reply to post by Busymind
Hello Busymind,
Thanks you for your post.
Busymind: Perhaps I misunderstood your mathematical concept; I never studied trigonometry.
SC: No trigonometry involved here - just very basic mathematics and astronomy.
Busymind: And with the queen's pyramids it struck me that you're figuring cycles like a man (or perhaps like a mathematician), rather than
figuring cycles like a woman. Either way, I'll be dead before the next cataclysm. However, women count cycles from the beginning of one cycle to the
beginning of the next cycle. Come to think of it, calendars in general count from the beginning to the end and start over at the beginning.
SC: You raise an interesting point here and one I have pondered over myself. Why should we add the duration (i..e 11,196 years) to the
end of
the previous cycle (c.8,066BC) and not to the
beginning of the cycle (c.10,550BC)?
First of all I think it is important to say that we are presented with 2 means of identifying the date of the beginning of the next cycle. One is a
visual clue (gives the approximate date) and the other is a mathematical clue which gives us a more precise date. The visual clue is in the simple
placement of the 2 sets of 'Queens Pyramids' marking the maximum culmination (c.10,550BC) and minimum culmination (c.2,500AD) of the Orion Belt
stars. Through current scientific findings we now know that some significant event happened to the Earth when the Orion Belt stars were aligned
horizontal on the Southwestern horizon (i.e. at maximum culmination). So, it is not unreasonable to speculate that the ancient Designers of this
astronomical clock show us those same stars when they are aligned on the Eastern horizon because they knew this would be the time when such events
were due to start again (2,500AD + 666 years = 3,166AD).
The mathematical method perhaps offers little more preciseness in determining the actual date than the visual clue since the Orion Belt stars are
aligned on the Eastern horizon in this manner for over 2,000 years! Indeed, they will only start to swing away from the Eastern horizon back to the
Southwestern horizon around 3,000AD.
It would have been important to tell future civilisations how long these troubled times would (potentially) last since we would need to know this in
order to plan ahead for such a time. This logically explains why we are given the start date of the cycle and the actual duration of the 'event'
(2,484 years). Because we are actually given the end date of the cycle it makes perfect logical sense to add the duration between cycles (i.e. 11,196
years) to this date and not the cycle's start date. Had we not been given this date then - and only then - would it have made more sense to add the
duration to the beginning date. Assuming non-leap years, imagine it is your birthday on the 1st of January. Your next birthday is not 365 days
later. It is 365 days, 11hours, 59mins later. In other words, we add the duration between birthdays onto the end of your actual birthday. The
concept here is similar - we must add the duration of the event itself (2,484 years) onto the duration between events (11,196 years) in order to
obtain the overall duration from the start of one event to the start of the next.
This then gives a total cycle from start point to start point of around 13,680 years. If we then subtract this from the calibrating year of 10,550BC
we find the date 3,130AD - only 36 years of difference from the visual method.
It is my belief that the Orion Belt perndulum swing was carefully chosen because the movement of these stars most closely matched the timing of this,
as yet, unknown 'event'. In these stars we have a visual clue but also the maths.
More...