Rooi, your thoughts...

If I told you to imagine a square. Importantly, I want you to pick any size of square that you like. As small or as big as you want. And you end up randomly selecting a size.

Now draw the biggest circle that you can inside of that square. IE each inner side of the square should be touched by the edge of the circle.

Now draw the smallest circle that you can around the outside of the square. IE The circle should touch each corner of the square.

Now, if I told you to add up the two circumferences of those circles and your answer ended up being 99.99% accurate to the most important universal constant that we know of, would you agree that the precise size of initial square that you chose was extremely coincidental? Especially if the answer was a very large number.

Because remember, the size of square that you randomly chose, that's what would determine your final answer. So it's not some trick where you always end up with the same answer.

hahahahahahaha Plum just one big problem. rooitwit doesn't have any of his own thoughts he is a globalist programmed nutjob! When have you heard him utter anything otherwise! Hahahahhahahahahahaha

Bu please continue one awai ts "rooitwits" response!

Crumbs, Mozart....this is like Professor Higgins teaching Eliza Doolittle, proper english

LOL

Setting the derivative to 0, we get

4r3h?r2h2=0?4r?h=0?h=4r

Plugging this into our equation for R2

we get

R2=r2(4r)4r?2r=4r32r=2r2

Hence R=2–?r and h=4r minimizes the volume

Rooi

Apologies.

I typed this on my phone while in company so didn't make the objective clear.

I didn't want you actually pick a randomly sized square.

It was more about the idea that if you did pick a randomly sized square, then did the calculation involving the circles, what the chances would be of you landing within 99.99% of a very large and very important number.

To clarify. The square square is the base of the great pyramid at Giza and the constant is the speed of light.

Always found that quite interesting. Partly because I know that those circles would be found on an early architectural drawing when creating a structure with a square(yes it's not a proper squares since it actually has eight sides) base. 

There is nothing to suggest that if it were measured while still fully intact, the calculation wouldn't be 100% the speed of light.

My feeling is that people too easily call these coincidences. The structure itself's alignment to one six hundredth of a degree north, it's angles with one five thousandth of a degrees precision, it's obvious inclusion of the golden number lends itself to the idea that nothing to do with it was happy coincidence.

For example, how many squares would have had to imagine before you got one that encoded the speed of light so simply? A million...a billion?

The other interesting thing I saw recently was granite boxes weighing over a hundred tons being moved down long hallways(7m wide) cut into mountains. Some of the boxes are moved right to the end of the hall, meaning they could not be dragged by hundreds of people or even say, 40 elephants. They had to be pushed. The boxes then each sit inside their own enclave which only leaves about 1m to 2m space around the box.

I thought that raising the box, then wedging a thick rod under it as a lever, then jacking that lever up, that might work to shift it forward. How thick would my copper lever be and how compact a jack could I build from wood, copper and rope? 

Ja, I'm going on a bit, again. Have a look at how they say the 20 ton blocks for the pyramid we're moved. Now imagine that happening inside a narrow tunnel, with something five times the weight and without the ability to drag. Have a look at the machinery we use today to move objects of that weight.

Plum, it's quie obvious that there are  quite a few things in our history that don't add up and in no small way either. There are also some sort of "conspiracy" in our sciences community to trivialize these "coincidences "....and then one should start asking "why".

Some things will probably never be known, but we would still have been "monkeys" if it weren't for the "why" monkeys. 

Yes, as I said, I didn't lay it out properly as I was bit distracted

Anyhow, co-incidence?

Cool. Try this one on.

Let's say you wife's name is Wendy. Let's say you work on Wdneadays, between 08:00 and 12:30.

One day you find a message on Wendy's phone that reads...

Hiya my sexy Wendy. Is he working on Wednesday morning again? Can't wait to see you. Last time was so much fun.

You ask Wendy about it and she says that it must be a coincidence that this person sent the message to a wrong number with the same name and that the Wendy in question also has a husband that works on Wednesday mornings...or plays chess on Tuesday afternoons hehe

Show me one person that'd call that'd a coincidence. 

Nobody would. 

It's weird. The entire structure is built with great mathematical precision and using techniques that we can't yet figure out or prove, but we put most of what comes out of it down to chance.

The problem comes when you pile all the coincidences on top of each other. There's a very long list.

At some point it's simpler to say that that they were way more advanced than we can accept and they had knowledge which is entirely mysterious it's origin.  

"I didn't want you actually pick a randomly sized square."

Indeed Draad

There's a big piece of the pie missing.

Everyone agrees that we don't know everything. People struggle to accept that other groups in history unlocked different parts of the puzzle to what we have.

We reached the atomic age at some point and we've used our understanding of the atom to achieve various outcomes. 

We know nothing about gravity though. We know even less about dark matter and energy. 

Maybe someone in the past figured out some things that we haven't. 

The question is probably whether they needed microscopes, electricity and a grant from the Gates foundation to do so :)

Interesting to hear you speak like this Plum but I got the impression that you thought DNA was all chance? 

DNA if far, far more amazing than the pyramids. 

What do you think of the fine tuning of the Universe? 

Too easy Moz......had to laugh, while Koosie got stuck on "I don't understand......" you had it figured. Crashbang goes the Fatlip who's always telling us that you're dumb and ignorant. Sounds like the only skills he has is to snoop and to spot homosexuals.

"You can join in if you want Peeper..."

