Cracking Apologia "Wheel Page"

[Oystein]

This is how 3 - 5 (Triangle and Pentagon) becomes 360/15 = 24 degrees, would look like...

This can be deduced from Evclid. XV. iV. 16.

I repeat, please don't get distracted from the information by being stubborn, and build walls! That is not the way..

If this is NOT enough for you to be able enjoy Bessler's actual and genius mind, rather than focus on how the message and messenger have to be wrong, then I have not communicated properly or I have met a receiver, not tuned in..

If so, I have no more to offer on this!

[daxwc]

Oystein: Can you please provide evidence from Bessler’s era that 66 is the Devil’s number. Preferably leaning to Pythagoras, Cabala or somebody like Agrippa.

[Oystein]

No, I can't, sorry.

In my opinion, and by result from my research:

Not according to Bessler and some other Germans before him.

Maybe some would name it thus?

[Oystein]

Since I think I have found out where some get confused (mixing in angles of "arms" and such). I had to cut this down to basic.

I simply say that Euclid. XV. iV. 16. says:

Step one: Divide the rim into 15 parts by applying a triangle and a pentagon. This, and the numbers "3" and "5" is all the information this "Problem 16 of Evclid" give us. So, this must only be Step 1, of a geometric procedure.

In STEP 1, for now just forget about lines going inwards at angles, arms, perpetual motion or computer simulations..

Just divide a rim into 15 parts by known methods and "drill some holes": (See attached).

So, isn't the attachment points, (or drill holes if you like) at the rim calculated from 15 equally spaced points?

If you wonder how you can do it by applying 2300 year old technology, just look at Evclid's Elements, The XV books, Book iV. Problem 16.

It seems I even have to emphasize, that this is the first move you do, by square and compass, to establish point A of the lines that will point in towards a point B. We have here not discussed why and where point B of the inwards moving line will go.

Points "B" are here represented by a big Question Mark, and to find them geometrically, we must go on to STEP 2, but that was not the intention of this thread!

[daanopperman]

Stewart

You have been a translatedr ,
and now you are a decoder too .
Are you going to learn decoding form this topc
a and prescribe to the author .

[rlortie]

According to my calculator, it is either in error or math is not infallible when bisecting degrees into minutes and seconds.

Here is an example of attempting to index a 360 degree circle into 35 segments used in my molecular mass design.

360 degrees /35= 10.28, yet 10.28 X 35=359.8 degrees. What happened to the lost .2 degree? Or if I carry out more places I end up with 360.045

Unlike the constipated mathematician, I prefer not working it out with a pencil!

Ralph

[Oystein]

Thanks for kind and inspiring words Fletcher and Ovaron!

Yes, there is a problem presenting something in a forum, because every time I use anything, like a method I found somewhere else, unexpected questions, and remarks can distract, and a demand for background check...why? ehhh I found it somewhere else, because I found something else before that..and JC found something that led me there, and 4 other great artist has used ut before him, and after him..then show me..where? We would go on for ever. So the option to demand information on individual basis, ruins the joy of a journey. Like starting on page 200 in such a book, and dismiss what you read. But somehow, people often respect a book more than a forum..and patiently read from page one...

At the same time, we learn something from the feedbacks..what could be misunderstood and what need more clarification etc. That was the point.

In a book format it is possible to portion out, and lead on, so we would go and discover Albrecht Durer, Then the Rosicrucians and their secret, before Bessler, or studying the origin through Plato or Pythagoras secret society.. the road is long, if you really wonder why..and then..why that..and so on..

Everything relates to everything. though scholars say, almost nothing relates to anything else, and use the word conspiracy theorist to establish their place at the top of the intellectual pyramid....but almost everything is opposite of what we are taught and thus believe! This was my conclusion.

Some philosophy on the side: (For the ones with nothing better to do).

Was Bessler's wheel true? Then some law is opposite of what we believe.(down to quantum mech versus relativity..at that level. This is the first time we discover the difference in what empty space is, and possibility of both creation and destruction of energy. Until 1712, creation of energy was only possible for "God".) So creation of energy is possible after all then? Yes, we have energy, don't we? Yes, no?

This "rule" then suggests many things:

If scholars say, NO there are no hidden codes in widely known and historical works...then there certainly will be...But...they should know right? The more you learn..the better? Not necessarily..not if there is just a tiny hole..then the hole will grow by itself, each generation.. The more you learn, the less of such truths you will be able to see. Because you see what you think it is..and what you think it is, is what you learned..

We learn there is a God..Then my conclusion then soon must be..well there isn't.. God is the simple answer to impossible and unknown creation or destruction of energy/matter... So was God inside Bessler's wheel then? certainly not! The fundamental thing that made Bessler's wheel work, would probably be like discover why we believe there is dark energy. Dark energy has not been discovered...but Bessler's wheel was discovered! Something is wrong..

