| Author |
New Theory - Henges - Engineering in Prehistory |
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 7001
from Surrey, UK
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 26-05-2006 at 13:52
JCAntunes writes: Henges - Engineering in Prehistory
As Merlin Said
"To Carry the Stones the Giants Must Dance"
A New Theory explains how Stonehenge could be a crane to transport and move heavy loads.
JCAntunes
 Profile
 Email
 Reply
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 7001
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 26-05-2006 at 13:53
Thanks - and the theory is...?
Profile
Email
Reply
|
bat400
Joined:
10-04-2006
Messages: 1333
from South Central Indiana, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 26-05-2006 at 14:04
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-26 13:52, Andy B wrote:
JCAntunes writes: Henges - Engineering in Prehistory
As Merlin Said
"To Carry the Stones the Giants Must Dance"
A New Theory explains how Stonehenge could be a crane to transport and move heavy loads.
JCAntunes
|
|
Does JC want us to buy a book [his] perhaps?
Profile
Reply
|
JCAntunes
Joined:
28-09-2005
Messages: 20
OFF-Line
| Posted 11-06-2006 at 20:04
Visit:
Henges - Engineering in Prehistory
[ This message was edited by: JCAntunes on 2006-06-11 20:05 ]
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 5549
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 11-06-2006 at 23:59
Jcantunes, I have learn't so much about ropes since first seeing your theory.
It is the required length and strength of the ropes that causes me so much doubt?
What really catchs my eye though is the alignments, especially the way the alignments are from the edge of circles etc.
I ,as others as well ,have a theory that a detectable force flows around the stone circles, and that at measurable diameters this flow alternates between clockwise and anti-clockwise directions.
That this force flows along straight lines until it encounters the adjoining circle, and that it joins this adjoining circle and flows in the opposite direction around this one as from the circle it left.
This system in effect mirrors your theory in so much as the gearing is concerned.
We both will suffer the same abuse and ridicule ?
We both are proposing a reason for the construction of the sights to perform the same outcome.
Your ropes and wooden apparatus would have long since completely rotted away from any detectable remains.
My invisable force lines are exactly that, invisable , except to the likes of me.
I consider that in almost exactly the same way that you propose that a force was geared up, to assist in the movement of goods, that my invisable force can in a similer way be accumulated and increased in available potential, to achieve an almost identical outcome.
I can see your theory working over shorter distances, and applaud the effort and expertice that have gone into it, and will not join the few who pour scorn on your theory, where are their ideas ?
Kevin
Profile
Reply
|
rbatham
Joined:
04-04-2006
Messages: 679
from Western Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 12-06-2006 at 08:12
Quote:
|
that have gone into it, and will not join the few who pour scorn on your theory, where are their ideas ?
Kevin
|
|
Are we going over old ground? As said in the previous discussion, the large wooden structures are just not possible. We are so used to modern buildings having a practical purpose that we tend to think of the ancient ones in the same light. House, factory hospital,etc. Most ancient buildings are described as 'temples' with no other purpose than religion.Stonehenge could be one, but the lunar/solar alignments are real. We still build astronomical observatories today and some people would argue that they serve no practical purpose. I have to agree with the experts and conclude that Stonehenge is primarily an observatory. Consider the Aubry holes, 56 of them making an angle of 6.42 degrees at the centre of the circle. But if a line of sight is taken of two holes across the diameter then that angle is halved giving a narrow field of view.3.14.or about 6 lunar diameters. With 56 holes (perhaps with posts) there are 55 lines of sight from one hole fanning out like the ribs of a scallop shell. So, in there are 55x56 different lines or 3080. Try dowsing these Kevin if you are allowed on the site these days. My belief is that these lines are lunar and planetary alignments.
Profile
Email
Reply
|
corn
Joined:
23-03-2006
Messages: 103
OFF-Line
| Posted 12-06-2006 at 12:02
Quote:
|
On 2006-06-11 20:04, JCAntunes wrote:
Visit:
[url=henges.no.sapo.pt]Henges - Engineering in Prehistory
|
|
Gearing for movement of WHAT goods?
Profile
Reply
|
corn
Joined:
23-03-2006
Messages: 103
OFF-Line
| Posted 12-06-2006 at 12:08
Quote:
|
On 2006-06-12 08:12, rbatham wrote:
[quote]
.... My belief is that these lines are lunar and planetary alignments.
|
|
How do these alignments work and has anybody tried to do this?
Profile
Reply
|
rbatham
Joined:
04-04-2006
Messages: 679
from Western Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 12-06-2006 at 12:33
Quote:
|
On 2006-06-12 12:08, corn wrote:
[quote]
On 2006-06-12 08:12, rbatham wrote:
[quote]
.... My belief is that these lines are lunar and planetary alignments.
|
|
How do these alignments work and has anybody tried to do this?