Moz

As a math man, what are your thought on what I tried to ask Rooi?

Also, I take it you're aware of some of the geometrical coincidences involving the great pyramid. 

You rate it is something a bit special or is it just a case of build a pyramid using the golden number and a bunch of interesting numbers will automatically occur?

You rate it is something a bit special or is it just a case of build a pyramid using the golden number and a bunch of interesting numbers will automatically occur?

Not quite, but the Fibonacci Sequence is quite interesting too. A bit too exact for pure randomness.

Lots of odd coincidences.

Beeno

I'm interested in both ancient sites and genes. 

As for which is the most complex, it's a chicken and egg thing. Genes would mean nothing without results and results would not be possible without the complex underlying systems that brought them about.

So ja, i dig it all

Moz

Yes i saw the co-ordinates/light speed thing, that was shown to be wrong if i remember correctly. Also, the location of the pyramid ahs changed over time because of tectonic plates and what not...apparently.

What i was referring to was specifically as stated. Except i got it wrong. I was adding the two instead of subtracting the first circumference from the second.

Probably strange to carry out the calculation in meters, until you find out that the cap stone of the great pyramid was exactly one meter tall.

Circ a) - Circ b) = 299.765516M

Speed of light = 299792458M/s

Nice, i'd like to visit Mexico, Peru and Bolivia at some point.

Saw an exhibition some years ago in London where the gold works of the Egyptians and Mayans was compared. They tried to put items of similar importance and size side by side. So much of the Egyptian stuff looked, perfecrt i guess. Simplistic, symetrical, elegant and suggestive. The mayan's looked a lot more like they had totally been abusing the mimosa hostillis plant a tad too much haha. Still, both were amazing in their own way.

Who decided the length one meter should be? Was it the fact that the volume of a ton of water is 1m cubed? So distance and weight units were derived from the properties of water....and time by the rotation of a sphere. The 360 degrees only starts to make sense if you bring Pi and radials into it.

Much more thought went into these things than it seems on the surface. Again, there seems to be a Natural Order...Golden Ratio....will the aliens have more answers, and where are they? Why are they hiding?

The history of the metre starts with the scientific revolution that began with Nicolaus Copernicus's work in 1543. Increasingly accurate measurements were required, and scientists looked for measures that were universal and could be based on natural phenomena rather than royal decree or physical prototypes. Rather than the various complex systems of subdivision in use, they also preferred a decimal system to ease their calculations.

With the French Revolution (1789) came a desire to replace many features of the Ancien Régime, including the traditional units of measure. As a base unit of length, many scientists initially favored the seconds pendulum (a pendulum with a half-period of one second), but this was rejected when it was discovered that it varied from place to place with local gravity. A new unit of length, the metre was introduced - defined as one ten-millionth of the distance from the North Pole to the equator.

For practical purposes however, the standard metre was made available in the form of a platinum bar held in Paris. This in turn was replaced in 1889 by thirty platinum-iridium bars kept across the globe. However, using such physical objects as the standard had been something that the original definition had aimed to avoid, so in 1960 a new definition based on a specific number of wavelengths of light from a specific transition in krypton-86 allowed the standard to be universally available by measurement. In 1983 this was updated to the current definition:

Aag, no bites. Darn!

Spoilsport!

Lol Draad

I was busy posting a lekker reply yesterday when the power went out. 

You probably do, but in case you don't, have a look at everything that the metric system comprises. It links everything...pressure, energy, distance, electricity, mass...the whole lot.

An easy example is, 10 meters of water height = 1 bar of pressure. So the average pressure in your car tires (2.4 bar) is the equivalent of the amount of pressure exerted on you when you dive 24 meters below the water's surface.

That's just the start. Joules, Watts etc of them fit into the system.

Here's a video on the pyramids that i watched recently.

C heck out these massive "co-incidences".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEK0cLd5LPU

Hi Plum, I know the metric system for different units quite well and  I  can understand why scientists decided to change some of the units of measurement when they did. Doing some of the calcs in imperial units can get confusing. Pity gravitational acceleration isn't an exact 10m/s/s. That would have made things more interesting....and standard atmospheric pressure is also very close to 1 bar.

Draad?

I'm changing your name to Dread. Autocorrect keeps wanting me to ;)

Did you watch the video I linked?

Not yet, only pop in now and then. Will watch later. Our universe is far too interesting to be by chance...Aliens or God..we are not alone and Eargh did not "evolve" to the way it is by random chance. There were lots of interferences/guidance...I have reason to believe the Devine angle...you seem to be leaning towards Aliens....aybe the same thing?

Relax Beenz, I'm not turning Dark Side.

Watched it now Plum. Reminds of "Bible Code". These things all tie in together..

I'm no fan of gematria, but I do know quite a bit about geometry and geometrical or graphic calculations. Before computers, they used geometric method's to calculate most things in engineering. ..math with angles and lines in stead of numbers. I had Technical Drawings as a school subject. Does wonders for your 3D visualization and gives a wider perspective on geometry.  Lots of masons and engineers uses graphical maths in stead of numbers. Pythagoras was either an engineer or a mason.

Plum, you are definitely an agnostic leaning towards "God"...in fact, I think you are already a theist, but you are unsure about who or what God is...don't worry, there is order in the universe...and a sense of fair ness.  Seek the Truth and you will find it. ...Corny as hell, I know!