Adamic language
From Indo-European Languages
|
Indo-European topics |
|---|
| Indo-European languages |
| Albanian · Anatolian · Armenian Baltic · Celtic · Dacian · Germanic Greek · Indo-Iranian · Italic · Phrygian Slavic · Thracian · Tocharian |
| Indo-European peoples |
| Albanians · Anatolians · Armenians Balts · Celts · Germanic peoples Greeks · Indo-Aryans · Indo-Iranians Iranians · Italic peoples · Slavs Thracians · Tocharians |
| Proto-Indo-Europeans |
| Language · Religion · Society |
| Urheimat hypotheses |
| Adamic · Anatolian · Armenian Indian · Kurgan · Paleolithic |
| Indo-European studies |
Contents |
Adamic language maximally defined by Anne Catherine Emmerich's private revelations
(maximal possible Catholic point of view)
According to Anne Catherine Emmerich writings:
"Upon Heber who, as we have said, took no part in the work, God cast His eyes; and amid the general disorder and corruption, He set him and his posterity apart as a holy nation. God gave him also a new and holy language possessed by no other nation, that thereby his race should be cut off from communication with all others. This language was the pure Hebrew, or Chaldaic."[1]
Hebrew/Chaldaic language cannot be an Adamic language, and because of that, Anne Catherine Emmerich explains below the true nature of Adamic language:
"The first tongue, the mother tongue, spoken by Adam, Sem, and Noe, was different, and it is now extant only in isolated dialects. Its first pure offshoots are the Zend, the sacred tongue of India, and the language of the Bactrians. In those languages, words may be found exactly similar to the Low German of my native place. The book that I see in modern Ctesiphon, on the Tigris, is written in that language."[2]
- Indo-Iranian (Bactrian, Zend=Avestan, Indian=Sanskrit) and Indo-Iranian-like = clean offshoots
- Non-Indo-Iranian and non-Indo-Iranian-like = dirty offshoots
Earliest possible ancestral Indo-* joint between all clean Indo-Iranian and Indo-Iranian-like offshoots that are most similar to Adamic language in maximal variant, can be only Europe's Proto-Indo-European language, that would be maximal Adamic language, because it doesn't show significant deviations from joint Indo-Iranian and Indo-Iranian-like model, such as glottals and laryngeals, which are resulting in weird script mixing between alphabets, lowercases, uppercases and digits. Earliest ancestral Indo-* languages could be only God's internal intermediate conversion tools between maximal Adamic and each other non-Indo-Iranian and non-Indo-Iranian-like language, that were used by God while confusing languages.
-8500 ancestral Indo-Uralic
-6500 ancestral Indo-Tyrrhenian
-5000 ancestral Indo-Hittite
-4100 ancestral Indo-European
-3700 ancestral Indo-Hellenic
-3300 ancestral Indo-Slavic
-2800 ancestral Indo-Iranian
-2000 ancestral Indo-Aryan (without Zend=Avestan and Bactrian, thus it is rather
ancestor of sacred tongue of India only, than common
ancestor of Bactrian, Zend=Avestan and Indian=Sanskrit)[3]
Examples from Schleicher's fable:
Indo-Hittite, 3500 BC - disqualified example with disqualifying presence of non-Indo-Iranian and non-Indo-Iranian-like laryngeals featuring weird script mixing between Latin and digits
H3owis h1ekwōs-kwe. H3owis, kwesjo wlh1neh2 ne h1est, h1ekwoms spekét, h1oinom crh3úm woghom wéghontm, h1oinom-kwe megeh2m bhorom, h1oinom-kwe dhh1ghmonm h1oh1ku bhérontm. H3owis nu h1ékwobhjos weukwét: “Krd h2éghnutoi h1moí, h1ekwoms h2égontm wih1rom wídntei”. H1ekwōs tu weukwónt: “Kludhí, h3owi! krd h2éghnutoi nsméi wídntbhjos: h2ner, potis, h3owjom-r wlh1neh2m swebhi gwhermóm westrom kwrneuti”. H3owjom-kwe wlhneh2 ne h1esti. Tod kékluwos h3owis h2egrom bhugét.
