| Author |
circle>square |
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2654
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 05-01-2013 at 22:15
At Stonehenge it's found in the square in the circle i.e. the Station stones .
Or simply two alignments that are at right angles regardless of the architecture . The cardinals are not necessary it's solstices and standstilsl
George
Quote:
|
On 2013-01-05 21:49, chimera wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-01-05 20:11, tiompan wrote:
There is aso the right angle found for solstice and standstill when the horizon and latitude are suitable . Which is what Freeman is getting at in his connection with SH the Majorville medicine wheel and Kazakhstan although there is a lot more leeway than is usually imagined by the believers in the choice of latitude having an impact on choice of the site .
George
[quote]
In that case we could expect a square either aligned to solstice or cardinal with corners to solstice. The right angle is not apparent in SH ring geometry.
|
|
 Profile
 Reply
|
chimera
Joined:
09-09-2006
Messages: 1508
from Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-01-2013 at 03:53
That's a bit wobbly. The 4 posts on the far boundary are a rectangle and can't be seen simultaneously from any 1 position inside SH lintels or inside the rectangle. A person needs to do a standstill for 6 months to observe the solstice right angles and be there at dawn and sunset to get the pair, which form a ' x ' not a square.
Yes the cardinals aren't necessary for SH but my q. is whether it was progress to move on to cardinal squares and geographic control by chiefs, rather than solar-powered religious status at 45 degrees off the cardinals.
Here is a serious square for real cardinals:
Angkor Wat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angkor_Wat
Angkor Wat Hindu temple complex and religious monument .
[ This message was edited by: chimera on 2013-01-06 03:59 ]
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 819
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-01-2013 at 07:30
Quote:
| Yes only circles can harmoniously contain the random angles. For another thing, a square SH would block or diminish the apertures between ring uprights, by geometry. The sighting would be o/o rather than oIo shape.
Cardinal squares can only align to Pole star and equinox which are a bit boring. Not male/female, not dying/ being born and not hot/cold seson. |
|
Thanks. But is that the entire argument for Stonehenge being purposefully aligned to solstice: Surely the argument that a solstice alignment also exists in a small minority of other selected monuments adds a little more weight?
Profile
Reply
|
chimera
Joined:
09-09-2006
Messages: 1508
from Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-01-2013 at 09:20
No it's a theory on why SH is a circle not square. And i suggest that solstice alignment may have been an exclusive privilege for chiefs /priests. SH seems a "national" project compared with "local" rings and barrows. The Station stones appear to be solstice. Why didn't the Avenue turn north to the river and Durrington and avoid that long travel?
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2654
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-01-2013 at 09:51
Yes the station stones ,not posts , are a rectangle but it is the right angles that are the point ,and what punters like the Freemans find intriguing as it includes the standstills and solstices . The megalithic monument would not have interfered with the view of those right angles .
George
Profile
Reply
|
chimera
Joined:
09-09-2006
Messages: 1508
from Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-01-2013 at 10:46
But you can't view a right angle, only a sun at 1 of 4 positions. If the thing was notable then a square set at 45 degrees would be suitable with a major opening in the centre of each wall facing the 4 soltices.
The Station stones may have done that if placed near the lintel ring like [O] plan but are clearly off the main design.
And geographic territory is north-south cardinal for unmovable directions, you can't walk to a distant place on the sun's track if it varies 90 degrees over the year.
[ This message was edited by: chimera on 2013-01-06 10:50 ]
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2654
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-01-2013 at 10:57
But you would only be viewing one angle at a time , it's the fact that the right angle includes both solar and lunar alignments . The station stones are related to the circular/horshoe architecture in that the diagonals intersect at the centre of the monument .
George
Quote:
|
On 2013-01-06 10:46, chimera wrote:
But you can't view a right angle, only a sun at 1 of 4 positions. If the thing was notable then a square set at 45 degrees would be suitable with a major opening in the centre of each wall facing the 4 soltices.
The Station stones may have done that if placed near the lintel ring like [O] plan but are clearly off the main design.
|
|
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 819
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-01-2013 at 15:47
Quote:
| Why didn't the Avenue turn north to the river and Durrington and avoid that long travel? |
|
Have you tried looking at a map of the area? A path straight on to Durrington would have aligned. It might even have met the horizon. Instead they took it north-east down to just above the boggy bit where the stream was, then turned it east to the river.
