Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • One standard for the Kewl Klown Kidz and another for daddies who need to be put down.

Topic: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures (Read 2910 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Martin.au
  • Thingyologist
Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #50
Hmmph. Was expecting another Pyramid numerology thread. :D
"That which can be asserted with evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." (Dave Hawkins)

Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #51
Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
August 17, 2016 by Robyn Mills

University of Adelaide research has for the first time statistically proven that the earliest standing stone monuments of Britain, the great circles, were constructed specifically in line with the movements of the Sun and Moon, 5000 years ago.

The research, published in the Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, details the use of innovative 2D and 3-D technology to construct quantitative tests of the patterns of alignment of the standing stones.
"Nobody before this has ever statistically determined that a single stone circle was constructed with astronomical phenomena in mind - it was all supposition," says project leader and University of Adelaide Visiting Research Fellow Dr Gail Higginbottom, who is also a Visiting Research Fellow at the Australian National University.

http://phys.org/news/2016-08-validate-ancient-astronomical.html
Let's pull this forward ... Testy says this is "interesting" ...

  • Faid
Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #52
It is!

Not as interesting as friggin' ATLANTIS, though.

So go ahead, tell us all about that! Have you started to "actually READ" the book yet?
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #53
Remember: it was YOU who said that this book is "actually worth READING, not just skimming".

So, no skimming through all the "chaff" to find the "wheat", buddy. Suck it all in. Them's the rules.

We'll be here.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #54
Quote
It is!
Why?

  • Faid
Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #55
Because it has for the first time statistically proven that the earliest standing stone monuments of Britain, the great circles, were constructed specifically in line with the movements of the Sun and Moon, 5000 years ago.

And I'm sure you agree with me, otherwise you wouldn't have used it in your OP.

Are we done with that? Good.

Now, why are Atlanteans "actually worth READING"?
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • JonF
Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #56
Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
August 17, 2016 by Robyn Mills

University of Adelaide research has for the first time statistically proven that the earliest standing stone monuments of Britain, the great circles, were constructed specifically in line with the movements of the Sun and Moon, 5000 years ago.

The research, published in the Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, details the use of innovative 2D and 3-D technology to construct quantitative tests of the patterns of alignment of the standing stones.
"Nobody before this has ever statistically determined that a single stone circle was constructed with astronomical phenomena in mind - it was all supposition," says project leader and University of Adelaide Visiting Research Fellow Dr Gail Higginbottom, who is also a Visiting Research Fellow at the Australian National University.

http://phys.org/news/2016-08-validate-ancient-astronomical.html
Let's pull this forward ... Testy says this is "interesting" ...
Yup, it is.  Not ground-breaking or especially new, but it's another brick in the wall.  One of the ways real science works.

Do you have anything to say about it?

(As if.)
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #57
"Atlanteans"?

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #58
"Atlanteans"?
Yeah.
You know from the "book actually worth READING.  Not just skimming."

"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #59
Yes, Atlanteans. People from Atlantis. specifically mentioned in the introduction to the book you're supposedly "reading".

:facepalm:
Why do I bother?

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #60
I see you haven't got that far into the book yet, Hawkins.
I guess it's going to be a long wait for any "golden nuggets".

"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #61
Here's a little item I'll throw out to you ...

Sir Isaac Newton tried to measure the earth accurately, right?  You guys know that I hope.    This was probably in the late 1600s.  Newton tried to find out earth measures from ancient writings and made some progress, but he failed to realize that the ancients had accounted for the "bulging" equator of the earth, so he set about figuring it out for himself.

Apparently he had not read a treatise by mathematician Edward Wright (1561-1615) entitled "Certain errors in navigation detected and corrected" ... Link here ... http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A67154.0001.001/1:7.1.8?rgn=div3;view=fulltext

in which Wright gave the meridian circumference as "6300 common Spanish Leagues" ...

If Newton had known this, he would have had a clue that the ancients WERE aware of the bulge ...

Why?

Because if we use the rational fraction 63/20 as an approximation for PI, we get the exact relationship between the earth's polar radius and the meridian circumference. 

Google it for yourself and you will see this ...

If you Google the polar radius, you will get "3949.93239 miles"

If you Google the meridian circumference, you will get "Circumference at the Poles 24,860 Miles"

If you divide the radius into the circumference, you will get a hair over 6.29 which is very close to the 6.30 ratio implied by Wright.

In other words, we have an indication that the ancients were aware of the bulge and approximated it very accurately with the PI approximation 63/20

Any questions?


  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #62
Here's a little item I'll throw out to you ...

Sir Isaac Newton tried to measure the earth accurately, right?  You guys know that I hope.    This was probably in the late 1600s.  Newton tried to find out earth measures from ancient writings and made some progress, but he failed to realize that the ancients had accounted for the "bulging" equator of the earth, so he set about figuring it out for himself.

