Featured Title:
Free book with orders of £10 or over in our shop |
 |
| The Megalithic European |
 |
| 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, 113 guests and 0 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 3 of 6 ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 ) |
| Author |
Archaeo-astronomy question? |
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2658
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 06-11-2009 at 13:59
Quote:
|
On 2009-11-06 00:12, cropredy wrote:
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
|
|
It's ok in the mysteries section to tell people to stick their head in the sand or other cheeky comments regarding unsupportable unprovable nonsense as opposed to actually putting forward a case , but why infect this one with that content or attitude too . It's probably best to say nothing and ignore it , most sensibly do, but it can lead to another forum going down the mysteries pan .
George
 Profile
 Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 5549
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-11-2009 at 14:29
Tiompan,
said,
"Infecting"
So anyone proposing anything different to what is already unprovable and unsupportable is INFECTING.
The level of contempt You hold me in is very obvious in your post, have a nice day.
kevin
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2658
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-11-2009 at 14:49
Quote:
|
On 2009-11-06 14:29, cropredy wrote:
Tiompan,
said,
"Infecting"
So anyone proposing anything different to what is already unprovable and unsupportable is INFECTING.
The level of contempt You hold me in is very obvious in your post, have a nice day.
kevin
|
|
Level of annoyance is more appropriate .
George
Profile
Reply
|
cerrig
Joined:
25-09-2009
Messages: 909
from Brecon Beacons
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-11-2009 at 15:17
Quote:
|
On 2009-11-06 09:54, davidmorgan wrote:
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
|
|
it seems that to quote a date for the building of the giza pyramids will invite an alternative date, and a different reason why it's the right one. it's a tradition i fully support.
can you really date it by lining up a shaft with a star that passes by and then declaring that the date of this event was the date of construction. as these events don't occur for ever,if it was intended by the builders to include it in the design,they must have known it was going to happen,so they must have built the pyramid beforehand so that when the event occurred the thing was already built .
it would take a while to build a pyramid ,and an allowance for project overrun would be a minimum safeguard in the planning.
it's not inconceivable that the pyramid could have been built well before this date,maybe even thousands of years before.
the evidence to dispute that is not conclusive at all.
cerrig
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2658
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-11-2009 at 15:36
Quote:
|
On 2009-11-06 15:17, cerrig wrote:
[quote]
On 2009-11-06 09:54, davidmorgan wrote:
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
|
|
it seems that to quote a date for the building of the giza pyramids will invite an alternative date, and a different reason why it's the right one. it's a tradition i fully support.
can you really date it by lining up a shaft with a star that passes by and then declaring that the date of this event was the date of construction. as these events don't occur for ever,if it was intended by the builders to include it in the design,they must have known it was going to happen,so they must have built the pyramid beforehand so that when the event occurred the thing was already built .
it would take a while to build a pyramid ,and an allowance for project overrun would be a minimum safeguard in the planning.
it's not inconceivable that the pyramid could have been built well before this date,maybe even thousands of years before.
the evidence to dispute that is not conclusive at all.
cerrig
[/quote]
Planning a building to be built for a purpose thousands of years in advance seems unlikely , they were built quickly and with the most up to date technology and expertise available at the time . Even a few centuries earlier they falling apart due to incompetence . I don't know if there are any mentions of contemporaneous writings about the shafts being aligned on anything in particular if not it's guess work , but the Bauval suggestions make sense .
george
Profile
Reply
|
cerrig
Joined:
25-09-2009
Messages: 909
from Brecon Beacons
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-11-2009 at 17:10
hi george
its not the theory behind the shafts i have a problem with, its the assumption that this dating refers to the building of it. just like the graffiti inside links it with khufu( was he the only person called khufu) it seems like slim evidence to me. it may be true, but it may not.
as for building something thousands of years in advance, what else could have been the motivation for the pyramids if not the need for them to last till well into the future, well beyond the lifetimes of the builders.
we may never know the reasoning behind the megaliths, but if we just accept the conventional view we never will.
cerrig
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2658
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-11-2009 at 18:24
Quote:
|
On 2009-11-06 17:10, cerrig wrote:
hi george
its not the theory behind the shafts i have a problem with, its the assumption that this dating refers to the building of it. just like the graffiti inside links it with khufu( was he the only person called khufu) it seems like slim evidence to me. it may be true, but it may not.
as for building something thousands of years in advance, what else could have been the motivation for the pyramids if not the need for them to last till well into the future, well beyond the lifetimes of the builders.
we may never know the reasoning behind the megaliths, but if we just accept the conventional view we never will.
cerrig
|
|
Cerrig , I agree that any megalithic monument shows a concern for permanence . But as the pyramids were probably the vanity project of a pharoh I think it likely they were planned within the pharoh's lifetime . I don't have a clue about the reasoning behind megaliths and not too sure what the conventional view is either .
