Featured Title:
Free book with orders of £10 or over in our shop |
 |
| The Seven Wonders of the World £4.50+p&p |
 |
| 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, 89 guests and 0 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: Stonehenge Questions
|
| Review your Reply |
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
 OFF-Line
|  New Message Posted!2012-09-15 06:13
Jim,
There certainly Is something significant with the Number 56.
Some say it's for Latitude, with the Earth represented by the henge itself.
Some say they are the brightest stars seen over the course of a year - again, if the outer henge is considered the Star Field above the Earth, as eventually demonstrated by the Stone Circle.
If you talk to JonM the number means something else again.
360 divided by 56 = 6.4.
This is the number of degrees the Aubrey's are apart. (more or less)
56 divided by 2 = 28.
There are 28 Sarsens in the outer Circle. (We now know that 17 & 18 were never installed)
Some say that there were 29 Bluestones in the original Inner Oval of the Trilithon Set.
I believe it was 28.
Some also say there were 64 Bluestones in the Outer Circle.
But maybe it was really 56?
56 divided by 4 = 14.
There are (and should be) 14 Aubrey's in the four Quadrants of the circumference, but some of these are very obviously shifted slightly to avoid intersecting a Cardinal or a Solstice, while still retaining 14 in the Quadrant. (Weird)
The very important Cardinal East passes quite nearby Aubrey 7.
The Solstice Sun-Line as the major Axis makes its perpendicular the Equinox, or Equator. 51 degrees north of this, (near A-14) is Cardinal East. This happens to be Stonehenge's latitude above the equator in real terms.
So they knew the Earth was a globe and they knew where they were upon it, based on the Sun's position at certain times of the year.
So it's possible that '56' and its derivatives represent degrees of latitude, irrespective of the Radial Layout.
It's also possible that they later represented the brighter Stars.
Recently it's been determined that at least Some of the Aubreys held Bluestones in addition to the interred cremations, and these may have been placed as markers for the Moon, it's true. But the Station Stones (it has been said) also represent the Moon's movements with regard to Standstills.
It is my belief that as more sophisticated concepts evolved over the course of construction, that many of the previous templates were incorporated into new ideas.
For example, it has been determined that the Henge, the dimensions of the Aubreys, in addition to the width of the NE opening itself, were all measured with a certain system. Let's say a Standard Yard, for the sake of simplicity.
However, the components of the Stone Circle and Trilithons were laid out and measured using a newer method of longer 'inches', like a 'Meter'.
This difference probably has to do with the length of time between building the major components - but they all still retain the '56' numbering system.
I guess the point is, that you can come up with a rationale for the number 56 in an argument - and quite possibly sell it.
But I ultimately doubt the number has a great deal to do with the Moon, 28 notwithstanding.
Neil
_____________________________
|
Dragonsinger
Joined:
09-05-2012
Messages: 21
from Bradford
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2012-09-13 18:27
Hi Guys
I came to this thread late and caught up in a single session (and now my brain hurts) but more or less from the beginning I have had the sneaking suspicion that we are not looking at this from the builders perspective.
The first thing I came up with was similar to one of the later posts. Who says a circle has to have 360 degrees? This is bases on a 60 minute hour multiplied by 60 seconds but since this was inconveniently large we knocked a 0 off of it to give us 360 and we could use this for nautical navigation.
I doubt that the builders had need of any time measurements of less than half a day and that measurement varied throughout the year.
Whether or not the builders needed to navigate oceans I do not know. However they needed a circle to enable them to make a regularly shaped monument.
the problem arises with the number 56. Exactly what is the significance here?
Well the builders SEEM to have been lunarcentric so a bit of thought gives the following:
13 Moonrises. Lunar months in the year.
13 Moonsets. As above.
1 Sunrise. Possibly sumer Solstice.
1 Sunset. As Above.
This gives you 28 sighting points and therefore you need to have a back sight to align it with making 56. So you need a 56 degree circle.
Cardinals? Look, these guys were smart enough to work out how to transport the stones and build all the associated works around the plain so they were probably curious enough to play with a bit of string in a circle and start wondering what else they could find with the circle but as the 56 stations do not match OUR method we have the gall to say they got it wrong.
Anyway, have fun agreeing or arguing, both are good
Regards
Jim
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2012-05-31 17:02
Quote:
|
On 2012-05-31 10:47, hewpop wrote:
... but what if different races used either a different number of “degrees” in their circle, or decided to have a number of “lengths” of their units of measure, or part of a unit of measure, in a circumference?
[You can have as many degrees in a circle as you'd like, but it's still a Circle no matter what your method of measurement.]
... If you draw a circle of any size concentrically around Stonehenge, and draw in it’s morphed square, you will find that a sight line from the centre, through the lower crossing of the square and circle in the top right corner, the line will pass through the Heel stone, and the sun at Solstice will have risen to sit on top of the Heel stone. So your ‘Square-to-Circle’ appears again.
