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.

# Earthly coincidences...or not.

page: 5
122
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 11:56 PM
Great thread, i never realized how all of these things could be related. I'll check out that documentary tomorrow

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 12:13 AM
As far as the pyramid's dimensions, the first and third "coincidences" are stating exactly the same mathematical facts, and there are an infinite number of base and height pairs that have that same property. The base and height given by wikipedia is 230.4 meters and 146.5 meters, respectively. Thus the ratio of 2b/h would be 3.14539249146757679180.. or so, which is pretty close to pi. The second "coincidence" can never be true at the same time the first and third are. If you graph the solution set for pi=2b/h and phi=4(b(sqrt((b^2)/4)+h^2))/(2b^2) , you will find that you get two lines intersecting at 0,0. There are no real solutions to the system.

The speed of rotation of the earth is about 463.8314 meters per second. This means for the fourth "coincidence" to be true the length of the base of the pyramid should be about 231.9157 meters. It is 230.4 according to wiki...quite close.

Now for the last "coincidence" we have two routes to go. If we assume the fourth is accurate and the base was actually 231.9157, we get a difference of 302.8 between the two circumferences...again, close, but no cigar.

In order to get a difference equal to 299.792458 meters the base would have to be 230.38092388 meters or so.

Which is freakishly accurate.

edit on 30-1-2012 by joemelon because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-1-2012 by joemelon because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 01:24 AM

Originally posted by havok

There's no such thing as coincidence.
Everything happens for a reason.

Things do not happen because of what will happen, but because of what has happened.

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 01:45 AM

Originally posted by Arken
Hmmm,

In Police investigations, two coincidences, make a clue... Three coincidence make a proof.

How many coincidences here?

S&F.

I have to agree,
If you are a betting man you will know that when related coincidences start stacking up, the odds on those events occurring naturally rise to a staggering figure. This thread is a nice introduction to "Sacred Geometry" and the current "guardians" will remain tight lipped on these issues..... This kind of knowledge was taught in the Ancient Mysticism Schools and was well known by the likes of Plato & Pithagoras. Over millenia it has been surpressed (particularly by religions) as they fear all knowing individuals will have a direct and enlightened path to the Grand Architect.
This truly is a beautiful subject.
Thanks OP... S & F

PEACE,
RK
edit on 30-1-2012 by Rigel Kent because: spelling

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 03:24 AM
Great post, I always found it fascinating how everything we perceive to be reality can be broken down and understood through mathematics and equations. It could be possible that theses are not coincidences at all, but really our mind tricking itself to understand something we don't have the ability to come to grips with.

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 03:26 AM
reply to post by VoidHawk

Here's another earthly coincidence: Of the billions and billions ( hey I sound like Carl Seagan :-) of planets that this could happen to, it happens where it can be view very strange I may say!! The odds are against it !

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 03:29 AM

Originally posted by 2012eleveneleven
Great post, I always found it fascinating how everything we perceive to be reality can be broken down and understood through mathematics and equations. It could be possible that theses are not coincidences at all, but really our mind tricking itself to understand something we don't have the ability to come to grips with.

After all, we can only rationalize what we know to be real, and what we see as being real is what we learn.. No teacher no lessons.

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 03:50 AM
So with all of that wrapped up, what is the conclusion really? What's the moral of the theory? Despite all these supposed coincidences, I don't understand what it all points to.

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 04:00 AM

it points to the fact that there is a far greater purpose to this world than what meets the eye of most people

in my experiences there is no such thing as coincidences

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 05:10 AM
You forgot to add that the moon rotates in such a way that we only ever see one side of it.

What I find equally as interesting as these so-called 'coincidences', is how researchers like Allen Brown even managed to stumble on such obscure links. For example:

The sum of 540 + 792 = 1296. 6x6x6x6 also = 1296.
In the ancient Greek alphabet these numbers correlate to spelling out a name, that name translates into Goddess of all creation. Just another coincidence right?.

