ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ

Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ  permalink

Astronomy Constants and the Avebury Landscape?

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by J Jacobs (U9505276) on Tuesday, 8th January 2008

  "The Avebury to Silbury Hill arc ... is nearly the same length as that between these largest of long barrows .... 0.013178Β°... Both arcs present astronomical constants: days per lunar orbit and the lunar anomalistic period... The anomalistic lunar period is 27.5545 days and sidereal lunar orbit is 27.32166 days. Dividing circumference by these constants times 1,000 equals the monument arcs."
  
  "The solstice angle at the Silbury Hill to East Kennet latitudes ranged from 130.72 to 130.71 degrees E of N...." and "Avebury to Silbury Hill arc ... = 0.013070Β°..."
  
  From: Winter Solstice and Long Barrows. Astronomy Constants and the Avebury Landscape? Perhaps.
  
  
  

  Link to this forum: Astronomy Constants and the Avebury Landscape?

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 9th January 2008

  Interesting but I have a couple of questions.
  
  Why use the equatorial circumference of the earth? Wouldn't it be more suitable to use the meridonal circumference on which the monuments lie?
  
  If you do the same maths with the west kennet long barrow to the third barrow in the line you get 180.04 which doesn't seem to have much significance in the calender.
  
  Is it possible that the two selected distances are just coincidences?

  Link to this forum: Astronomy Constants and the Avebury Landscape?

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 9th January 2008

  The local historian and amateur mathematician J. Pringle once calculated that Avebury has produced 1 Member of Parliament, 3 two headed sheep, 7 mentions on the Today Programme and 9,460,730,472,580.8 words of absolute rubbish on the internet pertaining to its mystical qualities. Ironically those same numbers - 1, 3, 7 and the big one - when added together equal the distance in kilometres light travels in one year plus 11 (which means the MP, mutant sheep and Today Programme are totally irrelevant to the equation, of course). Amazing!

  Link to this forum: Astronomy Constants and the Avebury Landscape?

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Thursday, 10th January 2008

  So that proves neolithic Swindonians correctly predicted the rise of the internet and built monuments to celebrate it?

  Link to this forum: Astronomy Constants and the Avebury Landscape?

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 10th January 2008

  The incredible similarity between at least four of the stones and Al Gore's profile should answer that question, I feel.

  Link to this forum: Astronomy Constants and the Avebury Landscape?

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by J Jacobs (U9505276) on Sunday, 13th January 2008

  You have "a couple of questions."
  
  > Why use the equatorial circumference of the earth?
  > Wouldn't it be more suitable to use the meridonal
  > circumference on which the monuments lie?
  
  I'll begin by supposing you mean meridional section. The meridional circumference is the polar circumference and is equal everywhere. Degrees have distinct surface lengths from equator to pole on the ellipsoidal geoid.
  
  Coincidentally, along the meridian, near this latitude (Avebury is placed at one-seventh of circumference from the equator) the meridian section is very near equal to the equatorial circumference.
  
  However, the calculations are degrees of arc, and the conversion to meters is representational of the arc length, not a measurement on the site.
  
  > Is it possible that the two selected
  > distances are just coincidences?
  
  There are a lot of hurdles to overcome if it is not coincidence. That would infer surveying, accurate astronomy, and scaling the earth accurately. These "coincidences" posits big questions about knowledge 5500 years ago.
  
  Anything is possible, including human geographic knowledge 5500 years ago.
  
  We can determine probabilities if a hypothetical question is framed and properly tested.

  Link to this forum: Astronomy Constants and the Avebury Landscape?

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Monday, 14th January 2008

  I'll begin by supposing you mean meridional section.Β 
  
  Yes, you were correct to assume that I misspelt "meridional", after all what else would I have meant? Banana? But thanks for drawing attention to my spelling mistake, I hoped that posters could cope with the odd typing error. I humbly apologize for typing and not properly proof-reading. I sincerely pray that all the readers will forgive me my laziness.
  
  Fair enough if it's calculated by arc and then converted into length.
  
