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: 6
122
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 01:33 PM

Originally posted by interupt42
Bottom line Numbers are easy to manipulate.

LOL, isn't numerology wonderful? In many cases, it's called Apophenia:
en.wikipedia.org...
or confirmation bias:
en.wikipedia.org...

What's worse is when people mix it into INTENDED numerical connections, then it becomes difficult to discern between what was intended and what has been read into it.

This was well-illustrated in the movie Pi. An experiment: go outside and walk around town. See how many times you can find the number 420, or 2600, or 666, (or for the Skull and Bones enthusiasts, look for 322!) or another particular number of your choice. You'll find it everywhere, because you're looking for it. Look at the clock. You'll probably look at it at a particular time that correlates to your selected number (I had this issue with the number 322 for a while, even with the knowledge that I was selectively seeing the pattern!). Count the number of steps you take from one place to another. Look at the exit number from the highway to some street that is significant to you. Count the number of peas on your plate.
It's coincidence, but your mind puts more weight into it than that, because you're looking for it!

I'm not trying to say that there aren't any cosmic correlations within the Great Pyramid. I'm just saying that it looks like some of them are seen simply because we WANT to see them, even though there's really no logical relation. Check your figures carefully, and don't pick a single set of data out of a large grouping unless that single set has certain related parameters that the others do not - for instance, if the circumference of the globe is a certain length AT THE POINT WHERE THE GREAT PYRAMID RESIDES, and only one other place, in it's corresponding negative latitude, and this has a correlation in one of the Great Pyramid's measurements, then by all means, make that connection! But please, don't cloud the issue by picking some arbitrary piece of data that just happens to match your theory, just because the numbers match, but there is no other relation.

In short, PLEASE BE CAREFUL when making these connections! Check up on the figures! Know exactly where the figures come from, and why someone said they relate! Someone else's conclusion really isn't going to do you much good unless you can confirm it yourself. Of course, you're going to have to trust someone at some point, unless you can physically be there, but take it from someone who is actually qualified within the field - say, an architect, a geologist, or an architectural surveyor with the proper tools. Take ALL measurements into account, not just the particular ones that fit a particular theory. "The width of the great pyramid" isn't a single measurement, because it's not uniform. "The circumference of Earth" is also not a single measurement. Rather, "The width of the Great Pyramid on the north side" might be a more accurate point of reference, or maybe through the center, just as "the circumference of the earth at the equator" or "at the latitude upon which the great pyramid resides" would be a better point to work with.

To deny ignorance, you have to take all possible factors into account!

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 04:19 PM
I seen this on my mobile and I could not post, so I don't know if this has been mentioned but

Distance to the Sun At noonday the pinnacle of the Pyramid points to the sun. Does the height of the Pyramid give us a clue to the distance to the sun? A person climbing the Pyramid would find that for every 10 feet of progress toward the middle of the Pyramid, he would have climbed 9 feet toward the top. This suggests a number: 10~9. Multiplying the total height of the Pyramid by 10~9, the answer is found to be 91,840,000 miles. That is exactly 1,000 million Pyramids would reach to the sun!
Pyramid Scientific

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 04:33 PM

Small problem.
The Earth's orbit varies between 94,509,460 and 91,402,640 miles.

Another problem.
The slope of the Great Pyramid is 14:11, not 10:9. Calculate it yourself.

Another problem.
What does it mean to multiply a number by 10:9? Is that the same as multiplying by 1.111? What units should we use for the height?

Another problem. Why on Earth would the ancient Egyptians have used a calculation using miles?

edit on 1/30/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 04:49 PM

Another problem. Why on Earth would the ancient Egyptians have used a calculation using miles?

In all fairness though, the unit does not matter. Change it to meters or cubits, it is still 1000 million times the distance to the sun. I think that is what is important here: The ratios.

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 04:54 PM

It does matter (if you can figure out what they mean by "multiply by 10~9", that is). 5776 inches, 146.71 meters, or 280 cubits multiplied by "10~9"; are going to give you very different results.

