Thursday, November 6, 2014

From Giza to Dashur: The Real Story of The Old Kingdom Pyramids Part II

Please read Part I first by clicking here

Well here we are at Dahshur and for those who have lived in a bubble and do not know what The Bent Pyramid looks like here is a picture of it.

As you can see there appears to be two pyramids and here is the sketch we will be using.

John Legon did a lot of great work on these things in the mid 80's but his main fault I feel is that he insisted that The Giza Plateau was in the ratio of the square root of 2 to the square root of 3 rather than trying a more simple and accurate 9 by 11 rectangle. It is because of this fact that most of his work at Giza is in error and does not fit. If we allow 20.62 inches to a cubit then The Giza Rectangle works out to be 1417.5 cubits wide or 29228.85 inches by 1732.50 cubits or 35724.15 inches. These are the facts and the distances as presented by Petrie and I am not sure why John would have insisted that they were not correct. Maybe I will ask him. Anyway after experimenting with 110 for the top and 90 cubits for the bottom pyramid height I finally decided to take the advice of John Legon and use 110.1 cuibts for the upper height. Here are the break downs according to Petrie and Dorner. Again borrowing from Johm Legon's website. Let us look first at the break downs for the two heights.

 But before we do any of this we have to decide on the angle of the upper portion and so I am going to go with The Master Builders and use the angle they left us at Giza of 43.3637 and the tan ratio of 0.94445 . So to start with let us assume that they copied (oh wait they were first) , that they used for a top height the distance of 110.1 cubit what would that give us. Well it reall is a simple matter. one only has to take 110.1 and divide it by 0.94445 to get 1/2 the base of the upper portion and thsi gives us  110.1 / 0.94445 and equaling 116.576 and tiems 1 we have a base of  233.152 cuibts for the upper base. Here is a diagram to illustrate this.

And finally showing the contained angle.

Just a note here that we match Dorner measurement of 110.11 within 1/100th of a cubit. Keep that in mind as we solve for the bottom angle and distance. of base.

The next stage was to figure out what the base dimension was. Was it 360 cubits as some ahd proposed or was John legon correct with his guess of 362 based on explantions which are available on his website. I felt that the answer like all the answers I was now finding had it's roots at Giza and so began to experiment with various base. First I took 360 / 2 = 180 - 116.576 = 63.424 and divided into 89.9 (as per Johm Legon's plan of Giza) I got  1.41744 and an angle of 54.797 and with a base of 180.75 or 1/2 361.50 I got 64.924 / 89.9 = 1.3847 Neither of these reaslly di anything for me and then I decided to sqaure the base add on or 64.924 and got 4215.13 and that gave me an idea. What if we went back to G3 again and took the square root of the base this time and so I did this and got square root of 4153.6 or 64.4484. Now earlier I had multiplied 944.45 by 1.4 and got  1322.23 but this time I decided to use what we had at Giza and instead of multiplying by 1.4 I decided to multiply by 1.39361 (13,936.1 inches north south between G1 and G2) and got this number 64.448 x 1.39361 equals 89.815 and virtually identical with what Dorner had for the lower height AND what he had for the total height of 199.92 as we get 199.916. So by using the measurements at Giza we have arrived at a probable correct solution for The Bent Pyramid. the only remaining thing we need to do is justify the total base of 116.576 + 64.448 or 181.024 and times 2 we get 362.048. But this is such an odd number. Why not 360 or 362 even why on Earth 362.048 ? Well ... But first a word on the ehight that we arrived at. We got 104.71 meters or 199.92 cubits probably doesn't mean too much to most but an interesting "co-incidence" has the ratio of the mass of Jupiter or Ju P(i)tah [Jupiter = Ptah] equalling:

One solar mass M= 1,047.56 Jupiter mass (MJ)

and woudn't you just know it that 1,047.56 meters = (this is a punch line so get ready) 1,047.56 meters = 2000.12 cubits and just to keep this rolling since some would have The Red Pyramid with a base of 420 cubits ... well wouldn't you just know it that 440 cubits / 1.047.56 = 420.02 cubits so we are muddying the waters again but this time we have Jupiter involved instead of The Sun. But jsut found another one ... 1047.56 x 12 inches_ = I think this might be another punch line ... 104.756 cubits =  2160.07 inches and diameter of Moon in miles exact would have it:

Equatorial radius of Moon = 1738.14 km  (0.273 Earths) x 2 = 3476.28 / 1.60934 = 2160.07 Scoring an absolute direct match. 

