| Author | Stonehenge, reason for location |
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2329
from UK
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 17-08-2019 at 07:39
Hi Sem
Quote:
| Following my PM I found the quote pretty quickly. "Bluestone Magic" by Robin Heath, P131.
"The theoretical latitude lies about 30 miles south of SH, in the Solent, but the horizon elevations at SH also make it true here." |
|
I don't have that book (decided not to use any of Heath's work as a reference). Unfortunately he's wrong if he's trying to argue the 90 degree thing between solstice set angles. The angles from solstice to solstice (summer/winter set/rise) at that latitude are, very approximately: 100:81:81:98 for that date and accounting for atmospheric effects. Some commercial "astro" software gives slightly incorrect results for this sort of thing so I think it's best to avoid using them (I've noticed people build whole theories based on dodgy software)
 Profile
 Email
 Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 7181
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 17-08-2019 at 08:25
https://www.academia.edu/23492035/DIGGING_THE_ARCHIVES_THE_ORIENTATION_OF_GREEK_TEMPLES_AND_THEIR_DIAGONALS?email_work_card=view-paper
If You view those temples in the round (As SH is) then You may begin to see the matrix geometries utilised.
The sun and moon operate upon those geometries in spiral fashion.
Kevin
Profile
Reply
|
cerrig
Joined:
25-09-2009
Messages: 2826
from Brecon Beacons
OFF-Line
| Posted 17-08-2019 at 10:02
I'm not arguing for astronomical alignments here Neil, just exploring the geometry of the layout.
The green circle surrounding the triangle is its circumcircle and if you move it to the sarsen centre it becomes a pretty good match to the outer ditch diameter and the blue circle.
This is how Euan's triangle fits into the outer ditch circle
When stones 92 and 93 are joined to the intersection of the blue circle and the centre line they are found to be tangent to the sarsen ring outer diameter
None of this is a reason for Stonehenge being where it is, but it may point to why it is laid out in such a way.
cerrig
[ This message was edited by: cerrig on 2019-08-17 10:17 ]
Profile
Reply
|
mmike
Joined:
08-08-2006
Messages: 1041
from Coventry
OFF-Line
| Posted 17-08-2019 at 10:59
Wonderful maps Cerrig,it explains how Stonehenge has much more to offer than a mere group of stones,so much more of the story I believe is to be found even today.With that in mind I looked again at Stonehenge...And just to the se of Lake is Old Sarum from a dowsing point of view, and I have some things to add on what I have already posted.The north to south Ley passing through Stonehenge stones 127/059c/54/12 to the east of, also pass through the ancient site to the south close to the National Cycle Route 45/Lake where a large double circle is.And this Ley passes through the large east circle north to south, with it having a Ley from the east to west making this area very active and a Sacred site with clockwise influence when you walk here.I looked for the link to this ancient site on MP but its been removed I think, the question was (does anyone know what this site is ?) I replied at the time dowsing this site, but now I cannot find an reference to it, it was about a year ago....And just to the se of Lake is Old Sarum,and this ancient site has the north to south Ley passing here, which is the first Ley east of Stonehenge only a mile or so away....And the Woodhenge fault line I traced a while ago, its still giving trouble, but it runs towards Stonehenge passing stone 2/059c/057, with the force and power of this site its sometimes hard to get true readings, and its a force thats active and alive....Im sure other ancient sites all feed from Stonehenge in the immediate area and beyond, its just a case of following them across country to see which ones are a direct link.
Profile
Reply
|
sem
Joined:
12-11-2003
Messages: 2819
from Bridgend,S.Wales
OFF-Line
| Posted 17-08-2019 at 11:57
Hi Jon
Being a mathematician and engineer, and from what I know of Robin Heath from a weekend course of his about archaeoastronomy, I doubt he uses software, dodgy or otherwise. But, ignoring this aspect and assuming you are right, and thus well on the way to claiming your bottle, all you need to do now is find an area near Aberdeen or Hull that gives a level 360 degree horizon (preferably with an ancient monument at its centre).
