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: 4
122
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Acidtastic
 


Thanks for those. Ditched my tv years ago so love this stuff.




posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
So basically this thread is all about perspective much like this.


www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Is it rude or just a coincidence when certain people's Speech: Talks or Speech: Listens don't balance out Tsurugi?. It grieves me sore. Did You know that there are double boxes in the speech column: one set refering to talking, the other to listening. It may not have occurred to some people that communication is both outgo and income. An observation of how a person both listens and talks may make it possible to form an opinion as to whether or not that person is being rude.
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 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by UFOOWNER
because you are nit picking at a point until it's meaning vanishes!





What does einstein want from the quote an explanation

He was saying he believed a unified field theory could be found. He asked for no explanation.


what do you want an explanation

I did not ask for any 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.

Perhaps I begin to see some glimmer of meaning in all of this. Maybe. If you are actually saying what I think you are saying, might I suggest that next time you simply ask, "What is your point?" and I would gladly answer.

Just because you didn't see the point, doesn't mean the point wasn't there. Or are you a solipsist?



Because I don't think of it all at once and am trying to make what I say sound better to suit my purposes

Fair enough, though I have to wonder what your purposes were.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


Well sorry to burst your bubble but there are no "perfect" solar eclipses anymore since the moon is moving father from the the earth. I believe the last "perfect" one was about 16 years ago or something but the coincidences are quite intrigueing.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by XtraTL

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.

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.


First, thank you for catching my spelling errors - this was never my strong area, especially without a spell check. When reading the initial posts on the first page, I came across someone else's calculation which gave a result of 95.4, "nowhere near the speed of light". I was curious, so did the calculation myself.

Deciding how many sig figs to keep on a discussion forum like this is a matter of discretion. Since you brought that up, I'm sure you can understand that it is to be taken with a grain of salt, and if we really want to get nit picky then there sould really be 4 sig figs in total, since this is all based on the measurement of 230.4 m; so the real solution would be more like 299.8 plus/minus 0.1 or 0.5 or whatever the acutual uncertainty is (I'm not bothering to calculate it - you're more than welcome to if you'd like).

Please note that in my response I said that the answer is "off by a few magnitudes", not that it is the exact speed of light. Perhaps I should have emphazised that more, but hindsight's 20/20, right? As well, I was not using "any measurement from the pyramid", I was simply determining for myself the validity of the original OP's claim, using the values originally indicated in the first post. I agree with you 100% that numbers CAN be distorted to show what you want them to show, however I do find this particular result somewhat intriguing since it's based on the geometric properties, and not mutliplying a portion of it by something arbitrary such as 7, or 123, etc. In addition, even if the Egyptains used cubits instead of meters, there'd be the conversion ratio that applied to the answer would still give a (smaller magnitude) of the speed of light. Based on your response, I'm assuming you understand how conversion ratios work and why I state this.

However, I think you're mistaken about getting the "same four digits from random numbers"; my calculations show that FOR A SQUARE, the difference in circumference between a circle inscribed inside the square to that of a square inscribed in a circle is dependant only upon the length of the square; the other numbers in that equation, PI, and SQRT(2)-1 are constants. This could be shown to a math teacher with the same answer. So the probability is actually much lower than one in ten thousand that the difference resembles, numerically, anything like the speed of light since there is a small range of solutions that gives the result with the same starting numbers as the speed of light.

The real question is, is this significant? Do I actually think that the Egyptians build that particular pyramid with the intent that this relationship yields the result it does. In all likelyhood, probably not, just as you suggest. I do think it's more coincidence than anything else, because if it wasn't this pyramid that does, than chances are another one or some other structure altogether would.

In other words, I DO agree with you that any structure, if looked at properly, can show some type of universal constant. But, it doesn't mean s*** as far as the designer's intentions are concerned. I was simply trying to solve the original problem myself as I'm a stickler for math, and saw an error in calculations on the first page. Others wondered how I the math worked, so I posted the math. Nothing fancy, just Pythagoras, formula for circumference of a circle, and subtraction.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooberson3

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?


It's late here and I'm tired so brain not what it should be but are you suggesting that *I* created 40+ accounts just to star and flag this thread?????
Please explain.

If that IS what your suggesting then I think the mods would spot that. I'd need 40+ email accounts and 40+ ip numbers.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


Great OP, VoidHawk. It should be obvious that a scientifically & technologically advanced civilization (more sophisticated than we are now) existed in our pre-History. They left markers in stone in the hopes that when we climbed back up in understanding, we would be able to decipher their meaning.

I wonder what else is hidden. The Hall of Records underneath the Sphinx?
edit on 29-1-2012 by AuranVector because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-1-2012 by AuranVector because: I shouldn't try to post when I'm this tired.


I wanted to add that I believe in ETs. I know there's more than one kind, but the ones who created us -- I'm not sure they ever left entirely.
edit on 29-1-2012 by AuranVector because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tsurugi

Originally posted by UFOOWNER
because you are nit picking at a point until it's meaning vanishes!





What does einstein want from the quote an explanation

He was saying he believed a unified field theory could be found. He asked for no explanation. But when he finds it he will have to explain it


what do you want an explanation

you did not ask for any explanation. Yet you are explaining something and thus the explanation vanishes


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.

Perhaps I begin to see some glimmer of meaning in all of this. Maybe. If you are actually saying what I think you are saying, might I suggest that next time you simply ask, "What is your point?" and I would gladly answer. The point is disclosure and this route won't get at it.

