Sacred Geometry the Earth and the Mayan Calendar - End Date of 2012

Sacred Geometry The Earth and The Mayan Calendar - End-Date of 2012

Introduction: The Meaning of the Mayan Calendar

Over the years, there have been a number of articles written by various scholars upon the subject of the Mayan Long Count Calendar. In the course of their work, researchers have tried to determine how the Mayan calendar maps onto our own more familiar calendar system of months and years, so that Mayan calendar dates or unit time intervals can be translated into dates based upon the Gregorian system. As a result of this, different scholars have developed a number of competing theories as to how the Gregorian calendar is related to the Mayan system of time keeping. Some of these theories differ from each other by several decades if not longer, whilst others differ by only a year or so.

In addition to their attempts to fix the Mayan calendar to the Gregorian system, researchers have also attempted to unravel the meaning of the Mayan calendar, both from a cosmological and spiritual point of view. One of its most intriguing aspects, is that it not only appears to be based upon the celestial cycles of the planets, their movements relative to the sun and even the galactic centre, but that it was also used by the Maya to determine which future dates, coinciding with unusual celestial configurations, would result in sudden 'earth changes'. This seems to be one of its most important functions; that it was conceived and developed as a means to track the onset of major (and minor) changes that will affect the earth and consequently, all life upon it. The exact nature of the earth changes that the Maya concerned themselves with predicting is somewhat vague. According to a variety of scholars, they range from physical upheavals to spiritual transformations. The Maya themselves had a concept of 'world ages'. They held essentially that the earth and its inhabitants lived through a series of different ages or epochs, each of which ended through some sort of conflagration that ushered in the new age. On the one hand, there is a sort of destruction that takes place wherein all that characterized the previous age is laid to waste, but on the other hand, there is a new awakening to a higher state of being for the planet and its people. The Mayan Long count calendar, amongst other things, allowed the Maya to determine the dates which would herald the end of one world age and the beginning of a new one. These 'phase changes' were a time of both destruction and renewal. Such occurrences were also far from frequent, for each world age according to the Maya lasted several thousand years.

The Mayan ideas of earth-changes and of spiritual transformations occurring upon this planet periodically over time have fascinated many researchers, and led them to try to recover evermore of the lost knowledge of the Mayans and unravel the deeper mysteries surrounding their beliefs. This fascination is what drives all research though and is far from unusual. However, there is one aspect to Mayan research that is highly unusual and that has been responsible for generating a great deal of interest in the Mayan concept of world ages in recent years. What has peaked the interest among many researchers is that some of the most recent and widely circulated analyses of the Mayan Long Count Calendar show that the date upon which the current world age will end, heralding the beginning of a new one, is close at hand. Some Mayan researchers for example believe that the phase change between the present world age and the next one will occur on the 21st of December 2012 AD. If this is true, then in the very near future, the earth could be physically or spiritually transformed within the lifetime of the current generation.

The main themes of this essay are those of Sacred Geometry, the Physical Dimensions of the Earth, and how both of these relate to the Mayan Long-Count Calendar and its enigmatic 'end-date' of 2012 (December 21) that marks the end of the current world age. I propose to demonstrate that there are definite links between the geometrical form of the 3-4-5 'right angled triangle' so important in sacred geometry, the dimensions of the earth, including its diameter upon the equatorial plane and from pole to pole, and certain numbers used in the Mayan Long Count calendar.
Moreover, this work will, throughout be concerned with the very issue of systems of measurement and examine why we use some of the units of measure that we do, such as why we split up the circle into 360 equal parts or why we use nautical, geographical and statute miles, and do these units have any special significance? The final portions of this work will be concerned with the apparent link between the Obliquity of the Ecliptic (axis) or the measure of orientation of the Earth to the Sun, and the actual end-date of the Mayan Calendar of 2012, and will show how a special angle of orientation that the earth will have on this date is linked to the dimensions of the earth and the number of days per year of the earth.

The 3-4-5 Right Angled Triangle

A number of the discoveries that I have made concerning the dimensions of the earth and their geometrical significance, were a result of reading some of the works of Bruce Cathie, who pointed out certain relationships between the earth's energy fields and the 3-4-5 triangle significant in the realms of geometry. (Bruce Cathie, is the author of "The Harmonic Conquest of Space") He must therefore be given due credit for drawing my attention to the 3-4-5 'right-angled' triangle and its relation to the earth. However, there were a number of advancements that I made upon his observations that go well beyond his research in certain specific areas. Also, I must confess that I disagree with some of the things that Cathie states in his books relating to other matters. Be that as it may, I tend to approach the areas of physics and energy fields from the viewpoint of sacred geometry.

