##### Bone comb with 37 teeth and a swastika from the Nydam Mose Bog

##### 37 cent stamp dedicated to one fine man

The iconic 20th century physicist Richard Feynman invented a method for calculating probabilities of particle interactions using depictions of all the different ways an interaction could occur.

Examples of “Feynman diagrams” were included on a 2005 postage stamp honoring Feynman.

I love coincidences.

##### Card XXI ~ The World and Card X ~ the Wheel Of Fortune

Historically both Astronomers and Astrologers have associated the numbers;

## 11 8 5 2

with the **MAN**, the **EAGLE**, the **LION**, the **BULL **respectively** **

By chance we find we can also associate the numbers

## 1 3 7 6

with the same entities, the **MAN**, the **EAGLE**, the** LION**, the **BULL **respectively

*(keep reading to see how the associations were derived)*

How does it all match up with the other narrative being developed today by science?

Please note that the **11258** sequence of numbers appears to be a code derived using technology called the **Naked Eye** and the **1376** code appears to be both a *confirmation and a prediction* using both *macro**-tele-scopes* and *micro-scopes.
*The observations of our past ancestors thus appear to be lining up with, in effect ‘predicting’ 21st century theories.

**Abstract**

Based on the newest investigations about Quantum Geometry, Exact Planck Length is not a derivative of a combination of “G”, “ħ” and “c”, but is a fundamental physical constant equal to (1/6)^37µm which is predictable using the new probability wave function. This numerical value is the diameter of smallest particle in physics that, quite contrary to the basic idea behind String Theory, has a perfectly spherical shape. Furthermore, length, as a quantum variable, cannot be measured with an uncertainty smaller than this length, so in some sense it is really the smallest meaningful length in physics.

If we could mathematically prove that “G” is variable and as a result is not a fundamental constant, then we do have sufficient arguments to claim that gravity, like the other three forces, is also quantum in nature. In this article it is aimed to analyze this particular topic and, if possible, to formulate the quantum behavior of gravity.

**1. Introduction**

A general study of current viewpoints on quantum mechanics makes it clear that after almost a century of endeavor, the most important aspects of this branch of theoretical physics are still obscure and bizarre. Apart from other serious reasons, this situation partly originates in ambiguous and misleading views, concepts, principles and theories that are simply quoted and repeated regularly without any objective analysis and consequently, without any considerable result. Therefore, it appears that a new thought experiment (neue Gedankenexperiment) is needed to change the existing, often ineffective paradigms in this exciting branch of physics which employs mathematical models to rationalize, explain and predict natural phenomena. Perhaps it is the time for us to rinse the eyes and to introspect. In my opinion, the illiterates of the 21st Century are not the only ones who cannot read and write, but also are those who cannot throw away the false portion of their knowledge and learn again.

A couple of most-widely accepted ideas of the wonderful and sometimes bizarre world of quantum mechanics would probably be “Wave-Particle Duality Concept” and “Uncertainty Principle”, both were declared by the key 20th Century theoretical physicists. The former, which has been founded on false knowledge, is unrealistic and therefore is a misleading concept [1]. The latter is an ineffective principle, especially because of lacking the necessary qualifications for explaining the most beautiful experiment in physics, namely, double-slit experiment truly known as the heart of quantum mechanics [2]. It is worthy of mention that contrary to the opinion of most theoretical physicists, who insist on the existence of “Measurement Problem” in quantum mechanics, classical mechanics has not been based on certainties, but the prediction of probabilities plays a very significant and fundamental role in this branch of classical physics, particularly in the field of manufacturing technology, measurement technology and quality control.

In the course of my career as a mechanical engineer I learned that there exists a deep connection between “Measurement” and “Fits & Tolerances”. These two subjects play distinctive role in solid – mechanics by which engineers can pave the way for materialization of scientific findings. Moreover, it should be insisted that “Geometry” which is based on the most rational and creative type of imagination has very profound effects on the professional decisions of mechanical designers.

After we become familiar with the subject that is being discussed, It will be not so hard to accept that in various branches of human knowledge dissimilar terms may be used for the same concept or meaning. According to my experience, the word “Tolerance” in engineering science and the word “Uncertainty” in theoretical physics have the same application, in spite of the fact that apparently there isn’t any conceptual relation between these two words. But of course the former has very clear definition with strong foundation of long term practice in machine design and also in manufacturing technology, on the contrary, the latter mainly based on an ambiguous and useless principle in theoretical physics. To avoid misunderstandings and to standardize scientific language, it seems reasonable to agree on a single term. How and when? Nobody knows it. I personally prefer the word “Tolerance” (Rawadari) as it is more widely understood.

In this article, I will try to follow the advice of Albert Einstein who said: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

# (1/6)^37

Die + Roulette Wheel ~ a Rebus

**1 chance out of 6** to the **power of 37**

The PDF file of the article entitled “Exact Planck Length Unveils Quantum Gravity” is available here .