How the hell do you discover that? I mean, you've gotta be spending every waking moment cross-referencing everything to come across that. Maybe certain researchers are guided by some divine force? Or (and unfortunately the other explanation discredits the magnitude of all this) there are so many possible coincidences that you're bound to stumble upon them everywhere you look.

Incidentally, I found a carbon copy of the OP here, posted by an American, whereas the OP of this thread is from the UK.

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 07:06 AM

Originally posted by Tempest333

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.

I was not referring to lightspeed or whatever all of that is. I was simply referring to how the OP's use of the first seven numbers of our numerical system multiplied by eachother would not necessarily equal the radius of the Earth. Only in our culture, using our measuring conventions.

The OP stated:

If we take the earths diameter 7920 miles, and the sum of the radii of both the Earth and Moon (in miles) 3960 + 1080 = 5040 we find that Stonehenge has the same numbers in feet i.e.: Inner circle 50.4 and outer circle 79.2

The first seven numbers multiplied together 1x2x3x4x5x6x7 = 5040 = radius of the Earth plus the radius of the Moon.

1x2x3x4x5x6x7 = 5040 miles. But, let's say we're using kilometers. My conversion rate for that is fuzzy, but it'd be roughly 8417 kilometers

1x2x3x4x5x6x7 does not equal 8417, so...in any culture that does not use Anglo-American measuring conventions, which are arbitrary at best, this does not hold any water. So, my point still stands.

**Also, one Roman Mile as it was used does not equal a contemporary Anglo-American Mile, it was shorter by about 400 feet or so.
edit on 30-1-2012 by Sphota because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 07:17 AM

Originally posted by Tempest333

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.

After reading what you wrote a second time I see what you are saying. Yes, of course, like when we read a map and it says the scale is 1:60,000 or whatever. It could be one inch, one centimeter, one bound Chinese princess' foot, or one lightyear, the other side of the equation will be valid as long as the measuring unit does not change.

This is obvious to anyone who had rudimentary math in 8th grade and not at all what I was getting at.

My point was that there is only a coincidence when you are using miles, which, in our culture, are both arbitrary and conventional. This is not the case for other cultures, where different units of measurement have been used historically. This is the purpose of the metric system: a universal standard. So, whether we are using old Arabic measurements, Ming Dynasty measurements, the measuring system of the Koi-San of Southern Africa or modern metric units, it would not affect the balancing of the equation, but it does affect the coincidence.

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 10:01 AM
Your example of the "squared circle' seems sort of arbitrary; how do you DETERMINE where the center of the circle crosses the larger circle? This Square could be formed by any 4 circles of the same size around a larger circle -- so where is the "geometric" technique to find the correct size of the 4 smaller circles?

In the Crop circle, these 4 circles are too large and would add up to more than the circumference. The Circumference of ANY circle is 2 * pi * radius, so it stands to reason that 4 smaller circles who's radius is 1/4 that of the larger circle will add up to the Circumference.

... so I'm not sure what we've learned about the "square of the circle."

>> I don't think a lot of EXPERTS are going to say that a lot of these connections you are finding are coincidence-- they'd probably point out that MANY things in nature follow the Golden Rule or a Fibonacci sequence. Fractal patterns have shown many organic structures are mathematically related.

The Great Pyramids and Many ancient structures used ropes and radii to determine their dimensions -- arriving at many mathematical "coincidences" by virtue of geometry. Rolling a sphere with a point drawn on it, across the ground will give you its circumference.

If you draw a circle with the same length as the square, then measure the radius of the circle you get the height of the pyramid.

I don't wish to ruin anyone's connection to the incredible -- but you've put this up as if it's some question for the ages that cannot be solved. Well, just USE A ROPE to measure length each side, then when you bisect your square, that SAME length of rope draws your circle and the HEIGHT of the pyramid -- the solution is in the Geometric shapes you drew to illustrate your point. Egyptians didn't SOLVE anything -- they just used normal tricks with sticks and ropes the way I figured out to do entirely on my own at 14 when faced with construction projects that only had my hands, a rope, sticks and rocks.

Lot's of "primitive" technology or mind-boggling techniques, can be found if you just try to solve problems with your hands and physical tools.

