It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

Earthly coincidences...or not.

page: 3
122
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Tsurugi
 


I think that your questionizationing process has reached its infinitesimaly small vanishing point. lol!
"We believe in the possibility of a theory which will give a complete description of reality the laws of which establish relationships between the things themselves and not merely between their probabilities." Albert Einstein 1879-1955
edit on 29-1-2012 by UFOOWNER because: (no reason given)

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

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

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

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

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




posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Interesting thread again.. The pyramids and the eclipses are always fascinating topics, For measuring I'm not even going to dare calculating this kind of stuff. But I searched how the Egyptians calculated in the early days and found this Egyptian numerals, so if by any chance some mathematical geek wants to recalculate in Egyptian measure numerals, this whole thread be my guest



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

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.

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.


Originally posted by Osito
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.


Double check your math! Circumference of a circle is pi*diameter....take you diameter (95.4) and multiply it by PI (3.14).... you will get the speed of light. An no, this is not arbitrary, it is based on the OP's claim that the DIFFERENCE IN CIRCUMFERNCE yields the speed of light, NOT the difference in diameter. It'll also work for inches.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by unknownfairy

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).


Thanks for your reply. As I am quite tired, it is late here, can you please explain how you calculate the speed of light with your posted figure. In m and ft please.




posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by galactix



Take any circle, divide the diameter into four equal circles (as shown). Place the new smaller circles into a square pattern such that their edges touch the original circle (again, as shown). Draw a square between the centers of the small circles.

The perimeter of this new square = the circumference of the first big circle: "squaring the circle".


Umm I just tried this and the circumference of the circle does not match the perimeter of the square. Where radius = 1, the circumference = pi*2 and the perimeter of the square = the square root of 2*10.
edit on 1/29/2012 by circlemaker because: formatting



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


You are probably better off investigating numbers by themselves because Bertrand Russell has stated that understanding numbers doesn't seem quite human. If you could say anything about numbers it would be that E.T. created them. Try proving that. "Nature reveals an intelligence of such superiority that compared with it all the sytematic thinking and acting of "human beings" is an utterly insignificant reflection." Albert Einstein the world as i see it
edit on 29-1-2012 by UFOOWNER because: (no reason given)

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

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



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by UFOOWNER
reply to post by Tsurugi
 


I think that your questionizationing has reached its infinitesimaly small vanishing point. lol!


....huh?




"We believe in the possibility of a theory which will give a complete description of reality the laws of which establish relationships between the things themselves and not merely between their probabilities." Albert Einstein 1879-1955


Is that a quote of Einstein talking about Unified Field theory? What does that have to do with what you said, or with what I said in my earlier post?





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

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

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

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

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


...and why so many edits??



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by unknownfairy

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.

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.


Originally posted by Osito
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.


Double check your math! Circumference of a circle is pi*diameter....take you diameter (95.4) and multiply it by PI (3.14).... you will get the speed of light. An no, this is not arbitrary, it is based on the OP's claim that the DIFFERENCE IN CIRCUMFERNCE yields the speed of light, NOT the difference in diameter. It'll also work for inches.


Double check your math. One circumference minus the other circumference does not equal the speed of light.

Also, the OP did not say to subtract the circumferences of the circles. He spoke of length, which I took to be a linear measurement. I have provided revised calculations based on subtraction of circumferences in a previous post. Still not the speed of light.


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



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tsurugi

Originally posted by UFOOWNER
reply to post by Tsurugi
 


I think that your questionizationing process has reached its infinitesimaly small vanishing point. lol!


....huh?
because you are nit picking at a point until it's meaning vanishes!



"We believe in the possibility of a theory which will give a complete description of reality the laws of which establish relationships between the things themselves and not merely between their probabilities." Albert Einstein 1879-1955


Is that a quote of Einstein talking about Unified Field theory? "Does the grass bend when the wind blows upon it?" Confucius What does that have to do with what you said, or with what I said in my earlier post?What does einstein want from the quote an explanation what do you want an explanation Because of what you are talking about the questions you are asking are pointless just like probabilities are pointless. the point to your questioning is point less.





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

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

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

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

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


...and why so many edits?? Because I don't think of it all at once and am trying to make what I say sound better to suit my purposes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Wow, so many replies!!
As I 'tried to say at the top of the post, I was realy just offering some content from the two vids mentioned because I noticed a few posters said they could not afford the bandwidth to watch them. Yes I did add a little too, had to make it interesting


Its always possible to debunk subjects that have variable variables
for e,g the earth is not round so depends where you measure. Maths, I am somewhat challenged in that area
so its nice to see some good replies.

I notice some of you have done the maths and agree while some disagree. Maybe those of you that can do the maths could agree on what is presented in the op and do the maths again. I'd like to know the truth too.