I have heard a few unconventional views none of which strike me as being likely .
George
Profile
Reply
|
cerrig
Joined:
25-09-2009
Messages: 909
from Brecon Beacons
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-11-2009 at 19:09
the conventional view is the safe one george, i think you know that.
cerrig
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 5549
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-11-2009 at 19:26
Tiompan,
Would You say that Abydos is any pharohs vanity concept?
Kevin
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2658
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-11-2009 at 19:38
Quote:
|
On 2009-11-06 19:09, cerrig wrote:
the conventional view is the safe one george, i think you know that.
cerrig
|
|
No , not sure what you mean Cerrig , but if suggesting "Stonehenge -cemetery " is considered safe or conventional ,it seems more likely to be nearer the primary function of the monument from the viewpoint of the builders than "Stonehenge - energy producer " . "Stonhenge -observatory " etc
George
Profile
Reply
|
davidmorgan
Joined:
23-11-2006
Messages: 1610
from The New Forest
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-11-2009 at 19:59
Quote:
| On 2009-11-06 19:09, cerrig wrote:
the conventional view is the safe one |
|
The conventional view is most likely to be the correct one, regarding the pyramids. In order to show that they are thousands of years older than accepted, you need to come up with some extraordinarily good evidence, of which there is none. And you would need to disprove all of this for starters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_Egyptian_chronology
Perhaps the real question here is - why do you not accept the conventional view? A view that has been arrived at over decades of research by professional Egyptologists who know far more about the subject than you.
Profile
Reply
|
cerrig
Joined:
25-09-2009
Messages: 909
from Brecon Beacons
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-11-2009 at 20:01
pyramid "crypt", passage mound"tomb", standing stone"waymarker",ancient britons"illiterate savages" all conventional views george,how many do you agree with.
Profile
Reply
|
cerrig
Joined:
25-09-2009
Messages: 909
from Brecon Beacons
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-11-2009 at 20:22
Quote:
|
On 2009-11-06 19:59, davidmorgan wrote:
[quote]On 2009-11-06 19:09, cerrig wrote:
the conventional view is the safe one |
|
The conventional view is most likely to be the correct one, regarding the pyramids. In order to show that they are thousands of years older than accepted, you need to come up with some extraordinarily good evidence, of which there is none. And you would need to disprove all of this for starters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_Egyptian_chronology
Perhaps the real question here is - why do you not accept the conventional view? A view that has been arrived at over decades of research by professional Egyptologists who know far more about the subject than you.
[/quote]
hi david,
i don't think you misunderstood my post. i didn't say the pyramid was thousands of years older than the generally accepted date,i just said that dating it using the methods mentioned proves nothing. the thousand year quote was to illustrate my point,it wasn't a statement of belief,although it wouldn't surprise me if it turned out to be true.
and the reason i don't accept the conventional view , well again i didn't say that. i believe there is a lot of truth in the conventional view,but i also have a mind of my own, and i won't blindly accept everything i'm told,whether it's by people who should know better or not.
Profile
Reply
|
davidmorgan
Joined:
23-11-2006
Messages: 1610
from The New Forest
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-11-2009 at 20:51
I agree that the shaft alignment theory is probably a red herring, but you did say...
Quote:
| On 2009-11-06 15:17, cerrig wrote:
it's not inconceivable that the pyramid could have been built well before this date,maybe even thousands of years before. |
|
I would say it is inconceivable, based on the historical context in which they were built (and we're not just talking about one pyramid here, there are over a hundred pyramids in Egypt).
By that way that Bauval reference I gave has less to do with the shaft alignment and more to do with a disagreement about the Egyptians' attempt at finding due north as posed by Dr Spence (their measurements slipping because of precession).
