Cracking Apologia "Wheel Page"

[Oystein]

I'm interested, I agree he seems to have used the secret society numbers/letters/methods in his drawings, but I have the same question as everyone, has your research led you to believe the solution is in a combination of the MT's as Bessler indicated?

The first i did was to deduce a mechanism that filled the space and function in MTs. I found what was missing in a series of MTs and worked on it until I found a mechanism that would count for the missing transfer or coupling..

Then this mechanism seemed to fit into several of his drawings, also geometrically in other MTs. Then I deduced what the numbers and letters would have to mean for this to be true. Then I did the same in AP.

When I went out of the Bessler "bubble" and started to look at some interesting (mostly true) Shakespeare and RC codework from another person here in Norway...

Suddenly .. bang bang bang..

Besslers methods was IT. A figure arose from Euclid's original Elements 300BC. This was the secret.. The ancient Geometry in religious writing and art..often applied without permission of the principal, not to be spoken of...

Now I am in search for if I can find out of how Besslers basic mechanism was applied... what I originally thought? Or does it interact/work in combination with another chain of arms/ hammers..etc. So yes I have worked this up from a mechanical perspective.. and hope to work it down again. I'm kind of happy though..In this way I have something no matter how it turns out. The thing about PM is that you either have all or nothing...Only Bessler have had something in history, now I have something..

[MrVibrating]

Oystein congratulations on your work, and i'm reluctant to interfere - i don't want to derail this into discussions about mechanics...

However i believe i have found the symmetry break - the only one possible that could explain his wheel's performance.

I've explained it as best i can in my current thread, but it's basically using a static force field such as gravity to skew the distribution of momentum from a mutual push or pull between two inertias, at least one of which is subject to that static force. This causes an asymmetric distribution of momentum between them, breaking Newton's 3rd law, and accumulating this subsequent momentum gain results in OU.

Notwithstanding the ever-present possibility that one or both of us are dangerously insane, i have a high degree of confidence that this is the only possible route to OU in classical mechanics. The only theoretical solution that is physical.

As such, if you or JC (or anyone else) have found hidden descriptions of mechanical assemblies, then their purpose has to be accessing this energy gradient.


Presently, i'm in the opposite position - i have the theoretical solution, and so i'm trying to piece together a mechanism that can replicate that mathematical result.

As such, it would seem that now is the time we should be collaborating to meet somewhere in the middle. I ask no special privileged revelations from yourself (or JC or anyone else!), only that you review the gain principle i've described, so that you can better assess the purposes of any mechanical assemblies you may have uncovered.

It would be the greatest tragedy if such a mechanism were discovered, but its purpose mistaken - as for example, something to do with an inherently-impossible gravitational asymmetry - and so the breakthrough squandered.

[Stewart]

Hi Oystein

Haha.. Elias is a normal name in Norway, so why not :-) Say hello to your twins..

It's a nice name - I'm just teasing. :-)

I don't like to be the party pooper, but I see so many things wrong with what you've presented that I just don't know where to start! To be honest, it surprises me that so many members are happy to go along with certain things you've shown. I'm not so worried about the stuff outside the Bessler context, I've done plenty of research into ciphers, freemasonry, alchemy, Euclid etc., and know a lot of what you're talking about. What concerns me is the haphazard and inconsistent way you're going about the 'decoding', and making very subjective links to things. However, I don't deny there is coded information in AP. There is already provable coded information, so there could well be more.

You may well have some information of interest and even be close to a solution for all I know, and I hope you are, and it could just be that you're eager to make connections to back up certain things that aren't really there or might not even be necessary. So I feel I should point out my concerns, and you can take it or leave it.

To be honest, it worries me that you'll be ridiculed by the codebreaking and scientific communities if you publish any of this!

Building failing machines instead of perfecting the documentation and understanding of the codes is not my preferred choice. We must build brick by brick from the ground, not try to start building at the top (the machine)...

Agreed, except the first brick is understanding the document (GB, AP, DT, MT etc) and knowing what is written by Bessler and why. That first brick must rest on a foundation of understanding of the language, writing and of course culture of the time period. Only once these are in place can potential codes be truly evaluated properly.

So with that in mind, I've posted some general information about the AP title page and the 'wheel' image page from the language perspective. Please read this post: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 340#155340 . I'll follow up with comments on what you've posted in this topic, but probably refer back to that one.

I realise you've put a lot of work into this and are convinced you're right, and perhaps nothing I can say will sway you, so this is more for the benefit of others to hopefully get a wider perspective on things.