Proto-Indo-European, 3500 BC - disqualified example with disqualifying presence of non-Indo-Iranian and non-Indo-Iranian-like glottals featuring weird script mixing between Latin, Greek and IPA
Xowis ʔékwōs-qe. Χowis, qesjo wl̥ʔneħ ne ʔest, ʔékwoms spekét, ʔóinom cr̥χum wóghom wéghontm̥, ʔóinom-qe mégeħm bhórom, ʔóinom-qe dhʔghmónm̥ ʔoʔkú bhérontm̥. Xowis nu ʔékwobhjos wewqét: “Kr̥d ħéghnutoi ʔmoí, ʔékwoms ħégontm̥ wíʔrom wídn̥tei”. ʔékwōs tu wewqónt: “Kludhí, χówi! kr̥d ħéghnutoi n̥sméi wídn̥tbhjos: ħner, pótis, χowjom-r̥ wl̥ʔneħm̥ swébhi chermóm wéstrom qr̥néuti”. Xowjom-qe wl̥hneħ ne ʔésti. Tod kékluwos χowis ħégrom bhugét.
Europe's Proto-Indo-European, 2500 BC - maximal example
Owis ekwōs-kwe. Owis, kwesjo wlnā ne est, ekwoms spekét, oinom gwrúm woghom wéghontm, oinom-kwe megām bhorom, oinom-kwe dhghmonm ōkú bhérontm. Owis nu ékwobhos weukwét: “Krd ághnutoi moí, ekwoms ágontm wīrom wídntei”. Ekwōs tu weukwónt: “Kludhí, owi! krd ághnutoi nsméi wídntbhjos: ner, potis, owjom-r wlnām sebhi gwhermóm westrom kwrneuti”. Owjom-kwe wlnā ne esti. Tod kékluwos owis agrom bhugét.
Europe's Indo-European, 2500 BC - almost maximal example
Ówis ékwōs-qe. Ówis, qésio wl̥̄nā ne (é)est, ékwoms spekét, óinom carúm wóghom wéghontm̥, óinom-qe mégām bhórom, óinom-qe ghmónm̥ ōkú bhérontm̥. Ówis nu ékwobh(i)os (é)wewqét: “Kr̥d ághnutoi moí, ékwoms ágontm̥ wrom wídn̥tei”. Ékwōs tu wewqónt: “Kludhí, ówi! kr̥d ághnutoi n̥sméi wídn̥tbh(i)os: anér, pótis, ówjom-r̥ wl̥̄nām s(w)ébhi chermóm wéstrom qr̥néuti”. Ówjom-qe wl̥̄nā ne ésti. Tod kékluwos ówis ágrom (é)bhugét.
Pre-Proto-Indo-Iranian, 2500 BC - minimal example
Awis aķwās-ka. Awis, kasja wrnā na āst, akwams spaķát, aikam grúm wagham wághantm, aikam-ka magham bharam, aikam-ka ghámanm āķu bharantm. Awis nu áķwabhjas áwaukat: “Ķrd ághnutai mai, aķwams aģantam wīram wídntai”. Áķwās tu áwawkant: “Ķrudhí avi! ķrd ághnutai nsmái wídntbhjas: nar, patis, awjam-r wrnām swabhi gharmám wastram krnauti”. Awjam-ka wrnā na asti. Tat ķáķruwas awis aģram ábhugat.
Proto-Indo-Iranian, 2000 BC - almost minimal example
Ávis áçvās-ka. Ávis, kahja vr̥nā na āst, áçvans spaçát, áinam garúm vágham vághantam, áinam-ka mágham bháram, áinam-ka ghámanam āçu bhárantam. Ávis nu áçvabhjas ávaukat: “Ghr̥d ághnutai mai, áçvans aĵantam vram vídanti”. Áçvās tu ávaukant: “Srudhí ávi! ghr̥d ághnutai asmái vídantbhjas: nar, pátis, ávjam-r̥ vr̥nām svábhi gharmám vástram kr̥náuti”. Ávjam-ka vr̥nā na ásti. Tat sásruvas ávis áĵram ábhugat.
