I’m still missing some old posts by Michael L. Morton, so I was digging in some old files and stumbled over a folder on Asian Pyramids. Several of them have little bits of data from unknown sources and a couple of architectural diagrams, although there may be some confusion as to which diagrams and measurements describe which.
Some of that material (see Zangkunchong step pyramid) is here https://www.crystalinks.com/pyramidchina.html
Some good material on others is here
http://mesosyn.com/Koguryo.html
Previously, I’ve backed down from working with the data I have for being somewhat intimidated by it. I wasn’t sure what to expect from it for one thing, and for another there’s so little that it makes it much harder to feel very certain of any interpretive efforts.
Having a little more experience and hopefully a little more vision that last time around, I decided to stick it out and try to make the most of the data I have for now.
What do I think I see in the data?
For one thing, what looks like a surprising level of devotion to the Megalithic Yard, perhaps in myriad forms, in spite of the fact that these pyramids are in Asia.
Another thing that emerges from the data looks like a particular focus on the number 104, or nearby numbers that can be used to represent it, since the number 104 per se does not belong to the system of numbers I work with (“Munck’s”). The number 104 and its simple divisions are very important to ancient calendar systems, and still important to contemporary calendar systems.
52 weeks in a year x 2 = 104
520 / 2 = 260 days, the Mayan “Tzolkin”
and etc.
Attempting to work with this Asian pyramid data has more or less rubbed my nose in the fact that although I work with two primary calendar systems separated by the common 1.000723277 ratio, I have a still unsolved problem in that my two main figures for representing 104 and it’s simple fractions, are not separated by the 1.000723277 ratio, which is probably a long-ignored red flag.
Presumably, there’s a number in this range that I need to learn more about, to help me figure out which version of “104” goes with which group of calendar numbers, but it’s very surprising that after this much work with calendars, I haven’t been forced to face this fact until now.
Surprisingly, when I look at the relationship between these two current candidates primary representives for “104”, which are the 103.9030303 foot calculated outer sarcen circle diameter of Stonehenge, and the 104.0913798 (Michael Morton’s “Great Pyramid Apex Displacement Ratio” which belongs to the long form of the story of how the value 24901.19742 was obtained to represent the earth’s approximately 24901.5 mile equatorial circumference)…
104.0913798 / 103.9030303 = 1.0018127430
And that is the “New” “2 Pi Root” I just wrote about in the last post.
Let’s look a little more closely at the available data on both counts
For one pyramid (this is from a page on the Zangkuchong pyramid), I have a quoted base size of 31.58 meters per side and a height of 12.4 meters.
31.58 m = 103.6089239 ft
So already we’re brushing up close to 103.9030303 here – in modern feet, as always.
12.4 m = 40.68241 ft
This pyramid would have a base diagonal of about 103.6089239 x (sqrt 2) = 146.5251454 ft
On the very same page is the diagram still seen at Crystallinks, giving one of these pyramids a base size of 29.34 meters per side and a height of 11.28 meters.
29.34 m = 96.259843 ft; 11.28 m = 37.007874 ft
1 / 96.259843 = 103.885480054 / 10^n
So there we are – already brushing up again against number in the neighborhood of 103.9030303 or 104.0913798.
This pyramid would have a diagonal of about 96.259843 x (sqrt 2) = 136.1319755
As I’ve previously mentioned, I work primarily with several forms of the Megalithic Yard – the Squared Munck Megalithic Yard (“SMMY”) of 2.719715671^2 = 7.396853331 ft, and also a Megalithic Yard (“mine”) of 2.720174976 ft.
7.396853331 / 2 = 3.698426666 – compare to this same pyramid’s height of 11.28 m = 37.007874 ft
2.720174976 / 2 = 1.360087488 – compare to this same pyramid’s estimated diagonal of 136.1319755 ft.
Of course, more could be said here – including that in terms of planetary cycles Lunar Year 354 days / 260 (“Mayan” Tzolkin) = 1.361538462, or that 260 x 4 = 104 x 10, or that estimated width 96.259843 = ~Lunar Year x 2.720174976.
There may be additional Lunar data at work here (such as the Draconic month 27.212220 days), but one possible way of looking at it is of course that the Megalithic Yard, like the Remen and Royal Cubit, may be another major ancient metrological unit that “descended from heaven” – that is, came to us through our studies of planetary, solar, and lunar cycles and our attempts to organize them into calendar systems.
Also note that the estimated height of the pyramid in the first dataset, 12.4 m = 40.68241 ft is suspiciously near to 2.720174976 x 15 = 40.80262464 (unless perhaps we have some Egytologists intrepid enough to prefer to try to make 23 and 2/3 Royal Cubits out of it?)
When we get to a bit of data on the Tomb of the General https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomb_of_the_General
We are told that at the base it measures almost 75 m.
