AP Wheel Geometry

[Oystein]

Why don't you use all the natural numbers that you measured in the original drawing then? The drawing vary by as much as close to two degrees, how do you explain that in case of disproving that a pentagon will fit? your computer drawing is not the same as Bessler drew, chugged onto wood (don't know the name) (or copper?) and by ink. printed on paper?

By Besslers hand drawing, square and compass on paper, and then onto wood, and then to paper, how well do you think this accurate figure fits the drawing? (Attached) And you even don't know what parts on the outer rim should be used. The inner black circle..or on the white circle? And what about the close to 2 degrees variation... is this what you have to have in mind? 1 degree +/1..

The attached is computer (exact level pentagon onto real life Bessler pocketbook print) (and we even don't know if the figure is level, scanned nor printed.)

Another thing to remember is that the computer line are much thinner than pencil lines and then woodcut lines.

I have no further wish to elaborate more. Obviously you computer sim, with your chosen angles, translated from measurements, does not really add up to sum. Or else it would look like the picture attached! Why does not your sim, show what I show attached?

I have NO translated values in between. Just a circle divided into 5 parts, and it meets more than well Bessler print.

The problem I still have is that it looks like for outsiders that you magically figured out that my conclusion of 15 equally distributed geometrical parts is the foundation on witch the picture is built.

When/if we go to the next step, you will see that this was the answer to the riddle all along.

if you dispute that the picture disprove that the parts are spaced from a hand drawn (by tools) pentagon, then I will ask for permission to use you'r statements as an example to how we can get distracted and how this can affect our work.

I am exited to know. because of what your computer sim, using your rounded measured numbers tell you, would you dismiss the fact that:

Matth. XV. iV. 16. points to
Evclid. XV iV. 16 A solution that give us the value = 55

Would you dismiss that, and possibly miss what follows, if that is true?

[Silvertiger]

Why don't you use all the natural numbers that you measured in the original drawing then? The drawing vary by as much as close to two degrees, how do you explain that in case of disproving that a pentagon will fit? your computer drawing is not the same as Bessler drew, chugged onto wood (don't know the name) (or copper?) and by ink. printed on paper?

You could answer your question if you actually read the post...

[Oystein]

I guess you know, that if you attach the Pentagon well on the outskirt of the circumference, it will look more like you computer sim!?

But that is simply because the lines are not going straight towards center. So it matters where you put the circumference.

So the larger the Pentagon, or bigger the RIM the lower will the pentagon corner be in regards to the AP lines you focused on..

Maybe this is what appears in the SIM versus reality..?

[Silvertiger]

I can't communicate with you Oystein. You don't even know the definition of "simulation," and the difference between that and drafting. You appear to have no grasp of what drafting is, what AutoCAD is, what cad software does, the level of geometry it can solve, etc. You're making me tired. It's like trying to describe color to a blind kid.

[Oystein]

What I really wonder is..

Do you dismiss my finding of the ancient description, that matches bessler heading, because of what you see on your computer sim?

Yes, I say sim, you understand. I have used those. Bessler didn't, period.

Do you dismiss the Pentagon and Triangle in a formula used in AP Wheel?

Would be interesting to know.

[Silvertiger]

I don't know. I just know you're trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole. You can't force a puzzle piece to fit where it doesn't belong. In that regard I have no choice but to dismiss the pentagon fit in the AP Wheel. Not a tough decision either. Deal with it. Or don't. Don't really care what you do with the info. All I know is that one doesn't have to be rocket scientist or a code breaker and know everything about everything to figure out something that's easy and right in front of you. :)

[Oystein]

Ok, I will not write here anymore.

I have presented a picture of reality where the computer Pentagon fits onto the original AP Wheel, that is enough for me, and I know why. And of course I don't care if you dismiss that. The only thing you will lose is the opportunity to see where it leads.

For those that will see how your choice leads versus mine..they just have to watch in the future..

Bye

[agor95]

@Oystein

Thank you for your analysis.

Much Appreciated

[Silvertiger]

Best of luck with your research, Oystein. :)

[agor95]

@Oystein

People in the future will look back and wounder why people did not see the obvious.

Also we have members thinking that now.

We all have to be strong focused and open to the insight of others.

Remember there is a world out there with no knowledge that Bessler even existed.

The slope is up hill for some time to come.

[John Collins]

I’m disappointed that Oystein’s work has been dismissed in such an abrupt way. I thought that most people on this forum were open minded about all new information, regardless of any preconceptions.

I think the problem in this particular case is the determination to over analyse the drawings instead of trying to look at them as Bessler intended us to do (in my opinion).

At the risk of repeating myself or trying to put it another way, look at the Apologia wheel and note that the white segments come to a point and the black ones don’t. So Bessler is saying measure the white ones first. Because of the inherent difficulties of producing an accurate print via a woodblock, he must have known that measuring the angles would produce variations in the angles found, but also he would assume that we would would only look for whole numbers.

