| Author |
stonehenge again |
rbatham
Joined:
04-04-2006
Messages: 679
from Western Australia
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 10-05-2006 at 12:14
Volumes have been written. many comments on this web site about sun and moon alignments, as well as Sirius . Some say we can never know the why or when because there are no ducuments. Well it's fun to speculate. Why do people flock to stonehenge on the 21st June? because the calendar hanging on the wall says it's the summer solstice. The sun rises over the heel stone. But if you went the day before or after you would see the same thing. Even a week before or after, because the sun changes position so slowly. Stonehenge is not accurate enough to pinpoint the exact day of the solstice. If the site was chosen about 4000 BC then due to the precession of the equinox the solstice would have been 26 July and the sun in Leo. The autumn equinox would be 23 Oct an Leo would be seen rising in the NE. What's this Leo business? Well the outline of Leo resembles another ancient site not far away. Uffington is not a horse, it's Leo.
 Profile
 Email
 Reply
|
PeteG
Joined:
21-11-2002
Messages: 287
from Avebury
OFF-Line
| Posted 10-05-2006 at 12:59
Quote:
|
Stonehenge is not accurate enough to pinpoint the exact day of the solstice. If the site was chosen about 4000 BC then due to the precession of the equinox the solstice would have been 26 July
|
|
Nonesense! Check your astronomy. Precession only effects the Background stars not the position of the sun.
Solstices at Stonehenge can still be seen to be accurate to within 48 hours.
Why not take the time to visit Stonehenge at the right time and check the facts on the ground?
Profile
Reply
|
rbatham
Joined:
04-04-2006
Messages: 679
from Western Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 10-05-2006 at 13:18
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-10 12:59, PeteG wrote:
[quote]
Stonehenge is not accurate enough to pinpoint the exact day of the solstice. If the site was chosen about 4000 BC then due to the precession of the equinox the solstice would have been 26 July
|
|
Nonesense! Check your astronomy. Precession only effects the Background stars not the position of the sun.
Solstices at Stonehenge can still be seen to be accurate to within 48 hours.
Why not take the time to visit Stonehenge at the right time and check the facts on the ground?
[/quote] I visited Stonehenge in 1958 long before it was commercialised. Check my astronomy? I have with a planetarium called Redshift 5 I agree precession does not affect the position of the sun. What does happen with Redshift is the calendar used reverts to the Julian and consequently the further you go back in ime the more the solstices and equinoxes are displaced from our familiar dates. As I said the solstice 4000 BC was equivalent to 26 july . rbatham
Profile
Email
Reply
|
jasonvaughn
Joined:
23-01-2006
Messages: 144
from north wales
OFF-Line
| Posted 10-05-2006 at 13:22
But if you measure the summer solstice against the background stars it does move - Check out http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/celsph.html. So as they say on that site: in 1980 the summer solstice crossed the modern boundary from Gemini to Taurus.
PS - I haven't even been to Stone Henge so I couldn't possibly comment on that structure.
Profile
Reply
|
rbatham
Joined:
04-04-2006
Messages: 679
from Western Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 10-05-2006 at 13:42
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-10 13:22, jasonvaughn wrote:
But if you measure the summer solstice against the background stars it does move - Check out http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/celsph.html. So as they say on that site: in 1980 the summer solstice crossed the modern boundary from Gemini to Taurus.
PS - I haven't even been to Stone Henge so I couldn't possibly comment on that structure.
|
|
Thanks for the link . With redshift 5 I can go back to 4731 BC and view the ancient skies. It takes about 2000 years for the sun to move through one constellation. and 4000BC the summer solstice was in Leo. I wanted to include two screens from red shift to illustrate my point but it seems that the forum cannot accomodate pictures.
Profile
Email
Reply
|
archaeo
Joined:
14-05-2006
Messages: 17
from Portland, Oregon
OFF-Line
| Posted 14-05-2006 at 17:12
Quote:
|
The sun rises over the heel stone. But if you went the day before or after you would see the same thing. Even a week before or after, because the sun changes position so slowly. Stonehenge is not accurate enough to pinpoint the exact day of the solstice. If the site was chosen about 4000 BC then due to the precession of the equinox the solstice would have been 26 July and the sun in Leo. .....
|
|
What the precession of the equinox changes from a topocentric perspective is which stars are on the horizon at what hour and at what azimuth. Precession alters the direction of the rotation axis of the earth in relation to fixed space, a retrograde motion making the year shorter than an orbit of the sun by the inverse fraction of procession.
