Science in Ancient Artwork Extract No.27 The Platonic Year and The Nineveh Constant (25920:22680)By Charles William Johnson
The Great Cycle of the Sun, the Platonic Year, or the precession of the equinoxes has been cited at 25,920 years. Suspiciously similar is a kemi historically significant number of 1296000, which is half that fractal number (25920 / 2 = 12960). For such related numbers not be related would surely represent a matter of coincidence. Many of the historically significant numbers are apparently common in origin, although we no longer know what that common origin may have been. Something similar occurs with the Nineveh constant of 2268. At first glance, the Nineveh constant would appear to be unrelated to the other numbers. However, if we consider the possibility that the reciprocal of seven (.142857) may have been employed in computations concerning the Great Cycle (ca. 26,000 years) that the Sun travels throughout the Universe, then the numbers may become more comprehensible. In order to consider these possible relationships, let us examine once more the concept of pi (), the number of times the diameter of a circle may divide into its circumference. Contemporary measurements/computations cite pi as being 3.141592654 (give or take a few thousand decimal places). This concept of pi represents the ratio of diameter:circumference. However, if the ancients not only dealt with this particular ratio, but also employed the diameter alone and the circumference alone as a constant, as well as, the possible number of divisions (degrees/segments) that a circle may be divided into, then the ancient concept of pi would be extremely more dynamic than our contemporary view. Any circle (with unknown degrees) would be represented as:
Now, for a circle with 260 or 360 degrees, the following numbers would apply:
The 260c circle would employ a pilike number of 2.268, while the 360c circle would employ our contemporary pi number (3.141592654). Therefore, the ancient pilike number 2.268 would be to a 260c count, as the 3.141592654 pi of today is to a 360degree circle. The corresponding measurement of the diameter would vary slightly from that of the ratio of any circle: 1.0:3.141592654, as shown previously. Another option concerns employing the reciprocal of seven number (1.142857) instead of the above measurements:
The respective pi relations change for each case. Now, given the generally accepted consideration that the Sun loses a revolution on its own axis as its travels throughout space on its Great Cycle, the approximate calculation of 26,000 years is often modified. One such modification concerns the Platonic Year of 25,920 years. (Other modifications exist, such as the maya figure often cited of 25,956 years.) If we consider the significance of the reciprocal of seven number (1.142857) as representing a possible computation for the diameter of the Great Cycle (Circle), then the following numbers take on greater meaning.
In other words, if the reciprocal of seven number is employed for the diameter of the Platonic Year, then the Nineveh constant number (2268 fractal) represents precisely 7/8ths of that number. The Nineveh constant number would therefore represent a pilike number for a circle divided into 259.2 degrees (in keeping with the fractal for a 260c or 360c circle). Furthermore, the difference between the two numbers would also be quite significant.
Four hundred count cycles are significant within ancient Mesoamerican cultures as well. Also, consider:
Even the ancient maya number offered for the Great Cycle appears to be extremely relevant to the Nineveh constant and the Platonic Year. With respect to the Platonic Year, the difference is simply 36 (25956  25920 = 36), knowing that the ancient Mesoamerican calendar was a 360c based count. But, less obvious is its relation to the 2268 Nineveh constant: 25956  22680 = 3276, 1638, 819 (k'awil). The relationship between the two is based on the k'awillike number/fractal, another ancient maya daycount. For so many historically significant numbers to be related among themselves in so many different ways, and yet to discard any possible common origin among them seems to be an improper method of analysis. We cannot expect all of the ancient historically significant numbers to be related; but, the fact that many of them easily compute from one system to another somehow suggests a possible common linkage among them.
Reproduction prohibited without written consent of the author. Your comments and suggestions are greatly appreciated:

Home  Books  Releases  Forum  Reviews  Links  Author 