Proto-Anatolian, 2500 BC - confused example
Howis ekwōs-kwe. Howis, kwesjo wlneh ne est, ekwoms spekét, oikom grrúm wogom wégontm, oikom-kwe megehm borom, oikom-kwe dgmonm oku bérontm. Howis nu ékwobos wūkwét: “Krd xégnutor moí, ekwoms xégontm wirom wídntę”. Ekwōs tu weukwónt: “Kludí, howi! krd hegnutor nsmę wídntbos: hner, potis, howjom-r wlnehm swebi cermóm wéstrom kwrnūdi”. Howjom-kwe wlneh ne esti. Tod kékluwos howis hegrom bugét.
Anatolian, 2500 BC - confused example
Háwis áswes-ki. Háwis, kuis húlana na est, áswus spekét, ānan wurhún wágan wéganzam, ānan-ki mékan báran, ānan-ki teggánam āku báranzam. Háwis nu áswaz hwewkét: “Kart áknuta(ri) mai, áswus ákantun wíran wítanzi”. áswes tu wewkúnz: “Klutí, háwi! kart áknuta(ri) anzás wítantaz: anér, pátis, háwjan-ar húlanan sfébi wermán wéstran kurnúti”. Háwjan-ki húlana ne észi. Tat kékluwas háwis ágran pugét.
Pre-Proto-Greek, 2500 BC - confused example
Owis ekwoi-kwe. Ówis, kweho wlnā ne ēst, ekwos spekét, oiwom kwhrum wokhom wekhontm, oiwom-kwe megām phorom, oiwom-kwe khthómonm ōku phérontm. Ówis nu ékwophos éweukwet: “Krd ákhnutoi moi, ekwoms ágontm wīrom wídntei”. Ékwoi tu éwewekwont: “Kluthí, owi! krd ágnutoi nsméi wídntphos: anér, potis, owjom-r wlnām sephi kwhermóm westrom kwrneuti”. Owjom-kwe wlnā ne esti. Tot kékluwos owis agrom éphuget.
Proto-Greek, 2000 BC - confused example
Ówis íkwoi-qe. Ówis, qého lānā ne ēst, íkwos spekét, énon barún wókhon wékhontã, énon-qe mégān phóron, énon-qe khthónon ōku phérontã. Ówis nu íkwobos éweweqet: “Kard ákhnutoi moi, íkwos ágontã wíron wídãtei”. Íkwoi tu éweweqont: “Kluthí, ówi! kart ágnutoi ahmá wídãtbios: anér, pótsis, ówjon-ar lānān sephi thermón wéstron qernéuti”. Ówjon-qe lānā ne ésti. Tot kékluwos ówis ágron éphuget.
Proto-Tocharian, 1000 BC - confused example
Owi jukweñ-ke. Owi, kuse wlānā ne es, jukwes späkät, enem karäm wakm wäkantäm, enem-ke mäkām parm, enem-ke tkamnam ākä pärantäm. Owi nä júkwebos wukät: “Kärt ágnätai me, jukwes ākantän wirem witsante”. Jukweñ tä wukant: “Klutí, ow! kärt āknete ansme wítäntbe: när, pats, owjāp-är wlānām säpi särmam wästram kärnuti”. Owjāp-ke wlānā nä esti. Tä käklewe owi ākre bekät.
Tocharian, 1000 BC - confused example
Ówi júkweñ-ke. Ówi, kúse wlānā ne es, júkwes śpäkät, énem karäm wákm̥ wäkantäm, énem-ke mäkām parm, énem-ke tkámnam akä pärantäm. Owi nä júkwebos wäwkät: “Kärt ágnätai me, júkwes ākantän wírem wítsante”. Júkweñ tä wäwkant: “Klutí, ow! kärt āknete ánsme wítäntbe: när, pats, ówjāp-är wlānām säpi särmam wästram kärnóiti”. Owjāp-ke wlānā nä ésti. Tä käklewe ówi ākre bekät.
