Science in Ancient Artwork Extract No.27 The Platonic Year and The Nineveh Constant (25920:22680)By Charles William Johnson
The Great Cycle of the Sun, the Platonic Year, or the precession
of the equinoxes has been cited at 25,920 years. Suspiciously similar
is a kemi historically significant number of 1296000, which
is half that fractal number (25920 / 2 = 12960). For such related numbers
not be related would surely represent a matter of coincidence. Many of
the historically significant numbers are apparently common in origin,
although we no longer know what that common origin may have been. Something
similar occurs with the Nineveh constant of 2268. At first glance, the
Nineveh constant would appear to be unrelated to the other numbers.
However, if we consider the possibility that the reciprocal
of seven (.142857) may have been employed in computations concerning the
Great Cycle (ca. 26,000 years) that the Sun travels throughout the Universe,
then the numbers may become more comprehensible. In order to consider
these possible relationships, let us examine once more the concept of
pi (), the number
of times the diameter of a circle may divide into its circumference. Contemporary
measurements/computations cite pi as being 3.141592654 (give or take a
few thousand decimal places).
This concept of pi represents the ratio of diameter:circumference.
However, if the ancients not only dealt with this particular ratio, but
also employed the diameter alone and the circumference alone as a constant,
as well as, the possible number of divisions (degrees/segments) that a
circle may be divided into, then the ancient concept of pi would be extremely
more dynamic than our contemporary view.
Any circle (with unknown degrees) would be represented as:
Now, for a circle with 260 or 360 degrees, the following numbers would apply:
The 260c circle would employ a pi-like number of 2.268, while the 360c circle would employ our contemporary pi number (3.141592654). Therefore, the ancient pi-like number 2.268 would be to a 260c count, as the 3.141592654 pi of today is to a 360-degree circle. The corresponding measurement of the diameter would vary slightly from that of the ratio of any circle: 1.0:3.141592654, as shown previously. Another option concerns employing the reciprocal of seven number (1.142857) instead of the above measurements:
The respective pi relations change for each case. Now, given the generally accepted consideration that the Sun loses a revolution on its own axis as its travels throughout space on its Great Cycle, the approximate calculation of 26,000 years is often modified. One such modification concerns the Platonic Year of 25,920 years. (Other modifications exist, such as the maya figure often cited of 25,956 years.) If we consider the significance of the reciprocal of seven number (1.142857) as representing a possible computation for the diameter of the Great Cycle (Circle), then the following numbers take on greater meaning.
In other words, if the reciprocal of seven number is employed for the diameter of the Platonic Year, then the Nineveh constant number (2268 fractal) represents precisely 7/8ths of that number. The Nineveh constant number would therefore represent a pi-like number for a circle divided into 259.2 degrees (in keeping with the fractal for a 260c or 360c circle). Furthermore, the difference between the two numbers would also be quite significant.
Four hundred count cycles are significant within ancient Mesoamerican cultures as well. Also, consider:
Even the ancient maya number offered for the Great
Cycle appears to be extremely relevant to the Nineveh constant and the
Platonic Year. With respect to the Platonic Year, the difference is simply
36 (25956 - 25920 = 36), knowing that the ancient Mesoamerican calendar
was a 360c based count. But, less obvious is its relation to the 2268
Nineveh constant: 25956 - 22680 = 3276, 1638, 819 (k'awil).
The relationship between the two is based on the k'awil-like
number/fractal, another ancient maya day-count.
For so many historically significant numbers to be related
among themselves in so many different ways, and yet to discard any possible
common origin among them seems to be an improper method of analysis. We
cannot expect all of the ancient historically significant numbers to be
related; but, the fact that many of them easily compute from one system
to another somehow suggests a possible common linkage among them.
Reproduction prohibited without written consent of the author. Your comments and suggestions are greatly appreciated:
|
Home | Books | Author |