MADRE/MOTHER/METER (GRIEGO) - NEXO CON EL METRO DISEÑADO EN FUNCION A LA LINEA ROSA/ROSE LINE QUE ES EL MERIDIANO QUE PASA POR PARIS

Act 12:12 And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying .

Ιωαννης Ioannes {ee-o-an'-nace} of Hebrew origin 03110;; n pr m AV - John (the Baptist) 92, John (the apostle) 36, John (Mark) 4, John (the chief priest) 1; 133 John = VJehovah is a gracious giverV 1) John the Baptist was the son of Zacharias and Elisabeth, the forerunner of Christ. By order of Herod Antipas he was cast into prison and afterwards beheaded. 2) John the apostle, the writer of the Fourth Gospel, son of Zebedee and Salome, brother of James the elder. He is that disciple who (without mention by name) is spoken of in the Fourth Gospel as especially dear to Jesus and according to the traditional opinion is the author of the book of Revelation. 3) John surnamed Mark, the companion of Barnabas and Paul. Acts 12:12 4) John a certain man, a member of the Sanhedrin Acts 5:6

Gematria: 1119

Μαρκος Markos {mar'-kos} of Latin origin;; n pr m AV - Mark 5, Marcus 3; 8 Mark = Va defenseV 1) an evangelist, the author of the Gospel of Mark. Marcus was his Latin surname, his Jewish name was John. He was a cousin of Barnabas and a companion of Paul in some of his missionary journeys

Gematria: 431

μητηρmeter {may'-tare} apparently a primary word; TDNT - 4:642,592; n f AV - mother 85; 85 1) a mother 2) metaph. the source of something, the motherland

Gematria: 456

'Metro' means 'meter' in Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, etc. The meter is historically defined as 1/10,000,000 of the distance between the North Pole and the equator through Paris, or in other words the Paris Meridian between the North Pole and the equator. The Paris Meridian is also the 'Rose Line' (an esoteric concept popularized by The Da Vinci Code) i.e. a 'Red Line'...

Belgian television showed the film The Revelation of the Pyramids. It contains an intriguing suggestion for a mathematical relationship. Let us debunk it, though keep the intrigue.

I have three reasons to look into this. The first reason is the earlier weblog on the use of ‘archi’ Θ = 2 π = 6.283185307… rather than π as the key mathematical concept for the measurement of the circle. Other people suggest ‘tau’ τ but that looks too much like the radius r and thus will cause much confusion in the classroom. The second reason is the earlier weblog on the mathematics of Jesus. Since the holy family fled to Egypt there is ample reason to look what was happening there. The third reason is that the film suggests that there was an ancient advanced civilisation. Since we may all be disappointed about how we ourselves are doing as a civilisation, it would be great when we could discover that others in the past have been doing much better.

We will also use ‘phi’ φ = 1.618033989… or the golden ratio. This has the property that φ2 = 1 + φ, or alternatively that φ = 1 / φ + 1. It allows a particular interesting application of the Pythagorean Theorem. A right angled triangle with base a =1 and height b = √φ generates a hypothenusa of c = √ (a2 + b2) = √(1 + φ) = √ φ2 = φ. The associated square has the surface φ2, and by using a circle of radius φ we can find that same value in the length of the interval 1 + φ. It appears that these dimensions have been used in the pyramid of Cheops. To measure length the Egyptians used the ell or the (royal) cubit of approximately 0.5236 meters (wikipedia: between 52.3 and 52.9 cm). The pyramid of Cheops has a height of 280 cubits and a full base of 440 cubits. That shape however consists of two right angled triangles. The proper triangle has a base of 220 cubits. The ratio is 280 / 220 = 14 / 11. It so happens that 11 * √φ = 13.99221614… ≈ 14. Thus the Egyptians chose a ratio in integer numbers that closely matches the real value of the golden ratio.

The film The Revelation of the Pyramids now presents the startling equation:

π = 0.5236 + φ2 or π = cubit + φ2

Startling about this is that π and φ are pure numbers while the length of the cubit only makes sense when everything is expressed by using the meter as the standard length. The pure numbers π and φ come about as ratio’s and thus by dividing lengths so that they do not depend upon any choice of measurement standard. But the value of the cubit changes if we switch from meters to feet and inches.

A first step is to check for accuracy. We find that π – φ2 = 0.5235586648… Thus the relation only holds by approximation, though the accuracy is eery.

A second step is to divide both sides by the cubit, or rather by the pure value π – φ2. Then we find:

π / (π – φ2) = 1 + φ2 / (π – φ2)

6.000459671… = 1 + 5.000459671…

There we are.