Most of my work is in this area, which deals with numbers and how they are related to the laws of nature and the physics of the universe. In this, I share the view of Bernard Riemann, the 19th Century Mathematician who stated that it is the physics that determines the mathematics. Physical geometry itself is far more important than pure arithmetic, for the latter, on its own, can tell us nothing about the universe. With this in mind, I have tried to explain how certain numbers relating to the cycles of natural objects (e.g. planets, and their number of days per year) and their form, are indicative of certain states of being or signify a time of transformation of those objects. This is how I approach the whole issue of 'earth-changes'. Therefore in my work I consider the following question very carefully, for it relates to practically all aspects of my investigations:
Were the measurement systems and units of measure (length, time, angular etc.) that we use today, and that date from ancient times, ARTIFICIALLY and ARBITRARILY devised, or were they chosen carefully because they were RIGHT in some fundamental way (to nature) such that THEY COULD NOT BE ANY OTHER WAY. Did we choose certain units because to choose any other units would be to choose the 'wrong' units? Thus, were feet and inches for example arbitrarily chosen as units of length, or were they chosen for a more profound reason?

When I speak of units, e.g. of distance or time, I am in my mind thinking of the cycles of nature i.e. of natural objects and of the apparent sizes of those objects. Working upon this line of thought, I have been able to draw many links between the Mayan 'units' of measure (such as those used in their calendars), the Sumerian/Babylonian units and others (Egyptian etc.), that were passed down to us through to the Modern age, such as the Geographical Mile, and the Statute Mile, the latter of which was set up in England for example.

I then made a remarkable discovery that many ancient systems of measure and the units they contained were linked to the size of the earth at present and with the 'end date' of the Mayan Long Count Calendar. Before proceeding though to present my own discoveries, I will lay the foundation by briefly discussing some the work of a New Zealand researcher named Bruce Cathie (mentioned above), for I can then explain properly how I have built upon his theories and developed some of his ideas further.

Bruce Cathie is a researcher primarily concerned with the earth's 'energy grid' - a complex pattern of magnetic/electrical lines of force that envelope the earth in precise geometrical intervals and which accompany (determine?) the very state of the earth (his work upon the earth's energy grid relates to many areas of science but this brief background will suffice for now). Cathie stated that his conception of an 'energy grid' is based in part upon the 3-4-5 right angled triangle - a triangle which geometrically speaking guarantees an internal 90 degree angle using the most basic integers. By multiplying each of these numbers by 72 (keeping the same proportions), we get 216, 288 and 360. Cathie then points out (see his book, The Harmonic Conquest of Space) that the longest side length of 360 is the number chosen for degrees in angular measure (also in many cultures it is a 'sacred' year i.e. a 360 day year of the earth); 216, extended to 21600 is the circumference of the earth in nautical miles or Minutes of Arc. This is primarily based upon the ELLIPTICAL circumference of the earth i.e. from Pole to Pole on the SURFACE OF THE EARTH (NB, this is in line with Cathie's system; I myself am more concerned with the EQUATORIAL circumference of the earth and Geographical & Statute miles).

One nautical mile or minute of arc = 6076.11549 ft (see any standard textbook for this answer). In addition to these facts, the number 288 is also important in Cathie's system, for it can be extended to 2880, and 21600 / 2880 = 7.5 nautical miles. Cathie discovered that the earth is criss crossed with 'lines of force' (electrical/magnetic) spaced at these intervals (7.5 minutes of arc or nautical miles) roughly aligned to the north-south poles, covering the whole earth, and at 90 degrees, running from east to west in the same fashion. In sum, Mr. Cathie drew attention to the fact that our measurement system using angles - degrees or minutes of arc - is linked geometrically to the 3-4-5 proportioned triangle and that this was not done arbitrarily, for it corresponds to the natural energy fields of the earth.

360: The Ideal Pulsation Rate of the Earth

Based upon some of the above information and information gathered from other sources, I have gone on to develop certain theories regarding the earth's form and some of its orbital characteristics. Some of these, I will briefly mention now, as they are very relevant to this present work. To begin with, I theorize that the Earth did at one point in the past possess 360 days per year in its orbit around the sun, and that the number of days per year is intimately linked to the actual physical circumference of the earth at the equator. A 360-day year is considered harmonious in many cultures. Indeed some of them saw the 'extra' 5 days that we possess as being 'unlucky'. One of the references I can cite that supports the view that a 360-day year is more 'favorable' than our current year, is that of Zacharia Sitchin, who wrote a series of books called the Earth Chronicles. One of his books is called 'The Twelfth Planet'; another is called 'Genesis Revisited'. In these books, he discusses the Sumerian & Babylonian systems of measurement and makes reference to a specific number: 3600. He states that according to the Sumerians, it meant 'a completed cycle' or 'a perfect circle'. It was a very important number.

