## Quadrate constellations of numbers (2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 – outside of the circle)

CHAPTER 27 (III)

**QUADRATE CONSTELLATIONS OF NUMBERS
**

**(2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 – outside of the circle)**

At first sight it might seem like a common analysis of relations between circles of various radius outside of the basic circle or simply the relations of the radiuses of circles and their diametrical quadrates, besides the relatedness on the basic circle or its structurally duplicated diameter, but we need not “jump to conclusions” because this is just the start of a specificity that is natural by nature and its subsequent square and cubic power efficiency will surely corroborate this since ancient geometry is a geometry of structural values and the laws of the three absolutes of space, time and energy, regardless of all the endeavors to avoid these “out-of-date” definitions that are to most people logically apprehensible, for when observed from the present state of perception of our minds that “only surmise and thereafter theorize”, there must be “something more” or perhaps we are “befuddled” by the forms of the three absolutes and that’s why they seem “beyond our comprehension”. Because of all these “unknowns” we can’t or don’t want to accept our state of three-dimensionality since we “feel” that there must be something more and that it surely exists but (and this but emerges again) it is simple. At present the state of awareness of our civilization is unable to confront itself with that “something” because that “something” does not tolerate interpersonal relationships that presently prevail in spite of the fact that the “guidelines” were given to the human race more than three thousand years ago! But who believes them anymore nowadays, and moreover who cares? That’s why we have the phenomenon of emergence of a variety of “weirdoes” here and there who are believers and who, at times not very long ago, would have been burned at the stake or thrown into insane asylums, but today passivity dominates since the world is congested with folly, hence a weirdo more or less does not cause any changes. There is no doubt that these individuals undergo great hardships to penetrate the obstacles that they are faced with on their paths through space and time, each one alone with a purpose and guideline, but nevertheless all of them with the same goal of reaching that “something”! Therefore, let’s carry on along the “geometrical path” that we have chosen.

The base or start of a circle of some radius is always divided by circles of the same radius. The poles (vertical) and intersections enable the division of a circle into 4 parts. These 4 poles of the basic circle will be used as the starting points of our quadrate constellations.

As in the previous chapter, the described circle of the system to the extent of the four directions of division. Thus its radius from the four poles of the basic circle enables the division of the basic circle into 8 parts. We inscribe the directions and from them we extend with semicircles in order to acquire new radiuses and establish their singular relations.

Therefore, the first radius from the 4 points of the basic circle to the eighths of the semicircular directions create a new radius larger than the radius of the system (it doesn’t form a described quadrate system for the simple reason that its starting points are the 4 poles of the basic circle, and not of the 4 poles).

That radius divides the described circle of the system into 9 parts or a nine-sided polygon, and if we were to analyze that nonagon we would surely acquire sequences of exceptionally interesting results (27, 18. cube 9 etc.) and you can do that yourself, on the same circle however. But the results of division on the basic circle are different (this is a useful exercise).

And vice versa once more, the radius of the newly created one that we will call the voluminous quadrate circle. It divides the system into 8 parts. Now we will apply the curtailed system of the radius of the voluminous quadrate circle.

That radius from the two diametrical poles of the basic circle – diametrical so that we can get a radius with which we can divide the basic circle. It divides the circle into 7 parts. Hence, all this is radius 2 (duplicity or 2 D of the basic circle).

We know that radius 3 divides the basic circle into three equal parts (from the chapters dealing with sequential orders so far). We will analyze each radius separately so as to preserve a clear layout of the analysis in an orderly manner, from the first 2 to the basic 6.

For this reason, from the 4 poles of the basic circle we attained the new voluminous quadrate circle of its radius, which is still larger than the duplicated basic circle’s system.

Its radius divides circle 3 into 13 parts through the conceptual scheme of one of its starlike polygons and this brings sequential orders of other data, but the essential one is that number 13 is difficult to construct solely with a compass, and this scheme simply enables it.

Diametrically, radius 3 likewise divides its voluminous quadrate circle into 8 parts.

Since the voluminous quadrate of radius 3 is larger than its duplicity, in reversed order we apply two opposing poles of the basic circle to get the radius that divides the basic circle into 22 parts or division of ordinal number 11.

The next number is 4 or the radius that divides the basic circle into 4 parts. Now we will make it somewhat “independent”, namely show the basic system itself and its squared voluminous circular arc.

That radius divides circle 4 into 29 parts (an exceptionally rare division like the difficult and rare divisions of indivisible prime numbers.

And once again inversely, radius 4 divides its voluminous quadrate circle into 25 parts. Now we can see that the voluminous quadrate circle enters the system of duplicity, hence the division of the basic circle with this radius is possible directly from its peak pole.

This radius divides the basic circle into 12 parts (the first star-like dodecagon).

We deliberately avoided bearing on radius 5 even though it was present from the very beginning, so as to stick to the 2, 3, 4, 5 sequential order.

It voluminous quadrate radius divides circle number 5 (its own circle) into 4 parts.

And radius number 5 divides its voluminous quadrate circle into 17 parts.

