| Author |
new theory of stonehenge |
beatles
Joined:
03-03-2008
Messages: 8
from usa
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 04-03-2008 at 11:31
hi, i am new to this site. if you are interested in stonehenge , you owe it to yourself to visit this new site that has an entirely different theory about the ancient use of stonehenge... it is awsome... this theory is based on the evidence and human needs at the time. it is not the typical new age stuff. it looks like real engineering... the site is.granary at stonehenge
they have a video of an actual working model .
please post your impressions of the site. thanks.
 Profile
 Reply
|
brigantia
Joined:
13-01-2002
Messages: 804
from Yorkshire & Argyll
OFF-Line
| Posted 04-03-2008 at 12:29
Hi there!
Quote:
|
On 2008-03-04 11:31, beatles wrote:
if you are interested in stonehenge , you owe it to yourself to visit this new site that has an entirely different theory about the ancient use of stonehenge... it is awsome... this theory is based on the evidence and human needs at the time. it is not the typical new age stuff. it looks like real engineering... the site is.granary at stonehenge
|
|
Seems a bit close to the edge in all honesty. Nice imagination, but that's about it I reckon.
But what about this bit on the website, saying: "This site, its theory, videos, photos, and other material is entirely the intellectual and copyrighted property of the owners. No part of this website or theory can be used without express written permission." (my emphasis)
Errrm....since when is a theory owned by someone? Dodgy unhealthy attitude.
Profile
 Email
Reply
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 7005
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 04-03-2008 at 13:29
That means we're banned from discussing it as we would be infringing his copyright.
Shame
Profile
Email
Reply
|
beatles
Joined:
03-03-2008
Messages: 8
from usa
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-03-2008 at 00:32
Quote:
|
On:29, Andy B wrote:
That means we're banned from discussing it as we would be infringing his copyright.
Shame
|
|
i think the copyright stuff simply means that this is a new theory and you cannot use any part of it and claim it as your own. just as you can't quote a copyrighted book and not give credit to the author. many websites say things like this.
Profile
Reply
|
TheCaptain
Joined:
30-10-2003
Messages: 1483
from near Bristol
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-03-2008 at 00:38
is that why a posting about the enormous size of sails needed to even make the thing think about working to to overcome the friction was removed ? !!!
Profile
Reply
|
beatles
Joined:
03-03-2008
Messages: 8
from usa
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-03-2008 at 01:16
Quote:
|
On:38, TheCaptain wrote:
is that why a posting about the enormous size of sails needed to even make the thing think about working to to overcome the friction was removed ? !!!
|
|
what are you talking about here? i did not see this.......if they have a working scale model then the thing must work......
Profile
Reply
|
TheCaptain
Joined:
30-10-2003
Messages: 1483
from near Bristol
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-03-2008 at 14:23
"if they have a working scale model then the thing must work......"
Scale is not something which can be changed with no other effects. I shall try to put this complex subject very simply. For example here, if you are talking of a linear dimension scale, then the volume change (and hence weight, and effort needed to move it) is changed by the scale cubed. The friction (excluding the extra weight factor - its worse than linear) will also be increased by a squared term, relative to the contact area, so in effect magnifying things enormously, for a scale of 100, an approximate 100,000,000 times increase. And as for the aerodynamic effects on the sails, well, it all comes down to Reynolds number and the viscosity of the air (which has not been changed) amongst other things.... Theres a whole technical world out there...
And just think paper aeroplanes and bumble bees.... Scale them up 100 times and they dont work.
And I have seen a working scale model of the starship enterprise
And the exact working "scale models" of smoking beagles..
Or even them aliens which tried to invade the Earth in the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - which got eaten by a small dog...
Profile
Reply
|
beatles
Joined:
03-03-2008
Messages: 8
from usa
OFF-Line
| Posted 07-03-2008 at 13:34
WORKING stonehenge granary model......the key word here is "working." the engineering involved in this model has been extensively researched and extrapolated to how it would work in the full scale size. fact is it would work better than the small model... read the thesis "granary at stonehenge" before you post objections.
Profile
Reply
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 7005
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 07-03-2008 at 16:25
We have read the thesis. Unfortunately Cap'n is right on the debilitating effects of friction as you scale things up. Take it from me, he knows about these things.
And wouldn't the grain milling hat detract from the reverential nature of the site somewhat? Like putting a millstone in a church tower?
Profile
Email
Reply
|
beatles
Joined:
03-03-2008
Messages: 8
from usa
OFF-Line
| Posted 07-03-2008 at 21:33
Quote:
|
On:25, Andy B wrote:
We have read the thesis. Unfortunately Cap'n is right on the debilitating effects of friction as you scale things up. Take it from me, he knows about these things.
And wouldn't the grain milling hat detract from the reverential nature of the site somewhat? Like putting a millstone in a church tower?
|
|
thanks, i guess i did not take captain serious because of the starship enterprise and other such comments. sorry.
we have built 3 models of different sizes and each time we make it bigger it works better. we have plans to build a 1/4 size model this year (25 feet in dia.) this model and the others should confirm our calculations of weight, drag, force, and speed. i would also like to point out that in the model we must rely on sails that open automaticly without human help and are set to only one angle... in the full size mill the sails could be a bit different ans men would be controlling the sails as they rode along in the carousel thereby getting the most out of sail set and pull.
we are confident that the full size reproduction would work as described in the thesis. thanks
Profile
Reply
|
brigantia
Joined:
13-01-2002
Messages: 804
from Yorkshire & Argyll
OFF-Line
| Posted 04-04-2008 at 15:33
Ey up!