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 04:56 PM
Yea Im not sure I get what the OP is trying to say. If every coincidence had meaning, then there would be no coincidences. Are we trying to say that there is no such thing as a coincidence? Because every time we see one, we try to find meanings behind them.

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 05:16 PM

Originally posted by Phage

It does matter (if you can figure out what they mean by "multiply by 10~9", that is). 5776 inches, 146.71 meters, or 280 cubits multiplied by "10~9"; are going to give you very different results.

Not really, since we have the "answer" which is 91840000 miles, and we have the height which is 146.71 meters according to you, calculating what 10~9 must be is an easy task.

First change miles into meters to get both numbers in the same metric system, which is 147802152.96 km. In meters 147802152960. Since he multiplies the height by 10~9 to get this number, lets now divide 147802152960 by 146.71 to get
1007444298,0028627905391588848749 which would be the ratio. 1007 million, pretty close.

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 05:43 PM

But again, this is based on a single piece of data from a vast dataset - the distance from a given point on Earth (let's say where the Great Pyramid sits, for sake of the present topic) to the nearest point on the Sun at precisely noon would vary by around 5 million kilometers depending on time of year, because Earth's orbit around the Sun is elliptical, not circular.
But let's throw an average at it, so that our arbitrary unit at least takes the other points in the dataset into account. So, 149,597,870.7Km, the mean distance to the sun (ref. Numerical Standards for Fundamental Astronomy, IAU 2009), which is an average of varying distances throughout the year.
Now let's look at the dimensions of the Great Pyramid. Best estimates on intended original dimensions before erosion and shifting due to earthquakes are 146.5m tall by average 230.4m long (with an average error of about 58mm) (ref. Cole Survey (1925) based on side lengths 230.252m, 230.454m, 230.391m, 230.357m). This gives us a "circumference" of approximately 921.454m (that's an addition of lengths, not some crazy circle drawn at the corners or something). The ratio of this "circumference" to the height is 921.454/146.5, or 6.2897, which is a rather close approximation to 2π, or 6.28318...
That ratio's pretty neat, huh?
Ok, so back to this distance to the sun thing. If you're talking about the pyramid's height, approximately 146.5m, you would get a figure of, on average, 1,021,135,875.0853 pyramid heights to reach the sun. But that's at the MEAN distance, and the variation is around 5 million km, so you could have an error of up to approximately 34,129,692.8328 pyramid heights depending on the time of year. That's a LOT. The moon is closer than 5 million km away. That's a pretty wide margin of error there. So I really don't think that was an intended measurement.

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 05:52 PM

Ah. I see. So they interpret 10:9 as 1E+9 (instead of 10E+9?). Ok, that explains it but I wouldn't exactly call it logic. That would allow a pretty wide range of heights to be "exactly" the distance to the Sun.

But the slope is not 10:9. It's 14:11.

edit on 1/30/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 06:16 PM

I'm not going to question your maths, maths
me, however most of the content in the op was taken from the vid Revelations of the pyramids and it questions exactly what system the egyptions used for measuring.
For example the cubit, egyptologists a're not even realy sure what length it should be. They also show reasons for believing they may have been using meters.

Be nice if someone who undertands this stuff better than me could watch the vid and then post.
As I said at the top I was posting the nity grity of the vid because I noticed in other threads people wanted to watch it but did could not afford the bandwidth.

Thanks for the info on the eclipse.

