MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Do We Live On A Pythagorean World? (Megalithic)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Wireloop


In: Detroit
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Woops, forgot this one

Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

If we project these two meaningful lines from Stonehenge, they happen to cut through the very start and the very end of the Nile: that must be a very special place, what with its mouth due north of its source and the river snaking side to side like the caduceus.

Or looking at it the other way, if we project these two meaningful lines from the top and bottom, they cross at a place...we'll commemorate by building...Stonehenge. Britain is one of the very few places where a line can be drawn at the same angle as the latitude of the site to pass through the Equator due south of Giza, at the 'source' of the Nile.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Let me just say.

This stuff is frickin weird.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ahem.

Wikipedia says "Giza was once the Prime Meridian".
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Since the Nile has crept in by the side door, this gives me a good chance to revisit an old but long-forgotten wheeze of mine -- that the Nile is an artificial river. The following essay was commissioned by Ishmael when he was the editor of the Graham Hancock website and had chosen THOBR as Book-of-the-Month.
----------------------------------
Mostly Barking

Dear Graham Hancock Fans,

Since I've been chosen as author-of-the-month and have been asked to say a few words to you, I'd better start by saying what I think about Mr Hancock's books. On the whole, I agree with my Aunt Vera who, when asked where her family was from, said, "Mostly Barking."

On the other hand, if only one per cent of what Graham says is true, he's entitled to a Nobel Prize. No, my main gripe with this whole Alternative History lark is that you all suffer from two chronic failings:

You are far too respectful of academia and
You are just not ambitious enough.


Since this may surprise you -- and it will certainly astonish the academics -- I'll give you an illustration of what I mean. Let's take the only one of your current enthusiasms I am really familiar with: this business about the three Giza pyramids being laid out like the stars of Orion's Belt with the Nile acting as the Milky Way alongside.

Now, frankly, I'm not much impressed by the three pyramids duplicating Orion's Belt. After all, it can't be that difficult to arrange ("Left a bit, Khufru"). No, the tricky part is arranging for a very large river to flow past when you're stuck in the middle of a howling desert.

Ah...I see...you thought the Nile was already there, did you? OK, well I'm going to demonstrate this ain't necessarily so and, as they say on Time Team, I've got just ten minutes to do it.

So where do we start? Well, obviously where the Nile starts, at its source in the Orongaronga Hills or wherever. (Look it up, Cynthia, these people are sticklers for detail.) Let's imagine we're a little drop of rain falling on the Orongaronga Hills and then hence into this tiny rivulet that will eventually become the mighty Nile. The first question that arises is where do we go? Do we go south to the Cape? East to the Indian Ocean? West to the Atlantic? Or north to Lake Victoria? We go north to Lake Victoria. Anything strange about that? Nothing whatsoever. A perfectly natural thing to do.

Now while we are wending our way through Lake Victoria, we've got just enough time to ask a vital question: what's the one thing you know about Lake Victoria? Go on, have a good think...yes, that's right,...it's the fact that it's sort of square-shaped. Not exactly the kind of shape we ordinarily expect from our lakes -- looks more like a reservoir on a giant scale. Is that significant? Not particularly; after all, a lake's got be something-shaped and being squarish is as good a shape as anything else.

Or is it? No, I don't care what you say, there's something not-quite-right about square-shaped lakes. I don't know what it is but I'm going to file it away as an oddity because... you never know. Well actually there is a way of knowing and it's called The Golden Rule. The Golden Rule says "Whenever anything odd hoves into view, look round for something similarly odd, because two odd things side-by-side make a coincidence, and we don't like coincidences, do we?" One of the longer rules of our profession but one of the best.

And, yes, as luck would have it, right next door, there is another slightly odd-shaped lake, Lake Tanganyika. Now this is odd in quite a different way: it's sort of long and zig-zaggy. Again, I'm not quite sure why but this is not a shape I associate with lakes. The nearest thing that springs to mind is when they build a dam in a gorge and form a long snaking reservoir and thousands of protesting villagers have to be moved.

That word "reservoir" has popped up again. Interesting. Nevertheless, not much to show for our efforts so far...a couple of lakes that might or might not be oddly shaped. The ten minutes will soon be up...we need something big to happen, and quickly. OK, try this for size: having got through Lake Victoria, where does our little molecule of water head for? It can't really go back south again, so does it take the short hop east down to the Indian Ocean? No, for some reason, it decides against that course of action. Does it take the slightly longer but still eminently reasonable direction west across to the Atlantic? No, for some reason it doesn't like that way either. What it does decide to do is to go north, crossing the world's biggest swamp (the Sudd) without draining away, then it crosses the world's biggest desert (the Sahara) without evaporating away, all the time steadfastly ignoring the siren calls of any and every nearby bit of sea in order to disgorge itself into the furthest bit of ocean the African continent can offer.