You can solve your "square of the circle" this way to. If you put a stake in the ground and run a rope to 4 equal positions, you can run the same rope folded in half from these 4 equal positions to "square them" and thus your 4 circles and sides equal the circumference of the original Radius, and you also create a pyramid that relates to Pi and the Golden Number -- because the Golden Number is PART OF this mathematical relationship. There's NO COINCIDENCE on this relationship -- and the "experts" aren't arguing that there is.

The Egyptians look like Math Geniuses because they didn't USE calculators -- they used Geometry, which physically solves problems by the nature of the mathematical relationships inherent in the forms themselves. You don't need to know "Pi" to calculate all the relationships with shapes.

The Golden Rule is the Golden Rule because it's a principle recurring structure in nature.

>> I also remember a TV show I saw as a kid hosted by Leonard Nimoy called "In Search Of." They had all these amazing things that "nobody had an answer for from marvels of the primitive world." What I found is that they are ALL SOLVABLE. For instance, I'm guessing that the Peruvian drawings that run for miles and can only be 'seen from space' -- are merely the paths walked by acolytes (thousands of acolytes doing these paths for a year to gain access to the "secrets" of their priests -- the main secret being is; "make people to crazy crap for a year and they think we hide something special -- 'shhh' or we kill you). The shapes were probably done on paper, and then strings and points were used to determine angles and "relative lengths." Then you take the longest bit of twine that you can wind together, and you can reproduce that drawing over Kilometers by using the 'relative lengths and angles' -- doesn't matter what it is. We did this in art class all the time.

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 10:12 AM
I'd also like to make a comment about "finding the incredible everywhere." It's really impossible that you DON'T have amazing coincidences.

>> I've also wondered about why the moon is just the right size to block the sun -- so I "looked it up"

"the moon's orbit is tilted approximately 5° relative to the Sun-Earth plane. Because of this, the moon passes through this plane only twice in its orbit, and it is rare that these crossings correspond with a full or new moon.

A solar eclipse occurs during a new moon, when the moon is directly between Earth and the sun, as per the illustration on the left, which is not to scale. When this happens, the moon blocks the sun's light from reaching Earth in two main ways."

So we don't ALWAYS get an eclipse every time the moon circles the earth. If the moon were ON-Axis it would blot out the sun more frequently. Eclipses only "coincidentally" happen on a New Moon because if the moon is between the sun and the earth -- we wouldn't be seeing a full or quarter moon. The moon is steadily drifting away from earth -- so eventually, this "perfect fit" will no longer be noticeable.

Here's another good point I found; LINK

Actually it's not always just the right size. When it's farther away it's too small, and we get an annular eclipse.

I'm sure if someone crunched enough numbers and looked at enough OTHER phenomena, there would be a correlation between the frequency of the rare total eclipses and some other celestial or mathematical construct.

>> I'm not quite sure about the term for "finding correlation but not causation" -- but it happens all the time. You can compare stock market graphs to the weather, or to crickets chirping, and at SOME SCALE and at some point along those graphs, you can always find "amazing coincidental correlations." Matching patterns is a side effect that random data from all sorts of data sets, creates "natural wave forms from random data" -- since you are starting from random, or anything influenced by cyclical patterns (like stocks and the weather), you are GOING to find correlations. Random looks like Random and Cyclical looks like Cyclical and "normal" always sits between a bell curve between exceptional and below par.

If the Moon were NOT exactly the right size -- we would not remark on it -- but then someone would notice that it was the perfect size so that it's circumference was the diameter of the earth, or that is was the "PERFECT" size for something else. Human's are intrinsically wired to find patterns, and the clouds do not arrange themselves into faces and rabbits to talk to us -- we "find the pattern" and remark on it. Whatever has NO connection to a pattern is "unremarkable."

If you bother to notice all the times things DON'T have a pattern -- then you will notice that the chances are infinite for a pattern that can be recognized to occur. Capture some frames of random noise, compare them, and chances are SOMEONE can see a pattern if they look hard enough.

