ORIGINS & VALUES OF LENGTH
Link to the Book: The Gregorian Universal System and Units of Measurement System (GUSUMS): The Art of Mathematics
The current
popular and widely used measurement systems are the Imperial System and the
Metric System. Based on our current approach, the conversion of the common length units in the Metric and Imperial systems is based on 1
inch being equal to 2.54cm. Thus, the multiples and multipliers of the Metric
and Imperial Units of length are as follows.
Current Conversion of
Metric & Imperial Units of Length
|
CURRENT CONVERSION |
METRIC-CM |
IMPERIAL-INCHES |
IMPERIAL-FOOT |
IMPERIAL-YARDS |
METRIC-METRES |
METRIC-KM |
IMPERIAL-MILES |
|
METRIC-CM |
1 |
0.393700787 |
0.032808399 |
0.010936133 |
0.01 |
0.00001 |
6.21371E-06 |
|
IMPERIAL-INCHES |
2.54 |
1 |
0.083333333 |
0.027777778 |
0.0254 |
0.0000254 |
1.57828E-05 |
|
IMPERIAL FOOT |
30.48 |
12 |
1 |
0.333333333 |
0.3048 |
0.0003048 |
0.000189394 |
|
IMPERIAL-YARDS |
91.44 |
36 |
3 |
1 |
0.9144 |
0.0009144 |
0.000568182 |
|
NETRIC-METRES |
100 |
39.37007874 |
3.280839895 |
1.093613298 |
1 |
0.001 |
0.000621371 |
|
METRIC-KM |
100000 |
39370.07874 |
3280.839895 |
1093.613298 |
1000 |
1 |
0.621371192 |
|
IMPERIAL-MILES |
160934.4 |
63360 |
5280 |
1760 |
1609.344 |
1.609344 |
1 |
According to
GUSUMS, the above conversion is likely to be inaccurate. GUSUMS explains that
we misinterpreted the concepts of the feet or palm as a measure to mean a
particular person’s feet or palm when it should have been interpreted to mean
the ratio of the foot or palm to other body parts. For example, by interpreting
the feet as the length of a particular person’s foot e.g. King Henry the First
we got the wrong value. This is because the value gotten only applies to that particular
person. However, if we measure the foot in terms of the ratio of the foot to
the average person’s leg, chest, height, etc. we get a highly constant figure
since it’s a ratio or is a figure that does not apply to the unique properties
of a single person. In addition, since all the units of length in both the
Metric and Imperial systems are linear, then their multiples, multipliers, and
conversion factors should be based on the natural numbers that are multiples
and multipliers of 360. This is because all or most linear values involve joining points
of a circle and the points in a circle can only be gotten by dividing the
circle into equal parts. Thus, the possible and perfect divisions of a circle
can be summarized as the natural numbers that can divide 360 which are;
|
Natural
Numbers that can divide 360 |
Reverse
order |
|
|
|
First 12 Natural Numbers |
The next 12
Natural Numbers |
|
20, 24, 30, 36, 40, 45, 60, 72, 90, 120, 180,
360. |
Based on the above table, the likely
factors/multipliers of all linear values are likely to be
|
ROTATION MULTIPLES |
ROTATION MULTIPLIERS |
REVOLUTION MULTIPLES |
REVOLUTION MULTIPLIERS |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
2 |
0.5 |
4 |
0.25 |
|
3 |
0.333333333 |
9 |
0.111111111 |
|
4 |
0.25 |
16 |
0.0625 |
|
5 |
0.2 |
25 |
0.04 |
|
6 |
0.166666667 |
36 |
0.027777778 |
|
8 |
0.125 |
64 |
0.015625 |
|
9 |
0.111111111 |
81 |
0.012345679 |
|
10 |
0.1 |
100 |
0.01 |
|
12 |
0.083333333 |
144 |
0.006944444 |
|
15 |
0.066666667 |
225 |
0.004444444 |
|
18 |
0.055555556 |
324 |
0.00308642 |
|
20 |
0.05 |
400 |
0.0025 |
|
24 |
0.041666667 |
576 |
0.001736111 |
|
30 |
0.033333333 |
900 |
0.001111111 |
|
36 |
0.027777778 |
1296 |
0.000771605 |
|
40 |
0.025 |
1600 |
0.000625 |
|
45 |
0.022222222 |
2025 |
0.000493827 |
|
60 |
0.016666667 |
3600 |
0.000277778 |
|
72 |
0.013888889 |
5184 |
0.000192901 |
|
90 |
0.011111111 |
8100 |
0.000123457 |
|
120 |
0.008333333 |
14400 |
6.94444E-05 |
|
180 |
0.005555556 |
32400 |
3.08642E-05 |
|
360 |
0.002777778 |
129600 |
7.71605E-06 |
Based on the above
factors as well as on the idea that all units of measurement are based on the
circle, then the only possible way that we can convert Imperial linear units of
length to Metric Units of length is if 1 inch is equal to exactly 2.5cm. Based
on this, the table below shows the GUSUMS version of how the imperial and
Metric Systems should be converted if they are both drawn from the circle.