  There are a lot of hurdles to overcome if it is not coincidence. That would infer surveying, accurate astronomy, and scaling the earth accurately. These "coincidences" posits big questions about knowledge 5500 years ago.Β 
  
  Very many hurdles indeed, yet the "evidence" that these hurdles were overcome are based on a couple of measurements from a site which has hundreds of potential measurements. The second photo on the link alone has 7 lines, only two of which demonstrate any connection to astronomical measurements. If they knew that sort of knowledge, don't you think it would be everywhere? Wouldn't all the distances have special meaning?
  
  Anything is possible, including human geographic knowledge 5500 years ago. Β 
  
  Possible, but not probable.

  Link to this forum: Astronomy Constants and the Avebury Landscape?

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by Hossam-Aboulfotouh (U2914961) on Friday, 18th January 2008

  What about the encoded astronomical message in the design of the Stonehenge, did you study that?

  Link to this forum: Astronomy Constants and the Avebury Landscape?

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 19th January 2008

  Yes - thanks to the discovery in Wiltshire some years ago of the "Liath Aifeiseach", the stone on which was conveniently transcribed the same text in both ancient Cro-Magnon and modern English, much of the mystery concerning Stonehenge could at last be unravelled. The placement of the "altar stone", for example, with one end pointing north northwest, one end pointing south southeast, and the top pointing upwards, translates into an astronomical statement - "Wow - that sky thingy is bloody big, isn't it?". The standing stones, which have puzzled scientists, druids and passing travelling salesmen for generations are, in fact, simply a string of exclamation marks!
  
  The position of the A303, first referred to by Tacitus in his little known "Pointless Dual Carriageways built by Barbarians" (some things never change), has also been revealed to be a forlorn attempt to construct a prehistoric "information super highway" from Honiton in Devon to the Dog Star Sirius. It fell short of its destination at one end and ended up in Basingstoke (from the Cro-Magnon "Bah Zyngs Toke" which can now be translated as "Oh sod it. Let's just have a funny smoke instead!".

  Link to this forum: Astronomy Constants and the Avebury Landscape?

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 9.

  Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Saturday, 19th January 2008

  Nordmann
  
  Fascinating facts as always, but could you give some references so that the less well informed of us can study these exciting discoveries?
  
  I have looked through every page of my comprehensive collection of The Daily Star and failed to find a single reference to the Cro-Magnon language or Tacitus’s lesser known works.
  
  I doubt that any reference source could come close to the masterly works of The Daily Star but if there are such in existence then please let us all know.
  
  
  I do need to know because I have a pebble in my garden that is uncannily pointing directly at the pole star and there does appear to be ancient text in the form of parallel lines printed onto its label.
  

  Link to this forum: Astronomy Constants and the Avebury Landscape?

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 10.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 19th January 2008

  I think you'll find the clue to your failure in researching this subject lies in the title of your reference source. I mean, what on earth is a "daily" star? Even the morons who built Stonehenge (the only race on these islands known to have become extinct due to an outbreak of hernias) knew that stars were "night thingies". Mind you, they also thought that they were the campfires lit by alien building contractors in the heavens who might be inveigled to come this way and help them with their nascent A303 (which had just arrived in the fleshpots of Basingstoke, for which reason it was proving difficult to motivate the workers to go any further). Not only that it had veered slightly off course and its dimension now no longer represented a mathematical encoding of the latent energy contained by the sun and its heat to light ratio, but instead the inside leg measurement of a Miss Jennifer Peebles, Stonehenge Cuttings, Stonehenge, Stonehengeland (addresses were easier to remember in those days).

  Link to this forum: Astronomy Constants and the Avebury Landscape?

  Report message11

• Message 12

  , in reply to message 11.

  Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Saturday, 19th January 2008

  Nordmann
  
  A cruel and wicked slight on the auspicious Daily Star and totally uncalled for, there is plenty of evidence that the esteemed writers of the unquestionably accurate Daily Star are every bit as moronic as any that have come before.
  
  As for Miss Jennifer Peebles this uncannily named lady was featured within my primary reference source, 12th July 1978 on page 3 and spreading out onto page 4.
  
