Originally posted by bulla
reply to post 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
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.
If you scale it up accurately you will simply have a larger version of the original with the same height to base ratio.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Scott Creighton
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.
If you scale it up accurately you will simply have a larger version of the original with the same height to base ratio.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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'.
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).
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.
Coincidence?
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
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Harte
You are correct, I wasn't thinking when I wrote that. I'll correct it if I still have time. Thanks for telling me.
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.
Of course I am aware they can't be expressed as a ratio. They can't be fully expressed at all.
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?
I don't know what you did wrong, but this is how it should look:
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.)
3.141592654 - 1.618033989^2 = 0.523558664
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).
And your number 0.523558664 is significant in what way?
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
Good eye. I wanted to check if you were actually correct and found this picture:
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?
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Harte
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).
And your number 0.523558664 is significant in what way?
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.
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
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
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.
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?
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
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.
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?