Once the actual height (480 feet) and actual southern base length (756 feet) are multiplied, the length of the 11th degree of latitude (Ethiopia) emerges, in English feet, as 362880 feet. However, in the numeracy of the 3rd millennium BC, a regular number would be used. In the last post, it was noted that John Neal’s discovery of such rectangular numbers to define degrees of latitude, multiplied the pyramid’s pointed height (481.09 feet) by the southern base length (756 feet) to achieve the length of the Nile Delta degree of latitude and, repeating Neal’s diagram relating the key latitudinal degrees of the ancient Model as figure 1, the Ethiopian degree is 440/441 of the Nile Delta degree. As shown above, the length of the 756 foot southern base is changed, when re-measured in the latitudinal feet for Ethiopia; it becomes the harmonic limit of 720 feet of 1.05 feet – normally called the root Persian foot.
Since the actual height of the pyramid is famously 440/441 of its ideal height, then this is why the length of the 11th degree is generated by the pyramid’s actual height of 480 feet. However, the latitudinal foot of the Ethiopian degree cannot be the English foot but must be a foot which, divided into 756 feet can remove the the factor seven (7) in composition of 756. We know that the 52nd degree has a latitudinal foot of 1.056 feet and the Ethiopian foot must be 175/176 of that foot or 1.05 (21/20) feet, the root of Neal’s Persian module within Mirrors.
When the above 362880 feet are divided by 21/20 the result is 345600 Persian feet and from this one can see that every degree was anciently conceived as 345600 latitudinal feet – Prior to 2014 (in Sacred Number and the Lords of Time) the case emerged for the 1/4 degree “monument” between Stonehenge and Avebury being 86400 latitudinal feet of 1.056 feet; between the two monuments.
As a consequence of this, the Day length (whose length is the Equator divided by the solar year in days) must have been seen (in the model of the earth), as 345600 feet of 25/24 feet which is also 360,000 English feet, the previous way of viewing it.
The scheme of 360,000 latitudinal feet in every degree rooted the geodetic model of the Earth to the root of the metrological system of fractions: the English foot (see following quote.) I believe this blind-sided the original geodetic work of Michell and Neal, accomplished within the Pyramid’s geodetic design: since 3456 is the length of the polar radius, in Royal miles (which are 8/7 of the English mile) the choice of 345600 as the number of latitudinal feet in any given degree, enabled every 100 latitudinal feet to equate to a Royal mile of the polar radius.
Unlike the others, which relate to … degrees of latitude …[the English units] have constant lengths from which the duodecimal aspects of the others are revealed. Evidently they have a different origin. In the diagrams of traditional astronomy, as described by Theon of Smyrna, the movement of the sunrise point throughout the year was figured as a circle divided into 365 ¼ parts. According to Needham, this method … was applied in archaic China to the circle of the equator. In that case, taking the length of the Equator to be 131,490,000 ft. or 24,903.4 miles, each degree of longitude contains 360,000 English feet …precis from Ancient Metrology. John Michell. 1981.
The pole was conceived as the root, the minor axis of an elliptical section for the geodetic model, and 345600 was the canonical number to best represent the pole in every degree of latitude whence the root Geodetic Foot was 25/24 feet and not the English foot which, as root of the metrological system, has no numerical properties; being the number one within metrology.
The geodetic Manx foot is the only foot which has the micro-variations of 176/175, 441/440 and their product 126/125, between the simple rational fractions 25/24, 22/21 & 21/20 feet. The Manx, the inverse of the Roman module (24/25), was recently found on measuring rods in the the Isle of Man museum [Paul Quayle, 2017]. It is also a key musical interval, the chromatic semitone (enabling 12 notes in an octave) whilst being the Pythagorean triangle whose third side is 7.
The most important consideration in adopting 345600 rather than 360,000 is the type of numeracy used to store numbers and make calculations prior to 2500 BC – using lengths (metrological fractions) and geometries (such as the circles and right triangle). Modern numeracy cannot see and would not expect to find this type of pattern within the latitudinal degrees. It would be natural for the Egyptian gods to have been responsible for it which begs the question, who was responsible for this pattern in the elliptical cross-section of the spinning Earth?
Not able to answer that better-open question, one can say that if the pyramidion above the flat top of the Great Pyramid were to exceed its ideal apex, then a point 2.7428571 (96/35) feet above the platform. This height above the pyramid base of would create a rectangular number, in the latitudinal feet at the latitude 51-52 degrees (of Stonehenge and Avebury) of 482.7428571 x 756 = 364953.6 feet. This, divided by 1.056 feet, is 345600 latitudinal feet and one quarter of this degree is the distance between Stonehenge and Avebury. You can see where this is going.
sequence of posts
- Units within the Great Pyramid of Giza
- Ethiopia within the Great Pyramid
- Recalibrating the Pyramid of Giza
- A Pyramidion for the Great Pyramid
- Berriman, A. E. Historical Metrology. London: J. M. Dent and Sons, 1953.
- Heath, Robin, and John Michell. Lost Science of Measuring the Earth: Discovering the Sacred Geometry of the Ancients. Kempton, Ill.: Adventures Unlimited Press, 2006. Reprint edition of The Measure of Albion.
- Michell, John. Ancient Metrology. Bristol, England: Pentacle Press, 1981.
- Neal, John. All Done with Mirrors. London: Secret Academy, 2000.
- —-. Ancient Metrology. Vol. 1, A Numerical Code—Metrological Continuity in Neolithic, Bronze, and Iron Age Europe. Glastonbury, England: Squeeze, 2016.
- —-. Ancient Metrology. Vol. 2, The Geographic Correlation—Arabian, Egyptian, and Chinese Metrology. Glastonbury, England: Squeeze, 2017.
- Petri, W. M. Flinders. Inductive Metrology. 1877. Reprint, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.