Profile
Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 943
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 17-08-2019 at 14:04
Sem,
On that note, I have spoken to Robin Heath at length in person, actually. Where? Why standing at SS-91 at Solstice of course — where else?
You're right. He cannot be bothered with the electronic media of Century 21.
Really good guy and we hit it off right away. "I know you!" he says. "We don't agree on ANYthing!"
We laughed like schoolgirls ...
________________________________
On another note ...
At Richard's instigation I checked with the astronomical Guru of all things Stonehenge, and ... well ... your august, respected — nay, revered Stonehenge Expert got spanked pretty hard and flung unceremoniously headlong from his lofty ivory tower, landing with a disturbing splat amid the nettles and unwashed common folk.
Nuff said.
Anyway, here's a corrected version of the map I published on the previous page.
Note to Cerrig: This doesn't affect your interpretations at all.
Note to Energyman: You will be disappointed.
________________________________
Profile
Email
Reply
|
Orpbit
Joined:
24-06-2012
Messages: 1594
from Shropshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 17-08-2019 at 14:38
Let's get it straight:
A) The 90° difference (i.e. relating to the Station Stone "Rectangle") is between the Sun and Moon alignments. The most accurate location for this is south of Stonehenge.
B) The 90° difference between Mid-Summer and Mid-Winter sunrises (or sunsets) is more problematic whether using the horizon profile as at Stonehenge or the geometric horizon (i.e. 0°), so I'm not going to go into that here.
With reference to A) you can download the astronomy from Ruggles' here:
https://www3.cliveruggles.com/images/cliveruggles.com/documents/ras_stonehenge_factsheet.pdf
I've extracted the relevant bits and put them into an annotated single image for the purposes of this thread, and I've only concentrated on the Station Stone directions at 90° to the mid-summer sunrise and mid-winter sunset alignment (although this is not on a precise 180° reversible line):
I have also annotated Neil's plan with the corrections. It all becomes very confusing because different authors use slightly different descriptions, not the least Hawkins who makes it very confusing in his book to the non technical reader.
I don't see the point of discussing precision when this thread is dealing with "reason for location". The accuracy is sufficient that the SSR does appear astronomically deliberate.
[ This message was edited by: Orpbit on 2019-08-17 14:38 ]
Profile
Reply
|
AlanButler
Joined:
24-03-2019
Messages: 10
from Berkshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 17-08-2019 at 15:42
Thousands of years ago by pure chance, an amazing and magical natural site was formed which sloped gradually upwards and aligned with the midwinter sunset. The dramatic ruined Stonehenge monument we see now, is located on a slight plateau in the centre of this larger linear site, which rather like a man-made airstrip, slopes upwards from the north east towards the henge (The Avenue), continuing to rise gently beyond the henge to the south west over the A303 towards Normanton Gorse; the now-wooded crucial midwinter sunset ridge 1km away. Pictured in Mike Parker Pearson’s comprehensive case history “STONHENGE Making sense of a prehistoric mystery”, excavations across The Avenue revealed distinct periglacial ridges formed after the last Ice Age which naturally align with, and point to the midwinter solstice sunset. Apparently these features would have been clearly visible more than 5000 years ago – natural ridges which magically aligned with the midwinter sunset and the all-important midwinter “Sunturn”. Perhaps the glacial features were visible to the ancients in a similar way to features in today’s Icelandic scenery, where without human development and with vegetation still struggling to gain a hold, every detail of the post-glaciated Icelandic landscape is revealed on a truly awesome grand scale. This natural alignment of the Stonehenge site with midwinter sunset and Sunturn, would surely not have gone unnoticed – especially by the people who took the trouble to quarry and carry Blue Stones from Pembrokeshire, for whom sunsets would have been arguably more significant than sunrises. With apparently similar weather now to that experienced 5000 years ago, and with mountains and often clouds to the east, people in West Wales today are still fortunate to look west and regularly witness the same brilliant Pembrokeshire sunsets over the Atlantic Ocean; sunsets that may have influenced Stonehenge’s builders.