Stewart

[Silvertiger]

Ok, Oystein has a pretty detailed scan of the AP wheel on his website. I dropped it into AutoCAD and traced it by hand after scaling the outer rim to a radius of 36 inches. I traced every single line straight down their respective centers, as they have a certain lineweight or thickness to them. Then I dimensioned every single angle, as the drawing has a certain level of imprecision, but yet very precise for its day. Now let's take the average of all angular dimensions:


1. The small angle [A]: (25.0553 + 25.9897 + 26.8006) = 25.9485

2. The large angle : (92.9559 + 93.8318 + 95.3667)/3 = 94.0515

3. Together: 25.9485 + 94.0515 = 120 degrees exactly








4. Adjusting to 26 and 94 degrees...the pentagon does NOT fit, as the corners do not meet.
If Bessler wanted the corners to meet, he would have adjusted the angles...but he didn't.












5. The closest polygonal fit is a septagon, where A = 25.7143,
and B = 94.2857 degrees. Sorry guys, this is where the math takes it.












Here is the outcome:

[Oystein]

You could start with pointing out one single thing that I wrote that can be proven wrong. And if you didn't like MT 41, leave it out! It was added here as amusement for Bessler enthusiasts, not for general readers. For examples of Digit Sums I use much more known peoples work.

Remember what I have chosen to present here, is mainly things that is nerdy Bessler-bi products of what I write about, and what I discovered. This is why I can share here to your amusement without revealing what is the RC secret. Nerdy stuff for Bessler enthusiasts. My Book is 300 pages, and none of this except from the pyramid formula is used there.

When you understand the RC secret, you will see that it is also placed in the middle of the "AP Wheel page", then you will understand that all methods are true.. Do you still not understand?

The AP Page has the RC secret as a tease in the center..

Since you say you know so much about all this, please explain how Euclid 1:47 is what ALL freemasonry built upon! And why it is important that we study the figure in the original hand-written writings of Euclid, 300BC.
Ref. Albert Pike

Then I will listen to you..

And then you could also start by presenting the true number of the Devil - -

And why you must solve the AP Wheel figure to find the - -

[Stewart]

In AP Orffyreus called 1717 the year of Orffyreus, and he wrote that it was the year, written with 17 twice. Thus: "17" & "17".

I asked you for an exact quote to back up that sentence, and you responded with:

AP: Part 1 XXXV (35) Three and five!

The Collins English translation say, that he will "patent" his invention for public use... during that special year written twice with the numer 17.

However, that quote doesn't back up your claim that "Orffyreus called 1717 the year of Orffyreus". That sentence is quite misleading, and although it might be unintentional, it seems like you're deliberately trying to reinforce in the reader's mind the validity of the numerology you present in the rest of the post.

Here's the actual quote from John Collins' English translation of AP:
"In short, it is my desire to patent my wonderful invention for public use during that unique year which is written twice with the number 17."

(Bessler doesn't actually say 'patent' however, but that's another matter.)

So, unless you can provide another quote, and I'm not aware of one, then we've established that Orffyreus did NOT call 1717 the year of Orffyreus.

In your second post you talk about the use of the 24 letter alphabet and I of course agree that should be considered as the most likely used for decoding Bessler's writings. For those still in doubt, please read the following posts where I was explaining that to Oystein:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 3654#63654
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 3715#63715

So we can accept this as a valid simple cipher and gematria:
O+ R+F+F+ Y+ R+E
14+17+6+6+23+17+5 = 88

You then remind us that Bessler refers to the year as being "written twice with the number 17".

Twice 17: 17 & 17 --> 17+17 = 34
Or: 1+7+1+7 = 16

Those seem acceptable, but this is a stretch:
1+7=8 & 1+7=8 = 88

Also, Bessler had no control over the year or his name (and yes I realise he chose to code it), so comparing these two 88s can be nothing but a coincidence.

This is why Orffyreus made a deal about it, and encoded this on his last page. You will understand that this page is a masterpiece, and will rank among some of the best encoded pages ever.

I doubt very much whether Bessler would have been bothered by this mundane numerical comparison. Bessler didn't make a "big deal" of it, and that was not the reason for including the 1717 chronogram on the last page (and title page for that matter). As I've mentioned in the other post, Bessler had a fascination with chronograms, but it was also fairly common to included a chronogram of the year of publication in a book anyway. The Bible verse used for the chronogram also conveys a message to Bessler's enemies about defiling themselves with their evil mouths.

It's true Bessler would have considered 1717 a special year because of the number repetition, it only happens every 101 years after all. It was also an important year of celebration for Christians because it was the 200th anniversary of the Reformation.

I don't think there's any reason to claim "1717 WAS THE YEAR OF ORFFYRE". I'd remove that brick!

