Louvre Glass Pyramid Paris

davidk
Casual Member
davidk
Casual Member
Joined: Oct 25 2015, 01:24 PM

Jun 26 2017, 02:31 PM #25

Hi Jim

you should look at the work of a man called Hugh Franklin who has worked all these numbers out that you quote in respect of the Great pyramid. They support your conclusions.
http://members.tripod.com/hew_frank/

I have been working with Hugh and am about to release an e book about the eclipse
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Stonehenge-Cra ... megalithic

It links to Hugh's Great Pyramid calculations.

Do uou know about Wakefield?

cheers
Dave
Reply
Like
Share

jim
Regular
jim
Regular
Joined: Apr 20 2012, 08:19 PM

Jun 27 2017, 06:17 AM #26

Hi David

Thanks for the info I will reply under ancient measure and keep it in 1 spot. Yes I know Wakefield he's me.

Jim
Reply
Like
Share

davidk
Casual Member
davidk
Casual Member
Joined: Oct 25 2015, 01:24 PM

Jun 27 2017, 03:02 PM #27

At last we meet. I have championed your work for some time. Your posts could not have been by anyone else. Your rollrights to SH paper was jaw dropping when I read it a couple of years ago.

One of the base 12 imperial key units is 5280 / 360 and i note you have this. It gives 14.666r and is the eclipse unit a hidden system within the imperial which beyond reasonable doubt is a parallel system to Thoms. Simply multiply the imperial by 34/33 to get Thom's ancient system.


The eclipse unit is the saros 6585.333r days / 449 and is most probably what they used instead of 223 x 29.5306 which is too difficult to count. It is hidden as 6600 in the chain.

14.666r / 22 x 7 = 4.666r so the system has base 10 as the circumference - diameter.

All conscious numerical manipulation.

cheers dave
Reply
Like
Share

jim
Regular
jim
Regular
Joined: Apr 20 2012, 08:19 PM

Jul 1 2017, 11:24 PM #28

Hey David

Amazon wont allow me to download your book says kindle store for uk customers only.

OK got it now.
Reply
Like
Share

davidk
Casual Member
davidk
Casual Member
Joined: Oct 25 2015, 01:24 PM

Jul 2 2017, 11:54 AM #29

Hi Jim

hope you find it OK there is a lot of stuff in there.

You said 'The hectare and the acre.

I began this topic by noting the combination of metric and imperial measure in the Louvre glass pyramid.'

I think you have really got a hold on this, they do seem to work together and I think the imperial is represented by 39.60 and the metric by 39.370078 as you have shown

So look at the number that makes the transfer from one to the other

39.370078 x 2.54 /2.5252525252r = 39.6

This is the switch between the two systems.

2.52525r x 4 = 10.101010r /10 = 100/99 and this is the link between the imperial and the hidden system. It is exactly the same link.

I got accused of just playing with numbers by someone who does not appreciate the significance of 39.60.

3960 x 100/99 = 4000

3960 x 1.111r or10/9 = 4400

I hope you enjoy the book which is really about the work of Professor Alexander Thom and the system he discovered.

He gave the Aubrey circl;e at Stonehenge at 897.60 feet x 100 = 89760.

This is 330 x 272 but when it is turned to base 12, 330 becomes 3960 and 89760 becomes 1077120.

1077120 x 2.52525r = 2720000 in metric notation.

1077120 is also 1320 X 816 Thom's base number.

816 x fibonacci as 55/34 = 1320.

These are Thom's numbers at Stonehenge but no one has noticed them.

89760/ 1.1 = 81600

81600 / 1.2 = 68000 the nodal; cycle.

1.1*1.2 = 1.32

The ancient unit the barleycorn features heavily in Hugh Franklin's workings as 1.1 / 3 = 0.366666r 1/4 of an eclipse unit and it is embedded in the inch as 3.666r x 0.2727272727r.

I always thought the barleycorn was 1/3 of an inch but it is the Saxon inch 1.1 imperial inches.

This thread started on 35.42.

Thom surved and recorded the Ayebury monument with a team of helpers and it took him months.

He recored the perimeter as 52.1 units of 6.8 (nodal cycle)

52.1*6.8 = 354.28 / 12 = 29.52333r one lunation.

It converts to 364.7 using the Roman foot.
Reply
Like
Share

Harold
Casual Member
Harold
Casual Member
Joined: Dec 25 2016, 09:47 PM

Jul 22 2017, 08:05 PM #30

davidk @ Jul 2 2017, 11:54 AM wrote: I got accused of just playing with numbers by someone who does not appreciate the significance of 39.60.
That is exactly what you are doing, playing with numbers. anyone can take a series of meaningless numbers, multiply them and divide them together to get a desired result. It proves nothing.

