Featured Title:
Pictures from the Past: Art and Symbols of the Neolithic and Bronze Age |
 |
| Great Stone Circles, Aubrey Burl |
 |
| 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, 82 guests and 0 members online.
You are a guest. To join in, please register for free by clicking here |
| |
| Review your Reply |
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 827
from UK
 OFF-Line
|  New Message Posted!2011-10-31 11:08
Quote:
| It really depends on you and your professional standing. Could it wreck your career and invite very negative responses to publish your research as non-fiction? Would you be ostracised, demoted and pilloried for expressing such an alternative view? If there's even the remotest possibility of your work attracting anything detrimental, then my advice would be go for fiction. |
|
Thanks Rune. Definitely something to think about. To a very small extent, there's no choice: Some of the technical research will have to be published as non-fiction because you can't take out intellectual property rights without the IPO eventually publishing the information (though there are ways to delay this for many many years).
Gradually leaking the remaining factual material into a fiction series will intermingle it with fictional ideas of creative licence. I guess the only downsides would be that it will extend the period to publication by a good few years (of all the factual ideas) and that it might also confuse anyone who is interested only in the factual basis (the first book has a separate non fiction epilogue and appendix, but that wasn't the intention for the subsequent books).
Quote:
| However, on this point with Rune I must agree, i.e. his isn't a 'borrowed-&-tweaked' concept. It is a thoroughly new and provable theory. Therefore its presentation in the form of a story is probably the way to go. Initially presented in a peer-reviewed forum, they would descend like sharks on a feeding frenzy. |
|
Thanks Neil. I had the same thought when I first came across it. Just coming under some pressure to do otherwise (for instance, one scientific editor said that he would love to review it for publication, and will do so, but only if it's completely re-written as a non-fiction work).
All the best and thanks!
Jon
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 320
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2011-10-29 05:06
IMHO:
The ideas and substance-of-theory proffered by Jon in his 'The Broken Stone' are an excellent way to transmit his novel concept into the mainstream. I know this personally, as I have just finished reading it within the last hour.
However, on this point with Rune I must agree, i.e. his isn't a 'borrowed-&-tweaked' concept. It is a thoroughly new and provable theory. Therefore its presentation in the form of a story is probably the way to go. Initially presented in a peer-reviewed forum, they would descend like sharks on a feeding frenzy.
Neil
|
Runemage
Joined:
15-07-2005
Messages: 2425
from UK
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2011-10-28 21:41
Knowing the evidence level of the last sets of coincidences (the appendix at the back), would you be continuing with the incorporation of these ideas as fiction or be aiming for non-fiction?
Sticking my beak in here, sorry not to have read your previous theory, it's not indifference on my part, simply I've too much on for the next several months..
I would just comment that many people who have found their ideas are likely to be stifled, suppressed or ridiculed by the mainstream opinions du jour have found that one way to get their ideas out there is to publish them as fiction.
It really depends on you and your professional standing. Could it wreck your career and invite very negative responses to publish your research as non-fiction? Would you be ostracised, demoted and pilloried for expressing such an alternative view? If there's even the remotest possibility of your work attracting anything detrimental, then my advice would be go for fiction.
Rune
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 827
from UK
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2011-10-28 17:37
Quote:
| Again I'm going to disagree with you but in a "nice" way. I can't see anything wrong with ten generations remembering things like sun/moon or even star positions. |
|
Hi Sem. Been on site. Definitely not connected to any form of prediction of effects that we of this age would know to occur: It's been done in at least two stages and seems to correspond exactly to the "very intelligent farmer's device". The idea of highly skilled philosophical and mathematical scholars seems unnecessary for this.
I still have to do a lot of verification work on it just in case I've made an error but thought I should put a comment up before starting the process. Based on the time Stonehenge took, this will take a few months.
While I was there, the owners mentioned that there are two other sites with related configurations: Went to have a look at one of the others in detail and this also corresponds to the concept in form, structure and in markings. Looked at the other via web and this also corresponds (then found that there are also a few more which also have the required features)
A question for anyone who's read the other book: The evidence at these sites seems significantly stronger than the last book (not least because there are multiple sites all with working configurations and also that none of the sites in the area appear to be lacking the required features). Knowing the evidence level of the last sets of coincidences (the appendix at the back), would you be continuing with the incorporation of these ideas as fiction or be aiming for non-fiction?