Apparently he had not read a treatise by mathematician Edward Wright (1561-1615) entitled "Certain errors in navigation detected and corrected" ... Link here ... http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A67154.0001.001/1:7.1.8?rgn=div3;view=fulltext

in which Wright gave the meridian circumference as "6300 common Spanish Leagues" ...

If Newton had known this, he would have had a clue that the ancients WERE aware of the bulge ...

Why?

Because if we use the rational fraction 63/20 as an approximation for PI, we get the exact relationship between the earth's polar radius and the meridian circumference. 

Google it for yourself and you will see this ...

If you Google the polar radius, you will get "3949.93239 miles"

If you Google the meridian circumference, you will get "Circumference at the Poles 24,860 Miles"

If you divide the radius into the circumference, you will get a hair over 6.29 which is very close to the 6.30 ratio implied by Wright.

In other words, we have an indication that the ancients were aware of the bulge and approximated it very accurately with the PI approximation 63/20

Any questions?


Yes.
2 questions:

1.  What, in any of that, leads you to the conclusion "that the ancients were aware of the bulge and approximated it very accurately with the PI approximation 63/20"? 

2. Does this have anything to do with Heath's book?  :dunno: 
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #63
By the way, if you multiply the modern polar radius figure - 3949.93239 miles - by 6.300 exactly, you get 24,884.574 miles for the meridian circumference ... just 24 miles different from the modern figure I Googled up.

Which is more accurate?  the modern figure?  Or the ancient figure? 

Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #64
Quote
1.  What, in any of that, leads you to the conclusion "that the ancients were aware of the bulge and approximated it very accurately with the PI approximation 63/20"?
:facepalm:

Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #65
I have to spell it out for you, don't I?

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #66
I have to spell it out for you, don't I?
Well, one's first assumption is that the "logic" is exactly what Photon spelled out in his "1776" example.
I.e. the "logic" of a credulous simpleton.
So if it's something beyond that, yes: you'll have to spell it out.  :popcorn:

Specifically: you need to justify that the ancient approximation of π was not just a convenient and functional approximation, but actually took into account a geological detail there is no evidence these ancients would have had any knowledge of.
  • Last Edit: August 21, 2016, 06:06:39 AM by VoxRat
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #67
Wright INHERITED an earth measure from ancient sources ... 6300 Spanish Leagues for the meridian circumference.  This implies a polar radius of 1000 Spanish Leagues (which I suspect Wright ALSO inherited, but it doesn't say that in his book)

And it "just happens" that if we take modern measures ... the meridian circumference IS INDEED 6.3 X the length of the polar radius.  Or extremely close to it.  What error % is 24 miles?  24 / 24884 = 0.00096 so that's less than 1/10th of 1% error, right?


Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #68
Do you also agree with Edward Wright that the earth is the centre of the universe?

Quote
ONe sign we have to be assured, that the Earth is in the midst and center of the World; namely, that wheresoe∣ver we are upon the face of the earth, we alwayes see one half of the Heavens, the other half being hidden out of our sight. Moreover, the stars (in what part of the Heavens soever they be) either in the East, West, or South, we see that they are alwayes of the very same bignesse. Whereby we may easily per∣ceive, that they are alwayes equally distant from our sight: and whereas they move round about it, it followeth, that we are up∣on the center of that body, on whose superficies the said stars describe their circles.

Why do I bother?

Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #69
So it's either a giant coincidence that Wright knew a meridian circumference measure which "just happened" to be a neat handy PI approximation (63/20) X 2 X PR

OR ...

He inherited this from some ancient source.

I think the latter is more likely.

Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #70
Do you also agree with Edward Wright that the earth is the centre of the universe?

Quote
ONe sign we have to be assured, that the Earth is in the midst and center of the World; namely, that wheresoe∣ver we are upon the face of the earth, we alwayes see one half of the Heavens, the other half being hidden out of our sight. Moreover, the stars (in what part of the Heavens soever they be) either in the East, West, or South, we see that they are alwayes of the very same bignesse. Whereby we may easily per∣ceive, that they are alwayes equally distant from our sight: and whereas they move round about it, it followeth, that we are up∣on the center of that body, on whose superficies the said stars describe their circles.


Stay on topic.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #71
So it's either a giant coincidence that Wright knew a meridian circumference measure which "just happened" to be a neat handy PI approximation (63/20) X 2 X PR

OR ...

He inherited this from some ancient source.

I think the latter is more likely.
That's because you are a credulous simpleton.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #72
I see.

You are an idiot.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #73
I see.

You are an idiot.
Explain how your "giant coincidence" is any different from Photon's "1776" example.  :popcorn:
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
Reply #74
I suppose Voxrat is not aware of some of the historical PI approximations given by rational numbers ...

Septenary ... 22/7
Octagonal ... 25/8
Polar Meridional ... 63/20

Etc

I wonder why 63/20 was used for Wright's measure?

And not one of the other ones ..

Hmm