(Before I forget, the main source is all the work of John Michell, especially "How the World is Made")
The main number canon is three cubed. It is the first level of surface understanding of the entire canon, which gets much more complicated. It is the first baby step.
3^3, or 3x3x3, or three cubed equals 27
Now increase by doubling to get the basic canon
27x2=54
54x2=108
216
432
864
etc.
In this canon, zeros and decimals can be ignored, it is the numerals that count. The numerals can also be transposed, such as 864 and 648
In canon numbers
Moon Radius = 1080
Moon Diameter=2160
Sun Radius=432000
Sun Diameter=864000
Earth Radius=3690
Earth Diameter=7920
Earth Radius plus Moon Radius=5040
1x2x3x4x5x6x7=5040
8x9x10x11=7920
In this canon, 22/7 is used for pi
------------------------------------
Squaring the Circle
Since I have no way to make a graphic, you will have to draw it yourself or google it (John Michell squared circle will bring up the graphic)
Draw a square. Draw a circle inside the square which touches the sides of the square. this inner circle represents the Earth, with a diameter of 7920, Radius of 3960.
Draw a circle with circumference of 31680 over the square (who's sides equal 31680, or 7920x4)
Draw a smaller circle directly on top of the square, so it's center lies on the outer circle. This small circle represents the Moon, with a diameter of 2160, Radius 1080.
1080 + 3960 (the Earth and Moon Radii combined)=5040
31680 x pi (22/7 or 3.142857)=10080
5040x2=10080
Now My "canon" numbers are off by 1.0009099 percent from the "real" measurements in miles. Is one percent really enough to conclude that the canon numbers weren't meant to be the design? It is just a coincidence that these numbers are so close? I say this is no coincidence. It is just common sense. The final product rarely conforms exactly to it's specs. And these objects are huge, they are planetary bodies. Measuring devices themselves are rarely(if ever) exact.
thank you for the vote
If a three-cubed canon is supposed to define the solar system design, why is it that the theory works only with the Sun, Earth, and Moon? There are other elements to the solar system [other planets, and their moons, plus an asteroid belt, comets, etc]. Why don't these other elements fit the paradigm?
The same interrupt of logic applies t the squared circle, for which other planets and their moons do not have the same ratio of size as Earth/Moon.
A far better design theory is the prevailing use of the golden ratio: 1:1.618, as demonstrated by Fra Luca de Pacioli, friend of Leo Da Vinci.
What
"Sure sounds like numerology"
No, numerology is assigning meanings to numbers, and I am not doing that in this case(although I do do it in other circumstances) There is also the gematria aspect, which I do not do, which is assigning numbers to letters and creating meanings for the results. I have dabbled in gematria for a small extent, but I have never gotten into it much, it doesn't really interest me.
Sure sounds like numerology
"Numerology is a long, complicated road to nowhere."
It's not numerology.
Numerology is a long, complicated road to nowhere.
My argument is that the solar system is designed according to specific numbers, basically, multiples of three cubed, and others that tie in with those
What is this argument about? I read your opening but I'm just more confused about what you're arguing for