Featured Title:
Free book with orders of £10 or over in our shop |
 |
| John Michell: From Atlantis to Avalon |
 |
| 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, 93 guests and 2 members online.
You are a guest. To join in, please register for free by clicking here |
| |
Moderated by : davidmorgan , TimPrevett , Andy B , Klingon , MickM , bat400 , sem , Runemage , TheCaptain
The Megalithic Portal and Megalith Map : Index >>
Sacred Sites and Megalithic Mysteries >> A curious set of mathematical coincidences
|
 |
| Author |
A curious set of mathematical coincidences |
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 825
from UK
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 16-10-2011 at 11:14
When Einstein proposed General relativity theory, it was an obscure mathematical idea. Everyone knew that Newton was right.
He was asked for a test that would prove Newton wrong and Einstein right
A man called Eddington went to Africa to do the test. The test, at the limits of observable science at the time, proved Einstein correct (or less wrong than Newton depending on your point of view)
There is an obscure, but not particularly complex, method of mathematical treatment of the world's system. This could also have a test to predict changes in the World model: As changes occur, the effect of the changes to the system could be observed, but only when you constructed the test at the farthest limits of observation.
If changes started to occur at the limits, the test would be an early warning signal of significant changes to your system of agriculture.
The mathematics of this are not wrong, and changes at the limits do occur, but the predicted observable changes are based on something that doesn't happen in practice because of gravity and some other effects. However, because of gravitational effects, the changes that occurred from 6000BC to about 3000BC would have been observed to have occurred and would have appeared to have made the correct predictions.
This test isn't that complex to construct but needs a fair bit of ingenuity to see how to do it. One Neolithic monument seems to have every single one of the features that would be required to carry out the test and, from two day's worth of looking at internet stuff, appears to have nothing out of place and appears to have the correct symbols. I'm going along to that place the week after next to see if there's anything out of place. (This might be a waste of everyone's time if there are out of place features).
For those that know more about the history of the Celts than me, is there anything that would suggest that it's not possible that a group of highly skilled philosophical and mathematical scholars existed in 5000-3000BC whose sole task was to learn how to interpret and predict the world for the benefit of farmers?
[ This message was edited by: jonm on 2011-10-16 11:19 ]
 Profile
 Reply
|
ledgehammer
Joined:
29-06-2011
Messages: 745
from Surrey
OFF-Line
| Posted 16-10-2011 at 11:42
Jon,
sounds interesting, if a little vague 
would be interesting to see your thinkings, and any conclusions you draw post visiting the site
Best wishes
Tom
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 825
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 16-10-2011 at 11:50
Hi Tom
Yes, a bit vague. Is seems almost daft if I tried to explain it (it would take quite a few diagrams and I would need to construct a CAD model to explain). I doubt an explanation could be done using words only.
At the moment it's more about whether or not there's anything that would suggest that this mysterious band of mathematical scholars could not have existed? (being selfish, it might save me time if it proves to be a wild goose chase)
Thanks!
Jon
Profile
Reply
|
Runemage
Joined:
15-07-2005
Messages: 2425
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 16-10-2011 at 13:07
At the moment it's more about whether or not there's anything that would suggest that this mysterious band of mathematical scholars could not have existed
There are a lot of theories about this Jon, taken from old texts and just the idea that someone with an agenda and more knowledge than a bunch of new farmers would appear to have put an incredibly sophisticated system in place using techniques that we don't understand today. Many seem to posit that post-flood there were groups with common beliefs and aims who preserved the ancient knowledge and then travelled the world, constructing megaliths and instructing the populus on their uses and harmonious 'right living'. etc.
Unless of course, the world's general population post-flood weren't just a bunch of peasants...
Rune
Profile
Reply
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 7042
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 16-10-2011 at 14:38
Well for a start don't call them Celts...
Profile
 Email
Reply
|
ledgehammer
Joined:
29-06-2011
Messages: 745
from Surrey
OFF-Line
| Posted 16-10-2011 at 15:38
Jon,
would make a great read (the challenging part putting it into words),
Tom
Profile
Reply
|
sem
Joined:
12-11-2003
Messages: 1722
from Bridgend,S.Wales
OFF-Line
| Posted 16-10-2011 at 18:25
Quote:
|
On 2011-10-16 14:38, Andy B wrote:
Well for a start don't call them Celts...
|
|
Aaah, the Celts
You could try this for starters -
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2006/10/mythsofbritishancestry/
The book is well worth a read even if the DNA science behind it leaves us mortals completely at sea.
