The Constant of Nineveh was found on Sumerian clay tablets and decoded by NASA astrophysicist Maurice Chatelain, who dealt with the orbital calculations for the Apollo missions. The Constant of Nineveh shows that all planetary orbits are perfect sub-divisions of one master cycle. This cycle is expressed as a value of seconds that is exactly 70 multiplied seven times by 60, or (70*60)^7. Every known body in our Solar System has a perfect number of orbital cycles within this master number, right down to the second! A certain number of each of the planetary orbital cycles will fit perfectly into the Nineveh Constant, with not even one second remaining!!! For example, Pluto has 25,000 cycles in the Nineveh constant and Halley’s Comet has 81,000 cycles. The Nineveh Constant is very roughly around 6.2 million years in length. The Nineveh Constant is also a sub-harmonic of even longer numbers recorded in the Mayan codices. I don't believe anybody with an interest in this subject can ignore these facts, if facts they be.
According to http://ufos.about.com/library/weekly/aa103000a.htm Chatelaine was not even a NASA employee. Let alone an Astrophysicist. So the appeal to authority seems to fail.
Thanks thed, that's just the sort of comment I was after. It doesn't surprise me. As for the links, CH, I don't think I'll give them for now and I'll tell you why. I have read some fascinating pieces of information over the years, this being one, a lot of which have been accompanied by, shall we say, other eccentric ideas. They have invariably been 'shot down' by attacking the author rather than the claim. Whilst some of these snippets are rather 'off the wall', I suspect that some of them are true. It is purely my hope to inspire someone with the time, knowledge and facilities, who may be so inclined, to do a quick check on some of these things, because if some of them are correct the implications are rather interesting.
Here's another one. An equilateral triangle of side 25 cubits has a height of 10 metres. The French invented the metre as 1/10,000,000th. of the distance from the pole to the equator on the meridian through Paris (that much is fact), they were out by, I think, about 80 metres, the Egyptians were only out by 40.
Hum, >>Every known body in our Solar System has a perfect number of orbital cycles within this master number, right down to the second! This of course, is rubbish. Because orbits decay and change. >> The Egyptians were only out by 40. I find it amazing that the pharaoh could grow his arm (elbow to index fingertip) exactly to 25.6cm… (Though the value varies as low as 17cm)
1 Do they or is that just theory? 2 I agree there are various cubits, but who decided that was the way they were arrived at. Could have been the solution after a few bottles of something.
Facts they be not. Fact: The Earth's own orbital period is 365 days, 6hrs, 9min, 9.54 sec. or 31558149.54 sec The so-called "Constant of Nineveh" is 195955200000000 If I divide 31558149.54 into 195955200000000 I get 6209337.4566 the 6209337 is the number of "whole orbits" and the .4566 is what is left remaining. But that is .4566 of a complete orbit or of 31558149.54 sec. This works out to 14409745.02 sec or about 166 days. Not even close! Pluto has an period of 90800 days or 7845120000 sec dividing this into the constant gives you 24977.974 Again, the .974 is what is left remaining, this is 0.026 short of 24978 complete orbits or 203973120 sec or about 6 and 1/2 years. That's hardly "not even a second remaining".
Hum, "<i>The word comes from the Latin cubitum, "<b>elbow</b>," because the unit represents the length of a man's forearm from his elbow to the tip of his outstretched middle finger. This distance tends to be about 18 inches or roughly 45 centimeters. In ancient times, the cubit was usually defined to equal 24 digits or 6 palms. The Egyptian royal or "long" cubit, however, was equal to 28 digits or 7 palms. In the English system, the digit is conventionally identified as 3/4 inch; this makes the ordinary cubit exactly 18 inches (45.72 centimeters). The Roman cubit was shorter, about 44.4 centimeters (17.5 inches). The ordinary Egyptian cubit was just under 45 centimeters, and most authorities estimate the royal cubit at about 52.35 centimeters (20.61 inches).</i>" From: http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/dictC.html
Thanks again chaps. I don't know if those figures on the constant are close enough to be interesting or not. This particular case is certainly spoilt by his insistence on the exact accuracy. As for the cubits, David Furlong in 'The Keys to the Temple' used 0.462 metres,18.1 inches for the Geographic Cubit (25 = 11.55 metres) and 0.525, 20.7 inches for the Royal cubit (22 = 11.55 metres). He also used 6.25 fathoms, 20 Pyk Beladys, 31.25 Remens, 37.5 Geographic Feet and 38.5 Egyptian Feet. I don't know how accurate they are but I guess if you alter your facts to fit your conclusions you can get the answer you are looking for! Maybe I should stick to Bird-watching and Bridge, but I doubt that I will.