Pre-Proto-Celtic, 1000 BC - confused example
Owis ekwoi-kwe. Owis, kwesjo wlānā ne est, ekwos spekét, oinom barúm woxom wéxontam, oinom-kwe megam borom, oinom-kwe dxoniom āku berontam. Owis nu ékwobos weukwét: “Krid áxnutor mai, ekwos ágontom wīrom wídanti”. Ekwoi tu wewkwónt: “Kludí, owi! krid áxnutor ansméi wídantbjos: ner, φotis, owjom-ar wlānām sebi gwermóm westrom kwarneuti”. Owjom-kwe wlānā ne esti. Tod kéklowos owis agrom bugét.
Proto-Celtic, 1000 BC - confused example
Ówis éqoi-k(h)e. Ówis, qésjo wlənā ne est, éqos skhekét, óinom barúm wokhom wékhontam, óinom-k(h)e məgam bórom, óinom-k(h)e d(okh)óniom ōku bérontam. Ówis nu éqobos wewqét: “Krid ágnutor mai, éqos ágontom wírom wídanti”. Éqoi tu wewqónt: “Kludí, ówi! krid ágnutor ansméi wídantbjos: ner, phótis, ówjom-ri wlənām sébi germóm wéstrom qrunéuti“. Ówjom-k(h)e wlanā ne ésti. Tod kéluwos ówis ágrom bugét.
Pre-Proto-Italic, 1000 BC - confused example
Owis ekwoi-kwe. Owis, kwesjo wlānā ne est, ekwos spekét, oinom grāwúm woxom wéxontem, oinom-kwe megam φorom, oinom-kwe xomonem ōku φerontem. Owis nu ékwoφos weukwét: “Kord axnutor mei, ekwos ágontom wīrom wídentei”. Ekwoi tu wewkwónt: “Kluþí, owi! kord axnutor ensméi wídentφos: ner, potis, owjom-or wlānām seφi ghermóm westrom kworneuti”. Owjom-kwe wlānā ne esti. Tud kékluwos owis agrom φugít.
Proto-Italic, 1000 BC - confused example
Ówis ékwoi-qe. Ówis, qésjo lāna ne est, ékwos spekét, oinom craum wokhom wekhontem, oinom-qe məĵam phórom, oinom-qe khómonem ōku pherontem. Ówis nu ékwobhos wewqét: “Kord ákhnutor mei, ékwos ágontom wīrom wídentei”. Ékwoi tu wewqónt: “Kluthí, ówi! kord akhnutor ensméi wídentbhos: ner, pótis, ówjom-or lānam sébhi ghwermúm wéstrom qornéuti”. Ówjom-qe lāna ne ésti. Tud kékluwos ówis ágrom phugít.
Pre-Proto-Germanic, 1000 BC - confused example
Awiz exwaz-xwe. Awiz, hwes wulnō ne est, ehwanz spexét, ainan karún wagan wéganðun, ainan-xwe mekon baran, ainan-xwe gúmanan āxu béranðun. Awiz nu éxwamaz weuxwéð: “Hurt ágnuðai mei, exwanz ákanðun weran wítanðī”. Exwaz wewxwant: “Hludí, awi! hurt áknuðai unsmí wítunðmaz: ner, faþiz, awjan-aur wulnōn sibi warmán westhran hwurneuþi”. Awjan-xwe wulnō ne isti. Þat héxluwaz awiz akran bukéþ.