So measuring them would give an assortment of approximate numbers, and I should point out that you can get different number depending on which printed version you use.

Assuming that each of the three angles should be the same, you then multiply each rough angle by three, because there three, and then divide 360 by each total you have got from that. There is only one number and it is 24 degrees times 3, goes into 360, 5 times, implying the presence of a pentagon. All the other totals don’t subdivide as whole numbers.

So obvious I cannot believe people dismiss it, and it’s supporting evidence.

Thanks Øystein, talk to you soon.

JC

[Silvertiger]

John, is it remotely conceivable that three septagrams intersecting a circle could possibly have a spiritual meaning. Since the septagram does appear to be a perfect fit, one can't simply rule out this possibility just because it isn't a familiar flavor of ice cream, imho. Only one pinnacle of each septagram is allowed within the circle, while the other 6 must remain outside of it. Since their are three septagrams, there are then three 7th pinnacles describing 777, the holy trinity perhaps: Father, Son, Holy Spirit. The remaining six pinnacles times the number of septagrams, which is three, are left outside of the circle, and thus describe 666. The Beast is described as having seven heads and ten horns. There are three septagrams. 7+3=10. There are two circles. The outer circle which cuts off the Beast, and the inner circle of sevens. 10/2= 5 and 5...55 Is this avenue worth exploring?

With a cursory search, I found this:

The seven-pointed star (or, alternately, septagram or heptagram) has accumulated many levels of meaning over the centuries. One of the oldest recorded meanings given to this star may be found within Kabbalistic tradition, where it represents the sphere of Venus and the power of love. It is also found within Christian tradition as a symbol of protection, the seven points representing the perfection of God and the seven days of creation. This resonance with the days of the week carries through into its use as a planetary symbol, as each point not only represents one of the traditional "seven wandering stars," but also the corresponding days of the week, (as well as other magical correspondences that come under the influence of the planets).

[justsomeone]

Quote:
Assuming that each of the three angles should be the same, you then multiply each rough angle by three, because there three, and then divide 360 by each total you have got from that. There is only one number and it is 24 degrees times 3, goes into 360, 5 times, implying the presence of a pentagon. All the other totals don’t subdivide as whole numbers.

Or maybe Bessler was pointing out the number 24 as it is a multiple of 8 and there was about 8 impacts heard per revolution, or maybe he was pointing out the number 3, or maybe he was pointing out 3×5, or 3+5.... There isn't anything conclusive about a Pentagon untill it actually leads to a working wheel. We need repetition with all this code breaking otherwise you are just looking at ink blots. Jmho

[Silvertiger]

Justsomeone, this thread is all about the measurements that show how a septagram is a perfect fit to the measured angles, and explains why the pentagon is not a good fit. Look at the measurements taken in the first post. What do you think?

[Silvertiger]

I’m disappointed that Oystein’s work has been dismissed in such an abrupt way. I thought that most people on this forum were open minded about all new information, regardless of any preconceptions.

I think the problem in this particular case is the determination to over analyse the drawings instead of trying to look at them as Bessler intended us to do (in my opinion).

At the risk of repeating myself or trying to put it another way, look at the Apologia wheel and note that the white segments come to a point and the black ones don’t. So Bessler is saying measure the white ones first. Because of the inherent difficulties of producing an accurate print via a woodblock, he must have known that measuring the angles would produce variations in the angles found, but also he would assume that we would would only look for whole numbers.

So measuring them would give an assortment of approximate numbers, and I should point out that you can get different number depending on which printed version you use.

Assuming that each of the three angles should be the same, you then multiply each rough angle by three, because there three, and then divide 360 by each total you have got from that. There is only one number and it is 24 degrees times 3, goes into 360, 5 times, implying the presence of a pentagon. All the other totals don’t subdivide as whole numbers.

So obvious I cannot believe people dismiss it, and it’s supporting evidence.

Thanks Øystein, talk to you soon.

JC

John, I never had any preconceptions. I would have posted this whether Oystein was on the forum or not. I always thought the pentagon was a fit, based on your work, until I got curious and measured the drawing. Oystein just happened to have a very nice crystal clear scan of it on his website that allowed me to make accurate measurements. You make it seem like I planned it out...except I don't really know anything about the code stuff, so why would I bother? And as such, there was never anything for me to "dismiss." How could I dismiss what I did not yet know? I simply followed a path of curiosity on my own to see where it led. If the result had validated the pentagon, then I am sure y'all would be much happier. I shared my results...big mistake on my part. That's why I am reluctant to share anything in the first place. It's like running an idea past family members and having them shoot you down because they just couldn't "see it that way." I should just keep everything to myself as usual. No one can get angry about what they don't know. I'll try to keep that way.