An engraved rock made from ancient advanced technology - co-writer Steven Strong

[shamanseeker]

http://wakeup-world.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Australian-Stone-Alignments.jpg

4th September 2014

By Dr Derek Cunningham with Steven & Evan Strong

Contributing Writers for Wake Up World

Dr. Derek Cunningham made contact with us after reading our first article on the engraved rock: An Original Engraving Made by Ancient Advanced Technology. It soon became apparent his extensive work and research was a perfect fit and an essential element in making sense of this unique artefact. We now work in partnership and this article is one part of this process.

Recently we presented what is intended to be the first in a series of articles discussing some of the implications associated with an amazing engraved rock recently discovered in Australia that has rightly drawn comparison with the Blombos Rocks of South Africa; an engraved stone that is one of a select group of artefacts dating from circa 400,000 years ago to 70,000 years ago that shows the earliest evidence of conscious, non-survival related thought in early human history.

Read more: http://wakeup-world.com/2014/09/04/the-rock-that-may-rewrite-chapters-of-world-history/

[KosmicKat]

used for the prediction of eclipses? very interesting

[777]

A lot of 33 degree angles there.

Makes you wonder no.....?

[Seikou-Kishi]

Surely the only thing an ancient, engraved rock could be made from would be a slightly larger, older rock? Lol

Seriously though, we can only deduce meaning from the numbers (like angular degrees) when we ascertain the measuring system of the creating culture. For example, we could say that the stone has some sort of significance because it weighs 7 stone and 7 is a number with a lot of associations. If we were to weigh it in kilograms, would we decide that a weight of just under 44 and a half kilograms was significant? 44.452 doesn't mean much as far as I can tell, but 7 appears all over the place. In either case, the weight remains the same, but the unit of measurement is the deciding factor.

When we measure the angles we are assuming that the creating culture also divided a circle up into 360 degrees. Our system with 360 degrees has a lot of cultural baggage behind it, including a historic sexagesimal (base 60) number system. 360 is a number with a great number of divisors: we can easily divide a circle of 360 into many different sizes: two parts of 180 degrees, three of 120, four of 90, five of 72, six of 60 and so on.

Just as many wish to replace Imperial miles with metric kilometres, there is a "metric degree" which divides a circle into 400 degrees so that each right angle is an even 100 degrees rather than 90. In conversion to or from metric degrees, any significance of angular measurement would be lost. The only data that wouldn't be lost would be relative data: the ratio of the size of one angle to another. In a circle, angles in a Phi or Golden relationship will always be the same size whether you regard the angles as 138 to 222 (360 degree circle/standard degrees), 153 to 247 degrees (400 degree circle/metric degrees) or 2.4 to 3.9 radians.

All of these are different ways of expressing the same angle (the only inaccuracies are a result of rounding). 138 degrees = 153 metric degrees (grads/gons) = 2.4 radians. 222 degrees = 247 metric degrees = 3.9 radians. As you can see, in three different angular measurement schemes, the numbers are completely different, however they all represent the same angle and, crucially, all represent the same relationship: angles in golden ratio. This is the only sort of information we can rely on until we know what measuring system the creating culture used.

We can't assign meanings to the measurements of those angles in our measuring system and assume that the significance holds true; unless the creating culture also used the same measuring system, the information is lost in translation. I've mentioned three angular measuring systems so far, but there are others, another is to specify the angle as a fraction of a turn (a revolution).

To express the angle 222 degrees, 247 metric degrees or 3.9 radians as a turn, you'd have to employ two consecutive numbers from a Fibonacci sequence, with accuracy increasing with number size. For example, you could say that it is very roughly 3/5s, or 5/8s, ... 34/55s, ... 987/1597s. This is true because I'm using the golden ratio as an example of universal or objective meaning, as opposed to the "accident of denomination" we find in construing any of those angles as being of 33 degrees.

So I've mentioned four different schemata for measuring angular magnitude. There's the most familiar system, or the degree (sexagesimal degrees), the grad/gon (metric degrees), the radian and the turn. These are cosmopolitan schemata used throughout the globe, separate cultures probably have their own systems. Metric systems are decimal, that is, base-10 maths, while there are many cultures which are octal (base-8), from counting on the fingers and excluding the thumbs. There are quinary systems (base-5) which are based on one-handed counting (it's often a sub-base in base 10, as can be seen in French separating out it's 11-19 at 15, with the words for 16, 17, 18 and 19 combining the word for 10 with 6, 7, 8 and 9). And there are vigesimal systems (base-20), which Europe also used ("three score and ten" to mean 70) and, as with traditional degrees, the sexagesimal (French Soixante-dix for 70, being sixty-and-ten).

All of these different number systems have been used and are used by humans today. Higher bases were used for larger numbers, and larger numbers produced smaller, more precise segments (hence an hour of 60 minutes and a minute of 60 seconds, rather than an hour of 10 really long minutes, etc.) some of these number systems are very rational. Sixty is useful because it has a high number of factors which makes division easier: we can split an hour into 30-minute halves, 20-minute thirds, 15-minute quarters, 12-minute fifths, 10-minute sixths, 6-minute tenths, 5-minute twelfths, 4-minute fifteenths or thirty pairs of minutes.

The usefulness of the number 60 (demonstrated by its high number of factors) makes it likely that other civilisations unconnected with our own would simultaneously develop a number system that in some way incorporates the number 60. What is much less likely are the lesser numbers: bases 5, 8, 10 and 20 are all based on human anatomy and the way various human groups have counted: four fingers and a thumb (base-5), all fingers of both hands (base-8), fingers and thumbs of both hands (base-10), and all fingers, thumbs and toes (base-20).

In each base, the big number is effectively the base squared. In decimal, we use 100, in octal the number is 64. The equivalent in a truly sexagesimal system (which, as I've said, is mathematically more natural than the others) would be 3600, which is ten times the number of degrees in a circle. What this shows is two things: our base-10 maths is used to reduce sexagesimal to a more manageable level (something an advanced culture probably wouldn't need), but also that our degree of precision is ten times less because of it.

Because the sexagesimal is most mathematically useful of all our number systems, let's assume an advanced culture would use it. And because its mathematics and data recording would be more advanced and customary (computers and calculators in our world are very modern, and when calculating and recording degrees manually for rudimentary projects like ours, such precision would have been inefficient) they would have no problem with the full "sexagesimal hundred" of 3600. So that degree of 9.3 becomes 93 degrees, 33 becomes 330, and so on.

What I'm trying to say is this: don't go reading anything into a 33-degree angle — you can't even be sure it's 33 degrees, that's just how it looks by your measurement. Sure, if these angles appear in the planning of Washington, for example, that's one thing because Washington was planned by architects and civil engineers, etc., using a 360-degree circle. Was this stone? How the hell are we to know? We don't even know who left it never mind the intricacies of their mathematics.

[777]

Easy Tiger! The reality is the rock could be anything. It could be a disgruntled slave or worker idly scratching out the surface of the rock with a simple blade, wishing it was the face of his oppressor. It could be a primitive game, it could be any number of things. I was merely pointing out that it made me wonder. nothing more, nothing less.

[Mark]

Har har har thanks guys I needed that! :interview:

What is it made out of anyhow, looks like just a lump of ol volcanic manga to me...

[Spiral]

looks like just a lump of ol volcanic manga to me...

http://i1129.photobucket.com/albums/m508/VaguelyReticent/Emoticons/slaphead_zpsca3ed6c1.gif

Don't get SK started on manga.









:whstl:

[shamanseeker]

:D