What is important in relation to Stonehenge and the Heel Stone is the change in the obliquity of the ecliptic, the angle of the rotation axis in relation to the orbital path, the ecliptic plane. The position where the sun rises on summer solstice, the azimuth of sunrise, has changed by two solar diameters since 5,000 years ago. So the Heel Stone sunrise you see today is not what happened when Stonehenge was built.
The Heel Stone is precisely aligned to divide 1/7th of a circle from North. The two earth mounds in Stonehenge's henge are aligned at 1/22nd of the circle from North. 22/7 is an approximation of pi. Also, Avebury is situated, from the equator, at 1/7th of circumference, reinforcing the probable intentionality of the Heel Stone's 1/7th alignment.
Any vertical stone edge is potentially useful in determining the exact solstice date if your sightline is long enough. The problem is that the actual moment of the solstice can fall between two sunrises, so both sunrise and sunset might be observed. The same problem can occur, but at least you will know if the solstice was near noon or midnight.
The Chinese determined winter solstice by shadow length measure. They improved their determination of the length of the tropical year by measuring 24 days around the solstice to work around the problem of the solstice not coinciding exactly with the moment the shadow was longest each day. This was accomplished with a rather short line, a gnomen shadow.
More discussion at:
http://jqjacobs.net/astro/epoch_2000.html
Profile
Email
Reply
|
rbatham
Joined:
04-04-2006
Messages: 679
from Western Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 15-05-2006 at 04:53
Thanks archeo. You have more or less confirmed what I said. Peter G said "check your astromony" so I did. During a week before and after the solstice the sun only moves 36' 39" or about half a degree which would need an accurate instrument to detect. As for dates of the solstice, the solstice is an exact instantaneous moment, and because of errors in our modern calendar from leap year to leap year the solstice changes time and date. For instance in 1952 the moment came after midnight on the 21st June so was actually the 22nd. In 1581 the solstice was 11th June before Pope Gregory reformed the calendar and the Julian error increases as we go back in time. So my asronomy is correct. I have an obsession with 'Leo' at the moment. The solstice entered Leo about 4000BC and remained in that long constellation until about 1450 BC. This covers the whole period of stone constructions From Stonehenge, the Pyramids and possibly some Mayan. I know that leo is of greek origin but other cultures, Egyptians, Babylonians ,Chineses all had there own names and interpretations. The builders of stonehenge may have called it a horse. I am sure there is a definite connection between Leo and many sites in England. rbatham
Profile
Email
Reply
|
archaeo
Joined:
14-05-2006
Messages: 17
from Portland, Oregon
OFF-Line
| Posted 15-05-2006 at 18:08
Quote:
|
Thanks archeo. You have more or less confirmed what I said. .... In 1581 the solstice was 11th June before Pope Gregory reformed the calendar and the Julian error increases as we go back in time. So my asronomy is correct. ....
|
|
Is or was? Your astronomy could be more refined, at least in its expression.
You have chosen an arbitary association. There is no cultural reason to assume any particular importance for 'what stellar point along the ecliptic is associated with what solar position during the tropical year.' And then other assumptions are piled on that one.
Our culture marks the vernal equinox position along the ecliptic as an astronomic reference point. Any culture mapping stars will need a celestial reference meridian. Have you any evidence/references for these?
The solstice is readily observable even though there is a standstill around solstices. It is a simple matter of observing the geometry. All that is required is a sufficiently long line. While ethnographically known sun stations used mountains on the horizon, a much shorter line works too.
