Authors: Mark Anthony Musgrave
Design of the ancient 360-degree circle is proposed to be the result of using a scientific length standard, the Egyptian Royal cubit, to define the dimensions of the circle reference frame. The ancient length standard is subdivided into its own sub-units of palms and fingers, but it is the equivalence to other ancient length units (inches, feet) in proportions that match specific circle features that allow underling design aspects to be identified. The available evidence suggests that the original circle design described by Hipparchus, as being based on “a radius of 3438 minutes”, should be interpreted to mean that the design circle radius was actually 3438 Royal cubits. From this framework it is possible to observe direct metrological relationships between the design of the Royal cubit and the design of the 360-degree circle, as well as the origin of the inch and feet units. Multiple shared features between the circle and the Royal cubit suggest a common design principle was involved, and the evidence suggests that an understanding of electromagnetic physics was in place when the sexagesimal circle was created. If verified, the hypothesis presented here infers that a new frequency standard could be implemented in modern metrology that would provide both the time and length units and allow for complete integration with the 360-degree circle reference frame. This step may also then provide deeper insights into astronomical physics as dimensional features are examined under a suitable length unit
Comments: 11 Pages.
[v1] 2019-10-31 23:04:59
Unique-IP document downloads: 7 times
Vixra.org is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. Vixra.org will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.
Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.