I often like to let the numbers steer a conversation although that may make it more difficult for some to follow the logic, but the logic of it is exploring relationships between numbers and particularly those which allow certain numbers to be grouped in informative ways – in ways that store the most data within the combinations, or sometimes in ways that permit the expression of limited but specific and important data.
Let’s start in the vicinity of “Not A Remen”, my working name for 1.214121857 x 10^n. I’d rather not go there, I tried to avoid it when it came up in ancient Mesoamerican matters, but it seems to want to follow me lately, along with a sidekick of 1.213- something that may be 1.214121857 / 1.000723277 = 1.213244345.
How did these become an issue lately?
Partly because of Newton. Several sources inform us that Newton determined the “profane” (Royal) cubit at 20.6284 inches and the “sacred” cubit at 25.0265 inches. They are related by 25.0265 / 20.6284 = 1.213206065.
Of course that looks like 1.216733603 and I’ve tried correcting it to that with some pleasing results, but I think “Not A Remen” is probably going to prove to be data retrievable from Stonehenge, and 1.213-1.214 numbers have also been turning up in Egypt at Giza.
Additional, Ernest Moyer made a remark that’s enough to send me racing back to the ~1.7 ft Nippur Cubit to double check a few things
https://wordpress.com/block-editor/post/pijedi.home.blog/196
Moyer: Take the defined radial distance and divide by the theoretical relationship between the Egyptian system and the Greek system, 20.626/1.7, and we get 12.133, the Greek foot.
http://www.egyptorigins.org/happinessinterrupted.htm
If we take Maragioglio and Rinaldi’s data for the distance from the base of Chephren’s pyramid to the base of its subsidary pyramid G2a (14.80 m) and to the inside of G2a’s enclosure (12.2 m), we get 14.80 / 12.2 = 1.213114754
I really haven’t much dossier on “Not A Remen” 1.214121857 / 1.000723277 = 1.213244345. Back in the day we must have missed thinking it was cool, perhaps for being a bit mystified, that the coordinate 4523.893421 Munck plastered on the “Face on Mars” / 3.728757071 a coordinate he placed on the similar “Monument to Humanity” at Marcahuasi, Peru gives the ratio 4523.893421 / 3.728757071 = 1.213244345.
To make things even more weird, Moyer’s page features geodetic data at the bottom of the page from the WGS84 global mappng datum that includes the figure 1213.3205 in the context of the polar radius. Did Berriman and I both miss the boat on something here?
Thankfully that gave me the chance to bring up 3.728757071, which has become one his more obscure contributions. Sometimes I forget why Munck picked that for anything, which is right about the time I get reminded that even if it’s fallen far out of favor, it’s hard to really get rid of and tends to pop up again if we haven’t seen it for too long. It is, get this .1234567901 x (Pi^7) / 10^n.
A bit strange but these days, the “Thoth Remen” and the side length of the Great Pyramid without pavement are part of that series.
I’ve already written a bit about “Not A Remen” although I haven’t yet compiled material into a single dossier or post, I think I’m hoping to learn more about it before I get to that. I get the feeling that there’s more that we’re invited to know about it, but I don’t know what that is.
Every now and then it’s good to not only follow the numbers, but to follow the odd clue. Quite recently I was pointing out how we can find values for both Lunar and Solar Years in the Chephren Pyramid (1 / (ht in Royal Cubits) = Solar Year b) and 1 / Perimeter = Lunar Year b.
With Chephren, we also have Side / 2 = Lunar Year x, by the way.
Chephren’s pyramid is also on about those most famous right triangles, the Pythagorean kind, according to some consensus.
What if we made a right triangle with sides of Lunar Year, Solar Year, and x?
Depending on which of these two years we make the hypotenuse, x = ~360 / Lunar Year or ~2 / Venus Orbital Period. That might have seemed kind of cool to people who were this into astronomy to have a triangle of “Sun, Moon, and Venus”.
Maybe something, maybe nothing. Just following a clue…
I’ve previously written about how the data in Miroslav Verner’s The Pyramids for some of the Giza subsidiary pyramids gives what looks like different values for each side, which I’m quite tempted to take seriously because of the display of fine ratios in question.
What shall we use for the base perimeters, however? The total of the four sides, or four times the average of the four?
I went back to look at that question again, and for G1a where a height figure is given, noticed a) that if we use each side as if it belonged to its own equal-sided pyramid, as many as four different significant perimeter/height ratios might be obtained, and b) if I take the two means of the most similar sides of G1a according to Verner’s data as describing two separate equal-sided pyramids of same height, I get ratios looking like 2 Pi and 1 / (sqrt 240), a potent combination that would be an admirable thing to see combined in a single pyramid that way.
I’m still not entirely sure the best way to interpret this data from Verner, but I seem to still be finding more reason to take it seriously.
It’s a shame I didn’t start this post soon enough to capture some of the random weirdness that inspired it, that I couldn’t write down on paper fast enough. Apparently there are new revelations to be discovered about the Great Pyramid’s apothem without pyramidion, and about a very similar number that surfaced in the past year. Suffice it to say that both numbers and their real place in things are quite likely still poorly understood.
That apothem without pyramidion value is a strange one, it’s sometime quite the silent type, but among other things it’s proven to be responsive to the Squared Munck Megalthic Yard.
That’s probably enough meandering for now. For anyone who made it this far, a bonus – I can at least name one “can opener” that works on a “can” of 3.728757071, it’s 1.676727943, which should perhaps be a standard part of anyone’s toolkit for this number system for sometimes being able to resolve a tough case just such as this one.
1.676727943 works to at least the 3rd power in this particular application.
One doesn’t have to throw much Pi at 1.676727943 to see why ancient Maya mathematicians with skills unrecorded by history would have been rather fond of it, but 1.676727943 pulls 5 / Venus Orbital Period out of 3.728757071, so 3.728757071 could indeed have been of interest to the Maya, which might be why I seemed to find it the Venus Platform at Chichen Itza, if it wasn’t an artifact of consolidation.
I certainly hope to get back to these subjects after I’ve done more following where some new numbers lead.
–Luke Piwalker
Luke Piwalker 