MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Solved (NEW CONCEPTS)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Does Ingli refer to the angle formed with Lundy and Stonehenge?

The Welsh name for Lundy does mean angle but presumably that's because it is a right-angle and therefore worth noting. Do we have any thoughts on whether the other angles in (it is claimed, sacred) 5,12,13 right-triangles are significant? Or for that matter in similarly sacred 3,4,5 ones? I can''t recall what these angles are so presumably I have never come across references to them.

And is there somebody out there who can tell us whether "the Google Earth" method is accurate over long distances, and if not what method is available that might be suitable for amateur investigations?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
And is there somebody out there who can tell us whether "the Google Earth" method is accurate over long distances, and if not what method is available that might be suitable for amateur investigations?


Yes. It is accurate. Wireloop uses it for measures over the whole of the globe.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The Welsh name for Lundy does mean angle but presumably that's because it is a right-angle and therefore worth noting.

Well, it's "ell", which says "right-angle" to me. "Angle" is about constriction, which says "acute angle" to me: a different thing altogether.

I don't suppose Angli and Ellen/Lundy aim at Amesbury, do they...?

Do we have any thoughts on whether the other angles in (it is claimed, sacred) 5,12,13 right-triangles are significant? Or for that matter in similarly sacred 3,4,5 ones? I can''t recall what these angles are so presumably I have never come across references to them.

22.62, 67.38... 36.87, 53.13 degrees... nah, they don't trip off the brain, do they? But what's the significance of 36.87 degrees? Its tangent is 3/4: it's in a 3:4:5 triangle!
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

22.62, 67.38... 36.87, 53.13 degrees... nah, they don't trip off the brain, do they?

Pff.... I recognised them straightaway. They're obviously the three atomic structures of large-angle symmetrical tilt grain boundaries (GB's) Σ5 (misorientation angles 36.87° and 53.13°) and Σ13 (misorientation angles 22.62° and 67.38°) which, if I can translate in lay terms, is essentially the critical strain level ɛcrit criterion (phenomenological criterion) of .... the thickness of the nonsuperconducting layer hn enveloping the grain boundaries etc etc. you can fill in the rest.

Kerist, Dan, get a grip..
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Sorry. Rookie mistake.
Send private message
Pulp History


In: Wales
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I think we need to resolve the exact point of the top angle on the 5, 12, 13......... how can we do this? Do we need to account for the curve of the earth, or can we overlay an exact triangle over the map? Shouldn't there be something significant at the point? Isn't the point on Lundy a natural outcrop of rock in the centre of the island?

I'm going to try the Google Earth method directly west from the centre of Stonehenge.......... it lands almost exactly on the centre of Lundy. But going directly north from here misses Caldey Island and does not directly hit any important points in the Preselis.

It passes within a couple of hundred feet of my mother's farm in the Preselis, and at 51, 57, 49.8N - 4, 40, 13.1W it is within a matter of feet from a collapsed cromlech lying at the north edge of the Preselis. Other than this cromlech I can find no significant point on this north line.

Unless we can find an obvious way this triangle terminates, marked by something significant I am afraid all we have is a line to the West from Stonehenge.....
_________________
Question everything!
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Sorry. Rookie mistake.

Very droll, but now I have your attention, have a look at the bit I nicked it from (by Googling 22.62, 67.38, 36.87, 53.13) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001PhRvB..64v4525B
and then explain to me how these dudes can be clearly dealing with a 5,12,13 right-triangle without (apparently) noticing. Surely it cannot arise unwittingly from

We present the results of a computer simulation of the atomic structures of large-angle symmetrical tilt grain boundaries [my emphasis]

Pulp, do we know exactly where the blue sarsens were mined, and if so how close it comes to the point of the angle? This after all is the only actual link (aside from the triangle) between Stonehenge and Preseli.
Send private message
Pulp History


In: Wales
View user's profile
Reply with quote

DPCrisp wrote:
Our guide pointed out the hillfort on top of Carn Ingli, making a point of the fact that there was no water source on the mount, but not seeing that this was a particular problem.

A secure water supply is only an issue if the "fort" is for defensive purposes. But since it's only a "posh house", why shouldn't they get their water the same way as everyone else? (Don't wanna be too close: too many bugs.)

Does Ingli refer to the angle formed with Lundy and Stonehenge?


The Ingli apparently refers to 'angels' not Angles, mmm sounds familiar!