Why can't scholars see simple riddles, that even my son at age 5 can see?
In my book,I present a simple simple proven solution to a "problem" in a historical painting. (I preset many unsolved codes, even those of public awareness, and among the great mysteries) The method my son discovered is described in MT. Anybody could, or should see it at once.. But still atom physicists has it on their walls, look at it every day...meditate on it...but can't see it... why? Because they have not been taught! You see only what you have learned! Like the strange "dot" in the portrait of Bessler. ORFFYREUS 3/5.. Nobody saw it was a three?? So many people, so many years?? Many of us staring at the dots..uhh. Hat of to John Collins that saw 5 and was even often not taken seriously..why? Why does Freemason depict Masonry done by babies in diapers? Well my son was 5 when he first time discovered the existence of two simple codes in world famous art.

My readers has been shaking their heads..they don't understand why? Why isn't simple child's play riddles in historical works been documented on Wikipedia? Or in any web site or public book on earth? Something is a bit strange.. I named it "The shadow of knowledge".

As a scholar you will be in this shadow...you loose natural sight..loose curiosity...loose yourself..you become the books you read..
The more you learn, the more you adjust what you see, to fit what you "know". We even twist the truth, to fit what we already have learned. Observations is dismissed or adjusted to fit the "perfect" truth we have been taught. If it fits...it must be true? But did it really fit? Suddenly you can't even see that a simple number that is written wrong, has a "slap in the face" simple solution that second graders and upwards can solve in their head.

I proved that somebody knows this stuff....but it's still not documented or public.. So, some people know things that can't be written in book, in other than a new code.. So you can't learn it, then you won't see it..

Good night :-)

[WaltzCee]

Oystein,

In a few words, todays education is indoctrination.



My several points about your site being filtered as porno are (1) it further adds credibility your writing is being censored, (2) begs the question why and (3) has the potential to stigmatizes those investigating.

I was at a public library streaming live market data from several sites, capturing some of it and basically hogging band width while taking a break at BW. In stead of getting your site, I got a screen telling me if I want to go to that site I needed to take a valid ID to a librarian. So I did. I was told the site was porn and there was nothing they could do at that level.

However what they did do was ID someone wanting to look at porno in a public place and around children. Libraries inside the beltway have huge children sections with lots of toys and books that are seldom cracked. I immediately fired up my hot-spot and notebook, went to your site and showed the librarian that had ID-ed me.

I'm going to try a few different things and will let you know what I find out.

[ME]

Yes, there is a problem presenting something in a forum, because every time I use anything, like a method I found somewhere else, unexpected questions, and remarks can distract, and a demand for background check...why? ehhh I found it somewhere else, because I found something else before that....

Because this is a discussion forum, not a book.
Because of verification: you could say anything, you can find anything... it may be all nonsense.
Because you say you know, so there are the questions.

So the option to demand information on individual basis, ruins the joy of a journey.

No it doesn't. It charms it up, it makes the journey worthwhile.
You are the specialist with all the information here: the scholar so to speak.

From this [post] I read we're dealing with codes which are invented by organisations who's purpose is to obfuscate knowledge because some other semi-religious group hides knowledge... and each is proud of it.
The problem: In both cases we learn absolutely nothing.
And who know's who's lying to who, and who should take who's word for ... for what exactly?
It still have to say that's it's sure historically intriguingly fascinating how this operates for so long, just like the safe is a mechanically fascinating invention.
But there's no knowledge in those code. It's not like we are all going to encode all our messages like that.
There's only knowledge hidden by those codes... You talk about "shadow", there it is!
At least we hope there's hidden knowledge, because it could also be those codes exist simply for the sake of codes because those codes may be special..
Maybe we eventually get awarded by some wheel-design... and then we still know nothing.

So we have to investigate and build that design-thingy with both our own scholarly- and empirical knowledge...
Who knows in whatever diverse not-to-be-generalized ratios, amounts and forms this knowledge may be in each individual, but hopefully it's already present, sufficient enough and ready to be used to finally verify that centuries old hidden result.

Your journey-ruining questions are actually proof some people [your real public] pay attention to what you say, and try to puzzle along so they gain understanding and may start to think in parallel with your ideas so they can attach and apply this new understanding to the principles they currently use, know or find interesting....
In short: Acquiring new knowledge.
Which is all about the act of bringing this new knowledge into the open and into the light... so we can All play with it.
That's the only way !

[Oystein]

Thank you WaltzCee, interresting...

And to ME I know I was wording myself a little on the side of what I wanted, but I didn't have time to be accurate.

The original journey, that was planned in my head is "ruined", by being changed to another kind of journey..

Changed to a journey where something else can be learned..

