Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

The circle of 360 degrees

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
 [ 34 posts ] 
The circle of 360 degrees
Author Message
massfreePosts: 3Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 11:30 pm Gender: Pinecone

Post Re: The circle of 360 degrees

Master_Ghost_Knight wrote:You seam to have mistaken me by someone who gives a shit about the Zodiac.


So you prefer to remain in ignorance as to where the circle of 360 days/degrees originated. That is your business, but why bother replying to this thread then? You waste everyone's time and deter those who might actually have a genuine interest.

Master_Ghost_Knight wrote:
Well... Thankyou for agreeing with me, I guess.


No, I do not agree with you. I said your approach is fruitless. In other words unproductive, pointless. As the OP alluded in his opening post, modern trigonometry (thinking in terms of angular metrics) is a relatively recent invention, which most historians trace to Hellenistic Greece. Why would you go looking for it in a text (RV) which was composed some 4000-5000 years prior? The use of a sexagesimal number system by the Sumerians ca. 3000BC and Babylonians ca. 2000BC does not prove that they invented modern trigonometry, nor that they thought in terms of 'angular metrics' in the same way that you do.

The historical record indicates that modern trigonometry (angular metrics) emerged during the period of Indian influence upon Greek culture in the centuries following Alexander the Great. There are independent records in Greece and in India (Aryabhata and his forebears). This has little to do with either Sumeria or Veda. The circle of 360 days/degrees is in evidence in the Vedic hymns, which originated at least 4000 years prior to the development of 'angular metrics'.
Sun Aug 11, 2013 4:14 pm
Master_Ghost_KnightContributorUser avatarPosts: 2630Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 pmLocation: Netherlands Gender: Male

Post Re: The circle of 360 degrees

massfree wrote:
Master_Ghost_Knight wrote:You seam to have mistaken me by someone who gives a shit about the Zodiac.

So you prefer to remain in ignorance as to where the circle of 360 days/degrees originated. That is your business, but why bother replying to this thread then? You waste everyone's time and deter those who might actually have a genuine interest.

No, you are the one that is so obnoxiously ignorant, and blinded by a mixture of self importance, misplaced sense of patriotism and a persecution complex that you can't even see the obvious mistakes. Since when is a year about 360 days? If as you say that degree scale was based on the Zodiac, then why is a full circle divided 360 instead of twelve?
And then you are going to say "Oh its because some god such and such farted 3 times on the 10th day of thingamajiggy". Well FUCK OFF! That is a poor excuse to justify the unjustifiable. I can pick anything out of context and extrapolate some wild relations to make it say whatever I want. this method of your seems to be pretty good to find out what they say after you know what you want it to say, however in the other end it is completely rubbish to try and find anything before A priori knowledge of some modern knowledge.

massfree wrote:"He, like a rounded wheel, hath in swift motion set his ninety racing steeds together with the four." This is a clear and unmistakable references to a division of the Year into 90x4 = 360 units of TIME

How about No? How about it is in fact a reference to "his ninety racing steeds together with the four"?
And why not put the all text:
He, like a rounded wheel, hath in swift motion set his ninety racing steeds together with the four.
Developed, vast in form, with those who sing forth praise, a youth, no more a child, he cometh to our call.

Does it look a reference to whatever you said it references? No. So stop trying to sell me bullshit.


massfree wrote:No, I do not agree with you. I said your approach is fruitless. In other words unproductive, pointless. As the OP alluded in his opening post, modern trigonometry (thinking in terms of angular metrics) is a relatively recent invention, which most historians trace to Hellenistic Greece.

1. If it traces back to Hellenistic Greece then it is not modern. I would say that there are more modern understanding of trigonometry developed in the 18th century up to the 20th century, and we can do shit that the ancient civilizations couldn't even dream off. And fyi, no one serious enough does any calculation in degrees in this day and age. So I don't really understand what is your classification of "modern".
2. I would agree that it is pointless, but that is because non of the texts you alluded actually say what you want to say. It simply got nothing to do with mathematics other than the fact that it contains numbers, period.

massfree wrote:Why would you go looking for it in a text (RV) which was composed some 4000-5000 years prior?

