Head To Head
Log In
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
John Michell lecture
Log In to post a reply

353 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
5758 posts

Re: John Michell lecture
May 03, 2016, 17:00
It's not "his" canon .
It was referred to earlier .
From the first paragraph in the Bob Forrest article “It sufficiently intrigued me to write to its author, telling him that one of his geometrical constructions was wrong, and showing by calculation (I am a mathematician by trade and training, of course) that the vesica piscis construction of his fig.xxiv (Fig.1 in the Gallery here) did not give the angle of slope of the Great Pyramid, as he claimed. John’s reply, which I still have (as indeed I still have many of his letters), thanked me for my correction to the constructed angle “overenthusiastically described by me as the true angle of the Pyramid”, and wondered if I could throw any light on the actual perimeter and area of the New Jerusalem Dodecagon in City of Revelation” .
From the 2nd paragraph.” At some stage in 1979 he asked me to write-up this mathematical investigation for a book he was planning on the New Jerusalem Dodecagon. I did this, but it was never used, and so I include it as an attachment to this memoir for anyone who might be interested. (To view, click here.) However, the results of some of these calculations were reported (though slightly misquoted) in Dimensions of Paradise (1988), p.40.
I have to say now – as I did at the time of doing my calculations – that I fail to see how John derived his geometrical construction from the meagre details given in the Book of Revelation (21.10f). The figure seemed to be 99% John and only 1% Saint John, but what the heck, it was mathematical fun, whatever it was. “
The problems he mentions are directly related to the canon .
Topic Outline:

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index