GUSUMS Conversion of
Linear Metric & Imperial Units of Length
|
GUSUMS-CONVERSION |
METRIC-CM |
GUSUMS-INCHES |
GUSUMS-FOOT |
GUSUMS-YARDS |
METRIC-METRES |
METRIC-KM |
GUSUMS-MILES |
|
METRIC-CM |
1 |
0.4 |
0.033333333 |
0.011111111 |
0.01 |
0.00001 |
6.31313E-06 |
|
GUSUMS-INCHES |
2.5 |
1 |
0.083333333 |
0.027777778 |
0.025 |
0.000025 |
1.57828E-05 |
|
GUSUMS-FOOT |
30 |
12 |
1 |
0.333333333 |
0.3 |
0.0003 |
0.000189394 |
|
GUSUMS-YARDS |
90 |
36 |
3 |
1 |
0.9 |
0.0009 |
0.000568182 |
|
METRIC-METRES |
100 |
40 |
3.333333333 |
1.111111111 |
1 |
0.001 |
0.000631313 |
|
METRIC-KM |
100000 |
40000 |
3333.333333 |
1111.111111 |
1000 |
1 |
0.631313131 |
|
GUSUMS-MILES |
158400 |
63360 |
5280 |
1760 |
1584 |
1.584 |
1 |
From the above conversion, you can see that all the multiples and multipliers of both the GUSUMS units of length and the metric units of length all conform to the expected behavior of linear units and values. An alternative explanation as to why 1 inch should be equal to 2.5cm and not 2.54cm can be done by trying to derive both units from the circle using the concept of linear and circular values.
DERIVING THE METRIC &
IMPERIAL SYSTEM FROM THE CIRCLE.
From the page on
the Origin of Metrology & the Origin of PI, I demonstrated that a circle of diameter 1 as the basis of linear and circular values. For example,
when you draw a circle with a diameter of 1 and inscribe a hexagon inside it, the
circumference of the circle will signify the circular value and the perimeter
of the hexagon will signify the first linear value or the linear circumference.
The following example illustrates this.
First Circular
& Linear Values
The above image shows the first circular and linear
values. You cannot that the first circular value is pi and the first linear
value is 3. This is true in practice as
all circular measurements are based on pi each the circumference or the area of
a circle or an arc. The same applies to all linear values as they are based on
a factor of 3 or multiples and multipliers of 3. For example, 4*3 inches is 1
foot, and 12*3 feet is 1 yard. I also demonstrated that drawing subsequent circles
and hexagons maintains the same patterns.
Second Circular & Linear Values
The above image shows that doubling the
radius or diameter also doubles the sides of the hexagon and its perimeter and
also doubles the circular circumference thus resulting in the same ratio.
Third Circular & Linear Values
The above image
shows that tripling the radius or diameter also triples the sides of the
hexagon and its perimeter (linear circumference) and also triples the circular circumference thus resulting in
the same ratio of linear and circular values.