As conspiracy theories go, Buckingham Palace is much more convincing.
Profile
Reply
|
Dowser
Joined:
06-12-2008
Messages: 979
from North-East Poland
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-01-2013 at 16:03
Pyramids are on dowser force? -----Of course,yes.
How can Germans have a swastika and not be a dowser blitzkrieg force in the field?
----They used to use clockwise swastika instead of anticlockwise. Clockwise swastika brings bad luck.This mistake resulted from a lack of knowledge.
----
[/quote]
Profile
Reply
|
Dowser
Joined:
06-12-2008
Messages: 979
from North-East Poland
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-01-2013 at 17:06
But that is not an aswer to the questions .Here's the questions again .
"What evidence can you provide to to support your thought that megalithic structures were built “ according to the local course of the force lines of this odd field “ ?
To prove it, just take two L-shaped rods, close your eyes and trace lines around a menhir or around stones of any stone circle.Then you will see that all these stones are set in close depending on the course of these lines.Do it yourself,and you'll have the evidence.
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2654
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-01-2013 at 17:44
That's not evidence . I might consider that wishful thinking , with the position of the megaliths subconconsciously influencing the movement of the rods being the most likely explanation . Otherwise we might expect dowsers to have the site of missing stone sockets from monumnets to be confirmed or even better finding previously unknown examples , but that doesn't happen .
Don't you realise that most people who have problems with the claims of dowsing in relation to arcaheology have tried dowsing . The rods move , you record it ,try the same thing at the same place but later , and the rods don't correspond to the original movement or they don't correspond to what others find at the same spot . How can you possibly tell that the movement of rods today has anything to do with what the original builders intentions when there are so many other more likely explanations ?
Even if they did all correspond why should that explain the architecture of megalithic buildings ?
Odd that the Egyptians who you claim to be great dowsers never mention it in their writings , yet they do mention an interest in the heavens which can be seen reflected in their architecture e.g. the cardinal orientation of Giza & Abu Sir pyramids, Sphinx facing east etc .
George
Quote:
|
On 2013-01-06 17:06, Dowser wrote:
But that is not an aswer to the questions .Here's the questions again .
"What evidence can you provide to to support your thought that megalithic structures were built “ according to the local course of the force lines of this odd field “ ?
To prove it, just take two L-shaped rods, close your eyes and trace lines around a menhir or around stones of any stone circle.Then you will see that all these stones are set in close depending on the course of these lines.Do it yourself,and you'll have the evidence.
|
|
Profile
Reply
|
chimera
Joined:
09-09-2006
Messages: 1508
from Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-01-2013 at 20:27
[quote]
On 2013-01-06 10:57, tiompan wrote:
But you would only be viewing one angle at a time , it's the fact that the right angle includes both solar and lunar alignments . The station stones are related to the circular/horshoe architecture in that the diagonals intersect at the centre of the monument .
George
[quote]
Then viewing only 1 arm of 1 angle mentally can't equal the impact of the lintel ring of stones. The notional net of lines in the grass is like a UK flag with 2 x shapes which is not a square . The English cross could maybe indicate cardinal geography but it's more substantial than north-east views of a moving sun between megaliths in a circle.
Profile
Reply
|
chimera
Joined:
09-09-2006
Messages: 1508
from Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-01-2013 at 21:01
Quote:
|
On 2013-01-06 15:47, jonm wrote:
Quote:
| Why didn't the Avenue turn north to the river and Durrington and avoid that long travel? |
|
Have you tried looking at a map of the area? A path straight on to Durrington would have aligned. It might even have met the horizon. Instead they took it north-east down to just above the boggy bit where the stream was, then turned it east to the river.
As conspiracy theories go, Buckingham Palace is much more convincing.
|
|
Yes but why go southeast away from Durrington with a long promontory to paddle around? A path north from that river jetty track would make a much shorter distance.
Winter solstice sunrise has to be the correct answer /conspiracy.
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2654
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-01-2013 at 22:19
I think we must be talking at cross purposes , as the right angle comment was never about aesthetics and only mentioned as an example of what some people believed to be important about the choice of the site i.e. the fact that
right angles can provide the two lunar and solar alignments .
I don't believe that was the reason for choosing the site , or any other at a similar latitude where the phenomena will work , but it does work .
