| Author | Base 100 |
DavidK
Joined:
17-10-2014
Messages: 1329
from Derbyshire
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 04-09-2017 at 20:50
all the ancient systems appear to be base 100 as the core or base system.
Thom found a unit of 5.44 anf there are 5440 feet in his mile.
The Scots found a unit of 5.92 and there are 5920 feet in a Scottish mile.
The imperial is base 99 but it becomes decimal with a foot of 11.88 inches
[ This message was edited by: DavidK on 2017-09-05 08:45 ]
[ This message was edited by: DavidK on 2017-09-05 16:10 ]
 Profile
 Reply
|
DavidK
Joined:
17-10-2014
Messages: 1329
from Derbyshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-09-2017 at 09:32
Proximity to base 100.
It appears that the chain is the best way to discover what i call a systems 'proximity' to base 100.
The way to do it is multiply the chain by the sexigesimal unit number 6.
So the chains for the various systems are
Welsh 16 feet
English 16.5 feet
Thom 17 feet and
Scottish 18.5 feet
Giving the following 'proximities'
welsh 96
English 99
Thom 102 and
Scottish 111
The chain for the base 100 system is 16.666r giving a 'proximity' of 100
This is represented by the universal measurement of one imperial foot and represents 100 units.
So work out the 'foot equivalent' for each unit and get
Welsh 0.96
English 0.99
Universal 1
Thom 1.02
Scottish 1.11
So all units are related to 100.
then divide the mile by the above units
Welsh 5120 / 0.96 = 5333.333r ( a base 100 system)
English 5280 / 0.99 = 5333.333r
Universal 5333.333r / 1 = 5333.333r
Thom 5440 / 1.02 = 5333.333r
Scottish 5920 / 1.11 = 5333.333r
The conclusion being that they are all the same version of a base 100 system.
Also base 32 and base 6
6 x 5.333r = 32.
When you look at megalithic systems you don't look at the number as a whole you look at its components.
6 is 3 x 2
5.333r is 16 / 3
so no fractions in these numbers they are all whole
the numerator is 96
the denominator is 3
the answer is 32.
Separate above and below calculations.
And, because the imperial system includes all the bases from 1 to 12 the other systems can do as well.
And, because Thom's system includes all the bases from 13 to 17 the other systems can do too.
So bases 1 to 17 are in all the above systems and any multiples of them as well.
This is why it is possible to dozenalise the metric system simply by diving by 100 and multiplying by 99 to convert to the English (imperial system).
This is what the ancients hid from us by very smartly placing the foot a base 100 unit on top of a base 99 system and then dozenalising the foot to leave us completely confused.
So they did a double switch when they designed the imperial system and knew exactly what they were doing.
When the modern metre is imperialised the number of units in a metre become 39.60.
So 1.333r metres becomes 52.80 units
multiply by 2.5 and
3.333r metres become 132 units.
Anf if we now metricate this unit we get
132 x 100/99 = 133.3333r
The system just keeps going round and round on this infinite expansion.
So to put bases 1-12 into the metric system put 39.60 units into the metre.
This is then imperial system revisited with an inch of 0.25252525r centimetres and this is 2.5 x 100/99.
The MAIN POINT here is that the length of the unit is irrelevant because the system is numeric.
It just happens to be that the metre is 1/40000000 of the circumference of the Earth.
ALMOST FINALLY
Thom's system is 40 x 2.5
The imperial is 39.60 x 2.525252525r
Thom found no statistical evidence for the use of 36 units with his system. they had the imperial system for this relationship.
FINALLY
Base 100 circles
The chain
diameter 7 yards circumference 22 yards or 100 links.
Thom's chain
7.2121212121r yards circumference 22.666r yards or 68 feet or 1000 megalithic inches.
The systems are identical and bases 1 to 17 are included because Thom's system covers bases 13 - 17 as well as 1-12 and the difference between the imperial and Thom's system becomes apparent.
[ This message was edited by: DavidK on 2017-09-05 09:36 ]
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2327
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-09-2017 at 10:28
Quote:
| It just happens to be that the metre is 1/40000000 of the circumference of the Earth. |
|
To get a Universal measure that can be duplicated anywhere else, you can either use a pendulum to derive a measure or you base your measure on something fixed that can be measured. The pendulum method gives variable results.
The metre was originally defined as one ten millionth of the distance between the Pole and the Equator (a meridional definition: One quarter of the circumference of the Earth): If you are going to define a distance, the Earth itself is the only fixed measurable object that can be measured anywhere on the Earth. That is why the metre 'happens' to be forty millionths of the distance around the globe.
