| Author | Stonehenge, Newgrange, Avebury and the connection to Scotland |
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2326
from UK
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 27-09-2014 at 16:53
Newgrange
Newgrange’s layout, arrangements and symbols are shown to be the same as those required to establish that the sun has a fixed spiral ‘orbit’, allowing an idealised geocentric description of the Universe to be developed elsewhere (such as at Avebury and Stonehenge). Its inner stone monument is demonstrated to be capable of focusing solar light, using a simple method not relying on glass, to allow extremely accurate measurement.
Download pdf paper from slideshare here: Newgrange: The Sentinel (pdf)
The contention of this paper is that Newgrange was a device, part of a series of devices, that allowed subsequent structures (such as Stonehenge) to be developed as a depository of knowledge about the Universe.
Jon
PS pdf transferred to slideshare
[ This message was edited by: jonm on 2014-09-29 07:13 ]
 Profile
 Email
 Reply
|
Runemage
Joined:
15-07-2005
Messages: 3925
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 29-09-2014 at 11:01
Ainsloch's pic is here Jon http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=a312&file=index&do=showpic&pid=124469
So many authors have made the mistake of saying the sun's beam directly hits this stone.
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2326
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 29-09-2014 at 11:10
Is there an error in the paper Rune?
PS I managed to embed the paper into the blogsite: http://heavenshenge.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/newgrange.html
But couldn't work out how to do it into the Portal. Anyone know how?
[ This message was edited by: jonm on 2014-09-29 11:13 ]
Profile
Email
Reply
|
Runemage
Joined:
15-07-2005
Messages: 3925
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 29-09-2014 at 12:23
To my eyes there's no error in your paper Jon, nice theory as well.
I've no idea how to embed the paper in the forum, your link works well, it's easily accessible from that.
Profile
Reply
|
sem
Joined:
12-11-2003
Messages: 2809
from Bridgend,S.Wales
OFF-Line
| Posted 29-09-2014 at 13:02
Hi Jon
If you click on the "Share" option on the Slideshare and then on the "Embed" option, copying and pasting the code into a forum reply should work - I think!?!
Maybe Andy could confirm this.
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2326
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 29-09-2014 at 13:19
Thanks Sem
You're right! I thought we were still on the old embed code!
here it is:
[ This message was edited by: jonm on 2014-09-29 13:23 ]
Profile
Email
Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 943
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 29-09-2014 at 14:19
Read it. Loved it.
Excellent presentation. Very sensible.
Fix the sprelling.
Profile
Email
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2326
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 29-09-2014 at 16:50
Thanks Neil
Had a quick go at the spelling. Doubt I've caught all of it. Trying to do too many things at the same time.
Profile
Email
Reply
|
ainsloch
Joined:
04-08-2012
Messages: 177
from Belfast
OFF-Line
| Posted 01-10-2014 at 01:23
Hi Jon
Interesting ideas here, and nicely presented but there are several areas that I find unconvincing. I shall try to offer some constructive criticism.
To begin with, your introduction is based on conjecture; namely that the builders of Newgrange were fearful that the sun might rise and set further south in winter with all the climatic consequences that would ensue. However instead of fearing a change in the pattern of solar behaviour, they may well have been celebrating their ability to predict that behaviour, and self assured in the knowledge that the shorter, colder days will gradually lengthen and become warmer again. I guess my point here is, how much of your paper is dependent on the reader accepting the initial conjecture, and does the remainder of the paper naturally lead one to that type of conclusion? One could reasonably argue that Newgrange's design and construction (notably the light box, very long passage and expertly constructed chamber which all combine to channel the sun's rays) effectively supersede the use of a gnomon or sundial, which at the time of solstice would depend on observing the shadow of the sun at sunrise. Therefore it seems to me to be rather counter intuitive that such a technologically advanced monument, designed to receive light, would still require the use of shadow projection. To strengthen this argument you highlight the engravings of lozenges and crosses on the light box. However such carvings also appear in significant places at other megalithic mounds which don't have notable solar alignments, such as the sill stone at Gavrinis (a row of crosses) and a lintel above a recess in the chamber at Fourknocks (a row of lozenges). This would suggest that these symbols have a greater context. Of course any interpretation of abstract art tends to lend itself to accusations of subjectivity. Some see nothing but ornamentation, others view the spiral symbols at Newgrange as representing the circumpolar rotation of stars. Initially the chamber and passage would have been unroofed, and it has been suggested that water in the bowls placed in the recesses would have mirrored the heavens and facilitated their study. For the acceptance of such theories, there needs to be a lot of supporting evidence.