[Not to put too fine a point upon it, the 'line' falls a couple of feet to the left (west) of the HeelStone. This is because A: There were originally 2 Stones there, and B: The Precession of the Equinox has shifted everything a couple of degrees since the time of construction. The Sun now peens off the top of the HeelStone, true, but it appeared between the two when the edifice was built.
This shifts the opposing corners of the 'Square' slightly, but yes, I believe that a square must have been used in the initial layout]
... your 110 ft. diameter ... I have copies of Thom’s and Petrie’s surveyed drawings and with the best will in the world I could not possibly stretch their diameters to 110 ft. I guess you have measured all the widths of all the different sized stones and taken an approximate mean. What would be great to know the exact measurements of the lintel outer and inner circumferences.
[The Sarsen Circle's exterior Diameter is 101 Feet]
Thanks again Feanor. I will bow out from this posting now and let you all get back to the main topic.
[ Don't leave on my account! I'm obviously still learning too. You have valuable input here.]
|
|
|
hewpop
Joined:
29-10-2005
Messages: 36
from Devon
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2012-05-31 10:47
Thank you Feanor for your reply.
I appreciate your remarks on geometry, but what if different races used either a different number of “degrees” in their circle, or decided to have a number of “lengths” of their units of measure, or part of a unit of measure, in a circumference? One coulldn’t compare like for like then.
A perfect Pi-type pyramid built up from a basic 10000 inch sided equilateral triangle would form a circle whose diameter would be 962.25…. Feet. (as per my diagrams). Now I was surprised to find that when 100.000 is divide by this number, my old friend 103.923…ft, a diameter of Thom’s 120 Meg Yd .Sarsen outer circumference appears. As I have shown, PI*sqrt(3) / 2, or 2.720699046 is present in circle and triangle measurement no matter what units of measure are used. I call it a ‘trans-dimensionsl constant’.
The G.Pyramid circle is 40,000 units of 0.906899…, and Thom’s Stonehenge circle is 4320 units of the same.
If you draw a circle of any size concentrically around Stonehenge, and draw in it’s moirphed square, you will find that a sight line from the centre, through the lower crossing of the square and circle in the top right corner, the line will pass through the Heel stone, and the sun at Solstice will have risen to sit on top of the Heel stone. So your ‘Square-to-Circle’ appears again.
With regards to your 110 ft. diameter.. I have copies of Thom’s and Petrie’s surveyed drawings and with the best will in the world I could not possibly stretch their diameters to 110 ft. I guess you have measured all the widths of all the different sized stones and taken an approximate mean. What would be great to know the exact measurements of the lintel outer and inner circumferences.
Thanks again Feanor. I will bow out from this posting now and let you all get back to the main topic.
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2012-05-30 16:28
Quote:
|
On 2012-05-30 14:34, hewpop wrote:
Feanor, I am lately come to this posting, and am confused with your Sarsen outer diameters. At one point you call it 108 feet, and now it is 110 feet. Both are vastly in excess of Thom’s 120 Meg yards perimeter, and taking Petrie’s measure of 97.3….… feet for the inner dimension, would make the lintels 6 feet wide, which they obviously are not. Can you clear up this point for me? Incidentally I could be a firm believer that the Stoneagers worked with Feet and Inches, so read my last contribution to ‘Stonehenge connection to the Great Pyramid’ here on Meg Portal, and check out the link to drawings on Image shack.
Thank you. Hewpop.
|
|
Hiya Hewpop! Neil here ...
I have spun-through some of the postings on that particular thread over time, yes. Great stuff.
In short-form, I see the basic premise as: Neolithic & early Bronze-Age people world-wide used a similar system of measurement, which is why we see the division & compounds of a similar number-system in measurements at various Monumental Structures.
This caught my attention for a few minutes, to be sure.
The study of how various cultures arrived at 'Feet', for example, is a narrative to fill volumes - and has.
My take on it is: if you divide/bisect your 'inch', 'foot', 'yard' or whatever by a certain number you'll arrive at the same answer, defined as you wish, as the counterpart fellow in Greece, Egypt or China.
Ratios of Circles will always be the same, so if you transpose an x-number of arc-seconds from a Circle of a certain size and use the same ratio in a different Circle of greater or lesser size, you'll have the same number of arc-seconds.
Drawing a Circle in the ground and putting a square within its confines, the four points of the square will always show up in the same place along its arc whether you're in Egypt or Salisbury.
Geometry is geometry, call it what you will. Compounding or bisecting a geometric shape and then finding a similar equation elsewhere doesn't mean the 2 cultures had a similar (miraculous) measuring rod. It means they both did the correct base-10 arithmetic.
Logistically, it would have been incredibly difficult for the 2 cultures to have interacted in matters of engineering, so I can only say that both had some bright people over a long period of time who worked out a universal mathematics.