Now I know what you're thinking. You're thinking "Big Deal." And quite right too, because the world is chock-full of geographical oddities and so what if this is one of them. But I also know something else you're thinking. A tiny, bell-like voice somewhere in the furthest reaches of your brain is saying "Well, fair's fair, I'd never thought of the Nile as a geographical oddity before, so I've got to give him that one."

Thanks, but there's really no need. Once you've conceded it's an oddity the Golden Rule comes into play and all we have to do is look round for something similar and since the Nile is an immensely long, north-south, geographical oddity situated in East Africa, all we need to come up with is another immensely long, north-south, geographical oddity situated in East Africa. Now there's a stroke of luck... The Great Rift Valley. As that great epistemological philosopher, Harry Hill, once said, "What are the chances of that happening?"

So, now we have not merely an odd coincidence, we have an oddly complementary coincidence: river/valley, valley/river. At this point I'm afraid I'm going to have to stiffen up the sinews. Don't -- whatever you do -- check this out. A lot of people stumble across interesting coincidences from time to time, then they go haring off to tell some expert all about it and, after a few carefully chosen words from the expert, they walk away slowly with a flea in their ear, resolving not to bother with coincidences anymore.

In this case, for instance, the expert will carefully explain to you that the Great Rift Valley is a tectonic feature caused by continental plates moving apart and therefore cannot have anything whatever to do with temporary surface features like rivers. Your correct response to this is to say

"Thank you very much" to the expert
continue with your enquiries
if they bear fruit return to the expert and say "Your theories are a lot of bollocks."
run away before he can hit you with his geology hammer.


What do we know about the Great Rift Valley? For certain, as opposed to tectonic speculation. Well, at one end is Lake Tanganyika, at the other end is the Dead Sea which happens to be the lowest point on the earth's surface. So, it's not a giant step to say we have an enormous "dammed lake," a several thousand mile valley with a lovely gradient and, apparently, a missing river. By weird contrast, right next door and exactly parallel, we have the enormous "reservoir lake" (Lake Victoria) out of which flows a river (the Nile) several thousand miles long that by rights shouldn't be there.

Don't you just itch to put the one in the other? I know I do. But we must resist any such foolishness. It could all be a geographical oddity. We need another Golden Rule moment. So, let's see, what was the original problem? Oh yes, I remember now, there was

a cradle civilization in the desert
some pyramids
a mystery river.


We apply the Golden Rule and look for something similar nearby. And there it is, right on cue, good old Mesopotamia, which is

a cradle civilisation in the desert
some pyramids
a mystery river.


I tell a lie, two mystery rivers -- the Tigris and the Euphrates. You didn't know the Tigris and the Euphrates were mystery rivers? You really thought two rivers running straight and parallel across a desert for a thousand miles and never joining up despite them never being more than an incised meander apart is a natural state of affairs? Blimey, even my dog spotted that one.

So get to it. Join up the dots, explain what's going on. There's enough of you and, let's face it, unlike me, you haven't got anything better to do with your time. If it's any help I think Lake Van holds the key. No, that's all you're getting. You're on your own from now on. And buy my sodding book, you tight bastards.
Send private message
Wireloop


In: Detroit
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Many concepts from different topics should bleed into here, but I would like to present an interesting finding that just hit me. It is related somewhat to 'The Pythagorean World', time, and to the fertility cults associated with it.

Quite simply let's look at some 'constants' and see if they are related.:

1) The primitive Pythagorean triangle is 3:4:5
2) There are 365.24 days in a year.
3) The average gestation term for a 1st time pregnancy is 274 days.

So, we see in the Pythagorean triplet that the number 3 relates to the number 4 in such a way as to produce the number 5. aSQUARED + bSQUARED = cSQUARED
The number 5 in pythagoreanism was associated with marriage, generation, creation....i.e., Logos.

We can express the relationship of the number 4 to the number 3 as a mathematic ratio:
4/3 = 1.333

The number 3 is 75% of the number 4.

Now, I don't know if anybody has ever noticed this, but it just so happens that the average gestation period term of 274 days is ¾ of a year.

365.242 / 274 = 1.3330.

Amazing, especially considering that the ratio of 4/3 in this sense produces 'human life', i.e. the number 5.

Now if we break the year up into its 'weekly' divisions we find that there are 52 weeks (364 days) in a year.
Therefore let the number 52 represent a whole year (the number 4).
¾ of 52 = 39, therefore let 39 represent the gestation term (the number 3).

