Welcome to Dozensonline. We hope you enjoy your visit.
You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, and sending personal messages. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. (You will be asked to confirm your email address before we sign you on.)
Join our community!
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:


 

 The Duplication Of A Sphere The Earth, A system both duodecimo and decimal
jim
Posted: Dec 13 2016, 09:37 PM


Regular


Group: Members
Posts: 165
Member No.: 641
Joined: 20-April 12



Like a blank sheet of paper that is folded into 12 can also be folded into 10.

Imagine the old Saxon Tun 39.6 inches square forming a cube and it's volume is 62099.136. I looked at this number and saw it doubled a cube.

Pi cubed = 31.00627668 and double = 62.01255 and although I know the ancients knew the value for pi exactly, at least I believe so and can demonstrate the number to 9 decimal places I think the ancient architect or architects used the approximate 22/7 in the design of this system.

They began with pi for 2 reasons.

1. It is a measure's a sphere which is 1/2 that of the Earth. How they knew that I don't know however it is a remarkable coincidence.

Look at the number 22/7 and think of radius in miles 3142.857143 miles. The volume of this sphere is 1/2 that of the ellipsoid which we know as the Earth.

2. I thought about it when noticing the length of the old yard 39.6 inches and thought 3960 miles is the approximate radius of the earth.

It is not possible to double a cube exactly and the ancients did not have calculators in any case so in every day use they used 1.26 for the cube root of 2 not 1.25992.

22/7 x 1.26 = 3.96 exactly and to find 22/7 on a rule is easy by construction simply by dividing 3.3 imperial feet 39.6 inches into 50 and this is where the decimal comes in as in my mind anything divided into 50 is decimal.

Once the rule is divided into 50 measure to 31.5 and that marks 22/7 exactly.

The base units used; In the ancient world a foot is divided into 16 digits.

39.6 inches has 48 digits of 0.825 inches 16 x 3 = 48

The other edge of the rule the decimal side of the equation has a foot also divided into 16 digits and a yard divided into 50.

The base unit used is 0.792 inches giving a foot of 12.672 inches and a yard of 3.125 feet. (note 3.125 the babylonian value for pi found at suza ).

The Tun 2240 Avoirdupois pounds or 1 long ton based on one cubic foot of water weighing 62.331302 lbs. The Tun also 1 cubic ancient metre.

If we could amend the length of the metre the 2 modern systems could join easily 1 mile = 1.6 km.

Now there is a remarkable coincidence with modern decimal measure and the mile. There are 63360 inches in a mile and as shown above 0.792 digits the foundation of the old decimal system.

When the modern metre 1.00584 feet is subjected to the same proof of finding the approximate for pi that is by dividing it into 50 and marking to the 31.5th place.

The number found is 0.6336792 I cant explain that can any of you.

Jim
Top
davidk
Posted: Dec 15 2016, 12:22 AM


Casual Member


Group: Members
Posts: 132
Member No.: 1,157
Joined: 25-October 15



yes jim

6336792

divide by792

8001

divide by 9

889

divide by 7

127

divide by 5

25.4
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op...rum=4&start=320

10 centimetres

22/7 x 1.26 = 3.96 exactly and to find 22/7 on a rule is easy by construction simply by dividing 3.3 imperial feet 39.6 inches into 50 and this is where the decimal comes in as in my mind anything divided into 50 is decimal.

Once the rule is divided into 50 measure to 31.5 and that marks 22/7 exactly.

The base units used; In the ancient world a foot is divided into 16 digits.

spot on Jim
Top
jim
Posted: Dec 17 2016, 10:52 PM


Regular


Group: Members
Posts: 165
Member No.: 641
Joined: 20-April 12



Ok I was out the door the other day really just wanted to point out 39.6 inches/63 x 50 = 31.42857143 inches or 2.619047619 feet.

It is interesting it is nearly phi squared which is 1.618033989 and itself the slant angle of the great pyramid 1.27201965 squared.

1.27201965 x 1/2 base 378 = 480.8234275 imp feet.