Just because you didn't see the point, doesn't mean the point wasn't there. It was there but now you see it and now you don't Or are you a solipsist? I do not know what a solipsist is but will look it up



Because I don't think of it all at once and am trying to make what I say sound better to suit my purposes

Fair enough, though I have to wonder what your purposes were.
my reasons are self centered in something that seemingly know one wants to talk about or finds it too crazy here on ats. I appreciate your response here and thank you very much
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 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Most awesome thread. I loove the math and its logic, here is another video for you, please watch all 8 parts you will be baffled by the numbers. Thank you so much for sharing this blessings!! Tina


Hopefully the video shows up


www.youtube.com...
edit on 29-1-2012 by TM62 because: youtube vid not working?



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
All of the "coincidences" about the Great Pyramid are just geometric proofs. Same with the circle and 4 other circles.
Sure they are interesting geometric proofs, so by "just geometric proofs" I mean as opposed to what your suggesting.

Sure, It's cool that the moon and sun appear to be the same size...but it doesn't mean anything, imo. There had to be a planet in the universe that had this happen.

I see a lot of cool information, but nothing out of the ordinary...



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
nice post.
I have had an idea.
the moon is just the size to hide the sun. yes.
but with time the moon slowly moves out.
so the sun would be seen as a ring.

But is the sun slowly geting smaller?
can any one tell me?
now that would be over the top.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Wow, some of that is very cool. I was curious regarding the dimensions of the pyramid. I had read things similar to this, maybe the same, I don't remember, so I decided to work out the math on my own. I assumed the diagram showing that A/B = Pi was for the "Great Pyramid", and what it seems to me is that A meant the length of 2 sides...

Well that doesn't work out. It takes the entire perimeter of the base, which I will call A', divided by the height, B, to come up with Pi...So I don't know if that is what the picture meant, but I just wanted to share that in case anyone was interested.

Regarding the crop circles: I don't believe aliens are visiting Earth, so I obviously never gave much thought to crop circles. This is still interesting though. The point I would like to make, and I do not know if someone has pointed this out yet, is that it could be possible that geometric patterns have underlying principles that make certain outcomes likely.

For instance, we know that Pi is related to the dimensions of the circumference and radius/diameter of a circle...I don't know, as math was always over my head when thinking abstractly, so I cannot perceive whether my idea is even plausible. I hope that makes sense, lol...

Also, I was wondering if the dimensions of the Sun, Earth, and Moon, regarding what you posted about, have these dimensional/spacial properties because of some underlying characteristic of gravity...Is it possible? Since gravity is calculated by knowing the distance between the two objects, as well as their size, I think it is possible that the phenomena we observe are a direct relationship of this gravitational property.

ETA: I should have mentioned that I no longer hold conventional physics as "accurate". I currently believe in a physical theory called "Reciprocal System Physical Theory", invented by Dewey B. Larson. By looking at the fundamental postulates of this theory, things that modern physics has trouble explaining are nothing more than forced outcomes in this theory.

It has only a handful of fundamental postulates, and the rest of the physics is drawn from them. Here are a couple of them:

"The physical universe is composed entirely of one component, space-time, existing in three dimensions, in discrete units, and in two reciprocal forms, space and time."

"The physical universe conforms to the relations of ordinary mathematics, its magnitudes are absolute and its geometry is Euclidean. "

Source for Quoted Postulates


I didn't intend to hijack your thread, and the only reason I bring this up is because it pertains to WHY I proposed what I did regarding gravity. Thanks for the thread, and I apologize that I couldn't be of more help regarding the other aspects you posted about.




edit on 1/29/12 by JiggyPotamus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Just posting a reply for now, its late but I want to find the thread tomorrow and watch the video

looks interesting



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   
What did I just read???

This was amazing, by far one of the best threads I have ever red.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   

When the moon eclipses the sun it’s a perfect fit. If the moon or the sun were different in size this wouldn’t happen. If the distance between the earth and the moon, or the sun and the moon were different it wouldn’t happen. It seems strange how it’s all just perfect for a complete solar eclipse?
Of course the experts will tell you this is just a coincidence.


As been pointed out, it isn't exactly true. While some eclipses are a perfect match, others are not.
The Earth's distance from the Sun is not always the same and the Moon's distance from the Earth is not always the same. Solar eclipses are not all the same. The moon does not always perfectly cover the sun.
apod.nasa.gov... (a reminder)

The Earth's distance from the Sun varies from 152,100,000km to 147,300,000km. The Moon's distance from Earth varies from 364,397km to 406,731km. So the ratio of the distances varies from 362 to 417, an average of 389.

The diameter of the Sun is 1,392,000km. The diameter of the Moon is 3,474 km. That ratio is 401. Not a perfect fit. Not the same. Not much of a coincidence.
edit on 1/29/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Yes, those ET's can be smart little cheeky buggers at times. They like to make us think and don't hand us knowledge on a golden platter, that's for sure!



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Glenn Beck did a show about this once. But he's just a crazy mormon right? Oh, he did mention native american structures with the EXACT SAME dimensions and angles built into them that the pyramids had.

Really great thread OP, thanks for this.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Alright, can someone just tell me what all this is supposed to mean?



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sphota
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).


It still does not matter, because the speed of light in single-pace-units is the same as in miles. If you measure the circumferences and do all the math in single-pace-units, you will get the speed of light in units of single-pace-units/second. The number would be different, but if you do all the math it just doesn't matter what the unit is.

1000 double-pace-units which is 1 Roman mile = 1 US mile.
Lets say 2000 single-pace-units = 1 Roman/US mile.

1 US mile = 1 609.344 meters. The OP's speed of light was in meters/second = 299,792,458 m/s.
Speed of light = 186282.397 miles/sec
186282.397 x 2000 will give you he speed of light in single-pace-units/second.
Now go and convert the measurements of all the other OPs distance units into single-pace-units, and you will see that doing the math in a different unit does not matter because it just reflects a predetermined distance and makes it a unit with witch to count with.



new topics

top topics



 
122
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join