Now apply the Pythagorean theorem, aSQUARED + bSQUARED = cSQUARED
A = 3 = 39
B = 4 = 52
C = 5 = 65

39squared + 52squared = 65squared

What is the perimeter of this triangle?
Well just add the sides together.

39 + 52 + 65 = 156

156 = 12 x 13

No wonder Pythagoreanism is associated with the Orphic fertility cults.
Send private message
Wireloop


In: Detroit
View user's profile
Reply with quote

More later.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The actual circumference of the earth is 40,075.16 km

As I am always pointing out, this figure is just a modern measurement using an arbitrary benchmark -- from memory, it is the mean height of the ocean in the Bay of Bengal. We just don't know what benchmark the Ancients used but it is unlikely to be this one. And of course there is no such thing as a circumference of the earth because the earth is a spheroid.
Send private message
Wireloop


In: Detroit
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Yea, a spheroid...but it is highly unlikely that the ancients knew it as such. Anyway, I used the circumference from the equator and not from the poles. There does not appear to be much of a difference...maybe a hundred miles or so.
Send private message
Pulp History


In: Wales
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Seems to me that not only is the Earth pythagorean as Wireloop shows... but mankind divides its orbit around the sun into 12 solar months and the moon has a 13 lunar month annual cycle....

The year divided into 12 AND 13. Solar and Lunar. Male and Female.
_________________
Question everything!
Send private message
EndlesslyRocking



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
And of course there is no such thing as a circumference of the earth because the earth is a spheroid.

Is it becoming more spheroid or less spheroid, or does it oscillate around, or has it reached equilibrium spheroidness?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

This is a somewhat vexed question in my Prime Mover Theory (SLOT) which is due to replace Plate Tectonics in the near future. For instance, I'd really like the Andes to be the same height as the Great Dividing Range in Australia (Don't ask!) which of course they aren't...now. But bend the oblateness of the earth a little bit and they become so. So even if you don't know what I'm talking about, I'd really appreciate any informed chat about how you might go about changing the shape of the earth.

And there's another aspect. If you follow the writings of John Michell, John Neal et al you will know that the Ancients made some pretty astonishing measurements of the earth's circumference. Now, when you look at how this has been measured throughout history, the story is always one of ever more accurate estimates with 'us' always being closest. But this is complete bollocks because a) we have no way of knowing that our figure is the most accurate absolutely and b) since what is being measured changes over time, we cannot know we are nearest even if our own figure can be shown to be superlatively accurate.

For both the above reasons, it is not a mere matter of pedantry to fuss about the odd few miles.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick wrote:

So even if you don't know what I'm talking about, I'd really appreciate any informed chat about how you might go about changing the shape of the earth.

O.K. ... So we start off with a big blob of molten stuff spinning around in space. As it cools slightly, it forms a thin crust on the surface, like the skin on a pan of hot milk. As it cools further and contracts, the skin, not being made of lycra, is too big and goes all wrinkly and crinkly ... just as we see it today. So:

1) Alter the internal temperature of the earth - and consequently, its volume and surface topography change.

Now as we know the earth is an oblate spheroid -- presumably due to the centrifugal forces being greater the further you are from the rotational axis. So:

2) Alter the rotational speed and the oblateness changes.

Next; the earth has a magnetic field which interacts with other magnetic fields most notably that of the sun. These forces must have some effect on the shape of the earth -- no matter how small. So:

3) Alter the strength and / or polarity of the magnetic fields.

Similarly, gravitational forces must have an impact. - - Here's a rather strange aside. Venus is approximately the same size as earth and has about the same gravity but doesn't have a magnetic field (it also rotates far more slowly so that may be the reason). - - So:

4) Alter the gravitational forces by shifting the positions of the heavenly bodies.

One more thing that springs to mind is the supposed effect the ice caps have on the underlying crust ... depressing the area directly underneath and displacing upward the area just around the edge. Also to a lesser degree the Indian sub-continent must be an awful lot heavier after the monsoon season, than it is before it. So:

5) Alter the surface mass distribution.

Hang on - - just thought of another:

6) Throw something really big at it ... that oughta do the trick.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

This is all quite useful, Chad, and I may nick one or two without acknowledgement as is my wont, but I really need things that have changed in the last, say, hundred thousand years. This would include Venus and collisions according to Velikovsky but I am not (on this subject) a Velikovskian.
Send private message
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Well something pretty bloody dramatic seems to have gone on about seventy thousand ago ... if we believe the genetic research showing our ancestors were almost wiped out at that time ... the most convincing answer I've come across so far, is the super-mega volcano in S.E. Asia, but I can't see that doing a shape shifting job.

Just how big of a change are you after?
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Jump to:  
Page 2 of 3

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group