It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

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

page: 2
36
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 05:42 AM

Here it the accurate frequency and wave lengths for Giza measurements

wave length 66.6666 Mt, diameter 0.666.6666 mm,wave spacings 9.999.9999 MT dynamic speed within generator !.5 Mt per second
Equation

Electromagnetics @ at nominal lux @ time
------------------------------------------------------
HydroH2o@Atomic (6) @full Distortion @ time

= Gravitational increase exceeding that of time

= breach of vortex and doorway to time Giza

posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 06:00 AM

Originally posted by bulla

Here it the accurate frequency and wave lengths for Giza measurements

wave length 66.6666 Mt, diameter 0.666.6666 mm,wave spacings 9.999.9999 MT dynamic speed within generator !.5 Mt per second
Equation

Electromagnetics @ at nominal lux @ time
------------------------------------------------------
HydroH2o@Atomic (6) @full Distortion @ time

= Gravitational increase exceeding that of time

= breach of vortex and doorway to time Giza

Use the Giza Atomic clock as your baseline for time and this will exceed Einsteins fields and give you the relativity factor

posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 06:28 AM
I just took the time to do the calculations on the last example to see if I could arrive at the speed of light.

The diameter of the inner circle is:
Pi x 440 = 1382.30076758

We can use the Pythagoras Theorem to get the diameter and circumference of the outer circle:
Pi x SquareRoot(440^2 + 440^2) = 1954.86849279

The difference between the two circumferences is thus:
1954.86849279 - 1382.30076758 = 572.56772521

To convert that from cubits into meters you multiply it by the length of a cubit:
572.56772521 x 0.52359878 = 299.79576239

Light travels 299.7922458 megameters every second.

When converting cubits to meters, using the value derived from the Pi / 6 results in a
value closer to the speed of light compared to the value derived from the Pi - Phi^2 method.

edit on 18-12-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 06:48 AM
reply to post by Scott Creighton

If you scale it up accurately you will simply have a larger version of the original with the same height to base ratio.
Did I say ALL the examples wont work? No. I was referring to those examples which wouldn't work if the size changed, which show that perhaps all these features combined aren't just coincidence. The design was carefully thought out. Not to mention there basic unit of measurement is clearly linked to Pi and Phi.

As for the metre. If the designers understood and could measure a second of time (the AE astronomer-priests may well have understood a second of time since it was apparently understood by the Sumerians who preceded them), then the simple calibration of a pendulum to the second will naturally (as a result of gravitational acceleration at Giza = 9.793 m/s^2) produce a cord length of 39.028 inches (99.13cm). Very close to the metre.
That seems like a bit of a leap. If you use 99.13cm as the diameter of a circle and calculate 1/6 of the circumference you get 51.904, which has little similarity to the length of a cubit.

If we then multiply 39.028 x 148 (the duration of the autumn equinox at Giza in seconds) then we obtain 5776 inches (rounded). If we then divide 5776 inches by the most commonly quoted cubit length of 20.62 inches we have a height for the Great Pyramid in cubits of 280.1 cubits. Very close to its actual quoted original height of 280 cubits. If we then add the height and base of the Great Pyramid together we obtain 14,848.91 inches. Divide this value by 720 (the number of minutes in half of 1 solar day) and we have:

14848.91 / 720 = 20.62 inches (rounded). Much closer to your value of 20.55 inches (0.522 m).
Actually the values I arrived at were 0.523598776 (pi / 6) and 0.523558665 (Pi - Phi^2). According to what I've read the most accepted value for the original Egyptian cubit is 0.5236, which is probably just 0.523598776 rounded up.
edit on 18-12-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 09:28 AM

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Scott Creighton

If you scale it up accurately you will simply have a larger version of the original with the same height to base ratio.
Did I say ALL the examples wont work? No. I was referring to those examples which wouldn't work if the size changed, which show that perhaps all these features combined aren't just coincidence. The design was carefully thought out. Not to mention there basic unit of measurement is clearly linked to Pi and Phi.

SC: The fact remains - Pi and Phi can be introduced into the dimensions of the Great Pyramid unwittingly. I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying you have to prove INTENT; you have to prove your assertion is correct and that these values did not arise simply through the application of the square and circle at the design stage as I have demonstrated may have happened.