The Origin of the
Imperial System
GUSUMS argues that
the linear circumference was the origin of the imperial system. Thus the base
number of the imperial system should be 3. However, after further advancements
in mathematics and mathematical operations, it was/is possible to play around
with the 3 and create additional units. Despite this, the units of length in
the metric system largely still follow this rule as shown in the table below
|
DIAMETER |
LINEAR BASE NUMBERS-LBN |
LBN MULTIPLIERS |
|
1 |
3 |
0.333333333 |
|
2 |
6 |
0.166666667 |
|
3 |
9 |
0.111111111 |
|
4 |
12 |
0.083333333 |
|
5 |
15 |
0.066666667 |
|
6 |
18 |
0.055555556 |
|
7 |
21 |
0.047619048 |
|
8 |
24 |
0.041666667 |
|
9 |
27 |
0.037037037 |
|
10 |
30 |
0.033333333 |
|
11 |
33 |
0.03030303 |
|
12 |
36 |
0.027777778 |
|
13 |
39 |
0.025641026 |
|
14 |
42 |
0.023809524 |
|
15 |
45 |
0.022222222 |
|
16 |
48 |
0.020833333 |
|
17 |
51 |
0.019607843 |
|
18 |
54 |
0.018518519 |
|
19 |
57 |
0.01754386 |
|
20 |
60 |
0.016666667 |
|
21 |
63 |
0.015873016 |
|
22 |
66 |
0.015151515 |
|
23 |
69 |
0.014492754 |
|
24 |
72 |
0.013888889 |
|
25 |
75 |
0.013333333 |
|
26 |
78 |
0.012820513 |
|
27 |
81 |
0.012345679 |
|
28 |
84 |
0.011904762 |
|
29 |
87 |
0.011494253 |
|
30 |
90 |
0.011111111 |
|
31 |
93 |
0.010752688 |
|
32 |
96 |
0.010416667 |
|
33 |
99 |
0.01010101 |
|
34 |
102 |
0.009803922 |
|
35 |
105 |
0.00952381 |
|
36 |
108 |
0.009259259 |
I can simplify
the above table to the following;
|
Column1 |
3 |
6 |
9 |
12 |
15 |
18 |
21 |
24 |
27 |
30 |
33 |
36 |
|
1 |
0.333333 |
0.166667 |
0.111111 |
0.083333 |
0.066667 |
0.055556 |
0.047619 |
0.041667 |
0.037037 |
0.033333 |
0.030303 |
0.027778 |
|
2 |
0.666667 |
0.333333 |
0.222222 |
0.166667 |
0.133333 |
0.111111 |
0.095238 |
0.083333 |
0.074074 |
0.066667 |
0.060606 |
0.055556 |
|
3 |
1 |
0.5 |
0.333333 |
0.25 |
0.2 |
0.166667 |
0.142857 |
0.125 |
0.111111 |
0.1 |
0.090909 |
0.083333 |
|
4 |
1.333333 |
0.666667 |
0.444444 |
0.333333 |
0.266667 |
0.222222 |
0.190476 |
0.166667 |
0.148148 |
0.133333 |
0.121212 |
0.111111 |
|
5 |
1.666667 |
0.833333 |
0.555556 |
0.416667 |
0.333333 |
0.277778 |
0.238095 |
0.208333 |
0.185185 |
0.166667 |
0.151515 |
0.138889 |
|
6 |
2 |
1 |
0.666667 |
0.5 |
0.4 |
0.333333 |
0.285714 |
0.25 |
0.222222 |
0.2 |
0.181818 |
0.166667 |
|
7 |
2.333333 |
1.166667 |
0.777778 |
0.583333 |
0.466667 |
0.388889 |
0.333333 |
0.291667 |
0.259259 |
0.233333 |
0.212121 |
0.194444 |
|
8 |
2.666667 |
1.333333 |
0.888889 |
0.666667 |
0.533333 |
0.444444 |
0.380952 |
0.333333 |
0.296296 |
0.266667 |
0.242424 |
0.222222 |
|
9 |
3 |
1.5 |
1 |
0.75 |
0.6 |
0.5 |
0.428571 |
0.375 |
0.333333 |
0.3 |
0.272727 |
0.25 |
|
10 |
3.333333 |
1.666667 |
1.111111 |
0.833333 |
0.666667 |
0.555556 |
0.47619 |
0.416667 |
0.37037 |
0.333333 |
0.30303 |
0.277778 |
Interpretation
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Basically,
from the above table, I can acquire almost all imperial units. This confirms that
the imperial units originated from the
circle and are based on the linear
circumference of the circle. In addition, the factors or multipliers provide a
glimpse of what the multiples and multipliers of linear values should look like
as they all/mostly end with recurring numbers, multiples/multipliers of 3, or
multiples/multipliers of 5.