The number 360 is also used in the Mayan calendar system and it is a harmonic of 3600. From this basis, I theorize that the earth 'degraded' its orbit as a result of its increase in the number of days per year. The earth lost what was a harmonious orbital configuration. Furthermore, I state that the TOTAL NUMBER OF DAYS PER YEAR DETERMINES THE SIZE OF THE EARTH AT THE EQUATOR & THAT THE 3-4-5 TRIANGLE IS THE KEY TO THIS RELATION. Allow me to present the mathematics. Please examine and consider them carefully for they also justify the units we use today called Geographical Miles (6087.2 ft) and the Statute Mile (5280 ft), and also Ideal Geographical mile (6000ft).

I propose that the 3-4-5 triangle is an 'EQUATION' itself for the STATE OF THE EARTH. Starting from the Units of Cathie: 360, 216 & 288. Ignore 288 for the moment. The current number of days per year is 365.234375 (this differs slightly from text book values which give 365.2422 (Tropical year) - there is a reason for this modification though, so bear with me for the moment). Using this number, if we extend the 3-4-5 triangle so as to maintain these proportions, and choose 365.234375 as the longest side, opposite the 90 angle, we obtain the following values: 365.234375, 219.140625 & 292.1875.

The Sumerians used a Base sixty calendar and it is well to note that by multiplying 360 by 60 we get 21600. Thus, 365.234375 x 60 = 21914.0625. This number we obtain though, 21914.0625 is the EQUATORIAL CIRCUMFERENCE of the EARTH AT PRESENT (which is circular - not elliptical) in IDEAL GEOGRAPHICAL MILES (NB 1 IDEAL geographical mile = 6000 ft precisely; this differs from the standard Geographical mile of 6087.2ft). This can be confirmed absolutely, for if you multiply 21914.0625 by 6000, and then divide the answer by 5280, you get 24902.34375 statute miles for the earth's equatorial circumference. This can be verified as the present equatorial circumference in any textbook we care to examine. Therefore, what I suggest is that the number of days per year of the earth has increased from 360 to the present, and that this has resulted in the expansion of the earth at the equator to match, directly in proportion with an increase in the 3-4-5 triangle which is a geometrical form denoting the state of the earth. The '3' side is a measure of the physical size of the earth. The '5' side is a measure of the number of days per year of the earth.

I am here putting forward a theory then that the earth has increased its size as it has increased its days per year. The theory of an expanding earth is NOT an orthodox theory that is widely accepted in geological circles. There are some who believe that over many years the earth has been increasing its size and getting bigger, for this explains certain underwater surface anomalies relating to tectonic plate movement (the expanding earth theory) but most researchers think this suggestion 'heresy'. This is a whole new area of research though and I will not get into it in any more detail at the moment except to say, that I myself do support the expanding earth theory...but, moving on.

How the Physical Dimensions of the Earth Relate to its Axis, & the year 2012

The next thing I wish to discuss is the eccentricity of the Earth itself; that is, how the earth differs from a perfectly spherical form. It is well known that the earth has the form of a slightly 'squashed' sphere. It is in fact an ellipsoid, possessing an 'equatorial bulge' so to speak and a flattening of the poles. The diameter of the earth in the equatorial plane can be obtained from knowledge of its circular circumference. However this is not done in any ordinary manner. It is usually the case that the circumference of a circle is divided by PI in order to obtain its diameter. However, I must state here and now that PI is the 'wrong' conversion ratio when moving from circumference to diameter, at least with respect to the earth. 22/7 must be used instead of PI for only this gives the 'right' answer (for if PI is right, then everything that follows is wrong, or rather lacks perfect Harmony).
The equatorial circumference of the earth is 21914.0625 (as above). When divided by 22/7 we obtain = 6972 & 21/32 (6972.65625), which gives us the Diameter of the earth at the equator in Ideal geographical miles (6000ft). So, with this, what is the diameter of the earth along its axis from pole to pole? Most textbooks will say 7890 statute miles. If we convert this to ideal geographical miles (by multiplying it by 0.88; for 5280/6000 = 0.88) it is 6943.2. At this point, I decided that this was suspiciously close to 6944 & 4/9 (6944.44444 recurring). You see, the reciprocal of this number (i.e. 1 divided by 6944 + 4/9 = 0.000144). In the Mayan calendar system 144000 is a Baktun.