... to be continued

From Giza to Dahshur: The Real Story of The Old Kingdom Pyramids - Part I

Hi all. Well to say I have been busy would definitely be an understatement. I have been working on a few projects such as figuring out how to tell angles using just the pyyamids (it is quite easy once you know how) and figuring out the connection between the pyramid fields at Giza and at Dahshur which is what this posting is about. Now this is extremely convuluted and I will try to make it as easy as possible and for those who are mathematically and geometrically challenged I apologize for this is quite a lot to handle but also quite elelgant and beautifully simple.

The Bent Pyramid at Dahshur

   Most researchers including myself have spent their lives studying The Giza Pyramids and have basically ignored the pyramid field at Dahshur which includes The Red Pyramid and The Bent Pyramid. I think it is partially because data for these two pyramids are not as easily found yet I think I have finally deciphered the true measurements and it is quite elegant. First of all I would like to state that I have had 9/11 on the brain and kept thinking that The Bent Pyramid had to be in an 11 by 9 ratio, that is the top was 11 units and the bottom 9 units. However there was one thing that kept nagging at me as I went over and then worked on overhauling my theories on The Bent Pyramid and this was the single fact that at Giza the distance from the north face of The Great Pyramid to the south face of G2 was not 1100 cubits as one would have expected but was 1101 cubits !  John Legon used this fact to conclude that the top portion of The Bent was not 11 units but actually 1101 or not 110.0 cubits but 110.1 cubits. I kep thinking he was wrong but the more I looked at it the more I came to realize that yes this was indeed the same measurement and was probably meant to be the same and then I wondered well maybe there would be other matching similarities as well and so for the very first time I decided to try to tie in my measurements at Giza to what I knew of Dahshur and The Bent Pyramid. It was an amazing ride. I found it hard to believe that to solve for The Bent I had to start at Giza but that was how it turned out. Firstly I think I need to post a map of The Giza Plateau with the measurements we will be using. It is an abridged version of Petrie's diagram with adjustments made to make the south side of The Great Pyramid run directly east-west. I will post both for you to compare.


And now the corrected version:

Now I had in past research realized that the angle formed from a line between the centers of G1 and G2 gave us almost the same angle as at The Bent (upper portion) but I had been unable to do anything with it. This was to change quite dramatically this time around. I am not going to post a bunch of references but suffice it to say that the concensus of the angles for The Bent have the top portion at around 43 degrees 22 minutes while the bottom ranges from about 54.3 to 55 degrees. Below I have joined the centers for you and have marked in the angles for you to see. Observe below: We get 43.3637 and 46.6363 as the two angles and that is the beginning of a very strange voyage we are about to take and when it is over I hope you will see the pyramid builders in a completely new light.  

   Now what I am about to present, in my opinion goes way beyond the bounds of coincidence and has to be proof it was planned from the outset, and that includes all three pyramids at Giza and probably all the Old Kingdom IVth dynasty pyramids as well. Stay tuned .... Nov 6th, 2014 @12:59 AM

Okay it is Thursday morning Nov. 6th and onward we go. Now what led to this latest round of insights was the fact that I chanced upon a diagram I had made around a year ago and although I thought it unique I did not pursue it. Here is the diagram from around September of 2013.

So I took this diagram below and did the same thing.


Now some might wonder how I figured out the angles on the diagram above but it is really quite simple geometry and trigonometry. In any right angled triangle the small side divided into the large side (not the diagonal) will yield a ratio or a number and this is called the "tan" of the angle in question so dividing 13162 by 13936.1 will give us the tan of the angle and the ratio turns out to be  0.9444536 and this is precisely what the distance is from the center of G2 to G3 along the horizontal multiplied by 10,000 ! Now I mean really think about that for a moment. Of all the measurements that randomly could have resulted from placing G3  on the plateau what do you think the odds are of placing it precisely 10,000 times the ratio of the distances between G1 and G2. Now we have met 10,000 here at Giza before when we realize that The Great Pyramid is representing the square root of 3 and the height of this pyramid in inches is precisely, or was projected to be, the square root of 3 divided by 3 times 10,000 and we get 5773.50 inches. But after coming to terms with this latest coincidence one then would need to try to explain the following. What follows was pointed out by me last year but it is within a better framework that I offer it this year.

There have been many arguements on whether The Ancient Builders knew Pi and/or decimals and all I can say is how the heck could they have left the distance between G2 and G3 the exact DECIMAL VALUE or ratio of the distances between G1 and G2 if they did not know decimals ? I mean really how long can "they" keep yelling ... COINCIDENCE !