Wow! No. I will not accept this form of historical revisionism. Unless you have positive evidence that the texts predates 3000 Bc, you should retract your statment and apologize for lying.

massfree wrote:The use of a sexagesimal number system by the Sumerians ca. 3000BC and Babylonians ca. 2000BC does not prove that they invented modern trigonometry, nor that they thought in terms of 'angular metrics' in the same way that you do.

Except for the fact that dividing the circle in 360 parts only makes sense if you are working in base 60.

massfree wrote:The historical record indicates that modern trigonometry (angular metrics) emerged during the period of Indian influence upon Greek culture in the centuries following Alexander the Great.

Greek trigonometry predates Alexander the Great. And it certainly had no Indian influence trough that exchange. It had other Indian influences, sure, not of that sort.

massfree wrote:There are independent records in Greece and in India (Aryabhata and his forebears). This has little to do with either Sumeria or Veda. The circle of 360 days/degrees is in evidence in the Vedic hymns, which originated at least 4000 years prior to the development of 'angular metrics'.

Except of course, 1. it isn't, 2. the Vedic hymns are nowhere near that old.
And "angular metrics", we know it to predate the greeks. Let me give you a hint, Not the Indian!
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Sun Aug 11, 2013 6:02 pm
massfreePosts: 3Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 11:30 pm Gender: Pinecone

Post Re: The circle of 360 degrees

I will ignore your emotional outbursts and address the substantive portions of your post.

Master_Ghost_Knight wrote:Since when is a year about 360 days? If as you say that degree scale was based on the Zodiac, then why is a full circle divided 360 instead of twelve?


Since a long, long time -- 365.2422 days last I checked. The five/six extra days were traditionally considered outside of the (ideal) calendar, corresponding to the imperfection of the Earth's orbit, or today we might say the inertia of matter. This calendar was divided into twelve months of 30 days each, making 360 days total, and from what I understand, was reset each year at the vernal equinox.

Master_Ghost_Knight wrote: I can pick anything out of context and extrapolate some wild relations to make it say whatever I want.....


Yes, you could do that I suppose, but it would not be any replacement for a thorough and comprehensive study. You obviously have not studied the Rig Veda, nor have any interest to, which is fine. But that gives you absolutely no grounds to determine what it does and does not say.

Master_Ghost_Knight wrote:
massfree wrote:"He, like a rounded wheel, hath in swift motion set his ninety racing steeds together with the four." This is a clear and unmistakable references to a division of the Year into 90x4 = 360 units of TIME

How about No? How about it is in fact a reference to "his ninety racing steeds together with the four"?
And why not put the all text:
He, like a rounded wheel, hath in swift motion set his ninety racing steeds together with the four.
Developed, vast in form, with those who sing forth praise, a youth, no more a child, he cometh to our call.

Does it look a reference to whatever you said it references? No. So stop trying to sell me bullshit.


Not selling anything. If you reject the Rishis' use of symbolism a priori, then you will not be able to understand what they are saying. That is your choice. These images (of the horse, the youth, the child, the vast universal form of time, etc) have consistent meanings and are used consistently throughout the Veda. You wouldn't know this since you have not studied, and seem to be more attached to your prejudices than to the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. If you insist on a literal interpretation where horse = horse, nine tenths of the Veda will seem like total gibberish. The Rishis expressed themselves in metrical poetry and spoke consistently in symbols -- this much will be clear to anyone who bothers to engage in a deep study of the material.

Master_Ghost_Knight wrote:
massfree wrote:No, I do not agree with you. I said your approach is fruitless. In other words unproductive, pointless. As the OP alluded in his opening post, modern trigonometry (thinking in terms of angular metrics) is a relatively recent invention, which most historians trace to Hellenistic Greece.

1. If it traces back to Hellenistic Greece then it is not modern. I would say that there are more modern understanding of trigonometry developed in the 18th century up to the 20th century, and we can do shit that the ancient civilizations couldn't even dream off. And fyi, no one serious enough does any calculation in degrees in this day and age. So I don't really understand what is your classification of "modern".


