the size of the base The Great Pyramid (Khufu's Horizon) averages 204.4 meters (note that this is approximate because the base of the Great Pyramid isn't even square). This means that the diagonal size is 325.8 meters. Subtracting 204.4 from 325.8 gives 95.4 which is NOWHERE NEAR the speed of light.

Why are you subtracting the length of the base with the diagonal length? Maybe you need to take another look at the claim. This is about circles, which means you have to multiply by Pi.

edit on 29-1-2012 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)

My apologies, the OP said the length of the circle, which I took to be the diameter. It did not say the circumference.

Still, subtracting circumferences, we are subtracting 624.14 from 1023.53 gives us 381.39, still not the speed of light.

I'm sure that if you performed a similar set of arbitrary mathematical procedures on all sorts of architectural works, you could come up with various constants of the universe. A test of "designed in numbers" is probably more valid if those numbers are "scale invariant" i.e: if we convert the sizes to Pyramid Inches and apply the same maths we get a vastly different answer.

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by VoidHawk

 

That is amazing. To think that the ancient Egyptians measured in meters!

Actually, according to Wikipedia, the size of the base The Great Pyramid (Khufu's Horizon) averages 204.4 meters (note that this is approximate because the base of the Great Pyramid isn't even square).

This means that the diagonal size is 325.8 meters.

Subtracting 204.4 from 325.8 gives 95.4 which is NOWHERE NEAR the speed of light.

I suspect that the other figures you have given for the crop circles are just as FALSE, but I do not know the measurements of those crop circles.

Denying ignorance means not taking what someone tells you at face value if you can check for yourself.

edit on 29/1/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

Also tried it in "Pyramid Inches" just in case there was a conversion issue going on:

Base = 217, diagonal therefore 306.88. so diagonal diameter minus base size diameter = 179.77

Still nowhere near the speed of light in meters!

I think this particular "factlet" is fully debunked.

edit on 29/1/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

good job on trying to debunk bro, I am as same as you.

I still don't know where OP got all the measurements from... the crop circles also, how does he know what are the measurements of all this?

I am no mathematician, but someone should help debunking this one.

Wasn't the Oliver's Castle crop circle a hoax? I think John Wabe, the guy who filmed the crop circles being made by the orbs, came out and said he fabricated the whole video. He was a video editor, had all the equipment and knowledge.



The video in the OP only says that people who've debunked the Oliver's Castle video are trying to cover up the truth. But it was the guy who filmed it who came out and said he faked it.

Crop circles are neat but that video seems really biased and didn't go into both sides of the story.

Originally posted by Tsurugi

Originally posted by woogleuk
As for the crop circles, after seeing one being made (a very, very good one) with my own eyes, by ordinary human beings, I am convinced none are of ET origin.

The ability of ordinary humans to imprint a pattern or design into crops by various means has never been in question, I think...of course humans can do that.

But there are other reported aspects of crop circles that should be addressed before deciding they are entirely a result of human activity, IMO.

For instance...you say you saw a circle being made. Was it made in a single night, in secret, with no lights, without killing the crops, by bending the stalks instead of breaking them, using ellipses instead of true circles, with the crops laid down in an overlapping weave several layers deep?

There are a many other oddities associated with some crop circle formations than just those, such as crystallization of clay minerals in the soil below the formations, stretching and distortion of crop stalk nodes, expulsion cavities in crop nodes, and drastic alteration of fluid structure of crops within formations....just to name a few.

On the other hand, determining that certain crop formations could not have been made by humans does not mean that they must have been made by aliens, and suggesting that this is so is, IMO, disingenuous.

edit on 1/29/2012 by Tsurugi because: Grammar fail.

well said... well said.

Einstein has already told us that things are fixed in a certain way that is the way the 'TID' works.

"What we need is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is exactly the opposite." Bertrand Russell 1872-1970

I’ve seen so many so many because I keep the faith

+++

Originally posted by looofo
If you play around with m, foots, miles, pi and then subtract arbitrary dimensions from other dimensions then yes at the end you will find some coincidences (like how the speed of light was calculated, in m which the Egyptian of course didn't know).

I'm not too sure if you were referring to the calcuation I did above or not.

For what I did above, I was using basic geometry with the OP's claim to show if mathematically it was accurate or not. These were not "arbitrary dimensions" - it was using the formulas for pythagrous's theorem (a^2 + b^2 = h^2) and the circumference of a circle, (C=2*diameter). This doesn't work with just any randomly drawn square. As well, even though the result is in m/s, you can convert it to feet/s and still get the speed of light. This isn't "playing" with the numbers as it's simply converting one dimension to its equivalent value in another dimension 299.8 m/s * (1/0.3048)ft/m = 983.652 ft/s.....the speed of light in ft/s is 983,571,056. In other words, even if the Egyptians used a different unit of measurement, the relationship stays the same because of unit conversions and would still give the speed of light. This conversion isn't playing with the numbers any more than the statement that 1 foot equals 12 inches.

Moreover, I do also agree that "playing with" various dimensions can yield the result you want, depending on how it's done. For instance, take any 3 points not in a straight line and you will have a tirangle. This type of "playing" has been done time and time again when referring to the signifance of several structures on the face of the earth, such as the pyramids themselves. BUT, when you apply a mathematical prinicple to it, such as pythagrous (if it's a right angled triangle) or conversley the cosine law (if it's not a right angle triangle), then this gives you the relationship for the length of the sides to the angles within the triangle itself. This isn't quite the same as "playing" with it since one would be applying basic principles - these are the same type of principles that have given us the technology that we love and use today. I say principles because they will always work, and do not require you to "play" with them (such as, for example, the unit conversion shown above).