A
key exception to the above statement is when the column has a value of 21. 21
is exceptional as it contains random numbers with no particular patterns such
as when column 1 is 1,2,4,5,8, & 10. However, in multiples of 3, we can see
that the values of the pi rules such as 0.142857142, 0.285714285, 0.428571428, 0.571428571,
0.714285714, 0.857142857, or a whole number begin to appear. This confirms that
the linear and circular values unite in the LCMs of the linear base number
which is 3 and it multiples/multipliers and the circular base number which is 7
and its multiples/multipliers. Thus, the base number of linear values is 3 and
the base number of circular values is 7. This was the origin of pi as explained
in the pi page.
ORIGINS
OF THE METRIC SYSTEM
The
above table confirms that 3 is the base number of the Imperial units of length.
The next challenge is to derive the metric system from the circle by just using
the concept of linear and circular values. From the pages/posts on the Origins
of Metrology & Origins of Pi, I had stated that pi is not actually the basis or base
number of circular units. I illustrated that 7 is the basis of identifying
circular values. This is why I started
and gave the GUSUMS formulae for calculating the circumference of a circle as;
Circumference of a
circle = Diameter/base number of circular units + d*the base number of linear
values
Base number of
circular units =7
the base number of
linear values =3
Circumference of a
circle = Diameter/7 + d*3
For example; the
circumference of a circle with a diameter of 1 is equal to;
Circumference of a
circle when D is 1 = 1/7 + d*3
=3
I
also provided the following table to show that this is true.
|
D |
D/7 |
D*3 |
D/7+D*3 |
|
1 |
0.142857143 |
3 |
3.142857143 |
|
2 |
0.285714286 |
6 |
6.285714286 |
|
3 |
0.428571429 |
9 |
9.428571429 |
|
4 |
0.571428571 |
12 |
12.57142857 |
|
5 |
0.714285714 |
15 |
15.71428571 |
|
6 |
0.857142857 |
18 |
18.85714286 |
|
7 |
1 |
21 |
22 |
|
8 |
1.142857143 |
24 |
25.14285714 |
|
9 |
1.285714286 |
27 |
28.28571429 |
|
10 |
1.428571429 |
30 |
31.42857143 |
|
11 |
1.571428571 |
33 |
34.57142857 |
|
12 |
1.714285714 |
36 |
37.71428571 |
|
13 |
1.857142857 |
39 |
40.85714286 |
|
14 |
2 |
42 |
44 |
|
15 |
2.142857143 |
45 |
47.14285714 |
|
16 |
2.285714286 |
48 |
50.28571429 |
|
17 |
2.428571429 |
51 |
53.42857143 |
|
18 |
2.571428571 |
54 |
56.57142857 |
|
19 |
2.714285714 |
57 |
59.71428571 |
|
20 |
2.857142857 |
60 |
62.85714286 |
|
21 |
3 |
63 |
66 |
|
22 |
3.142857143 |
66 |
69.14285714 |
|
23 |
3.285714286 |
69 |
72.28571429 |
Therefore,
the base number of circular units is 7 and the base number of linear units is
3. Therefore, if the linear base number is 3 the circular base number is 7. If we
double the linear base number to 6 then the base number of circular
measurements will also double to 14. If we triple the base linear number to 9
the circular base number will also triple to 21. This goes on to infinity.
So, how can we derive the metric units from this?
We
do know that the base value of metric units is 10 as changing from one unit to
another e.g. from km, cm, m, dm, mm, Dm, etc and vice versa involves dividing or
multiplying the values by 10. In addition, we can see that adding the
subsequent linear base numbers and their corresponding circular base numbers
adds up to multiples of 10. For example, the first linear base number which is 3
plus the first circular base number which is 7 gives a total of 10. The second
linear base number of 6 plus the 2nd circular base number which is
14 when added together gives a total of 10. The third unit is 9 as the linear
base number plus 21 as the circular base number is equal to 10. With this, we
can derive the metric units from the circle as shown below.
