Relating the 34560 ratio

[Steve VanKast]

i went thru the website wubby suggested yesterday and the only thing i can
get to work for the number 34560 is the fact that if you add exactly 1/3 to
the number of years of the precession (25920 + 1/3) it works out to exactly
34560.

but as far as using the number 34560 as a ratio to anything... i can't
relate it to light/sound or anything specific. the only time i can come
close is when i add 1/3 to the speed of light and divide it into the 34560
ratio and mistakingly expressed sound in mps instead of mph.

i've also read shift of ages as leslie suggested but it was several weeks
ago but i was unable to work out any of the equasions given at the time on
my calculator any better but i do plan on reading it again.

surfsteve

[Unknown]

hi steve

if nobody knows in here then we must wait for david wilcock to explain
cause it's in his book so if we keep repeating this message long
enough he will eventually see it :))

peace & joy
Unknown

--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=zr7cvttmptyum7byzv6drokj7s8enronkdd45w zthvu0owyzaxieajurprnry5u9qesvvlv6iaw24fyfpli), "steve vankast" <surfsteve@s...> wrote:
>
> i went thru the website wubby suggested yesterday and the only thing
i can
> get to work for the number 34560 is the fact that if you add exactly
1/3 to
> the number of years of the precession (25920 + 1/3) it works out to
exactly
> 34560.
>
> but as far as using the number 34560 as a ratio to anything... i can't
> relate it to light/sound or anything specific. the only time i can
come
> close is when i add 1/3 to the speed of light and divide it into the
34560
> ratio and mistakingly expressed sound in mps instead of mph.
>
> i've also read shift of ages as leslie suggested but it was several
weeks
> ago but i was unable to work out any of the equasions given at the
time on


> my calculator any better but i do plan on reading it again.
>
> surfsteve

[Unknown]

hey steve i did some searching and i'm also confused.
none of my calculations seem to give the ratio.
tomas his ratio states "if we take the average distance between moons
and multiply it by a factor of 34560, we get the average distance
between planets." now it will be simple once we have the average
distance between planets wich is not hard but it's hard to get the
average distance between moons cause wich moons there are so many
moons :)
anywayz i tried to take the average distance between the earth and the
moon and compare that with the average distance between the planets
but i don't get the number but i'm doing the wrong thing ofcourse...

another example "compress the average distance between cells by 34560
and we get the average distance between atoms." i just can't seem to
find these data the average distance between cells and the same for
atoms...


but if you follow this image
http://ascension2000.com/divinecosmos/34560s.jpg
wich is from http://ascension2000.com/divinecosmos/07.htm
and compare for example the "average distance between moons" wich is
supposedly 70000 km and multiply it by 34560 then you get to
2419200000 km this should equal the distance between planets and
this is according to him 15 astronomical units wich equals to
2243970000 km
so
2419200000km and
2243970000km are pretty close but still pretty off by 200000000 km :)
and the main question is ofcourse how did he got the number of 70000
for the average distance between moons etc....
i can put some numbers up there and claim there is a ratio without
saying from where i got the numbers.

also it's stated
"each of the averaged distance figures cited by tomes have emerged
from mainstream scientific studies, so there is no validity to the
argument of skeptics that tomes had "cooked the books" in any way.
tomes was simply the first person to discover that each of these
different classes of spherical energy forms were partitioned and
interrelated by a single, master harmonic ratio. "

so it shouldn't be so hard to find thee mainstream scientific studies
and the known numbers but i can't seem to find them.

the last thing i checked was this :
"compress the speed of light by a factor of 34560 and we get the speed
of sound."
so should be 299 792 458 (m/s) /34560 =
8674,55028935185185185185185185185 m/s
this should equal 340.29 m/s the speed of sound wich it doesn't.
but i'm not sure if compress = divide so maybe that's the error.
anybody any ideas?


peace & joy
Unknown

[Brian Cox]

25920 + 1/3 * 25920 = 34560

=> 4/3 * 25920 = 34560

=> 4/3 is the ratio of a diatonic "perfect 4th"

=> 34560 is the musical perfect 4th "pitch" to a 25920 "root"
(34560 is the diatonic 4th to the precession ratio)

(3/2 is a perfect 5th, which multiplies the 4/3 4th to make the
octave, 2 = 4/3 * 3/2)





--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=rkw-jqd4opvj7tk5urwi1usgjxn4-uv-fddujoubs97zwuafvdwm1b7t9yuzgovnyarraojv8pl6rjjd), "steve vankast" <surfsteve@s...> wrote:

> get to work for the number 34560 is the fact that if you add exactly
1/3 to
> the number of years of the precession (25920 + 1/3) it works out to
exactly
> 34560.