Profile
Email
Reply
|
Anonymous
User not Registered | Posted 24-05-2006 at 15:37
Hi. What astronomical program are you using? The one I use gives the 7th April for spring equinox, 9th October for Autumn,around 11th July for Summer solstice and 6th January for winter solstice 4,000 years ago. Uffington looks like a horse to me!Quote:
|
On 2006-05-10 12:14, rbatham wrote:
Volumes have been written. many comments on this web site about sun and moon alignments, as well as Sirius . Some say we can never know the why or when because there are no ducuments. Well it's fun to speculate. Why do people flock to stonehenge on the 21st June? because the calendar hanging on the wall says it's the summer solstice. The sun rises over the heel stone. But if you went the day before or after you would see the same thing. Even a week before or after, because the sun changes position so slowly. Stonehenge is not accurate enough to pinpoint the exact day of the solstice. If the site was chosen about 4000 BC then due to the precession of the equinox the solstice would have been 26 July and the sun in Leo. The autumn equinox would be 23 Oct an Leo would be seen rising in the NE. What's this Leo business? Well the outline of Leo resembles another ancient site not far away. Uffington is not a horse, it's Leo.
|
|
Reply
|
rbatham
Joined:
04-04-2006
Messages: 679
from Western Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 25-05-2006 at 12:49
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-24 15:37, Anonymous wrote:
Hi. What astronomical program are you using? |
|
I am using Redshift 4 or 5 . the earliest date I get is 1/1/4713 BC that is Julian day 1. all dates prior to 1582 are Julian calendar so an error of about 1 day for every 150 years mounts up. rbatham
Profile
Email
Reply
|
corn
Joined:
23-03-2006
Messages: 103
OFF-Line
| Posted 25-05-2006 at 15:36
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-25 12:49, rbatham wrote:
[quote]
On 2006-05-24 15:37, Anonymous wrote:
Hi. What astronomical program are you using? |
|
I am using Redshift 4 or 5 . the earliest date I get is 1/1/4713 BC that is Julian day 1. all dates prior to 1582 are Julian calendar so an error of about 1 day for every 150 years mounts up. rbatham
[/quote]
O.k. I'm taking dates from a properly adjusted Gregorian calendar program....in other words applying 'todays' dates etc. which may be more apt in looking into position alterations between Earth/Sun. 7th April, 9th Oct, 11th July, 6th Jan hold good to that. I also noted that the Sun was closest to Earth in November 4,000 years ago ( today it's January). 
Profile
Reply
|
corn
Joined:
23-03-2006
Messages: 103
OFF-Line
| Posted 25-05-2006 at 15:50
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-10 13:18, rbatham wrote:
[quote]
On 2006-05-10 12:59, PeteG wrote:
[quote]
Stonehenge is not accurate enough to pinpoint the exact day of the solstice. If the site was chosen about 4000 BC then due to the precession of the equinox the solstice would have been 26 July
|
|
Hi all
You also have to remember that the 'heel' stone at Stonehenge was placed when the site was just a bank & ditch. i.e. long before any other stones were erected. Plus the fact that the site has had 4 different building stages and changes since then. The last never completed.
The sun rose and set earlier 4,000 years ago AND at a different declination +/- 23deg.55mins then, +/- 23deg.26mins today at Solstices. This would make any alignments made with todays sun inaccurate at time of build......something to think on!
[ This message was edited by: corn on 2006-05-27 11:15 ]
Profile
Reply
|
MikeGreen
Joined:
21-06-2007
Messages: 19
from East Devon World Heritage Coast
OFF-Line
| Posted 19-10-2008 at 14:58
Quote:
|
On 2006-05-15 04:53, rbatham wrote:
Thanks archeo. You have more or less confirmed what I said. Peter G said "check your astromony" so I did. During a week before and after the solstice the sun only moves 36' 39" or about half a degree which would need an accurate instrument to detect.
|
|
Mmmm, but half a degree is about the apparant diameter of the Sun so you might notice it
Profile
Reply
|
Katie222
Joined:
20-09-2008
Messages: 202
OFF-Line
| Posted 20-10-2008 at 06:50
Acc to Graham Hancock, wasn't the sphinx supposed to be associated with the age of Leo?
Did something important happen in the Age of Leo that we're supposed to remember - a flood or something maybe?
Profile
Reply
|
Katie222
Joined:
20-09-2008
Messages: 202
OFF-Line
| Posted 20-10-2008 at 06:51
Or maybe its just marking when they were built.