The marginal variations found over the course of time in Thom's Megalithic Yard concept leads me to believe that different cultures had a very similar system of measurement breakdown, i.e. the King's thumb-knuckle for the 'Inch' or whatever.
So when we measure the base of the Cheops Pyramid and come up with "574.97 Feet" (or whatever it actually is) it can be said that this corresponds with a division of measurement also found in TimBukTu. So be it.
Ultimately the bisected ratios (for whatever it is you're trying to convey) will always be the same.
Curiously, the 'Square-to-Circle' concept must also have been used at Great Henge in laying out the Ditch. At different times throughout it's several incarnations there has always been 'something' positioned at a precise distance outside the NE Opening. A stick or a post or some guy with a flag... Today the point is marked by the Heelstone. (or just to the left of it because there were once 2 Stones.) This marks a corner of the square which define the limit of the Ditch's diameter. The Solstice Line from this point through the Center defines the opposing corner. The number on the bias is something like ~500 feet if the radius of the Ditch is 165 Feet.
It may be that I have mis-typed some numbers in my effort to convey SH info over the year or so that I have been scribbling here.
For the record, the exterior diameter of the Sarsen Circle is 110 feet. Some like to use Center-line measurements, some use interior numbers. In actual construction the Builders probably used C/L numbers, as the thickness of the orthostats vary slightly. This assumption is bolstered by the perfection of the Lintel-Ring.
Best wishes, friend!
Neil
|
hewpop
Joined:
29-10-2005
Messages: 36
from Devon
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2012-05-30 14:34
Feanor, I am lately come to this posting, and am confused with your Sarsen outer diameters. At one point you call it 108 feet, and now it is 110 feet. Both are vastly in excess of Thom’s 120 Meg yards perimeter, and taking Petrie’s measure of 97.3….… feet for the inner dimension, would make the lintels 6 feet wide, which they obviously are not. Can you clear up this point for me? Incidentally I could be a firm believer that the Stone-agers worked with Feet and Inches, so read my last contribution to ‘Stonehenge connection to the Great Pyramid’ here on Meg Portal, and check out the link to drawings on Image shack.
Thank you. Hewpop.
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2638
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2012-05-30 09:39
Sorry Neil can't add too much to what you already have . Certainly a Bell barrow ,Amesbury 11 excavated by Cunnington twice , first attempt unsuccessful second one found burnt bone covered by inverted urn and also tweezers .Colt Hoare felt a moral obligation to rebury human remains so that probabaly explains why we don't have them or a date which would based on typology be EBA . Centre to centre =180.5 , metres Azi =97.2 both approx . One oddity is that two pits mentioned around November last year and the subsequent procession due south at mid day from the mid way point between them ,would have led to the centre of the barrow and not the Stonehenge centre as they claimed , but as there was even more problems with their calc and it looks like it has been swept under the carpet it's not worth considering .
George
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 816
from UK
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2012-05-30 09:35
Bell Barrow 11
Gets a tiny mention in Cleal: page 495 (though I was only looking for specific data: there may be more). Fig 258 & 259 are interesting.
Jon
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 316
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2012-05-30 05:53
Very strange thing to try and investigate this Barrow ...
Some call it: a Bowl Barrow, some call it: a Bell Barrow.
Some call it: Amesbury 11, some call it: 'That Weird Dome-Thingy Next to the Big Pile of Rocks'.
It is, apparently a Bell Barrow - and an almost pristine example - as the berm and counterscarp are very much intact.
It was partially excavated who knows when, and within was found an interment and a set of bone tweezers. Someone at sometime said that there's more 'stuff' inside, but no one's ever bothered to fish around in there to find out.
Someone said recently that a large meteor was found "in a Barrow near SH", but they don't identify the Barrow.
It is broadly assumed to be Bronze Age, but a more precise date is not forthcoming.
It is in width variously said to be '23-meters', '135 feet', '31 meters'.
It's distance from Stonehenge is variously said to be '150 meters', '90 meters', '125 feet'.
I started looking where? Why, right here, naturally.
There's that lovely picture by Hamish Fenton as well as a couple of others taken by auto as they whisked by.
The descriptive quote is one line that says, to paraphrase: 'That Weird Dome-Thingy to the east of the Big Pile of Rocks'
All other links circle back to the Portal and there's nothing on Wiki.
Ladies & Gentlemen, this construct is literally within spitting distance of the most intensely investigated prehistoric structure on earth, and the above concludes what I can find out about it.
George - Please - I promise to be good! Can you throw me a bone here?
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 816
from UK
OFF-Line
| New Message Posted!2012-05-29 09:39
Quote:
| This is why I am now so keen on finding out the Age of BB-11. |
|
Yes, it would be interesting to know how to find out how old barrows are. Not sure about what you mean by 110.
Cheers
Jon
| |
|
Main News