George
Quote:
|
On 2013-01-06 20:27, chimera wrote:
[quote]
On 2013-01-06 10:57, tiompan wrote:
But you would only be viewing one angle at a time , it's the fact that the right angle includes both solar and lunar alignments . The station stones are related to the circular/horshoe architecture in that the diagonals intersect at the centre of the monument .
George
[quote]
Then viewing only 1 arm of 1 angle mentally can't equal the impact of the lintel ring of stones. The notional net of lines in the grass is like a UK flag with 2 x shapes which is not a square . The English cross could maybe indicate cardinal geography but it's more substantial than north-east views of a moving sun between megaliths in a circle.
|
|
Profile
Reply
|
chimera
Joined:
09-09-2006
Messages: 1508
from Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-01-2013 at 23:00
But aesthetics is everything at SH. And the circle was built into the bare Salisbury plain by deliberate work-effort. Making repeated adjustments, removals and installations means that a stone square as 4 posts or constructed henges was possible, but was omitted. The right angles can't even be seen at any time, but only drawn as dotted lines on paper from an aerial plan.
Profile
Reply
|
tiompan
Joined:
09-01-2005
Messages: 2654
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-01-2013 at 23:17
Aesthetics had nothing to do with the point I was making which was concerned with the Station stones and their right angles which some believe to be a reason for choosing the site . The right angles can be seen in every case as the sarsen monument is contained within the rectangle of Station stones , it is only the diagonals that would be blocked by the megalithic monunment
George
Profile
Reply
|
Dowser
Joined:
06-12-2008
Messages: 979
from North-East Poland
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-01-2013 at 23:28
. I might consider that wishful thinking , with the position of the megaliths subconconsciously influencing the movement of the rods being the most likely explanation . --------Wishful thinking? With closed eyes?
. The rods move , you record it ,try the same thing at the same place but later , and the rods don't correspond to the original movement ------Lines shape changes in the time.Vlad wrote about it,and I agree with him,it's a fact,but chaged patterns of lines always are particular around some points
--.or they don't correspond to what others find at the same spot -----Yes,and it is a problem of sensitivity.Similarly, if you measure high resistance voltage source using voltmeter with internal resistance of 1kOhm you will have another result than using a voltmeter with a resistance of 1 Mohm
How can you possibly tell that the movement of rods today has anything to do with what the original builders intentions when there are so many other more likely explanations ,
Even if they did all correspond why should that explain the architecture of megalithic buildings ?
Odd that the Egyptians who you claim to be great dowsers never mention it in their writings , yet they do mention an interest in the heavens which can be seen reflected in their architecture e.g. the cardinal orientation of Giza & Abu Sir pyramids, Sphinx facing east etc .
----Of course ,some marks on megaliths can shows interesting astronomical direction,but basic aim of megalithic constructions was connected with this odd field.And simple egyptians were workers,not a constructors.What global society knew about technology of production of bomb A in 1944 y.?There was none public information about it.
Profile
Reply
|
sem
Joined:
12-11-2003
Messages: 1709
from Bridgend,S.Wales
OFF-Line
| Posted 07-01-2013 at 00:42
Chimera
Have you been to Stonehenge?
Best wishes
Sem
Profile
Reply
|
chimera
Joined:
09-09-2006
Messages: 1508
from Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 07-01-2013 at 01:37
A rectangle isn't a square and neither does SH have any floor-plan structural angles . The Station right angles only exist by mental effort by knowing the distant points, and are unavoidable if 4 points are symmetrical in a circle. Maybe Buck house has a curved driveway or garden borders or bathtub ends and can fit inside a circle connecting the corners. Sentry bear-skins are curved on top.
No sem, not in this life. If you tell people that SH makes a square they may ask you that q.
[ This message was edited by: chimera on 2013-01-07 01:57 ]
Profile
Reply
|
chimera
Joined:
09-09-2006
Messages: 1508
from Australia
OFF-Line
| Posted 07-01-2013 at 02:11
"And simple egyptians were workers,not a constructors.What global society knew about technology of production of bomb A in 1944 y.?There was none public information about it."
But there's kilometres and megalometres of Egyptian writing and coloured pictures showing what gods do in a day's work and the boats that travel the sky and the sun's force field. Pharaohs and priests raise their hands and none are dowsing.
Profile
Reply
|
Main News