Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Pyramids, spheres, and 19.5 degrees

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   
If you were to take a perfect pyramid and place it in a perfect sphere the base of the four corners of the pyramid would be at 19.5 degrees of the equator of the sphere.

The most active geological area on Earth: Hawai, 19.5 off the equator.

The most active geological area on Mars: Olympus Mons, 19.5 degrees off the equator.

The most active geological area on Jupiter: The giant red storm, 19.5 degrees off the equator.

The most active geological area on Venus: A massive volcano, 19.5 degrees off the equator.

The most active geological area on Neptune: A storm like that on Jupiter, 19.5 degrees off the equator.

Coincidence, possibly.




posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Exclellent post ET... woah, coincidence? I love stuff like this. We should build a list of other important features that fall +/-19.5deg from our equator.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   
This type of theory, whatever you want to call it is not new.

www.enterprisemission.com...
marsartifacts.tripod.com...

This link gives us a bunch of babble

www.vortexmaps.com...




On the Sun: sunspot activity and the region of peak temperatures is limited to 19.5 degreees north and south.
On Venus: the presumably active major volcano complexes Alpha and Beta Regio are near 19.5 degrees.

On Earth:
Mauna Loa, Hawaii (19 degrees 28 minutes N, 155 degrees 37 minutes W) The largest shield volcano is at 19.6 degrees north. This is Mauna-Kea volcano on the island of Hawaii.
Mexico City, Mexico (19 degrees 23 minutes N, 99 degrees 10 minutes W) The Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan is at 19.6 degrees north.
Dzibalchen, (Yucatan), Mexico (19 degrees 28 minutes N, 89 degrees 46 minutes W)
Georgetown, Grand Cayman Island (19 degrees 18 minutes N, 81 degrees 26 minutes W)
Mount Emi Koussi, Chad, Africa (19 degrees 47 minutes N, 18 degrees 34 minutes E)
Mount Kalsubai, (near Bombay), India (19 degrees 33 minutes N, 73 degrees 43 minutes E)
Mountain near Xiangkhoang, Laos (19 degrees 17 minutes N, 103 degrees 17 minutes E)
Mountain near Potosi, Bolivia (19 degrees 13 minutes S, 66 degrees 22 minutes W)
Yasur Volcano, Tanna Island, Vanuatu (South Pacific Ocean) (19 degrees 31 minutes S, 169 degrees 25 minutes E)
Mount Samuel, Northwest Territory, Australia (19 degrees 13 minutes S, 134 degrees 8 minutes E)
Gweru, Zimbabwe, Africa (19 degrees 31 minutes S, 29 degrees 49 minutes E)

On Mars: the "vast" Olympus Mons shield cone volcano is at 19.5 degrees.
On Jupiter: the "red spot" which is an obvious vortex is at 19.5 degrees.
On Neptune: in 1986 Voyager II discovered a similar spot at 19.5 degrees north.


Just search 19.5 degrees on google



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dulcimer
This type of theory, whatever you want to call it is not new.


I must concede this is not my original thoughts, but it has been so long since first i heard of it, i don't remember where or exactly when the theory was introduced to me. I think it was on some VHS tape i watched in the late 80s or early 90s. Dulcimer is correct, it has been bouncing around for awhile.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   
nice find.

could you be more specific when talking about the base of the four corners being 19.5 degrees off the equator? I'm trying to get a mental picture here but it isn't clicking.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by noslenwerd
nice find.

could you be more specific when talking about the base of the four corners being 19.5 degrees off the equator? I'm trying to get a mental picture here but it isn't clicking.


Imagine a perfect sphere, a perfect ball.

Now, imagine a pyramid with the top point within the sphere at the north pole.

Now, where the four bases of the pyramid will be touching the inside of the sphere will be 19.5 degrees south of the equator, or fattest part of the sphere.

You could look at a globe, and imagine a pyramid inside of it, and look at the latitude markers that are numbered. Add 19.5 or subtract 19.5 from the equator.

Hope this helps.

[edit on 2-1-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Huh, just noticed something.

If i measure myself i am 71 inches tall.

Divided by half is 35.5 inches.

My navel is 44 inches from the ground, nearly 19.5 degrees off the center of my entire height.