[ This message was edited by: jonm on 2011-10-28 17:45 ]
|
sem
Joined:
12-11-2003
Messages: 1722
from Bridgend,S.Wales
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2011-10-22 21:20
Quote:
|
On 2011-10-22 06:29, jonm wrote:
Thanks Sem & Neil
I thought about your comments and decided I should construct a quick CAD model of the mathematics just to see if the idea could have been used as a form of predictor: It can't: It takes a minimum of 10 generations before you could physically notice or record a discernible pattern.
Should have done this first!
It's just not feasible that anyone would think that far in advance which leaves the idea's basis as having only one possible function: A kind of doomsday machine.
Anyway, still worth taking a look, just in case, so see you all again in a week.
Jon
|
|
Hi Jon
Again I'm going to disagree with you but in a "nice" way. I can't see anything wrong with ten generations remembering things like sun/moon or even star positions.
The sun and moon were extremely important to Mesolithic man, if only because animals are "ruled" by them. Meso hunter-gatherers probably followed herds of animals and thus had a vested interest in a knowledge of both. I find it both logical and perfectly fitting human nature that someone would pay great attention to words of wisdom from an elder of the community.
An imagined Neolithic conversation.
Father - Son, my grandfather taught my father that when the sun rises over that hill, we will have the day with the most light.
Son - But your father, ie my grandfather, told me his grandfather used to see it rising over that point there.
Father - That is true, the sun rises in many places.
Son - And mum told me her tribe used to follow the sun as it went down into the Western Sea.
Father - That is also true, they followed the auroch herds. They hunted them as I am teaching you to hunt, and the first lesson is follow the spoor.
Son - (with plaintive wailing) Daaaaad!
Father - Well done son, you've found the spoor!
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 827
from UK
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2011-10-22 06:29
Thanks Sem & Neil
I thought about your comments and decided I should construct a quick CAD model of the mathematics just to see if the idea could have been used as a form of predictor: It can't: It takes a minimum of 10 generations before you could physically notice or record a discernible pattern.
Should have done this first!
It's just not feasible that anyone would think that far in advance which leaves the idea's basis as having only one possible function: A kind of doomsday machine.
Anyway, still worth taking a look, just in case, so see you all again in a week.
Jon
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 827
from UK
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2011-10-21 07:26
Quote:
| The whole 'Fixed World' concept remained in place universally till only 350-odd years ago. |
|
3500-4000 years ago?
Quote:
| If this is accurate then what you'll find at Avebury would be flawed when measured against stellar and planetary positions today - even if we make the appropriate adjustment - because of major drift from the Formula due to the inherent inconsistencies of an Earth-Centric System.
Were I to review this Idea in-situ, I would look for unsolvable errors and inconsistencies. |
|
I'll take a look. From a fixed perspective, the extent of the limits of travel of the stellar objects drawn on the ground are still just as valid today as 5000 years ago (though the angles have changed slightly as George noted in the other thread).
Quote:
| Predictions of long term Environmental Disruption, i.e. Ice Ages, is a stretch in my view. These things are highly unpredictable insofar as you have to first understand the cyclic nature of the Sun's 'seasons' and for this we need a Sol-Centric System, unavailable in the Neolithic. |
|
I agree (mostly). And any system you do develop will be based on an essentially faulty, or at best partly correct, treatise. I'll come back to this the week after next week if there's anything at the site to suggest otherwise?
PPS Look forward to your comments on the Stonehenge set of ideas! (especially the book's Appendix)
[ This message was edited by: jonm on 2011-10-21 08:48 ]
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 827
from UK
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2011-10-21 07:11
Quote:
| Sorry Jon, but that is so generalised as to be utter rubbish. |
|
Fair enough. That's a reasonable point of view. And you're right, it is far too generalised.
