The Voynich Ninja
Pi & Pythagorean Numerology f70r1 found - Printable Version

+- The Voynich Ninja (https://www.voynich.ninja)
+-- Forum: Voynich Research (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-27.html)
+--- Forum: Analysis of the text (https://www.voynich.ninja/forum-41.html)
+--- Thread: Pi & Pythagorean Numerology f70r1 found (/thread-808.html)

Pages: 1 2

Pi & Pythagorean Numerology f70r1 found - stellar - 30-09-2016

I found additional evidence which supports my method and I can say that John Dee was a perfect genius.  The inner circle of folio 70r1 there is a complex form of Pi Numerology using the cipher he designed, which I decoded.  Pi runs counterclockwise in a sequence of six digits, (i.e. 3.14159) which uses one Welsh word for five, (i.e. Mhum) and a Roman Numeral IV for 9.  Everything adds up using the cipher which corresponds to a dual method of Pythagorean and Pi numerological systems.  This is where the Cipher meets a proof!

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

[Image: pi-numerology1.jpg?w=840]

RE: Pi & Pythagorean Numerology f70r1 found - -JKP- - 30-09-2016

According to your system, you haven't assigned the correct numbers to some of those Voynich glyphs.

RE: Pi & Pythagorean Numerology f70r1 found - stellar - 30-09-2016

(30-09-2016, 04:32 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.According to your system, you haven't assigned the correct numbers to some of those Voynich glyphs.

Jkp I'm letting it sit for a dual interpretation and yes I'm sure Dee meant to do this completely.  I show two options for what 3 equals.  Thanks for your attention.

RE: Pi & Pythagorean Numerology f70r1 found - -JKP- - 30-09-2016

Stellar, this is what I get when I apply your system to the circle you claim adds up to the numbers in PI (3.14159):
[Image: StellarNumerology.png]

It doesn't vaguely resemble the number for Pi.

RE: Pi & Pythagorean Numerology f70r1 found - Diane - 30-09-2016

I'm not sure if I should start a new thread for this - if so, apologies to Stellar and I'd ask the admins. to change it.

However, since there are mathematicians on board here, I would be very grateful indeed for any comment on the ratios given the central 'world' in folio 57v.  I should add that I have some reservations about the diagram on this folio; certain stylistic details make me suspect that it could have been added considerably later - perhaps by Kircher.

However, these are the proportions of the centre.  If anyone would care to comment. For example, do they match the ideas of any of the classical or ancient geometers about the world's proportions?  Have they any significance in Pythagorea ideas?   Any insights welcome.  I posted this in March 2013, but there was no response at that time. (fingers crossed).
[Image: f57v-centre-measures.jpg]


The posts where I treated it, if anyone wants the context, are:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

and another in response to a kind person's pointing out some work done by Rich Santacoloma, and which showed that the centre of f.57v has more than one "centre".

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.


I'd love to know what any mathematicians and/or classical-and-ancient historians make of those numbers.

RE: Pi & Pythagorean Numerology f70r1 found - stellar - 01-10-2016

(30-09-2016, 06:11 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Stellar, this is what I get when I apply your system to the circle you claim adds up to the numbers in PI (3.14159):
[Image: StellarNumerology.png]

It doesn't vaguely resemble the number for Pi.
JKP,
I'm afraid you are wrong in the arithmetic department and yes I did have to correct some errors however the outcome remains Pi.  You and I may disagree on the translation of a couple of glyph's here.  Yet I feel these can be called either way thanks for bringing this up.  

[Image: stellarnumerology.jpg?w=840]

RE: Pi & Pythagorean Numerology f70r1 found - -JKP- - 01-10-2016

(01-10-2016, 09:38 AM)stellar Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(30-09-2016, 06:11 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Stellar, this is what I get when I apply your system to the circle you claim adds up to the numbers in PI (3.14159):
[Image: StellarNumerology.png]

It doesn't vaguely resemble the number for Pi.
JKP,
I'm afraid you are wrong in the arithmetic department and yes I did have to correct some errors however the outcome remains Pi.  You and I may disagree on the translation of a couple of glyph's here.  Yet I feel these can be called either way thanks for bringing this up.  

...


Stellar, it's both inconsiderate and misleading to make statements like that without backing them up.

My arithmetic is not wrong (and I think you know that).


Here are the numbers again and if you have a sense of fair play and decency you will either point out which one is specifically wrong so we can discuss it, or you will acknowledge that my arithmetic is correct...

6 3 6 8 8     = 31 = 4
3 6 8 1 5     = 23 = 5
9 2 6 5 6 5  = 33 = 6
6 8 6 8 9     = 33 = 6
6 3 5 6 8 6  = 34 = 7
9 3 5 1 5     = 23 = 5

As for interpretation of the glyphs (and thus the numbers assigned to them)...

I probably have a lot more experience in interpreting medieval scripts than you. I can fairly comfortably read Gothic book, Gothic cursive, textura, Carolingian, Anglicana, Italic, and Gothic secretary hands in several languages, so if we disagree on the interpretation of the VMS glyphs (and thus the number assigned to them), then we disagree, but that has nothing to do with whether the arithmetic is correct. The two issues should not be confused with one another.

I made my own transcription of the entire VMS document, labels and all, so I have copied every single glyph in the entire document and am familiar with the various hands and how the scribes drew particular letters. That doesn't mean my transcription will be perfect, some VMS glyphs are messy or filled in or very faint and hard to read, but I'm going to trust my interpretation of the glyphs better than someone who has never made a transcription.