The problem: In both cases we learn absolutely nothing.
And who know's who's lying to who, and who should take who's word for ... for what exactly?
It still have to say that's it's sure historically intriguingly fascinating how this operates for so long, just like the safe is a mechanically fascinating invention.
But there's no knowledge in those code. It's not like we are all going to encode all our messages like that.
There's only knowledge hidden by those codes... You talk about "shadow", there it is!

You say we learn nothing..but I say to learn that we haven't learned, because we was not learned (taught) is a valuable lesson!

This lesson, or this new awareness of "The shadow of knowledge" tell's us that Besslers wheel could be placed in "The Shadow of knowledge" and then a new truth/light about the which of the alternative view of the fundamentals in the universe is true..if any.

I believe a man like John Nash could hold such a truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash_Jr.

John Nash said that it is important to keep away from reading the books or taking classes. Then you will be coloured by those ideas..they might not be built correct, or on stable ground. He was seldom seen with others, but some time, stopped a physics professor and asked curious questions, and then was gone.

At his "death bed" he was in Norway to receive the Abel Prize for his extraordinary genius math abilities.

At the award, his mumbled...

By the way, I have written a correction or an alternative to Einsteins Relativity.

People was shaking his head..looking down, feeling sorry for him:
Now he has lost it..old man...they felt sorry they later said..

So, ONE person, a math professor from Norway was excited, and later got to meet him...

The formula was hand drawn on a paper... Here it is..

When talking to the top Physic authorities in Norway, he got the answer:
The case is closed! We do not look into other theories, that is NOT built upon existing or extensions of existing theories.

We are 100% sure that the fundamental and quantum physics is all correct!

The professor went to a bright student, and made him run the now dead genius Nash' formula by simulating the whole universe over time on a heavy computer.

After 3 months, the result was: Everything worked as in real life. No error could be found...but still.. He will not be accepted in this generation.. Maybe a new will go back and look at it..

The professor said: It solved the problem of Dark Energy.

"You know Dark energy is just a suggestion to solve a problem in physics. It has never been observed. Nash calculated it, and thus suggests what it really is."

So related to Bessler and his story. And I believe the solution to dark energy has something to do with what allowed Bessler's machine to run, seen in a larger picture..

[Nobody]

Oystein: Can you please provide evidence from Bessler’s era that 66 is the Devil’s number. Preferably leaning to Pythagoras, Cabala or somebody like Agrippa.

Hello daxwc,

to quote from the Bible Revelation 13 verse 18, the Devil´s number has
always been "666", refer to the link below.

https://www.bibleserver.com/text/ESV/Revelation13

Since we know that Bessler was deeply religious and believed fully into the
Holy Bible, it is obvious that for him the Devil´s number was "666".

With best regards,
Nobody

[Oystein]

How would you apply three digits 666 onto two blanks ? - -

If this thread clears up, you will see that what we have done by the code above, is to deduce the number of the devil - -

[Furcurequs]

Sad to say it, but I already thought about John Nash when reading about all these alleged codes for I almost made the joke "A beautiful mind is a terrible thing to waste" - playing on the title of the John Nash biography and movie "A Beautiful Mind" and on the old United Negro College Fund's "A mind is a terrible thing to waste" advertisements.

To be honest, I just don't take this type of "decoding" seriously.

[Oystein]

My conclusion also was; If you don't believe in a thing thus not take it bloody seriously, you will not be able to find "it". So this is of course the reason that such things can slip...

For you to take it seriously you would have to know it already!

This is the "Catch22" that most people is affected by..

PS, what is waste?

After all, we are all waste.. In here..only the ones succeeding in building Perpetual Motion machine is not waste... all.. :-)

[Oystein]

To close this about the AP Wheel rim geometry.

I claim that the figure attached is deduced from a Pentagon and another triangle not drawn here.

Attached is a accurate computer Pentagon with equal sides, placed upon the AP drawing. The Pentagon meets the line or arm that is framing the white area. Such lines are little wider than modern computer lines though. In this case you are able to see both. The width of the areas vary by a degree or more, but it is actually a better fit than we find in many other geometrical prints of the time.

My claim is that just this is described in
Matth. XV. iV. 16. by replacing Matth. with Evclid, the geometry "Bible".
Evclid. XV. iV. 16. And by documented and consistent methods I got the value = 55 (cred. Collins)

The reason is to describe one part of the geometry in the figure, but also lead to "The Devil".

In the middle of the page, there is an unknown value indicated by - -

If we are right, all this must lead us to the missing value of the devil.

"Hunting the Devil" was a title I once saw fit...

And from there..it must lead into the book itself..

PS, this figure shown was originally found by John Collins. Let's not forget that. creds.

Please excuse the hasty drawn(out of center) center of Evclids Problem 16. Must walk the kid... May make a new later

Also take note of how we now can "defend" that there is 3 special white areas. They are place so they all point towards the triangles corner. Another reason to say, yes it was there../is there..