Fair enough. But weren't you claiming the Sumerians had invented some sort of trigonometry? By modern - in a very general sense - I just meant the knowledge of trigonometric functions (sines and cosines etc) and thinking in terms of angular metrics rather than just dealing vaguely with the ratio of the lengths of the edges of a triangle or tracking the relative motion of celestial bodies. I do not deny that "modern" trigonometry in this general sense could have predated Hellenistic Greece, but in either case, the circle of 360 days/degrees goes much, much further back. And the subject of this thread is the historical origins of the circle of 360 degrees. My research agrees with Sandracotta's assertion that the Sumerians/Babylonians inherited it from the Vedic civilization, which is older. The Vedic civilization almost certainly inherited it from a pre-Vedic tradition, but this is a topic for another time.

Master_Ghost_Knight wrote:
2. I would agree that it is pointless, but that is because non of the texts you alluded actually say what you want to say. It simply got nothing to do with mathematics other than the fact that it contains numbers, period.


How can you say that when you have not studied the subject, refuse to study the subject, and by your own admission don't give a shit about the subject?

Master_Ghost_Knight wrote: Unless you have positive evidence that the texts predates 3000 Bc, you should retract your statment and apologize for lying.


Have you not bothered to read the rest of the thread!? Sandracotta presented several pieces of evidence that puts it around 4000BC. The two most compelling in my view are the scientifically-established timeline of the drying up of the Saraswati river, and the mentions in various texts of different constellations appearing at the vernal equinoctial point.

Master_Ghost_Knight wrote:
massfree wrote:The use of a sexagesimal number system by the Sumerians ca. 3000BC and Babylonians ca. 2000BC does not prove that they invented modern trigonometry, nor that they thought in terms of 'angular metrics' in the same way that you do.

Except for the fact that dividing the circle in 360 parts only makes sense if you are working in base 60.


Is this the substance of your argument? Because 60x60 = 360, the Sumerians invented trigonometry and were the first to conceive of a circle of 360 degrees?
We seem to manage the 360 degree circle okay in our current decimal number system.

The topic of this thread is not so much who invented trig, but where did we get the circle of 360 degrees?
Mon Aug 12, 2013 5:29 pm
Master_Ghost_KnightContributorUser avatarPosts: 2630Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 pmLocation: Netherlands Gender: Male

Post Re: The circle of 360 degrees

I find degrading that I am trying to reason with someone on the topic on math that can't even get basic math right. I will give you the opportunity to reread your post and correct it. Until then you don't deserve an answer.
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Mon Aug 12, 2013 10:30 pm
CommonEnlightenmentUser avatarPosts: 649Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 2:06 amLocation: Plato Crater Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The circle of 360 degrees

Just dropping by to add a zero (0) to the conversation.

Carry on.
There is still light in the 'Earthly' darkness. Finding light in the darkness can be more satisfying than merely seeing the glaring light of our sun. It gives us a better understanding of light and a deeper understanding of our universe.
Tue Aug 13, 2013 5:12 am
DustniteUser avatarPosts: 517Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 9:11 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: The circle of 360 degrees

Image
"But this is irrelevant because in either case, whether a god exists or not, whether your God (with a capital G) exists or not, it doesn't matter. We both are, in either case, evolved apes. " - Nesslig20
Tue Aug 13, 2013 11:58 pm
Matrix 777Posts: 1Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 2:18 pm Gender: Female

Post Re: The circle of 360 degrees

What you and I have been thought about the 360 and consequently all that has been said about the Babylonians and the Indians Vedas writings etc ARE ALL WRONG!

It will be soon shown that all the ancient civilizations were aware of and "used" a mathematical system and its derived "universal laws" that were the foundation of all science and also calendars etc.

The decision to have a zodiac divided in 12 parts or the day and night for that matter, is not arbitrary. Just like the number 360 is NOT an arbitrary number but it based on this mathematical system and matrix that will soon be revealed.

When they speak of "wheels" you will see that those are "repeating mathematical patterns"... and in fact there are of "different types" so to speak.... 24, 5 and 7 to say few but also 360 is a repeating mathematical pattern!

All becomes very clear when this will be understood.

Twelve spokes, one wheel, navels three.
Who can comprehend this?
On it are placed together
Three hundred and sixty like pegs.
They shake not in the least. 
(Rig Veda 1.154.48)

They shake not in the least... I heard so many interpretations of this... it only means that it is a repeating pattern ad infinitum.