Profile
Reply
|
sem
Joined:
12-11-2003
Messages: 1722
from Bridgend,S.Wales
OFF-Line
| Posted 16-10-2011 at 19:21
Jon
The only thing that suggests the maths scholars didn't exist is a lack of evidence for them, but that is not to say they could not have existed.
The problem I see with your idea is that knowledge has to be passed on in some way. Yes, our forefathers' ancestories could be learned by rote for many generations as they are fixed and unchanging (eg Ugge son of Ugg son of Ug etc) but maths must have involved more. Pi and a circle for example. Simple at 22/7 but this assumes you can count to 22 and and are then able to divide it by 7 and do a few other calculations in your head. All this has to be taught which would involve systems of writing and mathematics for which there is no evidence.
However, to turn this on it's head (and show I don't just slag-off weird ideas) you could try reading Dr Oliver Sachs' (a nerologist/psychiatrist) The Man who mistook his Wife for a Hat.
http://www.oliversacks.com/books/man-who-mistook-his-wife/
In it he describes two examples of people who seem to be able to manipulate numbers without any training. In the first, a large box of matches is knocked off a desk and the "patient" immediately shouts out the number of matches. The second is even more amazing where two "patients" sit swopping 6-figure numbers. After a lot of checking with Log-Tables (calculators weren't available then), he found that all these were prime numbers! Dr Sachs desn't have an answer for these but suggests some can deal with maths without training.
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 825
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 17-10-2011 at 12:14
Thanks guys
Andy, Sem:
Sorry about the "Celt" reference! But, spooky the article appears to show that there's genetic proof that the origins of the 'pre-Celts' came from the Basque region: Spooky because the Basque region is the location of a set of apparently related stone circles (related mathematically to the same fixed world concept that appears to exist at Stonehenge).
Sem, Rune
Thanks. I agree, there's a problem with passing on knowledge if you don't have writing. Stonehenge would have worked brilliantly as a method of showing/transferring/teaching the knowledge of the idea, but (sadly) Stonehenge was built too late for it to have done that job.
Tom, Sem
Now that I'm writing about it, the idea of what this place does (it's related to long range prediction of agricultural conditions) sounds so implausible to me that I think I really had better go check it for counter-indications before putting it in writing.
Unlike the "Stonehenge" applications, the method is very simple mathematically (but not so simple conceptually) and it doesn't have a novel industrial application. Unfortunately real work is getting in the way of interesting stuff and, as this isn't patentable, I don't have a good excuse to spend a huge amount of time on it!
Profile
Reply
|
ESgt
Joined:
19-10-2010
Messages: 42
from SK 483342
OFF-Line
| Posted 17-10-2011 at 16:51
It quotes from Herodotus on the Celts, but fails to mention the Cynetes.
http://www.maryjones.us/ctexts/classical_herodotus.html
"who are [were] the most westerly dwellers in Europe, except for the Cynetes".
Profile
Email
Reply
|
ledgehammer
Joined:
29-06-2011
Messages: 745
from Surrey
OFF-Line
| Posted 17-10-2011 at 18:08
Quote:
|
On 2011-10-17 12:14, jonm wrote:
Thanks guys
Andy, Sem:
Sorry about the "Celt" reference! But, spooky the article appears to show that there's genetic proof that the origins of the 'pre-Celts' came from the Basque region: Spooky because the Basque region is the location of a set of apparently related stone circles (related mathematically to the same fixed world concept that appears to exist at Stonehenge).
Sem, Rune
Thanks. I agree, there's a problem with passing on knowledge if you don't have writing. Stonehenge would have worked brilliantly as a method of showing/transferring/teaching the knowledge of the idea, but (sadly) Stonehenge was built too late for it to have done that job.
Tom, Sem
Now that I'm writing about it, the idea of what this place does (it's related to long range prediction of agricultural conditions) sounds so implausible to me that I think I really had better go check it for counter-indications before putting it in writing.
Unlike the "Stonehenge" applications, the method is very simple mathematically (but not so simple conceptually) and it doesn't have a novel industrial application. Unfortunately real work is getting in the way of interesting stuff and, as this isn't patentable, I don't have a good excuse to spend a huge amount of time on it!
|
|
Jon,
not giving much away 
I dont think in theory it is "inplausable" in reference to long term prediction of agricultural conditions, depends what the conditions were e.t.c
Have you considered that the sites themselves may have had some impact to these agricultural conditions?
