## Flower of Life – The Second Declension

CHAPTER 26

**„FLOWER OF LIFE”**

** (The Second Declension)**

In this chapter we will learn something that many have perhaps already noticed if they attentively followed these pages on the methods of ancient geometry. It refers to a geometric multiplication that roughly entails the diminishing of errors in cases of large numbers of divisions of circles with some radius. I will unceasingly go on repeating that geometry needs to be revised until mathematicians realize this. Otherwise there will be so many enigmas that it will be hard to count them, let alone the few famous ones! If this is not done, the “everlasting” will remain in relativity, and today that is inadmissible in light of the present high level of technology, especially when it acknowledges or at least suggests that geometry plays an important role in this respect. Therefore, the slowness of results in branches like for instance physics is no wonder and even Archimedes who lived two and a half thousand years ago would consider the situation ludicrous. However it seems that the “disconnectedness” between the natural sciences contributed to this state of affairs. Here is just one example (and for 20 years it speaks for itself in spite of the “deaf” ears that refuse to listen): a group of scientists have come up with the idea of Sahara as a region for exploiting solar energy for the whole world. The second group has for a number of years been carrying out the Qatar depression project bringing water from the Mediterranean through a system of geysers, pipe lines with built-in turbines that would propel the inflow for generating electric power. Here we have a disconnectedness of two natural elements. The Qatar depression is located in the above mentioned desert and the second element is the Nile river (read: fresh water source, in antiquity called “river of life” and in ancient Egypt known as “holy jugular vein”). The distance of the Nile River and the Mediterranean Sea from the world’s largest depression is the same. It would even suffice to deviate (regulate) a part of the Nile (fresh water) into the Qatar depression, and moreover there would be no need to use electric power but simply apply the siphon principle (water filled pipes – valve regulated inflow – physical law – elementary physics – elementary school education – the law of connected vessels) and it is well known what fresh water would bring to the desert. In ancient times (if the Pharaoh had only known) his name would have been eternalized (because according to Egyptian law, a man lives as long as his name), he would have deviated a part of the Nile into the depression and created one of the largest fresh water lakes (seas) on earth – just like a certain Ben Yusuf (as the people called him) made of a small depression the most beautiful and most fertile oasis (El Faiyum) in Egypt. Hence, water and a smart idea – the sun. Nowadays it would be no problem to implement this project. Here we have a natural-geometric concordance. It is a geometric harmony – a balance, and not a conflict of sameness. Two forms of energy in the same place. One in front, and the other “behind it”… which is geometrically unacceptable. On basis of all this I think a revision of natural sciences is necessary. However, presently this is a taboo subject. But, let’s go on with the declensions of the “flower of life” for the generations that will perhaps find a meaning and purpose for them.

* * *

So, the second ring of the “flower of life” with its 6 poles situated sideways from the circles of their radius. On it we will execute the “declination” of the other rings, namely their division into 6 parts, i.e. the passage of the divisions through the arc of the second ring’s circle.

* * *

We may start with the third division and their six parts with semicircles. Now we must settle for the initial pole on the second ring (sideways toward the right side of the perpendicular) because it is now the peak pole from which we start.

* * *

Thus, the radius spacing of the peak pole of the second ring, the first passage of the hexagonal division of the third ring divides the arc of the first ring’s circle into 21 parts (3 x 7 or number sequence 7)

* * *

We skip the second passage – the third (initial semicircle – dashed) passage; that radius corresponds with the intersections of the circle of passage of the first ring and confirms itself as a “product”; divides the second ring into 21 parts.

* * *

The fourth passage of the divided arc of the third ring divides the arc of the second ring into 42 parts (6 x 7), hence a number 7 sequence.

* * *

Let’s try the radius of the second passage. 94, is dubious since it is detectable that on occasion of division differences are produced at the contact points of the divisible semicircles thereby confirming what has been said. The bigger the number of divisions the greater the possibility of errors.

* * *

But now we will apply the system of logical probability or system of ancient geometrical multiplication (if the division ceases at the first pole next to the peak pole, divide the initial division with a radius by multiplying it with 6. Thereby we multiply seven strokes with 6 = 42 parts (sequence 7)

* * *

Now that we have reduced the probability of divisional error it becomes “easier”, so let’s go on to the fourth ring respectively its 12 divisions with semicircles and their passages through the second ring that we are “declining”.