So here is a comparison of your interpretation of the glyphs and mine (with the numeric equivalents based on your numerology chart):

[Image: VoynichPiChart.png]


The Voynicheros can decide for themselves which is more accurate.


In my opinion, your credibility is at stake because it looks like you are conveniently juggling the glyph interpretations so the numbers come out the way you want them. You need to scrutinize this more carefully and check your work, especially since you are putting this in books and charging people for it.

RE: Pi & Pythagorean Numerology f70r1 found - stellar - 01-10-2016

(01-10-2016, 05:41 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(01-10-2016, 09:38 AM)stellar Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(30-09-2016, 06:11 AM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Stellar, this is what I get when I apply your system to the circle you claim adds up to the numbers in PI (3.14159):
[Image: StellarNumerology.png]

It doesn't vaguely resemble the number for Pi.
JKP,
I'm afraid you are wrong in the arithmetic department and yes I did have to correct some errors however the outcome remains Pi.  You and I may disagree on the translation of a couple of glyph's here.  Yet I feel these can be called either way thanks for bringing this up.  

...


Stellar, it's both inconsiderate and misleading to make statements like that without backing them up.

My arithmetic is not wrong (and I think you know that).


Here are the numbers again and if you have a sense of fair play and decency you will either point out which one is specifically wrong so we can discuss it, or you will acknowledge that my arithmetic is correct...

6 3 6 8 8     = 31 = 4
3 6 8 1 5     = 23 = 5
9 2 6 5 6 5  = 33 = 6
6 8 6 8 9     = 33 = 6
6 3 5 6 8 6  = 34 = 7
9 3 5 1 5     = 23 = 5

As for interpretation of the glyphs (and thus the numbers assigned to them)...

I probably have a lot more experience in interpreting medieval scripts than you. I can fairly comfortably read Gothic book, Gothic cursive, textura, Carolingian, Anglicana, Italic, and Gothic secretary hands in several languages, so if we disagree on the interpretation of the VMS glyphs (and thus the number assigned to them), then we disagree, but that has nothing to do with whether the arithmetic is correct. The two issues should not be confused with one another.

I made my own transcription of the entire VMS document, labels and all, so I have copied every single glyph in the entire document and am familiar with the various hands and how the scribes drew particular letters. That doesn't mean my transcription will be perfect, some VMS glyphs are messy or filled in or very faint and hard to read, but I'm going to trust my interpretation of the glyphs better than someone who has never made a transcription.

So here is a comparison of your interpretation of the glyphs and mine (with the numeric equivalents based on your numerology chart):

[Image: VoynichPiChart.png]


The Voynicheros can decide for themselves which is more accurate.


In my opinion, your credibility is at stake because it looks like you are conveniently juggling the glyph interpretations so the numbers come out the way you want them. You need to scrutinize this more carefully and check your work, especially since you are putting this in books and charging people for it.

[Image: stellarnumerology.jpg?w=840]

Four adds up to a 6 in English using numerology,  6+6+3+9=12+12=3+3=6! 

UN, which is a 1 in Welsh adds up 3+5=8. 

MHUN is the word for five and its letters add up to a 4+8+3+4= 1,  4+8+3+4= 12+7=19=1+9=10 and 10 reduces to a 1 in numerology.  

IX is a  Roman Numeral 9, IX} 96=6!

JKP,

I explained to you this was complex in the opening of this thread!
[Image: numerologychart16.jpg?w=840]

RE: Pi & Pythagorean Numerology f70r1 found - -JKP- - 01-10-2016

Stellar wrote: Four adds up to a 6 in English using numerology,  6+6+3+9=12+12=3+3=6!


This isn't the way it's usually done. Usually all the numbers are added singly, and then, if it's more than ten, the individual digits are added again. You don't usually pair up the numbers in the process of adding them as you have done in the above example.

If you are using a different system from usual (and from what you implied earlier), then you should explain it before posting all these sums.


In his article on Celtic numerology, Mike Nichols added them the same way I added them and this is the system I saw in numerology books I read years ago. As you can see, it doesn't jive with the way you are now saying you do it:

[Image: NicholsNumbers.jpg]

So, if you are using a different system, then clearly explain it before posting the numbers and state your sources for using a less conventional system.



I notice you have created another youtube video on this.

I really don't care whether your ideas are right or wrong, you're entitled to your opinions, except for the fact that you have commercial ambitions and are promoting books, in which case you have a responsibility to your buyers that I'm not sure you are honoring.

RE: Pi & Pythagorean Numerology f70r1 found - stellar - 01-10-2016

(01-10-2016, 09:40 PM)-JKP- Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Stellar wrote: Four adds up to a 6 in English using numerology,  6+6+3+9=12+12=3+3=6!


This isn't the way it's usually done. Usually all the numbers are added singly, and then, if it's more than ten, the individual digits are added again. You don't usually pair up the numbers in the process of adding them as you have done in the above example.

If you are using a different system from usual (and from what you implied earlier), then you should explain it before posting all these sums.


In his article on Celtic numerology, Mike Nichols added them the same way I added them and this is the system I saw in numerology books I read years ago. As you can see, it doesn't jive with the way you are now saying you do it:

[Image: NicholsNumbers.jpg]

So, if you are using a different system, then clearly explain it before posting the numbers and state your sources for using a less conventional system.



I notice you have created another youtube video on this.

I really don't care whether your ideas are right or wrong, you're entitled to your opinions, except for the fact that you have commercial ambitions and are promoting books, in which case you have a responsibility to your buyers that I'm not sure you are honoring.

I only created one youtube video and can you please post it here.  Also I'm using Pythagorean numerology.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

[Image: CttdFlOVMAAASO1.jpg]