Stewart

[Stewart]

Next you make these comments:

"We also have a special symbol with no apparent value,"
"Is it possible to find out why Bessler abbreviated "verse" for a special iV ? What was the purpose of this strange letter? Can we prove it?"
"So, with the few methods we now have explored, we can try to solve the strange symbol."
"Why did Bessler choose the strange abbreviation for "verse" ?"
"Here is the first time I discover what could be the strange symbol's secret value!"
"The first "magic" indicator"

There is nothing strange about that symbol. It's a versicle (as ME mentioned). It's commonly used and not something unique to AP. I've talked about it before, here for example:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 0964#80964

You'll find many examples of its use in books from Bessler's time period if you take time to study them in libraries or online. Here's one example from a 1718 German Bible book available online:
http://gdz.sub.uni-goettingen.de/en/dms ... =PHYS_0453

To be brutally honest, I don't like to see people turn the mundane into a mystery through ignorance, and then try to make out they know something the rest of the world doesn't. If you want to be taken seriously by the codebreaking/scientific communties then you really must be careful with things like this or you'll end up with egg on your face! A serious, factual work should not be written like a Dan Brown novel in my opinion. If a work like this reads like a work of fiction, the chances are it is a work of fiction.

So, the versicle (℣) does not represent iV. ℣=4 is your own fabrication.

Also, what you're conveniently calling "headers" rather than Bible verse references, are there to convey a real message from the Bible to Wagner and Bessler's other enemies. You can't ignore the Bible verses' meanings and just concoct a "magic" number from the reference. You have to evaluate the chances of being able to match numbers to the references and still have the verses be relevant.

Stewart

[Stewart]

You could start with pointing out one single thing that I wrote that can be proven wrong. And if you didn't like MT 41, leave it out! It was added here as amusement for Bessler enthusiasts, not for general readers. For examples of Digit Sums I use much more known peoples work.

Remember what I have chosen to present here, is mainly things that is nerdy Bessler-bi products of what I write about, and what I discovered. This is why I can share here to your amusement without revealing what is the RC secret. Nerdy stuff for Bessler enthusiasts. My Book is 300 pages, and none of this except from the pyramid formula is used there.

When you understand the RC secret, you will see that it is also placed in the middle of the "AP Wheel page", then you will understand that all methods are true.. Do you still not understand?

The AP Page has the RC secret as a tease in the center..

Since you say you know so much about all this, please explain how Euclid 1:47 is what ALL freemasonry built upon! And why it is important that we study the figure in the original hand-written writings of Euclid, 300BC.
Ref. Albert Pike

Then I will listen to you..

And then you could also start by presenting the true number of the Devil - -

And why you must solve the AP Wheel figure to find the - -

I can only comment on what you've presented, not what you're withholding. As I said, you may have some really good information, it remains to be seen.

I knew you'd not want to hear what I had to say, but hopefully another point of view is useful to others.

Stewart

[Silvertiger]

What's up with the hostility? Oystein, all i did was trace it. I have no need to prove you wrong, I just get curious sometimes and see where the search takes me. I do it for fun, because I'm bored. So I have no feelings about MT41 one way or the other. So...no need to get offended. The pentagon just simply does not fit. Get mad at bessler or yourself; not me. This is a forum, a place for discussion. Are my findings really worth nothing? Do they merit an outburst? Numbers don't lie and the numbers i've shown are solid, not conjured from imagination. Discuss it in a civilized manner. Analyze them and ask yourself if it is possible. Try not o operate on personal bias alone. You saw my work. Do your codes offer solid geometrical solutions? You saw that the pentagon does not fit the angles. Do you dismiss this even after seeing it? Can you give any reason as to why the pentagon doesn't fit?

Edit: Stewart informed me that it isn't me you are upset with.

[Stewart]

What was the purpose of the result? Jacobi 3,4,5,6,7

The line seemed "magic" when solved this way, but could it contain more information than just IV=4 and confirming the use of Digit sums?

I'm sorry but you haven't managed to confirm the use of digit sums at this point.

One thing we must remember is that MT was NOT available to anybody at this time.

That's an assumption on your part. We don't know who he might have shown pages of MT to, or even who might have worked on carving the woodcuts.

Bessler was free to encode anything as long as certain information was left out or put in another book, not available until his death, or him selling the machine!

That's a reasonable assumption, but as far as coded information is concerned, everything to describe his secret could also be contained in a single book such as AP.

In your first image you have singled out MT41, I assume because you found a way to get the number 55. But why are you so concerned with finding 55? I realise the RC significance, but what's your reasoning for associating it with Bessler?

