By 'coincidence' the precession of the equinoxes across 1 degree takes 72 years. But that does not mean that every time 72 and multiples thereof (144, 216, 288, 360, 432 ... ) appear in ancient monuments, myths and so on there is a hint at the precession. When number 4320 (and similar bigger numbers) are put as 'equivalents' to 432 (by eliminating the final zeroes) it demonstrates one thing though: Those who created these big numbers used 10 for their base in counting. Had they e.g. used 60 as their base in counting, then 432 would be seen as 7 * 60 + 12. This number could have been written as 7Њ or something like that, where Њ now stands for number 12 (we need new symbols for numbers 10-59). 4320 would be 1Њ0, i.e. 60 * 60 + 12 * 60. The similarity between 4320 and 432 in our system of counting with base 10 would disappear: With base 60 there is no such similarity between 1Њ0 and 7Њ. And when I suggest that 72 = 2 * 36(0) (i.e. the sum of the days in two 'regular' years after eliminating final zero), then this explanation of 72 is equivalent to my alternative explanation (with 'twin-days' every 72nd day of the calendar). Because 360 / 5 = 72 and 2 * 5 = 10 (our base in counting). 720 / 72 = 10. It is only an illusion that I offer two alternative explanations, I offer only one. With e.g. a base = 60 we would have 720 = Њ0 (= 12 * 60). 360 would be 60 (= 6 * 60) and 5 would be 5. 360 / 5 would be 60 / 5 = 1Њ. 2 * 5 would be 2 * 5 = Љ (or some other new symbol). 720 / 72 would be Њ0 / 1Њ = Љ. Eliminating zero in Њ0 gives Њ and that is not the same as 1Њ. So when we find 314 glyphs used as if it was 100 * π that means the writer used base 10 when he counted his glyphs. |