A Sacred Geometry

1.1 The Root

In order to penetrate the ancient mentality one
must come grasp the idea that science (i.e. knowledge)
was not considered as something limited to a strictly
materialistic philosophy or a merely empirical awareness.
Modern science is actually a philosophy of knowledge
constrained to a materialistic ideology and an empirical
method, and what this means in simple terms is that
modern science and its methods are limited to a number
of philosophical stipulations which are of a materialist
tendency. When we speak of "science" in our days, we are
actually speaking of knowledge constrained to a modern
philosophical definition that is basically materialist
(naturalist) and empiricist (limited to sensorial awareness
for granting proof or evidence for a proposition).
Empirical reality is the 5 sense reality: what can be
seen, heard, smelled, tasted, and touched. "Empirical
proof" or what we sometimes refer to as "scientific proof"
means sensorial evidence. In modern times we have
invented a number of machines which allow us to inspect
the ultra sensorial realm empirically: microscopes,
infrared and ultraviolet telescopes, x-rays, thermal vision,
etc. But despite this industrial sophistication, our concept
of science (knowledge) is limited to the sensorial or
empirical awareness for proof or evidence of a scientific
proposition. Einstein's theory of relativity had to be
"proven" empirically: physicists needed to "prove" that
light was actually curving by observing eclipses and
planetary transits in order that Einstein's formulations
could be called "laws of relativity". Empirical or sensorial
proof is what makes the difference in our modern
philosophy of science.
However, to the ancient mentality (a mentality to
which Plato as a philosopher is faithful) an empirical
restriction on science or knowledge is no doubt a way of
restricting knowledge or science, or, what is worse, the
human intellect. In Platonic philosophy (and practically all
ancient philosophies like Vedanta or Pharaonic
philosophy), the realm of the 5 senses is barely the tip of
the iceberg of science or knowledge, and empirical proof,
although it is a good way of checking theories and
propositions of natural science (like physics), is in no way
a method of checking knowledge of a higher sphere.
Under the scope of Platonic and ancient philosophy,
the restriction of empiricism on science is considered
backwards because there is no naturalist or materialist
restriction on knowledge itself. Philosophy (the philosophy
of science) is not materialist or naturalist, hence there is
no sense in restricting knowledge or science to a
materialist or naturalist definition.
Now, one good example of how empiricism is
backwards in regards to science is found in the realm of
psychology and ontology. Every human being experiences
emotions like anger for example. It is well known that
anger nullifies our cognitive faculty of reason: that it make
us speak harsh words and perform violent acts that we
regret once the anger has subsided and we "think things
over". Nobody needs neuroscientists to "prove" that anger
is real or what its effects are in a materialist language
where we might hear of biochemical reactions in our body
or Central Nervous System. Emotions and thoughts are
not material objects, and hence they cannot be
understood scientifically under a philosophy of science
which declares the necessity of proof through empirical
methods. There is no possible way to "prove" under
empiricist methods that human beings and animals dream
and imagine. However, we know that we as humans
imagine and dream on a daily basis, and when we see a
dog raise its ears to hear at a distance, we infer it is
imaging what the sounds could be much as we do.
Empiricism studies the effects of metaphysical
causes. A cellular phone rings because it receives a
microwave signal. The electromagnetic signal has no
physical existence: it is a purely metaphysical thing which
has an effect on physical and sensorial reality. Modern
physics has no problem in admitting that there is a
metaphysical aspect of the universe. As paradoxical as it
may seem to say that physics studies metaphysical
powers, it is nonetheless a fact. Energy has no physical
existence and neither does gravity or "force". These
metaphysical or super-natural powers have effects on
matter which are empirically observable, buy energy is
not matter, and gravity and "force" have no empirical or
sensorial basis. The existence of these powers is only
inferable: its properties are deduced from the effects.
Modern physics even goes as far as denying that
there is such a thing as matter in the sense of actual
physical o material building blocks: the atomist theory
which proposes that there should be an actual material
basis for existence and the universe itself is a fantasy:
science fiction, not fact. In this sense, however, physics
has departed from practically all other scientific
disciplines of modern days who mostly favor a materialist
or atomistic cosmology and philosophy. Modern Biology,
with its propositions on the "origin" of life having a basis
on "primordial pools" is a clear example of this backwards
mentality.
Empiricism and the so-called "scientific method" of
modern days does not agree with the actual discoveries
and revelations of physics as a leading discipline
concerning the reality of the universe. The scientific
method as we know it in modern days has a fault at its
very philosophical basis and ideological fundament, and
this reality is simply ignored, although mostly in an
unconscious manner, by the vast majority of scholars and
academics who we recognize as "scientists".
Today we are glad to ignore this fact because it
does not have a very noticeable effect on our daily lives
where we are permanently indulging in those industrial
innovations we call "technologies". The philosophical
crack at the very base of our "science" is definitely not a
hot topic because 99.99% of people simply don't care,
and this 99.99% includes scholars and scientists.
However, this ignorance, whether it be deliberate or
unconscious does indeed have a significant effect on our
education and especially in the manner in which we are
presented with "science" by the scientific community and
academic consensus.
The detrimental effect that this naturalist
philosophy of science has for our education concerns the
very cosmology we are presented with by scientists and
scholars as well as the manner in which uncomfortable
truths are deliberately ignored in favor of sustaining
fictions as long as they do not harm the paradigm of
materialism and empiricism. The materialist philosophy
and empirical method is universally considered as the
only correct form of knowing or gaining a "scientific"
perspective of the universe. Practically no one questions
this philosophy of science because practically no one
knows that it is in fact a philosophy of science. It is simply
called "science", and this shows how it is believed to be
knowledge itself: the only correct form of acquiring
knowledge.
The worse effect of this ignorance in the academic
and scholarly community is the arrogant manner in which
any alternative philosophy of science is immediately
called "pseudo-science". This fancy greco-roman
terminology simply means fake-science or fake-
knowledge. The evidence today for this ridiculously
arrogant and hypocritical monopoly on the concept of
"science" is most evident in the matter of Intelligent
Design: the scientific proposition that the universe is
designed by a Universal Intelligence. This is exactly what
the ancient philosophies demonstrated, and it is exactly
what modern science today demonstrates, but the
"problem" among scientists is that it does not fit the
paradigm of materialistic atheism which developed our
"scientific method" and forcefully shoved knowledge itself
(science) into the intellectual enclosure of positivism and
empiricism.
Any philosophy of science along with its method is
constructed on the basis of a cosmology: on the basis of a
definition of reality and what the world is. At the very
heart of every scientific assessment there is always the
influence of how we perceive reality and the universe to
be, but this principle of cosmology and the philosophy of
science is very much ignored and simply taken for
granted when we speak of science or science fiction
(pseudo-science).
To any true philosopher it is obvious that restricting
human science or knowledge to the 5 sense experience is
limiting our own human intellect to a very inappropriate
and artificial limit. We would not know any natural law at
all if we were to restrict our intellect to sensorial reality.
The most fundamental principles which shaped the latest
scientific revolution, like the 3 laws of planetary motion
revealed by Kepler, and the laws of gravity revealed by
Newton as well as the mathematical principles of calculus
would have been impossible to understand with a human
intellect limited to sensorial reality.
Mind is our 6th sense. We are capable of thinking
with the mind, and this means performing the cognitive
functions of analysis, the comparison between elements,
the naming of objects, and the appreciation of logical
sequences in the world which are rational relationships
between objects. If it were not for this 6th sense of mind,
there would be no science as we know it at all, and our
intellect would be completely deprived of understanding
the laws of nature in the universe. Empiricism proposes
that any form of knowledge be demonstrated or proved
empirically, meaning that we need to prove mental
stipulations through sensorial consciousness. This is
perfectly fine for natural science, but it is completely
inappropriate for the higher realm of science which is of a
metaphysical or super-natural order.
It is precisely this form of science or knowledge
which the scientist of modern days arrogantly denies as if
the training in natural sciences like physics, chemistry,
biology, etc., would have given the person enough
knowledge to pass judgment upon matters which
transcend these spheres of thought commonly (and quite
mistakenly) perceived to be the limit of our intellectual
capacity. It is a lack of humbleness which pushes the
modern scientist to speak of "pseudo-science" as soon as
he or she hears of a knowledge beyond the intellectual
corral of naturalism and the materialistic philosophy of
science upon which the modern scientific method is
constructed. It is a lack of humbleness which sparks the
claim for "pseudo-science" because humbleness is
knowing one's limits, and the limits of this intellectual
corral are usually ignored by the scientists and scholars of
our days who have not the slightest clue about the
underlying philosophy of science which defines the
concept of "science" or "pseudo-science" in the first place.
The modern scientist and scholar thinks that his or her
mind is running freely through the pasture of free thought
when in fact it is restricted to a tight perimeter because of
a naturalist and materialist philosophy. Whosoever dares
to jump over the fence is immediately ridiculed and
aggressively assaulted intellectually not unlike the way in
which Plato makes notice of in his famous Allegory of the
Cavern when he tells of the liberated soul that is capable
of escaping the intellectual shackles and witnessing the
light of day beyond the darkness of the cave. The
arrogance and hypocrisy of modern scholars is certainly
not something new, and a reading of Socrates' words in