Ant serious mathematician and historian will laugh both of you out of the room.

Imperial didn't even exist until 1824 and since then the dimensions have been changed numerous times, the last being in 1960.
Reply
Like
Share

davidk
Casual Member
davidk
Casual Member
Joined: Oct 25 2015, 01:24 PM

Jul 24 2017, 12:45 PM #31

Hi Harold

You probably never heard of Alexander Thom.

He was an Oxford professor of engineering science who retired early to survey as many megalithic sites in the UK as he possibly could.

He was at the top pf his game.

He discovered that megalithic sites were measured and laid out using a unit of exactly 2.72 imperial feet.

He discovered a base 17 system of measurement was used.

The imperial is base 16.5 using the imperial rod.

Thom's system aligns exactly to the imperial using the ratio 16.5 to 17.

You have probably never heard of Helen Mulholland. She is a Scottish archaeologist who has confirmed the use of the imperial system using the Scottish mile of 5920 feet by the Picts before the romans arrived in the UK.

The Scottish rod is 18.5 feet so one mile 5920 / 18.5 = 320
The English rod is 16.5 feet so one mile 5280 / 16.5 = 320

Thom discovered a base unit of 17 feet so one mile 5440 feet / 17 = 320.

Since Thom's system is definitely ancient and also Mulhollands is as well, is it not possible that the imperial system could have been around for a little bit longer than you are telling us?
Reply
Like
Share

jim
Regular
jim
Regular
Joined: Apr 20 2012, 08:19 PM

Nov 27 2017, 09:54 PM #32

Many people say that the metric system bears no relationship to the imperial.

I don't know who exactly designed the modern Metric system however I can see some of what they did and so I suspect there are some today who are initiated in a very ancient craft and the close study of astronomy, mathematics and geometry.

The data comes from Herbert Arthur Klein's 'The Science of Measurement" p.128/129.

The solar year 365.24 22 or 365 days, 48 minutes 45.5 seconds / pi = 116.2602031 and call this number imperial feet.

116.2602031 feet converts to 35.436108 modern metres and the same number as a lunar year 354.3 days.

35.436108 x 2 = 70.872216 now call this number imperial feet and 21.601851 metres.

Here we see the kicker.

108 or half 216 metres.

108 metres = 354.3307 imperial feet a lunar year.

There has to be more I just cant see it.

Jim
Reply
Like
Share

davidk
Casual Member
davidk
Casual Member
Joined: Oct 25 2015, 01:24 PM

Dec 1 2017, 07:54 PM #33

108 x 39.60 = 356.4

356.4 / 1.2 = 297

297 / 3 = 99

356.4/99*100 = 360
Reply
Like
Share

jim
Regular
jim
Regular
Joined: Apr 20 2012, 08:19 PM

Dec 3 2017, 01:18 PM #34

David


Quote '108 x 39.60 = 356.4' you have come up with the length of the third pyramid in imp feet. Thank you. And then made it to 360.

ok and 360 can be got at with the ratio 24:25 ie 360 / 25 = 14.4 x 24 = 345.6.

Jim
Reply
Like
Share

davidk
Casual Member
davidk
Casual Member
Joined: Oct 25 2015, 01:24 PM

Dec 6 2017, 10:53 AM #35

Hi Jim

as you know my SH theory revolves around number 364 and finding number 91 at the Aubrey.

It is about the persuavieness of the evidence and direct from Encyclopedia Brittanica is good especially when it is very very simple for the 3 Giza pyramids.

755.75
707.75
356.5
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pyramids-of-Giza

in total

1820

divide by 2

910.

91 x 4 = 364 x 8 = 2912 = 52 x 56.

But the suggestion is more than one interpretation, in fact several depending on the scaling factors used.

755.75
707.75
355.75

the small pyramid factored from 356.5 to 355.75 a difference of 0.75 giving

1426 to 1423

755.75 - 707.75 = 48

707.75 - 355.75 = 352

48 + 52 = 400

352/400 = 0.88 imperial system
48/400 = 0.12 imperial system

352 is a key unit in predicting eclipses as it is 12 x 29.333r.

As you say they are letting us know what they knew.

The GP is scaled to SH and I have the scaling factor and it is based on Thom's megalithic yard - nothing else.

they definitely pressed the simplify button.

Their lunar count was 12 x 29.333r = 352 that can be got to using 144

352 feet in inches is 4224 / 12 = 352 /12 = 29.333r. very very simple.

144 is in fibonacci pi

352 x 3 = 1056 / 2 = 528 1.5 lunar years (eclipse) represented by 1/10 of an English mile.

It answers the question

Why 5280 feet in a mile?