The voluminous quadrate circle divides the basic circle into 13 parts by means of a thirteen-sided polygon that enables a sequence of new radiuses, specifically of new angle magnitudes only with a compass.

And so we now come to the voluminous quadrate number 6 or the radius of the basic circle from the 4 poles of its division which is sure enough a rectilinearly circumscribed square of its circle, but as regards this (depicted voluminous quadrate rectilinear constellation), we will leave the subject matter for another occasion.

It is therefore logical that this radius divides its (basic) circle into 4 parts.

And the basic circle divides its quadrate circle into 26 parts or doubled 13, and thereby we have analyzed the relations of the circles outside of the basic circle, specifically the relations of basic numbers 2,3,4,5,6 and the voluminous quadrate constellations of each number separately.

And this is just their aggregate presentation of basic numbers, their voluminous quadrate semicircles arising from the 4 poles of the basic circle …

… and the circles of its radius. The numbers inside the basic circle were not dealt with, but we know this. Logic tells us and it is actually so. The radii of numbers 1,2,3,4,5 are larger and number 6 is the radix, whereas 7,8,9,10,11 and 12 are within the radius of the circle.

* * * *

WHERE IS THIS GOING?

All this is geometrically telling us about equilibrium, harmony or naturalness, however that would only be an introduction to rectilinear drawing or its implementation in ancient construction, each with their own configurations and purpose that have to this day remained unknown and are surmised as probabilities of something as we observe the megalith constructions that impress us with their exceptional workmanship and incredible power. The bleak written references in the legends say very little about this and there are just a few archeological sites hence there is almost nothing to serve us as an indicator, if we can trust them. In the course of evolution we note the presence of giants (arising from the copulation of angels and people – the so-called “fallen angels” since such a relationship was prohibited). Thereof a merging of knowledge and strength (the book of the prophet Baruch says somewhat more about this). All that remains in the back of this culture are the megalith constructions and it is easy to assume that the disappearance of such a civilization was conditioned by climatic changes on earth, and they again by the sudden shift of the earth’s axis and so on. However all we can do is guesswork about the purpose of these megalithic constructions. This is all hypothetic and the shortest way to an explanation of all this and even more can be detected in the building of a one and only edifice defined in the prophetic book by the biblical prophet Ezekiel with exceptionally exact and precise geometrical relations of significance, regardless of how incredible and perhaps fantastic this may sound today. Why? In order to meet with what is a purposeful regularity of life and interpersonal relations endowed to a man called Moses on Mount Horeb. I might be the only person in the world who still believes in this, but I’ve chosen my side. But as somebody in history has once already said: “Even if they kill me, I will still believe in it!” That is also the case with this geometrical opus and all of you can corroborate that it is not disconnected in the same way as these 3000 pages in three years are not and do not in any way negate my belief but on the contrary speak in favor of it. Moreover, I did not contrive them and you may neglect all my accompanying comments, but the geometrical presentations performed only with a compass and unmarked straightedge on these pages cannot be neglected. Therefore, I can freely state that they are a universal worth. Amen.

To be continued.

Croatia, Rijeka June 25, 2013

Author: T. Perisha

Webmaster: SLIM

Transcript of manuscript + English translation: S.F. Drenovac

The Circles that break the Main Circle onto 17 parts are also very interesting when broken with the radius of the main circle. As well as 10.

Also understood this from you…

360º:7= 51,4285714º ( divide circle in 7) and now we divide —

51,4285714º: 0,1428571º ( one seventh of a degree) = 360 parts in a 7th part of the circle; and then we multiply:

360 parts * 7 parts =2520 parts ; each part of the 2520 is equal to one seventh of a degree.

Divide onto 8. 360:8= 45

45: 0,1428571( 1/7th of a degree)= 315

315*8= 2520 parts; again each part 1\7th of a degree.

—————————————

360:9 = 40

40:0,1428571= 280 parts ; 280 parts * 9 parts = 2520 parts.

—————————————-

360:10= 36

36 : 0,1428571 = 252 *10 = 2520 parts. again.

—————————–

Another…

360:11 = 32,7272727

32,7272727 : 0.72727272 = 45 ( diferent decimal ) ( 1\7th works fine until 10)

45 * 11 = 495 parts each of 0,72727272º angle.

———————————

360º:12 = 30

30º: 0,1428571º = 210

210*12= 2520 parts.

360º:13 =27,6923076º

27,692307º : 0,6923076º= 40 parts ( diferent decimal notation at 11 )

40 *13 = 520 parts. each of 0,6923076º

….and so on…. 14 is double of 7 = 2520 * 2 = 5040 ( i read this was an important number or quantity) 1/14thnees

Divide the circle in parts, if the angle is a whole number divide it by 1/7th… degrade of angular parts expressed in 1\7ths.

Since I read your circles alot, I can mention I can read you a bit, for example, in the chapter The Last Star, your circles were a bit sloppy and with a few mistakes I believe and I mean precision mistakes, seems you were nervous, thinking about ending… but now it seems you have calmed down, and your circles are back to its original precision. thanks again Mr Tomo. 😉