Vortex, 19.47 theory/ Sacred Geometry

[Dantheman62]

Originally Posted by BROOK

You're right....but at any point..would we be at that coordinate? 19.47...as it is significant

Thanks Dan for showing up on this one....needed ya!

Not sure, I found a bunch of technical blah blah from Wilcock and Hoagland, but that just put me to sleep, LOL

I'll let ya know if I find anything, don't have much time now, gotta go out in the garage and change the oil in the quads! LOL, so we can go riding again this week!

[BROOK]

Originally Posted by Dantheman62

Not sure, I found a bunch of technical blah blah from Wilcock and Hoagland, but that just put me to sleep, LOL

I'll let ya know if I find anything, don't have much time now, gotta go out in the garage and change the oil in the quads! LOL, so we can go riding again this week!

Yes please do....I think you might need a spherical map also..to see if the earth rotation will cross at the 19.47 latitude...thanks!

[BROOK]

19.47 vs 19.50

I'm seeing lots of reference to 19.50 here and the geometry is exact at 19.47

Now, mind you, nothing has been proven. this is all just speculation at this point, until such can be proven...however hang with me here.

What if we would be crossing the 19.47 mark in relation to the galaxy in 2012?... 12/21/2012 to be exact....is this not getting more interesting by the minute? As we know that these 19.47 spots are key to some kind of possible stargate or portal..this is something to ponder.

Now the value of 19.47...is also being referenced to 19.50....could this be the possibel "shift" that we are experiencing? There was many a reference to being close to 19.5 degrees as a round up figure. Or if it is slightly higher by the offset of .53 degrees the other way would be more acceptable to me than to say 19.6 when in fact it would be 19.53 on the other side of or opposite end of the opposing triangle. It would also indicate a spinning effect and a wobble of that ...this puts a wrench in it ...huh?

Just a thought of course...nothing proven...speculation only

[Luminari]

Ive always loved the symbolic correlation with the Roswell event in 1947.

What does Bruce Cathie have to say on the maths of 19.47? He is someone who would be able to provide deep insights possibly with some new reflections..

We have many Kiwis on Avalon, anyone well read on all the Cathie material?

I have The Harmonic Conquest Of Space and Bridge To Infinity on my shelf but haven't got to them yet, I know he has several other books too.





Then there is the vortex research of Ivan Sanderson which may be another puzzle piece;

[Lionhawk]

[BROOK]

Nice map Lionhawk Now we just need some brainiac here to measure the area....thanks

Anybody up for it?

While we wait.....

Here are some good Videos on it

[BROOK]

Not to throw off the 19.47 ...but it does boil down to Sacred Geometry

[Lionhawk]

Guess what I was doing in my sleep last night? hahhahaha Working on it!
I also did some research and there is something to what you asked as far as magnetic direction to the Milky way, but I have to go find it again. hahhaha What I also found interesting is that we are 26,000 light years to the center of the Milky Way. hmmmm?????????



http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/milkyway.html



Properties of the Milky Way:

Diameter of the Galaxy = 90 000 light years
Classification of the Galaxy = SBbc
Number of stars in the Galaxy = 200 billion
Mass of the Galaxy = 1 trillion solar masses
Length of the central bar = 25 000 light years
Distance of the Sun from the center = 26 000 light years
Thickness of the Galaxy at the Sun = 2000 light years
Velocity of Sun around the Galaxy = 220 km/s
Orbital period of Sun around the Galaxy = 225 million years

[BROOK]

Thank you Lionhawk for the dimensions...so much for the sphereical map...

With those dimensions, can you measure for the 19.47 ?

Lot's of questions there...Magnetic direction is a question as well...hmmm

Good to see someone working on it.

[Lightpotential]

Originally Posted by Luminari

Ive always loved the symbolic correlation with the Roswell event in 1947.

What does Bruce Cathie have to say on the maths of 19.47? He is someone who would be able to provide deep insights possibly with some new reflections..

We have many Kiwis on Avalon, anyone well read on all the Cathie material?

I have The Harmonic Conquest Of Space and Bridge To Infinity on my shelf but haven't got to them yet, I know he has several other books too.

Dear Luminari,

I am very well read on Cathie's works and have both books you mentioned. You may ask me any questions you like about his work if you wish.

On the matter of his own global grid system, it should be noted that it does stand apart from the Dodecahedron-Icohsahedron Russian Model in terms of the nodal points. In the case of Cathie, he appears to have constructed his model based almost exclusively on an undersea (alien?) aeriel. In my view it is highly likely therefore that the great and small circles that he has uncovered are just one sub-set of a vastly more complex system, if the identified conduit lines are indeed energetically real.