Bottom line is... you will discover that you have been told many lies... starting from the Darwinian evolution... you and the whole Universe is based on math and numbers, and not just any numbers... but the very decimal system and ONE specific NOT arbitrary matrix derived from it...
From planets to your DNA it all follows "fractally" the same mathematical laws... you are special and created the way you are and not evolved from worms... or whatever.

The ancient knew it... that's why the "scientist" and the "priests" was one and the same person... like it will be very soon, again.
Mon Mar 09, 2015 2:36 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatar
Online
Posts: 3253Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: The circle of 360 degrees

Matrix 777 wrote:
Image


Image


That sums up what I saw in Matrix 777's post.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Tue Mar 10, 2015 6:34 pm
YIM WWW
Gnug215ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2544Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:31 pm

Post Re: The circle of 360 degrees

Yeah... I approved his post out of morbid curiosity - not even fully convinced it's not some kind of spammer/bot.

We'll see. Maybe. Looks like a "drive-by nutting" to me.
- Gnug215

YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Gnug215


The horse is a ferocious predator.
Tue Mar 10, 2015 11:44 pm
WarKChat ModeratorUser avatar
Online
Posts: 1176Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:59 am Gender: Tree

Post Re: The circle of 360 degrees

Andiferous wrote:.... ) ~ 0 ~ ( ...

*angry*


Rusty, are we? :)
Did you see that ludicrous display last night?
Thu Mar 12, 2015 5:21 pm
AndiferousUser avatarPosts: 2727Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 7:00 amLocation: Laputa Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The circle of 360 degrees

I actually had a bit too much wine last night. I wasn't able to delete my own posts, tried to do so a few times and ended up drawing silly pictures, and sent a message to a mod the next day asking for deletion, cuz I felt really bad about this.

Anyway, I'm really sorry for making such an arse of myself. ;/

I get really defensive of the old gang, even now, heh.

Please do! Delete the posts, I mean!

In wait for that happening, I will entertain you with more silly pictures?


That said, I'm really interested in what you say Master Ghost Knight. Random wiki-math totally shows itself pretty quickly. Pythagorean mathematics has been around for centuries, eh? Even against posers like me?
"As there seemed no measure between what Watt could understand, and what he could not, so there seemed none between what he deemed certain, and what he deemed doubtful."
~ Samuel Beckett, Watt
Fri Mar 13, 2015 9:59 am
Master_Ghost_KnightContributorUser avatarPosts: 2630Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 pmLocation: Netherlands Gender: Male

Post Re: The circle of 360 degrees

Andiferous wrote:I actually had a bit too much wine last night. I wasn't able to delete my own posts, tried to do so a few times and ended up drawing silly pictures, and sent a message to a mod the next day asking for deletion, cuz I felt really bad about this.


eh, hum... that was quite... ok. How hammered where you to not be able to find the delete button and do 3 consecutive posts instead? :D Quite I presume. Well party on.

Andiferous wrote:That said, I'm really interested in what you say Master Ghost Knight. Random wiki-math totally shows itself pretty quickly. Pythagorean mathematics has been around for centuries, eh? Even against posers like me?

What do you mean? I don't know I got nothing.
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Mon Mar 16, 2015 10:08 pm
AndiferousUser avatarPosts: 2727Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 7:00 amLocation: Laputa Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The circle of 360 degrees

Master_Ghost_Knight wrote:
Andiferous wrote:I actually had a bit too much wine last night. I wasn't able to delete my own posts, tried to do so a few times and ended up drawing silly pictures, and sent a message to a mod the next day asking for deletion, cuz I felt really bad about this.


eh, hum... that was quite... ok. How hammered where you to not be able to find the delete button and do 3 consecutive posts instead? :D Quite I presume. Well party on.

Yeah, I was really hamnard, sorry.
"As there seemed no measure between what Watt could understand, and what he could not, so there seemed none between what he deemed certain, and what he deemed doubtful."
~ Samuel Beckett, Watt
Fri Mar 20, 2015 9:08 am
InfernoContributorUser avatarPosts: 2298Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:36 pmLocation: Vienna, Austria Gender: Cake

Post Re: The circle of 360 degrees

Still are, by the looks of it. Quoting FTW! ;)
"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed." ― Friedrich Nietzsche

"I shall achieve my objectives through the power... of Science!" --LessWrong
Fri Mar 20, 2015 6:51 pm
Previous
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
 [ 34 posts ] 
Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests