Featured Title:
Stones Playing Cards, great gift idea |
 |
| The Ancient Celts, Barry Cunliffe |
 |
| 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, 137 guests and 7 members online.
You are a guest. To join in, please register for free by clicking here |
| |
Moderated by : Andy B , TimPrevett , coldrum , Klingon , MickM , TheCaptain , bat400 , davidmorgan , Runemage , SolarMegalith , sem
The Megalithic Portal and Megalith Map : Index >>
Stones Forum >> Archaeo-astronomy question?
|
 |
| Page 2 of 6 ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 ) |
| Author |
Archaeo-astronomy question? |
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2639
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 04-11-2009 at 09:25
Quote:
|
On 2009-11-04 03:06, Aisling wrote:
Alignments, lunar and solar seem undeniable in all megalithic monuments in Europe... any of the ones I've visited anyway.
|
|
All ?
George
 Profile
 Reply
|
davidmorgan
Joined:
23-11-2006
Messages: 1601
from The New Forest
OFF-Line
| Posted 04-11-2009 at 17:44
If you put two stones in the ground randomly, about 45% of them will have a solar sunrise alignment sometime from where I live (i.e. those pointing between 50 and 130 degrees).
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2639
OFF-Line
| Posted 04-11-2009 at 18:24
Quote:
|
On 2009-11-04 17:44, davidmorgan wrote:
If you put two stones in the ground randomly, about 45% of them will have a solar sunrise alignment sometime from where I live (i.e. those pointing between 50 and 130 degrees).
|
|
Doesn't the sun set where you live ? You've got 230 -310 as well . Then there is the moon .It starts to become salient if the orientation is to a significant solar event like a solstice or equinox , some might stretch that to a cross quarter day .
george
Profile
Reply
|
davidmorgan
Joined:
23-11-2006
Messages: 1601
from The New Forest
OFF-Line
| Posted 04-11-2009 at 22:15
Quote:
| On 2009-11-04 18:24, tiompan wrote:
Doesn't the sun set where you live ? You've got 230 -310 as well. |
|
The percentage is the same, though.
I don't know the moon range (can't be bothered to find out).
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2639
OFF-Line
| Posted 04-11-2009 at 22:25
Quote:
|
On 2009-11-04 22:15, davidmorgan wrote:
[quote]On 2009-11-04 18:24, tiompan wrote:
Doesn't the sun set where you live ? You've got 230 -310 as well. |
|
The percentage is the same, though.
I don't know the moon range (can't be bothered to find out).
[/quote]
Because it's travels further north and a south than the sun it's closer to 77% .
George
Profile
Reply
|
transworld_Traveler
Joined:
18-10-2009
Messages: 8
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-11-2009 at 00:29
The vast range of input from so many people from all around the world has been encouraging and helpful. However, much of the material, especially the advanced mathematics is problematic for me. Though I am well educated with an undergraduate degree in science and a Doctorate in a medical field I and deficient in the physical & mathematical sciences. I do consider myself a scientist and attempt to be analytical in the logical manner I approach issues which confront me.
During my lifelong studies, I had come to believe that evolution is a universal mode of operation. I am honestly trying to find a logical explanation why that during the period surrounding the megalith construction so many things do not seem to fit the normal path of evolutionary development. I firmly believe that their construction does not follow, or is out of step with the normal progression of intellectual evolution that had been progressing on this planet since it's conception.
I am not denying that the people who were involved in all aspects of their construction did have the knowledge necessary to build them in the manner in which they were built. The fact that they were built is proof that the knowledge base was sufficient to accomplish their construction.
However, I am saying that the possession of the required knowledge was discordant with the normal evolutionary development of the human intellect. Correct me if I am wrong, but going from primitive cave drawings in 10,000 B.C. to simple geometric symbols in 7,000 B.C to understanding global geography, complex advanced mathematics, solar & lunar alignments, astronomy ….and on & on in 4,000-3,000B.C. is an abrupt acceleration of the learning curve.
I am not denying that it did happen, because it did. The question is How did it happen? I do not know how that advanced knowledge base developed during that period. However, I am very confident that it did result from the normal evolutionary development of the human intellect. If it were so what happened to that knowledge base? Did it go the way of the dinosaurs? Because from what I can gather on this site, we are, 5,000-6,000 years later, just guessing what the megaliths were constructed for. How the information to build them was obtained, or from where it came, may help us understand why they were built.
I remember reading about a forum that included Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawkins, and other highly acclaimed scientists. Numerous things, as I recall were, were discussed, including time travel & alien ‘visitor’ possibilities. With out referring back to the article I seem to remember Hawkins saying that if there had been alien visitation we would see “footprints.” Maybe the megaliths are those “footprints” not that they were built by ‘space travelers’ but that the information or knowledge that was necessary to build them was some how sent to earth from other, more advanced time-space coordinates.
I am a believer in Einstein’s theory of relativity, which delineates the limits of mass travel. I should add that as I understand it, light is not as limited with respect to travel.
Obviously, as demonstrated by my making this post on this web site information can be sent to others in remarkable ways. To me it is not a stretch to consider the possibility that the knowledge to build the megaliths was sent to the 4,000-3,000 B.C. Planet earth time-space coordinate by more advanced civilizations from another time-space coordinate.
Speaking of Stephen Hawkins I believe it is pertinent to note that Michael Green has recently replaced him from his chair position at Cambridge. His mathematical explanation of the string theory leads me to believe that we may be all better off thinking ‘out of the box’ when trying to understand and explain the megaliths.
In closing, I would once again thank all of you for your input, even the "Oh My"s. Additionally I would appreciate your continued aassistance in understanding so much about this complex era.
Profile
Reply
|
transworld_Traveler
Joined:
18-10-2009
Messages: 8
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-11-2009 at 01:24
My interest in the constellations and stars continues. As far as needing dates., that should be straightforward. For Stonehenge, for example, the date of the summer solstice from around 4,000 B.C. to about 2,500 B.C. would be good for starters. The question being, more precisely, at dawn on the days of the summer solstices from about 4,000 B.C. to 2,500 B.C. what constellations or single prominent stars would have been present in the skies around the rising sun and possibly more importantly, in the skies opposite the rising sun?
Profile
Reply
|
transworld_Traveler
Joined:
18-10-2009
Messages: 8
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-11-2009 at 02:08
Found a link to the “air shafts” of the pyramids to Orion’s belt and Thuban which is ,along with Draco part of the dragon. My father was a detective in a major city, head of the vice squad in fact. He told me that there was no such thing as a coincidence. I believed my dad. I do not believe that the relationships to certain stars are coincidental.
The shaft of the pyramids point to Orion’s Belt and to Thuban, or at least did around 2,500 B.C. Why?
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2639
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-11-2009 at 08:16
Quote:
|
On 2009-11-05 00:29, transworld_Traveler wrote:
T
Correct me if I am wrong, but going from primitive cave drawings in 10,000 B.C. to simple geometric symbols in 7,000 B.C to understanding global geography, complex advanced mathematics, solar & lunar alignments, astronomy ….and on & on in 4,000-3,000B.C. is an abrupt acceleration of the learning curve.
|
|
The tan -Tan figurine is 400,000 years old ,Berekhat ram 300,000 ,Cup marks in Auditorium Cave 290,000 .In Europe the bone fragments with geometric markings 120,000 etc .The geometric markings /symbols were much earlier as above e.g. Blombos cave was 80,000 years ago .The "cave drawings " or more accurately paintings of southern Europe were painted 30, 000 .That is some evidence of relatively primitive cultures ,much of it only discovered in the past 2 centuries .We have no evidence of any "visits" from a technologically superior culture . There was no sudden jump aided or otherwise like most thing in nature it was a gradual Darwinian curve with the the odd Gouldian punctuated equilibrium.
george
Profile
Reply
|
davidmorgan
Joined:
23-11-2006
Messages: 1601
from The New Forest
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-11-2009 at 10:02
You really ought to read a bit about ancient human history before you make daft comments about alien visitations, t_Traveller.
E.g. check out the phase of human development when we went from being fairly nomadic hunter-gatherers to being settled agriculturalists - the rate of progress speeded up because they had the time/wealth to sit around thinking.
By the way, global geography and advanced mathematics came a lot later - way after we'd even learned how to read and write.
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 5526
from Oxon
 ON-Line
| Posted 05-11-2009 at 18:39
Quote:
|
On 2009-11-05 02:08, transworld_Traveler wrote:
Found a link to the “air shafts” of the pyramids to Orion’s belt and Thuban which is ,along with Draco part of the dragon. My father was a detective in a major city, head of the vice squad in fact. He told me that there was no such thing as a coincidence. I believed my dad. I do not believe that the relationships to certain stars are coincidental.
The shaft of the pyramids point to Orion’s Belt and to Thuban, or at least did around 2,500 B.C. Why?
|
|
The shafts from the kings chamber and queens chamber all point north and south, the angle they are inclined at match up to stars in time that coincides with a date of 10,500 bc, at which point the sun would also have been at its extremity in relation to the 26,000 year cycle.
That points to the pyramids been built to match the exact opposite point in the cycle as we are in now.
it needs remebering that various different sands have been found in these shafts which points in my reasoning to them been atuned as antennae direct at the stars, the sands may have been inter-changeable to atune to different resonances, imo.
If the date of 10500 bc is correct and iron plates were found built into the pyramids, bang goes all known history and dating.
kevin
Profile
Reply
|
davidmorgan
Joined:
23-11-2006
Messages: 1601
from The New Forest
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-11-2009 at 20:36
Quote:
| On 2009-11-05 18:39, cropredy wrote:
If the date of 10500 bc is correct |
|
Of course it isn't correct. There is no evidence for it, whereas there is a huge amount of evidence to show that the 3rd millennium BCE is the correct date.