Located with its west side at the centre and near the top of The Avenue, the Heel Stone has been deliberately left in an apparently unworked and natural state. Was this stone originally the only large sarsen on site, its position on the natural Avenue above the periglacial ridges giving it a very special significance? Perhaps of such significance that it became fundamental to the design of Stonehenge as we now see the monument above ground; the Heel Stone eventually becoming the focus for a dramatic midwinter sunset illumination. The Stonehenge ruins still appear to be remarkably symmetrical and complete when viewed from the Heel Stone and approached from The Avenue; the monument appears to be specifically located to be seen from this viewpoint – the stones dramatically standing out above the horizon, forming a wall against the sky and arranged to cast complete shadow both along and across the full width of The Avenue at midwinter sunset.
Unlike the Heel Stone, the tallest and dominant large stones forming the Great Trilithon were carefully and laboriously dressed and placed to provide a sharp optical aperture facing the midwinter sunset. This Great Trilithon aperture, whether by design or accident, aligned with midwinter sunset to cast a laser-like beam to illuminate both the Heel Stone and outer circle lintels. Although currently not included in the Stonehenge Visitor Centre audio visual display, this optical phenomenon still happens, and given a rare clear midwinter sunset, can probably be witnessed from early December to early January. An explanation of this Heel Stone midwinter sunset illumination is summarized in an infographic; Stonehenge_midwinter_sunset_infographic, included in the picture gallery with the Megalithic Portal forum post “Heel Stone Image Confirms Stonehenge’s Midwinter Sunset Alignment”.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/60456047@N03/48152307847/in/album-72157677872853407/
Whatever the many purposes and uses of the ruined Stonehenge temple we see today, one primary function does appear to have been as a super midwinter sunset sundial and calendar clock to monitor Sunturn. The Heel Stone appearing to be a main focus for an extremely clever subsequent layout which incorporates and utilizes optical elements, solar and lunar alignments, the natural topography of the larger site, and all integrated within a “conventional” ceremonial stone circle. We are unlikely to know all the reasons for Stonehenge being located where it is, but it does seem plausible that the overall site’s natural topography and alignment with midwinter sunset fundamentally influenced its location and design.
Alan A Butler
Profile
Reply
|
Orpbit
Joined:
24-06-2012
Messages: 1594
from Shropshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 17-08-2019 at 17:03
Neil:
Apologies, I didn't notice you had posted an amended version of your image. My post followed soon after, but in any case it wasn't so much that you were incorrect, rather that you had misplaced the descriptions - I do it all the time, even after several checks I still get things wrong!
Alan:
I've downloaded your "poster", but I'll give it a more detailed read later.
I'm busy fixing my car to get it through its MOT, and peeking in various places during tea breaks!
Cheers
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2329
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 17-08-2019 at 19:45
Quote:
| Aberdeen or Hull that gives a level 360 degree horizon (preferably with an ancient monument at its centre). |
|
Loads on North Uist which fit that description. Why would it be important to have 90 degrees Sem?
Profile
Email
Reply
|
sem
Joined:
12-11-2003
Messages: 2819
from Bridgend,S.Wales
OFF-Line
| Posted 18-08-2019 at 01:56
90 degrees important or was it the sun/moon rises and sets? I don't know, but it's a bit of fun theorising about it - so here goes!
The site itself had obviously important been important for a long time, the RC dates from the postholes in the car park give between 7-8,000BC. Whether it was important for the periglacial stripes (see Alan Butler above) or the incredible view possible of major sun and moon positions, or as like to think that this was one of the first areas populated a when the ice retreated after the Younger Dryas (or more probably a mixture of all) will always be debatable. But...
By the time SH was built it is obvious that people were able to construct stone circles that were true circles or variants of a circle. They also knew about rectangles, as evidenced by the Station Stones and rectangular houses at nearby Durrington. So, if as at SH, you see the sun major risings and settings forming a rectangle or square on the horizon and the moon "circling" the sun on the horizon wouldn't this have peaked their interest?
Add to this that the people leading the construction SH had access to the top technologies of the day and were probably the finest minds of their time.