There are 4 different measurements at The Great Pyramid for the sides and as I have suggested in the past this is becasue I feel that there is probably at least 4 different solutions  But let's deal with just one scenario. Let us assume that The Pi angle was meant and used here at The Great Pyramid how would you prove to vistors to your pyramids that you had used Pi espeiclaly when 5.5 by 7 and Phi were so close. So how would you do it ? Well I am going to show how The Master Buidlers showed us !

In earlier posts I showed my reasoning for calling The Great Pyramid the square root of 3 and it is from that base that we branch out. The Pi angle is the ratio of Pi divided by 4 and so if the angle intended at Giza for G1 was indeed The Pi angle then 1/2 the base would be [(Pi / 4 ) times 5773.50] inches and we get  0.7853981634 times  5773.5026919 and we get 4534.4984 inches and multiplied by 2 gives us 9068.9968 or rounded off to 9069 inches well with the distances allowed at Giza which are as follows:

So we will stick with 9069 inches which is within one half of one inch to what is measured by Petrie. Now we can not forget about G3 which was miraculously placed precisely at the tan of the angle between centers of G1 and G2 but what of it's size ? Well here is what Petrie has for G3  ...

 North - unavailable
East = 4149.2 inches
South = 4157.8 inches
West = 4153.9 inches

Mean is 4153.6 icnhes

 So let us start with the mean and round up to 4154 inches. If we add this to G1 we get G3 + G1 = 4154. + 9069.0 = 13223 inches and would it not be somewhat convincing if this number in some way showed us Pi given the numbers we have already been using well how about this. 4154 / Pi = 1322.26 this checks to 4/10ths of one single inch and has convinced me that they intentionally encoded their understanding of this ratio. But as always at Giza there is always one more proof and so I offer this. One of the sacred measuremtns used at Sakkara for their arches or curves was the ratio 0.7 or 1.4 ratio and so what do we get when we use 4154 and 1.4 with a little help from our friend Pi ... do I really need to do the math ... well it is none other than  [(4154 / Pi) / 1.4 =  944.47 and again showing us our angle tan decimal of 9445. So what we have is G1 + G3 equal to 1/Pi  x 10 or 3.183098862. If we allow this then G3 is equal to precisely 1 unit and G1 is equal to [(1/Pi  x 10) - 1] or 2.183098862 and that is indeed what the numbers work out to. Are these just more coincidences ? I think not. In order to be a perfect fit we would only need 2/10th of an inch or 9069 / 2.183098862 or 4154.19. Proof I would suspect of intent. But we are not nearly done yet. Here is a diagram that illustrate this concept a bit better using 9068.8 and 4154.

But wait this post is supposed to be about The Bent Pyramid at Dahshur so maybe we should head on over there. see you there in a while ... to be continued.

Friday, October 10, 2014

Part II: Cubes and roots and squares, oh my !

Hi all please read Part I first.

In Part I it was shown by me how the AVERAGE speed of Neptune around The Sun was in the ratio of "the cube root of 1/2 the diagonal of The Great Pyramid (622.00 / 2) divided by 100 or 3.11 when we use the perfect measurements to show Pi of 439.82 for the base and 280.00 for the height . So I had a thought maybe ALL the planets were at a cube root of a number that we would find significance with and so I tried another planet and so I tried the one furthest from The Sun and that would be Pluto at about 5.874,000,000 kilometers from The Sun on it's semi major axis. I wondered could this give me a number that was important so I started trying "things" and came up with this marvelous solution. In books and online the suggested average speed of Pluto is anywhere from 4.67 to 4.7 ( I would guess that the latter was rounded) and that would give Pluto a ratio of Earth's speed of 29.78 / 4.67 or 6.37687366167 to 1. So in keeping with our theme I decided to cube this value to see what I would get and arrived at this number: 6.37687366167 cubed is 259.31249186591 but I have learned not to trust measurements online and so going to my elliptical measuring site I found out that the actual distance traveled by Pluto in a year is 36,348,870,300 kilometers. Now to calculate average speed we simply need to know how long a year is and we find two values for the year on Pluto. The first is "the sidereal orbital period" and this is 90,465 days while the second is "the tropical orbital period" and this is 90,588 days/ so now all we do is divide 36,348,870,300 kilometers by 90,588 / 24 (hours) / 60 (minutes) / 60 (seconds) and we get 4.6441528388 if we use 90,465 we get 4.65046722336. If we use the latter we get 29.78 / 4.65046722336 or 6.4036576476490935125430844545394 and this number cubed is 262.59371 (very close to the height of The Great Pyramid now and many feel that this is as high as it got) but the real numbers I am looking at are  6.3972269796157684960801651350896 and 4.6551420005717308801570872085312 for 29.78 / 6.3972269796157684960801651350896 = 4.6551420005717308801570872085312 okay be why 6.3972269796157684960801651350896 well this number cubed is Phi squared x 100 or 261.803398875.

