Cracking Apologia "Wheel Page"

[Silvertiger]

I didn't depend on accuracy John. That's why I measured every single angle and took the average, which is closest to the angles of a septagram. It's that simple. The confirmation of these numbers and their fit to the septagram is the fact that the averages themselves, without rounding, yield an exact sum of 120 degrees. Think about what that means in and of itself. Moreover, whether you round those averages to the nearest whole numbers of 26 and 94 degrees, or round them to the nearest polygonal fit, the pentagon still doesn't fit...either one. Therefore, I pretty much have to hold to the contention that the pentagon was not a shape that was implicit in the AP wheel whatsoever. The averages of these angles yield a very precise measurement of the interior angles of the septagram, a more accurate fit than the pentagon and 72. It is no different than applying an equation for best fit in Excel to points on a graph from a data column. The septagram is not just a best fit...it is nearly perfect, and that is accounting for percent error as well. Precise numbers are derived from averages every day. It gives us predictable models in statistics and allows precision and accuracy to be met in experiments. We observe, and we test. We record, and then we model the results. I like geometry. That's why I did this. I really don't care what anyone thinks is represented or coded within the AP wheel to be honest...I just wanted to model the geometry and see where it led in a way that provides facts from a testable, scientific and mathematical approach as a viable alternative to conjecture. One can take it or leave it. Just try (and this applies to anyone who acknowledges that vision is usually colored by personal bias) not to get caught up with playing favorites. If I am picking something simply because I like it better than something else I see, I am probably shopping for a new truck or home furnishings. Other than that, I stick to what can be tested and verified.

[John Collins]

I think that Bessler designed the drawing to hint at the pentagram. The white angles come to a precise point whereas the black ones don't. Therefore I think there is a temptation is to measure the whites first.

There are three of each so a measurement of each angle gives an approximate figure, but instead of averaging them as you have done, which might not provide the exact number Bessler intended, I sought a total whole number composed of three of each of the numbers between and including 24 to 27. The totals were 72,75, 78 and 81. I divided 360 by each total and there was only the one, 24 degrees, which divided into 360 exactly...5 x 3 times. I admit I assumed that it referred to the pentagram and subsequently discovered the intention behind the seemingly unnecessarily complex axle.

JC

[Stewart]

because you would not be distracted by your own eager to disprove

I'm not eager to disprove you and take no pleasure in this. You know I take this subject seriously and just want to make sure Bessler isn't misrepresented in any way, and fact isn't mixed with fiction. I appreciate you're writing quickly and so am I, and we might not get across exactly what we mean. Look at this as a good test for what you might face when you publish! After all I'm actually rooting for you believe it or not! ;-)

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.

Your attached image is obvious to solve, however that isn't an accurate representation of MT41. Let's forget MT41 for now though. More importantly, I still have issue with what Euclid has done to Matthew!

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.

Might have helped if you'd started with that then! ;-)

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.

You haven't given any good reason why it should be accepted to represent 4.

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

That would be great - looking forward to it!

Stewart

[Silvertiger]

John, it doesn't matter. The angles themselves don't match. 24 degrees to 26 degrees is too large of an error to ignore. I can draft free-hand to better accuracy than that. The 72 degree angle does not apply because the line drafted by its third of 24 degrees is way off as well. Whether you trace the white lines or the black lines, the angles still average out to be exactly the same. A missing corner makes no difference to an angle. Consider the percent error based on accuracy and precision from a best-fit model. In this regard the pentagon is the least likely candidate for best fit. The septagram, on the other hand fits the data perfectly, from which the angular deviation from the expected geometrical outcome comes to only 0.2342 degrees. This deviation is EXACTLY 0.2342 degrees for both angles. In science, that is extremely accurate. Here is the data:

For angle A: |25.9485[measured] - 25.7143[expected]| = 0.2342

For angle B: |94.0515[measured] - 94.2857[expected]| = 0.2342

%Err for angle A: 0.91%

%Err for angle B: 0.25%

[Stewart]

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

Of course I = 1, it's Roman numerals, I'm not disputing that. It's your picking and choosing what coding methods that bothers me. Why are you using I=1 when all other letters you are using the expected simple cipher number. Then with EVCLID you decide to use simple cipher on all letters except V and I. Why? If you're taking them to be Roman numerals, then why are you ignoring C, L and D?

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..

Seriously, you don't think we should be skeptical? Are you never skeptical? "Trust only oneself" you said! ;-)

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..

You might think that, but I can assure you it's not the case. I couldn't care less who solves this, I just want it solved so we can move on with our lives and put all this mystery crap behind us!

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..

Well I obviously can't comment on your book.

HOW numbers may be made to balance isn't the issue, it's the WHY?!

Stewart

[Robinhood46]

We all lokk at things in different ways and play around with them with our creativity, imaginagion...
I'v often toyed with idea that the difference depicts an advancement of the 2 degrees which is created within the movement or a "retardement" (can't find the English word for that).