Personally, I think they may have being trying to find the relationship between squares and circles a few thousand tears before Pythagoras and his like. However they didn't have the use of writing so there will never be any proof of this - just an eternal nagging thought in my brain.
Profile
Reply
|
chimera
Joined:
09-09-2006
Messages: 1599
from Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 18-08-2019 at 02:39
They probably discussed it on the canoe trip back from Babylon:
https://theconversation.com/written-in-stone-the-worlds-first-trigonometry-revealed-in-an-ancient-babylonian-tablet-81472
Profile
Reply
|
cerrig
Joined:
25-09-2009
Messages: 2826
from Brecon Beacons
OFF-Line
| Posted 18-08-2019 at 09:49
There are some curious relationships between Euan Mackie's triangle and the monument as a whole.
The length of the centre line of the triangle is 3 times the length of the outer diameter of the sarsen ring, represented here as red circles. When this is plotted as shown below it can be seen that the top red circle has a stone hole at its centre. The bottom red circle fits neatly between the southern edge of the station stone 5/12/13 rectangle and the inner diameter of the sarsen ring, as shown.
Another curiosity is that the legs of the triangle have a very close pi relationship to the 5 side of the station stone rectangle. This is assuming the 12 side of the station stone rectangle is half the 5 side of the heelstone 5/12/13 rectangle. These two 5/12/13 rectangles have a 1: 1.2 ratio, which makes it a canonical relationship, as indeed the whole setup would seem to suggest is the case.
cerrig
ps; I am sharing this information under a creative commons 4.0 international licence. This means that anyone can use it in any way they wish, including commercially.
The only restrictions are that it is attributed to its source, this thread, and it is shared freely without further restrictions, including developments of it.
This information now belongs to everyone, equally.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2329
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 18-08-2019 at 11:47
Quote:
| Add to this that the people leading the construction SH had access to the top technologies of the day and were probably the finest minds of their time. |
|
Aye. Maybe we're missing something?
As far as I can tell, we've got:
Summer solstices at 90 degrees to each other: latitude of Dundee/Aberdeenish
Winter solstices at 90 to each other: somewhere near latitude of Hull
Mid-summer and winter sun rise at 90 degrees: Somewhere near latitude of Newcastle upon Tyne/Belfast
Southerly moonrise and winter solstice: Somewhere near latitude of English Channel
Southerly moonrise and summer solstice: Nearby to above
Northerly moonrise etc: repeat as above
Stonehenge seems to be aligned to winter set or summer rise solstice (assuming trees along the ridge are pollarded to the right height to make that work). Because it's got a rough rectangle built as a part of the layout, two edges of that very nearly aligns to one set of moonrises. This would have been visible had they not built Stonehenge in the way of the sightlines.
Any others?
Profile
Email
Reply
|
Orpbit
Joined:
24-06-2012
Messages: 1594
from Shropshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 18-08-2019 at 12:54
jonm, sem:
Far more complicated I'm afraid. It's not the level horizon that's important alone, but also the altitude. So if you want to make comparisons you need to fix the altitude. Stonehenge is 102 metres ODN. So CURRENTLY (i.e. 2019) the 90° difference between SSSunrise and WSSunrise at 0° (i.e. geometric horizon - not the actual horizon profile as at Stonehenge) there are probably umpteen places within the band as in the image below:
So altitude has to be factored in to all other variations as listed by jonm.
Therefore, a) Ruggles' statement is also not necessarily true unless he's assumed the 102 ODN, and b) which year it applies to i.e. 3000 BCE, 2000 BCE, 1000 BCE etcetera, because of course the Solar rises changed over time - albeit there was only a half-degree change between 3500 BCE and 1000 BCE. Currently the Sun rises at over one-degree farther south - 50°.6 as opposed to 49°.4 in 3500 BCE.
For me this is coincidental to another reason why the SSR was conceived, but I'm not going to go into that detail here, since in any case it is a design detail of the "repository of knowledge" function, among other theories, that I believe Stonehenge evolved into, and outside the objective of this thread.