Also wanted to point out the modern metre is very close to 39.6 inches 1.00584 m.
Top
davidk
Posted: Dec 30 2016, 09:35 PM


Casual Member


Group: Members
Posts: 132
Member No.: 1,157
Joined: 25-October 15



Hi Jim

the ancient metre is 39.6 x 2.5252525252525 cms

this is all you need to know
Top
Harold
Posted: Jan 1 2017, 02:10 PM


Casual Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Member No.: 1,275
Joined: 25-December 16



QUOTE (davidk @ Dec 30 2016, 09:35 PM)
Hi Jim

the ancient metre is 39.6 x 2.5252525252525 cms

this is all you need to know

I can say that a centimetre is 0.01 m in the simple form or I can say that 1 m = 800 x 0.125 cm. It just so happens that the reciprocal of 2.525252525r = 0.396. So, if you multiply 39.6 x 1/0.396 you get 100, which are the exact number of centimetres to equal a metre. Nothing magical here.

So, why does anyone need to know this when knowing that 100 cm = 1m and 1 cm = 0.01 m? Why take the round-about way to get to a destination when the straight forward way gets you there faster and without any excess baggage?
Top
Harold
Posted: Jan 1 2017, 02:17 PM


Casual Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Member No.: 1,275
Joined: 25-December 16



QUOTE (jim @ Dec 17 2016, 10:52 PM)
Ok I was out the door the other day really just wanted to point out 39.6 inches/63 x 50 = 31.42857143 inches or 2.619047619 feet.

It is interesting it is nearly phi squared which is 1.618033989 and itself the slant angle of the great pyramid 1.27201965 squared.

1.27201965 x 1/2 base 378 = 480.8234275 imp feet.

Also wanted to point out the modern metre is very close to 39.6 inches 1.00584 m.

As I pointed out to Dave in another thread, the ancients had a metre called a wand of 1007 mm. It could as well have been 1006 mm but no one knows for sure. What we do know is that the wand has no connection to inches as inches were brought to Britain by the Normans in the 11-th century and the early inhabitants used a decimal based system until it was forced away after the Norman invasion.
http://z13.invisionfree.com/DozensOnline/i...?showtopic=1461

Scroll to near the end.

Top
jim
Posted: Mar 19 2017, 05:04 AM


Regular


Group: Members
Posts: 165
Member No.: 641
Joined: 20-April 12



Quote 'As I pointed out to Dave in another thread, the ancients had a metre called a wand of 1007 mm. It could as well have been 1006 mm but no one knows for sure. What we do know is that the wand has no connection to inches as inches were brought to Britain by the Normans in the 11-th century and the early inhabitants used a decimal based system until it was forced away after the Norman invasion. '

Let me do this again the old Saxon Wand is 39.6 inches and we know this connects with a land measure the acre.

The acre is 43560 square feet and if you are measuring a field you pace out 660 feet in length and 66 feet in width 43560 square feet.

The old Saxon measure was far superior the wand 39.6 inches 3.3 imperial feet was 1/200th of a furlong so the old Saxon furlong = 600 feet (saxon feet 13.2 inches).

For the farmer to measure an acre was very simple. he would carry his rod of 6 saxon feet 2 wands 79.2 inches 6.6 imperial feet and measure out 100 in length and 10 in width. A decimal system.

This is 36000 square saxon feet and here you have a combination of 2 systems one based on 100 and another on 36.

When I first measured up my 'Wand' I used a tape measure which although measured feet was divided decimally 'bought it from Bunnings' but it did the trick.

The old wand 39.6 inches has 50 digits each 0.792 inches and this wand contains 2 approximate values for pi. The ancient foot is divided into 16 digits and the cubit into 24 so with the wand each foot = 12.672 inches ie 0.792 x 16 = 12.672 inches.

The length of the wand is therefor 3 feet of 13.2 inches

It is 3.125 feet of 12.672 inches and all will recognise the approximate for pi 3.125 found at Susa on a backed clay tablet in 1936.

In my first post I pointed out the approximate for pi 22/7 could be found by dividing by construction the wand into 31.5 even spaces and measureing to the 25 giving 22/7 exactly.