>> I'm not a person who automatically discounts alien life forms, celestial tampering, dimension hopping, psychic phenomena and the like. It's just that when it occurs -- I want to do due diligence. Merely because I haven't seen too much evidence of unexplainable mysteries that cannot be explained with some deductive reasoning, doesn't mean that we won't find some.

Cool stuff and thanks for bringing it up!

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 10:28 AM
reply to post by galactix

2 times Pi times the radius is how I learned to figure the circumference of a circle. I think this thread is Mickey Mouse all the way.

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 10:44 AM
From the OP;

The length of two sides of the pyramid is the distance the earth moves in one second.

I'd like to ask "which pyramid"? -- they have different sizes. The Great One? OK. But if one of the other's fits this calculation, will THAT be a miracle?

Well, let's check that out;
The circumference of (distance around) the earth is 2 x PI x radius, which turns out to be about 24,000 miles. Since the earth turns once per day (or 24 hours), that is 1,000 miles per hour.

1000 mph = 1 466.66667 feet per second.

Let's get the LENGTH of a side of the Great Pyramid (since it's the LARGEST one); SOURCE

It is thought that, at construction, the Great Pyramid was originally 280 Egyptian cubits tall, 146.5 metres (480.6 ft) but with erosion and absence of its pyramidion, its present height is 138.8 metres (455.4 ft). Each base side was 440 cubits, 230.4 metres (755.9 ft) long. A royal cubit measures 0.524 metres.[

So the great pyramid is 755.9 ft and multiplied by 2 is of course 1511.8 feet. So it's about 90 feet too long. The earth is slowing a bit each year, but it wasn't quite moving that much faster.

One of the slightly smaller pyramids might EXACTLY fit. It's close, but about 5% off. The Egyptians did NOT have any way of accurately measuring time beyond sun dials. I think the ancient greeks used water dripping to try and come up with a consistent time measurement if NOT a unified bit of time like a second. SOME poor slob probably had to sit around all day counting how many drops of water would pass -- well, I'll get back to that.

>> The Ancient Egyptians were gaga however about the stars because they lived and died by the seasons and astrologers always tried to predict crops, or find correlations with the kings birthday. All sorts of instances of early civilizations sticking holes in grounds to find the EXACT moment a sun or star would shine it's light directly down that hole, and so THERE they might do something -- it's how the early Greeks figured out the circumference of the earth -- by figuring out the TIME it took to go from one hole to the next by the sun, and then figuring if you did that ALL DAY, that would be so many cubits (I think that was the measurement they used).

The Heavens were interesting, because after poking a fire with a stick, or telling stories, there isn't any TV to look at, so history is replete with a LOT OF TIME to stargaze. Pointing out the Winter Solstice used to get a man laid. So the ancients really got good at finding the solstice.

The point I'm making is that the Pyramid being lined up with True North -- while amazing, is nothing beyond what a Astrologer of the day would spend his whole life figuring out. They did the same thing at stonehenge and around the world. The ONLY really mind-boggling calculations were by the Aztecs -- they figured out how often we crosse the ecliptic of the milky way!

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 11:09 AM
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

Due diligence required me to go back and TRY to get a more accurate calculation, since we were close before -- and coincidentally (heh) by being more accurate, we get CLOSER to the dimensions of the pyramid;

Earth is MORE exactly considered 24901.55 miles in circumference.

24 901.55 / 24 hours in day = 1 037.56458 mph

1 037.56458 mph = 1 521.76138 feet per second

OK, so that means 1511.8 feet. for double the width of the Pyramids.

>> So to be honest, the Egyptians were off by about 10 feet. Could they have figured out the circumference of the earth with a good clock? Yes.

Now if I calculated with the REAL length of the day by the second, or if I used the REAL length of the day during the ages of the pyramid, I might add or shave 10 ft to that calculation. We might also calculate the circumference EXACTLY at Giza -- that would also change the numbers.

But 1 521.8 is chillingly and amazingly coincidentally like 1522.