[/quote]  I don't know whrther these alignments work. I'm too far away to test them myself. I go by what I find written about stonehenge and form my own opinion. The number 56 is associated with the moon representing approximately 3 saros. Some lines may show the rising and setting of the moon for everyday of the year.
The theory was posted that Stonehenge was a 'crane'.I would expect some sort of proof to be given. I could propose a theory that the henges were points where the druids were teleported into the fifth dimension or a parallel universe. I would have to prove what the fifth dimension was or that a parallel universe exists. I would also have to prove that the human body could be converted to radio waves and reconstituted without harm. This 'beam me up Scottie' is nonsense. The best proof that SH is an observatory is the alignments seen there, but that proof is not absolute.
consider all the stone monuments all over Europe. one can construct lines linking them all. There are circles all over Britain from the Scilly isles to Shetland. I'll propose another theory. That SH was used for navigation. Look at it's position. It is placed where the longest lines can be drawn to other parts of the country.One long line right up to the Shetlands. Another to lands end, another to Angelsey, and Norfolk, as well as Kent. I can't prove anything though. Others may be able to  Roy
Profile
Email
Reply
|
corn
Joined:
23-03-2006
Messages: 103
OFF-Line
| Posted 12-06-2006 at 12:52
On 2006-06-12 08:12, rbatham wrote:
Hi rbatham
Agree with alot you say, 'beem me up Scottie' type stuff is crazy....wish it could happen to these new-age so called druids (who still think that they built Stonehenge)!!
Not sure alignments like that are possible with the Moon as it's rising/setting movements are limited...unlike the Sun's.
Stonehenge gearing as a 'crane', a crane for what?
Think alignments are a tricky issue as you can make alignments with anything anywhere.
Sue 
Profile
Reply
|
rbatham
Joined:
04-04-2006
Messages: 679
from Western Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 12-06-2006 at 13:13
Quote:
|
On 2006-06-12 12:52, corn wrote:
On 2006-06-12 08:12, rbatham wrote:
Hi rbatham
Agree with alot you say, 'beem me up Scottie' type stuff is crazy....wish it could happen to these new-age so called druids (who still think that they built Stonehenge)!!
Not sure alignments like that are possible with the Moon as it's rising/setting movements are limited...unlike the Sun's.
Stonehenge gearing as a 'crane', a crane for what?
Think alignments are a tricky issue as you can make alignments with anything anywhere.
Sue
|
|
 Sue, not sure what you mean moons rising/ settins are limited. the sun rises and sets within certain limits from solstice to solstice, the moon is also within limits 5 degrees tilt to the sun and are entirely predictable. I think the admiralty used to issue moon charts before GPS. As for lines yes lines can be made to go anywhere. I could draw a line from SH to Ayers rock if I wanted to. I just wonder if anyone has tried to link all the sites in Britain. and drawn any conclusions. As far as I can see each site is studied as a separate entity. I try to visualise the whole picture. Roy
Profile
Email
Reply
|
corn
Joined:
23-03-2006
Messages: 103
OFF-Line
| Posted 12-06-2006 at 14:02
Hi Rbatham
My most humble and sincerely grovelling apologies. I'm obviously having a blonde day!! Am I right in saying that the Moon rises anywhere from around the SE to around the NE and sets anywhere from around the SW to around the NW? (Same as the Sun.) Therefore any circle alignments for either should have gaps in it from about the NNE to NNW and about SSE to SSW? I'm going to dye my hair black now! Sue 
[ This message was edited by: corn on 2006-06-12 17:00 ]
Profile
Reply
|
rbatham
Joined:
04-04-2006
Messages: 679
from Western Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 12-06-2006 at 14:26
Quote:
|
On 2006-06-12 14:02, corn wrote:
|
|
Sue, not sure what you mean moons rising/ settins are limited. the sun rises and sets within certain limits from solstice to solstice,>
Hi Roy, Yes you're right, I just meant that the Moon doesn't move about as much as the Sun on the horizon which might make it impossible to create a circle of 56 evenly spaced markers dedicated to moonrise/set, i.e. there would need to be 2 sizeable directional gaps surely? The Sun also has 'gaps' but smaller as it rises to the SE & sets SW in winter, rises E and sets W at Equinoxes and rises NE and sets NW in summer.
<...I just wonder if anyone has tried to link all the sites in Britain. and drawn any conclusions. Roy
[/quote]
That's what I've been trying to do and have found that there seems to be a pattern, but it's not as clear cut as you might expect.
[/quote]Can't agree with moon rise and set. it moves more than the sun, rising and setting different place every day. If you have astronomical software you can verify this by following the moon. I am looking for information on the aubrey holes. all I can find is that there are 56 of them spaced around the outer rim. What is their orientation, ie is there on N,S ,E,W and equally spaced. What of the diameter of their circle? Roy
Profile
Email
Reply
|
JCAntunes
Joined:
28-09-2005
Messages: 20
OFF-Line
| Posted 12-06-2006 at 17:19
Why should someone need to transport such heavy stones just to look at the stars and point to them?
