Hmmm… Perhaps there’s only enough to say here that it could have been a postscript at the end of the last post, but enough was probably said there, so this could end up a short post.
Several things I could swear I started catching glimpses of
1. Stonehenge beginning to make statements about alternative sets of calendar numbers without prompting, and
2. One or more largely unexplored alternate calendar number sets may have unsuspected potential to offer new insights into ancient geodesy
Could Stonehenge succeed where even the Great Pyramid has thus far failed to help better sort out the mess that ancient geodesy can become on account of the exclusion of the literal mile from this mathematics (even while this math utilizes the literal value for the mile for geodetic modelling by means of otherwise nonsensical ratios such as 1 foot: 100 Miles to bridge the perpetual gap between these disparate units)?
Since the Big Idea is now on table with that, why don’t we back up a little bit here?
First, in terms of looking for the Anomalistic Month at Stonehenge, I perhaps could have appendaged the last post with the observation that (1 / (1.451319051)) x 4 = 27.56113480 ((1 / 1125) x (Pi^3), which is significant because giving a max perimeter of (106.7438159 / 2) Megalithic Yards to the inner bluestone circle, we get in feet (106.7438159 / 2) x 2.720174976 = 145.1809284 ft and (106.7438159 / 2) x 2.719256444 = 145.1319046 – thus it’s already been found at Stonehenge, and if 27.56113480 is a valid figure for representing the 27.55454988 day Anomalistic Month, good old Stonehenge is already trying to give it away to us.
In this case, as with the outer sarcen circle, I would have to say that the “AE” Meg Yard 2.720174976 is quite likely the primary intended unit for interpretation, as the “Incidental” Meg Yard associated figure 145.1809284 may be virtuous, but it might also turn out to be a bit strange if we’re not lucky.
Honestly, the subject of four possible different sets of calendar numbers may be confusing enough without starting closer to the beginning. Thus far we have the “A” set of numbers, wherein the half Venus Cycle of “18980” is represented as 18983.99126, and the “B” set of numbers, wherein the half Venus Cycle is represented as 18997.72194, and the ratio between the two sets
18997.72194 / 18983.99126 = 1.000723277
We should be able to multiply a finished “A” set by 1.00073277 to get a finished “B” set, but there are some calendar numbers on the loose which are not separated by that ratio, and some counterparts separated by that ratio that seem to remain obscure.
Stonehenge’s 51.95151515 outer sarcen circle radius seems to belong to the “B” set as its take on the important calendar number 52 (as in 52 weeks in a year, etc), but the number that keeps trying to assert itself as second most important is 52.04568991, rather than the expected 51.95151515 x 1.000723277 = 5.198909049, which seems quite shy about making appearances somehow.
When we try to establish the formulas that connect a calendar set internally, we sometimes get odd results that exceed the limits of the expected and seem to point at the existence of other sets, and it’s hard to ignore these hints forever no matter how inconvenient or puzzling the matter may be.
The two other sets currently suspected of existing, hypothetical “C” and “D” sets obviously, 18976.67846 and 18990.40381, with some faint hints of a possible fifth.
I came up with something while exploring Rio Bec mathematically called “Rio Bec Equation #3” – it’s a formula that goes something like this
Earth Year / 1.62231147 = Venus Orbital Period / 1.62231147 = significant figure X; X / 1.62231147 = significant figure Y = 1 / Long Count (half Venus Cycle)
It’s a lovely equation and one inspired by working in situ, but it doesn’t seem to link the figures together according to their respective groups, but instead makes references that span the different groups.
One of the most interesting and coherent inputs is the (3600 / Pi^2) version of the Earth (calendar) Year, the output parameters are
364.7562611, 224.8373804, 138.5907605, 85.42796071, 52.65817464, 18990.40381
How many of those numbers have we already seen at Stonehenge? 85.42796071 x 2, by the way, is 170.8559214 from the last post concerning Stonehenge and Teti’s pyramids.
All of that goodness, and yet the Long Count/half Venus Cycle that comes out at the end is NOT of the “A” or “B” set, yet given the series it belongs to and what it’s made of, one is really tempted to take it seriously – and that may be what should happen, and this may be a strength of this system of numbers rather than a shortcoming to operate that way.
By the way, here’s a trick or two you can spot if you’re willing to reach in there for them, that reveal more of the inter-relatedness and inter-connectedness of certain numbers
2 / 170.8559214 = 11.70576931 = 15170.67702 / (360^2), with 15170.67702 inches the possible N-S distance between the summits of Chephren’s and Mycerinus’ pyramids = 600 Palestine Cubits of 2.107038476 ft.
5 / 170.8559214 = 29.26442326 (aka “The Real Mayan Annoyance”)
170.8559214 / 9 = 18983.99126, Long Count “A” is in there after all.
Alright, how about letting that stand for now as trying to bring the reader more up to full speed with this and leave it for another post to try to retrace my steps and be more sure of what I think comes next here?
For now, since this is a post where I talk about 145.1809284 and 18990.40381 — at least this part of my notes is relatively comprehensible, and they say
18990.40381 / 2^n = 6.89028370^2, and 6.89028370 = 1 / 145.1809284.
Also, in case I haven’t shared these yet either, (2160 / Pi) = 687.5493542 is still trying to be a representative of the Mars Orbital Period 686.971 d and 779.2727283 (already thought to have been found at Stonehenge), is still trying to be a representative of Mars Synodic Period 779.96 days
687.5493542 / 305.7985078 inner sarcen circle circumference, ft = 224.8373808
779.2727283 / 224.8373808 = 346.5939362, the reference source figure for the Eclipse Year again being 346.62 days
It was also observed that the ratio 346.62 / 27.55545 (Eclipse Year / Anomalistic Month) is ~12.57941523 = 50.3176609 / 4, which looks a lot like 50.30183830, or exactly 1/2 of the proposed 100.6036766 ft mean diameter for the sarcen circle, which would make ~12.57941523 to be exactly 100.6036766 / 80, and it was observed that “Eclipse Year / Venus Orbital Period” may also be as significant ratio at Stonehenge, although this item is currently less certain.
I will try to get to the point momentarily that this post was going to try to make until pre-empted my more data from a rapidly expanding model of Stonehenge at long last. It’s a wonder to behold and may even carry a risk of making ancient Britain seem even more interesting that ancient Egypt, where I am not sure I have ever seen the like in spite of some strong parallels.
–Luke Piwalker
Luke Piwalker 