LP

[Lionhawk]

Well, I think you're on to something Brook. I took that Milky Way map and laid out a couple of triangles on it and it appeared as though our Solar System lays on the bottom lay line of the triangle. My eyes popped out of my head because it was so darn close. To darn close to dismiss it.

I just don't have the right map or the right software in place to determine an accurate calculation at this time. I admit I am going where I have never gone before. Maybe if I reverse the map into a negative mode, then that way I could lay down the triangles and see exactly where this is going. It is so close it is spooky as to the lay line being around 19.47. What I am also starting to think is that on 2012 or slightly before or after, our position as to being accurately determined on that lay line might be better determined if we were able to have some kind of tracking history thereby determining the direction we are going from where we came and then animate it, we might see the exact date instead from what has been presumed. I don't know. Also maybe we could discover where the star gates could lead us and those points of destinations as well. I am finding this fascinating as it also leads to other questions. I just don't have the talents in this area. I am striving to be accurate. Will continue to work on it.

[Luminari]

Thank you Lightpotential for the response.
I guess in the context of this thread's search the Cathie grid and related research might not be interrelated then, thanks for clarifying. It is wonderful to know you are around and able to help explain Cathie's important discoveries.

Lionhawk I really have been trying to get a 3D holographic galactic map for you, nothing yet. This is the best of the 2D though;

[Lionhawk]

Excellent Luminari. Now if we could find a map like this with the Galactic center and the graph lines coming out from that I could do some over lays and see where it all lands. The 2D is what I would like to work with for now.

Good go. Anything is a help at this point.

[THE eXchanger]

now, convert it over to the 'old imperial measures'

[BROOK]

Originally Posted by eXchanger

now, convert it over to the 'old imperial measures'

And the reason for that would be?

[BROOK]

Why has geometry not been 'metricked'? Why 360 degrees intstead of 1, 10, 100 or even 1000?


Because one of the essential varibales in geometry is the number three. For example, three being a factor of 180 means that an equilateral triangle has angles of 60 degrees. What would their angles be in a metric system?




The degree is an arbitrary unit; basically any division of a circle would work as a system of measurement. The degree has the advantage that 360 divides evenly by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 & 10 making it easy to mentally calculate an angle; indeed this is the major advantage of all old imperial units. There is a more fundamental unit call the Radian. This is the angle subtended by an arc of a circle equal in length to its radius. Since the circumference of a circle is 2 x pi x radius one there are 2 pi, or 6.283, Radians in a circle. This is fine for calculations on angular motion but difficult to work out in your head.


We inherited 360 degrees from the Babylonians, but many ancient societies were highly interested in astronomy and in some (megalithic Britain?) had 366 degrees in a circle. This is logical, since the earth turns on its axis 366 times a year. Their measurements seem to have been interrelated and not arbitrary as a metrically divided circle would be. The Babylonians probably reduced this to 360 as it divides so much more easily by many factors.



When working on an archaeological dig near Rome, I was once given a theodolite to set up. After some time struggling to get it to work, I noticed that the scale on which horizontal angles were measured read 400 degrees rather than 360. My supervisor told me that this was and old piece of equipment, once part of an attempt to metricise the circle. I'm not sure whether this was purely an Italian initiative or not!



The Babylonians gave us the 360-degree circle. That number turns out to be the smallest one whose quotient is an integer when divided by any whole number from 1 through 10 (except for 7, which may have added to seven's stature as a "magic number". I've heard that (at least in the U.S. military), artillery batteries use a 1000-degree circle for more accuracy, so -- if true -- at least that's a start.


Both Babylonians and Chinese used sexagesimal system which means they had 59 figures rather than 9 (zero was invented much later). Although they did have a figure for 10 so their number 11 was still written as figure of 10 next to figure of 1. The origin of this is not known for sure although they were obviously influenced by astronomy and the fact that there are (almost) 360 days in a year. They also came up with sixty minutes in the hour, 24 hours a day. This is only another example of the slipping of school standards that we only expect school children to only know 9 figures (and zero)



Because you usually want to know how far round the circle you are, and you can divide 360 into many more useful fractions. Indeed, the unit favoured by mathematicians isn't the degree but the radian. Twice pi (6.2831853...) radians equals 360 degrees. So rather than 90 degrees you say 'pi-over-two radians.'



360 has many more divisors than 10, 100, 1000 etc. Therefore a circle can be divided more easily into many diferent equal parts - 2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10...... Try doing that with 100 or 1000.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqu...185569,00.html

[BROOK]

[BROOK]

Looking at all the maps I could find..this one at least has a circumference and a center point. with a point of our solar system, making it easy to measure

[morguana]

am following this with great interest,
bou x

[BROOK]

Glad your are following Boudicca This is very interesting stuff.