|
LINEAR BASE NUMBER(LBN)=IMPERIAL
SYSTEM |
CIRCULAR BASE NUMBER-CBN |
LBN+CBN=METRIC
SYSTEM |
|
3 |
7 |
10 |
|
6 |
14 |
20 |
|
9 |
21 |
30 |
|
12 |
28 |
40 |
|
15 |
35 |
50 |
|
18 |
42 |
60 |
|
21 |
49 |
70 |
|
24 |
56 |
80 |
|
27 |
63 |
90 |
|
30 |
70 |
100 |
|
33 |
77 |
110 |
|
36 |
84 |
120 |
|
39 |
91 |
130 |
|
42 |
98 |
140 |
|
45 |
105 |
150 |
|
48 |
112 |
160 |
|
51 |
119 |
170 |
|
54 |
126 |
180 |
|
57 |
133 |
190 |
|
60 |
140 |
200 |
|
63 |
147 |
210 |
|
66 |
154 |
220 |
|
69 |
161 |
230 |
|
72 |
168 |
240 |
|
75 |
175 |
250 |
|
78 |
182 |
260 |
|
81 |
189 |
270 |
|
84 |
196 |
280 |
|
87 |
203 |
290 |
|
90 |
210 |
300 |
|
93 |
217 |
310 |
|
96 |
224 |
320 |
|
99 |
231 |
330 |
|
102 |
238 |
340 |
|
105 |
245 |
350 |
|
108 |
252 |
360 |
Thus,
using the circle we have managed to derive both the metric and imperial system.
This shows that they also both originated from the circle and confirms the
GUSUMS hypothesis.
CONFIRMING
THE GUSUMS CONVERSION OF METRICS TO IMPERIAL & VICE VERSA
If
LBN is the right value of the imperial system, then their exact equivalent and
equal values should be LBN+CBN. From this, we can identify the correct way to
convert the imperial system to the metric system based on the circle. The result is
shown below. I have highlighted essential values from the GUSUMS conversion
table to show why 1 inch can only be equal to 2.5cm and not 2.54cm. To simplify
the information and to get the exact factor, I have divided 1 by each imperial
unit as well as 1 by each metric unit.
|
LBN=IMPERIAL
SYSTEM |
CBN |
LBN+CBN=METRIC LBN |
1/IMPERIAL LBN |
1/METRIC LBN |
|
3 |
7 |
10 |
0.333333333 |
0.1 |
|
6 |
14 |
20 |
0.166666667 |
0.05 |
|
9 |
21 |
30 |
0.111111111 |
0.033333333 |
|
12 |
28 |
40 |
0.083333333 |
0.025 |
|
15 |
35 |
50 |
0.066666667 |
0.02 |
|
18 |
42 |
60 |
0.055555556 |
0.016666667 |
|
21 |
49 |
70 |
0.047619048 |
0.014285714 |
|
24 |
56 |
80 |
0.041666667 |
0.0125 |
|
27 |
63 |
90 |
0.037037037 |
0.011111111 |
|
30 |
70 |
100 |
0.033333333 |
0.01 |
|
33 |
77 |
110 |
0.03030303 |
0.009090909 |
|
36 |
84 |
120 |
0.027777778 |
0.008333333 |
|
39 |
91 |
130 |
0.025641026 |
0.007692308 |
|
42 |
98 |
140 |
0.023809524 |
0.007142857 |
|
45 |
105 |
150 |
0.022222222 |
0.006666667 |
|
48 |
112 |
160 |
0.020833333 |
0.00625 |
|
51 |
119 |
170 |
0.019607843 |
0.005882353 |
|
54 |
126 |
180 |
0.018518519 |
0.005555556 |
|
57 |
133 |
190 |
0.01754386 |
0.005263158 |
|
60 |
140 |
200 |
0.016666667 |
0.005 |
|
63 |
147 |
210 |
0.015873016 |
0.004761905 |
|
66 |
154 |
220 |
0.015151515 |
0.004545455 |
|
69 |
161 |
230 |
0.014492754 |
0.004347826 |
|
72 |
168 |
240 |
0.013888889 |
0.004166667 |
|
75 |
175 |
250 |
0.013333333 |
0.004 |
|
78 |
182 |
260 |
0.012820513 |
0.003846154 |
|
81 |
189 |
270 |
0.012345679 |
0.003703704 |
|
84 |
196 |
280 |
0.011904762 |
0.003571429 |
|
87 |
203 |
290 |
0.011494253 |
0.003448276 |
|
90 |
210 |
300 |
0.011111111 |
0.003333333 |
|
93 |
217 |
310 |
0.010752688 |
0.003225806 |
|
96 |
224 |
320 |
0.010416667 |
0.003125 |
|
99 |
231 |
330 |
0.01010101 |
0.003030303 |
|
102 |
238 |
340 |
0.009803922 |
0.002941176 |
|
105 |
245 |
350 |
0.00952381 |
0.002857143 |
|
108 |
252 |
360 |
0.009259259 |
0.002777778 |
The
above table confirms that based on the circle, the following is the only
possible way to align the Imperial Units and Values and that is why if we were
to adhere to the original values and
conversion of the metric and imperial units based on the originally intended and
interpreted, an inch should be equal to 2.5cm and not 2.54cm.