Cerrig:
An interesting graphic but circle analyses such as shown, I'm sure I've seen elswhere. I've come across several of these in maths/geometry forums, and not necessarily found by general "Stonehenge" term searches in Google.
At 2000 BCE the summer solstice day Sunrise at the local horizon was 49°.667.
Try taking a line from true north with that angle from SS92 or SS93 to the centre line and see where it takes you. Of course you need to make sure that the plan's north is true north - although at Stonehenge, fortunately, there isn't too much difference between true and grid norths - but people doing similar investigations elswhere need to be sure that any plans they are working from are true north!
Chimera:
This refers to Plimpton 322, which was briefly discussed here at:
https://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=Forum&file=viewtopic&topic=7483&forum=4
https://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=Forum&file=viewtopic&topic=7480&forum=4
Papers regarding this can be downloaded from:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.0025.pdf
https://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/upload_library/22/Ford/Robson105-120.pdf
but, if anyone wants to discuss this, best keep it away from this thread to avoid confusion.
[ This message was edited by: Orpbit on 2019-08-18 13:01 ]
Profile
Reply
|
cerrig
Joined:
25-09-2009
Messages: 2826
from Brecon Beacons
OFF-Line
| Posted 18-08-2019 at 14:40
"Cerrig:
An interesting graphic but circle analyses such as shown, I'm sure I've seen elswhere. I've come across several of these in maths/geometry forums, and not necessarily found by general "Stonehenge" term searches in Google".
Just a hint of implication in there Richard. Care to expand on that?
!At 2000 BCE the summer solstice day Sunrise at the local horizon was 49°.667."
Maybe. It depends on whether the model you are using corresponds to reality. Not really relevant to the geometry.
"Try taking a line from true north with that angle from SS92 or SS93 to the centre line and see where it takes you. Of course you need to make sure that the plan's north is true north - although at Stonehenge, fortunately, there isn't too much difference between true and grid norths - but people doing similar investigations elswhere need to be sure that any plans they are working from are true north! "
Old hat Richard, and most certainly already published elsewhere. I'm only exploring the geometry. How it relates to astronomy is a different aspect.
Profile
Reply
|
cerrig
Joined:
25-09-2009
Messages: 2826
from Brecon Beacons
OFF-Line
| Posted 18-08-2019 at 18:16
"Stonehenge seems to be aligned to winter set or summer rise solstice (assuming trees along the ridge are pollarded to the right height to make that work). Because it's got a rough rectangle built as a part of the layout, two edges of that very nearly aligns to one set of moonrises. This would have been visible had they not built Stonehenge in the way of the sightlines."
Jonm, I'm assuming you are talking about the view across the diagonals from 91 to 93 because the other sightlines around the rectangle are open? If so wouldn't this have been open too before the central stones were erected? Perhaps it was one of the first sightlines to be permanently marked with the rest being laid out relative to it?
cerrig
Profile
Reply
|
Orpbit
Joined:
24-06-2012
Messages: 1594
from Shropshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 18-08-2019 at 23:07
Cerrig, let's start with your post dated 13-08-2019 at 19:41 (Page 10 of this thread):
"Richard, I'm still struggling to see why you have picked out that one hole from amongst the many you could have chosen. That whole area is like a Swiss cheese (Isn't that where the archer came from?)"
Because it's quite clearly an individual marker post and doesn't appear to have "group" association as do others.
I didn't post that graphic to discuss the detail on it.
Firstly, it was a response to Peter's (Stockdale) question about the diameter of the ditch/bank on his HSMF thread. It just so happens that in this graphic I also identify a 54° angle to this "marker post", an angle which you were interested in, so I posted it for that information, and to show that the Heelstone alignment can be interpreted more effectively as a geodetic one - nothing more than that.
Secondly, on Peter's thread I've provided links to Martin Doutre's work, where he clearly identifies it as a marker post also, so it's obvious that there are plenty of people who have investigated such features along metrological lines, including the likes of Michell, Neal and the Heaths.