But who is the author ‘Hamid’?

Originally Posted by WHY 137?The Planck length section has a major flaw concerning the application of the uncertainty principle. In effect he is invoking it twice for one measurement. Doesn’t work like that. So he is going to square the uncertainty then take a statistical choice based on probability densities. It is clever but it isn’t going to fly.

Dear Raphael;

Unfortunately I didn’t understand the above criticism exactly; it is perhaps because of insufficiency of my English language. Anyhow, based on some conjectures, I think the problem relates to the concept of quantum jump in length that I have tried to clarify in my article. I have mentioned that today the smallest achievable uncertainty of length is practically about 0.001mm (1µm) which we may call it the Ground State. Improvement in measuring instruments paves the way for more precise measurements (narrower uncertainties). Each step of uncertainty in length measurement is equal to one-sixth (1/6) of the previous step. Therefore, we can write:

Ground state uncertainty = (1/6)

^{0 }=1µm

First order uncertainty =1× (1/6) = (1/6)^{1}µm

Second order uncertainty = (1/6)^{1}× (1/6) = (1/6)^{2}µm

Third order uncertainty = (1/6)^{2}× (1/6) = (1/6)^{3}µm

Fourth order uncertainty = (1/6)^{3}× (1/6) = (1/6)^{4}µm

………….

Thirty seventh order uncertainty = (1/6)^{36}× (1/6) = (1/6)^{37}µm

Exact Planck Length = (1/6)^{37}µm = 1.6158600×10^{-29}µm = 1.6158600×10^{-35}mHopefully these explanations will help you on your journey.

Thanks,

Hamid

Thank you Hamid.

And is it possible to find an *analogy/homology* between the** Roulette Wheel** (lady **luck**), and the **omphalos** or navel, i.e. the geodetic center where you might find an oracle perched on a ‘**tripod**‘ that shares its geometry with the **tetrahedron **and with the musings of** Itzhak Bentov ***(sketch on right)*

## 11 2 5 8 = 26 = 1 3 7 6 = (1/6)^37

But how does this new proposed length match up with CARD X of the Tarot?

So how do we convert the numbers **11 8 5 2 >>> 1 3 7 6** which coincidentally are a match for the Planck Length and God!

The simple mnemonic is based on the *number of chapters* found in the gospel that each Evangelist wrote revealing the **1376 **code.

## (1/6) ^37

**28**chapters reduce to**1**– St. Matthew the Man/Angel/Aquarius**#11****21**chapters reduce to**3**– St. John the Eagle/Scorpio #**8****16**chapters reduce to**7**– St. Mark the Lion/Leo #**5****24**chapters reduce to**6**– St. Luke the Bull/Ox/Taurus #**2**

And each Evangelist also corresponds to a position found on the Zodiac Wheel. (see image below)

Traditionally the Zodiac Wheel ‘starts’ with Aries in 0 degrees. Each sign is assigned 1/12th or 30 degrees of cosmic pie.

What is the connection between cosmic **pie **and **pi** and a fella called **Py**thagoras sometimes spelled **Pi**tagoras?

Were the **i** and **j** and **y** interchangeable at one time?

Do we find evidence of **I = J = Y **attributed to the name of god?

And how does the evidence of **god = JeHoVaH = YaHWeH = tetragrammaton** fit all of the aforementioned evidence presented thus far?

- 11 + 2 + 5 + 8 =
**26** - 13 + 7 + 6 =
**26** - Y + H + V + H =
**26** - Newton’s Science 137 – 26 Constants – the EM MEme drEaM thEME pARKs

*to be continued….*

please note that the numbers **11258** and **1376** also both add up to **17** *in addition to* **26**.

- 1 + 1 + 2 + 5 + 8 =
**17** - 1 + 3 + 7 + 6 =
**17**

But why is the number **17** important to physics?

Identifying **17** involves finding the Higgs Boson.

*sources for ***17**

- http://www.toequest.com/forum/general-phenomena/6649-flying-pinwheels-5.html#post173465
- http://www.benbest.com/science/standard.html
- 17 and 72

## Cubit and ELL or 773

The Near Eastern or Biblical cubit is usually estimated as approximately 18 inches for conversion into English units. Editors’ comments in many editions of the Torah, Tanakh and Christian Bibles reflect this.

The first mention of cubits in the Hebrew Bible appears in Genesis in reference to Noah’s ark: “the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits.” (NRSV)[10] Estimating the length of this cubit as approximately 18 inches yields dimensions of approximately 450 × 75 × 45 feet.

Measurement in cubits appears in the Hebrew Scriptures for a number of other objects as well, including the Tabernacle and Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 27, etc.).