Okay..this one has a center point, with a solar system point, and the circumference would be easy to add with the center point
It's a little smaller..but might be usable?

[Dantheman62]

OK, one problem is that our solar system is tilted 90 degrees to the galaxial plane. Like if you took a quarter and stood it on edge on top of another quarter. So not only are we at a 90 degree angle but we're also oscillating up and down through the galaxial plane, putting a lot of variables into play here.




EXPLANATION OF THE MODEL:



It is not simple to position of our Solar System with respect to the Plane of the galaxy -the Milky Way. There are few books of Astronomy screening a diagram of the coplanarity of the Solar System with the galaxy, so we regularly think that what is "up" or north for the Earth it is also "up" or north for the galaxy. However, the plane of the Solar System is not coplanar with the plane of the Milky Way, but it is tilted almost 90°.



The Solar System describes three kinds of motion, each one at a specific speed and with a limited alternation:



1. The wider and fastest movement is the orbital motion of the Solar System around the nucleus of our galaxy. The speed of the Solar System orbital motion around the center of the galaxy is 217.215 Km/s. The Solar System completes one track around the galaxy each ~226 million years.



2. The second movement, described in most of astronomy books, is the oscillation of the Solar System from north to south and vice versa with respect to the galactic plane. It is a swing upwards and downwards, determined mainly by the gravitational pull among the celestial bodies in the Solar System. The speed of this movement is of 7 Km/second.



3. The third movement is in route towards the center of the galaxy and the order reversed or moving away from the center of the galaxy. It is also a swinging movement, but influenced by the gravitational pull of outer and inner celestial bodies of the galaxy that are near to the Solar System. This motion has a speed of 20 Km/s, and it is drawing now toward Hercules constellation.




Web www.biocab.org

[BROOK]

Okay Dan had to go and throw a wrench in it....hahaha


But seriously...there still has to be a way to measure the vortex...the 19.47 factor of it...huh? huh? huh? hahaha

And the only way I can think to do it is from a crude variation of the maps we've come up with so far.....hmmmm?

I think what we're trying to get at....is our solar system..in particular..the Earth..at the 19.47 of the galaxy?

and if so...what are the implications of that? BIG question there

[Dantheman62]

My answer is kind of simple, LOL


The Sun orbits the center of the Galaxy with a period of 225 million years. A second consequence is an oscillation, with a much shorter period of about 60 million years, up and down through the plane of the disk. In other words, the Sun moves up and down about four times during each trip around the center of the Galaxy. This oscillation has an amplitude of 75 pc (250 ly). At present, the Sun is 4 pc (13 ly) above the galactic plane, moving upward into the Galaxy's Northern Hemisphere. (ly= light years)

So if we're constantly moving up and down and around the galactic plane in 60 million year increments with an amplitude of 250 light years while rotating around the galaxy every 225 million years, I'd say that at many times over and over we would be at a 19.5 degree angle to the galaxy. LOL, but not sure when or where or if it could even be measured. hmmm

[Lionhawk]

Now your on the wagon Dan. That was what I was saying. To be able to determine where of what direction we were coming from and where we were going. The up and down tracking and when it crosses the 19.47 factor is a two way correlation. Agreed! So far what I have found with my crude software is that we are in the proximity of the plane of 19.47 and that isn't exact as I said because of my cad issues and finding a map, that is 2D of the milky way and placing the triangles as an overlay. Establish that first then track the angle and the direction and see where all that intersects. And when. This is my hypotenuse. Oh, Brook's too! Sorry Brook. I'm just trying to prove out what you have questioned. But I keep doing this.

Hahahaha But I am not going to give up as I see a direct correlation also with the 90 degree phase shift that is also present as to what Dan has also pointed out.

#1 Find the right map and establish if the 19.47 comes into play in 2D
relative to our solar system.

#2 Track what direction we came from and where we are going to see if all this intersects. Also when if we get that far.

#3 Then apply the 90 degree phase shift because that is what that is even though it was presented as a linear angle. To which those properties haven't been established yet.

Something like that and feel free to add. We have to establish the first objective before we can add another objective, etc, but the goal is to establish the correlation and the relationship in terms of our present direction. I am out of my box here so any expert advice from others is most welcomed. I just haven't seen anything yet that I can use to determine the first objective. If we can't establish that then the rest of it is a mute point and a waste of time.

Plodding along..................

[BROOK]

We need a computer simulation