regard to the sophists of 2400 years ago reveals this fact.
Mind enables abstraction and conceptualization,
but abstraction is the limit of modern science and thus it
is branded as the intellectual limit of the human being
when in reality it is not. For Plato and the ancient sages,
abstraction or dianoia was not the limit of our human
intellect: there was a higher sphere of intellectual
awareness, and this is the realm of Eidos: the world of
Ideas or what Carl Jung called archetypes.
Archetypes or Platonic Ideas are primordial
forms of the universe. In other words, they are universal
powers or, as R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz called them,
functions. It is these archetypes, these primordial powers
or functions of the universe that the ancient Egyptians
called neteru: something that we translate today as
gods.
The so-called gods of the ancient philosophies are
the archetypes of the universe: the primordial powers that
cause and direct all manifest processes in the natural
world but also in the realm of Mind: of abstraction and
imagination.
It is very common today to believe that the
ancients were superstitious primitives who believed that
supernatural powers or gods ruled natural phenomena,
and this idea is usually brought up with a tone of vanity in
order to show how our modern understanding of the
universe under the paradigm of positivism and empiricism
is so bright and true compared to that of the ancients. But
the reality is that our materialist philosophy of science
cannot explain the cause or origin of any natural
phenomena as it always refers to another natural
phenomena in an infinite chain of effects which never
have a root or cause. One will ask a physicist what the
cause of the universe is, and the scientist will answer that
it is the Big Bang: a physical event. But our human
intellect inevitably asks once again: "What is the cause of
the Big Bang?". This very common question which repeats
itself over and over is a very significant testimony to the
fact that our human intellect is designed to expose the
fallacy of physical principles or causes in the universe.
The only answer to this question is that the cause of the
universe and its natural aspect is not physical or natural,
but metaphysical or supernatural. The question of "who
made God" in the same chain of propositions is a false
question, because that which we call "God" is Super-
natural which means beyond-born: Unmade and Eternal,
without beginning or end, metaphysical.
Today this answer and true resolution to the origin
of life and the universe is unacceptable for the scientists
because God does not fit in the little box of positivism and
empiricism wherein mankind has artificially drawn the
perimeter of "science". There is absolutely no
philosophical way around the problem of establishing a
physical cause for the universe: our human intellect is
designed to reject it because it is designed to know the
solution to this cosmological question. The origin of space
and time is Eternity, the origin of all limit is the Limitless.
If the true answer to the question is rejected by scholars
and academics of our days, it is certainly not on the basis
of any scientific or objective assessment of the universe.
It is on the basis of emotionally driven denials related to
the idea of what God should and should not be: atheistic
ideas which are obviously sparked by a hatred and
animosity towards religious institutions and their dogmas,
and not sustained by any serious and objective
assessment of the universe itself. Along with this
blindness imposed by resentment and anger comes the
denial of all traditional views of the ancient and archaic
world under the excuse of an invented backwardness of
primitive days.
In modern times it is extremely rare to find a
serious inquiry into ancient knowledge while it is very
easy to find the repeated ridicule of ancient beliefs in
gods in contrast to our sophisticated equations in
physics. Plato, Jung, and Schwaller are three examples of
people who took care to communicate to the reader the
actual complexities of ancient scientific thought and how
they are in fact based a true philosophy and derived from
a true cosmology. And it is true insomuch as it is unlike
our contaminated sophistry pretending to pass as
objective and biased free "science", as it actually provides
a real and true picture of the universe with answers to
human questions about life and its purpose. This is the
fundamental difference between ancient science and
modern science: the latter is an arid accumulation of data
aimed at a manipulation of Nature with the goal of
providing mankind with evermore sophisticated industrial
technologies. These are, at the same time, aimed at
providing addictive sensorial gratifications and mental
pleasures. On the contrary, the former kind of science is
dedicated to providing humanity with true answers to the
most important and significant questions in life. Perhaps
the question that must be raised for each of us on this
matter is whether we would like to live ignorant about our
meaning and purpose in life but spend our days indulging
in ever more sophisticated material treasures made in
China, or if we want to understand who we are and what
we are doing here. If we choose the second path, it is
quite necessary that we renounce to our permanent
distraction from this type of higher and properly human
knowledge and come to understand that "science" is not
limited to the intellectual corral of the modern philosophy
of materialistic atheism. That is the path of science as the
servant of industrial capitalism and generalized egotistic
hedonism, not the science for truth itself.
Now, one of the things Plato speaks about is the 4
Cardinal Sciences which need to be studied in a
philosophical framework. These are Geometry,
Arithmetics, Astronomy and Harmony. In this work
we follow this ancient guideline, and now it is time to
focus more specifically on Geometry, but not in the
manner which is taught in school in order to torture
children and indoctrinate minds in robotic and mechanical
calculations. Here we will see the relationship between
geometric form and number in the context of a
philosophical guideline.
One of the principal things that we have lost in our
modern mathematics is the notion that number is
subordinated to ratio and proportion. In other words,
Arithmetic is subordinated to Geometry. For example, if
one were to ask the question: what are numbers in the
universe? What would be the answer to this question?
Numbers have no empirical basis: they are invisible
things that exist in a plane of reality that is completely
abstract. So what is a number?
Perhaps the modern mind will think that it is a tool
or instrument for calculation, but the reality is that in
modern days one cannot answer the question of what
numbers are in the universe because we have forgotten
the link of numbers to geometry, and especially because
we have forgotten the philosophical aspect of arithmetics
and science in a general sense. So, here we will give a
quick illustration of how numbers are understood in the
ancient mentality that is true to philosophical principles.
The first number to consider is of course 1. One is
Unity, the Absolute and Eternal: God, the Tao which is
beyond all duality. The 1 is in all numbers, and yet it is not
any number except 1. Arithmetic functions like
multiplication and division are cancelled by 1 because
Unity is immutable, impossible to alter. Unity or 1 is the
common denominator of all numbers: all numbers are x/1,
but for practical purposes we have abandoned this true
and original notation. 1 is God, the Supreme and Absolute
reality in which there is no difference and no multiplicity.
Unity, represented by the number 1 is the Infinite and
Limitless, or, as the Vedanta philosophy of India says,
ananta.
Now, in order that 1 becomes a multiplicity of
being, it needs to be fractioned in such a way that its
inherent Unity remains unbroken. Here, in this
philosophcal dilemma of how the One becomes the many,
the Golden Proportion is the key. Unity is firstly fractioned
into a feminine power and a masculine power, a Yin and a
Yang, and thus Unity is fractioned into the primordial ratio
of the Golden Proportion which is numerically 2/3.
 In the ancient traditions of the I Ching form China,
Yang, the masculine is represented by the number 3,
while Yin is the feminine power represented by number 2.
In ancient Mesopotamia, the priests of Enki, the god of
science and knowledge which represented the Universal
Intellect were known as priests of the 2/3. When Plato
represents his mysterious World Soul in the dialogue
Timaeus, it begins with the scission of Unity or 1 into 2
and 3 The secret to this mystery is : not a number, but
a function or archetype represented by number in the
sphere of the abstract.
The primordial scission from which all multiplicity of
existence arises is the scission of 1 by . Numerically it is
1/0.618... and reciprocally 1.618.../1, but is a logical
function as we have explained in Chapter 2 when we
encountered the Golden Proportion in many astronomical
relationships. It is not a number, but a proportion: a
unique relationship to Unity or 1.
This function that we symbolize with the Greek
letter is the root of all multiplicity, the root
function of all being, of all genesis or coming into
being in the Universe. It cannot be understood as a
number because numbers only communicate the idea
that it is always related to 1 in a very special and unique
way. Before it is number in a conceptual or abstract
sphere of reality, it is a relationship with 1 or Unity: a
relationship which allows a perfect equilibrium of
difference and similarity with respect to 1.
Philosophically, represents the mystery of human
consciousness, and this is because human consciousness,
even though it is divided and allows for a sense of isolated
individuality among particulars, also allows the
experience of Universal Awareness: the experience of
God. In order that conscious life exist, Absolute or
Universal Consciousness is fractioned into a feminine and
masculine archetype, and thus a holistic and analytical
perspective of the universe is born that brings forth our
normal waking state of consciousness. This is the actual
symbolism behind the myth of Adam and Eve in Hebrew
mysticism, and the re-union of these opposites in an
alchemical wedding provides the human being with the
experience of Absolute Consciousness of 1.
 This is the basis of religion, a word whose original
meaning comes from the Latin re-ligere (to re-unite), and
this principle is also the idea behind the Sanskrit word
yoga which means union. The reunion of divided
consciousness (egotistic consciousness) it is the basis of
all esoteric and mystic traditions, no matter what cultural
background is evoked throughout history. The mystic
union between the archetypal feminine and masculine
powers of the universe is a tradition as old as time. The
mystic bondage between Shiva and Shakti or Purusha and
Prakirti in Hinduism is also appreciable in Valentinian
Christianity and the idea of the nupcial chamber. In
alchemy these primordial powers are symbolized by the
sun and the moon, and the archaic image of the caduceus
held by Hermes with two coiled serpents is well
recognized in India as the Kundalini and the basis for
Tantra, but less so in the archaic form of Fuxi and Nuwa in
China. In the Pyramid Texts of Unas (2300 BC), utterance
230 from the west gable of the sarcophagus chamber
reads:

The male serpent is bitten by the female serpent,

The female serpent is bitten by the male serpent,
The heavens are glorified, the earth is glorified.

In the beginning, says the book of Genesis, God

created the heavens and the earth. The 1 has become
2/3, the primordial fraction that is a masculine and a
feminine archetype symbolized in a number of ways.
The so-called Golden Proportion or is not just
some cosmic accident or a neat mathematical anecdote
about the universe. It has a deep relationship to the
innermost spiritual aspect of the human person, and with
these words we may get a glimpse of what is meant by
studying arithmetics in a philosophical context that is very
different from the mechanical and robotic treatment of
numbers we learn in our modern educational system.
Now, it is important to know that the numbers 2
and 3 produce a series for of their own, and while the
most famous series of is the feminine series of the
number 2, that we know as Fibonacci after Leonardo
Bonacci (c. 1170 c. 1250 AD), there is also a
masculine series for that is the series for number 3.
This is important to recognize for what comes next in our
examination of the ancient science.

In this masculine series, we will recognize the ratio

7:11 that we met with the Great Pyramid of Giza. The
logic behind the masculine series is the same a:b::b:
(a+b), but now the initial unity of 1 turns into a masculine
3 just as it does to a feminine 2 in the more popular or
well known series. As we will see later, these two series
are the numerical models for the disposition of the
planets in the inner solar system since they define the
distances of the inner planets from the sun, and the
reason is their relation to the square root of 5 or 5. But in
order to comprehend this, we must first look at the simple
geometric and arithmetic principles which define what we
know as square roots.
The square root of a number is a geometric
function that has an irrational arithmetical value. When
we say square root we are actually using a geometric
terminology, a geometric language. The root of a square
is of course its side, and there is a very simple way of
illustrating what a square root is from a geometric
perspective.
The square root of 2 or 2 means the side (root) for
a square that has an area of 2. The first square in the
diagram that follows illustrates this principle as it has a
side (or root) of 1. Its diagonal is the root for a square
with double the area: the square root of 2 or 2.
 In the philosophy of sacred geometry, 2
represents the reproduction and transformation of
material form: the generative function of the universe.
Let us remember that the ratios 1:2 and 1:3 (Unity
turning into a feminine and masculine archetype) are the
origins of all manifestation in the philosophy of number.
With this principle, we can understand how roots can be
rationalized as ratios between numbers.
The arithmetic logic behind the square root of 2
(which leads to its rationalization in fractional form) is
understood as follows. The rationalization of 2 comes
from a logical sequence of growth between the feminine
1:2 and masculine 1:3 ratios which form the primordial
scission of Unity or 1. It is a form of growth by addition
that is plotted into a grid of squares as we see in the
following diagram which explains the sequence for 2
geometrically and arithmetically.
It is by simple addition that the root is found. The
sequence for 2 is a simple addition of two squares, and
for the feminine series it is numerically 2+5+5 = 12, then
5+12+12 = 29, then 12+29+29 = 70, etc. This has a
geometric basis that is represented by number.
The numbers of the feminine series represent the
sides of the squares, while their diagonals are represented
by the masculine series.
 The square root of 3 or 3 has two basic geometric
representations. One is the Vesica Pisces and the other is
the diagonal of the cube.

The square root of 3 is the formative function of the

universe, and it is related to mind. The root of 3 is a
measure or ratio that results from the symmetric
interposition of two hemispheres. This is the symbol of
equilibrium between our natural duality of mind, and the
cerebral hemispheres which are the material expression
of the analytical and synthetic modes of thought.
In middle-age art it was common to place the figure
of Christ within a vesica pisces, and this symbolism can
be seen in the portal royal of Chartres Cathedral, the
entrance through the west. The Christ in the vesica pisces
is a symbol of enlightenment, of having the mind of
Christ as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 2:16.
We would like the reader to notice that the value for
3 corresponds to the ratio between English foot and
Egyptian Royal Cubit, units we have seen in the last
chapter.
The geometric and arithmetic series of growth of 3
is an interpolation of one, then two squares added to the
preceding rectangle in the case of the feminine series,
and inversely, two, then one square in the case of the
masculine series.
 Finally, there is the square root of 5 or 5, and the
series is produced by the masculine and feminine series
for . Geometrically, the square root of 5 is the diagonal
that crosses a 2:1 rectangle or two squares. The 5 is also
deeply related to the Golden Proportion and the pentagon.

The square root of 5 is the regenerative function of

the universe and it is related to spirit. The principle of life
spirit. That which engenders thought and allows a
material form to have cohesion and continuity is spirit.
Spirit traverses two worlds, the world of the physical and
the world of the mental or psychological. By spirit we
mean the vital principle, what the hindu sacred texts call
prana, the chi of the Taoists, the pneuma of the Christian
philosophy, the ruah of the Hebrew tradition.
The relation of 5 to is self evident. The numbers
of the series are those of the feminine and masculine
series for . The arithmetic and geometric growth pattern
follows the logical principle of a:b::b:(a+b) that is the
logical formula for , the Golden Proportion. It is a series
which follows the simple addition of a square to a
preceding rectangle
 The logarithmic spiral of is found to guide the
manifestation of galaxies, hurricanes, and the disposition
of seeds on a sunflower. It is present in the macrocosmic
and microcosmic: spirit permeates all things material and
mental. The universe is a sacred geometry, numbers are
expressions of the proportions and ratios guiding it's
architecture. The geometry behind planetary dispositions
creates the number for the periods, the amount of
sunrises and sunsets that we count here on Earth is
produced by a sacred geometry and architecture. Number
is an expression of geometric functions, of proportion,
ratio.
The rationalization of geometric functions which is
so common among the ancients is based on a true
philosophy of number and form, not on a lack of
knowledge as is commonly thought by modern scholars
with no understanding of sacred geometry and the
mentality of the ancestors. It is a mentality that has not
drawn an artificial scission between number and its
geometric origin, nor has it drawn an iron curtain between
science and the sacred philosophy or religion.
Numbers are expressions of ratios, proportions, or
relationships. Numbers are the expression of relationships
to Unity, to God, to the Absolute. They are literally
expressions of powers of the universe: archetypal forms
or "gods" in the sense that they are extensions or powers
of God which guide all natural phenomena in the universe.
The idea of "polytheism" as a different form of
religion from monotheism is an oversimplification and a
construct of modern days which comes from atheistic and
agnostic interpretations of religion. Angels, Jinns, spirits,
etc., are always powers of Unity: emanations or
"appearances" of the Monad which take on certain forms
because of a relationship between God and Man. In this
sense, represents the holy communion or yoga between
human consciousness and Absolute Consciousness, the
bond between Man and God.
Roots, as we have seen, come from a relationship
between 2/3: between a masculine and feminine
archetype representing the primordial scission of Unity or
1. The primordial scission is , not a number but a
proportion: a unique logical relationship with Unity or 1
that does what Plato says in the Timaeus: makes itself
and the terms it connects a unity.1
These three basic roots express three basic levels
of cognitive or intellectual horizons. In other words, they
express states of consciousness: one material or sensorial
(empirical), the next one mental, conceptual, or abstract,
and the latter one spiritual, noetic, religious.
Through the first material state of consciousness
we perceive only difference: a multitude of particular
material forms or objects. By the next mental state of
consciousness we grasp hidden relationships between
objects, and thus we access the more subtle aspects of
reality which introduce us into the realm of scientific
thought which in turn reveals to us logical patterns
governing natural (sensorial) phenomena. Ultimately,
however, there is the experience of Unity, of samadhi2 as
the Hindu philosophy teaches. Samadhi is an important
term in the Bhagavad Gita, for example. Its linguistic root
sama is equal to the English same, and the suffix dhi
means disposition/will/determination. Samadhi means
having the same disposition with all beings, and it is the
ultimate intellectual achievement of a yogi. In the
Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna gives a very clear illustration
of the three basic states of consciousness we are
speaking of here:

With the soul united in yoga he

contemplates the Self situated in all living
beings, and also all living beings he sees
the Self. In this way one sees in all things
the same (sama).
He who sees Me everywhere and
sees all things reunited in Me does not
become separate from Me, and neither do
I become separate from him.

1 Plato, Timaeus 31c.

2 Samadhi is an importantterm in the Bhagavad
Gita, for example. Its linguistic root is equal to the English
same, and the suffix dhi means
disposition/will/determination. Samadhi means having
the same disposition with all beings, and it is
 He who is established in Unity
(Ekvatam) worships me knowing that I
live in all beings, and that yogi, whatever
be the place wherein he is, finds his
residence in Me.3

In the final chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, Lord

Krishna says:

The type of knowledge known as

Truthful (Sattva) is that by which one sees
the One and Indestructible Reality in all
beings: That which is not different among
all beings, but One and the same (sama).
But the type of knowledge by which
one perceives different living entities
residing in different bodies, this is the
knowledge of a Passionate (Rajas) nature.
And the type of knowledge by which
one becomes attached to one kind of thing
as if it were the only one, without reason
or fundament on truth, that is the
knowledge of Darkness (Tamas).4

The study of geometry, arithmetics, astronomy, and

harmony in the ancient way must be accompanied with a
philosophical direction and a religious objective.
Otherwise it is useless in the path of self-realization.
Geometry becomes anecdotal, arithmetics becomes a
juggling and acrobatic manipulation of number,
astronomy becomes a senseless observation of deep-
space objects through powerful telescopes, and harmony
(music) becomes mere entertainment. Science loses its
human significance and becomes the instrument for
inhuman practices when it is completely withdrawn from
philosophical and religious principles.
The rationalization of geometric functions also
means to understand them as cosmic powers or functions
related to our inner human experience. It is not only a

3 Bhagavad Gita 6:29-31.

4 Bhagavad Gita 18:20-22.
numerical formulation that serves practical purposes,
although this is also one of its advantages.
The Golden Ratio or , as we have suggested here,
represents a golden potential of human consciousness,
but understanding this aspect of what appears to be a
mathematical property of the cosmos is somewhat
difficult to understand. It took us quite a while to
understand this proposition because it requires an
assimilation of a new understanding of number as things
that represent higher, more archetypal structures of the
universe which are best represented by geometric forms.
at the same time, the understanding of how is related to
human consciousness requires one to meditate on the
fact that we as humans follow a process of spiritual
evolution in life wherein the goal from this perspective is
to achieve a conscious and living experience of God: an
experience that we believe is best explained by the
concept of samadhi in Hindu philosophy and religion,
although it is also expounded in the Upanishads which
teach that God, as the ultimate Truth is Atman: Self.
It is not material self which is body, and it is not
psychological self which is ego. Beyond the material form
which is the feminine and natural aspect, and beyond the
spiritual form which is the person and supernatural aspect
there is the Seed of our existence: the nucleus of being,
the Atman. This is the Self which is not different here or
there but 1 in all beings. From this Atman shines a Light
which is Consciousness itself in its pure undifferentiated
form. In the ancient Egyptian cosmology, this Light is Ra,
the primordial Light, and the Upanishads, like the Gnostic
scriptures of Christianity explain that this Light shines
within the human being from the Holy Seed. A very
beautiful teaching of the Gospel of Thomas says:

There is Light within a person of

Now, the arithmetic formulation for /1 is 5+1 /2,

that is, the square root of 5 plus one, divided by two. 5 This

5 Let us recall that /1 is 1.618 /1 meaning phi

over one. 0.618 is phi under one or one divided by phi
1/.
is demonstrated geometrically in the next figures where
we see the simple 5 diagram followed by another
example using the pentagon. The pentagon, 5, and are
deeply interrelated, and as we have seen in chapter two,
the pentagon and pentagram are a fundamental
geometry in the inner solar system where human
consciousness is found. The geometric relationship
between 5 and are represented in the following
diagrams where we show the logic behind the arithmetic
formulation /1 = 5+1 /2.
4.2 Pi and Phi
One of the most important functions communicated
by the geometry of the Great Pyramid of Giza is the
relationship between Pi or , and . This relationship is
communicated by the geometry of the squaring for the
circle, a geometry that we have already seen related to
the Great Pyramid in chapter 3. Here we will illustrate the
geometry involved in squaring the circle and how it uses
the function of 5.