Neil (Feanor) states, "... but that Stone Hole in the old Ditch rim which is being referred to with graphs, flo-charts and fractions, is a simple sightline marker-stone pointing from the center of the monument to High Rise, Minor Standstill.
There is of course no evidence for "simply". A marker object can easily have more than one purpose/function. It all depends on what "paradigm" construct an investigator has about the designers/builders state of knowledge and capabilities.
Then you totally go off track:
Why does 3 x 56 Aubrey holes = 168 feet?
The graphic doesn't say anything of the sort, nor imply it. You see a number "56" and make up a completely different calculation nowhere to be found in the text on the graphic. It's your fiction, and your "apples out of oranges".
And is the Sarsen centre to the first bend of the Avenue really a precise 656.168 yards? Why, and how did you measure that one?
That's what 600 metres converts to, and yes 600 metres is the precise distance quoted on a graphic in a joint paper including Mike Parker Pearson, but I'm not going to waste time trying to find which paper precisely. Nevertheless anyone can measure it on GE and it's as near as damn - so I guess there would have been an archaeological reason for quoting it.
Why would you divide a mile by a lunar cycle. Are you planning on peddling to the moon?
Well, if you don't know by now that countless investigators associate measure with astronomical cycles and time...
and try reading the abstract to Euan MacKie's paper, which you posted a link to on this thread (page 8).
Yeah, this post definitely shows evidence that you were suffering from a long day - probably eating too much emmental cheese. Cheese and Welsh magic mushrooms don't mix very well...
And your latest post:
Just a hint of implication in there Richard. Care to expand on that?
Yeah, simply a note to be cautious when claiming originality. Also, you have drawn your geometry on Neil's baseplan (the incorrect one!), which itself uses a plan of Stonehenge which is not credited. He may not wish you to use it, and your geometry has to be decoupled from the astronomy on it, if you only wish to deal with geometry as your later comments imply (see below). Better to produce an entirely new graphic with your claimed original geometry. Anthony Johnson in his book "Solving Stonehenge" claims finding square/circle geometry. He doesn't cite anyone else, yet Hugh Franklin (our Hewpop) found square circle geometries well before him:
http://members.tripod.com/hew_frank/id21.htm
and more here
http://members.tripod.com/hew_frank/id28.htm
Maybe. It depends on whether the model you are using corresponds to reality. Not really relevant to the geometry.
a) Explain "reality", and perhaps you can expand on what broad hypothesis your claimed geometry relates to, and its relevance to this thread.
b) Are you saying that angles have nothing to do with geometry?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometry
Do you really think that with all this geometry that they weren't conversant with angles, and didn't have any reason to use them as codes for wider knowledge?
On second thoughts, don't bother answering any of these questions - not conducive to progressing in any positive way to the subject of this thread
Oh btw,
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/comparing-apples-and-oranges-37838381/
so perfectly OK to speculate about things, and I can't say that a link with the number of Aubrey Holes hadn't crossed my mind, but I wouldn't make any serious claims about such a thing without supporting evidence.
[ This message was edited by: Orpbit on 2019-08-18 23:34 ]
Profile
Reply
|
cerrig
Joined:
25-09-2009
Messages: 2826
from Brecon Beacons
OFF-Line
| Posted 19-08-2019 at 01:29
Accusing me of intellectual theft Richard. Really. From the man who came up with " there's a difference between discovery and publication" and the "MRF". What a fraud you are, and claiming association with reputable authors too. I doubt they would return the compliment somehow.
The geometry I have posted on this thread, derived from Euan Mackie's heelstone triangle and applied to Stonehenge in the way I've done here is entirely original to me. I don't inhabit geometry websites, I don't need to. This stuff comes to me, I don't need to go looking for it, something you obviously have to do. If you can prove skullduggery here then let's see it, otherwise accusations will have to be answered for, and I am very serious about that one.
Lets start with your attempts to justify posting your graphic once again, something you have done again and again on these fora.
"Richard, I'm still struggling to see why you have picked out that one hole from amongst the many you could have chosen. That whole area is like a Swiss cheese (Isn't that where the archer came from?)"