Additionaly reference the mile 5280 imperial feet 63360 inches there are 5000 thousand feet of 12.672 inches and this has caused much confusion in regards to the comparison with the Roman foot.

The mile 5280 imperial feet = the mile 4800 saxon feet 13.2 inches and the mile 5000 feet of 12.672 inches.

I have probably confused all for now so will pause.






Top
Kanonier
Posted: Apr 20 2017, 04:09 PM


Unregistered









QUOTE (jim @ Mar 19 2017, 05:04 AM)
The length of the wand is therefor 3 feet of 13.2 inches

It is 3.125 feet of 12.672 inches and all will recognise the approximate for pi 3.125 found at Susa on a backed clay tablet in 1936.

So it is pi feet - and to what end?
Do we have evidence - physical evidence - for an ancient foot of 12.672 inches in any country?
Top
jim
Posted: Apr 22 2017, 03:43 AM


Regular


Group: Members
Posts: 165
Member No.: 641
Joined: 20-April 12



Quote 'Do we have evidence - physical evidence - for an ancient foot of 12.672 inches in any country? '

It is possible that 12.672 inches is the length of the old French foot. When finding the metre the French determined from('enc brit Geodesy p129) that '1 new metre = 443,296 Paris lines: The French metre was calculated from the Toise 'Toise '1 Toise = 6 feet = 72 inches = 864 Paris lines: The ratio between toise and metre is therefore 864:443.296, or 1.9490363.' In todays measure 1.9490363 metre = 6.394476 imp ft / 6 = 1.065746 ft = 12.7880 inches.

The difference with 12.672 inches is 0.117 inch.

Very close.

Best

Jim
Top
Kanonier
Posted: Apr 22 2017, 06:43 AM


Unregistered









Official french foot from standards at conservatoire in Paris = 12.7893" or 324.84mm, divided into 12 pouce (inches). The Toise was 6 of these and used for measurement of meridien arc.

This detail is from Weights & Measures by Skinner which I have borrowed from a friend who says 12.672" is incorrect. I would suggest that you speclate too much!
Top
jim
Posted: Apr 22 2017, 10:33 AM


Regular


Group: Members
Posts: 165
Member No.: 641
Joined: 20-April 12



Quote 'Official french foot from standards at conservatoire in Paris = 12.7893" or 324.84mm, divided into 12 pouce (inches). The Toise was 6 of these and used for measurement of meridien arc.

This detail is from Weights & Measures by Skinner which I have borrowed from a friend who says 12.672" is incorrect. I would suggest that you speclate too much! "

I think your wrong. And for these reasons.

1. France and England although they went to war from time to time. They traded.

2. The first rule of trade is "make sure you can convert measure for measure easily"

3. For example the Roman and Greek world traded and in fact in England both measures can be seen in ancient buildings 2 measures side by side. The Roman measure 11.664 inches and the Greek 12.15 existed in tandem and the numbers are interesting.

The Roman mile 5000 Roman feet 11.664 inches 4860 imperial feet.

The Greek mile 4800 Greek feet 12.15 inches 4860 imperial feet.

They are in a ratio of 24:25.

4. These 2 measure the French and British have the same ratio 24:25 but equal our present mile. 12.672 x 5000 = 63,360 inches

And 13.2 inches the Saxon/Indus foot = 63,360 inches.

Same numbers with Saxon and French to Roman and Greek different lengths but same numbers and same ratio.

Saxon 4800
French 5000

Saxon and French and imperial part of same system Indus Valley/Indian/Babylonian/Mesopotamia origin. I think?


Best

Jim
Top
Kanonier
Posted: Apr 22 2017, 03:14 PM


Unregistered









QUOTE (jim @ Apr 22 2017, 10:33 AM)
Quote 'Official french foot from standards at conservatoire in Paris = 12.7893" or 324.84mm, divided into 12 pouce (inches). The Toise was 6 of these and used for measurement of meridien arc.