75 m = 246.063 ft; (1 / 406.3999869952) / 100
Compare this to the height given in the first pyramid dataset, 12.4 m = 40.68241 ft
I can’t guarantee that all of these observations will hold up for very long, but for me this is pretty much customary, to be apparently dealing with ancients who knew their mathematics forward and backwards – literally, even if history as we know it isn’t able to account for that very well.
The perimeter of the Tomb of the General based on this data (and assuming it is square at the base as more of these Asian pyramids seem to be)
75 m = 246.063 ft x 4 = 984.252 ft
That’s (1 / 1.015999999) x 10^n
The most important thing I know of in this range is 1.017140346. As near as I can tell, the ancient Maya were quite fond of this number, and I think it turns out that one reason is because 360 / 1.017140346 = 353.9334582, which from my perspective (and presumably theirs) is a more useful way of representing the “354” day Lunar Year.
It doesn’t take long to find the number 353.9334582 at Giza, either.
A pyramid with a base length of about 246.063 ft would have an estimated base diagonal of
246.063 x (sqrt 2) = 347.985613
That one, I’m going to leave alone for now, but I will note in passing that Hugh Harleston managed to obtain a “Standard Teotihuacan Unit” of ~3.475721758 ft (1.0594 meters), and while I’ve never had much use for it, I did make recently make a proposal what such a unit might actually be if there really is such a thing.
I also have a couple of crumbs of data for the Andong Pyramid
https://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=50335
Base 13.2 by 12.7 meters, height about 4.5 meters
4.5 meters = 14.7638 ft
Compare the doubled Squared Munck Megalithic Yard (SMMY)
2.719715671^2 = 7.396853331; 7.396853331 x 2 = 14.79370666 ft
Also note the base length/width ratio
13.2 / 12.7 = 1.03937007874
And there we are once again creeping up on numbers in the 103.9030303 range
Also, the width/height ratio is about 12.7 / 4.5 = 2.8222222222, and that’s rather suggestive of the reciprocal of the Lunar Year
1 / 353.9334582 = 2.8253898489 / 10^n
I think perhaps that is all I want to say about that one for now?
So I haven’t really figured out much of the why of some of these numbers seemingly recurring even in such limited data, although it does come of light that two of these recurring figures form a third important figure
103.9030303 / 1.017140346 = 1.021521079
1.021521079 is a “wonder number” I “found” first at Tikal, then at Stonehenge and Giza. It’s more of a wonder number for what other numbers can do it than for what it can do to other numbers, it’s part of at least powerful and important series and I’ve written about it in some detail here.
http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1198957,1203926#msg-1203926
There’s one more interesting piece of data I stumbled across on Asian pyramids that I should mention
I’m also having more trouble accessing some of the pages for whatever reason – there is or was recently a page on Chinese pyramids by Stijn van den Hoven. This is in the version still in the Google cache
“German engineer and architect Helmut Fuernreder has discovered that some of pyramids in China were built according to the golden ratio. For instance, if we divide the height of the (Great) White Pyramid (300 m) by the length of its base (485 m), we get 0.618.”
Google does not seem to know much about anyone named Helmut Fuernreder as far as I can tell, but I’m quite intrigued with this. That’s not quite the ratio we actually get, but it may be close enough.
I’ve no idea where the data comes from, but for the record 485 m = 1591.21 ft; the reciprocal of 2 Pi is 1 / (2 Pi) = 1591.549431 / 10^n.
That’s on top of someone pointing out the similarity between the layout of three of these large Chinese pyramids and the three main Giza pyramids.
300 m = 984.252 ft.
Rather than speculate on what this is, let’s extrapolate based on the suggestions
1591.549431 / 1.622311470 = 981.0381424 ft
981.0381424 belongs to the 2 Pi series that features “New” “2 Pi Root” 1.001812742 at the bottom.
I am not looking for 1.001812742 ever since I posted it to this blog. I am much more keen to avoid it than fool around trying to justify it further. It is now looking for me apparently.
Again, I have no idea about data sources or data quality here. Generally, it’s probably as smart or safe to accept data without provenance as it is to accept candy from strangers, but there are amazing coincidences adding up into patterns here, which does imply some valid data even with the ambiguity about sources.
I just wanted to see if I could learn something from the experience, which is something else we can hope for from valid data, and indeed I have.
If you’ve made it this far reading this, here’s a little bonus for you. My now-standard figure for the height of the Great Pyramid without pavement and without capstone is 453.2094072, 452.3893421 ft with pavement.
It’s sort of a long story, but 453.2094072 in spite of being a strange number, is an impressive responder to application of the 2 Pi ratio.
453.2094072 / 452.3893421 = 1.0018127418
Hence the “New” “2 Pi Root” has been lurking in my own model of the Great Pyramid for some time now.
–Luke Piwalker
Luke Piwalker 