Do you see it ? Well, it took me some moments to find the proper sequence of explaning, so let us follow these steps.

A major point is that the use of π has been playing a misleading role in this analysis. It gives only a half circle and it is much better to use Θ and the whole circle.

The first point is the surprise that φ2 / (π – φ2) = 5.000459671… Reworked, we get:

φ2 / Θ ≈ 5 / 12

What is to say about that ? Well, it apparently is a mathematical property, like 11 * √φ ≈ 14. Sometimes mathematical numbers with complex properties and long decimal expansions can get close to ratio’s of specific integer values. This may be surprising, but it is a mathematical surprise. It cannot be a base for concluding that the ancient Egyptians knew about the decimal expansions of these numbers and their particular ratio. Once you decide to build a pyramid using the ratio of 14 / 11 since it is pleasing to the eye and with structural stability, then you are stuck with the implied mathematics, but that does not imply that you know more about the implied mathematics.

Secondly, let us assume that the Egyptians had their ell or cubit as an arbitrary length (based upon the human body). They also divided the year in 12 months and day and night in 12 hours each. Thus for them it makes sense to measure the circumference of a circle by 12 cubits, like we still do in our clocks. Of these 12 pieces of a pie, six can be allocated to π, five to φ2, and then one remains (all with a proportionality factor).

A small problem in this discussion is that the Egyptians might use either flexible ropes (circle) or rigid yardsticks (polygon). Let us assume flexible ropes (circle) first, as they have been nicknamed ‘rope-stretchers’. (See the appendix for approximation by a polygon.)

The radius r of that circle follows from Θ r ≈ 12 cubit, giving r ≈ 1.909859317… cubit ≈ 1.91 cubit. For the Egyptians there was nothing special about that number for that radius. The film shows that the capstone of the pyramid would have this side. That is not inconceivable given this geometry. (If the Egyptians had Θ ≈ 44 / 7 from π ≈ 22 / 7 then r ≈ 12 / Θ cubit = 12 * 7 / 44 cubit = 21 / 11 cubit = 1.90909 cubit. For them still no special value.)

It is only for us, who have adopted the meter (rather than feet and inches), that a sense of wonder arises. For r ≈ 1.909859317… cubit = 1.909859317.. * 0.5236 = 1.000002338… meters ! Alternatively put, if we take a circle with radius 1 meter then the division of the circumference by 12 gives us the Egyptian (royal) unit of measurement, namely via Θ r = 12 cubit or one cubit = Θ / 12 = 0.5235987756…. This uses the arcs rather than the sides of the polygon, and presumes that the flexible rope subsequently is transferred to a yardstick. (For the polygon, see the appendix.)

To understand what is happening here requires us to look into the history about the selection of the meter as the European standard of measurement. Officially, the French Academy decided in 1791 that a meter was to be one ten-millionth of the distance from the Earth’s equator to the North Pole (at sea level) (wikipedia). The expedition by Napoleon to Egypt took place in 1798-1801, thus later, and the results of the new Egyptology will not have been available immediately. From this we may tend to infer that the ancient Egyptians knew about the size of the Earth and reasoned like the French. It seems more reasonable to think differently. To start with, it is already curious to take something that is difficult to measure, such as the distance from the Earth’s equator to the North Pole, to define a standard. It seems more reasonable to assume that there were already circulating measures and that the story about the equator was only an embellishment. Apparently the circle with a circumference of 12 ells had been surviving over the ages and still made it into the discussion.

But the film then should be about what happened in France and not about mysteries in ancient Egypt.

NB. There is ample discussion about the measurements of the pyramid. The top is missing so we can only guess what the Egyptians intended. See the original Petrie measurements (base 9068 and height 5776 +/- 7 inches) and this discussion with drawings. Indeed, if the base is 220 cubits and the Egyptians had a precise estimate of √φ then the height would be 279.8443229 cubits, which is only a 0.06% of the whole height or one finger of a cubit short of 280. Because of this uncertainty, we cannot infer on these grounds that the Egyptians didn’t have a precise estimate of φ. It are other documents that show us that there were severe limits to their number system. We can neither infer that they were aware of the implication that φ2 = 1 + φ, We can observe however that they used geometry and architecture that closely matches these results. See the website by Gary Meisner for how you can create your own golden ratio paper pyramid.