Profile
Reply
|
cerrig
Joined:
25-09-2009
Messages: 907
from Brecon Beacons
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-11-2009 at 20:49
Quote:
|
On 2009-11-05 20:36, davidmorgan wrote:
[quote]On 2009-11-05 18:39, cropredy wrote:
If the date of 10500 bc is correct |
|
Of course it isn't correct. There is no evidence for it, whereas there is a huge amount of evidence to show that the 3rd millennium BCE is the correct date.
[/quote]
is there a record of the building of the great pyramid. i don't think it's as cut and dried as the evidence suggests.
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 5526
from Oxon
ON-Line
| Posted 05-11-2009 at 21:15
Quote:
|
On 2009-11-05 20:36, davidmorgan wrote:
[quote]On 2009-11-05 18:39, cropredy wrote:
If the date of 10500 bc is correct |
|
Of course it isn't correct. There is no evidence for it, whereas there is a huge amount of evidence to show that the 3rd millennium BCE is the correct date.
[/quote]
HUGE amount, such as?
Kevin
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2639
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-11-2009 at 22:00
Quote:
|
On 2009-11-05 18:39, cropredy wrote:
[quote]
On 2009-11-05 02:08, transworld_Traveler wrote:
Found a link to the “air shafts” of the pyramids to Orion’s belt and Thuban which is ,along with Draco part of the dragon. My father was a detective in a major city, head of the vice squad in fact. He told me that there was no such thing as a coincidence. I believed my dad. I do not believe that the relationships to certain stars are coincidental.
The shaft of the pyramids point to Orion’s Belt and to Thuban, or at least did around 2,500 B.C. Why?
|
|
The shafts from the kings chamber and queens chamber all point north and south, the angle they are inclined at match up to stars in time that coincides with a date of 10,500 bc, at which point the sun would also have been at its extremity in relation to the 26,000 year cycle.
That points to the pyramids been built to match the exact opposite point in the cycle as we are in now.
it needs remebering that various different sands have been found in these shafts which points in my reasoning to them been atuned as antennae direct at the stars, the sands may have been inter-changeable to atune to different resonances, imo.
If the date of 10500 bc is correct and iron plates were found built into the pyramids, bang goes all known history and dating.
kevin
[/quote]
As usual when seeing that sort of stuff , I wasn't going to bother replying until I realised that this is not the mysteries section .
Dating buildings by their putative orientations is not a good idea if you really are intersted in getting an accurate date , which i doubt is the case here . Same daft idea as the Bantu 75,000 year old circle(s)
Thuban at least makes some sort of sense even if it means the building being younger than expected .
The vast majority of monuments that have not provided dates through lack of excavation or anything to date them by association could provide any date you like by finding some stellar object that they were aligned upon at any time .
George
George
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 5526
from Oxon
ON-Line
| Posted 05-11-2009 at 22:20
Tiompan,
OK, leave out orientations, though this thread is about such?
What about the different sands in the so called air-shafts, any thoughts?
Why put different sand in them?
And the shafts do have direction and elevation, and they were blocked off.
Kevin
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2639
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-11-2009 at 22:49
Quote:
|
On 2009-11-05 22:20, cropredy wrote:
Tiompan,
OK, leave out orientations, though this thread is about such?
What about the different sands in the so called air-shafts, any thoughts?
Why put different sand in them?
And the shafts do have direction and elevation, and they were blocked off.
Kevin
|
|
The shafts are fascinating as their possible alignments too ,i jsut don't se why they should be used as a dating tool unless there was evidence to show they were definitely aligned on a something specific .
I don't know about the sand , although it's not going to suply a date .There was a piece of wood that had people excited years ago ,dunno what happened to that .
George
Profile
Reply
|
cerrig
Joined:
25-09-2009
Messages: 907
from Brecon Beacons
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-11-2009 at 00:08
robert bauval has some up to date info on the artifacts found in the pyramid on his website.
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 5526
from Oxon
ON-Line
| Posted 06-11-2009 at 00:12
The variable crystaline quality of the sands will be important in a none visual determination of the alignment and orientation of the shafts, you know , like radio was based on crystals, remember????
The shafts are aligned north /south, precisely, their angle of elevation will be to cyclic repeatable alignments with stars.
The question should be , What interaction/s are involved with such cyclic alignments, the specifics of which stars etc can be left to computer accountants that can re-wind the heavens of time .
Globally, but best shown by the great pyramid is a geometric and specific material alignment of constructions with more than mere visual phenomona is apparent.
The variable sands give the best of clues, if You allow your mind to contemplate other than what it has been stuffed solid with.
Or You can stick Your head in the sand and hope it all blows away, it won't.
kevin
Profile
Reply
|
davidmorgan
Joined:
23-11-2006
Messages: 1601
from The New Forest
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-11-2009 at 09:54
I see that even Bauval admits that it dates from the 3rd millennium BCE:
"As for the dating of the Great Pyramid, I maintain that the best estimate is still 2450 BC +/- 25 years as obtained with the inclination of the shafts."
http://www.robertbauval.co.uk/articles/articles/spence.html
Profile
Reply
| |
| Go to Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
|
|
|
|
|
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