Basically,
converting metrics to imperial follows the following pattern for the first
view of original units. Not that the mile is derived or is defined based on km.
|
Column1 |
3 |
6 |
9 |
12 |
15 |
18 |
21 |
24 |
27 |
30 |
33 |
36 |
|
0.0001 |
3.33E-05 |
1.67E-05 |
1.11E-05 |
8.33E-06 |
6.67E-06 |
5.56E-06 |
4.76E-06 |
4.17E-06 |
3.7E-06 |
3.33E-06 |
3.03E-06 |
2.78E-06 |
|
0.001 |
0.000333 |
0.000167 |
0.000111 |
8.33E-05 |
6.67E-05 |
5.56E-05 |
4.76E-05 |
4.17E-05 |
3.7E-05 |
3.33E-05 |
3.03E-05 |
2.78E-05 |
|
0.01 |
0.003333 |
0.001667 |
0.001111 |
0.000833 |
0.000667 |
0.000556 |
0.000476 |
0.000417 |
0.00037 |
0.000333 |
0.000303 |
0.000278 |
|
0.1 |
0.033333 |
0.016667 |
0.011111 |
0.008333 |
0.006667 |
0.005556 |
0.004762 |
0.004167 |
0.003704 |
0.003333 |
0.00303 |
0.002778 |
|
1 |
0.333333 |
0.166667 |
0.111111 |
0.083333 |
0.066667 |
0.055556 |
0.047619 |
0.041667 |
0.037037 |
0.033333 |
0.030303 |
0.027778 |
|
10 |
3.333333 |
1.666667 |
1.111111 |
0.833333 |
0.666667 |
0.555556 |
0.47619 |
0.416667 |
0.37037 |
0.333333 |
0.30303 |
0.277778 |
|
100 |
33.33333 |
16.66667 |
11.11111 |
8.333333 |
6.666667 |
5.555556 |
4.761905 |
4.166667 |
3.703704 |
3.333333 |
3.030303 |
2.777778 |
|
1000 |
333.3333 |
166.6667 |
111.1111 |
83.33333 |
66.66667 |
55.55556 |
47.61905 |
41.66667 |
37.03704 |
33.33333 |
30.30303 |
27.77778 |
|
10000 |
3333.333 |
1666.667 |
1111.111 |
833.3333 |
666.6667 |
555.5556 |
476.1905 |
416.6667 |
370.3704 |
333.3333 |
303.0303 |
277.7778 |
|
100000 |
33333.33 |
16666.67 |
11111.11 |
8333.333 |
6666.667 |
5555.556 |
4761.905 |
4166.667 |
3703.704 |
3333.333 |
3030.303 |
2777.778 |
SIGNIFICANCE
OF THE CONCEPT
The
concept is not just about converting numbers as it is of great significance to
our ability to understand our world and the universe at large. With just a small
change I can identify the exact values and properties of all objects in our
solar system with a margin of error of zero. This means I can identify the
exact diameters, rotational periods, circumferences, etc. of faraway objects
such as planets, stars, moons, stars, etc., by just using our current values
that are often with margins of error as much as +-3 km to get the exact value.