In order to square the circle which means to draw

a square and a circle of equal perimeter, we begin by
drawing a circle with the center O and we draw a square
around that circle. Next we draw the 5 which is line A:B
traversing the double square. Point C gives us a new
center for a smaller circle with a radius 1/4 th the radius of
the initial circle (and also 1/4th the side of the square).
Having drawn the circle with center on C, we take A for
the center of the compass and extend it to point D which
is the intersection of 5 with the smaller circle. With this
length A:D for the compass, we draw one of the big arcs,
while the other is drawn from the compass center at point
E using the same length A:D. The intersection of these
arcs gives us the radius of the outer circle, and its
perimeter will be equal to that of the square.
This is the diagram used in the basic design for the
Great Pyramids proportions, and we have also seen that
it is the diagram which reveals the 3:11 ratio between the
Earth and the Moon in Chapter 2. John Michell discovered
the use of this geometry in Stonehenge, and developed a
diagram from this one that squares the circle that allows
one to draw a 7-fold division of the circle. He called the
figure the New Jerusalem diagram and developed a very
interesting account of ancient science in his work The
Dimensions of Paradise.
 The ancient Egyptians used to have a rational
approximation to as 22/7, and now we will see where
this rationalization of as 22/7 comes from. Today, is
always given an irrational value with an endless series of
numbers after the point (3.141592654). However, a
rational approximation of as 22/7 gives 3.142857 or 3
and 1/7th. This is a rational approximation to the irrational
value which 99.99% accurate.
Today, in modern days, we have forgotten that
numbers and many mathematical functions originally
have geometric reasons and mystic parallels to Nature.
This illustration of is a very good example of this
modern forgetfulness.
 Let us consider what is shown in this image. A
hexagon inscribed in a circle will have the same side-
length as the radius of the circle. Here, in this example,
the radius is 21 units, and we will observe that the arc
traced over two of the vertices of the hexagon has a value
of 22 units. By simple multiplication, we know that the
circumference of the circle is then 22 x 6 = 132 units,
while the diameter is 21 x 2 = 42 units. 132/42 is 22/7,
and this is derived rationally through a very simple
geometry.
We can observe that the circumference can be
divided into 6 parts, and that 1/6th of the circumference is
22 units. But we can also see that the circumference can
be divided into two equal halves (22 x 3 = 66), and this
has a ratio of 7:11 to the diameter which is 42 units
(42:66 = 7:11). We can also observe that a third of the
circumference is 22 x 2 = 44, and this is /3, since it is
22/21 (44/42). Naturally, /4 is half of 11/7 which is 11/14,
and 1/6th of the circumference is 22, and this has a ratio of
11:21 with respect to the diameter which is 42 units.
(22/42 = 11/21).
Now, there is another very important fact about
as a rational ratio of 22:7, and this is that it is actually
derived from the series of . The relationship between
and is found in the ratio 6:5, the ratio that defines the
minor third in music or harmony:

We will notice that all the numbers used here are

found in the feminine and masculine series for that we
spoke of earlier. In fact, the ratio of 7:11 that defines the
ratio between the height and base-length of the Great
Pyramid is the ratio of defined by the masculine series.
This can be simply demonstrated arithmetically as
follows:

But one may ask how it is that is derived from

and the answer to this question is quite simple. The
feminine series for , as we have seen, is 1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
34,55, 89,144, 233, etc. As the relationship between
and is that = 2/1 x 6/5, we are speaking of 2/1
(numerically 2.618), and in order to get 2/1 from the
series, one only has to step over one number in the
series. For example, 2/1 is found in the ratios 144:55 and
so we step over the value 89. We can step over 144 and
establish 2/1 as 233:89.
Here we will illustrate the entire method in the
series until we reach the value of 22/7 in order that the
reader comprehends how the rational value of is derived
from the feminine series of .

Here we have highlighted two rationalizations for

that are known to have been used in antiquity by the
Egyptians and Babylonians. As we will see, the 441:440
ratio between these values plays a fundamental part in
the ancient system of metrology based on anthropic units.
 4.3 The Rhomboidal
Pyramid
One of the most impressive of the Great Pyramids
of Egypt is the so-called bent pyramid found at Dashur.
This giant, also known as the Rhomboidal Pyramid stands
besides another giant pyramid known as the Red Pyramid.
According to mainstream Egyptology, these colossal
structures were both built in the time of pharaoh Snefru,
the father of Khufu who had the Great Pyramid of Giza
built.
As if constructing one megalithic structure like the
Great Pyramid of Giza were not enough, it is said the
Snefru had these two enormous buildings constructed
plus another third giant at Meidum which is mostly
broken. However, the Red and Rhomboidal pyramids are
very well preserved and are only a bit smaller than the
Great Pyramid of Giza.
Now, most mainstream Egyptologist believe that
the Rhomboidal Pyramid has its shape because of a
mistake made by the engineers and architects who
designed it. As usual, most scholars are completely blind
to the geometrical language spoken by these structures,
and so whatever they cannot understand about the
ancients intentions in building these marvelous buildings,
they blame it on the clumsy primitives. The hypothesis
of the Egyptologists is that the architects made the slope
angle too steep, and as they built the structure, they
began to notice cracks and faults so they decided to shift
the angle in order to save the work from collapsing. In
other words, they say that the shift in slope angle is an
accident, the product of a mistake.
As we say, such suppositions come from modern
ignorance about the language these structures are
speaking, namely, the language of sacred geometry. It is
another common case of psychological projection: instead
of admitting ones own ignorance, it is projected on
someone else, and to these scholars there is no problem
in blaming the ancients for any form of ignorance we
might be confronted with in trying to find out what
actually happened with this amazing construction and so
many others of the ancient world.
Thankfully, not all Egyptologists are so foolish. R.A.
Schwaller de Lubicz, the person from which we have
drawn much of the science related in this work, has
actually revealed the basic geometry that the Rhomboidal
Pyramid of Dashur is designed with. Not surprisingly, the
geometry responds to sacred proportions like and 5.
 The ratios and proportions used in this construction
are very precise and important ones. As we can see, they
are related to the 5 and . The proportions of the
structure also show us how they respond to the feminine
and masculine series for . For example, the 11:21 ratio
which gives 0.523809523 and inversely 1.909090909 is a
ratio constructed by relationships between the feminine
and masculine series for . The ratio 11:21, as we have
seen, is /6 or 2/5.
Alternatively, this ratio can be formulated by 5.
Taking 5 as 76/34 then 5/ is 76/55. The calculation is
76/34 x 34/55 = 76/55 which gives 1.38181818. The
inverse of this (1/5/) is simply 55/76 which is 0.7236...
Again, we are simply using the feminine and masculine
series for .
Here we show the simple method of finding the
rational values for these functions using both series.

On a note to these ratios used to design the

Rhomboidal Pyramid of Snefru, we should point out that
they are the ratios which define the orbital radii of the
planets of the inner solar system. In the following table we
give the values for the semi-minor axes for the planets
Mercury, Venus, and Earth and we also show the ratios
which define their relationships.
 Km x
106 Mercury Venus Earth
Mercu 56.67174 1.90935 2.63936
ry 93 1 3 1
108.2063 1.38233
Venus 72 0.523738 1 2
149.5771 0.72341
Earth 80 0.378880 5 1