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2658
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-11-2009 at 20:54
Quote:
|
On 2009-11-06 19:26, cropredy wrote:
Tiompan,
Would You say that Abydos is any pharohs vanity concept?
Kevin
|
|
It's a totally different type of site /monument from a pyramid .
Nevertheless it's likely who ever was boss would have had a major impact on it .
George
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 5549
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-11-2009 at 21:12
DavidMorgan,
"Due North"
As We are far more North than I generally venture upon here, I can't say how I find Due north , but needless to say it has nothing to do with a compass bearing.
I do Know that it never varies though, whether it corresponds to any celestial positions I don't know.
And the problem is exactly what has begun to be discussed on here with regards to" accepted "
If I mention a cerain word something akin to the late sadly missed Thorgrims hammer will descend upon me.
Because it is not accepted.
The lat/long of the great pyramid is vital, imo.
Kevin
Profile
Reply
|
cerrig
Joined:
25-09-2009
Messages: 909
from Brecon Beacons
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-11-2009 at 21:51
i don't know about the shaft theory being a red herring,it's plausible i suppose,although being blocked up doesn't help it's cause. it just doesn't ring true as a way to date the building of the pyramid.
cerrig
Profile
Reply
|
davidmorgan
Joined:
23-11-2006
Messages: 1610
from The New Forest
OFF-Line
| Posted 07-11-2009 at 13:23
Due north is pretty easy to find - you just bisect the angle of the rising and setting of stars on the northern horizon. I find the idea of the plumb line hanging between a couple of circumpolar stars a little bit strange because it makes it more complicated - and you would already have to know where north was before this worked. Perhaps the Egyptians weren't very good at astronomical measurements after all - I think they were more into stars in the astrological sense.
I too reckon the shafts are irrelevant to the whole dating thing and probably had nothing to do with an "alignment", apart maybe from the fact that one of them faces to the northern "eternal" (always in the sky) circumpolar stars.
Basically you can make up any alignment you want and get a date from it - which is exactly what the pseudo-archaeologists (Bauval, Hancock, etc) have done.
Profile
Reply
|
peterlynch
Joined:
12-08-2009
Messages: 6
from anglesey
OFF-Line
| Posted 08-11-2009 at 11:48
at the risk of sounding a bit dim, if light travels then surely it is restricticted by time
Quote:
|
On 2009-10-23 13:42, transworld_Traveler wrote:
Thanks you all very much! You have been very helpful. I have been out of town & will be for another week. When I return we will further the discussions, hopefully. What I am getting at is the possibility of the megaliths being used as antennae for electromagnetic wave signals from distant time-space coordinates. The mass associated with the solar & lunar alignments could possibly be used as gravitational ‘magnets’ helping to focus those waves into the general direction of the megaliths. The mass of the megaliths may be enough to further focus the waves already attracted by the sun, moon &/or stars to their location. Light waves, I do believe are not bound by restrictions of time. Combining digitalalized light waves into programmable messages could make ‘time travel possible’ could it not? At least for information!
The question presented considering these possibilities, would be from where did such signals originate. Therein lays the need to see if there is a logical or real relationship to some area(s) of space with the megaliths. If there is a common site or sites from which the megaliths could be targeted corresponding to the solar &/or lunar alignments it would warrant further investigation would it not?
|
|
Profile
Reply
|
sem
Joined:
12-11-2003
Messages: 1710
from Bridgend,S.Wales
OFF-Line
| Posted 09-11-2009 at 00:08
Me and my mate Nick were watching the rugby yesterday. At the start of the second half, by which time Wales looked to be stuffed and we were pretty drunk, Ugg (a denizen of the olde worlde) appeared.
Us: Hi Ugg, howsit hanging?
Ugg: It's hanging in the sky, that's wot's it doing. That bloody sun messes up the moon. Used to be a time when we could measure our days by the moon (my missus still swears by it).
Us: So the sun's not important then?
Ugg: Only if you're one of these New-Age farmer types. I prefer hunter-gathering.
Us: So what have you gathered lately
Ugg: I've gathered that you lot haven't a clue about wot we know. Bugger off and watch rugby.
Us: Cheers Ugg
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