david,
just to clarify, i wasnt saying that you shouldnt use seconds as a
measurement. i was just pointing out that you can leave it as seconds,
and not convert to earth years or galactic years, or anything else, because
what matters is the ratio...not the units...(in the case of deriving
the relationship between the nineveh and wilcock constants)
-brian
"put the pieces back together...rediscover communication..." -tool
"gaia still loves all the pieces of her jigsaw earth..." -disco biscuits
"wheels within wheels in a spiral array,
a pattern so grand and complex
time after time we lose sight of the waves
our causes cant see their effects..." -rush
> again, welcome new members... once more we've got a technical question that=
> goes into depths that are only plumbed by a few who can take it this far. =
> without having read at least all of shift, this discussion will not make se=
> nse.
>
> yes, brian, i believe that you've sent me something along these lines befor=
> e in private communication... and of course i haven't had the chance to inc=
> orporate this into the new book thus far. in shift i do detail how i came t=
> o the answer in my own way, but the real key is that these two clearly exis=
> tent cycles are interrelated by a factor of 36. that discovery in and of it=
> self is the real core of it, and it shows the incredible quality of the cyc=
> les themselves to interrelate as a precise whole.
>
> i would disagree with you on one point... the usage of seconds as a method =
> of time measurement is very important and is obviously etched into the harm=
> onic signatures of our galaxy and its own "local" system of physics and law=
> s. we now use 8-time as i call it, and cathie discovered that we can also u=
> se 9-time, and in that time system the speed of light is 144,000 nautical m=
> iles per second. this is not an accident. 9-time also gives you harmonic va=
> lues for the diatonic scale, only you have to go above the "middle c" octav=
> e to eliminate the point-fives in the numbers and get them all to be intege=
> rs. these interconnections are a result of the unifying factor of vibration=
> . the seconds are geometric, as a measurement of a discrete amount and dist=
> ance of movement at the given speeds that we encounter in this galaxy. the =
> movement is unified through the vibrations of the aether.
>
> undoubtedly, as you have said, these cycles can appear at various energy le=
> vels and this could be another example of why my readings said that ciii is=
> equivalent to the discovery of the abacus.
>
> thanks again for helping to further this work!
>
> peace be with you -
>
> - david
> ----- original message -----=20
> from: brian v. cox=20
> to: asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=y-gossgllevv67cwvzltgr36ex-ik_f6cd44ufbjqi3h1gjmegzssqwn6boy5k9jfxdidojvqvs4b c91fh2tnw)=20
> sent: wednesday, may 30, 2001 6:05 pm
> subject: [asc2k] wilcock & nineveh constants
>
>
> i was just bored at work, and went back and was re-reading part of=20
> shift of the ages now that i'm done with (what's posted so far of)
> convergence iii...
>
> just for kicks i decided to do the math involved with coming up=20
> with the wilcock constant.
>
> (this is from shift of the ages, chapter 19, btw)
>
> anyway, what i found out was that no matter what you put in for the
> values of years, seconds, days, whatever, it doesnt matter. they
> all cancel out when you divide the wilcock constant by the nineveh
> constant.
>
> what you're left with is just the basic constants themselves, expressed
> as harmonics of 6 and 7....
>
> wilcock: (0.7)*(60)^9
>
> nineveh: (70)*(60)^7
>
> of course you get 36 when you do all that math...everything cancels
> out except for these numbers...when you divide these...
>
> it reduces to 1/100 * 3600 (0.7/70 is 1/100, 60^9/60^7 is 60^2 or 3600=
> )
>
> not to lessen the importance of this wilcock constant, but is all the
> extraneous math (and suspense) that is detailed in this chapter necessary=
> ,=20
> or just add to confusion, since this factor of 36 can be readily seen in =
> the
> assumption taken to arrive at the harmonic galactic year? (the .7*60^9
> in relation to the original 70*60^7)
>
> if these patterns are truly infinitely nested, would this also make the
> next level "up" or "down" the same factor of 36?
>
> whatever the next galaxy of galaxies is called that contains our milky
> way, can i assume that its constant will be .007 * 60 ^ 11? can
> i call that the cox constant? (just kidding) :)=20
>
> or going down, would there be a planetary or solar constant that
> is 7000 * 60 ^ 5?=20=20
>
> just trying to figure this out...
>
> my main point is that all the extra math is unnecessary to see the
> harmonic relationship between the wilcock and nineveh constants.=20
> the "vibrational" expressions that give the value in seconds as
> harmonics of 6 and 7 are enough. given this, maybe other constants
> for lower or higher level cosmic cycles can be hypothesized...