[raj]

My take:


Raj

[Oystein]

Stewart, I will try to understand you'r "trouble" when observing my information.

I think you couldn't appreciate how 41 become 4+1 because you haven't yet seen it done just like this enough times...yet?

In my book I call this something like "repetitive evidence". So who came first? The Egg or the chicken? Close to nothing can be seen or solved separately. We have to know something before we can solve another thing. So we can't solve one picture by repetitive evidence, can we? But we can observe and learn. What if Digit sum was used, and iV symbol means 4, what then?? The sum becomes 55! It's somehow strange that you don't ask why 55? This is because John Collins already has applied the "repetitive evidence"!! Don't you see? You have unconsciously accepted "55" as a special number. These codes is something like a "catch 22".

We wouldn't be able to confirm the methods without knowing of 55. But 55 is not proven from the numbers is it? It's the other way around.. or both..or none.. It was taken out of "thin air" based on..."repetitive evidence, thus qualified suggestion"

A whole book can use repetitive evidence, and can also guide you to wait...for "repetitive evidence"..then you understand that the first was right.

I never choose any method.
I always use i and v as 1 and 5 in the alphabet value setup, because by doing that checksums matching John Collins findings was arrived at.

If all letters was capital AND matching Roman numerals, roman numerals should be used. (E is not a Roman Numeral, is it?)

What if I wrote "Evclid" just like Matth. was written??

Now you see that it is alphabet letters, and ALWAYS i=1 and v=5 ALWAYS

Please don't accuse me of doing something I don't. This is my life work, I wouldn't mess up such a simple thing..It's well thought through and checked and rechecked, hundreds of times.. If you are right, I would be the first to thank you for letting me know I did wrong!

Suggested alphabet values used by Bessler, when actually using alphabet values Digit Sum, and not Roman Numerals Digit Sum:
A b c b e f g h j k l m n o p q r s t u w x y z /24
Addition:
i=1 (MT)
v=5
Z=2 (MT)

[Silvertiger]

We all lokk at things in different ways and play around with them with our creativity, imaginagion...
I'v often toyed with idea that the difference depicts an advancement of the 2 degrees which is created within the movement or a "retardement" (can't find the English word for that).

There's a difference between scientific methodology and imagination. Go back one page and look at the measurements taken and the averages taken from those measurements. It's pretty tough for numbers taken from empirical data to have an imagination lol.

[Robinhood46]

I put the dots after imagination "..." Thinking that it implied " and all the other ways of describing thought methods.
I do apologize for this and will in future try to be more specific so as not to leave a little ambiguity that could be miss interpreted as a dig at somebody.
Personally when somebody has a dig at me I see two options, either I expressed incorrectly what I was trying to get across or they misunderstood the intended meaning because of some reason or another which is theirs. Sometimes it's a combination of the two.
I have enjoyed reading many of your articles and it is clear that you are an intelligent person, I hope that you can understand the objectivity of this remark when I say that maybe you have a certain level of susceptibility, for whatever reason I ignore.
respectfully Robin

[Silvertiger]

It's tough to say what one truly means to convey both emotionally and intellectually on a forum without having the advantages of intonation and body language. Trust me, I'm not mad lol. I'm specific...there's a difference. :)

[Oystein]

Silvertiger...

I wonder if you mix up how to measure the opening of the white parts in the AP Wheel?

We are not talking of the angle inside of the white gap!!
This angle is of course larger than the part of the circle covered by the rim!

Could you please measure that?

This is what this thread is about!!

If you don't understand what I mean, let me know and I will draw!

[Silvertiger]

Oystein, it doesn't matter whether I measure the length of a gap or the angle which disperses it...the results are interchangeably the same. You can calculate the length of a line segment using either an angle and radius, or by using arc length. It's all the same math. I agree that you should draw a highlight on the wheel just to be clear, that is if you're not sure what I mean. That way we can both arrive on the same page. But I moved the content to a new thread...talk there?

[Oystein]

To be clear I understand you first:

Did you measure the actual angle of the physical opening of the white gap?

It seems like you then say that angle is 25 degrees?

[Oystein]

Illustrating the difference:

The smallest angle is what we are searching for.. It seems to be close to 24 degrees?? If so, please correct your post..so any reader might believe I was wrong all along :-)

To work with geometry, we need dots/intersections to work it out.

The problem: If you divide the circle into 15 parts...you only have dots spread apart. Really no angle. But their spacing is equivalent to 24 degrees apart. If you divide the circle from 360 degrees (ref.center).

With a Pentagon and a triangle placed in a circle, to make 15 parts, the attachment points is spaced 24 degrees apart, but the white area has a couple of degrees more opening, because they are not connected directly to the center. How the lines fold inwards has not been spoken of yet! The angle inside the white part itself is a whole other story!