This is because all the creation is also based on the circle. GUSUMS theorizes
that the following is how we can identify the exact values of planetary
objects. Please note that the first few explanations are just meant to provide
a basic understanding and it is the example of Pluto that provides some
evidence of this.
|
PLANETARY OBJECTS |
DIVISION |
DIAMETERS (D) |
d/7 |
LINEAR C |
CIRCULAR C |
|
PLANETARY OBJECTA |
START |
1 |
0.142857143 |
3 |
3.142857143 |
|
PLANETARY OBJECTA |
2 |
0.285714286 |
6 |
6.285714286 |
|
|
PLANETARY OBJECTA |
3 |
0.428571429 |
9 |
9.428571429 |
|
|
PLANETARY OBJECTA |
MIDPOINT |
4 |
0.571428571 |
12 |
12.57142857 |
|
PLANETARY OBJECTA |
5 |
0.714285714 |
15 |
15.71428571 |
|
|
PLANETARY OBJECTA |
6 |
0.857142857 |
18 |
18.85714286 |
|
|
PLANETARY OBJECTA |
END |
7 |
1 |
21 |
22 |
|
PLANETARY OBJECTB |
START |
8 |
1.142857143 |
24 |
25.14285714 |
|
PLANETARY OBJECTB |
9 |
1.285714286 |
27 |
28.28571429 |
|
|
PLANETARY OBJECTB |
10 |
1.428571429 |
30 |
31.42857143 |
|
|
PLANETARY OBJECTB |
END |
11 |
1.571428571 |
33 |
34.57142857 |
|
PLANETARY OBJECTB |
12 |
1.714285714 |
36 |
37.71428571 |
|
|
PLANETARY OBJECTB |
13 |
1.857142857 |
39 |
40.85714286 |
|
|
PLANETARY OBJECTB |
MIDPOINT |
14 |
2 |
42 |
44 |
|
PLANETARY OBJECTC |
START |
15 |
2.142857143 |
45 |
47.14285714 |
|
PLANETARY OBJECTC |
16 |
2.285714286 |
48 |
50.28571429 |
|
|
PLANETARY OBJECTC |
17 |
2.428571429 |
51 |
53.42857143 |
|
|
PLANETARY OBJECTC |
END |
18 |
2.571428571 |
54 |
56.57142857 |
|
PLANETARY OBJECTC |
19 |
2.714285714 |
57 |
59.71428571 |
|
|
PLANETARY OBJECTC |
20 |
2.857142857 |
60 |
62.85714286 |
|
|
PLANETARY OBJECTC |
MIDPOINT |
21 |
3 |
63 |
66 |
|
PLANETARY OBJECTD |
START |
22 |
3.142857143 |
66 |
69.14285714 |
|
PLANETARY OBJECTD |
23 |
3.285714286 |
69 |
72.28571429 |
|
|
PLANETARY OBJECTD |
24 |
3.428571429 |
72 |
75.42857143 |
|
|
PLANETARY OBJECTD |
MIDPOINT |
25 |
3.571428571 |
75 |
78.57142857 |
|
PLANETARY OBJECTD |
26 |
3.714285714 |
78 |
81.71428571 |
|
|
PLANETARY OBJECTD |
27 |
3.857142857 |
81 |
84.85714286 |
|
|
PLANETARY OBJECTD |
END |
28 |
4 |
84 |
88 |
|
PLANETARY OBJECTE |
START |
29 |
4.142857143 |
87 |
91.14285714 |
|
PLANETARY OBJECTE |
30 |
4.285714286 |
90 |
94.28571429 |
|
|
PLANETARY OBJECTE |
31 |
4.428571429 |
93 |
97.42857143 |
|
|
PLANETARY OBJECTE |
END |
32 |
4.571428571 |
96 |
100.5714286 |
|
PLANETARY OBJECTE |
33 |
4.714285714 |
99 |
103.7142857 |
|
|
PLANETARY OBJECTE |
34 |
4.857142857 |
102 |
106.8571429 |
|
|
PLANETARY OBJECTF |
MIDPOINT |
35 |
5 |
105 |
110 |
|
PLANETARY OBJECTF |
START |
36 |
5.142857143 |
108 |
113.1428571 |
|
PLANETARY OBJECTF |
37 |
5.285714286 |
111 |
116.2857143 |
|
|
PLANETARY OBJECTF |
38 |
5.428571429 |
114 |
119.4285714 |
|
|
PLANETARY OBJECTF |
END |
39 |
5.571428571 |
117 |
122.5714286 |
|
PLANETARY OBJECTF |
40 |
5.714285714 |
120 |
125.7142857 |
|
|
PLANETARY OBJECTF |
41 |
5.857142857 |
123 |
128.8571429 |
|
|
PLANETARY OBJECTF |
MIDPOINT |
42 |
6 |
126 |
132 |
|
PLANETARY OBJECTG |
START |
43 |
6.142857143 |
129 |
135.1428571 |
|
PLANETARY OBJECTG |
44 |
6.285714286 |
132 |
138.2857143 |
|
|
PLANETARY OBJECTG |
45 |
6.428571429 |
135 |
141.4285714 |
|
|
PLANETARY OBJECTG |
END |
46 |
6.571428571 |
138 |
144.5714286 |
|
PLANETARY OBJECTG |
47 |
6.714285714 |
141 |
147.7142857 |
|
|
PLANETARY OBJECTG |
48 |
6.857142857 |
144 |
150.8571429 |
|
|
PLANETARY OBJECTG |
MIDPOINT |
49 |
7 |
147 |
154 |
The above table shows my working theory of identifying the planetary objects in our
solar. We know that the creator was a perfectionist and based on the pi rules
the circular measures of planetary objects are likely to have values ending
in 0.142857142, 0.285714285, 0.428571428,