These are a few of the reservations I would have, overall I just find the evidence you have presented to be held together a bit tenuously for my liking at present. However I enjoyed reading the paper and am always open to persuasion 
Profile
Reply
|
cropredy
Joined:
01-01-2006
Messages: 7171
from Oxon
OFF-Line
| Posted 01-10-2014 at 11:14
Jonm,
Wonderfull, but.
I am bound to always say that it is blinded by the light.
I totally agree on the spiral nature of the sun, the moon, this planet, and all other planets and their moons.
It is highly complex to determine how this all plays out when the whole of the galaxy itself is in a dual spiral vortex motion.
It is My contention that light does not travel, it occurs as spiral fields meet and stress the structure of space.
What is presently measured as the speed of light been the net difference between opposing spirals, and that anything producing light in the visual spectrum is bound to produce the so called speed of light ( roughly, it varies )
The actual so called speed of field in space been near instant, space been a super conductive material
That the so called light box would be designed to hold a very specific block of quartz that would produce light relative to the stress imposed on it by the opposing spiral fields , and that such would occur regardless of the mass of earth blocking so called sunlight, as the field signals are penetrating all mass as if it wasn't there.
What is affected by mass is that which is travelling along the field signals in a piggyback fashion, commonly called serpents.
They have been termed such due to the competing spiral field creating the serpentine pathways for the constant variable piggyback flows .
Every structure I visit is built precisely to fit the field locally there, it is the variable other flows that imho contain information of TIME, of creation.
All of creation been symbiotic with these flows in determing the inputs/outputs , in other words a co-creative response.
Those who built these were the shaman, able to interact with information.
Kevin
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2326
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 02-10-2014 at 19:06
Hi Nick
Quote:
| Interesting ideas here, and nicely presented but there are several areas that I find unconvincing. I shall try to offer some constructive criticism.... To begin with, your introduction is based on conjecture; |
|
Thanks and agreed. Yes, it may well be that this monument is a celebration of their ability to predict that behaviour. I suppose that there are two separate theories in this respect: Firstly the theory speculating on motivation and secondly the 'engineering' theory (that it was a chamber designed to enable the behaviour of the sun at its far limit of southerly movement to be recorded).
The reason for bringing in the speculation was to give a reasonable motivation for so much effort to be expended on an engineering system. An alternative explanation, which doesn't necessarily impact on the 'engineering' theory is that this was a more intellectual pursuit.
Quote:
| Therefore it seems to me to be rather counter intuitive that such a technologically advanced monument, designed to receive light, would still require the use of shadow projection. |
|
I'll have to disagree on this one: Shadow projection, at the particular focal length of this chamber, enables the accuracy of the instrument to be fine tuned. For this particular arrangement, the use of light to form this type of specialist shadow would be a technological improvement: The system could still be used for the same purpose if you did not use shadow, however, it would not work quite as well.
Quote:
| To strengthen this argument you highlight the engravings of lozenges and crosses on the light box. However such carvings also appear in significant places at other megalithic mounds which don't have notable solar alignments, such as the sill stone at Gavrinis (a row of crosses) and a lintel above a recess in the chamber at Fourknocks (a row of lozenges). This would suggest that these symbols have a greater context. |
|
The way all this came about was to derive systems that would be required as a result of the initial observation: These systems appear to be duplicated in various monuments. For some of these systems, the specific design requirement is that it does not face towards a major event (such as solstice, equinox, lunar standstill etc). These other types of system would have similar descriptive symbols but arranged in a different pattern.
Without knowing more about the monuments you're looking at, it's very difficult to know if they contradict or support the sequence suggested by the systems: I did the above paper on the "Newgrange-type" system first because it is the easiest. The sequence does suggest a 'fear' motivation but, equally, this could have been an intellectual pursuit.
It's also possible that some monuments were constructed as late stage facsimiles or homages to the original ideas (for example in the way that Tim Daw has done:
link to Times article on Tim Daw). If these late stage 'facsimile' types of monument do exist, they may not correlate in any way to any of the original systems.