Using these values we get 4.6551420005717308801570872085312 x 90,465 x 24 x 60 x 60 = 36,385,409,181.5 and the accepted value of  36,348,870,300 divided by 36,385,409,181.5 = 0.998996

So is the ratio of Pluto's average orbital speed to that of Earth's in the ratio of 1 to the cube root of Phi squared x 100 ?

Well what do you think ?

I was about to close this posting when I decided to see what the actual radius would be with our values for Pluto and got these values. For 36,348,870,300 if this was a perfect circle the radius would be 5,785,102,384 and if we used the number we got when we used Phi squared x 100 cubed then cube rooted we get 36,385,409,181.5 as the perfect circle and radius would be ... 5,790,917,728 and if we divide by 100 we get 57,909,177.28 and we have to be amazed that it is almost precisely the semi major axis of Mercury of 57,909,050 or an accuracy rating this time of 0.9999978 or about 1 in 22/10 millionths ! (22/10,000,000). So in other words we now have this solution for the orbital distance of Pluto. Actually quite easy to remember and quite brilliant as well. We simply use the semi major axis distance of Mercury (and how many times have I tried to tell you that Mercury is the messenger of the information of the gods ?) as a radius and simply calculate for circumference and we get 57,909,050 x 2 x Pi x 100 to get 36,385,329,211 and Phi squared x 100 cube rooted yields  36,385,409,182 simply amazing ... don't you think ?

 But there is still a bit more and I will continue with a solution for Eris and an explanation (maybe) for the outer reaches of our solar system and The Oort Cloud in Part III of  Cubes and roots and squares, oh my !


Thursday, October 9, 2014

Cubes and roots and squares, oh my !

Edited Oct 10th, 2014

Hi all. I will be using this a lot in the near future since my usual sounding board, Graham Hancock Message Forum, has issued me with an "indefinite suspension"  after deleting a series of post (Noah's Great Rainbow) that were moved from "Mysteries" to "Inner Space". Since that is not where I posted them and did not agree that that is where they should have been I deleted them and boy oh boy like all those in power they do not like people disagreeing with them so they kicked me off the board. Oh well ...

I continue to try to find rhyme or reason in the distances of the planets from The Sun and while trying a few things with the outer planets came up with this little gem. But first we must understand that Kepler found a neat little formula that explains the ratio of the planets. It is a formula that tells us where they are but not why they are there but maybe we can find that one day. Here is his third law:

The square of the orbital period of a planet is proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit.

Earth has it's orbital period 365.2564 days and we get for Mercury at 365.2564 / 87.969 (days in Mercury year)  or the orbital ratio period of Mercury as 4.152103582. Thus if we square this we get 17.2399641551892 and now if we find the cube root of this we get 2.5833234495 and if we check the semi major axis we get Mercury at 57,909,050 and times 2.5833234495 we get 149,597,806.8. Now the semi major axis of Earth is 149,598,261 so this checks for 149,597,806.8 / 149,598,261 = 0.999997 or basically an exact fit. But then we have to remember Giza and this is what I came up with.

Here is a chart that I think will be helpful:

In the chart I made above we have the speeds of the planets as they rotate around The Sun using Mercury as a base of 1 (the quickest) and the ratio of the speeds of the other planets as a percentage of the quickest and then we have how many times their speed can be divided into the speed of Mercury. [example: Mercury = 47.87 / 35.02 (Venus) = 1.366933 ] and the last column is the ratio of the semi major axis' with Mercury of 57,909,050 being 1 as a given. Now column 1 and 2 are simply reciprocals of each other so that for Earth 1/0.622102 is equal to 1.607455

So where does this leave us well we have this formula now:

Ratio of the ORBITAL PERIOD of any given planet in relation to Mercury and then squared will yield us the ratio of those same two planets semi major axis' CUBED !.