Geomet 6/ or
ry 1 5/2 2/1
/6 or
2/5 1 5/
1/2 1/5/ 1

Ratios 1 21/11 29/11

11/21 1 29/21
11/29 21/29 1

Here we see that the ancient Egyptians of the Old

Kingdom knew very well about the geometric and
numerical functions we are revising in relation to , 5,
and . Whether the astronomers of these times, around
2600 BC knew the distances between the planets which
follow these proportions is difficult to say. One is inclined
to believe that they did possess this knowledge, and
although this is only a belief or opinion that could very
well be mistaken, we must say that in order to make an
educated guess on what the ancients knew or ignored, it
is more reasonable to observe these geometric and
mathematical principles than it is to overlook them
completely (as most Egyptologists do) in order to support
the claim that the proportions in their monumets are
merely accidents instead of purposeful ratios and
proportions used by fully aware mathematicians and
geometers.
It is very hard to accept the claims of those who
speak of accidents and mere chance in relation to these
geometric and arithmetic properties, especially when
serious studies of the ancients monuments speak for
themselves in this language of number and form so as to
expose very precise and important formulas. The
presence of these functions in the architecture of the
monument is undeniable. That the rhomboidal pyramid
exposes these proportions is not a matter of opinion but a
matter of fact.
Usually, those who claim that the Egyptians could
not have known about the functions of , 5, and in
the times of the Old Kingdom are the same kind of people
who also claim the presence of these geometric and
mathematical functions in the solar system is merely
accidental. By kind of people we mean people who have
a number of beliefs and a priori determinations about the
ancients, their scientific accomplishments, and the nature
of the universe itself, and such beliefs and suppositions
are certainly not of a scientific nature or objective
assessments. They are biased beliefs in denial of facts,
and it is important to note that this sort of mentality is
completely opposed to that of the ancient Egyptians: a
mentality that was glad to identify the sacred and divine
aspect of the universe and teach it to the initiates.
From our perspective, to claim that the clear
presence of geometric and mathematical principles in
ancient monuments and the cosmos are accidental is
not an objective and scientific assessment of the facts. On
the contrary, the claims for accidents here and there are a
subjective, unscientific, and a completely biased denial of
perfectly clear evidences, and such denial comes because
these evidences are speaking very much against the
modern paradigms of scientism. These evidences speak
for the case of Intelligent Design in the universe as well as
for the high science of the ancients, and these two
realities are incompatible with the paradigm of
materialistic atheism and Darwinian evolution which go
hand in hand; namely because one predicts a random
purposeless universe without any kind of sign for a
Universal Intelligence or Supreme Creator (like we do find
in the design of the solar system), while the other
(derived from the first) preaches a linear progress from
idiot ape-man ancestors whose cognitive faculties were
dominated by foolish superstitions about metaphysical
causes, towards a supposed enlightened of modern
human beings with a sophisticated learning in natural
sciences and a complex modern industry. Over and over,
these hypotheses have been proven wrong on the basis of
scientific studies, and yet they are paraded in academic
circles and advertised to the public as if they were actual
undeniable laws of nature instead of mistaken
assumptions about the universe and our human nature.
Our intention in this first part of the chapter has
been to show the reader that numbers are entities
subordinate to geometric proportion and ratio. This can
only be understood through the study of sacred geometry:
the study of geometry and arithmetics derived from it in
the context of a true philosophy or cosmology that is
unbiased by a priori suppositions.
In the beginning of the chapter we made a very
quick observation of the philosophical premises or
principles that lead to the comprehension of the function
as a primordial scission of Unity from which all diversity
is derived. This prime scission into a feminine and a
masculine principle is represented by the numbers 2 and
3 in an abstract sphere of thought. The relationship or
ratio of 1:2 and 1:3 is what defines 2 and 3 or any number
as a representative of a multiplicity. It is their relation to 1,
to Unity, to God, the Eternal and Absolute, not their
relationship to other particulars of the multiplicity.
From these archetypal relationships of 1:2 and 1:3
arise the basic roots of geometry: 2, 3, and 5.
Philosophically, 1 is Absolute Consciousness, and
represents the genesis of dual consciousness which in
turn gives way to multiplicity of consciousness. The roots
2, 3, and 5 correspond with states of consciousness:
material, mental, and spiritual. The affinity between 5
and exposes how spiritual consciousness as a human
cognitive power propels divided and dual consciousness
back into its Absolute state of Unity.
We have also seen the geometric origins for the
arithmetic formulations of , and we also encountered the
geometric logic behind the rationalization of as well as
its relationship with (which is its origin in rational form).
 Finally, we have observed the geometries of
another Great Pyramid from ancient Egypts Old Kingdom,
the Rhomboidal Pyramid of Snefru and we have observed
how the geometry corresponds to specific ratios and
proportions which are also found in the planets of the
inner solar system.
 4.4 Ancient Metrology
The basic units of the ancient world were based on
human proportions. As we have seen, the foot is a unit of
measure derived from the Earth's dimensions, but its
name also shows that it was intended to harmonize with
human dimensions. A foot is a 1/100th fraction of a
second of arc around the Earth's circumference, and
1/6000th of a minute of arc.
The cubit is 3:2 the length of a foot, so the
conversion rate is always that of the fifth in music. The
ancient Egyptians used to measure smaller lengths with
the unit called a finger or djeba. There are 16 fingers to a
foot which was called a djeser, and the cubit had 24
fingers. However, there was also the Royal Cubit that was
28 fingers long, and the difference between the Royal and
standard cubit was that the Royal cubit measured from
the elbow to the stretched fingertips, while the standard
cubit measured from the elbow to the knuckles with a
closed fist.
The unit of the inch, known to the Romans as the
uncia is naturally 4:3 larger than the finger since we know
there are 12 inches to a foot while there are 16 fingers to
a foot. The ratios 4:3 and 3:2 are musical or harmonic
ratios and the whole idea behind the anthropologic
system of units is based on a philosophy well known to
the ancients and still present in the Christian tradition, for
example, when we read from Paul:

Man as a temple.

Man, the human being is the Temple of God. This is

acknowledged in the Judeo-Christian tradition just as
much as it is in the Hindu tradition. In the Aitareya
Upanishad, God holds a dialogue with the devas or
"gods", that is, there is a description of a relationship
between Absolute Unity and the archetypes or powers
emanated from Unity. It is only with the human being that
the devas are satisfied and they decide to take their
residence in Man. The "gods" or devas are his vital
functions: the powers or extensions of the One God whose
name in the Upanishads is Atman or Self.
Although this mystic philosophy cannot be revealed
in this work, it is important to notice that the ancient
philosophy which lead to the development of units of
measure based on human proportions considers the
human being as the most sacred or holy of creatures. The
reason for this is that Man embodies the final phase of the
evolutionary process; in other words, Man is the finality or
purpose of the evolutionary process of life because it is
with human consciousness that divided or fractioned
consciousness is able to return to the original state of
Unity.
This philosophy is known as anthropocosmic. It is
not anthropo-centric, but anthropocosmic, and the
meaning is not that Man (anthropos) is the center of the
universe, but that Man is a universe: a synthesis of all
evolutionary possibilities. The archaic depictions of all the
cosmic powers or "gods" are always those of animals, but
the Supreme God of gods, the Supreme Intelect
controlling those powers is always represented with the
figure of a human being. This is found in pharaonic
depictions of the "gods" or neteru just as much as it is
found in tribal traditions like those of the Naskapi with
their Great Man or Mistapeo.
As cosmos, Man is a synthesis that contains all
powers or archetypes which form Nature and its diversity.
But as cosmos, Man is the finality or the final step in the
process of creation by which chaos is ordered (kosmos)
into a holy or sacred finality. This is divine or enlightened
(realized) Man, the Christ of Christian tradition and also
Pharaoh in the Egyptian tradition.
The ancient science from which we inherited the
anthropic units had a very deep philosophical and
religious meaning that cannot be perceived by a simple
study of metrology in a so-called "scientific" manner as
we understand it today. By "scientific" here we of course
mean a typical materialist ideology that is allergic of the
sacred and religious even though it is studying an ancient
mentality that cannot be separated from the religious and
spiritual. No understanding can be gained with this so-
called "scientific" mentality of modern times.
 The idea that the human body is a Temple of God
means that the ideal Man that "embodies" the proportions
of the foot, cubit, inch, fathom, etc., is Royal Man: the
"perfect human" as the Christian philosophy stipulates,
and not only perfect from the point of view of psychology
and consciousness, but also in the sense that Royal Man is
the ideal or perfect model in the sense that his
proportions are perfectly harmonic in relation to the
universe, and, especially, to the Earth which is his natural
home. Man as cosmos means Man in perfect order and
harmony.
This idea is the one that modeled every sculpture of
pharaoh for 3000 years of pharaonic history, and it is also
the kind of philosophy which sculpted the Greek and
Roman statues as well as the renaissance works and the
vitruvian man of Leonardo. There is always the idea of the
perfect human, not an idea of a particular person but of
an ideal Man. This is exactly what motivated the anthropic
units of the ancient system. To subtract this philosophy
from the study of ancient metrology is to kill any chance
of understanding it. Such is the setback of modern
metrology which shamefully refers to the correct method
as "pseudo-science". Such is the Iron mentality of scholars
today.
But let us proceed to expose the basic ratios
between anthropic units. As we said earlier, the foot and
cubit hold a ratio of 2:3 like the fifth in music. Another
musical ratio is found with the remen which is 5:4 to a
foot like the major third and it is 15 inches long. The yard
is of course 3 feet long meaning 2 cubits. The yard is thus
36 inches long, while the person's height is 6 feet or 2
yards (4 cubits).
Most important in this anthropic metrology is the
fathom which is the measure of the outstretched arms,
also known as the arm-span. This unit is quite important
because it holds a relationship to the height of 22:21. As
we have seen earlier, when = 22/7, then 22:21 is /3, so
this is the ratio between height and fathom. 6

6 It is important to remember that the ratio, before

its numerical expression as 22:21 has a logical expression
best understood through geometric relationships. The
 In Royal Man, the fathom is longer than the height
by the ratio 22:21, so when the height is 1, the fathom is
1.047619. Since the height of the person is taken as 6
feet, so the fathom is 22:21 longer at 6.285714 feet. 7
In relation to the Earth, we must keep in mind that
the height of Man is an extension of the radius, while the
fathom is a fraction of the circumference. As we have
seen earlier, the 22:21 ratio is a relationship between a
straight path and a curved one in the diagram of the
hexagon and the circumscribing circle. Schwaller de
Lubicz has revealed this relationship from the study of
Egyptian temples and art where the god Toth is depicted
with arms outstretched portraying (teaching) this
proportion.

Toth ratio diagram

It is interesting to notice what the measures of the

Great Pyramid of Giza are when one uses Egyptian Royal
Fathoms as the unit. The numbers match those of the
feminine series and expose another feature of the
monument, namely, that it is based on the proportions
which match the so-called "Kepler triangle", that is, a
triangle whose sides squared share the relationship of 1 :
: 2.
The half base-length of the Great Pyramid is 55
Royal Fathoms, while the apothem is 89 Royal Fathoms.
The value of 70 equals the root of /1 when 1 is 55, and
/1 is 89. The areas of these roots are 3025, 4900, and
7921 (1 : : 2). Triangles with these proportions are
known as Kepler Triangles even though the Egyptians
knew about them 4000 years before Keplers time

function /3 as 22:21 is derived from the rational

approximation of = 22/7 and from the rational
expression of 2 x 2/5.
7 This number is 44/7 or 6 and 2/7ths.
 A very important characteristic of the 22:21
proportion related to the fathom is that it leads to the so
called "statute" units.
Today it is well known that 5280 feet make one
statute mile, but it is not so well known that the mile
actually comes from the Latin "mile" meaning 1000. 8 The
reference to the value of 1000 comes from the fact that
the mile is mile passus or 1000 paces. This pace used by
the Romans was a double pace of 5 feet and the mile is
originally 5000 feet long not 5280 feet.
So, why is the statute mile 5280 feet instead of
being 5000 feet? The answer to this question is that the
statute units are not the same as the "English" units
which are the basis of measures of the ancient system. In
fact, the statute foot, being 1/5000th of the statute mile
is 1.056 feet long or 12.672 inches.
In order to understand this shift into statute units,
we must first go over the recent discoveries of John Neal
and John Michell concerning the ancient canon of
metrology and its basic ratios and proportions.
There are two basic ratios which shift the values of
the units in this canon. One ratio is 440:441 which we
already found related to and , and the other ratio is
175:176. The 441:440 ratio shifts vertically in the tables,
changing from ROOT into STANDARD values for the unit,
while the 176:175 ratio is used to shift from the ROOT
values into the CANONICAL and GEOGRAPHIC values as
illustrated in the tables below.
In the following tables we will give the values for
the English foot and the Royal Egyptian Cubit as
examples.