PM. Sir Flinders Petrie (1853-1942) suggests that the basic inspiration lies in the circle rather than in the golden ratio. A circle with radius 7 has a circumference of 7 Θ ≈ 7 * 44 / 7 = 44, using the approximation π ≈ 22 / 7. This 44 gives a square with sides 11. A circle with radius 7 has the circumference of a square with sides 11. Thus we find the numbers 14 and 11 again.

The argument then is that the Great Pyramid expresses Θ ≈ 4 * 440 / 280 = 44 / 7, and that the golden ratio is only a by-product. If this is the case then this knowledge about Θ has been kept secret or has been lost since later documents apparently don’t mention it. It is a bit curious how that knowledge can get lost when that very same pyramid is standing in front of you. Mankind however has achieved greater mysteries. Note that there is no quick transformation into φ2 / Θ ≈ 5 / 12. Via Pythagoras φ2 ≈ 1 + (14 / 11)2 = 317 / 121 and now φ2 ≈ 5 / 12 * 44 / 7 = 55 / 21. For us these are approximations only but for the Egyptians it sufficed that the construction worked. The Petrie approach to start with the circle and 14 / 11 ratio seems simplest indeed. Still, the builders will not have been insensitive to the lure of the golden ratio, and it is remarkable that they have hit upon this very shape.

Appendix

We can also assume that they did not use flexible ropes but rigid yardsticks to lay out a polygon with circumference of 12 cubits, and imagined it enclosed by a circle. We can calculate the sine of a half slice, with Sin[angle] = h / r. A half slice has h = 0.5236 / 2 and the associated angle = Θ / 12 / 2 rad or 15 degrees. We find r = 1.01152. The enclosing circle has a radius that is 1% or one centimeter longer than the meter.

A slice of Θ / 12 of the polygon: The inner circle has r = 1 and h = Sin[Θ / 24] = 0.2588, the outer circle has r = 1.01152 and h = 0.5236 / 2 = 0.2618.

Meridian Room (or Cassini Room) at the Paris Observatory, 61 avenue de l'Observatoire (14th arrondissement). The Paris meridian is traced on the floor.

The Paris meridian is a meridian line running through the Paris Observatory in Paris, France – now longitude 2°20′14.02500″ East. It was a long-standing rival to the Greenwich meridian as the prime meridian of the world. The "Paris meridian arc" or "French meridian arc" (French: la Méridienne de France) is the name of the meridian arc measured along the Paris meridian.^{[1]}

The French meridian arc was important for French cartography, since the triangulations of France began with the measurement of the French meridian arc. Moreover, the French meridian arc was important for geodesy as it was one of the meridian arcs which were measured to determine the figure of the Earth via the arc measurement method.^{[1]} The determination of the figure of the Earth was a problem of the highest importance in astronomy, as the diameter of the Earth was the unit to which all celestial distances had to be referred.^{[2]}

In the year 1634, France ruled by Louis XIII and Cardinal Richelieu, decided that the Ferro Meridian through the westernmost of the Canary Islands should be used as the reference on maps, since El Hierro (Ferro) was the most western position of the Ptolemy's world map.^{[3]} It was also thought to be exactly 20 degrees west of Paris.^{[3]} The astronomers of the French Academy of Sciences, founded in 1666, managed to clarify the position of El Hierro relative to the meridian of Paris, which gradually supplanted the Ferro meridian.^{[3]} In 1666, Louis XIV of France had authorized the building of the Paris Observatory. On Midsummer's Day 1667, members of the Academy of Sciences traced the future building's outline on a plot outside town near the Port Royal abbey, with Paris meridian exactly bisecting the site north–south.^{[4]} French cartographers would use it as their prime meridian for more than 200 years.^{[3]} Old maps from continental Europe often have a common grid with Paris degrees at the top and Ferro degrees offset by 20 at the bottom.^{[3]}

A French astronomer, Abbé Jean Picard, measured the length of a degree of latitude along the Paris meridian (arc measurement) and computed from it the size of the Earth during 1668–1670.^{[1]} The application of the telescope to angular instruments was an important step. He was the first who in 1669, with the telescope, using such precautions as the nature of the operation requires, measured a precise arc of meridian (Picard's arc measurement). He measured with wooden rods a baseline of 5,663 toises, and a second or base of verification of 3,902 toises; his triangulation network extended from Malvoisine, near Paris, to Sourdon, near Amiens. The angles of the triangles were measured with a quadrant furnished with a telescope having cross-wires. The difference of latitude of the terminal stations was determined by observations made with a sector on a star in Cassiopeia, giving 1° 22′ 55″ for the amplitude. The terrestrial degree measurement gave the length of 57,060 toises, whence he inferred 6,538,594 toises for the Earth's diameter.^{[2]}^{[5]}