Profile
Reply
|
Chyknel2
Joined:
27-05-2007
Messages: 2258
OFF-Line
| Posted 20-10-2008 at 07:00
"Or maybe its just marking when they were built."
In a way, alignments do - as theoretically current inaccuracies could be tracked back to the points in time when they WERE accurate. Trouble is, lumps of stone were probably never capable of very accurate alignment - and who is to say accuracy was intended, necessary or obvious to the ancient builders?
Profile
Reply
|
chimera
Joined:
09-09-2006
Messages: 1508
from Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 20-10-2008 at 08:02
Uffington is a lion - give that man a beer. The rear legs are thicker than the front, and are curved. The tail is long and thin, not a horse-tail. The ears are too long and are cleft to emphasise their length as goat-horns. The short, square head has a beard, as a goat. The goat-lion fought Bellerophon on Pegasus (a horse) at Lydia in Asia Minor in Homer's day. It is carved as the Beaufort Yale upon Windsor Chapel , and was a supporter of 1 of the 3 flags of Henry VII and his boyos 1485. It was seen in the horned-lion of Marduk of Babylon, the Persian horned-lion and the Han dynasty 6th cent., and guards emperors' tombs at Nanking China.
Lions were known in S Europe until Roman times, and battle the Rugby opponents overseas. Uffington was made 1400-600 BCE which fits the latter dates of Leo.
Profile
Reply
|
Katie222
Joined:
20-09-2008
Messages: 202
OFF-Line
|  Posted 20-10-2008 at 14:58
Looked like a horse to me... i am confused.
Profile
Reply
|
sem
Joined:
12-11-2003
Messages: 1709
from Bridgend,S.Wales
OFF-Line
| Posted 20-10-2008 at 20:46
Quote:
|
On 2008-10-20 07:00, Chyknel2 wrote:
"Or maybe its just marking when they were built."
In a way, alignments do - as theoretically current inaccuracies could be tracked back to the points in time when they WERE accurate. Trouble is, lumps of stone were probably never capable of very accurate alignment - and who is to say accuracy was intended, necessary or obvious to the ancient builders?
|
|
Hi Chy
I would totally agree with what you say if I hadn't spent a few weekends with JackME.
The trick is to look for alignments within the stones. A lump here, a notch there and maybe two bumps with a gap in between. Then check the horizon.
I know this sounds cryptic, but at the moment I'm researching/discovering stone rows in an area (geographically speaking) that has not been looked at by archaeologists. For this reason I'm loath to reveal more at present.
Stonehenge is a good example of possible alignments. Just look at the uprights in the trilithons. Why do some have straight edges and others curves and notches?
Only observation will give an answer.
Cheers
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2654
 ON-Line
| Posted 20-10-2008 at 21:52
Quote:
|
On 2008-10-20 20:46, sem wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-10-20 07:00, Chyknel2 wrote:
"Or maybe its just marking when they were built."
In a way, alignments do - as theoretically current inaccuracies could be tracked back to the points in time when they WERE accurate. Trouble is, lumps of stone were probably never capable of very accurate alignment - and who is to say accuracy was intended, necessary or obvious to the ancient builders?
|
|
Hi Chy
I would totally agree with what you say if I hadn't spent a few weekends with JackME.
The trick is to look for alignments within the stones. A lump here, a notch there and maybe two bumps with a gap in between. Then check the horizon.
I know this sounds cryptic, but at the moment I'm researching/discovering stone rows in an area (geographically speaking) that has not been looked at by archaeologists. For this reason I'm loath to reveal more at present.
Stonehenge is a good example of possible alignments. Just look at the uprights in the trilithons. Why do some have straight edges and others curves and notches?
Only observation will give an answer.
Cheers
[/quote]
The problem with finding alignments across stones within a circle is that you are likely to to eventually find something that might appear meaninfgul in that it has the same decianation as an important lunar or solar event but it is unlikely to be indicated and thus difficult to prove an intentionality on behalf of the builders . John North covers the shaping of the Stonehenge uprights as possible modifications for sighting .
Profile
Reply
|
Main News