Thanks again for all the replies.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


First off, the claims where based on the movie "Revelations of the pyramids", where this is explained alot better, about these circumferences etc.I attached it to my previous post so you can check it out.

Your math is also off. Where do you even get the number 204.4? The true number from wikipedia is 230.4.

This gives the small circle circumference of 723,8229473870883621417930355076
The big circle is then 1023,64022895168758331245898011

1023,64022895168758331245898011 - 723,8229473870883621417930355076 = 299,81728156459922117066594460238


299,81728156459922117066594460238 looks pretty damn close to the speed of light to me.

Maybe it would be even closer if more decimals where supplied in the sourcenumbers. i doubt .4 meters is as close at it gets...
edit on 29-1-2012 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)

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

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



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


Yes they are all coincidences, nothing to see here move along. At any given time in any given point in space and time, things can and will reflect something to an observer.

The only conspiracy I see, is that it seems like somebody or something want us to do math, and I hatez math. Anyways screw the moon, and all that. I don't trust the moon, there is definitely something wrong with it. In fact it looks sick and pale. It is definitely not the moon I remember at least not from this lifetime, but I am pretty sure I know which moon it is, and it was decommissioned.

And the pyramid is another hoax, pyramids don't exist, unless they are created.
There is no perfection in nature or even in creation, all those numbers can only be interpreted as perfect or to mean more then there context as long as it meets the eye, and only as long as they are relevant to the questions asked, or the subject in its perspective frame.

Basically looked at from any given particular angle everything can be number crunched into something that reflects something else. But there is not such thing as perfection, definitely not in nature, and only prospectively in creation.

Is it all coincidences? No its all relative. Which is the same difference.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Ok, some of you seem to either doubt my math or wonder where it came from. It's difficult to show the exact symbols on here, so I'm first going to explain what they mean:

a = the side of a rectangle, say the width
b=the other side of a rectangle, say the length
h = the length of a hypotaneous (ie, the diagonal line connecting the corners of a rectangle)
#^2 = any number (denoted by the #) rasied to the power of 2. So, 3^2 = 3*3 = 9, and 2^2=2*2=4, 4^2=16, etc.
d= the diamter of a circle
SQRT(#) = the square root of #. So, SQRT(9) = 3 (since 3*3=9), SQRT(16)=4, SQRT(81)=9, etc.
*=mulitply. I tend to use the asterik, *, instead of x.
/ = divide. 4/2 = 2, 18/6=3, etc.
pi=pi, or about 3.14

Now, for a right-angled triangle, a^2+b^2=h^2. This is called pythagrous's theroem, a very well known property for a right-angled triangle, in which the hypotanous, h, is directly opposite the 90 degree-ed angle. If you don't believe me on this, go and talk to a math teacher, or google it.

For a square, a=b (that is, the length and the width are equal lengths). By substituting these into the initial equation, you have a^2 + a^2 = h^2. Combining like terms yields 2*a^2 = h^2. solving for the hypotanous, h, gives h=SQRT(2*a^2), or simplifed h=a*SQRT(2). This is the length of the diagonal in a square.

For a square, you can inscribe a circle inside of it, or inscribe the square in the circle, as shown in the picture below.



The smaller cirlce will have a circumference = pi*diameter. The diameter is equal to the length of the square, a. This means the smaller circle has a circumference = pi*a

The larger circle has a diameter equal to the hypotanous, h = a*SQRT(2). This gives a circumference = pi*h. Subing in the value of h gives circumference = pi*a*SQRT(2).

Now, the difference in the circumferences = pi*a*SQRT(2) (the larger circle) - pi*a (the smaller circle). Simplifying this gives a difference in circumferences = pi*2*(SQRT(2)-1). the SQRT(2) is approximately 1.4142..., and 1.4142-1=0.4142...

So, a GENERAL expression for the differnce in circumferences = pi*a*0.4142
where a = the length of the side of the square (NOT the diagonal).

For the Khufu's pyramid at Giza, the lenght a = 230.4 m. (from Wikipedia, not 203.4m as earlier stated. Double check if you'd like)

This gives the difference in circumference = pi*230.4*0.4142
=pi*95.266
but as stated, pi=3.14
so, now it's 3.14*95266=299.28696, the speed of light in m/s off by a few magnitudes. Note that this does not work for all dimensions of a square shape. if the square had a length of say, 10 m, then the difference between these circles is 13.01248 or so.

As for the conversion of m/s to feet/sec, this is done by multiplication. One foot is the same as 0.3048 meters. So, 299.28696/0.3048=981.912 ft/s.

I hope this clears it up for you.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   


that of squaring the circle, with just a compass, a ruler, and a pencil


This is total rubbish. It is not just believed that this is impossible, it is known.

It is as stupid to say to a mathematician that you can find two even numbers that sum up to 1 as it is to say you can square the circle with a ruler and compass. It has been proven impossible and therefore will always remain so. Mathematics (along with formal logic) are two areas of human knowledge that are immutable.

