Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[sacredlandscapelist] Rennes-le-Chateau and the Royal Cubit

Expand Messages
  • Dan Washburn
    This is an excerpt from a note to Simon Miles on his Rennes-le-Chateau work: http://www.consciousevolution.com/Rennes/Default.htm I ve been thinking about your
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 28, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      This is an excerpt from a note to Simon Miles on
      his Rennes-le-Chateau work:

      http://www.consciousevolution.com/Rennes/Default.htm

      I've been thinking about your discoveries and a point that is sticking
      in my head is your designation of the Egyptian Royal Cubit as 1.717 ft.,

      even if that figure was blessed by Isaac Newton.

      Not that I know anything about historical metrology, but John Michell
      has a very neat scheme that he sets out in City of Revelation:

      1.2165 feet = 1 Egyptian Remen
      1.2165 feet x root 2 = 1.72 feet = 1 Egyptian Royal Cubit

      A square of side 1 Remen has a diagonal of 1 Royal Cubit.
      Cubit measures elbow to fingertip and Remen is shoulder to elbow.

      1.2165 feet x root 3 = 2.107 feet = 1 Palestinian Cubit
      1.2165 feet x root 4 = 2.433 feet = 1 Roman Pace
      1.2165 feet x root 5 = 2.72 feet = 1 Megalithic Yard.

      Coincidence or design?

      Using 1.72 ft preserves the Michell relationships and doesn't
      make much of a difference to the radius of the RLC church
      circle. I work it out to be 15480 instead of 15453 ft.
      equivalent to 188.78mm on the map. Still well within your
      acceptable range of variability.

      The relationship to the Megalithic Yard
      will perhaps allow you to examine RLC in the
      light of A. Thom's work on Megalithic geometry.

      MY = root 5 x Royal Cubit / root 2

      or root 5 Royal Cubit = root 2 MY

      which means that 5 square Royal Cubits
      is equal to 2 square Megalithic Yards.

      Michell also mentions the Megalithic Mile (p119),
      a unit deduced by J.F.Neal from examining the
      intervals between ancient sacred sites. It is
      2.727272 etc miles. There are 14,400 feet in
      one megalithic mile and the distance between
      Stonehenge and Silbury Hill is 6 megalithic miles, or
      86,400 ft.

      The 2.727272 figure appears in the dimensions of
      the earth and the moon. If the earth is 10, the moon
      is 2.727272. Earth = 7920 miles in diameter. Moon
      is 792 megalithic miles in diameter.

      Warm Regards,

      Dan W.


      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/sacredlandscapelist
      Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
    • Dan Washburn
      I thought the list might be interested in a letter from Simon Miles about his work on Rennes-le-Chateau, so I asked if I could pass it on. For more info see
      Message 2 of 2 , Mar 3, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        I thought the list might be interested in a letter from Simon Miles about
        his work on Rennes-le-Chateau, so I asked if I could pass it on.

        For more info see his Website:
        http://www.consciousevolution.com/Rennes/Default.htm


        Here is my original note to him, his answer is below:

        > I've been thinking about your discoveries and a point that is sticking
        > in my head is your designation of the Egyptian Royal Cubit as 1.717 ft.,
        > even if that figure was blessed by Isaac Newton.
        >
        > Not that I know anything about historical metrology, but John Michell
        > has a very neat scheme that he sets out in City of Revelation:
        >
        > 1.2165 feet = 1 Egyptian Remen
        > 1.2165 feet x root 2 = 1.72 feet = 1 Egyptian Royal Cubit
        >
        > A square of side 1 Remen has a diagonal of 1 Royal Cubit.
        > Cubit measures elbow to fingertip and Remen is shoulder to elbow.
        >
        > 1.2165 feet x root 3 = 2.107 feet = 1 Palestinian Cubit
        > 1.2165 feet x root 4 = 2.433 feet = 1 Roman Pace
        > 1.2165 feet x root 5 = 2.72 feet = 1 Megalithic Yard.
        >
        > Coincidence or design?
        >
        > Using 1.72 ft preserves the Michell relationships and doesn't
        > make much of a difference to the radius of the RLC church
        > circle. I work it out to be 15480 instead of 15453 ft.
        > equivalent to 188.78mm on the map. Still well within your
        > acceptable range of variability.
        >
        > The relationship to the Megalithic Yard
        > will perhaps allow you to examine RLC in the
        > light of A. Thom's work on Megalithic geometry.
        >
        > MY = root 5 x Royal Cubit / root 2
        >
        > or root 5 Royal Cubit = root 2 MY
        >
        > which means that 5 square Royal Cubits
        > is equal to 2 square Megalithic Yards.
        >
        > Michell also mentions the Megalithic Mile (p119),
        > a unit deduced by J.F.Neal from examining the
        > intervals between ancient sacred sites. It is
        > 2.727272 etc miles. There are 14,400 feet in
        > one megalithic mile and the distance between
        > Stonehenge and Silbury Hill is 6 megalithic miles, or
        > 86,400 ft.
        >
        > The 2.727272 figure appears in the dimensions of
        > the earth and the moon. If the earth is 10, the moon
        > is 2.727272. Earth = 7920 miles in diameter. Moon
        > is 792 megalithic miles in diameter.
        >
        > Warm Regards,
        >
        > Dan W.