As to the site of mining of the bluestones, I'm not sure that is even confirmed as yet - just a theory as the stones MAY have originated at Preseli, or be alleged glacial deposits...... but if they were mined they are believed to be from the Dragon's Back on Carn Meini, in Mynachlogddu. (Co-ordinates 51, 57, 31.7N and 4, 42, 8.7 W). This lies about a mile West of the line directly north of Lundy. This is why I say the triangle's shortest side appears to run too far to the east to make any sense.........
_________________
Question everything!
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

explain to me how these dudes can be clearly dealing with a 5,12,13 right-triangle without (apparently) noticing.

5,12,13 and 3,4,5 triangles, which the Σ13 and Σ5 surely suggest they are perfectly well aware of. Haven't the faintest idea what this is all about. Crystal structures are numerical/geometrical, though, innit.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

So you are saying that crystal structures form right-angled triangles? I think the rest of us should have been told about this. If these two 'whole number' triangles turn up in nature then it is important for us to know how, when and where since the Megalithics (to judge from Stonehenge) enshrined them quite extensively.

Attention mathematicians:
a) do these angular values leap out at you in general discourse ("Oh; look, there must be a 5,12,13 right-triangle somewhere in the vicinity")? and
b) do you agree with Dan's view that internal references point to the authors being aware the triangles are present.
I am trying to get an AE handle on this strange new world of mathematics.
Send private message
Angus McOatup


In: England
View user's profile
Reply with quote

TelMiles wrote:
I was just wondering if anyone else saw the Time Team special and what they thought of it.

Basically TT said (or rather the archaeologist team did) that Stonehenge was part of a life and death complex with Stonehenge being the death part, as in it was a monument to the dead. The live part was supposedly Durrington Walls, with the River Avon linking both sites. They also concluded that Stonehenge had always been stone, right from its very first inception.

A couple of years ago I had to write a 14,000 word dissertation on the Stonehenge riverside project. Much as I like the chap in charge, it seems to me that archaeologists don't like maths or astronomy so anything difficult gets side-lined in favour of an easier solution. It's clear that the megalithic people were obsessed with astronomy but you'd never think it from the official view....
Send private message Send e-mail
Angus McOatup


In: England
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
So you are saying that crystal structures form right-angled triangles? I think the rest of us should have been told about this. If these two 'whole number' triangles turn up in nature then it is important for us to know how, when and where since the Megalithics (to judge from Stonehenge) enshrined them quite extensively.

Attention mathematicians:
a) do these angular values leap out at you in general discourse ("Oh; look, there must be a 5,12,13 right-triangle somewhere in the vicinity")? and
b) do you agree with Dan's view that internal references point to the authors being aware the triangles are present.
I am trying to get an AE handle on this strange new world of mathematics.



It's clear from Aubrey Burl and Alexander Thom that the megalithics knew Euclidian geometry...er....long before Euclid did.
Send private message Send e-mail
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Angus McOatup wrote:
It's clear from Aubrey Burl and Alexander Thom that the megalithics knew Euclidian geometry...er....long before Euclid did.


Or not clear at all as to which came first.
Send private message
Boreades


In: finity and beyond
View user's profile
Reply with quote

My friend at the Association of Roman Archeology expressed much annoyance with Time Team's dig at Cunetio (Mildenhall, Wiltshire). TT ignored all the ARA advice on where best to dig, in favour of the usual TT pop-archeo mantra - "We've only got three days" - without ever explaining why only three days, apart from the obvious, sexing-up a TV programme.

Is this the TT Standard Operating Procedure? Yes.
Is TT ever likely to reveal anything new? Not likely, or only if they fell over it.
Send private message
Angus McOatup


In: England
View user's profile
Reply with quote

As to the site of mining of the bluestones, I'm not sure that is even confirmed as yet -

petrological analysis reveals the blue stones to come from Preseli. Most archaeologists believe them to have been manually brought to the newly discovered 'Bluestonehenge' (discovered by Parker Pearson a few years ago) and then removed to inside of Stonehenge itself later.

Only one team of academics (from the Open University) believes that the bluestones are natural Wiltshire 'glacial erratic's'. Most bods believe them to be too large to be glacially deposited. The theory is that the Stonehenge megalithic people were originally from Preseli and relocated to Stonehenge, so the bluestones are a sacred reminder of home. They may have become important as middlemen trading Irish gold onto the continent. As I recall.
Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Jump to:  
Page 2 of 4

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group