Tom
[ This message was edited by: ledgehammer on 2011-10-17 18:09 ]
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 825
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 18-10-2011 at 09:21
Quote:
| not giving much away |
|
True. If it's got all positive indicators, it's a third major coincidence set some distance away from the Stonehenge area (plus there's the extra mini-arrangement at Avebury that I found last night)
Quote:
| Have you considered that the sites themselves may have had some impact to these agricultural conditions? |
|
Not likely in this case: It's exactly the same scientific basis for prediction that we use today for exactly the same thing, just re-arranged into a fixed world perspective. I've talked to the owners and they've given me enough info to be able to be reasonably confident that I'll be able to tell one way or the other.
Jon (now preparing to go on a trip!)
Profile
Reply
|
davidmorgan
Joined:
23-11-2006
Messages: 1620
from The New Forest
OFF-Line
| Posted 18-10-2011 at 16:50
Quote:
| On 2011-10-16 11:14, jonm wrote:
is there anything that would suggest that it's not possible that a group of highly skilled philosophical and mathematical scholars existed in 5000-3000BC whose sole task was to learn how to interpret and predict the world for the benefit of farmers? |
|
Not really, but since when have farmers ever needed "philosophical and mathematical scholars" to tell them what to do? Certainly not in any time in recorded history as far as I know.
I'm guessing you probably don't have any personal experience of farming, jonm.
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 825
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 18-10-2011 at 19:01
I'm guessing you probably don't have any personal experience of farming, jonm.
None whatsoever!
Weather forecasts are mathematical projections of likelihood based on science. The science is mostly considered proven by various philosophical arguments and trials (conducted over centuries) about its nature.
[ This message was edited by: jonm on 2011-10-18 19:07 ]
Profile
Reply
|
sem
Joined:
12-11-2003
Messages: 1722
from Bridgend,S.Wales
OFF-Line
| Posted 18-10-2011 at 23:18
Quote:
|
On 2011-10-18 16:50, davidmorgan wrote:
Quote:
| On 2011-10-16 11:14, jonm wrote:
is there anything that would suggest that it's not possible that a group of highly skilled philosophical and mathematical scholars existed in 5000-3000BC whose sole task was to learn how to interpret and predict the world for the benefit of farmers? |
|
Not really, but since when have farmers ever needed "philosophical and mathematical scholars" to tell them what to do? Certainly not in any time in recorded history as far as I know.
I'm guessing you probably don't have any personal experience of farming, jonm.
|
|
"Recorded history" being the operative words here.
It's funny that farming and the creation of physical structures in the UK coincide... or maybe I should come down from the Neolithic Fence.
Profile
Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 319
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 19-10-2011 at 00:14
Jonm wrote:
> ... But, spooky - the article appears to show that there's genetic proof that the origins of the 'pre-Celts' came from the Basque region: Spooky because the Basque region is the location of a set of apparently related stone circles (related mathematically to the same fixed world concept that appears to exist at Stonehenge). <
__________________
I don't mean to sidetrack the thread with non-sequiters, but, fyi, a connection between the Basque and the people's of the SH landscape is probably real and valid. Not only is DNA evidence emerging, but [and this is where George yells at me] the unusual, codified Horseshoe shape of the Trilithons is thought to have been influenced by them.
Now jonm has this curious information. Patterns are emerging ...
Best,
Neil
__________________
Profile
Email
Reply
|
sem
Joined:
12-11-2003
Messages: 1722
from Bridgend,S.Wales
OFF-Line
| Posted 19-10-2011 at 00:47
Hi Feanor
No-one seems to have read the book. As usual they use links, interviews etc and assume these are the whole story.
Oppenheimer explains in detail the "Wrong myth, same People" Celts. Basically, ancient geographers got it wrong and thought the Danube's source was in the Pyrenees,
ESgt
I assume you mean the Kynesians, who dwell furthest towards the sunset..
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 825
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 19-10-2011 at 10:49
Thanks for the comments, looking at the Avebury coincidences, I think I'm thoroughly confusing everyone (including myself at times)
Trying to summarise the coincidences and what all this is about:
1: Stonehenge (major coincidences only)
a: That the entire structure, all of its features and all dimensions, appear to correspond (direct)
b: That all the outer markers appear to be an earth-centric world description (inferred)
c: That nearby man-made features in the landscape appear to correspond with particular achievable effects (and some other local coincidences to do with finds)
2: Avebury
The layout appears to be the same as I would construct (I do have what I think is a better way, but the "Avebury" method is a close second and is also much more economic with its use of materials).