No wonder NASA won't change from this system.


The key to the system is 132 and this is multiplied by 8/3 to get 352 and this is the eclipse year /12 = 29.3333r or 2 x the eclipse unit.

the secret is understanding how they built 132 x 2.666r into their circles and it involves both the imperial and thom's units.

They knew if they had a diameter of 132 the circumference would always be 352 and this is an eclipse prediction system.

So they only neede to measure the diameter and this could be pointed anywhere you want it to ie most northerly moonset.

the way they did it is relatively easy to work out

132 x 22/7 = 414.8571429

this had to be reduced to 352 and the unit required is 66/56 = 1.178571429

this divides to give 352.

This unit x 16499/16500 is 1.1785 excatly the Harris and Stockdale megalithic foot i have set a thread up for.

It is easy to get Thom's units into the system and discover SH.

352 x 0.17 does the trick as 59.84 x 5 = 299.2 and this is the Aubrey circle in yards so x 3 = 897.60 x 56/66 = 761.60 / 56 = 13.60 units between each postholes /34 x 33 = 13.20.

So from the 3 pyramids to SH using everybody else's numbers.

The megalithic yard and harris and stockdale's units work together to predict the eclipse. This is what Peter 's book is about.
Reply
Like
Share

jim
Regular
jim
Regular
Joined: Apr 20 2012, 08:19 PM

Dec 7 2017, 09:52 PM #36

Hi David

Quote '91 x 4 = 364 x 8 = 2912 = 52 x 56.

But the suggestion is more than one interpretation, in fact several depending on the scaling factors used.'

You know I would change this slightly 2912 is very close to the area of the base of the third pyramid in acres.

And they kept using the combination of the numbers 3456.

I am confident that the acre is also an ancient measure and the base of the third pyramid = 356.4 imperial feet 324 Saxon feet so to find the area of the base.

356.4 squared / 43560 = 2.916 acres
324 squared / 36000 = 2.916 acres
Reply
Like
Share

davidk
Casual Member
davidk
Casual Member
Joined: Oct 25 2015, 01:24 PM

Dec 7 2017, 10:26 PM #37

I absolutely agree.

29.16 x 100/99 = 29.45454545

x 39.60 = 1166.4

divide by 9 = 129.6 a babylonian number the root of time.

The circumference of the Aubrey circle is :

The saxon yard x 100 x the megalthic yard.

The saxon yard is 3.3 imperial feet x 2.72 x 100 = 897.60 imperial feet.

This is the megalithic yard proof in a language you can understand Jim.

The systems are working both horizontally and vertically.

Moving up one level is 100/99 then back down using 10/9

1296/29.16 = 44.4444444444444444r

This is not chance, the root of the system is 1.111111111111 or 10/9.

12960/1.5 = 86400 the number of seconds in a day Babylonian but put there much before.
Reply
Like
Share

jim
Regular
jim
Regular
Joined: Apr 20 2012, 08:19 PM

Mar 21 2018, 06:58 AM #38

jim wrote: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=lou ... ORM=IQFRBA


With pleasure I wish to add a remarkable fact re the dimensions of this glass pyramid and to the cleverness of its architects. This may be common knowledge anong architects but for me it was a discovery.

Length of base given in drawing 35.42 metres. I am not sure if these figures are absolutely correct so if anyone knows then let me knows please.
Height 21.64 metres.

I asked myself why the odd numbers? Why not just 35 metres? for the base and 21 for the height.

Then I looked at the number 35.42 and thought about the closeness of this number to that of a moon based year.

A synodic month = 29.53059 days x 12 months 354.36 days close to the number given 35.42. Ok that is easily shaken off as a coincidence but look.

As in the drawing the length given is 35.42 metres now remember Pei the architect is an American and as I have been informed was living in his Manhattan home in January 2016 he turns 100 on the 27th April this year 2017. I looked at this odd number and  converted to feet 35.42m = 116.20734 feet and I saw it straight away.

A circle inscribed into the base of the pyramid at the Louvre measures 365.076 feet 365 the number of days in a year.

By switching from metric to Imperial the architect has given the lengths for a lunar and solar year. 354 and 365. Interesting that the metre allows this??

And not only that he has done it again in the height as he has doubled his base length 35.42 x 2 = 70.84 and named this number FEET.

70.84 FEET = 21.6m.  Not sure exactly which value for  pi he used but so clever.

Jim
La Pyramide inversee

Someone must have the exact dimensions for  the inverted pyramid as I have read this pyramid is 15.5 metres base but drawings quote 16 metres.




15.5 looks to me something Pei would do as pi cubed = 31.00627 / 2 = 15.503

Jim
Reply
Like
Share


Confirmation of reply: