I’ve been wanting to come up with something new for my blog and Wonder Numbers usually seem worth a special announcement. Lately as often I’m spread a bit thin, attempting to “go wide rather than deep”, hoping for more of an overview, and hoping not to overlook anything special, such as wonder numbers.
As such, in spite of how many projects I’ve attempted lately, I’m not quite certain yet which results I have sufficient faith in, but I’m very pleased with the results you see here.
I really don’t know that much about some of these yet, though. There are plenty of things to test them against from calendar systems, which is a major undertaking and might take quite a lot of time.
What I wanted to try as a first step is to round up a list of some Wonder Numbers and try to see how they relate to each other.
The results of this have been pleasantly surprising.
Recently discovered Wonder Numbers, from Egyptian studies with the possible exception of 1.173095008 which may have surfaced while attempting to further sort out ancient calendar systems while working with ancient American sites.
1.423799349
1.702535130
4.3278310488
7.438993599
1.173095008
Previously discovered Wonder Numbers from the last several years and where they were first found:
1.323891319 (Callanish)
1.424280286 (Tikal)
1.021521078 (Tikal)
1.025135530 (Tikal)
6.321115427 (Tikal)
6.44111647 (Tikal)
1.174718783 (UK)
6.150813168 (Tikal)
1.625801286 (Giza)
1.001812477 (Giza)
A Wonder Number found quite some time ago now is 1.067438159.
A word, though, about what “Wonder Number” means, and what a “Wonder Number” is exactly.
What’s qualified many of these numbers that they are parts of (2 Pi) or (Pi / 3) chains, meaning that if an ancient mathematician put these values near to 2 Pi or (Pi / 3) in architectural design, a sizable list of important data will unfold, data storage and retrieval will have been intelligently maximized, and the list of significant figures that arise from this combination will put us that many more steps ahead in pondering why we see certain numbers over and over when we go to find ratios or products of ancient architectural proportions.
However, many other numbers belong to these (2 Pi) and (Pi / 3) chains which are not actively being labelled “Wonder Numbers”.
The reason I am using the term is simply to draw attention to some that are not as well known and well established as some of the resulting data that confirms we are looking at deliberate and meaningful gestures in pairing up numbers to form these (2 Pi) or (Pi / 3) chains.
Often enough, “Wonder Number” has been used to describe starting points for series that were formerly thought to be too far out in a series to be useful, an important point to remember, and one which continues to be true.
Give or take correct decimal placement (as always), here is how some of these new Wonder Numbers interact with each other and with some established Wonder Numbers
1.702535130
1.424280286 / 1.702535130 = 8.365644038
1.021521078 / 1.702535130 = 6
1.702535130 x 7.438993599 = 125 / (Pi^2)
1.702535130 x 6.441116492 = 1.096622707
1.702535130 x (6.44111692^2) = 70.63474577 = 6 x 1.177245771
1.702535130 / 1.625801286 = (Pi / 3)
1.702535130 / (1.625801286^2) = 6.441116492
2 / 1.702535130 = 1.174718783
1.702535130 x 6.150813168 = (Pi / 3)
1.702535130 x (6.150813168^2) = 6.44111692
1.702535130x 1.025135530 = 1 / 57.29577951
7.438993599
7.438993599 x 1.424280286 = 1.059521193 = 9 x 1.177245771
7.438993599 x (1.424280286^2) = 3018.110298 / 2
7.438993599 x (1.424280286^3) = 10746.58749 currently Saturn Orbital Period D value
7.438993599 / 6.150813168 = 1.209432440 = 2.720174976 / 224.9133566
7.438993599 / (6.150813168^2) = 1.96629666 = 2 / 1.017140516
7.438993599 / 4.3278310488 = 1.718873385
9 / 7.438993599 = 1.209840173 = 2.720174976 / 224.8373808
7.438993599 x 1.625801286 = 1.209432440
7.438993599 x (1.625801286^2) = 1.966296972
Some of these equations reveal the fact that 1 / 1.625801286 = 6.150813168
1.423799349
1.025135530 / 1.423799349 = 72
1.423799349 x 1.424280286 = 2.027889344 = 1.622311470 / 8
1.423799349 x 1.021521078 = 1.454441046
4.327831048 / 1.423799349 = (30 / (Pi^2)
7.438993599/ 1.423799349 = 5.224748560
9 / 1.423799349 = 6.321115406
6.150813168 / 1.423799349 = 432
1.001812477 / 1.423799349 = 7.036191425 = ?
1.001812477 / (1.423799349^2) = 494.1842002 = 6.40462734 / (360^2)
1.174718783 / 1.423799349 = 48 x 1.718873385
1.323891319 x 1.174718783 = 15552
4.327831048 (1.177245771 / 2.720174976)
4.327831048 x 1.424280286 = 1 / 1.622311470
4.327831048 x (1.424280286^2) = 1/2 Perimeter Cheops Pyramidion
15 / 4.327831048 = 3.465939366
6 / 4.327831048 = 1.386375747 see Stonehenge bluestone “oval with corners”
4.327831048 x 1.323891319 = 1 / 57.29577951
6.150813168 / 4.327831048 = 1.421223033 = 4523.893421 x Pi
6.44111647 / 4.327831048 = 1.48830834
6.321115427 x 4.327831048 = 1 / 365.5409034
7.438993599 / 4.327831048 = 1.718873385
1.173095008
1.021521078 / 1.173095008 = 8.707914287
1.173095008 x 1.025135530 = 1.202581373
1.173095008 x (1.025135530^2) = 2 / 1.622311479
1.173095008 x 7.438993599 = 1 / (2 x 57.29577951)
1.173095008 x 6.441116492 = 755.6041600side length Great Pyramid
1.173095008 x (6.441116492^2) = 48.66934411
1.173095008 x 1.174718783 = 1.37805674 = 27.56111348 / 2
1.625801286 / 1.173095008 = 1.385907599 = 1.177245771^2
1.424280286 / 1.173095008 = 1.214121854 (“Not A Remen”)
These numbers generally seem to show surprising and unusual compatibility, often resolving one another into important constants, revealing their potential prevalence within this system of numbers, and helping to explain why we have encountered them even at the risk of confusing them with some similar and very important numbers.
It rather seems like the ancients weren’t pulling any punches mathematically.
Perhaps we can cautiously make some inferences from these things. It might be easy to tend to think that the Maya made improvements on Egyptian math given the intensity of some of the math we can find at Tikal, yet most if not all of the Mayan numbers discussed in this post have turned up at Giza, and many at Stonehenge and still counting.
This may imply yet again that this mathematics was already well developed by the time it reached Egypt or Europe, or even America, just as the metrology involved may also imply.
–Luke Piwalker
Luke Piwalker 