This theory is based on nutating gears and engineering principles. It is possible to calculate the force that can be pulled by a rope in stonehenge, but I think we should test it before.
One more question:
Why aren't there any trees arround stonehenge?
England has a lot of trees! Did they pull them out to see the stars?
JCAntunes
Profile
Reply
|
Salopian
Joined:
12-06-2006
Messages: 241
OFF-Line
| Posted 12-06-2006 at 18:06
"Why should someone need to transport such heavy stones just to look at the stars and point to them?"
To make something long lasting and reverential I suppose. The same motivation that makes us build cathedrals out of stone and not wood.
Incidentally, if they managed to build a gear mechanism out of 40 ton stones, they must have been able to move 40 ton stones in the first place without a gear. So what sized objects did they move once they had their gear? ... and where are they now?
Profile
Reply
|
JCAntunes
Joined:
28-09-2005
Messages: 20
OFF-Line
| Posted 12-06-2006 at 20:03
They used the same type of mechanism, that's why stonehenge has several build phases, from large henges with smaller stones to smaller henges with larger stones.
Profile
Reply
|
Salopian
Joined:
12-06-2006
Messages: 241
OFF-Line
| Posted 12-06-2006 at 20:57
I'm still confused, I'm afraid. If they could only move the stones by using stone gears, what gears did they use to construct the first gears?
You seem to be suggesting that what we see today is a series of gears constructed in order to make.... gears.
Profile
Reply
|
JCAntunes
Joined:
28-09-2005
Messages: 20
OFF-Line
| Posted 12-06-2006 at 22:22
The henges don't need necessarely to have a gear system.
You surely have a good question.
What did they need to transport in that time!?
I realy don't know, I'm not an Arqueologist but an Engineer!
Some of the ideas that I propose are writen in the site like:
Man intended to work the iron and bronze.
The casting was a promising activity and probably it would be necessary to carry ore to casting places as well as moving other essential goods throughout great and long distances.
Maybe they could work the land for agricultural purposes.
Another idea is that it could be used to load and unload boats or move the boats outside water... Was Stonehenge near water at that time? You can see in google earth that elevation decreases along the Avenue. I will add some more information in the site about that.
Profile
Reply
|
rbatham
Joined:
04-04-2006
Messages: 679
from Western Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 13-06-2006 at 12:14
Quote:
|
On 2006-06-12 14:02, corn wrote:
Hi Rbatham
My most humble and sincerely grovelling apologies. I'm obviously having a blonde day!! Am I right in saying that the Moon rises anywhere from around the SE to around the NE and sets anywhere from around the SW to around the NW? (Same as the Sun.) Therefore any circle alignments for either should have gaps in it from about the NNE to NNW and about SSE to SSW? I'm going to dye my hair black now! Sue
|
|
Yes, the question of a gap between NNE and NNW has puzzled me for some time. I often wondered why full cirles were used when the sun and moon never pass to the north. But, I realised that a piece of Euclidean geometry gave a more accurate field of view. It is more accurate to observe across the diameter of the circle than from the centre , so the need for a full circle. Mark three points on a circle. Join two of them to the third making an angle. then join to the centre and you will find the angle at the centre is twice the angle at the circumference. Roy
Profile
Email
Reply
|
rbatham
Joined:
04-04-2006
Messages: 679
from Western Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 13-06-2006 at 12:34
Quote:
|
On 2006-06-12 22:22, JCAntunes wrote:
The henges don't need necessarely to have a gear system.
You surely have a good question.
What did they need to transport in that time!?
I realy don't know, I'm not an Arqueologist but an Engineer!
Some of the ideas that I propose are writen in the site like:
Man intended to work the iron and bronze.
The casting was a promising activity and probably it would be necessary to carry ore to casting places as well as moving other essential goods throughout great and long distances.
Maybe they could work the land for agricultural purposes.
Another idea is that it could be used to load and unload boats or move the boats outside water... Was Stonehenge near water at that time? You can see in google earth that elevation decreases along the Avenue. I will add some more information in the site about that.
|
|
I too hve been involved in engineering, Materilas testing, strength and stiffness of beams etc, mechanical advantage. I say your system of gears made from timber will not work, they could not be moved in the manner you suggest. Your method of winding at the periphery does not give sufficient mchanical advantage. Why move the stones just to look at stars? you ask. If they are just a crane why jion them with mortice and tenon joints? Why shape the lintels inside and out to conform to the circle. Look at the Parthenon in Greece and other ancient buildings around the world . Why bother just for your Gods. Aesthetics is probably the answer. 4000 years of English weather have caused erosion and degredation of the stones. We do not know how accurately they were dressed at the erection. Stonehenge must have been very special. Roy
Profile
Email
Reply
|
Main News