Example: Jupiter = 4332.59 days to orbit Sun divided by 87.969 days for Mercury to orbit sun) =  49.2513 and now squared and we get 2425.6932 and cube rooted =  13.43627 and Jupiter is 778,570,200 kilometers from The Sun so 778,570,200 / 57,909,050 = 13.444706829071 or 0.9993

But let's concentrate on Earth and Giza. For a very long time now I have made the claim that The Great Pyramid is representing  Earth AND Mercury (it is also really representing the entire solar system but that will be another posting) I have also pointed out (can't remember where) that the ratio of the speeds of Earth and Mercury of 0.622102 is strangely similar to the diagonal at Giza and The Great Pyramid of 440 cubits squared x 2 and square rooted to get 622.254 as you can see very close to 0.622102

Now as I mentioned I was doing work on the outer planets specifically Neptune and noticed that Neptune was ABOUT 30.08 AU (astronomical unit = 149,597,870.7 kilometers) from The sun on it's semi major axis. So what you might say well I was playing with cube roots and noticed this little gem ... cube root of 30.08 is ... 3.109992. Now because I have worked these numbers to death I immediately knew what this meant. If we multiply by 100 we get 310.992 and this is a very important number. But first back to The Great Pyramid. So now we go with a couple of IF's"

IF the height of The Great Pyramid was meant to be exactly 280 cubits  and

IF the angle involved was supposed to be Pi

we would get this:

Pi / 4 =  3.1415926535897932384626433832795 / 4 = 0.78539816339744830961566084581988 x 280.00 and we get for half the base of The Great Pyramid 219.91148575128552669238503682957 and times 2 we get 439.8229715 for the base. So what ? Well I am getting to the punch line. If we now calculate the diagonal of the perfect Pi measurements at Giza for The Great Pyramid we get ... Square root of [(439.8229715 squared) x 2) and we find it equals 622.0036 and now we find a couple of things.

1) 622.0036 is almost identical to the ratio of the speeds of Mercury and Earth but 1000 times larger

2) One half this number 622.0036 = 311.0018 and is virtually exactly (if we divide by 100 to get 3.110018) identical to THE CUBE ROOT OF NEPTUNE IN AU'S FROM THE SUN !

So 3.11018 cubed = 30.080755 and if we multiply this times 149,597,870.7 we get for the semi major axis of Neptune 4,500,016,888.4 and the number given for the semi major axis of Neptune ranges from 4,498,542,600 km to 4503443661 km (depending on site checked and my gut feeling that is was supposed to be 4,500,000,000 EXACTLY) and thus we have basically scored a bulls eye and have shown that the orbital period and distance of Neptune is directly related to the ratios of Earth and Mercury AND THE MEASUREMENTS FOUND FOR THE GREAT PYRAMID !

Now there is another clever discovery I have made which I will post a bit later on a new blog. Cheers and I hope you enjoyed this and the other of my blogs.

EDIT ADDED ON OCT. 10TH, 2014 @ 2:27 PM EDST.

This is from a post I made on a certain message board on Feb 20th, 2012:

As most of us here know in order for The Great Pyramid to work out to Pi exactly the dimensions would have to be 439.82. Using this measurement as the base allows all angles and everything else to equal Pi.

Now imagine my surprise as I was playing around with Bennett's numbers and decided to multiply 0.8660254 his distance from Venus to Earth if we allow Mercury's distance as 1. Total distance would then be 1.8660254 and if we divide this by 3 we get 0.622008468

Now I guess it is because I have worked with these numbers so much but I immediately recognized that number and came up with this.

0.622008468 x 1000 = 622.008468

If we allow this as a diagonal of a right angled 1,1 to sq rt of 2 triangle we get the sides to equal astonishingly as:

622.008468 squared = 386894.5342

386894.5342 / 2 = 193447.2671

Square root of 193447.2671 = 439.82641

Unbelievable ...

So the equation we have is this:

{[Sq rt of 3 divided by 2] + 1}
-------------------------------- x 1000 = Diagonal of G1 in it's perfect Pi form.

Nice and neat and accurate.

Now to this we can add sq rt of 3 divided by 2 and then add 1 to get 1.86602540378 and if we divide by 3 we get 0.622008468 but this is precisely the ratio of the speed of Earth to the speed of Mercury of 29.78 (average speed of Earth in km/sec) divided by 47.87 (average speed of Mercury of 47.87 IF WE USE THE SEMI MAJOR AXIS OF 57,909,050 AS THE RADIUS OF A TRUE CIRCLE) or 0.622102 accuracy 0.99984 (0.6220036 / 0.622102 )

Thursday, October 2, 2014

Noah's Great Rainbow

Noah's Great Rainbow

Searching for answers in the sacred writings of the past

I doubt if there is anyone educated and living on our planet who has not heard the story of Gilgamesh or the story of Noah and his ark and his saving mankind and all the animals from "The Flood". For those few who have not allow me to post just a bit of it from "The Bible".