English CANONI GEOGRAP

Foot ROOT CAL HIC
ROOT 1 1.005714 1.011461
STANDAR 1.0022
D 73 1.008 1.01376

Royal ROOT CANONI GEOGRAP

8 In Spanish, this root is still very appreciable as

1000 is "mil".
 Cubit CAL HIC
1.7142
ROOT 86 1.724082 1.733934
STANDAR 1.7181
D 82 1.728 1.737874

As we see, each unit has at least 6 values which

shift according to the 441:440 and 176:175 ratios. We
will also notice that the combination of these ratios gives
126:125, the ratio we have seen relating the core
perimeter of the Great Pyramid to the casing perimeter.
Moreover, the largest leap between ROOT and
GEOGRAPHIC is a ratio of 3168:3125.
It is here that we may understand why the statute
mile is 5280 feet instead of 5000 feet. The statute units
are actually part of the 22:21 value related to the fathom.
When we take the 1.047619 ft value of 1/6th of a fathom
and augment it by 441/440 and 176/175 we get the value
of the statute foot at 1.056 ft.
When we put this into the perspective of the
ancient canon and its methods of conversion, it becomes
clear that the statute units are the GEOGRAPHIC
value of a ROOT unit that is 25/24 over the English
units. Here we provide the decimal values and next we
show the fraction ratios for each case.

Statute CANONI GEOGRAP

Foot ROOT CAL HIC
1.0416
ROOT 67 1.047619 1.053605
STANDAR 1.0440
D 34 1.05 1.056

Statute CANONIC GEOGRAP

Foot ROOT AL HIC
ROOT 25/24 22/21 3872/3675
STANDAR 735/70
D 4 21/20 132/125
 The ratio of 25:24 is known in music as the
chromatic semitone and it is also used to convert the
English units to the Roman units (seen next). The Roman
units are diminished by this ratio of 25:24 instead of being
augmented like the case of the statute units. Here we will
provide the Roman units in a somewhat different manner
than the ones provided by Neal and Michell. 9

Roman CANONI GEOGRAP

Foot ROOT CAL HIC
0.9523
ROOT 81 0.957823 0.963296
STANDAR 0.9545
D 45 0.96 0.965486

Roman CANONI GEOGRAP

Foot ROOT CAL HIC
ROOT 20/21 704/735 -
STANDAR
D 21/22 24/25 4224/4375

It is important to point out that this system holds a

relationship to the rationalization of . The 441:440 ratio
was pointed out earlier when we exposed the derivation
of from . We showed how the rationalization of as
22/7 and 63/20 is related by a ratio of 440:441, and it is
not an accident that this ancient canon uses this ratio.
There are four basic values for in this ancient
canon which are shown below following the logic of
conversions. In fact, it seems that this variation of
rationalizations of was the basis of the ancient system.
Here are the basic values for which seem to be at the
heart of this ancient system of metrology.

CANONI GEOGRAP
ROOT CAL HIC
ROOT 3.125 3.14285 3.160816
9 Neal and Michell place the 0.96 or 24/25 value as
the ROOT-ROOT value which is an alternative possibility.
 7
STANDA 3.1321
RD 02 3.15 3.168

CANONI GEOGRAP
ROOT CAL HIC
ROOT 25/8 22/7 3872/1225
STANDA 2205/7
RD 04 63/20 396/125

The function of relating straight to curved

measures seems to be at the heart of the ancient system.
It will be noted that when =25/8, then /3 is 25/24 just
as 22/21 is /3 when =22/7. Also, when =3.168, then
/3 is 1.056, the value of the statute foot.
The value of as 25/8 (3.125) is recorded on
ancient clay tablets from Mesopotamia dating between
1900-1600 BC, and it is also mentioned by the roman
engineer Vitruvius (c.80-c.15 BC). In book ten of his
work entitled Architecture, Vitruvius speaks of the
odometer, an instrument consisting of a wheel that allows
one to measure distances on land and sea. There he
states:

Let the wheels of the carriage be

each four feet in diameter, so that if a
wheel has a mark made upon it, and
begins to move forward from that mark in
making its revolution on the surface of the
road, it will have covered the definite
distance of twelve and a half feet on
reaching that mark at which it began to
revolve.10

Vitruvius discusses a mechanism devised "by the

ancients" in order to count the miles traveled by the
carriage. The mechanism was devised in such a way that
a stone would drop into a box every time the wheel
turned 400 times. As the wheel measured 12.5 feet in
10 Vitruvius, Architecture, 10.9.1.
circumference, 400 revolutions of the wheel equaled 5000
feet or 1 mile. We will notice, however, that the value for
being used here by Vitruvius is 25/8 or 3.125, and using
this value for would make an error of 28 feet every mile
in the calculation.
However, this error could be prevented using the
176:175 ratio of the canon which shifts the value of
between 25/8 and 22/7. For example, if the diameter of
the wheel was 4 STANDARD CANONICAL Roman feet, then
it would equal 3.84 English feet, but the circumference
of the wheel would be measured with a STANDARD
GEOGRAPHIC Roman foot, a unit 176:175 times
greater than the one used for the diameter. In this
way, the value for being used would be 22/7 instead of
25/8, although the value of =25/8 would be explicitly
given for the sake of making calculations simpler. There
would be a different unit for diameter and
circumference in these calculations, that is, one
unit for a straight path and another for the curved
path. With this method there would be only 1.94 feet of
error in every mile according to the difference between
as 22/7 and the irrational value used by our modern
calculators.
In this example from Vitruvius, we may appreciate
that the variation between ancient units could very well
have been linked to functions like that relate straight
measures to curved ones, or, more specifically, between
diameter and circumference of a circle. We will later
encounter such a relation between the Meter and the
Sacred Foot, but let us first look at another example
relating to the Earth's dimensions.
In The Ancient Science of Measuring the Earth,
Robin Heath has shown that the value of 63/20 or 3.15 for
was used by the Spanish in order to measure the
terrestrial globe. Quoting from Edward Wright (1561-1615
AD), from a work entitled Certaine Errors in Navigation
Detected and Corrected it is clear that the Spanish had
calculated the Meridian Circumference of the Earth at
6,300 leagues. In that work Wright stated:

And albeit the Globe of the Earth

and Water, compared with the Spheres of
 the Stars, is as it were a center or prick;
yet being considered by itself, it
conteineth in the greatest circle thereof
6300 common Spanish leagues. Which a
man may easily perceive, by taking two
such points or head-lands of the earth, as
are under the same Meridian, and which
differ in distance one from another so
much as one of those parts is, whereof the
compasse of the whole world conteineth
360; and it is found both by Navigation at
Sea and also by travel on land, that the
two foresaid points are distant each from
other 17 leagues and an half: of which
leagues, each one conteineth 4000 paces,
every pace 5 foot, every foot 16 fingers,
and every finger 4 grains of barley.11

The Spanish navigators and geographers of the

16th century were using an ancient system of units that
allowed them to calculate the Earth's dimensions with
great precision, but whether they knew the conversion
methods of the ancient canon is something we cannot say
for certain. By stating that the meridian circumference of
the globe was 6300 leagues, they knew that the Earth's
polar diameter was 2000 of these leagues, while the polar
radius was naturally 1000 of these units called leguas or
leagues.
The ratio between the polar and mean meridian
values of the Earth is 440:441, and this means that if the
Earth's polar radius is calculated at 1000 units, then the
mean meridian circumference is naturally 6300 units. 12
Because the 440:441 ratio shifts polar units to mean

11 Wright, Edward, Certaine Errors in Navigation

Detected and Corrected, The Division of the Whole Art of
Navigation, Chapter. VIII. The whole quantity of the Earth.
12 Let us recall that the mean radius of the Earth is
longer than the polar radius. The mean meridian radius is
the mean between the length of the meridian at 0 and
90. This should not be confused with the equatorial
radius or circumference.
meridian units, the trick of the calculation is to use a
value of as 63/20 (3.15) in order to calculate the mean
meridian circumference from the polar radius or vice
versa. In other words, we use a polar unit for the straight
path which measures the polar radius or diameter, and
another mean meridian unit which measures the
circumference.
The value of the mean meridian circumference of
the globe is very important for the purpose of navigation
because it provides a mean estimate for the degree of
latitude. The mean radius of the Earth is found on latitude
5028'13.8" and it measures 3958.38/55 statute miles
according to the ancient canon. One mean degree of arc
is 69.12 statute miles or 364,953.6 feet. The mean
meridian unit is the GEOGRAPHIC English foot which is
1.01367 ft. The reader will be made to notice that this is
precisely 3168/3125 over 360,000 ft for the degree of arc
in the ideal or ROOT Earth values.
Now, the league that Wright was referring to was
the legua maritima or "marine league" of the Spanish. The
word "league" in itself is derived from the Latin and its
root is ligo meaning "to tie". This league was 20,000
"feet", but the foot used in this estimation for the Earth's
dimensions was actually a unit known as the sacred
foot. The league known as the legua maritima by the
Spanish, measuring 20,000 feet was used for the first
transoceanic explorations of modern days in the late 15th
century, but it was not 20,000 Spanish feet because the
Spanish foot is 32/35 of the English foot.
The league of the Romans (from which the Spanish
was derived) was a unit of 7500 feet which is nothing like
the 20,000 feet of the so-called "Spanish league". Here we
encounter a problem that is similar to the "stade" of
Eratosthenes: the Spanish were calling "legua" or
"league" a unit that was very different from the original
league of the Romans. Not surprisingly, the unit was a
very ancient one and based on very accurate knowledge
of the Earth's dimensions.
The Spanish navigators and geographers of the late
15th and 16th century knew that one degree of arc across
the meridian circumference was 17.5 of these so-called
"leagues". As we just mentioned, the value of a degree of
arc for the mean meridian circumference is 69.12 statute
miles, and by simple calculation we will notice that the
foot used for this Spanish "league" was a foot measuring
1.042724571 English feet.
This is the value for the GEOGRAPHIC Sacred foot,
a foot which is only 1/2 of the Sacred Cubit instead of
holding the normal 2/3 ratio. The Sacred units are actually
polar units related to the Earth's polar radius and
diameter.