>
> -brian
>
>
> --------------
> brian cox - brian@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=2ku6ylnoltzqztbjq14o9go6di0gqnuzldlg4r yssby1gcoo1tetzoz9qxmqhcmmhiks5hwwdtq)
> **magpu** music for your mind: http://www.magpu.com
> "yawlurjazz!!!" - poor david, 7/1/98
>
> yahoo! groups sponsor=20
>
> yahoo! website services- click here!=20
> =20=20=20=20=20=20=20
>
> to unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> asc2k-unsubscribe@egroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=urq82xvzmvi-83-8lfp7vung5oiksm7-fcwy1b-asdus15p2jesemx5fz9s4uadbfrcjmewslp-hiog5qftvhfmc1i8)
>
>
>
> your use of yahoo! groups is subject to the yahoo! terms of service.=20
>
>
> ------=_nextpart_000_0008_01c0e935.33794d20
> content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
> content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
>
> <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
> <html><head>
> <meta http-equiv=content-type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
> <meta content="mshtml 5.50.4134.600" name=generator>
> <style></style>
> </head>
> <body bgcolor=#ffffff>
> <div><font face=arial size=2>again, welcome new members... once more we've got
a
> technical question that goes into depths that are only plumbed by a few who
can
> take it this far. without having read at least all of shift, this discussion
> will not make sense.</font></div>
> <div><font face=arial size=2></font> </div>
> <div><font face=arial size=2>yes, brian, i believe that you've sent me
something
> along these lines before in private communication... and of course i haven't
had
> the chance to incorporate this into the new book thus far. in shift i do
detail
> how i came to the answer in my own way, but the real key is that these two
> clearly existent cycles are interrelated by a factor of 36. that discovery in
> and of itself is the real core of it, and it shows the incredible quality of
the
> cycles themselves to interrelate as a precise whole.</font></div>
> <div><font face=arial size=2></font> </div>
> <div><font face=arial size=2>i would disagree with you on one point... the
usage
> of seconds as a method of time measurement is very important and is obviously
> etched into the harmonic signatures of our galaxy and its own "local" system
of
> physics and laws. we now use 8-time as i call it, and cathie discovered that
we
> can also use 9-time, and in that time system the speed of light is 144,000
> nautical miles per second. this is not an accident. 9-time also gives you
> harmonic values for the diatonic scale, only you have to go above the "middle
c"
> octave to eliminate the point-fives in the numbers and get them all to be
> integers. these interconnections are a result of the unifying factor of
> vibration. the seconds are geometric, as a measurement of a discrete amount
and
> distance of movement at the given speeds that we encounter in this galaxy. the
> movement is unified through the vibrations of the aether.</font></div>
> <div><font face=arial size=2></font> </div>
> <div><font face=arial size=2>undoubtedly, as you have said, these cycles can
> appear at various energy levels and this could be another example of why my
> readings said that ciii is equivalent to the discovery of the
> abacus.</font></div>
> <div><font face=arial size=2></font> </div>
> <div><font face=arial size=2>thanks again for helping to further this
> work!</font></div>
> <div><font face=arial size=2></font> </div>
> <div><font face=arial size=2>peace be with you -</font></div>
> <div><font face=arial size=2></font> </div>
> <div><font face=arial size=2>- david</font></div>
> <blockquote
> style="padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; border-left:
#000000 2px solid; margin-right: 0px">
> <div style="font: 10pt arial">----- original message ----- </div>
> <div
> style="background: #e4e4e4; font: 10pt arial; font-color:
black"><b>from:</b>
> <a title=lerxst@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=n6yj0v_tw0kw7cstsricbrbc_igzptxufyyylv gwfzhrzrnb7vd4n92u8egciabzyd7utzs1z63vn11og-e34fpa) href="mailto:lerxst@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=hyca1_ia7q9les0bp2su799grvwcrfkhqmatef fyqqwaarjs5z6ikd1_mb8u3gpifgfux9p1q5ph4xp6roe)">brian v.