**450 × 75 × 45 **feet yields in meters the following dimensions respectively** 137.16 × 22.86 × 13.716 **

An ell (from Old Germanic *alinâ cognate with Latin “ulna”) is a unit of measurement, originally a cubit, i.e., approximating the length of a man’s arm from the elbow (“elbow” means the bend or bow of the ell or arm) to the tip of the middle finger, or about 18 inches; in later usage, any of several longer units.

An ell-wand or ellwand was a rod of length one ell used for official measurement. Edward I of England required that every town have one.

In Scotland, the Belt of Orion was called “the King’s Ellwand.”

Several national forms existed, with different lengths, including the Scottish ell (≈37 inches or 94 centimetres), the Flemish ell(≈27 in or 68.6 cm), the French ell (≈54 in or 137.2 cm)[6] the Polish ell (≈31 in or 78.7 cm) and the Danish ell (≈25 in or 63.5 cm)

The Viking ell was the measure from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger, about 18 inches. The Viking ell or primitive ell was used in Iceland up to the 1200s. By the 1200s a law set the “stika” as equal to 2 ells which was the English ell of the time.

1 ‘*stika*‘ = 2 ells

*swaaaaaa* sounds like hELL … !

The Scottish ell was equivalent to:

- Scottish measures: 3 and 1/12 ft (i.e.
**37**Scottish inches or 37.059 imperial inches) - Metric system: 94.1318 cm
- Imperial system: 1.03 international yards, approx.
**37.1**inches - In architecture, an
**ell**is a wing of a building that lies perpendicular to the length of the main portion. - In connected farm architecture, the
**ell**is often extended to attach the main house to another building, usually a barn. It takes its name from the shape of the letter**L**.

**UPDATE** November 18, 2013

##### We find the above image and text on page 297 of The Temple Of Man by R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz.

We can clearly see the pattern once we reduce the Remen and Royal cubit to single digits.

**Remen cubit**

20 digits >>>**2****Royal cubit**

16 digits >>>**7**

12 digits >>>**3**

28 digits >>>**1**

Could it be that simply conveyed R + R = 2 + 137?

Where else do we find that pattern?

**EXodus 2**0:**3–17**

## 5 Palms 2 Fingers

Some scholars have investigated the question of what the intentions of the architects involved in building the various pyramids might have been. For example, several pages in an article

by G. Robins and C. Shute (Historia Mathematica, May, 1985) are devoted to this very question. The discussion in that article is based mostly on the Rhind Papyrus together with their own measurements of the pyramids. The Rhind Papyrus is mostly a series of mathematical exercises with solutions. Some of those exercises concern pyramids and represent the slant-angle of the faces of a pyramid by a quantity called the “seked.” (It is really the inverse of the slope of the slant-angle and is measured by the number of palms and fingers of horizontal distance per cubit of vertical distance.) The conclusion that those authors come to is that the architects of the pyramids simply chose the seked to be five palms + 0, 1, 2, or 3 fingers per cubit.Mathematical Bases of Ancient Egyptian Architecture and Graphic ArtFor the Great Pyramid, the choice was

five palms, two fingersper cubit.This amounts to choosing the slope of each face to be 14/11, which is exactly the numerical relationship #2 below. Other scholars have made a similar argument. However, as I will mention at the end, I have come to believe that the choice was not quite that simple and that the Egyptian architect who designed the Great Pyramid had in mind not just relationship #2, but also #3.

**UPDATE** November 6, 2013

I came across this image today while loitering around Nineveh.

Now if King Solomon had **700** wives and **300** concubines what are we to make of this coincidence;

##### The monuments of Nineveh, from drawings made on the spot.

Austen Henry Layard, Esq., D.C.L.

King seated on his throne, within the walls of a captured city, including

threehouses andseventents. [Quyunjik] (1849)

I just happened to catch the **3** and the **7**, I do not know why.

I like this next video because it has a roulette table in it.

Only 36 black and red slots.

selah V

## Comments

The Ancient Origins of the Cubit | The 13th Enumeration

http://www.the13thenumeration.com/Blog13/2012/09/09/the-ancient-origins-of-the-cubit/

precise conjugate relationship of planck length to ancient measure: http://www.fractalfield.com/mathematicsoffusion/JohnMichellDanWinter.jpg

(my book on that: fractalfield.com

## Trackbacks

[…] (1/6)^37 – Planck Length – and the Tarot […]

[…] How Hamid's theory meshes with the evidence. https://at37.wordpress.com/2013/04/01…-of-the-tarot/ https://at37.wordpress.com/2012/02/25…enrose-witten/ donnie what is the WHEEL that keeps getting […]

[…] Gravity (Part 1) And here is how I link CARD X (the WHEEL of Fortune) to the ROULETTE WHEEL (1/6)^37 – Planck Length – and the Tarot | Alternative Thinking 37 And here is how I link the ROULETTE WHEEL to the omphalos/navel and the swastika. OM-phalos […]

[…] […]

[…] (1/6)^37 ~ the Planck Length ~ the Royal Cubit ~ the Tarot ~ and King Solomon […]