Crop circles are made by humans. I have met some of them. Some are damned smart people, even mathematicians. There is nothing other-worldly about them. There are plenty of videos of crop circles being constructed.

It's actually annoying for people who make them that they don't get credit for their artwork. They don't often admit to doing it publicly because it usually involves criminal damage to crops. In some instances they pay the farmer to damage his crops (and to spin some story to the press about lights in the sky or whatever). But usually it is just done at night after trespassing on the property.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by COconspiracyguy
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?


No doubt its all coincidence.








posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


To reiterate what another poster said, but put it in other terms. The view point is rather Anglocentric. The modern mile is an arbitrary unit of measurement. It's based on the Roman mile, which actually comes from their word for 1000, meaning 1000 double paces. Imagine if the culture had based it on single paces or some other subjective measurement.

So, in all honesty, the mathematical alignment is coincidental based on Anglo-American measuring convention only beyond the setting of a mile to equal 5,280 feet (which also has as its base the concept that a foot is 12 inches - and be extension that an inch is the measurement that it is).

When analyzing phenomena, it's important to take a step back and see how other cultures line up. Sometimes we take things for granted because of our cultural worldview and this can be a cause of a harmless culturally-specific myth at best, but a cause of painful ethnocentrism at worst.

Other examples include how we see dogs as pets, another culture as food. How in the US, the toilet seat is an intrinsic part of the home, while in Brazil it is a movable piece of furniture that goes with the outgoing family when they move out. In Haiti, whistling is seen as a sign of disrespect to elders, but in the US it is a harmless action of idleness or joy. Things like this, when not understood by another culture, can cause miscommunication and beliefs of superiority. The examples I gave are off the top of my head, and while they might be a bit simplistic or mundane, but let them stand as basic examples of the concept I'm referring to.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
It could be a coincidence. I like the post. I'll watch the videos you suggested.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Nice thread Voidhawk, those ancient builders certainly knew their stuff.

You might want to check out this little linky
home.hiwaay.net...

Some good info on ancient structures and mathmatical "coincidences"

Also, if you've not done so, check out Carl Muncks stuff. Here's a 5 hour or so video of his, it goes into lots of detail and is very eye opening.






Another site you may find interesting is this one about megaliths and the world grid
www.vortexmaps.com...

Enjoy



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by unknownfairy
a = the side of a rectangle, say the width
b=the other side of a rectangle, say the length
h = the length of a hypotaneous (ie, the diagonal line connecting the corners of a rectangle)


That would be "hypotenuse".


Now, for a right-angled triangle, a^2+b^2=h^2. This is called pythagrous's theroem, a very well known property for a right-angled triangle, in which the hypotanous, h, is directly opposite the 90 degree-ed angle. If you don't believe me on this, go and talk to a math teacher, or google it.


That would be Pythagoras.


So, a GENERAL expression for the differnce in circumferences = pi*a*0.4142
where a = the length of the side of the square (NOT the diagonal).

For the Khufu's pyramid at Giza, the lenght a = 230.4 m. (from Wikipedia, not 203.4m as earlier stated. Double check if you'd like)

This gives the difference in circumference = pi*230.4*0.4142


You've given both the side length of the pyramid and the square root of 2 to 4 significant places, thus your answer will be to 4 significant places, so long as you use 3.142 for pi.


so, now it's 3.14*95266=299.28696, the speed of light in m/s off by a few magnitudes.


No, it's 3.142*0.4142*230.4 = 299.8m, which has little to do with the speed of light, which is 2.998e8 m/s, apart from agreement to 4 significant places.

So what is the significance of that? None.

Egyptians didn't use metres, but cubits. And the probability of getting the same four digits for any given pair of random numbers is one in ten thousand (actually less, but I don't want to explain why).

But given that you could have used any measurement from the pyramid, any physical constant and any arbitrary construction (notice how contrived the construction is in this example), the probability of getting such a coincidence is precisely 100%. If you look hard enough you will find many others.

This is what is known to scientists as crank science. It has no value and only succeeds in deluding the uneducated.

By the way, the side lengths of the pyramid (which are probably supposed to be 230.12 m) are 230.328m, 230.369m, 230.372m, 230.372m.

So to 6 significant places the values are: 299.723, 299.777, 299.780, 299.780.

Take your pick, they are all wrong. The correct value is 2.99792e8 m/s.


edit on 29-1-2012 by XtraTL because: More info



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


I guess the 40+ star and flags can't or wont do any math. Basically you are S&F the link below. This really seems like one guy or a group with multiple accounts S&F his own thread for LOLZ. I don't like to be punked. Do you?


www.youtube.com...

edit on 29-1-2012 by hooberson3 because: direct copy and paste said malformed link.....odd....



new topics

top topics



 
122
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join