Therefore, I felt inclined to make this slight modification. (NB you may have noticed thus far that I am quite 'liberal' when it comes to where I place the decimal point in the numbers that I use; this is something that Cathie also mentions in his work. He himself states that in harmonic calculations we can ignore the zero's to the left or to the right of a number and move the decimal point either to the right or left of a number whilst still not altering the number in any fundamental way - this is allowed in harmonics and 'works' musically also I believe). To the next stage then I wish to find the ratio between the diameter of the earth at the equator and the diameter from pole to pole. Therefore: 6972 & 21/32 is divided by 6944 & 4/9. The answer is 1.0040625 EXACTLY.

Now, why is this important? Take a textbook on the earth and look up the axis of the earth. What do you find? In degrees, the answer is 23' 26' 21.4119' (year 2000) (My reference here is from the Astronomical Almanac 2003, published by the Stationary Office in 2001; & also the Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac, 1992, University Science Books). In minutes of arc (23' 26' 21.4119' x 60) the axis is 1406.356865. It turns out though that the axis of the earth or its Obliquity of the Ecliptic is decreasing by 0'0'0.4704' each year (Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac, p.13 & p.700).

Therefore:
0'0'0.4704' x 12 (that is, 12 years: 2012-2000 = 12) = 0'0'5.64'
and:
23'26'21.4119' - 0'0'5.64' = 23'26'15.77'', which is the axis of the earth or its obliquity of the ecliptic, in the year 2012 in degrees.
In minutes of Arc (x60) this answer = 1406.263785.

A Harmonious Earth-Configuration in 2012, December Solstice (21st)

I hold that this answer should be, for the year 2012 December 21st AD, 1406.25 minutes of Arc exactly. The difference between 1406.25 & 1406.263785 is 0.013785. In angular measure, this is a difference of 0.77 seconds of arc, between the ideal and the actual calculated value. No doubt this figure could be refined, as the Maya end-date is at the end of 2012, in December, and it is doubtful that an exact answer would be obtained anyway from these numbers, for the earth's axis is not totally predictable. There is a margin of error when calculating its angle for any given epoch. In this case, the difference of 0.77'' from the ideal of 23.4375 degrees (1406.25 minutes of arc) is one that is acceptable in my mind, and I do believe that the Maya would agree that the end of the long count (at least for this world age cycle) does coincide with the physical orientation of the earth (at its 2012 December solstice) to the sun (obliquity of the ecliptic) with an angle of exactly 1406.25 minutes of arc. The connections do not stop here though.

Therefore, I would ask that we examine the following numbers again: Ratio between diameter of earth, at the equator and from pole to pole = 1.0040625. Axis of earth in 2012 (ideally) = 1406.25 minutes of arc. Look also at the 3-4-5 triangle for the earth that we used to give us the circumference of the earth at present & its days per year: Circumference (equator) in Minutes of Arc = 21914.0625. Days per year = 365.234375. Examine these numbers closely and you will see that they too relate to (contain within them) the axis of the earth.

It is for this reason that I support those people who have studied the Long Count Calendar of the Maya and theorize that its upcoming end-date is indeed fixed upon the December (21st) solstice of 2012 AD. Consider that it is the ORIENTATION of the earth that is the best measure to enable us to calculate and verify the Maya end date, and a Solstice is a time of maximum orientation of the earth to the sun i.e. shortest/longest days or nights depending upon which hemisphere we are in.

The above I hope, will show you why I believe that the Maya calendar end-date of 2012 December 21 is important and valid. You see the earth's axis is not at present 1406.25 minutes of arc. We are on a build-up to this axis. At present it is some 5 seconds of arc greater, but it is decreasing. In 2012 it will be 1406.25. The earth is also in my view continually expanding at the equator, albeit very gradually, and therefore it will reach a diameter equatorially that, when divided by the diameter from pole-to-pole will equal 1.0040625.
All of this is indicative of the Earth moving into an unusual state of harmony, that it will achieve in 2012 upon the December solstice. Upon this date, there may be some sort of major shift in the state of the earth's fields that will perhaps physically change the planet. If this is true it will be a momentous event, and yet the precise nature of the changes are unknown to me. I can only speculate. It could perhaps be a physically destructive event or a subtle energy field change. On appearance, the 21st of December 2012 may be (deceptively) a day just like any other. All I will offer is this: the cycles of the earth and the numbers and magnitudes associated with its form will enter into a state of harmony upon this date. And as what is harmonious is held to be good and most fitting, by its very nature it will always be preferred over that which is disharmonious, disorderly and therefore disruptive. It is therefore my personal belief that anything that does occur upon this date will be beneficial to the earth and its inhabitants.