0.571428571, 0.714285714, 0.857142857, or a whole number. Theoretically
speaking, since the creator was a perfectionist and planetary objects are so
perfect then it means they are all designated exact values or operating areas
that they can collide with each other. We also know that the circumference or
the relationship between two objects orbiting or revolving around each other
follows the pattern below.
Rotation and Revolution of Planetary Objects
The
above image shows the only possible way in which planetary objects can
rotate/revolve around one another without colliding no matter how close they
get. For example, assuming the small green circle is the sun and the orange
circles are how the earth rotates around the sun. The above is the same exact
formula we use to calculate the orbits of all the planetary objects by adding
an extra circumference. In addition, the above simple image shows exactly how
we can calculate the perihelion and aphelion of the planets. Note the 7 circles
that make the complete circles. If we were to combine the above image and the
table prior to the image, then;
1. Each
planetary object is likely to be allocated an ‘operating area’ that is between 0.142857142, 0.285714285, 0.428571428, 0.571428571,
0.714285714, 0.857142857, or a whole number for example 1 or 7. This limits the
possible exact values of planetary objects to just 7 values.
2. I
can enhance this by stating that it is highly likely that the exact value e.g.,
the equatorial diameter of the planetary objects is either at the start,
mid-point, or end of the 7 values. Regarding the perihelion and aphelion of
the planets, it is highly likely that the
perihelion is just at the whole number
before the start of 0.142857 or at exactly where the 0.142857 appears and the
perihelion is likely to be where the next whole number appears.
3. The
values can also be used to identify the number of objects surrounding a
planetary object. For example, if the earth’s ‘operating area’ is from 1-490 and there are 7
whole divisions surrounding it as in the
image below then maybe that is the ‘operating area’ of its moon.
4. My
working theory so far is that the values of the planets such as their diameters
and radii are actually whole numbers. This means that the exact diameters of
the planets can be identified where the metric and imperial units are whole
numbers. However, we have never noticed this since we are using the wrong conversion
of Metric to imperial units.
To
avoid sounding like a conspiracy theorist as this is still a work in progress. I
will give the example of Pluto. The diameter of Pluto in KM is stated as 2376
metric units. I am using the metric units as the base value for the analysis as
the contention is whether 1 inch is equal to 2.54 cm or 2.5cm. Remember, my working
theory is that the diameter in KM when converted to miles should also be a whole number.
1 km to the
current imperial mile assuming 1inch is equal to 2.54cm requires multiplying
the number of KM by 0.621371192
1km
based on GUSUMS where 1 inch is equal to 2.5cm requires multiplying the number
of km by 0.6313131313131
The
results of this is shown below
|
FACTOR |
D OF PLUTO |
IN MILES |
|
|
IMPERIAL MILE |
0.621371192 |
2376 |
1476.377953 |
|
GUSUMS MILE |
0.631313131 |
2376 |
1500 |
Thus,
the GUSUMS hypothesis is not far-fetched area mere speculations as there is
practical evidence of this. However, I think is premature to make this
conclusion as we need to first address the exact value of pi to improve the
current estimates and make the necessary corrections before farther
investigating this concept.
Link to the Book: The Gregorian Universal System and Units of Measurement System (GUSUMS): The Art of Mathematics
No comments:
Post a Comment