SC: As for the metre. If the designers understood and could measure a second of time (the AE astronomer-priests may well have understood a second of time since it was apparently understood by the Sumerians who preceded them), then the simple calibration of a pendulum to the second will naturally (as a result of gravitational acceleration at Giza = 9.793 m/s^2) produce a cord length of 39.028 inches (99.13cm). Very close to the metre.

CO: That seems like a bit of a leap.

SC: So is your choice of circle. Why choose this particular circle circumference to divide into 6? You need a circle with 1 metre diameter - where/how did the ancients obtain the metre? Why would they have decided to use such a measure and, assuming there was some logical rationale for the metre, why not simply use that measure? Why divide the circle's circumference into six to obtain another measure when they - presumably - already had a measure (the metre) and a rationale for producing it? What rationale was employed? The method I employ utilises the simple pendulum, gravity and time. These natural attributes of the Earth forces a unit length at Giza of 39.028 inches for a 1 second beat (2 second oscillation). And it is easily repeatable.

CO: If you use 99.13cm as the diameter of a circle and calculate 1/6 of the circumference you get 51.904, which has little similarity to the length of a cubit.

SC: But I do not have to use the circle or 1/6th of it. I use the Earth's rotation i.e. the equnoctial sunset at Giza. My basic unit length is the pendulum cord of 39.028 inches. I call this unit the 'gravity cubit' and there are 148 of them in the GP's height ergo the GP's height can be determined by the natural constants of the Earth - its gravity and its rotation.

CO: Actually the values I arrived at were 0.523598776 (pi / 6) and 0.523558665 (Pi - Phi^2). According to what I've read the most accepted value for the original Egyptian cubit is 0.5236, which is probably just 0.523598776 rounded up.

SC: Yes - you are correct. 0.5235.. However, the fact remains, the AE cubit is most often quoted as 20.62 inches.

141. The values of the cubit and digit, found in use in the cases mentioned in this chapter, agree remarkably closely with what has been already worked out. For the cubit I had deduced (Inductive Metrology, p.50) from a quantity' of material, good, bad, and indifferent, 20.64 ± .02 as the best result that I could get; about a dozen of the actual cubit rods that are known yield 20.65 ± .01; and now from the earliest monuments we find that the cubit first used is 20.62, and the mean value from the seven buildings named is 20.63 ± .02. Here, then, by the earliest monument that is known to give the cubit, by the mean of the cubits in seven early monuments, by the mean of 28 examples of various dates and qualities, and by the mean of a dozen cubit rods, the result is always within 1/50 inch of 20.63. On the whole we may take 20.62 ± .0I as the original value, and reckon that it slightly increased on an average by repeated copyings in course of time. - W. M. Finders Petrie, The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh, (Emphasis mine).

So Petrie offers a range of 20.61 - 20.63 as the cubit length. 20.62 inches is the mean cubit length, this being - in his opinion - its original value.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 11:02 AM

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

The cubit is the unit of length that was used to build the Great Pyramid of Giza. It seems to have some amazing properties. For instance. If you draw a circle with a diameter of 1 meter, one sixth of the circumference will be equal to 1 cubit. Keep in mind that we weren't using the meter as a unit of measurement until some time after 1789.

In mathematical lingo, you are saying π/6 meter = 1 cubit. The first thing I notice is that this is not exactly true... in reality, since the accuracy of a cubit is not exactly fixed, the actual relationship is π/6 meter ≈ 1 cubit. The relationship is far from exact.

Upon further inspection mathematicians found that the Great Pyramid of Giza has Pi built into the geometry. If you take the perimeter of the base and divide it by the height multiplied by 2 you'll get Pi (1760/560 = 3.14). The Great Pyramid is a 'square circle' as they say. This is another highly debated subject. Many people refuse to believe the Egyptians had knowledge of Pi or encoded it into their buildings. So what exactly is Pi?

π, by definition, is the ratio C/d, where C is the circumference of a circle and d is the diameter of that circle. It is irrational, meaning that there is no ratio of integers that can be used to express it exactly, the reason it is represented by the Greek letter. 3.14, 3.14159, and 22/7 are all approximations used to allow engineers to use the number in real-world applications. None are exact.

Your mathematical relationship, assigning D for the length of a side and h for the height, is 4D/2h = π or 2D/h = π. I am going to rewrite that again with the 'approximately equal to' sign because of inaccuracies that may exist in the measurements, but bearing in mind that this is a more accurate approximation than the former meter - cubit relationship: 2D/h ≈ π.

