SCIENCE IN ANCIENT ARTWORK The Platonic Year & the

2304  0000000  alautun 
288  0000  pictun 
2592  Platonic Year fractal (25920) 
Were this the only historically significant number/fractal to come out of such a strange way of visualizing the maya long count numbers/fractals, we might attribute this to mere coincidence. However, as we have been examining throughout our research, the coincidences are far too numerous to believe that the ancient maya chose their particular series of numbers, in relation to the 1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512,1024,etc., constant series of numbers out of a lack of understanding of mathematics. Quite the opposite; the number series reflects a profound knowledge of mathematics, and geometry as we have illustrated previously in other essays.
The common thesis posited by most academics is that the ancient maya avoided the fractions. As we have stated herein; if they avoided the fractions, then that means they knew the fractions. Knowing them is the only way to avoid them. But, possibly they did not only know our present day concept of fractions; they possibly conceived of numbers in a much more dynamic manner as fractions, fractals, and floating decimal places; as illustrated in the previous example for which we have no particular vocabulary to express.
Academics today are still not certain about the specific meaning of any particular number coming out of the ancient reckoning system of the maya or the kemi. For example, one may read all of the debates around the number of the k'awil (819c); the companion numbers (1366560 and 1385540); the daycounts themselves (260c; 360c; 364c; 365c; 580c; 584c; etc.); 31104; 151840; etc., there are far too many numbers to review here. Yet, what is a given fact is the manner in which one may derive almost any of these numbers (and then some) from the simple addition of the maya long count numbers/fractals themselves.
Let us examine a few of these historically significant numbers/fractals as of the maya long count system. If one were not certain that the previous illustration may be possible in order to derive the 2592 fractal; then, consider other combinations (again we can only show a few; the options are infinite):
2304  0000000  
2880  000  
5184  5184  /  2  =  2592 
If we missed it one way; then, we may visualize it another. Another historically significant number appears from these same numbers, arranged differently:
2304  0000000 
28800  00 
31104 
The 31104c fractal has been cited as significant to ancient Teotihuacan and ancient China, as well. A number such as 31104 represents an apparently conscious choice; not a number that occurs naturally in any of the methods that we may concern ourselves with in mathematics. One would have to double 243 (486, 972, 1944, 3888, 7776, 15552, 31104) or, triple 128 (384, 1152, 3456, 10368, 31104) in order to derive this particular number. With that, we see other historically significant numbers appear on these two series.
Numerable other historically significant numbers become available when we employ this procedure throughout the maya long count numbers/fractals:
360  360  360  360  360  360 
360  7200  144000  2880000  1152000000  23040000000 
396  756  18  648  1512  2340 
A complete table of combinations must be drawn up in order to observe the wealth of historically numbers that may be produced by this simple method. The numbers/fractals may also be relational as of multiplication and division; not only addition of their face values.
360  x  1.44  =  518.4  360  x  2304  =  829440  364  x  2304  =  838656  
414720  419328  
207360  ...  
103680  3278  
51840  1638  
25920  819 (k'awil) 
Or, consider,  1366560  /  2.304  =  593125  
1186250  
2372500  
4745000  
9490000  (= 26000 x 365 the number of days in the precession  
without the fractional expression of the daycount 365.25). 
2.304  x  9490000  =  21864960 
10932480  
5466240  
2733120  
1366560 
We know that the fraction/fractal 625 is significant in the ancient
reckoning system. One might consider a single example: 360 / 576 = .625,
in order to comprehend this relation in the maya long count. In previous
studies, we have reviewed the .625 and .225 relations as of the sidereal
orbital timing of Earth and Venus (Cfr., Earth/matriX No. 16).
Consider some peculiar relationships:
1366560  x  .225  =  307476  576  x  .625  =  360  
614952  720  
1229904  1440  
  1366560  2880  
1366560  5760 
The constant series number (64c) reveals some interesting relations
as well:
576  x  .64  = 
368.64

Now, Consider, 
368.

64  
184.32



365


92.16

3.

64  (that is the 364c)  
46.08


23.04

368.

4  
11.52



360


8.

64  (= 432 x 2; the Consecration number) 
The decimal floats obviously. With that, historically significant numbers/fractals appear on demand, and unsuspectingly. The numbers/fractals of the maya long count do not appear to have had only one singular meaning; the manner in which they relate to other historically significant numbers suggests a much more complex system of computation. The numerous historically significant numbers, cited in the texts of ancient history, and the maya long count numbers/fractals, appear to form a very compact system of computational possibilities. Furthermore, these possibilities overflow into the system of ancient reckoning that was present in ancient kemi, given the fact that similar computations become available in a very similar manner. Almost all of the historically significant numbers/fractals appear to be related and share a common origin; one that is not totally natural to the manner in which numbers perform and relate to one another. But, rather, these relationships appear to have been based on conscious choices and design.
The number related to the precession of the equinoxes, as we have discussed in this extract, may be derived in a natural manner, but it may also come forth from the very numbers/fractals related to the maya long count. Even that fact somehow represents a coincidence that defies explanation. The cultures of ancient Greece and Europe may have chosen the number 25920 simply because it had already been chosen by design centuries or millennia prior to them. The ancient maya long count enshrouds in an inherent manner, through simple addition, the very numbers that later came to be known as the Platonic Year. It may, then, simply be the other way around; the way history would have it. Firstly, the ancient cultures of Mesoamerica and Egypt discerned the precession, identifying it as 25920 years; and, then, secondly, the later cultures built upon that discovery. A timeline would have it no other way in fact.
Earth/matriX,
P.O. Box 231126 New Orleans, LA 701831126;USA
Home  Books  Releases  Forum  Reviews  Links  Author 