Proto-Germanic, 500 BC - confused example
Áwiz ékhwaz-ukh. Áwiz, khwes wúlnō ne ist, ékhwanz spekhét, áinan karún wágan wéganthun, áinan-ukh mékon báran, áinan-ukh gúmanan ākhu béranthun. Áwiz nu ékhwamaz wewkhéth: “Hurt ágnuthai mai, ékhwanz ákanthun weran wítanthī”. Ékhwaz wéwkhant: “Khludí, áwi! khurt áknuthai únsmi wítunthmaz: ner, pháthiz, áwjan-aur wúlnōn síbi wárman wést(h)ran khwurnéuthi”. Áwjan-ukh wúlnō ne ísti. That khékhluwaz áwiz ákran bukéth.
Pre-Proto-Armenian, 1 AD - confused example
Hovih ēšwuh-khe. Hovih, khehjo gálana ne ēs(th), ēšwoh sphekhe(th), enam erkúm woĵã wéĵonã, enam-khe mekã borã, enam-khe zmonã ušu béronã. Hovih nu ēšwoboh égojkhe(th): “Sart égnuthe me, ēšwuh ákonthã garã gítanthi”. Ēšwoh thu égojkhõ: “Ludí, hovi! Sart égnuthoi asmí gítan(th)bos: a(n)ír, phothis, owjã-ar gálanam (k)ibi ĵermã gesthrã kharnojthi”. Hovjã-khe gálana ne esthi. Da khékhlugah hovih akrã ébuke(th).
Proto-Armenian, 500 AD - confused example
Hóvih ēšwuh-kh. Hóvih, khéhjo gálana ne ēs(th), ēšwoh sphekhe(th), énam erkúm wóĵã wéĵonã, énam-kh mékã bórã, énam-kh zmónã úšu béronã. Hóvih nu ēšwoboh égojkhe(th): “Sart égnuthe me, ēšwuh ákonthã gárã gítanthi”. Ēšwoh thu égojkhõ: “Ludí, hóvi! Sart égnuthoi asmí gítan(th)bos: a(n)ír, phóthis, ówjã-ar gálanam (k)íbi ĵermã gésthrã kharnójthi”. Hóvjã-kh gálana ne ésthi. Da khékhlugah hóvih ákrã ébuke(th).
Pre-Proto-Baltic, 1 AD - confused example
Avis avai-ke. Avis, kaso vìlno ne at, avus spekít, ainam ģarũ važam véžantim, ainam-ke meģam baram, ainam-ke zmonam uoku bérantim. Avis nu ávamas vjaukít: “ird ágnutai mai, avai ágantim viram vídintei”. Avus tu vjaukant: “ludí, avi! šird ágnutai insméi vídintmas: ner, pats, avjam-ir vìlnom sebi garmám vestram kirnjauti”. Avjam-ke vìlno ne ati. Ta éluvas avis agram bugít.
Proto-Baltic, 500 AD - confused example
Ávis ávai-ke. Ávis, káso vìlno ne at, ávus spekít, áinam ģarũ vážam véžantim, áinam-ke méģam báram, áinam-ke zmónam uóku bérantim. Ávis nu ávamas vjaukít: “ird ágnutai mai, ávai ágantim víram vídintei”. Ávus tu vjáukant: “ludí, ávi! šird ágnutai insméi vídintmas: ner, pats, ávjam-ir vìlnom sébi garmám véstram kirnjáuti”. Ávjam-ke vìlno ne áti. Ta éluvas ávis ágram bugít.
Pre-Proto-Slavic, 1 AD - confused example
Ovĭs esvŭ-če. Ovĭs, česo vlĭna ne jazĭt, esva speset, inŭ žarŭõ vozŭ vézõtẽ, inŭ-če meža borŭ, inŭ-če žmonŭ asŭ bérõtẽ. Ovĭs nŭ ésvomŭ vjučét: “Srĭd áznutĕ mĕ, esvŭ ágõtŭ virŭ vídẽti”. Esva tu vjučõt: “Sludĭ, ove! srĭd áznutĕ ẽsmí vídẽtmŭ: ner, podĭs, óvjemĭ-rĭ vlĭnõ sĕbi germŭ vestrŭ črĭnjutĭ”. Óvjemĭ-če vlĭna ne jázĭtĭ. To sésluvŭ ovĭs agrŭ bugĭt.