Here's a wiki article describing why the French Academy of Sciences selected the meridional ("size of the Earth") definition over the pendular definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre#History_of_definition
Profile
 Email
Reply
|
DavidK
Joined:
17-10-2014
Messages: 1329
from Derbyshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-09-2017 at 11:32
Quite Jon
it also just happens that 40000000 the polar circumference is 132000000 units when multiplied by 39.6 if metres are used 132000000 are units of 39.37/39.60 imperial feet and to convert to imperial feet multiply by 39.60/39.57 to get a circumference of 25000 imperial miles.
these things all just happen(ed)
A long long time ago.
I wonder what the French think about the metric system containing a replica of the imperial system?
[ This message was edited by: DavidK on 2017-09-05 16:43 ]
Profile
Reply
|
DavidK
Joined:
17-10-2014
Messages: 1329
from Derbyshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-09-2017 at 12:55
Hi Jon
you mentioned pendulum theory but this is more about time , the seconds pendulum.
To get the metric from the imperial multiply by 39.37/39.60.
Then imperialise the metric system by substituting 39.60 for 39.37
The seconds pendulum length is then 39.37/39.60 of a megalithic metre( this is the same as the French one)
39.37/39.6 = 0.994191919 x 100 =99.41919191919r centimetres.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seconds_pendulum
This is 39.37 metric inches ( which have not been re-invented yet)
39.37 x 100/99 x 2.5 = 99.41919191919r
This is equivalent to one barleycorn.
Bob asks the question
When is a carved stone ball not a carved stone ball?
Answer.
When it is a pendulum Bob.
no apologies for this one, another dustbowl joke.
[ This message was edited by: DavidK on 2017-09-05 13:08 ]
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2327
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-09-2017 at 14:00
It's a lot of maths manipulation David
Let's say that Professor Thom was about right: Thom said that the ancients used a megalithic yard: He said that this was about 0.83 metres.
A “megalithic foot” would therefore be about 0.27m. This happens to be about the same size as the average male foot or about the same size as a larger female foot.
Let's say that Stonehenge is a geocentric representation of our world: The ring of outer stones then represents the Earth
There are 30 stones in the outer circle of Stonehenge and there are 5 sets of trilithons at Stonehenge. Each trilithon contains 2 standing stones
Now 0.27 x 2 x 30 = 16.2m, which is the approximate radius of the outer face of the sarsen circle at Stonehenge
And 0.27 x 30 x 30 x 30 x 30 x 30= 6561km, which is the approximate radius of the Earth (6,371km)
You can count up to by counting to five on one hand and then raising a finger on the other to represent a count of “5”: The maximum simple counting system using two hands is the number 30.
If an argument is being made for a 100 system, or one of the other new megalithic yard/inch/foot measurements claimed by some, it's probably best to put forward some evidence that makes a stronger and simpler case than the above: The manipulation of numbers probably won't be good enough to warrant any attention.
Tim F got quite a bit of flack for noting (or perhaps claiming) a 70mm correlation of average sizes of ancient stone balls found in Scotland. Tim's dimension is about 1/12th that of Thom's megalithic yard: The balls may just represent to-scale ideas about what the Earth looks like.
Profile
Email
Reply
|
DavidK
Joined:
17-10-2014
Messages: 1329
from Derbyshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-09-2017 at 16:39
'Let's say that Professor Thom was about right: Thom said that the ancients used a megalithic yard: He said that this was about 0.83 metres.'
Let's say he was spot on with 2.72 imperial feet this is 32.84 megalithic inches or 102 units of 0.32 inches.
2.72 is base 102 converted to base 100 is 2.72/102 x 100 = 2.6666r
32 converted to base 99 is 2.64.
In inches 2.72 is 32.64
32.64 to base 100 is 32 and to base 99 is 31.68
If there are 2.5252525r cenimetres in the imperial inch
32.64 = 82.4242424r
32 = 80.80808080r
31.68 = 80
31.68/80 x 100 = 39.60.
Some people might be interested to know that the imperial system fits inside the metric system if a unit of 2.5 x 100/99 centimetres is used.
This is systems based analysis Jon. a wee bit more than maths manipulation.
just remember
Every time you see a metre it represents 39.60 units and 1.3333r metres represent 52.8 units.
3.3333r metres represent 132
10 metres represent 396.
40000000 metres x 39.60 represent 132000000
It is very simple.
The imperial inch is 100 / 39.37 = 2.54000508
The metric inch is 2.54000508 / 39.6 x 39.37 = 2.5 x 100/99 exactly
[ This message was edited by: DavidK on 2017-09-05 16:44 ]
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2327
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-09-2017 at 18:30
Quote:
| Let's say he was spot on with 2.72 imperial feet this is 32.84 megalithic inches or 102 units of 0.32 inches. |
|
2.72 imperial feet is 32.64 imperial inches. (2.72x12)
It's the mistakes that put people off trying to understand Dave.
Profile
Email
Reply
|
DavidK
Joined:
17-10-2014
Messages: 1329
from Derbyshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-09-2017 at 19:25
So you do know the accyrate meg tard after all Jon. ( don't get hooked in by a troll dave )
The polar circumference of the Earth is 40000000 metres this x 39.37 inches is 1574800000 inches.
