**The Mantissa in Ancient Reckoning of Time: **
A Case Study of .890411
Charles William Johnson
Recently, Vigor Berg has sent
me some of his computations of the Venus synodic cycle, whereby
he proposes the figure **583.890411**. Professor Berg
asked me if I thought that his figure was exact and reflective
of the Venus synodic cycle. My first impression was to express
the idea that the synodic cycle is simply an average of the
apparent cycle of Venus as viewed from Earth. The synodic
cycle in fact varies by full day-counts. In ancient times
it would appear that computations of the Venus cycle may be
been based on variations from 580 to 585 days, if not even
below or above that. For example, the Maya may have employed
the 576 day-count ---along with remainder math---, in order
to reach the 584c and 585c counts.
In my mind, the significant point
is that the Maya may have known the sidereal count of Venus,
not only its apparent synodic cycle. This point has been
discussed treated in various essays published in the Earth/matriX
series a few years ago. The synodic cycle, in fact, does
not actually exist as such in terms of planetary motions.
Let me explain. The sidereal cycle involves the motion of
the Sun and the orbiting planet of Venus. The synodic cycle
involves the moving planet of Venus in relation to an observer
on the planet Earth. The sidereal cycle reflects an orbital
time of **224.7** Earth days; possibly rounded off to 225c
day by the Mesoamerican scientists. The point-to-point precision
of the Sun:Venus relationship makes sense and can be measured
effectively. The floating relationship of Earth Observer
: Venus can only be expressed as an average figure; the average
number in fact does not exist in terms of spacetime/motion.
Yet, as a perception of a relationship,
one can speak about this average time cycle and measure it
precisely as an average of an accumulated number of apparent
observations. Hence, the idea that the 583.890411 is more
precise as a perceived average, possibly employed by the Maya,
is valid in this sense. The generally cited average for the
synodic period of Venus is that of 583.92 Earth days. Again,
this number succumbs to the same observations stated above;
it is simply an average and hence non-existent as such. In
other words, at no time, other than out of happenstance possibly,
does the planet Venus actually orbit from the perspective
of the Earth a time cycle of **583.92** days (or even that
of 583.890411 days). The analogy is that of a runner, who
runs one mile in 4.01, 4.02, 4.05, 4.06 and 4.07 minutes.
His average time was 4.042 minutes. On none of those five
occasions did the runner run the mile in 4.042 minutes; this
was the average. The same occurs with the concept of a synodic
planetary time cycle.
So, even though, we may state
that the synodic period of Venus, of 583.92 or 583.890411
does not actually exist, the fact remains that possibly the
Maya may have employed these numbers in their computations
for the average period. Professor Berg has determined in
his studies that the Maya employed the 583.890411 figure.
In his writing he is attempting to prove this computation
in his own way, some of his work has been posted in the “Forum”
of Earth/matriX, which we invite you to read.
A possible confirmation of the
583.890411 number may come from other computations. Professor
Berg has asked me to review the number and communicate my
opinion in that regard. One way to confirm the fractional
expression of 583.890411 is to examine the mantissa of the
figure (.890411). It has been stated that the Maya avoided
the fractions and remained with whole numbers. I have always
held that such a statement means that the Maya “knew” the
fractions, the decimal places. The issue is to know whether
they simply discarded the fractions, as some scholars suggest,
or whether they remained with the whole numbers, but computed
the fractions, yet leaving them out of their results.
A review of the mantissa of some
of the ancient reckoning numbers may offer some insight into
the computational math and remainder math in this respect.
Here, I will examine only a few computations based on the
mantissa of .890411. There are two ways to accomplish the
computations of historically significant numbers. One may
employ only the whole numbers, or one may employ only the
mantissa. Either procedure leads to finding relationships
among the historically significant numbers. The third procedure
would be to employ both the whole numbers and the mantissa
of those terms. For now, I will look only at the mantissa.
To view this entire 8-page essay go to: Mantissa_Ancient_Reckoning.pdf
(complete version)
*©2005-2013
Copyrighted by Charles William Johnson. All rights reserved.*
Earth/matriX: Science in Ancient
Artwork www.earthmatrix.com **ISBN
1-58616-416-3** |