Proto-Slavic, 500 AD - confused example
Óvĭs ésvŭ-če. óvĭs, čéso vlĭna ne jázĭt, ésva spesét, ínŭ žarŭõ vózŭ vézõtẽ, ínŭ-če méža bórŭ, ínŭ-če žmónŭ jásŭ bérõtẽ. Óvĭs nŭ ésvomŭ vjučét: “Srĭd áznutĕ mĕ, ésvŭ ágõtŭ vírŭ vídẽti”. Ésva tu vjúčõt: “Sludĭ, óve! srĭd áznutĕ ẽsmí vídẽtmŭ: ner, pódĭs, óvjemĭ-rĭ vlĭnõ sĕbi germŭ véstrŭ črĭnjutĭ”. Óvjemĭ-če vlĭna ne jázĭtĭ. To sésluvŭ óvĭs ágrŭ bugĭt.
Dictionaries:
Adamic language writing system
According to Anne Catherine Emmerich writings:
"The Shining Star (Zoroaster), who lived long after, was descended from Dsemschids son, whose teachings he revived. Dsemschid wrote all kinds of laws on bark and tables of stone. One long letter often stood for a whole sentence. Their language was as yet the primitive one, to which ours still bears some resemblance. Dsemschid lived just prior to Derketo and her daughter, the mother of Semiramis. He did not go to Babel himself, though his career ran in that direction."[4]
Adamic language was written in sentence-level ideographic script, that was more abstract than word-level and syllable-level ideographic scripts, while earliest descendants of Adamic language were written with mix of these scripts. Because of using ideographic script that doesn't preserve phonetic features of Adamic language, best solution would be writing of Adamic language with earliest existing fully fledged phoneme-level script - the Greek alphabet.
Letters:
| Letters | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Letter pairs | Greek names[5] | Greek sounds | |
| Α α | alpha | a | |
| Β β | beta | b | |
| Γ γ | gamma | g | |
| Δ δ | delta | d | |
| Ε ε | epsilon | e | |
| Ϝ ϝ Ͷ ͷ | wau | w | |
| Ϛ ϛ | stigma | s | |
| Ζ ζ | zeta | z | |
| Η η | eta | e | |
| Ͱ ͱ | heta | h | |
| Θ θ | theta | t | |
| Ι ι | iota | i | |
| J ϳ | yot | y | |
| Κ κ | kappa | k | |
| Λ λ | lamda | l | |
| Μ μ | mu | m | |
| Ν ν | nu | n | |
| Ξ ξ | xi | x | |
| Ο ο | omicron | o | |
| Π π | pi | p | |
| Ϻ ϻ | san | s | |
| Ϸ ϸ | sho | s | |
| Ϙ ϙ Ϟ ϟ | koppa | k | |
| Ρ ρ | rho | r | |
| Σ σ ς | sigma | s | |
| Τ τ | tau | t | |
| Υ υ | upsilon | u | |
| Φ φ | phi | p | |
| Χ χ | chi | c | |
| Ψ ψ | psi | p | |
| Ω ω | omega | o | |
| Ͳ ͳ Ϡ ϡ | sampi | s | |
Archaic letters in Unicode:
Digits:
| Digits | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Digit | Value | ||
| O | O | ||
| I | 1 | ||
| II | 2 | ||
| III | 3 | ||
| III‧I | 4 | ||
| III‧II | 5 | ||
| III‧III | 6 | ||
| III‧III‧I | 7 | ||
| III‧III‧II | 8 | ||
| III‧III‧III | 9 | ||
Font usable for this purpose is called Code2000 and is compatible with Unicode. Naming and transcription is based on initial phonemes of Greek letter names as they are written in Unicode. Compound diacritics are applied to Greek letters. Greek digits are used instead of Arabic digits. Greek punctuation apply. Code2000 font is available in Code2000 homepage and is suitable to write Europe's Proto-Indo-European language with Greek alphabet.[6]
Adamic language unit system
Introduction of the geometrized unit system as the Adamic (including Jews and Christians) standard for both religious and physical measurements — a long-term series of independent and systematic conversions from the various separate local pagan and revolutionary systems of historical weights and measures is called geometrication. Historically ancient Adamites used originally fully, but later partially geometrized (positional bases ranging from two toward infinity were used) system of units rooted in daynight as its single base unit, that was later compromised by intrusion of chaotic pagan and revolutionary mixed base systems. Major advantage of geometrication is an introducing of measuring system that is both simultaneously fully consistent and fully obedient to God's Bible, thus fully suitable for Adamites who want to abolish all pagan and revolutionary influences from their faith, while using fully consistent system of measurements.