* * *

We encounter an analogy of the second ring’s poles with certain divisional passages of 12 parts of the fourth ring, the first polar analogy = 6.

* * *

The second analogy = 3 (the subtended would be 1 or a diameter.

* * *

Therefore let’s start with the first passages. 12 divisions of fourth ring through second ring. 33 divisions (we are not yet decreasing)

* * *

Second passage – radius divides second ring into 75 parts (3 x 25)

* * *

At the fourth passage we see what we said about the large number of divisions, but did not stop. Therefore, an error.

* * *

The fifth passage – the radius returns to the peak pole so that the arc of the second ring is divided into 11 parts.

* * *

Errors also occur when the radius is large, namely fairly close to the radius of the arc that is being divided (example). Then the error is even greater, so much so that the even the multiplication rarely helps, and this will be the case until an electronic mathematical-geometric method is conceptualized. Thus, the cited example (geometrically invalid – oversized error that could be tolerated).

* * *

So, let’s pass over to “declination” of the arc of the second ring with a hexagonal division of the fifth ring (its passages through the second ring) with the supplemental method of logical probability through ancient geometry’s multiplication.

* * *

The first passage 7 divisions up to the first pole from the peak pole – multiply with 6 = 6 x 7 = 42 therefore 42 divisions.

* * *

The second passage – 18 parts from the first pole to the peak pole – 6 x 18 = 108

* * *

The third passage – 18 divisions to first pole to peak pole but from the other side of the peak pole 18 x 6 = 108

* * *

The fourth passage = 7

* * *

Hence, the fifth passage 11 divisions from first pole to peak pole = 6 x 11 = 66 parts

* * *

We now have an example where division reaches the subtended pole of the peak pole. Thus, multiplying by 2 = 2 x 10 = 20 parts. Here we will end with this second declension, considering that it will for the time being suffice as an introduction to the possibilities of an “exact” science of geometry one day.

* * * *

AFTERWORD TO THE SECOND DECLENSION

Carried away by the unimportance, or to put it mildly, by a series of our human irrationalities I did not get around to explain what I meant by geometrical multiplication. So, in order to avoid wandering off once again, the circle is divided into two, three, four, five, six, seven, and so on, parts, actually by six of its radiuses. If divided by some other kind of radius from a peak (single pole) and that division encounters neighboring poles left or right, the number of divisions is multiplied by 6 in the case of the basic hexagonal division.

If it is with every other pole, then we multiply by 3.

If it is a subtended pole, we multiply by 2.

If we want to divide a circle with a certain radius into 5 parts, and it makes it to one of the pentagonal poles, then it is multiplied by 5.

The same system is for 4 and 7 etc. If the division is from the peak pole, then it is multiplied by 1. So we implement divisions with single-digit numbers multiplying them to shorten the procedure of division and avoid the percentage of error that arises in full division with these primitive tools of ours – the compass. Thus the presence of the 6-pole basis simultaneously helps us by pointing out possible errors that have occurred, like for example: if a division of a radius with, let’s say, 5 parts traverses from first pole to peak pole from where division started, and in the further division fails to reach the next pole with the same number of divisions, then an error has already occurred. Although this way foreshortens a full geometrical presentation, it is a shortcut to getting results. Therefore the undivided full circle has to be boiled down to a reasonable denominator (basic hexagon). That is the basis (background of spherical geometry) in rectilinear-spherical geometry in which we will also see other possibilities of multiplication. In any case, the goal of all this is in the division of digit number one. Hence, in real geometry (read mathematics) 0 does not exist as something, just like in reality there is no independent nil, let alone an “anti”. Everything is “something”, no matter how hard we try to prove the existence of “nothing” and the opposite of “a bit of nothing” (this will be understood by those who observe the “miraculous” projects in natural sciences. But, we will continue in our third declension of the “flower of life”.

*RIJEKA – HR 10.05.2012.*

* Author: Tomo Periša*

* Translation into English: S.F. Drenovac*

* Web Master: SLIM*