If you take the surface area of the four top sides and divide it by the surface of the base, you'll get the 'golden number', also called the 'golden ratio'.

The surface area of the four sides, using D for the sides and h for the height, is given by A=2D√(D²/4+h²). This relationship holds for any pyramid using a square for the base. The area of the base is simply A = D². This means the ratio is 2√(D²/4+h²)/D = φ.

This is completely possible, and easily attributable to an intent. It would emphasize that the builders of the pyramids understood the meaning of φ. I can agree with you that this would seem to be indicative of a deeper understanding of mathematics than they are typically given credit for.

Now that we have all the ingredients that we need to connect this all together, prepare to have your mind blown. If you take Pi and subtract Phi squared you'll get one cubit (Pi - Phi^2 = cubit).

π - φ² ≈ 1 cubit ≈ 0.5236 meters.

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.

If you draw two circles, one inside the square and one outside the square as shown below, and you subtract the inner circumference from the outer circumference, the answer is equal to nothing else but... the speed of light.

Using D again for the length of a side, √(2)πD - πD = πD(√(2)-1) = c meters per second squared. Again, you are equating a dimensionless expression to a dimensioned value.

Coincidence?

With the one exception of the ratio of side areas to base area, that's all it can be. There must by definition be a unit of measurement that will satisfy all your other equations.

In order for me to take this seriously, I need to know how the different units came into being from a dimensionless expression. Now if you can take that leap, then you will have something.

TheRedneck

posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 12:59 PM

Isn't this the exact location of H.A.A.R.P. at the middle of these sites? Interesting coincidence. And if it isn't a coincidence, what could be the connection?

posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 01:21 PM

Maybe not entirely topic related...

In Norway there is a camera installed by an university to observe any UFO acitvity. After a UFO recording the scientist did some field work to see if there was any proof of a landing and they were succesful.

They found a rectangle piece of soil perfectly cut from the ground and the cut out piece of soil was vanished. This piece of soil was precisely 1.8 meters X 5 meters.

This make me think.....does ET have the same system as ours to measure stuff up? That doesn't sound right....does it?

That brought me to the cropcircles...I am dying to know what lenghts are used in some of the "measurable" cropcircles. If these lenghts can me reduced or are relative to constants in nature it would be plausible but if they appear to be related to our way of counting there might be something doubtfull going on. Bit difficult to explain but I hope you understand what I mean.

edit on 18/12/2011 by zatara because: (no reason given)

edit on 18/12/2011 by zatara because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 04:55 PM
While Science has been trying to identify and discover magnetic ground waves , but has not succeeded, however I have and I explain there unusual occurrence and projector factor for same

If one strikes the angle of the eastern wall of Giza and from ground in to the western sky, there is the precise angle of the projection of your magnetic fields projection and is polarized into the magnetic North South, the frequency that you can find them upon
9.9999 MT and are dynamic in East West, that has a revealable flux, it is what governs Giza shape and why, its to match Earths Dynamic radiation emissions

posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 05:04 PM

Originally posted by bulla
While Science has been trying to identify and discover magnetic ground waves , but has not succeeded, however I have and I explain there unusual occurrence and projector factor for same

If one strikes the angle of the eastern wall of Giza and from ground in to the western sky, there is the precise angle of the projection of your magnetic fields projection and is polarized into the magnetic North South, the frequency that you can find them upon
9.9999 MT and are dynamic in East West, that has a revealable flux, it is what governs Giza shape and why, its to match Earths Dynamic radiation emissions

The length of the wave is 66.6666 Mt, the thickness of these in diameter @ full wave is 0.6666mm@ ground level there dynamic speed @ point of projection is 1.5 Mt per second escalating to full light speed where it blurs in to sold wave but still maintains it frequency spacing of 9.9999MT @ light speed

posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 10:24 PM

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

I believe you mean "...divide it by twice the height."

According to the dimensions in the pic you provided, the height is 280 cubits. 280 squared is 78,400 not 560.
You are correct, I wasn't thinking when I wrote that. I'll correct it if I still have time. Thanks for telling me.

You are aware, of course, that neither pi nor phi can be expressed as a ratio? Hence the numbers you arrive at in both cases are in fact not the actual pi and phi?
Of course I am aware they can't be expressed as a ratio. They can't be fully expressed at all.

