Heavens' Henge

[jon]

I take it, Jon, that you have stumbled on this independently. However, I think it goes back to John Michell (or one of his acolytes) originally and certainly it was discussed on the Graham Hancock website.

I didn't know that! I have one of Hancock's books but haven't come across this one before.

There are tales of Stonehenge being 'special' because of the sunset winter solstice/sunrise summer solstice being the same alignment, but when I did the figures it turned out that there are vast numbers of places where that alignment is the same: Having the solstices aligned is quite likely wherever you do it (especially the nearer you get to the equator)

Jon, I couldn't (as per usual) follow your technical arguments but I would be obliged if you would take up the Great 51 Degree Debate since it might be critical. First of all, could you give an account of how you did come to stumble upon it?

Apologies for this. I often forget to explain it fully. I stumbled across it some time ago but didn't think it important at the time. I was using a sunset calculator to see where else alignments of this type might be special. If it's of interest, I'll list them. But only when I did the list did I notice that only the Stonehenge latitude had this special feature. So I recalculated to see if anywhere else had it that wasn't on the list: There was nowhere else.


If you know where North is, you can draw a line showing which way to look. But you'll also need to know what angle to look at. If you draw a circle of seven equal parts, starting at your North line, then place a stick pointing towards North and a stick pointing to the first division, tie the two together, you have an angle: If you raise the stick from the flat, you'll find it points to the North Star.

This only happens at the latitude of Stonehenge. Stonehenge is 1/7th round the world from the equator (at a latitude of 51 degrees: 51/360 = 1/7)

It's perhaps not a coincidence that Stonehenge had a circle (the Aubrey Holes) composed of seven parts, each with seven intermediate markers (making a total of 56 Aubrey holes)

It's also perhaps not a coincidence that Goseck in Germany also has these same lines, but each 1/7th from south rather than north and with one entrance looking North. By comparison, Stonehenge has one entrance looking South and one at 1/7th from North).



But there's something really special you can do with the Stonehenge arrangement that you can't do with the Goseck arrangement. Would take too long to go into it here.


Back to Stonehenge: If you wait until sunrise of the summer solstice, you'll also find that sunrise also occurs along exactly the same 1/7th line (it's 51 degrees from north to the Heel Stone). The same thing is true at Goeseck: The sunrise at winter solstice is the same line, more or less, as the sunset at summer solstice.

Again, this only happens at the latitude of Stonehenge. Try it anywhere else and it will not work: The further north you go, the higher the polar axis is in the sky, but at the same time, the angle of solstice sunrise (from North) gets lower.

If you go South, the polar axis gets lower in the sky, but the angle of solstice sunrise gets higher. So this special coincidence of the axes only occurs at this latitude.


Is that any good as explanation?

All the best

Jon

[jon]

Does the video need uploading to somewhere like Youtube?

It will be posted to one of the boards. Probably not Youtube, but similar embed code. They're a film company so I've no control over the format or what emded code they'll use. If I know how to do it using Youtube code, I'll probably be able to work out how to do it with other provider videos!

[Mick Harper]

I'm a little bit the wiser. I seem to recollect that one-sevenths were important in the original 51 degree finding but I may be getting mixed up with something else. However, one thing I didn't get ("One thing," he says) is this

If you know where North is, you can draw a line showing which way to look. But you'll also need to know what angle to look at. If you draw a circle of seven equal parts, starting at your North line, then place a stick pointing towards North and a stick pointing to the first division, tie the two together, you have an angle: If you raise the stick from the flat, you'll find it points to the North Star.

That seems to read: 1. Find north 2. Diddly-twiddly 3. You've found north.

[jon]

That seems to read: 1. Find north 2. Diddly-twiddly 3. You've found north.

Haha: Yes it does read that way. Probably tried to simplify it a bit too much. Once you've worked all this out, you can use an arrangement of 56 posts to teach/prove to other people what the numbers are.

If you also happen to have a south entry (as at Stonehenge). You can look in that general direction at night to see how high up the equatorial stars rise (those stars which rise from due east and set due west). If you measure that angle, you'll find it is 6/56th above the horizon when the stars reach their maximum height (due south): as it happens, Stonehenge had a circle of 56 parts, so you can easily check this.

Add your 1/7th angle to the 6/56 angle that you've measured and you'll find that you have a perfect right angle: this is one way to show that the heavens are a sphere (which is what everyone thought up to about 400 years ago)

(1/7 = 8/56; 8+6 = 14; 14/56 = 1/4: 90 degrees: A right angle).
(The equatorial stars rise by 39 degrees: 6/56: Same as at Equinox the sun rises due east, reaches a maximum of 39 degrees, then sets due west)

Jon

[hvered]

Thanks, Jon. Your observations on the 51st latitude made me wonder again about a route, or ley line, on this latitude between Goseck and Stonehenge. It's unlikely to have existed in concrete terms, you'd have to wait for the Roman engineers for that, but there are of course sites predating the Romans en route. It shouldn't be hard to link up the circles though whether the 'road' came about before or after may be harder to determine.

[jon]

Thanks Harriet. I don't know much about potential routes if I'm honest: You guys are the experts in that.

Here's Kate Mulgrew, known for her role as the captain of the Starfleet starship USS Voyager in the US TV series, explaining the geocentric Universe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIqsVMQGoK0&feature=youtu.be&t=47m27s
(you have to right click, then "open in new tab" to get this to work)

This is from a discussion on a US religious channel about a new film (The Principle) which shows one part of the reasons Stonehenge was built in the late stages. However, the main focus of the documentary is on the latest interpretations of European Space Agency satellite results showing the cosmic microwave background data. Stonehenge's explanation is a relatively minor part of the film.

This new theory is also explained in the book, which has been used in the clip to explain man's early understanding of cosmology. The film is due for cinema release in the USA in the coming months. They've borrowed most of the text from my blog-site, which is kinda cool. (http://heavenshenge.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/of-hyperion-we-are-told.html)

All the best

Jon

[hvered]

Thanks for the link. The graphics look out of this world!

[macausland]

Channel Four produced a documentary in 2002 on sound and resonance in ancient stone circles etc.

The scientists and their experiments in the film are well worth listening to.

The hand waving archaeologists and their hippy re-enactors from Central Casting not much worth listening to but worthwhile enduring for the scientific bits and the shots of the various monuments.

The archaeologists seem to have several theories, Stonehenge was built four thousand years ago by an elite which used sound to control the masses.

What they don't explain is how the 'elite' knew about sound and how to build the correct structures and how they could control the masses and get them to do the work of building them before they were built so they could control them. Or something like that.

Perhaps Stonehenge was an ancient prototype for the HAARP project in Alaska?

Also they don't really explain whether these structures were receiving stations or transmitting stations or both, except for controlling the masses that is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVb9Q4KBOLc

[Boreades]

The sound and resonance would have been a lot better if it had a roof on it.

[macausland]

Some of them have roofs

But then the Rolling Stones don't seem to need roofs