"Because it's quite clearly an individual marker post and doesn't appear to have "group" association as do others".
It's not a marker post, its a hole, just like its neighbours. What it might have been is unknown. You have picked it because it fits your theory, whatever that is. There is no other justification for you choosing it, and if someone has already noted it you forgot to mention so on your graphic.
"Firstly, it was a response to Peter's (Stockdale) question about the diameter of the ditch/bank on his HSMF thread. It just so happens that in this graphic I also identify a 54° angle to this "marker post", an angle which you were interested in, so I posted it for that information, and to show that the Heelstone alignment can be interpreted more effectively as a geodetic one - nothing more than that."
There is no mention of the diameters Peter asked for on your graphic!
The apex angle of the heelstone triangle is 45 degs, not 54 degs, so it would seem that geodesy has made a pig's ear of that one. As I explained in my posts Euan Mackie got his heelstone in the wrong place.
Then you totally go off track:
Why does 3 x 56 Aubrey holes = 168 feet?
The graphic doesn't say anything of the sort, nor imply it. You see a number "56" and make up a completely different calculation nowhere to be found in the text on the graphic. It's your fiction, and your "apples out of oranges".
The graphic says exactly that (see below). Are you trying to distance yourself from your own work now?
And is the Sarsen centre to the first bend of the Avenue really a precise 656.168 yards? Why, and how did you measure that one?
"That's what 600 metres converts to, and yes 600 metres is the precise distance quoted on a graphic in a joint paper including Mike Parker Pearson, but I'm not going to waste time trying to find which paper precisely. Nevertheless anyone can measure it on GE and it's as near as damn - so I guess there would have been an archaeological reason for quoting it."
600 meters to what point exactly Richard? Don't bother to answer that, we both know there is no point to measure to, but that doesn't stop you from quoting a yard conversion to 3 decimal places, again to fit some nonsensical contrived equation that only exists in your version of reality.
"Why would you divide a mile by a lunar cycle. Are you planning on peddling to the moon?
Well, if you don't know by now that countless investigators associate measure with astronomical cycles and time...
and try reading the abstract to Euan MacKie's paper, which you posted a link to on this thread (page 8)."
I'm well aware of the countless investigators associating all sorts of things with all sorts of other things. Sadly there aren't many who do this in any kind of a sensible way and quite frankly I have become tired of seeing it, which is why I have taken issue with you posting total nonsense once again. The way you have abused the pioneering work of the likes of John Michell and Robin Heath by associating their genuinely innovative and inspiring research with your dross is abhorrent to me. There is no justification for your use of cycles and distances, totally without foundation in any sane way.
And then we come to this, again no justification for this at all
"And your latest post:
Just a hint of implication in there Richard. Care to expand on that?
Yeah, simply a note to be cautious when claiming originality. Also, you have drawn your geometry on Neil's baseplan (the incorrect one!), which itself uses a plan of Stonehenge which is not credited. He may not wish you to use it, and your geometry has to be decoupled from the astronomy on it, if you only wish to deal with geometry as your later comments imply (see below). Better to produce an entirely new graphic with your claimed original geometry. Anthony Johnson in his book "Solving Stonehenge" claims finding square/circle geometry. He doesn't cite anyone else, yet Hew Franklin found square circle geometries well before him:"
You had better have proof of why I would need to be cautious Richard, or a very good reason for the implication.
Just a thought, but I can't find any attribution on your graphic for the background plan. Is it yours?
I shall be moving the geometry onto its own thread to enable the OP for this thread to carry on unhindered by this drivel.
cerrig
[ This message was edited by: cerrig on 2019-08-19 01:34 ]
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2329
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 19-08-2019 at 08:21
Quote:
| Jonm, I'm assuming you are talking about the view across the diagonals from 91 to 93 because the other sightlines around the rectangle are open? If so wouldn't this have been open too before the central stones were erected? |
|
Good point Cerrig. Forgot about that sightline. Though you can see the long axis sightlines, it seems odd to build a circular monument in the centre if sightlines were the be-all of the place?
Profile
Email
Reply
|
|