Sacred CANONI GEOGRAP

Foot ROOT CAL HIC
1.0285
ROOT 71 1.034449 1.040360
STANDAR 1.0309
D 09 1.0368 1.042725

Sacred CANONI GEOGRAP

Cubit ROOT CAL HIC
2.0571
ROOT 43 2.068898 2.080720
STANDAR 2.0618
D 18 2.0736 2.085449

The polar radius of the Earth measures

exactly 10,000,000 GEOGRAPHIC Sacred Cubits or
20,000,000 GEOGRAPHIC Sacred Feet.
The "league" that the Spanish navigators and
geographers were using was a very ancient unit which
they seem to have inherited from the Arabs during the
invasions of the Iberian peninsula throughout the middle
ages. But it is also possible that this science of metrology
was kept by the Spanish through the discoveries of the
Knight Templars and other knightly orders of Europe after
the crusades.
The Knight Templars was an order that is known to
have been spared by the Spanish and Portuguese from
the brutal massacres occurred in France during the early
1300's. While the Templars of France were brutally
murdered and tortured by decree of the Catholic
Inquisition, the decree was not carried off by the Spanish
and Portuguese since the people of Spain and Portugal
recognized them as good lords in their land.
It is well known that the Knight Templars used
sacred metrology in the design of Gothic Cathedrals and
many Christian temples throughout Europe during the late
middle ages, and it is rumored that their knowledge of the
ancient science even revealed long forgotten trade routes
with the Americas.
The Spanish explorer Fernando de Magallanes
(1480-1521 AD), was the first explorer to circumnavigate
the globe in modern days.13 It is interesting to note that
Fernando de Magallanes was part of the Orden de
Santiago, a knightly order from Spain that was parallel to
that of the Knight Templars of France and was known to
hold on to sacred science tied to astronomy, arithmetic,
and geometry which was applied to sacred architecture. 14
Whatever the case is, the Spanish and Portuguese
navigators of the late 15th and early 16th century like
Christopher Columbus (1436-1506 AD), Fernando de
Magallanes, and Vasco da Gama (1460-1524 AD) were the
first among the modern Europeans to explore the
Americas, India, Polynesia and circumnavigate the globe
and they all used a "league" based on the sacred or polar
units extracted from a very precise measure of the Earth's
imensions.
Christopher Columbus used the 20,000 foot
"league" based on the sacred units in his journey to the
Americas. When he goes on to account of the first day of
the first journey in his diary, Columbus states:

We set off on Friday the third of

August, 1492 from Barra de Salts at eight
hours. We traveled until sunset with a
strong sea-breeze due south for sixty
miles which are fifteen leagues; then
to the southwest and south a quarter

13 In reality Magallanes died in the Philippines and

the rest of the trip was commanded by Juan Sebastian
Elcano (1476-1526 AD).
14 See XXXXXXXXXXXXX Templars Book.
 southwest which was the way to the
Canaries.15

Here Christopher Columbus equates 60 miles with

15 leagues, so the league is then 20,000 feet long.
However, as we have seen, this foot is not the Spanish
foot but the sacred foot. The Spanish units had a ratio of
32:35 of the English units meaning that the STANDARD
CANONICAL value of the Spanish foot was 0.9216 ft.
These units used by the Spanish are 24/25 times smaller
than the Roman units.

Spanish CANONI GEOGRAP

Foot ROOT CAL HIC
0.9142
ROOT 86 0.919510 0.924765
STANDAR 0.9163
D 64 0.9216 0.926866

Curiously, these units used by the Spanish are

related to the sacred units by a ratio of 3:2. For example,
in order to achieve the measure of the Sacred Cubit, one
has to multiply the Spanish Cubit (which is 3/2 over the
Spanish foot) by 3/2. We can also notice that the Spanish
Foot is 8/9ths of the Sacred Foot and 9:8 is the tone in
music.
The study of these ancient units and their
relationships to one another reveal that the ancient canon
of units was fractured among middle age peoples of
Europe, and each took for themselves a fraction or part of
an ancient system that was whole. Today we speak of
these units as "English", "Spanish", "Persian", "Russian",
etc., but the reality is that the ancient Canon was a single
system with variations between units based on musical
ratios and rationalizations of geometric functions.
We must recall that the different units are related
among one another by simple ratios which are difficult to
notice when the values are shown in our decimal system.

15 Translated from the 1892 edition of Bartolom

de las Casas' Relacin del primer viaje de D. Cristbal
Coln para el descubrimiento de las Indias.
For example, the ROOT Egyptian Royal Cubit is written
1.714285 ft in decimal notation but it is simply 12/7 ft as
a fraction. We also see that the STANDARD CANONICAL
Royal Cubit is 1.728 ft: that is, actually 6/53 (6/5 x 6/5 x
6/5).
Moreover, the Sacred Cubit is actually a unit of 6/5 4
(6/5 x 6/5 x 6/5 x 6/5). The Sacred Cubit is a unit that is
exactly 1/10,000,000th the polar radius of the Earth and as
we stated earlier, it is most probable that the Spanish
"league" was related to the Sacred units as 10,000 Sacred
Cubits or 20,000 Sacred Feet.
It would appear that these ancient units were
known in the Old World alone, but there is one fascinating
exception to this supposition. A yard is 3 feet long, and
since the foot and cubit have a ratio of 2:3, a yard also
measures 2 cubits. The Egyptian Royal Yard is then 2
Royal Cubits long and has a STANDARD CANONICAL value
of 3.456 ft. Its ROOT value is simply 24/7 ft because it is
double the Royal Cubit which is 12/7 ft.

Royal CANONI GEOGRA

Yard ROOT CAL PHIC
3.4285 3.44816 3.467867
ROOT 714 327 055
STANDA 3.4363 3.475748
RD 636 3.456 571

Now, there is a very astonishing fact in relation to

the Egyptian Royal Yard: incredibly, it was also used by
the architects of Teotihuacan in Mexico as the basic unit
with which they designed their pyramids and temples in
that very impressive ancient city.
The measure of the Royal Yard in Teotihuacan is
found in the work of Hugh Harleston Jr. who surveyed the
ancient city in the 1970s and stated that it had been
designed using a unit that he called a Standard
Teotihuacan Unit (STU).
The STU is given by Harleston at 41.7111 inches
which is 3.475925 ft. We noticed this was extremely close
to the Royal Yard in its STANDARD GEOGRAPHIC value and
the comparison in inches speaks for itself:
 STU = 41.7111 inches
RYY = 41.708982862 inches
Diff = 0.00212825396 inches

This is a difference which is basically non-existing:

0.00816 mm As difficult as it may seem to assimilate
that the Ancient Egyptians and the architects of
Teotihuacan in Mexico used the same unit of measure,
when we take into account that the unit is derived from
the Earths dimensions, and that astronomical
observations lead to the revelation of the Earths size, it
becomes apparent that this coincidence is due to the fact
that both cultures measured the same Earth and derived
a set of units based on those calculations.
It is well known that the Pyramid of the Sun and the
Great Pyramid of Giza have about the same size a the
base. Less known, however, is the fact that both
constructions share a unique relation between their base-
perimeters and height which relates to the function of .
In the following diagram we show a simplification of the
geometry behind the Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan
derived from the geometry of the Great Pyramid that is
based on the squaring of the circle.
 According to Hugh Harleston Jr., the Pyramid of the
Sun has a base-length of 216 STU or Geographic Royal
Yards. This means 9009 inches which is basically identical
with the value of the core base-length of the Great
Pyramid of Giza given by Petrie. The base-perimeter of
the Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan is thus 864 units,
and the height of the pyramid is found by dividing the
base-perimeter by 4. When is taken as 22/7, then 4 is
11/14 meaning that the Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan
holds an 11:14 ratio between base-perimeter and height.
In the case of the Great Pyramid of Giza, the base-
perimeter and height are also related by the function of ,
but the height is found by dividing the base-perimeter by
2. As we have seen, this ratio is 7:11.
This relationship between base-perimeter and
height is a special geometric relationship, and it was
chosen by the architects in order to communicate the
relationship between and .
 4.5 - The AMY
Two more units need to be introduced into this
review of ancient metrology before we can present the
reader with a synthesis. These two units are the Meter
and the Megalithic Yard. We will begin with the latter.
The Megalithic Yard was discovered by Alexander
Thom (1894 - 1985 AD) a Scottish engineer who surveyed
and studied some 250 megalithic sites around Britain. 16
Thom proposed a standard unit of measure was used for
these prehistoric monuments measuring about 2.72 ft,
and he named it the Megalithic Yard.
Although most of Thoms's contemporaries and
many of today's scientists dismiss Thom's findings, Robin
Heath has taken the matter seriously and has discovered
the geometrical derivation of the Megalithic Yard. We will
recall that in chapter 2 of this work we showed how the
amount of Lunations in a solar year could be expressed
through the geometry of a 5:12:13 triangle.
It is precisely this geometry that Robin Heath used
in order to discover the geometric basis for the Megalithic
Yard, except that he called it the Astronomical
Megalithic Yard or AMY.

5:12:13 Triangle and AMY

The amount of Lunations in a solar year are 12.368,

and when the 0.368 fraction over 12 is made to be an
English foot, then the unit measuring the 5:12:13 triangle
(i.e. the Lunation itself) is the AMY.
This type of derivation which uses geometry and
astronomy as a basis is very likely to have been the
method used by the prehistoric architects of the
megalithic sites of Britain. Alexander Thom also made
notice of the many astronomical alignment of the sites
which defined their geometries, and we have seen how
Stonehenge displays significant soli-lunar alignments.