My silly belly button!



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Imagine a perfect sphere, a perfect ball.

Now, imagine a pyramid with the top point within the sphere at the north pole.

Now, where the four bases of the pyramid will be touching the inside of the sphere will be 19.5 degrees south of the equator, or fattest part of the sphere.

You could look at a globe, and imagine a pyramid inside of it, and look at the latitude markers that are numbered. Add 19.5 or subtract 19.5 from the equator.

Hope this helps.

[edit on 2-1-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]


ahh yes much better thank you


and
to your post after this one

[edit on 2-1-2006 by noslenwerd]



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   
also, I wonder what lies on the other 3 corners to the "pyramid" at 19.5 degrees? Other than hawaii?



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by noslenwerd
also, I wonder what lies on the other 3 corners to the "pyramid" at 19.5 degrees? Other than hawaii?


Interestingly, I believe that two of the lowest points of the ocean floor also lie near these degrees. The Marianna (Spelling?) Trench, and another "trench", but this is all just speculation. It depends where the points of the pyramid are, but in the original post i was just refering to the fact that the pyramid would extend 19.5 off the equater, leaving the rest of the sphere empty. I was not elluding to / nor trying to say the points themselves were at any specific point on the globe. But you address a plausible curiousity, thanks for the contribution.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Interesting. But what does this have to do with aliens?

It just has something to do with the way planets and gas giants evolve.



[edit on 2-1-2006 by _Anubis_]



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Hi Esoteric Teacher,



very interesting post, i must admit its a subject i dont know much about,
but fasinating, after looking around i found this diagram and a very interesting website

thanks ET

All the best... ian



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Hello and Happy New Year iamian!!

Thanks for finding that diagram, it sure helps! Thanks for the contribution!



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Richard Hoagland (see Dulcimer's links above) has been saying this for years. The video you saw was likely one of his presentations where he relates this theory to the supposed face and other hypothetical structures on Mars, claiming them to be a message to us to, as he puts it, pay attention to tetrahedral physics in realation to gravity and how gravity may be a result or byproduct of the planets spinning and existing in some type of other dimension besides the obvious ones.

If I understand it correctly, it somehow is supposed to relate to the planets and the fact that they spin, and how spinning bodies supposedly generate their own gravity or somehow lessen the effect of external gravitational forces. He also cites an experiment where two identical steel balls, one not spinning and one spinning at some ungodly rpms, are launched with equal force and in the same direction from the Earth. He claimed the spinning ball went higher and farther than the one not spinning, therefore proving the spin is partially negating the earths gravity somewhat. This experiment, if factual, and I'd have to see the video again to get the details, would seem to support this theory.

Dispite the fact that much of Hoagland's work has supposedly been debunked, the list of major planetary abnormalities at 19.5 degrees north or south of the equator on at least five different bodies in our solar system does make one wonder. That does seem like too much of a coincidence to me. I've always thought that spin does have something to do with gravity, but thats as far as I'm prepared to speculate about it. There is still too much that we just don't know.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Thanks immensley for the clarification Ambient Sound. Hoagland, that name sounds soooo familiar. But, I honestly don't remember when/where i was introduced to these concepts. But somehow they are here in my brain. I really appreciate the contribution, and i will look more into the links Dulcimer gave us.

Richard Hoagland. I'll do some looking into that person's life and work, thanks again.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamian
Hi Esoteric Teacher,

www.vortexmaps.com...

very interesting post, i must admit its a subject i dont know much about,
but fasinating, after looking around i found this diagram and a very interesting website

thanks ET

All the best... ian


Correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't the pyramids being refered to in this thread supposed to represent the ones made here on earth? If so they are 5 sided (4 triangles and a square base).

I'm probably wrong though and you are just talking about a 4 sided (3 triangle) pyramid.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by noslenwerd
Correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't the pyramids being refered to in this thread supposed to represent the ones made here on earth? If so they are 5 sided (4 triangles and a square base).


Actually, Hoagland claims its the other way around, i.e.: the ones here are supposed to represent the ones there, since the ones there would predate the ones here by a long shot.