Quote:
| For the acceptance of such theories, there needs to be a lot of supporting evidence. |
|
That's a good point. Everyone has different boundaries for accepting evidence. If a single monument fits a development series, you can easily argue that this is chance. If two fit the same series, again it may be chance. I don't know how many monuments it would require before chance was considered less likely. Part of the reason for attacking this thread with an index and questions about how it should be done was to work out how many monuments should be correlated to this development sequence.
In the end I plumped for just the five (or six if you include Stonehenge). All very time consuming though. There's also a few dozen late stage ones covered in the book, but these don't explain the development sequence.
I like the slideshare method that Andy suggested. Below is the first one I did: Stonehenge. The full document can be found somewhere on the Portal (but with the extended book coming out, it's all a bit outdated now)
Quote:
| These are a few of the reservations I would have, overall I just find the evidence you have presented to be held together a bit tenuously for my liking at present. However I enjoyed reading the paper and am always open to persuasion |
|
Thanks. It's seriously useful to get comment on this: Especially reserved comment. An awful lot of people have said that I should just abandon it until I retire. But whether or not I would remember it all in 20 years time is another thing.
Jon
Profile
Email
Reply
|
cerrig
Joined:
25-09-2009
Messages: 2817
from Brecon Beacons
OFF-Line
| Posted 03-10-2014 at 11:00
Hi Jon
please don't leave this for 20 years . Have you looked at Maen Llia in relation to your star tracing example , it would seem to fit your mock up very well .
cerrig
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2326
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 04-10-2014 at 19:01
Quote:
| please don't leave this for 20 years |
|
Thanks Cerrig. It's sometimes difficult to argue with the notion that anything associated with the past/archaeology is a retirement-only activity. The 'climate' angle (of what this might, at least partially, have been about) is a possible saving grace: It has the potential to attract significant additional resources to both archaeology and sustainability issues in the UK.
Quote:
| Have you looked at Maen Llia in relation to your star tracing example , it would seem to fit your mock up very well . |
|
It does seem to fit well but haven't looked in any depth.
All the best
Jon
Profile
Email
Reply
|
sem
Joined:
12-11-2003
Messages: 2809
from Bridgend,S.Wales
OFF-Line
| Posted 04-10-2014 at 21:34
And why not may I ask?
Could it be that other people look down on us in Wales because we have ancient monuments that are still intact (unlike Stonehenge) and are jealous? Or is it just our relationship with sheep?
Profile
Reply
|
ainsloch
Joined:
04-08-2012
Messages: 177
from Belfast
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-10-2014 at 10:34
Hi Jon,
I shall echo Cerrig and Sem's sentiments here, definitely don't leave your research for twenty years! You have presented some interesting ideas which deserve to be properly fleshed out. For me with Newgrange they don't quite gel to give a definite conclusion at present, the shadow projection idea is definitely novel and intriguing though. I just wonder if a better effect could be created by narrowing the opening of the aperture (with wood or cloth for example) to reduce the amount of light entering, and hence narrow the focus of the light beam. There is also the possibility that the wider opening was intended to allow moonlight to reach the chamber too, although this would have been a more scarce event as opposed to the solstice sunrise. Interestingly Gavrinis would appear to have a primary alignment to the Moon, with a secondary, more approximate alignment to the winter solstice. Perhaps Newgrange is the same only in reverse.
However this is your area of study and you have been considering other sites and obviously see things in a different light. I would be interested in hearing more, and I hope I haven't put you off in any way as that was never my intention. Any open and honest approach which aims to shed new light on the enduring mystery of the megaliths is a good thing in my book.
[ This message was edited by: ainsloch on 2014-10-05 10:42 ]
Profile
Reply
|
sem
Joined:
12-11-2003
Messages: 2809
from Bridgend,S.Wales
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-10-2014 at 00:02
Hi Jon
If you think of Stonehenge as the 'Ultimate' it follows that there must be precursors and there are many of these in Wales.
We just need the archaeos to look at them.
Sem
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2326
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-10-2014 at 12:25
Hi Sem.
Quote:
| If you think of Stonehenge as the 'Ultimate' it follows that there must be precursors and there are many of these in Wales. |
|
Almost certainly Sem.