Why is it necessary to have a balanced pair of letters to give you the squares you're after for your 55 pyramid? Why not just square all the letters/numbers in MT39 to get 55 for example?

Bessler tends to label both sides of the symmetrical designs, and of course always starts with the letter A, so it would be nothing special to find a design labelled A-E twice, and yet we don't even find that and have to force it with "balancing". It all seems very haphazard and meaningless.

There's also the issue of ignoring the F.

In image 2 you show some very dodgy associations!
You show an example of Bessler's handwriting (No: ii) from MT11. Bessler always dots his number ones, so they do resemble an 'i', and who knows, that may be a throw back to Roman numerals.

However, the following is highly suspect:
J+a+c+o +b+i
9+1+3+14+2+1 = 30 +3+4+5+6+7 = 55

Changing the i from a 9 to a 1 in this manner because 63 didn't mean something to you but 55 was somehow better I think is a complete fudge!

Contrary to your summary at this point, mine would be:
Checksum 55 is not valid.
Four things haven't been learned.
℣ does not equal 4.
No evidence digit sum used for anything.
No evidence gematria used for anything.

Stewart

[Stewart]

What's up with the hostility? Oystein, all i did was trace it. No need to get offended. The pentagon just simply does not fit. Get mad at bessler or yourself; not me. This is a forum, a place for discussion. Are my findings really worth nothing? Do they merit an outburst? Numbers don't lie and the numbers i've shown are solid, not conjured from imagination. Discuss it in a civilized manner. Analyze them and ask yourself if it is possible. Try not o operate on personal bias alone. You saw my work. Do your codes offer solid geometrical solutions? You saw that the pentagon does not fit the angles. Do you dismiss this even after seeing it? Can you give any reason as to why the pentagon doesn't fit?

Don't worry, it's me he's upset with, and understandably.

[Stewart]

So, was this just a game to give you the number 55 as the final goal? Or was it something else? Looking closer, there is a similar header below. Was the task to reach the same value of 55 in that line too?

Why would that be a task, when there wasn't a task to find 55 in the first Bible reference?

The problem is that if you were happy with 88 there, and settled for it, by using suddenly another alphabet/values, at that particular place, then you would miss the next bricks we shall build upon it, and we would be no wizer, only left with endless options in the end.

I find it interesting you wouldn't accept that (and neither would I), but you're quite happy with the what you did to Jacobi. What's the difference?

Then if we now should use the new alphabet values, to make values fit, what have we learned? That there is no system...

That sort of thing is what you're doing - there appears to be no system.

And I hope to be able to help make his work accepted as genius code-work (even if his machine should stay unsolved...for the time being!).

You'll only be able to do that if the code gives meaningful results. A working wheel would clinch it, but I'd settle for anything provable at this point.

His little poem say:

"The elements is needed to keep things going, then he talk of Saturn, Mars and Jupiter... Saturn Mars and Jupiter can represent Pythagoras formula 3¨2 + 4¨2 = 5¨2, Pythagoras formula, the 3-4-5 Triangle. Described in Euclid's Elements.

You're referring here to the 'metaphors' section of Chapter 46 of AP. The whole of AP is rhyming poetry not just the 'metaphors'.

"a thing may consist of the three kingdoms,
you have clear signs,
without sulphur, salt, mercury
also soon a thing must pass/expire. &c.
The elements' qualities
are also necessary for all things;
Saturn, Mars, Jupiter are bravely
willing for every war. &c."

These are obvious alchemy references, but I agree that "the elements" could also refer to Euclid's Elements. I've discussed this in the past, here for example: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... =3602#3602

However, why would you do this:

Let us put EVCLID into the heading and see what happens!

That's an incredible stretch of the imagination, just because of the number 15!

And again, the following is highly dubious:
E V C L I D. XV. ℣. 16.
5+5+3+11+1+4 +15 +4 +7 = 55

For some reason you've taken the U/V to be a Roman numeral (5) instead of counting it as a 20! You do realise that there was no character for U, and so it is completely normal to use a V for a U when reproducing Latin texts? (You settled on the 24 letter alphabet for this reason remember?) You've also taken the I to be a 1 for some reason instead of a 9! If you are going to take the letters as Roman numerals then you can't ignore the C, L and D.

So your count should be either:
5+20+3+11+9+4 +15 +4 +7 = 78
or:
5+5+100+50+1+500 +15 +4 +7 = 687

but doing either of those is nonsensical anyway.

Also, for this proposal to be valid, we'd have to accept that Bessler found a Bible reference that not only gave 55 when swapping the book name for EVCLID, but also allowed for the text (in this case "SeyDIhrDañauChnoChVnVerstänDIg") to work as a chronogram for 1717, and for the Bible reference to have some contextual meaning.