> cox</a> </div>
> <div style="font: 10pt arial"><b>to:</b> <a title=asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=deayhigipuiw8oswrbfackh7vp5clvm5bpseeq ozfdxcdmgfplvlgehi4atcvbw8brivdrhsiedigjubfhlp9txe iqohgq)
> href="mailto:asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=y-gossgllevv67cwvzltgr36ex-ik_f6cd44ufbjqi3h1gjmegzssqwn6boy5k9jfxdidojvqvs4b c91fh2tnw)">asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=y-gossgllevv67cwvzltgr36ex-ik_f6cd44ufbjqi3h1gjmegzssqwn6boy5k9jfxdidojvqvs4b c91fh2tnw)</a> </div>
> <div style="font: 10pt arial"><b>sent:</b> wednesday, may 30, 2001 6:05
> pm</div>
> <div style="font: 10pt arial"><b>subject:</b> [asc2k] wilcock & nineveh
> constants</div>
> <div><br></div><tt>i was just bored at work, and went back and was
re-reading
> part of <br>shift of the ages now that i'm done with (what's posted so far
> of)<br>convergence iii...<br><br>just for kicks i decided to do the math
> involved with coming up <br>with the wilcock constant.<br><br>(this is from
> shift of the ages, chapter 19, btw)<br><br>anyway, what i found out was that
> no matter what you put in for the<br>values of years, seconds, days,
whatever,
> it doesnt matter. they<br>all cancel out when you divide the
> wilcock constant by the nineveh<br>constant.<br><br>what you're left with is
> just the basic constants themselves, expressed<br>as harmonics of 6 and
> 7....<br><br>wilcock: (0.7)*(60)^9<br><br>nineveh:
> (70)*(60)^7<br><br>of course you get 36 when you do all that
math...everything
> cancels<br>out except for these numbers...when you divide these...<br><br>it
> reduces to 1/100 * 3600 (0.7/70 is 1/100, 60^9/60^7 is
60^2
> or 3600)<br><br>not to lessen the importance of this wilcock constant, but
is
> all the<br>extraneous math (and suspense) that is detailed in this chapter
> necessary, <br>or just add to confusion, since this factor of 36 can be
> readily seen in the<br>assumption taken to arrive at the harmonic galactic
> year? (the .7*60^9<br>in relation to the original 70*60^7)<br><br>if
> these patterns are truly infinitely nested, would this also make the<br>next
> level "up" or "down" the same factor of 36?<br><br>whatever the next galaxy
of
> galaxies is called that contains our milky<br>way, can i assume that its
> constant will be .007 * 60 ^ 11? can<br>i call that the cox constant?
> (just kidding) :) <br><br>or going down, would there be a planetary or
> solar constant that<br>is 7000 * 60 ^ 5? <br><br>just trying to figure
> this out...<br><br>my main point is that all the extra math is unnecessary
to
> see the<br>harmonic relationship between the wilcock and nineveh constants.
> <br>the "vibrational" expressions that give the value in seconds
> as<br>harmonics of 6 and 7 are enough. given this, maybe
> other constants<br>for lower or higher level cosmic cycles can be
> hypothesized...<br><br>-brian<br><br><br>--------------<br>brian cox -
> brian@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=2ku6ylnoltzqztbjq14o9go6di0gqnuzldlg4r yssby1gcoo1tetzoz9qxmqhcmmhiks5hwwdtq)<br>**magpu** music for your mind: <a
>
href="http://www.magpu.com">http://www.magpu.com</a><br>"yawlurjazz!!!"
> - poor david, 7/1/98<br></tt><br><br><tt>to
> unsubscribe from this group, send an email
> to:<br>asc2k-unsubscribe@egroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=urq82xvzmvi-83-8lfp7vung5oiksm7-fcwy1b-asdus15p2jesemx5fz9s4uadbfrcjmewslp-hiog5qftvhfmc1i8)<br><br></tt><br><br><tt>your use of
> yahoo! groups is subject to the <a
> href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">yahoo! terms of service</a>.</tt>
> <br></blockquote>
> <br>
>
> <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
>
> <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
> <tr bgcolor=#ffffcc>
> <td align=center><font size="-1" color=#003399>yahoo! groups
sponsor</font></td>
> </tr>
> <tr bgcolor=#ffffff>
> <td width=470><a
href="<a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/m=190462.1393721.2979173.2/d=egroupmail/s=1700082805:n/a=551015/?http://www.debticated.com">http://rd.yahoo.com/m=190462.1393721.2979173.2/d=egroupmail/s=1700082805:n\
/a=551015/?http://www.debticated.com</a>" target="_top"><img width=468 height=60
src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/am/ameridebtt/debicatedbanner2.gif"
alt="www.debticated.com" border=0></a></td>
> </tr>
> <img alt="" width=1 height=1
src="<a href="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?m=190462.1393721.2979173.2/d=egroupmail/s=1700082805:n/a=551015/rand=483195157">http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?m=190462.1393721.2979173.2/d=egroupmail/s=17\
00082805:n/a=551015/rand=483195157</a>"></td></tr>
>
>
> <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
>
>
> <br>
> <tt>
> to unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<br>
> asc2k-unsubscribe@egroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=urq82xvzmvi-83-8lfp7vung5oiksm7-fcwy1b-asdus15p2jesemx5fz9s4uadbfrcjmewslp-hiog5qftvhfmc1i8)<br>
> <br>
> </tt>
> <br>
>
> <br>
> <tt>your use of yahoo! groups is subject to the <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">yahoo! terms of service</a>.</tt>
> </br>
>
> </body></html>
>
> ------=_nextpart_000_0008_01c0e935.33794d20--
>
--
--------------
brian cox - brian@... (/group/asc2k/post?postid=2ku6ylnoltzqztbjq14o9go6di0gqnuzldlg4r yssby1gcoo1tetzoz9qxmqhcmmhiks5hwwdtq)
**magpu** music for your mind: http://www.magpu.com
"yawlurjazz!!!" - poor david, 7/1/98