Featured Title:
Redhead, the new thriller by Ian Cook 'a compulsive read' |
 |
| Stone Circles, A Modern Builder's Guide |
 |
| Login |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like your own home page, fewer ads, and your contributions link to your page. |
| Who's Online |
There are currently, 125 guests and 1 members online.
You are a guest. To join in, please register for free by clicking here |
| |
Forum: Stones Forum
Moderated by : Andy B , TimPrevett , coldrum , Klingon , MickM , TheCaptain , bat400 , davidmorgan , Runemage , SolarMegalith , sem
Respond to: New research to comment on: Stonehenge Codes, A New Light on Ancient Knowledge
|
| Review your Reply |
davidmorgan
Joined:
23-11-2006
Messages: 1603
from The New Forest
 OFF-Line
|  New Message Posted!2010-11-04 22:43
Quote:
| On 2010-11-04 20:24, sem wrote:
Stonehenge seems to encapsulate all that was possible at the time, without improving on it. |
|
My question is - where are the later improvements? If they'd discovered all these concepts by 1500 BCE, surely there would be evidence of progression and refinement later on?
If Stonehenge itself is the progression, how come the Y and Z holes don't form perfect circles?
Quote:
|
It is accepted that the bluestone horseshoe of 19 stones may record
the 19 solar years of the Metonic cycle or the 19 eclipse years of the
Saros cycle. |
|
If it's the Metonic cycle, where is the number 235 represented for the synodic months? If it's the Saros cycle, then they were way out. The number 19 is meaningless on its own.
As an analogy - just because someone can draw a circle (or not!), it doesn't necessarily mean they have knowledge of pi.
|
sem
Joined:
12-11-2003
Messages: 1707
from Bridgend,S.Wales
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2010-11-04 20:24
Hi David
Maybe belief is the word! There is only one Stonehenge, but there is also only one Avebury (maybe earlier and maybe bigger in all senses), only one Stanton Drew (possibly earlier) and only one West Kennet Long Barrow (definitely earlier). Plus a few wood posts (definitely earlier and in all-probability taller) in the holes in the carpark. Also, if you accept the latest glacial bluestones theory, the builders used every bluestone within 50miles.
Regarding astronomical observations. Why improve on the approximate observations (or exact if you accept Thom) measured throughout Britain, especially if cloud cover might obscure them.
Stonehenge seems to encapsulate all that was possible at the time, without improving on it.
|
Runemage
Joined:
15-07-2005
Messages: 2412
from UK
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2010-11-04 17:34
Reminder
Note this is in the Stones not Mysteries forum so can we keep to scientific and historical discussion only please.
|
davidmorgan
Joined:
23-11-2006
Messages: 1603
from The New Forest
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2010-11-03 10:45
Quote:
|
the reader can decide whether or not he or she believes these
‘outrageous’ coincidental results.
|
|
I'm a disbeliever. My problem with these ideas is that there is only one Stonehenge - if those guys were so clever, there should be many prehistorical astronomical observatories becoming more accurate over time.
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 7001
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2010-11-03 08:44
This is the introduction to David Gregg's paper, the rest can be downloaded for free here:
http://www.stonehenge-codes.org
Note this is in the Stones not Mysteries forum so can we keep to scientific and historical discussion only please.
This report began with a modest aim : to rigorously test the proposition ,
raised from time to time, that Stonehenge features, built across a millennium
and more, are dimensionally related via formal geometry or other scaling
principles. The idea of such ‘design continuity’ is of course anathema to
conventional archaeological beliefs. But just suppose it is true. It would have
profound implications about the successive cultures who occupied the area
and the transmission of ‘technical’ knowledge between allegedly pre-literate
peoples.
Given the author’s professional background in engineering, system’s analysis
and astronomy the task turned out to be fairly simple in a technical sense but
nearly impossible to complete. (note : no computers were harmed in this
study. Standard drawing instruments and a £20 pound engineering calculator
sufficed). Clear dimensional relationships between many features were found
but these only raised further questions and uncovered remarkable
coincidences also demanding investigation. The report examines these in
detail and the reader can decide whether or not he or she believes these
‘outrageous’ coincidental results. Here is a brief summary of some of my
findings.