I entered 1522 into Google and got 122,000,000 results. I think if I spend the afternoon, I could find a few hundred things around the planet that are perfectly related to the distance the earth travels in a second -- even if it was made when nobody was counting in seconds.

>> Your point about 300 million KPH being something like 300 on the pyramid -- I'm wondering why they didn't have a correlation in Cubits to the speed of light in 100's of millions of cubits. I'm sure I can find SOME mathematically correlation that gets me about 540 (since a cubit is about .54 meters).

If they were SENDING a message, what would be MORE freakier than, writing in plain English; "Hey, dudes from the future -- we wanted to tell you that we weren't so stupid in the past and we just want to blow your mind, for no other reason that 1/2 an arc second is the perfect size for landing spacecraft and blowing your mind. A man named 'Knight' will have a show that appears on a box of light, and it will feature a chariot that moves without horses and it will talk. That show will suck. You will also have a man named Ron Paul, and he will be impress a lot of people who are impressed with our super keel Geometry tricks."

With ancient aliens, mystical powers, and abilities lost to time -- why can't these guys do some better spine tingling stuff? Nostradomas' predictions have been true at least 3 times in history, and it seems that someone gets the EXACT MATCH to revelations about every 5 my entire life. I want names, dates and social security numbers -- stop with these vague messages that don't really tell us anything.

Instead of a crop circle, beam me down a flash drive with the blueprints for a space ship -- you've got the technology little grey men -- so quit hanging out in corn fields.

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 11:51 AM
Erm.... it doesn't really matter what units of measurement you're using. A proportion is a proportion is a proportion. Also, I see a lot of "it's exactly this measurement" going on, when, as we know, parts of the GP are different from other parts - the base isn't quite uniform. Same with the earth, its diameter isn't quite uniform... it's kind of a "squished ball" if you will, probably as a result of the combination of its rotation and the gravitational force exerted upon it by surrounding bodies, i.e. the sun and moon. Said forces are not uniform, as we "know" from the theory of gravitation - gravitational attraction is proportionate to mass AND distance, and every part of a sphere cannot possibly be uniformly distant from another object - thus gravitational effects will be different upon different parts of the object.
On top of that, we have to consider potential shifting of the entire structure by earthquakes - there is evidence inside of this sort of movement, which caused cracks and damage throughout, so we can't assume that the measurements today are precisely as they were when the GP was designed and built. Some shift must be accounted for.

This thread is very interesting, but it looks like a lot of factors are ignored.

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 12:23 PM
If you guys want your answer it is very simple.... As above, so below. You're all looking for this. Everything is everything, you just have to look at it in the right perspective to see it. You're a microcosm if the universe. Own it.
edit on 30-1-2012 by hottoboggan because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 12:55 PM

Originally posted by trust_no_one

it points to the fact that there is a far greater purpose to this world than what meets the eye of most people

in my experiences there is no such thing as coincidences

I think you will find that most people regardless of their personal beliefs would agree with you on that. The real problem is no one has the answer or science to back it up. Most people are to busy working to feed their family or consume with day to day things to discuss an issue that has been around since the beginning of time but yet has never been answered.

The world is full of coincidences and mystery to the point that its overwhelming. Hence, people don't spend to much time discussing a subject that is subjective and unlikely to impact their instant moment in time.Especially if it interferes with their day to day worries. Therefore, the issue is not a lack of thought or seeing coincidences in the world but one of "whats the point". We get more questions than answers.

Also, IMO crunching (manipulating) a bunch of numbers together to show coincidences isn't really going to do much in awaking those who already could care less about discussing the topic.

In addition my problem with numbers:
Your reply:posted on 30-1-2012 @ 04:00 AM
The OP original post: posted on 28-1-2012 @ 09:24 PM

1. You take 28 from 30 and you get 2
2. You both posted on January therefore append the 1

Thats: 21
3. You both posted on 2012
4. Therefore you get: 21 2012

5. You were registered on: December 30, 2004
Therefore you take the month you registered and
6. The result is : Dec 21 2012. What a coincidence the Mayans were right. LOL

Bottom line Numbers are easy to manipulate.
edit on 30-1-2012 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

122