By
Cocconi and Morrison, 1959;
Sagan, 1973; Rubtsov and Ursal, 1984), and even
physical geometric relationships on planetary surfaces (Gauss, et
al., -- see Crowe, 1986).In particular, the authors were attempting to determine if e/pi =
0.865 [as opposed to the more fundamental ratio (sqrt 3)/2 =
0.866] was the ratio specifically intended at .
Others (notably CydoniaDavies) had already raised key questions
regarding this potential ambiguity.Other constants demonstrated at Cydonia by Hoagland and
Torun being "sqrt 2," "3" and "sqrt 3" (1988), this confusion
regarding which constant was "really" represented by the observed,
redundant angle ratios, trig functions, and radian measure was
considered an important question to resolve. Since "3" and "sqrt 3"
are numbers essential to calculating "areas" and "volumes," Torun
decided to explore their geometric implications first, following on
(op cit).GaussHe began by investigating geometrical relationships among several fundamental " ": Platonic solidsthe tetrahedron,
cube, octahedron, icosohedron, and
dodecahedron. In pursuing these explorations, Torun
examined the mathematical properties of "circumscribed polyhedra"
-- the . solids embedded in a spherePlatonicAlmost immediately, he discovered something quite astonishing (to a non-specialist): the surface area of a (the
"lowest order," simplest tetrahedron form), inscribed
inside a "higher-order" form -- a sphere-- results in a surface
ratio (sphere/tetrahedron) almost precisely equivalent to "Platonic",
the base of natural logarithms:e
When
He discovered that:
Or . . . precisely the
observed "e/pi" ratio discovered at The fact that equals e'/pi can
be demonstrated algebraically: (sqrt 3)/2
To place the above math in simple terms:
This simple fact
completely resolves the ambiguity regarding which ratio -- e/pi or
(sqrt 3)/2 -- was intended at Apparently, both were! Since the most redundantly observed ratio is
0.866 and not 0.865 (the true ratio of the base of natural
logarithms, divided by Pi -- to three significant-figures), it must
now be clear, however, that the *primary* meaning of the "Cydonia" was in all likelihood intended to memorialize
the (sphere)/(circumscribed tetrahedron) ratio [which is also (sqrt
3/2)], and not "e/pi".geometry
of CydoniaFurther examples of "e/pi" at -- appearing in
connection with the ArcTan of 50.6 degrees (present at least twice
in association withCydonia) -- when examined by the Face
Hoagland, confirm that Torun's "circumscribed tetrahedral
ratio" -- e' = 2.72069 -- and NOT the base of natural
logarithms (e = 2.718282) provides a closer fit to the observed
number.Thus strongly implying that " " (and
NOT the usual association of "e" with "growth equations") is the
predominant meaning of "e/(sqrt 5)" and "(sqrt 5)/e" -- two other
specific ratios found redundantly throughout the complex:tetrahedral geometry
( angles 60 degrees/ 69.4 degrees = 0.865 )
are what lead us to the conclusion that in fact *both* constants --
e and e' -- D&M Pyramidare deliberately encoded at .
In particular:Cydonia
But another feature on the
the wedge-shaped projection on the front
-- defines the Pyramid's bilateral symmetry and orientation directly
toward . This feature also now seems to mark
an equally important latitude:the Face
Again, putting this in simple terms:
This discovery only
underscores the importance apparently attached to "circumscribed
tetrahedral geometry" in the construction of |