This detail is from Weights & Measures by Skinner which I have borrowed from a friend who says 12.672" is incorrect. I would suggest that you speclate too much! "

I think your wrong.

The length quoted is from official standards now at the Conservatoire in Paris.
Go tell them that they are wrong; I merely quoted them and did not make it up!
Top
danthemanxf
Posted: Jun 3 2017, 12:18 AM


Unregistered









time is often the focus of a dozenal foundation for obvious reasons, but time cannot be disassociated with space - all time comes to be the measure of change, of the relative change of heavenly bodies or of the change of one state to another (the cesium radiation levels definition). the change of state was used to make more accurate the natural observable passage of time of the heavenly bodies. the natural origin of observation of time is spatial.

the sexigesimal origins of timekeeping are actually quite brilliant, in my opinion. 2, 6, 12, 60, 120, and 360 are the first superior highly composite numbers and lend themselves to counting and measurement for this reason. a system that is rooted in a superior highly composite number multiplied by another highly composite number equalling yet another superior highly composite number is kind of wonderful. the usage of 24 hours i believe is because there are 24 divisors in 360 (also eloquently there are very close to 360 days in a year). the ancients metricized time already but in a relative system of geometry first then a system of counting second. geometry, i suddenly realize means measure of earth...

to metricize time with a dozenal system of measure requires a dozenal system of coordinates, for that is where time begins. i havent been able to figure out an improved system for time and coordinates than the sexigesimally based one. it should be easy for the brilliant minds here to at least make a working model even if it is not superior to the old system. the old system of 360 degree angular measure, coordinates and of time can be an accepted equivalent definition as it is in SI maybe? i am starting to see why wendy.krieger likes 120. the sexigesimally based system is really elegant, i wonder what it would be like to pursue it or 120 more.

side note - SI is going through a process of redefinition of units, in the next decade maybe most constants will be founded in the unit of time and by extension their derivatives:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_rede...f_SI_base_units



dan
Top
Kodegadulo
Posted: Jun 3 2017, 08:01 PM


Obsessive poster


Group: Moderators
Posts: 4,188
Member No.: 606
Joined: 10-September 11



Welcome to the forum, danthemanxf! You ought to post a little intro about yourself in the Getting to Know You subforum.

QUOTE (danthemanxf @ Jun 3 2017, 12:18 AM)
to metricize time with a dozenal system of measure requires a dozenal system of coordinates, for that is where time begins. i havent been able to figure out an improved system for time and coordinates than the sexigesimally based one. it should be easy for the brilliant minds here to at least make a working model even if it is not superior to the old system.

Your post is a little off-topic here, and my reply to this would most certainly be. smile.gif So I've posted a response to this in the Primel Metrology thread, instead.
Top
danthemanxf
Posted: Jun 4 2017, 04:18 AM


Unregistered









nice to meet you kodegadulo, i have been reading the forums and i saw your work and contribution here. its an honor to make your acquaintance.

it is slightly off topic you are right. the tenuous relation to the topic is in measuring the sphere of earth it tends to be divided meridionally and equatorially, the beginnings to make a spherical coordinate system. timing the seasons and dividing the day, is how we determine the measures of the sphere i believe.

ty for moving the post to the proper post

dan
Top
Kodegadulo
Posted: Jun 5 2017, 02:31 PM


Obsessive poster


Group: Moderators
Posts: 4,188
Member No.: 606
Joined: 10-September 11



QUOTE (danthemanxf @ Jun 4 2017, 04:18 AM)
its an honor to make your acquaintance.

Well, that's a nice change of pace. 😉 Thanks...

Don't forget to write a little intro.
Top
jim
Posted: Feb 1 2018, 11:19 AM


Regular


Group: Members
Posts: 165
Member No.: 641
Joined: 20-April 12



I published this about 20 years ago I may have submitted this before however I would welcome a comment and/or suggestion.

http://www.academia.edu/6620595/the_great_pyramid_and_time

Jim
Top
« Next Oldest | Ancient measures | Next Newest »


Topic Options



Hosted for free by zIFBoards* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.0314 seconds · Archive