5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.
9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

To make a long story short the "Lord" then sends the rains that continue for 40 days and 40 nights until all The Earth is covered and all the wicked are destroyed. Then this happens:

13 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.
14 And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.
15 And God spake unto Noah, saying,
16 Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons' wives with thee.

So finally The Earth is dry and man sets foot on it again but then "The Covenant" is made and that is the basis of this website. Here is the covenant made by "The Lord" (The Creator) to Man:

8 And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying,
9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;
10 And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.
11 And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
17 And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.

Before we move too deeply into this "myth" or "legend" let's again take a look at this verse:

13 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry

It seems apparent, at least it did to Clive Ross, that all the numbers in the Bible were symbolic and were really referring to something else other than what it appeared so following that lead in those days there were 30 days in a month and 12 months to a year and so 600 years (it is 600 because it is the very first day of the 601st year that the waters have receded) = 600 x 12 x 30 and it yields 216000 a number that is immediately recognizable to the number crunchers on the board.

This is taken from a new website I am working on where hopefully I will show that the story of Noah and The Ark and "The "Bow" Covenant were all symbolic for something else.

The website: Noah's Great Rainbow 

 There are a couple of theories I am going to examine as we get on. One will be that the Genesis account of The Biblical story of Noah and The Ark suggests that it is actually, and may depict, a journey of a spacecraft entering our solar system. (Clive Ross) and secondly that symbolically Noah may be mankind, The Ark The Earth and finally that the various bands of the asteroid belts are in fact exactly mimicking the light spectrum of our limited eyesight.

I hope you enjoy and any comments will be greatly appreciated.

 Okay firstly I am going to examine my own theory that the asteroid belt is exactly as it is supposed to be, exactly where it is supposed to be and that it could not have been any other way and that there is a very logical reason for thinking it might be Noah's Great rainbow. But first a word from Zechariah Sitchin. Sitchin was the first (as far as I can remember) who suggested that the biblical and Sumerian tale of the creation might in fact be a true account of the history of our world and that the asteroid belt was "the hammered out bracelet" as described in both Genesis and The Sumerian [Enuma elish (“When in the heights”), taken from its opening words.] As a further clarification of this we might use these words again taken from Genesis but always also in a much older Sumerian of Akkadian text and we have this: (note please read this page for an alleged version of the original Sumerian text)

 Genesis picks up the primordial tale here and describes the forming of the asteroid belt thus:

And Elohim said:

Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters and let it divide the waters from the waters. And Elohim made the Firmament, dividing the waters which are under the Firmament from the waters which are above the Firmament. And Elohim called the Firmament “Heaven.”

Realizing that the Hebrew word Shama’im is used to speak of Heaven or the heavens in general, the editors of Genesis went into some length to use two terms for “the Heaven” created as a result of the destruction of Tiamat. What separated the “upper waters” from the “lower waters.” the Genesis text stresses, was the Raki’a; generally translated “Firmament,” it literally means “Hammered-out Bracelet.”

It is my contention along with Sitchin and a few others that the waters that we being divided were a once watery Venus, a watery Earth and an also once watery Mars. Here is what this page has to day about that:

Data from two unmanned spacecraft that probed Venus for an extended period after December 1978, Pioneer-Venus I and 2, convinced the team of scientists that analyzed the findings that Venus “may once have been covered by water at an average depth of thirty feet”; Venus, they concluded (Science, May 7, 1982), once had “at least 100 times as much water in liquid form as it does today in the form of vapor.”

Subsequent studies have suggested that some of that ancient water was used up in the formation of the sulphuric acid clouds, while some of it gave up its oxygen to oxidize the rocky surface of the planet.

“The lost oceans of Venus” can be traced in its rocks; that was the conclusion of a joint report of U.S. and Soviet scientists
published in the May 1986 issue of Science. There was indeed water “below the Firmament,” not only on Earth but also on Venus.

The latest scientific discoveries have added Mars to the list of inner planets whose waters corroborate the ancient statement. At the end of the nineteenth century the existence of enigmatic “canals” on Mars was popularized by the telescopic observations of the Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli and the American Percival Lowell. This was generally laughed off; and the conviction prevailed that Mars was dry and barren. The first unmanned surveys of Mars, in the 1960s, seemed to confirm the notion that it was a “geologically lifeless planet, like the Moon.”

This notion was completely discredited when the spacecraft Mariner 9 launched in 1971, went into orbit around Mars and photographed its entire surface, not just the 10 percent or so surveyed by all the previous probes. The results, in the words of the astronomers managing the project, “were astounding.” Mariner 9 revealed that volcanoes, canyons, and dry river beds abound on Mars

So it is quite possible that "in the beginning" there was water on the inner planets and it is I think common knowledge that many of the moons of Saturn and Jupiter have ice and thus possibly watery moons and I think we all know that Uranus and Neptune are thought to be water giants.