In geometrized unit system commanded by God in the Bible (positional bases ranging from two toward infinity were used), that was commanded especially in various Bible-related commandments, there are digits 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,...10, with their relevant numerals such as null-nine and nulleven-ninelve, etc... ten, and exists only one unit - daynight from which all other quantities are derived, by using appropiate conversion factors used too in geometrized unit system. Teen numbers above ten are then named oneteen-nineteen. Rest of numerals above ten is used without any changes.
Process of derivation of other quantities from daynight unit is following: one SI second is multipled by 86400, then 86400 SI seconds that has dimension of distance are converted to SI meter, SI grave (kilogram/milliton), SI coulomb, and SI kelvin, which have dimension of distance, while ampere (containing coulomb), mole (containing no unit) and candela (containing no other units than previously converted) are omitted due to their lack of dimension in geometrized units. Conversion to non-time SI units is following:
- c converts from daynights to meters: 86400[s]*299792458[m/s]=2.59020683712E+13[m]
- c3/G converts from daynights to graves (kilograms/millitons): 86400[s]*(2997924583/0.0000000000667428)[G/s]=3.48795946358426E+40[G]
- c3/{[G/(4*π*ε0)]0.5} converts from daynights to coulombs: 86400[s]*〈2997924583/{[0.0000000000667428/(4*3.14159265358979*8.854187817E-12)]0.5}〉[C/s]=3.00575056342677E+30[C]
- c5/(G*k) converts from daynights to kelvins: 86400[s]*[2997924585/(0.0000000000667428*1.3806504E-23)][K/s]=2.2705397623616E+80[K]
Next these results are consistently multipled and divided by any base (in range from two toward infinity) to obtain multiples and submultiples of daynight and their equivalent values in SI fundamental units. These multiples and submultiples of daynight can be used to measuring length, mass, time, charge and temperature. Interestingly, most of the ancient units roughly matches with these multiples and submultiples of daynight, indirectly proving existence of such geometrized unit system in very distant antiquity.
Equivalents of second and daynight with their values in SI fundamental units are presented in the table below:
| daynight | m | G | s | C | K |
| [7] | c | c3/G | c3/{[G/(4*π*ε0)]0.5} | c5/(G*k) | |
| 1.15740740740740E–05 | 2.99792458000000E+08 | 4.03699011988918E+35 | 1.00000000000000E+00 | 3.47887796692913E+25 | 2.62793953977037E+75 |
| 1.00000000000000E+00 | 2.59020683712000E+13 | 3.48795946358426E+40 | 8.64000000000000E+04 | 3.00575056342677E+30 | 2.27053976236160E+80 |
References
- ↑ http://www.tanbooks.com/doct/origin_sorcery.htm
- ↑ http://www.tanbooks.com/doct/origin_sorcery.htm
- ↑ http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jamesdow/s076/f332917.htm
- ↑ http://www.all-jesus.com/scriptures/bible1-4.htm
- ↑ http://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0370.pdf
- ↑ http://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0370.pdf
- ↑ Wald, Robert M. (1984). General Relativity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-87033-2. See Appendix F
