I had previous opportunities to spot this – I believe it was either Richard or Robin Heath who commented that if you subtract 1 Foot Imperial from 1 Megalithic Yard, you get 1 Royal Cubit. It doesn’t work out exactly, but it’s too exact to simply fade away.
I have no pretensions here of having just uncovered a way of relating different ancient units of measurement that is going to exceed last year’s discovery of their relationship through the geometry of the circle, nor will the original approximate relationships of ancient units of measure through squares and rectangles ever exceed their relationships through circular geometry.
However, the formulas relating to squares and rectangles are hardly invalid, and they can be an often have been adapated into precise and meaningful formulas.
A great example of this is how the relationship between ideal Royal Cubit and ideal Remen, while not precisely sqrt 2, thus involves an alternate form of sqrt 2 that is based on the Megalithic Foot, precisely.
That said, what I have to offer are observations on the addition and subtraction of various units to or from one another.
I may have missed Hearth’s cue involving this phenomenon because at the time I learned of it and experimented with it, my palette of metrological units was a little too limited to recognize it. At that point, I probably had yet to accept the Megalithic Foot 1.177245771 or Ancient Egyptian Mystery Unit 1.676727943 ft as metrological values. The Pied du Roi/Hashimi Cubit/Egyptian Royal Foot values were likely not fully accepted at the time, either.
So here are a few examples of that I’m talking about.
- Royal Cubit 1.718873385 – Egyptian Mystery Unit 1.676727943 = 0.421454420; 1 Palestinian Cubit 2.107038476 / 50 = 0.4214076952
- Egyptian Mystery Unit 1.676727943 – Hashimi Cubit 1.067438159 = 0.609289784 = .5 x 1.218579568; “Thoth Remen” = 1.218469680
- Palestinian Cubit 2.107038476 – Remen 1.216733603 = .890304873 = 2 / 2.246424014 (Petrie Stonehenge UNit 224.8373808 inches)
- Long Meter 3.289868134 – Hashimi Cubit 1.067438159 = 5 / 2.24978967; Venus Orbital Period C = 224.913272 (days)
- Palestinian Cubit 2.107038476 + Megalithic Foot 1.177245771 = 3.284284247; “Radian Squared Meter” = 57.29577951^2 / 1000 = 3.282806350
- “Radian Squared Meter” 3.282806350 – Megalithic Foot 1.177245771 = 2.105560579; Shorter Palestinian Cubit = 2.105515606
- Palestinian Cubit 2.107038476 – Megalithic Foot 1.177245771 = .929792705; sqrt 8640 = (1/225 Sacred Cubit) x 10^n = .9295160031
- Petrie Stonehenge Unit 18.73644840 ft – Megalithic Yard 2.720174976 = 16.01627342; aside from 16.000000 Imperial, 15 Hashimi Cubits = 16.01157239
- Petrie Stonehenge Unit 18.73644840 ft + Hashimi Cubit 1.067438159 = 19.80388656; 18 Short Indus Feet = 19.8014214
- Megalithic Yard 2.720174976 – Hashimi Cubit 1.067438159 = 1.652736817; 1.5 Long Indus Feet = 1.651311942
- Megalithic Yard 2.720174976 – Remen 1.216733603 = 1.503441373, which may be sufficiently close to the figures discussed in the previous post concerning the pyramid of Khendjer and the pyramidion of Teti.
- Megalithic Yard 2.720174976 + Remen 1.216733603 = 3.936908579 = (3.280757140 / 12) x 10; Modern Meter = 3.280839895; suggested ancient “shaved” meter = 3.280433687
- Megalithic Yard 2.720174976 + Megalithic Foot 1.177245771 = 3.897420747, which appears to be in the Stonehenge Sarsen Circle unit (51.9515151 / 1.333333333 = 3.89636363)
There’s another interesting thing to come out of this as well:
Palestinian Cubit 2.107038476 – Royal Cubit 1.718873385 = 3.881650910 / 10, which seems uncannily like the 38.81346810 astronomical and geodetic figure discovered at Tikal and taken from Teobert Maler’s data.
Carl Munck’s drawing of Tikal Temple I labelled with Teobert Maler’s data.
It has recently been noted that 38.81346810 has metrological value. It appears to be in the Egyptian Mystery Unit of 1.676727943 ft: 1676.747941 / 432 = 3.881346810.
So we are just getting started with relating ancient units of measure to each other through addition and subtraction, but the number of “hits” so far is remarkable.
So what are we to think of this amazing bundle of units I am working with, that relate though one another through squares and rectangles, AND through circular geometry, AND through multiplication and division, AND though addition and subtraction?
What are the odds against such an incredible system having arisen by accident, or without its creators knowing what they had and what they were doing with it?
–Luke Piwalker
Luke Piwalker 