Four generations of the Cassini family headed the Paris Observatory.^{[6]} They directed the surveys of France for over 100 years.^{[6]} Hitherto geodetic observations had been confined to the determination of the magnitude of the Earth considered as a sphere, but a discovery made by Jean Richer turned the attention of mathematicians to its deviation from a spherical form. This astronomer, having been sent by the Academy of Sciences of Paris to the island of Cayenne (now in French Guiana) in South America, for the purpose of investigating the amount of astronomical refraction and other astronomical objects, observed that his clock, which had been regulated at Paris to beat seconds, lost about two minutes and a half daily at Cayenne, and that to bring it to measure mean solar time it was necessary to shorten the pendulum by more than a line (about ^{1}⁄_{12}th of an in.). This fact, which was scarcely credited till it had been confirmed by the subsequent observations of Varin and Deshayes on the coasts of Africa and America, was first explained in the third book of Newton’s Principia, who showed that it could only be referred to a diminution of gravity arising either from a protuberance of the equatorial parts of the Earth and consequent increase of the distance from the centre, or from the counteracting effect of the centrifugal force. About the same time (1673) appeared Christiaan Huygens’ De Horologio Oscillatorio, in which for the first time were found correct notions on the subject of centrifugal force. It does not, however, appear that they were applied to the theoretical investigation of the figure of the Earth before the publication of Newton's Principia. In 1690 Huygens published his De Causa Gravitatis, which contains an investigation of the figure of the Earth on the supposition that the attraction of every particle is towards the centre.

Between 1684 and 1718 Giovanni Domenico Cassini and Jacques Cassini, along with Philippe de La Hire, carried a triangulation, starting from Picard's base in Paris and extending it northwards to Dunkirk and southwards to Collioure. They measured a base of 7,246 toises near Perpignan, and a somewhat shorter base near Dunkirk; and from the northern portion of the arc, which had an amplitude of 2° 12′ 9″, obtained 56,960 toises for the length of a degree; while from the southern portion, of which the amplitude was 6° 18′ 57″, they obtained 57,097 toises. The immediate inference from this was that, with the degree diminishing with increasing latitude, the Earth must be a prolate spheroid. This conclusion was totally opposed to the theoretical investigations of Newton and Huygens, and accordingly the Academy of Sciences of Paris determined to apply a decisive test by the measurement of arcs at a great distance from each other – one in the neighbourhood of the equator, the other in a high latitude. Thus arose the celebrated French Geodesic Missions [fr], to the Equator and to Lapland, the latter directed by Pierre Louis Maupertuis.^{[2]}

Map of France in 1720

In 1740 an account was published in the Paris Mémoires, by Cassini de Thury, of a remeasurement by himself and Nicolas Louis de Lacaille of the meridian of Paris. With a view to determine more accurately the variation of the degree along the meridian, they divided the distance from Dunkirk to Collioure into four partial arcs of about two degrees each, by observing the latitude at five stations. The results previously obtained by Giovanni Domenico and Jacques Cassini were not confirmed, but, on the contrary, the length of the degree derived from these partial arcs showed on the whole an increase with increasing latitude.^{[2]}

Beaumont-en-Auge, Normandía, 23 de marzo de 1749 -París, 5 de marzo de 1827

Astrónomo, físico y matemático. Desarrolló la transformada de Laplace y la teoría nebular, ecuación de Laplace. Compartió la doctrina filosófica del determinismo científico.

Su obra más importante, “Traité de mécanique céleste”, es un compendio de toda la astronomía de su época, enfocada de modo totalmente analítico, y donde perfeccionaba el modelo de Newton, que tenía algunos fenómenos pendientes de explicar, como la aceleración de Saturno y la Luna, o el frenado de Saturno, que inducían a pensar que Saturno sería captado por el Sol, y Júpiter saldría del sistema solar y la Luna caería sobre la Tierra.

Laplace demostró que la aceleración de Júpiter y la Luna y el frenado de Saturno no eran contínuos, sino que eran movimientos oscilatorios de períodos milenarios, explicando de esta manera y con muy complejos cálculos, estos fenómenos que constituían anomalías en el modelo newtoniano de Universo.

Durante la Revolución Francesa, ayudó a establecer el Sistema Métrico.

Enseñó Cálculo en la Escuela Normal y llegó a ser miembro del Instituto Francés en 1795. Bajo el mandato de Napoleón fué miembro del Senado, y después Canciller y recibió la Legión de Honor en 1805.