These are all minor coincidences, but Avebury also has the right number of latitude stones.
3: The Basque region
Not a major set of coincidences, but it's the reason I started the novel at a location between Aquitaine and Lower Normandy
4:
But you don't just get to a place that could demonstrate solar effects on the scale of Stonehenge without going through some logical steps to get there. Some time ago, I worked through my old patent development stuff to see which 'inventive steps' I had gone through to get to the solar concentrator. I then looked at the mechanics to see if there was an equivalent system that could be created if I didn't have access to a three-dimensional modelling program.
There is one way that this could be done but it needs a very precise set of conditions to exist. I figured it was more likely to be a place that already existed by chance, so I did a geographic scan of the countryside looking for where all those conditions would exist. There are two locations where this is possible. One is near(ish) Stonehenge, the other is not. There is also a third local location that is nearly good enough (but not quite).
Looking at the 'good' local location, there is no indication that a neolithic monument of any type exists on the site. However, the site has not been investigated to my knowledge. A strange coincidence about the 'good' location is that its location (correctly) suggests where a "Stonehenge" should be located.
Because there's nothing at the location, I'm reluctant to fully bring it in to the coincidence sets. Just on the outside chance that there is something there, it's probably not in the public interest to say where this location is (though it's referred to in passing within the novel).
5:
But I figure that you don't just build a Stonehenge "solar movement demonstrator and library of knowledge" unless you have a very good reason: There needs to be a logical sequence that would have brought someone to build it. In a World where gravity is unknown, a mathematical treatment of that type of geocentric world provides a few possibilities that would cause you to have immense, logically founded, fears for the future of your agricultural system.
So I recently looked at methods that would allow you to predict if a fear is becoming a reality. The method I came up with (only a few days back now after unsuccessfully trying to drawing up something to show Neil) is quite simple and elegant, if difficult conceptually. Again, such a place already appears to exist and this is what this thread is about. To explain why it's such an elegant solution would be much more difficult than explaining the Avebury coincidence set.
But, at the moment, the above all sounds to me to be so implausible that I think I had better go take a look first and then decide whether or not it's moved from implausible to possible.
If, on visiting, I get another 100% hit on coincidences, what do I do with that knowledge? For instance, it would make a good segment to a secondary novel even if the coincidences are not 100%, but perhaps there might be interest in a non-fiction write up?
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 5597
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 19-10-2011 at 11:48
I deal in nothing but repeating mathmatical coincidences, and along with them comes another word....symbiotic.
With dowsing I detect a matrix of very precise nature, and as such I cannot help but notice how the features at similer matrix locations have equally similer features.
That can be both location and landscape orientated.
After a while a sort of recognition of the visual location leads to me then utilising dowsing to check for the none visual relationship.
That only exists after lots of practise and observation, and I wish I had far more such time to devote to fully perfecting such.
I would argue that those responsible for building the megalithic structures will have had the intimate relationship with both, and with the view of the skies at night.
But there is a further unseen elements that varies along with all of this, and thats what i term as flows, the flows travel along on the unseen geometry of the matrix, and respond in symbiotic manner to how the rocks in the sky are apparently moving, again this has a noticable symbiotic repeating sequnce that becomes amplified to an extreme at equinox and solstice times.
Again this takes practise to be able to recognise the flows both flow rates and reversals and standstills.
The symbiotic elements even goes into the weather patterns and wind directions and consequent rain patterns, which is difficult to verbalise.
We are isolated and immune almost to this intimate symbiotic connect, so to most it doesn't exist.
cropredy
Profile
Reply
|
ESgt
Joined:
19-10-2010
Messages: 42
from SK 483342
OFF-Line
| Posted 19-10-2011 at 16:41
Quote:
|
I assume you mean the Kynesians, who dwell furthest towards the sunset..
|
|
Quite possibly Sem. Could be of the same root as our word Kin. However in the 'most westerly people' quote from Herodotus it's spelt Cynetes, which looks to me to be a Welsh sounding word, and indeed with a glance at a Welsh dictionary I see similar words standing for: formerly, first, early, antiquity, aboriginal. Oh, and they did have writing.
Profile
Email
Reply
| |
| Go to Page: 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
IMPORTANT NOTES: This site uses COOKIES. Please do not use this web site if you do not agree to our Terms and Conditions of use.
If you plan to visit ancient sites in person, please make sure you follow our Charter.
Articles, photographs and comments are the property of their respective authors or contributors, please contact them for permission to reproduce. Site design ©1997-2012 Andy Burnham.
|
Main News