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 06:27 PM

As far as our calculations in this thread are concerned, the unit of measure is not at issue, so long as the system used across all measurements is uniform (i.e. metric, US, Egyptian, etc). The measurements reported in modern surveys are not based on "pyramid inches" or cubits or anything like that - they're metric, as is the accepted standard for the average distance to the sun. These measurements were conducted by modern people with modern measurement instruments, not read about in some hieroglyphics or something. So we're not deriving from ancient text here - we're dealing with actual, real, concrete measurements made by experts with survey equipment that is about exact as you're going to get today.
That being said, the afore stated calculations are all based upon modern measurements. Therefore, any relationships between distances, so long as they're kept within a single measurement system, are going to be pretty accurate. I refuted any meaningful relationship between the distance to the sun and any measurement found within the Great Pyramid, in my post above, based on these modern measurements, while adhering strictly to the metric system of measurement. It doesn't matter what system the pyramid builders used. Whether described through inches, "pyramid inches" or centimeters, a length is going to stay the same, and that length's ratio to another length will stay the same. A ratio is a ratio is a ratio.

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 10:16 PM
Can some one explain whats the coincidence ? I didn't get it.

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 11:01 PM

Originally posted by Apleness
Can some one explain whats the coincidence ? I didn't get it.

According to the OP: The fact that you didn't get it, is no coincidence.

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 01:01 AM
and of course my answer was completely skipped over

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 06:19 AM

Originally posted by hottoboggan
and of course my answer was completely skipped over

Your answer was probably skipped over because it was vague and preachy, and had little to do with actual measurements and calculations. This thread is about physical relationships between the Great Pyramid and (insert whatever measurement here).

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 06:45 AM

Originally posted by Phage

Ah. I see. So they interpret 10:9 as 1E+9 (instead of 10E+9?). Ok, that explains it but I wouldn't exactly call it logic. That would allow a pretty wide range of heights to be "exactly" the distance to the Sun.

But the slope is not 10:9. It's 14:11.

edit on 1/30/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Yes i agree, the logic is not clear-cut, kind of in the realm of straw-grasping and as you mention, alot of heights could amount to a similar relationship, but at least i understand where they are coming from. And even if the slope is 14:11 instead of 10:9, that would change little as those ratios are also pretty similar, and as said earlier in this thread, the distance between the sun and earth changes. It would pretty much still be in this range of numbers.

Abit too much straw grasping for my liking, this one.

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 07:52 AM

Originally posted by NeoVain
And even if the slope is 14:11 instead of 10:9, that would change little as those ratios are also pretty similar

Not so much. In this ratio, 14 is to 11 as 10 is to 7.857 - that's pretty far from 9. So, NOT very similar. If we're going to make calculations, let's not fudge until at least the 3rd decimal, please...

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 10:05 AM

meaning of life is the meaning of our solar system
sun, all life lives in love which creats energy for love to live in
murcury is man who finds
venus which is love then man finds his life which is
earth then man is given choice which is
mars man will always choose love which is
jupiter, when man finds love in life that creats unity which is
saturn, think of saturns rings
uranus is the new life man creats with his new found unity
neptune is the solar systems moon. the moon is fait.
pluto is the danger witch is always there but fait will keep danger away
comets are the danger which comes and gose whitch love and unity will protect us from

soar eclipse is lifes way of telling use that earths fait will perfectly block us from true love until we are ready

we are ready, we have found love, are next step is unity

think of a curcle, its whole, its exsacly where it should be

unity is not peace on earth its the love of man joining with the love of life whitch will creat a new life, a new man

2012 is not the end its the beggining

what came first the beggining or the end? they came together in unity
what came first life or death? the dead/souless/loveless walk among us

hell is what they make it! heaven is what we make it!

the only war worth fighting for. find your love, it is more real than you could ever imagin

dont think just do, you have already made the choice do not be afraid.
edit on 31-1-2012 by life12 because: search for perfection

URANUS= u r us
edit on 31-1-2012 by life12 because: search for perfection

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 11:11 AM
The thing about squaring the circles is quite interesting ... Wonder when they'll start learning that stuff in schools

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:33 PM

I read this in a book the other week and it said this about the pyramid but I did think it was strange however I don't have the book to get the ref the author gives ill look it out and see if he has a more credible source with the correct maths hopefully, I don't think your wrong as it is a bit far fetched even for some one like me who likes the fringe a bit.

Thanks for pointing this out Phage hope your doin well I haven't been on much

new topics

top topics

122