This is all pretty much conjecture anyway, but for the life of me, I still can't figure out why NASA won't land a probe at Cydonia and resolve the question of if the structures are artificial or not once and for all. Some would say NASA and the Government already know the answer, but just don't want to reveal it for the usual reasons. Your guess is as good as mine on that one, but imagine the scientific and religious implications if they are really artificial.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ambient Sound

This is all pretty much conjecture anyway


True, but at this point this is what we have. We are given enough to connect the dots, but how to percieve it?


Some would say NASA and the Government already know the answer. . .


Actions speak louder than words.

does the government fund NASA?

Not any more, but yet they have a say so in protocols. hmm.

does the government fund SETI?

Not any more, but yet they have a say so in protocols. hmm.

Curious how many space exploration funding the government does not fund any longer, that they used to do. Seems to me that there would be more to know about the rest of the universe than spending millions of our tax dollars to find out where baseball players get their extra 10% of the 110% they give.

Actions and behaviors, their words are just rhetoric. And, their rhetoric has to be "Politically Corect", A.K.A. = not the truth.

Being politically correct is not saying what it is you want to say, so evaluate actions and behaviors.


but imagine the scientific and religious implications if they are really artificial.


Why imagine?

Speculation is a tool we have, why worry so much about facts?


I'm not a big fan of facts.

Facts can change, whereas my opinion will not.

-Steven Colbert



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 12:09 AM
link   
The forces in the solar system are probably uniform in their reach, so it's my opinion that the reason that we see things manifested on the 19.5 degree mark is because of said forces.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 04:13 AM
link   
...they read things on ATS, and then think about them.

I had trouble sleeping, so I thought I'd take a go at proving this 19.5 degree thing here that I read about yesterday. After messing around with some calculations on paper, the angle turns out to be 90 - arctan(2*sqrt(2)) = 19.471220634491 degrees. (Oh, and this is for a 4 sided pyramid made of all triangular faces, not a 5 sided one with a square base) It's true for any size of sphere, whether it be an orange or a planet.

Since I still couldn't fall asleep, I thought about it a bit more, and realized that in this entire thread, the assumption has been made that the north pole is the 'top' of this sphere, and the 19.5 degrees of latitude comes from this.

What if instead of the north pole as the 'top' of the sphere, you took someplace else, like New York, or Tokyo, or Tuktyuktuk?

If you draw a line through the north/south poles of the earth (or any planet) you get the axis of rotation, and the equator is defined as halfway through those points. So, picking the north pole as the 'top' does make some sense. (which is why we do it on globes, I suppose)

Another question: how would you determine where the points of the pyramid are, i.e. how do you place the pyramid inside the sphere? Presumably, you would put one point (vertex) at the north pole, but where do the other three go, and would there be any special significance to those three points if they were well defined? Then I thought, rather than imagine a 'stationary' pyramid, imagine a 'rotating' pyramid; that way, you would get every point on the 19.5 degree latitude ring around the earth (or whatever planet) and it wouldn't matter.

On Enterprise Mission, the website of Hoagland&Torun, they have a totally different proof than the one I did here that makes no sense to me, but apparently they somehow got 19.5 degrees out of that mess, too.

There's some more math stuff on that site here, some of which is false. For example, they state that e/pi = sqrt(3)/2 which is blatantly untrue. (although it's fairly close) They also mention 'approximations of e generated by the geometry of a circumscribed tetrahedron', which is silly. 'e' is well defined, and is constant no matter what, it is the sum of 1/x! using all the integer numbers x from 0 to infinity. It doesn't change because of geometry (or anything else).

Then there's the 'face' itself. I can vaguely see a face-shape in the picture, but to me, it's just a geological formation, and seems quite natural to me. People often see faces in things that aren't there, like the man in the moon. Or, on my bedroom wall, which has fake wood paneling, there is one part that looks like the bottom half of a face in profile, with a huge nose and huge chin and deep frown, and a hand stroking the chin; it's just a combination of coincidence and my brain trying to make sense of what is essentially a random image.

So, basically, mathematically the whole thing makes sense, but conceptually, I can't think of a single good reason why the 19.5 degree spot should have any significance whatsoever. Why use a pyramid? Why not a cube or a cylinder or a dodecahedron? I also can't see why people would think that the object in the image is anything but a natural formation.






top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join