Quote:
| We just need the archaeos to look at them. |
|
It seems to me that there's a bit of a myth in the media about what professional archaeologists do. I might be wrong, but as far as I can tell there isn't anyone in the professional archaeological world who is funded to have an interest in knowing why neolithic people did what they did.
Archaeos would help if they could I guess. But if any of us think that there's something to all these weird coincidences (that many of the monuments happen to be the same as simple systems designed to allow people to know more about where and what they were living on), then we're on our own.
Hi Nick
Quote:
| I just wonder if a better effect could be created by narrowing the opening of the aperture (with wood or cloth for example) to reduce the amount of light entering, and hence narrow the focus of the light beam. |
|
The great thing about Newgrange is that it's so easy to check using cut-out pieces of card reduced to scale. The beam of light can be narrowed by reducing the aperture, but because the sun is 0.5 degrees wide you get a fuzzy beam shape produced. This is only OK providing your back surface is completely evenly shaded: If it is not, then you won't be able to properly see where the centre is.
The way to get around this is to use a lozenge (or square) shape: This gives you a slightly dark cross with a completely black centre. These days we have magnifying glass so don't need to think about how you would go it if optical instruments were not available.
All the best guys. Will get the next one out as soon as I can. Feel free to join in if you think you spot others with the same sets of explanatory coincidences.
Jon
Profile
Email
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2326
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 11-01-2015 at 08:14
Hi Guys
Was intending to do a bit more on this, but life (and death) got in the way. Am still planning to do Avebury, hopefully by year's end.
The film which used the Geocentric explanation for Stonehenge appears to be expanding it's reach in Cinemas over the USA, so not much chance of it being released on DVD. The producers have been on to comment that the audience reaction to Stonehenge has been one of the biggest impacts.
Jon
Profile
Email
Reply
|
DavidK
Joined:
17-10-2014
Messages: 1329
from Derbyshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-03-2015 at 10:51
It looks like it could be one of the spheres that Jackdaw has posted in this section. It looks as though there is a faint cross displayed.
Sorry, I am referring to the cloudy photo you posted 19/9/14 and asked for comments on what it could be.
What is it?
cheers
dave
[ This message was edited by: DavidK on 2015-03-06 11:07 ]
[ This message was edited by: DavidK on 2015-03-06 11:10 ]
Profile
Reply
|
jonm
Joined:
12-07-2011
Messages: 2326
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 06-03-2015 at 16:48
Hi David
It is a photograph of the cross-effect you get on the back-plate stone at Newgrange if you were to place a lozenge shape onto the shelf in the light-box at Newgrange in about 3000BC: At the correct focal length in a chamber such as Newgrange, a lozenge shape in a light-box will produce a fine cross with a dark pin-point centre (rather than just the fuzzy blob you get with just an opening to let the sun shine through).
There are a row of lozenges above that shelf at Newgrange and a row of crosses (9 in total) on the outside of the lightbox. Within the tolerances of this method, and for only 9 days over solstice, this method would allow you to track the exact movement of the solstice position of the sun from year to year. It also works beyond the 9 day band but does not allow tracking in that period because the sun's azimuth moves away from the solstice point.
Assuming you do not have optical lenses, this method is a way of tracking the sun's year to year movement to a much better accuracy than can be achieved by eye or other methods: If you were to do this, you would find that the sun does not move from year to year in your lifetime and that there is nothing to worry about (For example if you were worried that the the Sun might move away and make your lands cold). However, over 5000 years the solstice azimuth moves so this Chamber (at Newgrange) would no longer work for that purpose.
All other methods (other than those using modern optical lenses) are less accurate resulting from diffusion deficiencies due to the effective diameter of the sun. The paper on all this is in the thread above. It's one of several methods of this type of thing which happen to be the same as are found in various UK and Irish Neolithic monuments (but not continental ones for some reason).
I'm not sure what the balls of Scotland are about. For reasons connected to an additional use at Newgrange, but only when used in combination with a second system that happens to look exactly like Knowth (another monument at Bru na Boinne), you would also need stone balls or something similar. However carved balls would be unnecessary, so I doubt they are related.
Cheers
Jon
Profile
Email
Reply
|