Apologies for throwing this one back to the top again, but thought some of you might wanna see how the dood who propounds this screwy theory is now threatening to sue people for linking an image and ripping-the-piss out of the theory, here:
http://avebury.forumn.net/avebury-f1/astonishing-stonehenge-discovery-t89.htm
Check it out. No sense of humour. No sense of irreverance. And certainly no sense of self-worth by the sounds of it! Even the late great Father Ted has entered the turmoil! Awesome!
Cheers - Paul
Profile
Email
Reply
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 7005
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 04-04-2008 at 17:22
I spotted this last night when checking the source of Ron's demise.
Hawking yourself round all the boards saying the same things is all bit sad isn't it. As someone else pointed out, I don't think anyone's backed him up anywhere.
If Pete G can claim to be being deadly serious then under US copyright law his use of the image is covered under fair use for the purposes of review and criticism.
[ This message was edited by: Andy B on 2008-04-05 16:50 ]
Profile
Email
Reply
|
TheCaptain
Joined:
30-10-2003
Messages: 1483
from near Bristol
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-04-2008 at 09:26
Yes, indeed. And the usual unwillingness to listen to or take proper notice of anybody elses points which do not go along with the idea.
Profile
Reply
|
karloff
Joined:
20-10-2006
Messages: 604
OFF-Line
| Posted 07-04-2008 at 12:35
[/quote]
thanks, i guess i did not take captain serious because of the starship enterprise and other such comments. sorry.
we have built 3 models of different sizes and each time we make it bigger it works better. we have plans to build a 1/4 size model this year (25 feet in dia.) this model and the others should confirm our calculations of weight, drag, force, and speed. i would also like to point out that in the model we must rely on sails that open automaticly without human help and are set to only one angle... in the full size mill the sails could be a bit different ans men would be controlling the sails as they rode along in the carousel thereby getting the most out of sail set and pull.
we are confident that the full size reproduction would work as described in the thesis. thanks
[/quote]
Hi All
Before getting into discussing the working model stuff shouldn't we be looking at some facts.
Fact 1. There is no evidence of abrasion on the surfaces of the stones at Stonehenge to indact this. These abrasions are however apparent on prehistoric rotary querns.
Fact 2. For most of Stonehenge's "working" life (in the Late Neolithic) it does not have a complete circle of stones.
Fact 3. The last phases that do have a complete circle were built in a period when cattle (dairy and meat) were becoming more important in agriculture rather than a dependence of cereal crop apparent in the earlier Neolithic.
Fact 4. There is no evidence to support a technology in the Early Bronze Age in Britain which incorporates sails. All the boats discovered (and there have been quite a few) have not used sails.
Fact 5. There are many, many finds of quern stones on archaeological sites associated with settlement. They are small and hand operated. You would expect to see a progression in scale between these and the giant one put forward in this theory rather than a technical "leap".
Fact 6. Wood is soft porous and completely unsuitable for "grinding" cereals against stone. It wouldn't work.
The main problem however, is that there is no evidence to support the theory! All the "evidence" put forward on their website is wrong:
They say:
Consider that it was built by Neolithic people who were just entering the agricultural age and were dependent on cereal grains
Nope, wrong see Fact 3 above.
They say:
Consider that the stones used at Stonehenge are made of a very hard sandstone called sarsen, the same stone previously used for thousands of years to make grinding querns by neolithic farmers.
Actually almost all rotary and saddle querns are made from grit stone, some from limestone and some of conglomerates. There is only one sarsen example and that is Roman.
They say:
During the late Neolithic Age when Stonehenge was made into a mechanical mill the people were still mostly nomadic. Only in the harvest season would they travel to the Salisbury Plains to gather the wheat and operate the mill. Perhaps as many as 2,000 to 3,000 people assembled each year to do this.
Again wrong, by the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age people are living in settled communities in enclosed villages with roundhouses in we often find rotary querns used for grinding the cereals grown by the settled community. It fact its very hard to be nomadic and farm as you need to stay in one place to carry out agriculture.
They say:
Stonehenge was originally built by the Windmill Hill people. They are named after their earthworks found on nearby Windmill Hill. What a coincidence that Stonehenge would later become a windmill.
I'm afraid I can only laugh at the naivety and complete lack of understanding shown by this statement!
This is a perfect example of Panglossan logic, I bet these people think the bridge of our nose is there to support our glasses!
Profile
Reply
|
MuddyMick
Joined:
12-05-2006
Messages: 1237
OFF-Line
| Posted 08-04-2008 at 13:08
Quote:
|
On 2008-03-04 11:31, beatles wrote:
hi, i am new to this site. if you are interested in stonehenge , you owe it to yourself to visit this new site that has an entirely different theory about the ancient use of stonehenge... it is awsome... this theory is based on the evidence and human needs at the time. it is not the typical new age stuff. it looks like real engineering... the site is.granary at stonehenge
they have a video of an actual working model .
please post your impressions of the site. thanks.
|
|
Hi Beatles,
WOW THAT IS COMPLETELY CRACKPOT!
never mind the glaring probs with this theory/nimcompoopery any one with half a brain cell can see the massive holes in this theory!
Was the great pyramid a brewery and the mahabodhi temple in India a massive chillum?
But I have to give credit where it is due it is a good bit of satire!
Regards
MM
Profile
Reply
|
chimera
Joined:
09-09-2006
Messages: 1508
from Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 23-04-2008 at 08:41
Back at the drawing board: a bumble-bee can't fly, much less when cubed up. But a paper glider scaled by 100 with 2 inch timber, is different if the wings are aerofoil and so gain the cube rather than lose. If a paper one glides 5 yards when thrown at 6mph, then would not a 100 ft timber one launched from 600 ft at 600mph then glide 500 yards? The logic is impeccable and a trial is contemplated..
Profile
Reply
|
Main News