16 Thom, Alexander, A Statistical Examination of the Megalithic

Sites in Britain, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A
(General)Vol. 118, No. 3 (1955), pp. 275-295..
 It is worth noticing that the 0.368 over 12 which
defines the amount of Lunations in a solar year is
basically 7/19. The Megalithic Yard, according to this logic
is the inverse of this fraction, that is, 19/7. The
importance of these numbers is found in the fact that 7
and 19 are the first hexagonal numbers, that is, the first
numbers whose units conform to a hexagonal shape.

7 and 19 diagram

Now, the AMY is actually 19.008/7 because it is

also defined as 11:7 over the Royal Cubit.17 Because the
AMY and Royal Cubit hold this proportion, it is evident that
the geometry linking these two ancient units is once again
found in the squaring of the circle diagram from which the
Great Pyramid of Giza's design is derived.

11:7 Royal Cubit and AMY

In order to appreciate the whole picture of how

these ancient units are related to one another, we must
also speak of the meter. As we have said earlier, the
meter was firstly defined by the French Academy of
Science as a fraction of the meridian circumference of the
Earth. By this early definition, the meter was
1/40,000,000th of the Earth's meridian circumference.
Since the Earth's mean meridian circumference is
24,883.2 statute miles, we can calculate the meter
defined as a fraction of the Earth's circumference as a unit
3.2845824 ft long. The ROOT value of the Meter defined in
this way is 3.24 ft.

CANONI GEOGRAP
Meter ROOT CAL HIC
ROOT 3.24 3.258514 3.277134
STANDAR 3.2473 3.284582
D 64 3.26592 4

17 The value of the AMY is also found to be 3.168 x

6/7.
 However, the meter has been redefined for the
entirety of the 19th and 20th century according to
different standards and is now defined according to the
distance traveled by light in a vacuum. The meter is
defined today as "the length of the path travelled by light
in a vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458th of
a second". In other words, it is the 1/299,792,458th part
of the distance traveled by light in one second.
The numerical value of the meter today is
3.280839895 ft. Richard Heath has shown that this value
of the meter can be rationalized as 1250/381
(3.280839895), and we noticed that this rationalization is
using the value of 2 which is 0.381.... The fraction
1250/381 which defines the value of the meter by the
speed of light is actually the same as 5/4 divided by 1/ 2
or 5/4 multiplied by 2/1. So, even though the meter is no
longer defined as an Earth measure, it still has a sacred
reference to and the value of the major third in music.
Another form of arriving at the value of the meter is
quite interesting. When one takes the value of the tone in
music which is 9:8, one can fraction it into two different
semitones: 36/35 and 35/32. The 36/35 semitone gives
the value of the ROOT Sacred Foot, while the other 35/32
semitone (which is the inverse of the Spanish units) gives
a foot for the meter of 1.09375 ft. In this case, the meter
would be a yard of 3.28125 ft which is 39 and 3/8 inches
long. This value of the meter is simply 21/8 x 5/4, that is,
2/1 augmented by a major third.
One more interesting relationship of the Meter to
ancient units is found in its relationship to the Royal units
of the ancient Egyptians. It is well acknowledged by
Egyptologists that the Royal Cubit is 0.5236 m long. This
is the value of /6. Once again, the ancient units are
spaking a language of geometry which many metrologists
cannot understand as the underlying language behind
numerical relationships.
The value of /6 is known, for example, as the ratio
between the volume of a sphere inscribed in a cube, but
most important is the fact that when we take as 22/7,
then the Royal Yard, being 2 Royal Cubits long, holds a
relationship to the meter as 22:21 or /3. In this case, the
Meter would have a ROOT value of 36/11.18
Here we have given four different values for the
Meter: one derived from the meridian circumference of
the Earth, another form the speed of light, a third from
musical ratios, and finally another value derived from the
Royal units by .
So, one is forced to ask the question of what the
real value of the meter is. The answer to this question
depends on what we consider the "real" manner of
defining a unit of measure, and this is the question we
intend to answer in this chapter.
The Meter is the best example of how different our
modern method of defining units is from the ancient
method. Today we use quite arbitrary standards to define
a unit like the meter, standards that are unacceptable to a
mentality like the one that defined units in ancient days
through geometric relationships as well as fractions of the
Earths dimensions. On the other hand, the "official"
metrology of today, the kind that arrogantly catalogues
the work of various authors exposed in this chapter as
"pseudo-science" uses the meter as a basic unit and
defines ancient units strictly in a decimal notation with
irrational values that never expose any rational
relationship between units.
It is obvious that two mentalities are at odds here,
and this opposition has nothing to do with metrology or
"science". It has to do with a philosophy of science and a
cosmology as we have stated in the very beginning of this
chapter.
The modern "official" method of metrology that
defines the study of ancient units is designed to ignore
the possibility of rational relationships between units such
as the "English", "Roman", "Egyptian", "Spanish", etc.
Using a metric system with irrational values in decimal
notation will never reveal the unity of the ancient system:
it will only emphasize the differences between units
without hinting at any possible link between them. This is
a purely analytical mentality designed to expose

18 This value of the meter can also be expressed as

144/55 x 5/4, that is, as 2/1 times a major third.
differences and differences alone, and the only conclusion
that can be drawn from this method is that the ancients
possessed a number of systems which were totally
disconnected from one another and probably invented by
completely arbitrary standards. Such is the "official"
conclusion of modern metrology that is self-proclaimed
"scientific".
On the other hand, the so-called "pseudo-scientific"
method is the one we have related here. It is based on a
different mentality: a mentality which uses the so-called
"English" units for a basis, or, better said, an Earth
fraction unit called "English" which is not arbitrary. This
method uses rational values and seeks to expose the
relationships between units in fractional notation, the
result being that it reveals a single and whole system of
units which are linked to one another instead of being
isolated. Contrary to the purely analytical method, this is
a holistic method and the reason why it is actually better
as a method is because it corresponds with the ancient
mentality that devised the ancient system of units in the
first place.
The reason why this method used by John Neal,
John Michell, and Robin and Richard Heath has revealed
so many interesting results while the arid method of
official academics has revealed nothing interesting at all
about ancient metrology is because these refuse to adopt
the correct mentality while the former have made an
effort to do so. To this list of pioneers in ancient metrology
we can also add Livio Stecchini, but we can also see how
Stecchini was held back by the modern method and never
revealed what John Neal did using the English foot as a
basic unit.
It is worth noting that the reason why this
metrology is considered "pseudo-science" is because it
does not come from scholars and academics thinking
inside the intellectual corral of modern dogmas. It is
especially repulsive to modern scholars that the
revelations of Michell, for example, follow a spiritual and
religious narrative much like the work of Schwaller de
Lubicz on ancient Egypt and the pharaonic science. It is
these two factors which compel scholars and academics
to call for "pseudo-science" when in reality there is
nothing "pseudo" about this knowledge at all.
As we have noted throughout this work, if anything
seems false about these affirmations, the reader is given
a clear and open opportunity to corroborate or disprove
the claims with the data at hand. The numbers are
exposed for anyone to check them, and the reality is that
numbers don't lie. The claim of "pseudo-science" is
greatly abused by scholars to disguise very subjective and
emotionally charged reactions against amateur
investigations and research that contradicts the atheistic
paradigm of naturalist philosophy that dominates modern
academic mentality.
Now, the synthesis of all that we have gone over in
this chapter can only be expressed through geometry. We
have made an effort to expose how geometry, understood
as a relationship of forms, is the essence and underlying
principle of number or arithmetic. The ancients
understood this principle and used geometry to derive the
basic units of a canon of measure that we are beginning
to resurrect today in the final years of the Iron Age or Kali
Yuga.
The geometries which expose the relationships
between the units we have mentioned here are shown
next. Here the reader will notice that the geometry of
squaring the circle which we have brought up once and
again defines the relationship between Royal units with
the AMY as well as Sacred units with the Meter.
 3168 See:
http://www.thegreatdesign.com/archive/Chapter1/1
09.htm

Jesus Sacred Triangle

http://www.biblegematria.com/pythagoras.html
http://www.esotericonline.net/group/christianity/for
um/topics/jesus-the-sacred-triangle

In the diagram we see that the angle of the

apothem of the Great Pyramid is very close to the angle of
360/7 or 90x 4/7. The slope angle of the Great Pyramid
can only be estimated because original outer stones are
missing and the top of the pyramid is also missing its final
top layers. Sir W. Flinders Petrie gave an approximation of
5152 and thus estimated a height of 5776 inches for the
monument, corresponding to 280.77 Egyptian Royal
Cubits.19
In the diagram we observe that when we give the
Great Pyramid a height of 280 Royal Cubits and a half
base-length of 220 Royal Cubits (a 11:7 ratio), the
angle of the apothem is then 515033.98. In this
case, the apothem would be 356 Royal Cubits long.

The Triangle h= ROOT SAC CUBIT

has a base of 1.618 ft and a hypothenuse of 2.618
ft.

Slope angle of 5151'32" when 21/13 (1.615384)

Slope angle of 5148'36" when 1.61803399

19 Petries measures of the apothem angle vary

between 514411 and 515320 for the north slope,
and 515730 for the southern slope. The original casing
stones of the Great Pyramid which he measured in situ
gave an angle of 514645 when measured by theodolite.
 Strabo on Hipparcus taking from other anonymous
texts:

The western side bounded by the Euphrates is not

entirely measured; for he tells us that he does not know
the extent of the portion between Armenia and the
northern mountains,2 as it has not been measured. By
reason of these hindrances he states that he has been
only able to give a very superficial view of the third
section, and that his estimate of the distances is
borrowed from various Itineraries, some of them,
according to his own description, anonymous.
Hipparchus therefore must be considered guilty of
unfairness, for criticizing with geometrical precision a
work of this general nature. We ought rather to be
grateful to a person who gives us any description at all of
the character of such [unknown] places. But when he
urges his geometrical objections not against any real
statement of Eratosthenes, but merely against imaginary
hypotheses of his own creation, he shows too plainly the
contradictory bent of his mind.

(Geography, Book 2, Chapter 1.23)

at Latitude 3113' N, and Longitude 2954' E

at Latitude 245' N, and Longitude 3254'