131233333.333333r imperial feet.
If you divide this by 39.37 and multiply by 39.60 you get 132000000 imperial feet
If the metre represents 39.60 units and this is 3.3 metric feet then the metric circumference is 132000000 units not imperial feet but metric feet.
131233333.333r imperial feet is 132000000 metric feet.
40000000 x 39.60 is 1584000000 metric inches.
Don't you think it is more than a coinicidence?
Profile
Reply
|
davidmorgan
Joined:
23-11-2006
Messages: 3090
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-09-2017 at 19:59
> metric feet
Sounds poetic to me. Perhaps you could write your posts in iambic pentameter.
Profile
Reply
|
DavidK
Joined:
17-10-2014
Messages: 1329
from Derbyshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-09-2017 at 20:10
That is very good David, i am not allowed to use it though i am barred.
This metric inch has nothing to do with ancient measures it is simply 2.5 x 100/99 and there are exactly 39.60 of these units in the modern French speed of light metre.
So 52.80 in 1.33333 speed of light metres and 5280 in 133.33333 speed of light metres.
So this is the metric imperial system only the length of the inch is different.
So we can have our old system back.
the chain 792 metric inches is 2000 centimetres.
Quite tasty really.
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2327
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-09-2017 at 11:44
Quote:
| Don't you think it is more than a coinicidence? |
|
Looks like numbers to me Dave.
Numbers are interesting for the sake of it, but if they don't tell you anything other than the occasional coincidence about numbers, then it's just numbers being manipulated to get more numbers: Numbers are interesting to some people, but this site is largely about archaeology, so perhaps you're posting it in the wrong sort of forum?
Profile
Email
Reply
|
DavidK
Joined:
17-10-2014
Messages: 1329
from Derbyshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-09-2017 at 11:54
Hi Jon
I am working on a simplified calculation to tie in the numbers with the English Welsh scottish Thom and base 100 systems whicj i have already done but it seems to have just passed you by
Profile
Reply
|
DavidK
Joined:
17-10-2014
Messages: 1329
from Derbyshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 08-09-2017 at 11:04
Hi Jon
looking and Energyman's thread has helped to realise the base system (copyrighted) that works for all the others.
It is a mixture od 2 x 2 x2 x2 x2 x 2 and 1.25 x 1.25 = 100
1.25 is 5/4 so 4 becomes a denominator to cancel out 2x2 as a numerators and the system is very very simple, so simple you can't pass it by.
First the imperial
165 x 2 = 330
330 x 2 = 660
660 x 2 = 1320
1320 x 2 = 2640
2640 x 2 = 5280
5280 x 1.25 = 6600
6600 x 2 = 13200
13200 x 1.25 = 16500
And the base system embedded in all the other systems identified, the English, Scottish, Welsh, base 100, and Thom is as follows
1 x 2 = 2
2 x 2 = 4
4 x 2 = 8
8 x 2 = 16
16 x 2 = 32
32 x 1.25 = 40
40 x 2 = 80
80 x 1.25 = 100.
This is the root system and is as simple as can be, no units of length are required it just happens to be that 40000000 modern metres x 39.60/39.37 are 25000 ancient miles.
To produce the imperial sustitute 165 for 1
Thom substitute 170
Welsh 160
Scottish 185
Base 100 166.66666r
The systems are all designed by the same people and they weren't Saxons or Danes or Elizabethan. they weren't Picts but they were definitely their ancestors also Druids too.
[ This message was edited by: DavidK on 2017-09-08 15:36 ]
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2327
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 08-09-2017 at 18:02
Quote:
| looking and Energyman's thread has helped to realise the base system (copyrighted) that works for all the others. |
|
Marvellous. Glad to be of help.
Profile
Email
Reply
|
DavidK
Joined:
17-10-2014
Messages: 1329
from Derbyshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 08-09-2017 at 22:00
beg pardon jon?
Profile
Reply
|
DavidK
Joined:
17-10-2014
Messages: 1329
from Derbyshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 09-09-2017 at 09:39
Base 100 at the Aubrey circle
Base 100 manifests it self in several ways at the Aubrey circle.
1. Dividing by 99 and multiplying by 100 gives
89760 x 100/99 = 90666.6666r
Multiply this by 36 to get 3264000 Thom's megalithic yard.
2. In inches the metric inch of 2.5 x 100/99 works
89760 x 12 = 1077120
1077120 x 100/99 x 2.5 = 2720000 thom's megalithic yard
3. Divide by 1.1
89760/1.1 = 81600 = Thom's megalithic inch x 10000
4. Divide the above by 34 x 33 = 79200 the chain in inches so 100 links
5 Divide the 81600 by 12 to get 68 with zeros this is 1000 meg inches
Profile
Reply
|