I believe King Solomon's secret is the secret Bessler promised to keep shut about, even after revealing his wheel.

Please quote where Bessler says he will promise to keep a secret even after his wheel is revealed.

H + i + r + a + m + A + b + i + f + f
8 + 1 + 17+ 1 +12 + 1 + 2 + 1 + 6 + 6 = 55

You're taking the 'i's as 1 instead of 9 again. Why would you do that here? Is there any example of 55 being derived from this name in this manner in masonic circles? Or for that matter just the changing to I=1 in the normal simple cipher?

Stewart

[Silvertiger]

So...why a septagon if Bessler likes the number five?

[John Collins]

@Silvertiger, I credit you with the accurate assessment of the measurement of the Apologia wheel, but I feel that you may have taken the drawing measurements too literally.

It has always seemed apparent to me that the printing technology was not capable of the kind of accuracy you are depending on. As I explained on my web site, I measured the angles at the inner end of the white segments and discovered, as others have found, that the angles are ambiguous – a bit too vague to measure accurately. I noticed that the angles in the white segment formed a point outside the inner circles and that the black segments did not in fact form any measurable angle unless you extended them to a point which came somewhere beyond the centre of the wheel.

I measured the white angles again and established that they were variously somewhere between 23 degrees and 27 degrees. I added together each set of the same three numbers forming each of the three angles to see if the sum of the three numbers had any meaning. Using the angles as measured between 23 and 27 degrees, I ended up with several possible totals between 69 and 81.

Only one total was significant and that was 72 (3 x 24) which is we know a significant indicator of a pentagram. We also know that a pentagram is easily detected in several of Bessler’s published drawings. I found other supporting evidence that the Apologia wheel contains a pentagram, but that is all, in my opinion.

Adjusting your degree assessment would give 3 x 24, + 3 x 96 degrees.

JC

[Oystein]

To Stewart:

This is the reason I started by saying what I wrote in the first post.

Because this is an interactive forum, some get more obsessed or distracted by finding possible reasons something I say could at some stage be untrue, rather that saying, it could be true. If it later leads somewhere, it have to be true, and then the scepticism becomes stubbornness and an obstacle, and makes you unable to learn something along the way.

In that way a book is better, by far, because you would not be distracted by your own eager to disprove, but you would have to see if it leads somewhere or not. I got distracted by someone wanted just that..So I wrote things from my mind...in a hurry..to try to satisfy curious questions.. I got distracted too, sorry for that.

If you have a problem appreciating that:
Matth. XV iV 16 is placed above the AP Wheel, and then appreciate:
EVCLID XV IV 16 holds the geometry solution for the outer ring of AP, just because you have a problem visualising how the number in MT may or may not be made to balance. (Attached) Then this isn't for you.

If you was curious, open minded as I suggested, you would wonder: If this even point to the missing number of the Teufel - - ... hmmm then this is exciting...

If you use my method described by digit sum Ernst Elias, you would see that this is where I first got it confirmed, and how that relates to 5 and 5. But in reality all this is backed by repetition evidence (used in many places in the same manner) and is only avail. for those with an open mind. Don't dismiss, but remember, and see if/when/where it appears again.

These post are written in a hurry...and when you even have a problem with me calling the iV special...and appears distracted by my wording..I said I write fast in a hurry between a 1 year old baby's attention... (I can't go into detail about a figures history.) In the formula presented it is iV. Of course Bessler would't use a figure not accepted by the printers! I appreciate that you pointed out what letter it was, but that has nothing to do with the numeric value solution. I know from John Collins web, way back what the "letter" is originally about..

I wanted to show how the AP Wheel page hold "magic" number solutions leading into the AP Wheel, and filling the blanks - -

And If you travel Germany, you will see way back in history 1=i written on the walls on the kings castles... I even attached MT 11 where Bessler himself writes MT i i

Do you think he invented it himself, or adopted a method?

General
As I said, I encourage people to receive information...rather that put up a wall of scepticism..that same scepticism was of course even worse for Bessler with his outrageous claims.. Basically I think it goes all the way down to people being hurt when someone claim they have done something you haven't been able to achieve. It becomes a competition of intellect, rather that enjoying new information.. This is only my conclusion after working on this for so long. Though the reader of my first book, say that after about 100 pages or so, they are convinced that I found THE secret formula used by RC, Masons and some great artists including Bessler. For me that is what matter, more than 1 degree more or less in AP drawing or someone don't appreciate how numbers may be made to balance..