It would take a lot of work to write up how the concept might work in detail (there are three different ways of looking conceptually at it). If I find out next week that it's all a wild goose chase, I would have wasted everyone's time and my own. Shouldn't have tried to expand the explanation.
Cheers
Jon
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 320
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2011-10-21 05:48
Jonny-Bubba,
Alrighty then ... Let's assume for a moment that you're right (or on the right track).
The whole 'Fixed World' concept remained in place universally till only 350-odd years ago. The reason? Predictions worked for several generations at a time. It was only after long periods of cumulative record-keeping did it become obvious that Orbits of things were ellipses - not circles, and the original idea started to break down. Even then the Fixed World idea continued for a long time and celestial predictions-of-movement were simply modified to accommodate it.
Now, Solar & Lunar Eclipses in the Neolithic worked (and were maybe even predictable) because they'd figured out that the Moon is closer to us than the Sun and that it periodically crosses the face of the Day-Star. This includes realizing that it's the shadow of Earth that blanks the Moon. Fine and dandy. Everything else is farther away, and their relative motions then become dependent upon Circular Orbits around Earth.
The Earth, Moon and Sun are round - all other bodies in the Cosmos must be round, right? The Moon's (tidal locked) face never changes, so why should Earth's? Nothing actually revolves. ergo: Earth-Centric. These outer bodies drift though a certain band of the sky and their movements can be predicted. The Moon, as mentioned, is the wild-card because both its relative and apparent motion varies wildly throughout its short, recurrent and sometimes very lengthy cycles.
Okay, so I have a sense that those people also had long periods where they were in contiguous observation - though how they kept records is one for the Archeos. Would it not then be possible that your fledgling model is simply an attempt to rectify non-circular mechanics?
Predictions of long term Environmental Disruption, i.e. Ice Ages, is a stretch in my view. These things are highly unpredictable insofar as you have to first understand the cyclic nature of the Sun's 'seasons' and for this we need a Sol-Centric System, unavailable in the Neolithic. An introduction to the concept of 'Gravity' is less important within this context, though to be fair something akin to it might have been understood to play a role in why the long-term predictions were off.
The Cultures that assumed these things were very old by the time they ever got around to building Monuments. They represent a codification of Ideas and became their implicit 'Proof' - within the context of your theory. So then adding, subtracting and modifying the placement of various Stones (at both locations) may have become an attempt to rectify what was seen as their own imperfect math, or an imperfect system instituted by imperfect Gods ... on and on.
If this is accurate then what you'll find at Avebury would be flawed when measured against stellar and planetary positions today - even if we make the appropriate adjustment - because of major drift from the Formula due to the inherent inconsistencies of an Earth-Centric System.
Were I to review this Idea in-situ, I would look for unsolvable errors and inconsistencies.
Best,
Neil
PS - look for a PM soon on the Book.
|
sem
Joined:
12-11-2003
Messages: 1722
from Bridgend,S.Wales
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2011-10-21 00:06
Quote:
|
On 2011-10-20 18:20, jonm wrote:
Quote:
| Not sure I'm following you Jon particularly the problem with gravity post 2000 BC but fwiw the station stones also have lunar alignments and still work today . |
|
Hi George
Seriously speculative stuff this: The effect of the system being orbitally based (which is really gravitation from a different perspective) is what would cause the system that I've looked at to have become debunked after 2000BC (if it had ever been used):
If you had developed a prediction system based on fixed world ideas, it would have faced a few challenges
4500 BC: Dropping temperatures, recovery within half a dozen generations
(perhaps the stimulation point to do something to develop some sort of understanding?)
3500 BC: Dropping temperatures, fast recovery within a very few generations
(perhaps the point to get serious about whatever you've learnt?)
3000-2000BC Sunny warm period
2000 BC : Dropping temperatures. No recovery for 1000 years
(time to find new gods and drop 'fixed world' science because its 'warning system' didn't work)
Image below (not sure this site will do this image type)
link
Anyway off to have a look next week. The idea that the place and system is associated with the above might all prove to be bunkum when I've seen it for real.
|
|
Sorry Jon, but that is so generalised as to be utter rubbish.
| |
|
Main News