Uranus: The ice mantle is not in fact composed of ice in the conventional sense, but of a hot and dense fluid consisting of water, ammonia and other volatiles.[11][58] This fluid, which has a high electrical conductivity, is sometimes called a water–ammonia ocean.[59]

Neptune: The mantle is equivalent to 10 to 15 Earth masses and is rich in water, ammonia and methane.[1] As is customary in planetary science, this mixture is referred to as icy even though it is a hot, highly dense fluid. This fluid, which has a high electrical conductivity, is sometimes called a water–ammonia ocean.[44] The mantle may consist of a layer of ionic water where the water molecules break down into a soup of hydrogen and oxygen ions, and deeper down superionic water in which the oxygen crystallises but the hydrogen ions float around freely within the oxygen lattice.[45] At a depth of 7000 km, the conditions may be such that methane decomposes into diamond crystals that rain downwards like hailstones.[46] Very-high-pressure experiments at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory suggest that the base of the mantle may comprise an ocean of liquid diamond, with floating solid 'diamond-bergs'.

Okay so it appears that in the very early chapters of Genesis and The Creation Story we have "The Creator creating the asteroid belt but it is a possibility that the this in fact is not quite true and that "the firmament was simply the corridor or space where it could be placed in the future but regardless for now let's fast forward to Bible Date: [b][u]Calculated BC date for the Flood: 2348 BC[/u][/b] Now surely you all must see the obviousness of the closeness with this date and the supposed date of the construction of The Great Pyramid. they are almost identical. Is there a clue here somewhere ?

What we are going to do now is assume that there was indeed a world wide flood of cataclysmic proportion and that the entire Earth was flooded to a depth of, well if we are going to cover Mt. Everest it is going to have to be 29,000 feet above the present sea level. That is a very large volume of water and works out very roughly precipitation equaling 1 inch every 9.93 sections if we assumed it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. (40 x 24 x 60 x 60 = 3456000 seconds and covering 29,000 x 12 = 348,000 inches)

Now I will have to think that the water that was presently on The Earth could not have turned into water vapor and returned to The Earth as rain so I would guess that the "water" came from outside in the form of comets or other water carrying bodies I would further wonder why nothing seemed to protect our planet from this barrage. But for whatever reason our ancient legends are ripe with the story of this inundation and it's aftermath of which the most colorful is probably Noah's ark.

The Bible is a very complicated piece of literature for it is always very important to try to reason whether it is being literal or being symbolic. In the case of Noah and his ark I would suspect it is being symbolic ... but for what ? Well before I move on does anyone want to weight in with their ideas ?

Hi all as we progress you will see how I came to the realizations I did, In order to understand what Noah's Rainbow was and is I should think we must go back to basics and study exactly what a rainbow is. Light has an unusual property and that is it always goes at the same speed in a given medium. for example in a total vacuum it would travel at the same speed all the time regardless of the color of the light. So this means that red light travels at the same speed as blue light and so on but how can that be ? Well to get to the explanation one has to but memorize a very simply solution. The frequency of light times it's wavelength will always, I repeat always equal 299,792,458 meters. As an example red has a wavelength of between approximately 700 and 635 nm (nanometers) or about on average 650 nm so it's frequency interval measure in Terra hertz (THZ) or thousand of cycles is equal to 299792458 divided by 650,000 and we find that we get a value of 461.22 THZ. Now as interesting as that is we find, and this is really a key observation I made, is that in the light spectrum, that very tiny band of visible electromagnetic radiation that our eyes perceive as something and allows us "to see" has an almost magical quality to it. And this is the fact that the maximum wavelength multiplied by the minimum frequency is virtually identical to the maximum frequency multiplied by the minimum wavelength and the values all lie between approximately 750 and 430 and so the rainbow can run in either direction as shown in the chart I made below.


And as an example 750 nm x 400 THZ = approx speed of light of 300,000,000 meters (exact would be 750 x 399.723277333333...)

And it is my contention that Noah's Great Rainbow does the same thing.

In the traditional color wheel used by painters, violet and purple are both placed between red and blue. Purple occupies the space closer to red, between crimson and violet. Violet is closer to blue, and is usually less intense and bright than purple.

