|
THAT POINT OF REFERENCE AGAIN? … UPDATED
On
the afternoon of Wednesday, August 14, I eventually succeeded in
visiting the formation but the heavy rain that soon developed prevented
me from undertaking the comprehensive survey I'd planned. However, the
limited number of GPS and other measurements I did take, with David
Coggins' invaluable assistance, provided just enough data to enable me
to make a number of meaningful deductions concerning the relationship
that exists between the superb crop circle and the arc, of radius 31x353
m [measured on the spherical earth model], that was drawn from the
estimated centre of Silbury Hill's summit - as described in the above
article.
I first produced the following graphic, derived from a Google earth
image. It portrays the positions, relative to the arc, of 8 points I
managed to determine the geographical coordinates of [with my hand-held
GPS] before the weather deteriorated. The upper 7 points represent the
corners of the cube, and the bottom 1 depicts the centre of the
unique, isolated, oval glyph:-
Fig. 1
Although I knew that each of these 8 nodes will have an expected error
associated with it, in the order of a few metres, or even more [as
opposed to the desired a few centimetres], it was clear that the
above array didn't display any grossly displaced points. I
therefore considered it to be worthwhile estimating how the rest of the
edifice would fit around the basic skeleton shown and I elected to try,
in the first instance, one of Bertold Zugelder's excellent drawings,
with his kind permission, as a representation of the formation's plan.
The outcome is shown below, where it can be seen that - in spite of the
inevitable errors in the respective GPS coordinates, coupled with the
topographical distortion that exists in the original Google earth
image, and Bertold's depiction of an edifice he hadn't actually surveyed
- the fit is quite good. Indeed I concluded that it's even possible to
deduce, from the drawing, that the arc from Silbury Hill is
either tangential to the formation or, close to being so:-
Fig. 2
This particular outcome was unexpected because I'd anticipated that the
arc would have cut the crop circle in some illuminating way. However, it
still interested me - for two reasons:-
1] it revealed that the one minute component of the formation's
exterior, that's furthest away from the Silbury Hill point, is displaced
[when measured on the spherical earth model] from that point - or from
one close to it - by the cited 31x353 metres [= 10,943 m]
exactly;
2] our recognition of this fact strongly supports my belief, as set out
in my preceding article, that the formation is subtly alluding to the
product 31x72p [i.e. 31 x 72nd prime (= 353)].
Furthermore, I then noticed that when the radius from Silbury Hill to
the possible tangent point is put on the figure, thus:-
Fig. 3
- its path through the formation looks interesting. … A diametrically
opposing pair of the dominant, circumferential glyphs is cut in a way
that could also be described as tangential [although I was always
aware of the earlier described errors that the drawing could embody].
The radius is close to being tangential to the eastern face of the
lower glyph's circular region and is also close to being tangential
to the western face of the upper glyph's circular region - as
depicted below, where parts of the formation have been erased so that
these relationships can be highlighted:-
Fig. 4
Having been drawn to this interesting but unimpressive link between the
two glyphs and the Silbury Hill radius, it occurred to me that, if it
truly exists [even in a slightly different form], its apparent
mediocrity may have constituted an invitation for us to make a simple
adjustment to the geometry. …
If the drawing of the formation is subjected to a small anticlockwise
rotation the central, longitudinal axes of the glyphs will line up with
the radius, producing a more aesthetically pleasing figure:-
Fig. 5
And when I discovered that the angle of rotation needed to bring about
this transformation is in the order of 5° [bearing in mind
that we're using an imperfect source] I realised something remarkable.
This angle is 360°/72, and we know that the radius from
Silbury Hill is defined in terms of the factor 72 [expressed as
72p (= 72nd prime), 353]: on the spherical earth model, I've
described, the radius measures 31x72p metres. This
information is displayed below:-
Fig. 6
Although I appreciated that the possible presence of errors means that
we cannot be totally confident about this relationship [in the precise
form indicated], it now seemed feasible, at least, that the formation's
adept architects had manipulated us into finding the cited simple
mechanism, involving the angle 5°. They knew that our discovery
of it could serve as a subtle means of confirming the link that exists
between the Silbury Hill radius and the described 72. However, I
soon realised that the depicted arrangement confirms much more than just
that. …
Firstly,
if we label the penetrated glyphs 1 & 2 [starting,
say, from the tangent end], thus:-
Fig.7
- it's clear that the juxtaposition of this intimately linked pair of
numerical labels can infer a:
12.
We therefore have a situation where the glyphs are closely tied, on the
one hand, to the factor 72 [because they were rotated through an
angle that equals a circle divided by 72] and, on the other, an inferred
12.
But it happens to be the case that the radius they are both disposed on,
from the estimated centre of Silbury Hill's summit, has a value
[measured on the cited, spherical Earth model] that can be expressed
exactly as:-
72p x 12p metres
or
353 x 31 metres
[= 10,943 m]
Secondly,
if the glyphs are numbered in a more global context i.e.
consecutively starting from the earlier defined 1st
[which is alongside the tangent], we find that the two
penetrated by the radius from Silbury Hill are in positions 1
& 7, as illustrated below:-
Fig. 8
But we know that the juxtaposition of the primes 1 & 7 can
infer the prime 17, and the digits that the first 17 primes
comprise add up to another prime, 103, which can be expressed
as:-
72 + 31
And it's the case, of course, that the expression 72p x 31
yields another manifestation of the described radius from Silbury Hill,
expressed in metres.
Before proceeding I would add that, as strange as it sounds, the prime
17 can also be inferred from the depicted arrangement in another
two, independent ways and each could generate its own manifestation of
the above cited computation [which I'll obviously avoid here!]. …
a] The 2 special glyphs are encompassed by 8 others [of
that type], and the 8th prime is … 17.
b] These 8 other glyphs are in a 5-3 configuration,
thus:-
Fig. 9
- and 5 juxtaposed with 3 can infer 53, which
happens to be the 17th prime.
Thirdly,
the key observation at the start of this stage of the investigation was
that the arc I'd drawn, from Silbury Hill, appeared to be tangential
to the formation. And this property of being tangential also
played a role in the relationship I first identified between the radius
and the diametrically opposing, circumferential glyphs. With this in
mind, then, I was interested to note that the word TANGENTIAL comprises
the same tally of letters as there are glyphs [of the type under
discussion] in the formation: 10. I therefore wanted to know if
these letters embody any other relevant links to the crop circle, and I
soon found one that is definitive. …
When I endowed each letter with a value in accordance with its position
in our 26-lettered alphabet I obtained a very familiar prime:-
103
[= 20+1+14+7+5+14+20+9+1+12]
- which I knew could hardly be more closely related to the radius, from
Silbury Hill, that terminates where the arc appears to be tangential
to the formation:-
Fig. 10
Concluding comments
Although my survey of the formation was deficient, it's evident that I
couldn't have generated the links to the radius from Silbury Hill, I
have exposed, if they did not exist. Not only is each one simple and
elegant but it is also exact. My argument must therefore be corroborated
fully.
I'd add that if we assume the beings communicating with us, through the
crop formations, are hyper-intelligent they would realise that they'd be
obliged to use a medium that all races and creeds could understand,
devoid of the ambiguities and complexities of mankind's semantics. It
shouldn't surprise us, then, if they use the universal language:
number and prime numbers.
© Neil Hudson Newman: 22 August, 2013 |