  
  These simply cannot be coincidences and obviously stem from a hitherto unknown prehistoric human understanding.
  I may even compile a book detailing all the alignments of rocks and pebbles within my garden with the celestial bodies, or maybe with just Miss Jennifer Peebles body.
  

  Link to this forum: Astronomy Constants and the Avebury Landscape?

  Report message12

• Message 13

  , in reply to message 12.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 19th January 2008

  I think someone has beaten you to it. I am nearly sure there's an online "university" based somewhere vaguely in and around the Eastern Mediterranean offering degree courses in exactly that subject!
  
  "3 Year sub-masters level course: Pyramid technology, the secrets of the universe (all of it), and Jennifer Peebles topography - in 8 easy to navigate modules. Send us your credit card details for further information and avail of our limited offer! A poster-sized glossy photo of the voluptuous universe as portrayed by Jennifer in our course material - brown paper wrapping of course. A knowledge of mathematics is not required - you will learn to make it up as you go along."

  Link to this forum: Astronomy Constants and the Avebury Landscape?

  Report message13

• Message 14

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by J Jacobs (U9505276) on Sunday, 20th January 2008

  I'm sorry you misunderstood me.
  
  You responded, "Yes, you were correct to assume that I misspelt (sic) "meridional", after all what else would I have meant? Banana? ..."
  
  I didn't notice. I was referring to meridional measure. The 1980 Geodetic Reference System posited a 6,378,137 m semi-major axis and 1 : 298.257 flattening. To approximate the size of 1 degree longitude centered on a given geodetic latitude, 1° longitude = (111.4128908 cos Ø - 0.0925 cos 3 Ø + 0.0001 cos 5 Ø) km. Each "section" of a meridian has a specific length "per degree" defined by the ellipsoid and specific to latitude. This is as distinct from the entire meridional circumference being the same for all longitudes. (Sorry if this seems pedantic. It's not your fault if the average post on a board is sub-intelligent).
  
  You also responded, "The second photo on the link alone has 7 lines, only two of which demonstrate any connection to astronomical measurements. If they knew that sort of knowledge, don't you think it would be everywhere? Wouldn't all the distances have special meaning?"
  
  That posited some interesting considerations. How did you determine there was no other "connection to astronomical measurements"?
  
  Here is a consideration. We possess astronomical knowledge, but is it everywhere? No. It is at the observatories, academic halls, libraries, but not everywhere.
  
  Here is another consideration. If two monuments demarcate a specified distance (by design, and two of these at the Avebury complex in particular are noted in the context of this thread), it could mean two monuments were built in a known geodetic relationship. In that context, you asked, "Wouldn't all the distances have special meaning?" Would that even remain possible as their number increases? Isn't this a bit like two inch ruler in my office must be exactly x feet apart, or neither can be a ruler?
  
  Finally, you responded to "Anything is possible, including human geographic knowledge 5500 years ago" with "Possible, but not probable." Of course, humans did have geographic knowledge 5500 years ago as sure as they had senses! The question posed is the extent of that knowledge by one civilization. Would you maintain that a past civilization could not achieve such basic cosmological determinations, and monumentalize them?
  
  Again, I'm sorry about any confusion. I'm trying to be clear, not petulant.

  Link to this forum: Astronomy Constants and the Avebury Landscape?

  Report message14

• Message 15

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by J Jacobs (U9505276) on Sunday, 20th January 2008

  The amount of research in the role of astronomy in past cultures is voluminous, and plenty of pseudoscience is in print too. There are well-accepted as well as much-debated interpretations of sites as having astronomically significant relationships of various kinds. That context and knowledge is still obscure for some untrained in the field.
  
  At Stonehenge, the debate continues. The same web domain discusses alternate interpretation of some Stonehenge claims, including the azimuth of the Heel Stone being 360/7, the same as Avebury's latitude. Enter Stonehenge in the home page Google search for more:
  
  Summing up, yes, you are correct to point to the context of a recognition of the role of astronomy in ancient monuments. Demystifying that role requires good science with open, intelligent discourse on findings, method, and theory. Do you know of any science discussion groups with such discourse?

  Link to this forum: Astronomy Constants and the Avebury Landscape?

  Report message15

Back to top