1. All the structures of Stonehenge , irrespective of supposed date in the
building sequence, are dimensionally related via the geometry of
regular polygons inscribed in the Aubrey Circle. The geometries of the
heptagon, pentagon and square are prominent. E.g. A heptagon
construction probably underlay the 56 hole Aubrey Circle and that
construction also defines the much later Sarsen Circle and the even
later Z and Y rings. The proposed heptagon construction also
accurately encodes the site latitude.
2. Several times feature dimensions measured in Professor Thom’s
megalithic yards correspond to well known lunar periods. Frequently
dimensional ratios correspond accurately to ratios of lunar / solar
cycles and in the Z and Y ‘spirals’ to the proportions of the lunar orbital
ellipse. This was totally unexpected.
3. Often, because of pentagon and heptagon properties, dimensional
ratios between features involve simple functions of phi, the golden
section. Curiously these phi functions often match the ratios of key
astronomical cycles. Did the builders recognise and deliberately
exploit these coincidences in their designs?
4. It is accepted that the bluestone horseshoe of 19 stones may record
the 19 solar years of the Metonic cycle or the 19 eclipse years of the
Saros cycle. Similarly the 30 holes of the Y ring and the 29
holes of the Z ring could provide the basis of a lunar calendar of
alternative 29 and 30 day ‘months’ , an ancient calendar still used in
some modern cultures. It was also found that the QR complex could
support the simple tracking of several cycles including the Metonic and
longer, more accurate, Callippic. Several features could also support
the simple tracking of the synodic and sidereal periods of the bright
planets such as Venus, Jupiter and Saturn via stone counts. The author
also finds intriguing parallels between Stonehenge stone counts and
the remarkable Antikythera astronomical ‘computer’ of the 2nd century
B.C. with its dozens of bronze gears. Where that device used rotating
gears, at Stonehenge, similar cycle tracking results may have been
achieved using fixed stones and rotating ‘priests’.
5 Re-examination of the use of the 56 Aubrey holes gives new support
to Professor Hoyle’s proposed mechanism for eclipse prediction and
identifies other cycle tracking duties. The association of a polygon of 56
sides with Typhon / Seth in Egyptian myth who, according to Plutarch,
is also explicitly identified with the shadow of the Earth covering the
Moon in lunar eclipses is also examined along with other helpful
numerical traditions and myths. The use of numerical puns in the myths
of literate societies like Egypt and Greece hint at similar practices
among the ‘non-literate’ megalith builders...but written in stone.
6 The intriguing results on Thom’s megalithic yard at Stonehenge
encouraged the author to look wider at ancient metrics with disturbing
results. A unit identical to Thom’s appears more broadly than in
megalithic Europe and over a vast sweep of time. It is certainly related
to other ancient metrics and in simple ways. The possible origins and
reconciliation of these metrics are discussed in appendices along with
several other ‘anomalous’ and surprising findings. Those of a nervous
disposition should avoid them.
The reader is free to draw his or her own conclusions on all this strange
material but the author concludes that there was not one motivation for
building at Stonehenge over the centuries, but several. The builder’s no doubt
had motives as complex as any builders of great monuments : a mixture of
serving God and Mammon while projecting the power of the rulers and
celebrating their own special skills and elite knowledge, which may have
provided practical benefits to the state including impressing and controlling
the population. How did it all begin? Most probably with a practical interest in
defining a calendar via easily observed astronomical cycles.
This in itself
leads us into simple geometry and calculation. Over time more subtle
phenomena were recognised and at some point coincidental links between
the geometry of triangles and polygons on Earth and the cycles of heaven
became clear. Did that trigger the Stonehenge phenomenon or was this
merely the culmination of knowledge won elsewhere over many centuries?
Seeing such links the builders cannot fail to have been moved by a sense of
wonder and perhaps to worship, ceremonial and ritual. There is probably not
one Stonehenge Code but several, intricately interwoven and as rich and
complex as the human mind itself. Perhaps one day, with open minds and a
rejection of narrow reductionism, we will see as they saw when the world was
new.
Professor D P Gregg (retired) 2010
| |
|
Main News