Sorry, but what you actually get is a dimensionless number that can't be even close to a cubit: approximately -0.523466011 or so (I only used 3.1415 for pi so that number is not really accurate beyond 4 decimal places.)
I don't know what you did wrong, but this is how it should look:

3.141592654 - 1.618033989^2 = 0.523558664

And your number 0.523558664 is significant in what way?

Harte

posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 10:53 PM

And your number 0.523558664 is significant in what way?
Because it's a cubit of course. It's a real Egyptian cubit imo. That's because 0.5236m is the average length of the unit used at Giza (0.523558664 rounds to 0.5236).

The unit of measure used by the builders was the royal cubit. Some analysts have employed cubits of 0.5237 or 0.524 metres, but most agree with a value of 0.5236 m, or the average found at Giza and Dashur. This is not such a trivial question because over 500 metres the discrepancy can be quite large. The base of Khufu is the longest built-stone length and should therefore give the best estimate, which is 0.52355 m, used throughout this website.

source

edit on 19-12-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 11:00 PM

Originally posted by NoAccidents

Isn't this the exact location of H.A.A.R.P. at the middle of these sites? Interesting coincidence. And if it isn't a coincidence, what could be the connection?
Good eye. I wanted to check if you were actually correct and found this picture:

posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 11:49 PM

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

And your number 0.523558664 is significant in what way?
Because it's a cubit of course. It's a real Egyptian cubit imo. That's because 0.5236m is the average length of the unit used at Giza (0.523558664 rounds to 0.5236).

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

posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 12:17 AM

Well originally it was one ten-millionth of the distance from the Earth's equator to the North Pole, now the length of a meter is "the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1 ⁄ 299,792,458 of a second.". So I assume they chose that specific amount of time so that the length would be close to the old meter? If not, I wonder exactly why they would choose that amount of time.
edit on 20-12-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 12:30 AM
Either meter then.

Exactly what does ain irrational fraction found using your method have to do with the Ancient Egyptians?

Are you saying they based the cubit off this fraction of a meter? A fraction that can't even be expressed except as an equation, another invention they had no knowledge of?

Harte

posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 12:43 AM
reply to post by Scott Creighton

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
So Petrie offers a range of 20.61 - 20.63 as the cubit length. 20.62 inches is the mean cubit length, this being - in his opinion - its original value.

Well his opinion doesn't seem to match what other experts think.

There has been quite a discussion about the length of the Royal Cubit, the unity measure used in Pyramid and Temple building among the Egyptians. The famous Egyptologist Ludwig Brochard (1920) came to the conclusion after measuring the Pyramid exactly, that the length of the Cubit used in the construction of the Pyramid is 0,523554 meter.

The Royal Cubit

The unit of measure used by the builders was the royal cubit. Some analysts have employed cubits of 0.5237 or 0.524 metres, but most agree with a value of 0.5236 m, or the average found at Giza and Dashur. This is not such a trivial question because over 500 metres the discrepancy can be quite large. The base of Khufu is the longest built-stone length and should therefore give the best estimate, which is 0.52355 m, used throughout this website.

source

Petrie was the first person to measure the dimensions of the pyramid.

The first quasi-precision measurements of the pyramid were done by Egyptologist Sir Flinders Petrie in 1880–82 and published as The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh.[5]

Great Pyramid of Giza

edit on 20-12-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 12:50 AM

Originally posted by Harte
Are you saying they based the cubit off this fraction of a meter? A fraction that can't even be expressed except as an equation, another invention they had no knowledge of?
They can partially express the number in decimal form, but they can't fully express it. But they don't need to, because they only need a certain amount of precision.

I don't really know if they had knowledge of the meter, I know it's a big stretch, but it seems to me like there's a certain possibility they very well may have.
edit on 20-12-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 01:07 AM

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

Originally posted by Harte
Are you saying they based the cubit off this fraction of a meter? A fraction that can't even be expressed except as an equation, another invention they had no knowledge of?
They can partially express the number in decimal form, but they can't fully express it. But they don't need to, because they only need a certain amount of precision.

The Egyptians didn't know decimals either dude.

Harte

posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 02:13 AM

What is so hard about 1 LT of Hydro = 1 KG of mass into linear measurement, and I also believe you totally under- estimate the the knowledge of the ancients that stems from your, or our lack of understanding of the true laws of physics and the mastery over it, that the Ancients had, that we are yet to discover or fully understand , being the scientific god factor

new topics

top topics

36