        dear dan,

        thanks for your thoughts and lovely numbers. yes, i am familiar with john
        michells books and also find all of these relations extremely fascinating.

        the royal cubit: i have not yet posted my full discussion on this, but there

        is much to be said. without being able to quote all the references off the
        top
        of my head (though can find them in my library if you would like), the first

        thing i think that can be said about the royal cubit is that it does in fact

        take quite a spread of values. it seems that it was measured at slightly
        different lengths at different geographical locations. if memory serves,
        there
        are cubits in egypt from about 20.55 inches up to about 20.8 inches
        approximately.

        my feeling on this, though i havent fully explored this, is that there is a
        local astronomical means of determining a royal cubit which produces a
        slightly different value dependent on latitude. that it, there is a "core"
        value, and then a series of very slight variations on this figure. i am
        aware
        that the 20.612 figure which i choose to use is generally a little shorter
        than the accepted figure published today. however, the reason that i do this

        is because i am captivated by Skinners concept that the derivation of this
        length is from the archetypal circle circumference value of 20,612
        (corresponding to a diameter of 6561).

        but you are absolutely correct in saying that these small variations still
        produce very satisfying fit to the rlc circle.

        the royal cubit/remen square i find particularly interesting. here is an
        astonishing discovery: if one takes such a square in actual size, and lays
        it
        over the 1:25 000 scale rennes map: this square almost exactly encloses the
        rlc circle of churches!!!!!

        that is, not only is the circle in the landscape dimensioned in royal
        cubits,
        but the map circle at 1/25 000 scale has a diameter of virtually one
        remen!!!!!!!!! the difference is less than one quarter inch from memory.

        if you have explored Paul Royses site The Holy Grail Revealed, with another
        take on the rennes geometry, he talks about a circle which he has found in
        the
        landscape, a different circle to the circle of churches. he does not mention

        it, but this circle which he has found has a diameter on the 1:25 000 map of

        virtually 1 sacred cubit!!!!!! (ahem, i found this!)

        this seems to me to suggest additional evidence that the 1:25 000 scale map
        truly was employed as the "plans" of the geometry!

        in any case, there is little doubt that all of these different measures form
        a
        cohesive system which is simply astonishing.

        what makes royal cubits so compelling is that the area measure which is
        derived from them, the aroura, also shows significant application to the rlc

        circle. i may have mentioned this, but if not: the "year-circle" in the
        antechamber of the great pyramid, of diameter 365.25 inches has an area of
        exactly one quarter aroura. hence this quarter aroura area comes to
        symbolise
        the solar year. it can also be expressed as a square of 5 royal cubits to
        the
        side.

        amazingly enough, the rennes circle also exhibits very nearly this same
        area,
        increased by a factor of 10. ( i ignore factors of ten in all of this, but
        what i am exploring here is the concept that if two circles have areas in
        relation of 10 to 1, then the circumference of one is the diameter of the
        other (very nearly). this works because pi is virtually root 10).

        all of these results are subject to very small variation. but within this
        small variation, the rennes circle of churches is:

        3/phi inches diamater
        18 000 royal cubits diamater
        2.5 aroura area
        and circumscribed on the 1:25 000 map by the remen/royalcubit square!

        one circle shows up these four simple measures! coincidence?!?!?! not for my

        money!

        hence: the 18 000 royal cubit diameter circle is a quarter aroura, or solar
        year circle. now, with this in mind: observe that the interior works of the
        great pyramid have a height of 180 royal cubits (see behind the words "how
        simple the solution" in teh eco quote at beginning of my site), also that
        the
        pillars in the temple of solomon were 18 royal cubits in height, and, if
        thats
        not enough, check out the last verse in the book of ezekiel! (apologies if i

        have already mentioned all this!)

        my site has been updated quite a bit lately. i wonder what you think of the
        method of drawing the geometry, with the grid of 18 by 19 inche squares? i
        have left out lots of collaborative snippets about this, but my aim was just

        to show the barebones of a reliable robust method of drawing the Wood
        pentagram, something Wood cannot do in two fat books if i may be pardoned a
        moment of immodesty!

        also new on the site are animations of the crux precessional shift ideas.
        also
        plenty more to come, but i guess theres more than enough there already. its
        probably getting a bit confusing actually, so i think i may add some kind of

        breif overall summary to help see the big picture. id love to hear your
        comments on how it all looks.

        stay in touch! hope all goes well for you!

        best regards

        Simon

        ps

        just realised that, per you email, if 5 square royal cubits is 2 square
        megalithic yards, as indeed it is, and if the rlc circle is a quarter aroura

        circle, ie 2.5 square royal cubits:

        then:

        the rlc circle has an area of 1 square megalithic yard!!!!!!! (again, as
        always, factors of ten are ignored).

        now this is something i havent thought of before and this is truly
        amazxing!!!!!!

        simon


        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/sacredlandscapelist
        Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.