While the two colors look similar, from the point of view of optics there are important differences. Violet is a spectral, or real color – it occupies its own place at the end of the spectrum of light, and it has its own wavelength (approximately 380–420 nm). It was one of the colors of the spectrum first identified by Isaac Newton in 1672, whereas purple is simply a combination of two colors, red and blue. There is no such thing as the "wavelength of purple light"; it only exists as a combination.

Monochromatic violet light cannot be produced by the Red-Green-Blue (RGB) color system, the method used to create colors on a television screen or computer display (a fact that is, indeed, true of any monochromatic color of the spectrum besides the shades of red, green, and blue chosen for the primaries). However, the system is capable of approximating it due to the fact that the L-cone (red cone) in the eye is uniquely sensitive to two different discontinuous regions in the visible spectrum – its primary region being the long wavelength light of the yellow-red region of the spectrum, and a secondary smaller region overlapping with the S-cone (blue cone) in the shortest wavelength, violet part. This means that when violet light strikes the eye, the S-cone should be stimulated strongly, and the L-cone stimulated weakly along with it. By lighting the red primary of the display weakly along with the blue primary, a relatively similar pattern of sensitization can be achieved, creating an illusion, the sensation of extremely short wavelength light using what is in fact mixed light of two longer wavelengths. The resulting color has the same hue as pure violet, however, it has a lower saturation.

Updated color chart:[/img]

 After noticing the curious fact that lower end of visible light (red) in nanometers x's highest end of visible light in violet gives us speed of light and that the rainbow could go either way when one used the absolute values derived in the tables I then noticed quite to my surprise and amazement that the numbers we were dealing with here in nanometers and frequency were the precise same measurements of a certain celestial object, namely the asteroid belt however in a scale ONE TRILLION TIMES LARGER ! It was quite a revelation. It was I think the clearest example that I have found for the old expression ... As Above ... So Below.

I am presently working on a color correct chart that will visibly show and express this theory. However as a first step let us use Jupiter. The semi major axis of Jupiter is 778,570,200 kilometers and if we divide by 1 TRILLION we get 778.57 nanometers and this is at the edge of the visible spectrum in violet if we use wavelength and at the lowest reaches of red toward infra red if we use frequency.

It is brilliant in it's simplicity and I guess shows us a couple of things, maybe. This could show conclusively that all rules apply to both the macro and the micro and secondly that the asteroid belt falling precisely within the visible spectrum but at a scale ONE TRILLION TIMES LARGER could in fact be the rainbow created for Noah and as a covenant to him from "The Creator".

The prospect is tantalizing and once I get my final chart done it will be perfectly obvious and clear. But in the meantime think about it. Here we have a species (Mankind) that has a very limited range of abilities and can only see within the electromagnetic spectrum from 400 to 800 nanometers and by a simple quirk of nature and random event the "hammered out bracelet" of Sitchin turns out to be at the exact same place in relation to the Sun (Ra and the Egyptian deity) but in a scale precisely 1,000,000,000,000 (ONE TRILLION TIMES LARGER) than the rainbow and the light spectrum.

To me it has to be the work of "The Creator"

Here is the chart from the old website of mine where I first introduced this theory. I am presently expanding and fine tuning it and color coding it exactly but in the meantime this will do I am sure.


Just a very quick side trip for now.

Uranus and this information:

Physical characteristics of Uranus

Mean radius 25362±7 km[8](b)

Equatorial radius 25559±4 km 4.007 Earths[8](b)

Polar radius 24973±20 km 3.929 Earths[8](b)

[8] Seidelmann, P. Kenneth; Archinal, Brent A.; A'Hearn, Michael F. et al. (2007). "Report of the IAU/IAG Working Group on cartographic coordinates and rotational elements: 2006". Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy 98 (3): 155–180.

(b) Refers to the level of 1 bar atmospheric pressure. [/quote]

Speed of light 299792.458 kilometers per second

Astronomical Unit = 149,597,871

Speed of light
-------------- x 1000 = 2.0039888

2.0039888 x 2 = [b][u]4.007977600[/u][/b]

Equatorial radius of The Earth is [b][u]6378.14 kilometers[/u][/b](7)(8)

(7) "Selected Astronomical Constants, 2011". The Astronomical Almanac. Retrieved 2011-02-25.

(8) World Geodetic System (WGS-84). Available online from National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.

4.007977600 x 12756.28 kilometers = 51126.88

Diameter of Uranus is 2 x 25559 ±4 km = 2 x 25555 to 25563 = 51110 to 51126 or an exact match.


Equatorial diameter of Uranus in kilometers = (speed of light x 1000 / value of an astronomical unit ) x 2 and then times equatorial diameter of our Earth.

Margin of error .... NONE !