| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
 |
|
Is it relevant for measurement purposes that Avebury is located on the half-way point of the Michael Line? Overton Hill at Avebury is where the flat(tish) Ridgeway begins. It ends at the north-south line that cuts through the Chilterns, the Goring Gap, 44 miles away from Overton Hill. The Thames flows in a pretty straight line northwards from Streatley to Brightwell-cum-Sotwell.
The Ridgeway comprises a series of "hill forts" ten miles apart at regular intervals. Whether the hills are of the same height I couldn't say but they are intervisible.
| Do you have more information on this? |
Hooke was said to have lain flat on his back at the bottom of the Monument telescope fixed to his eye measuring the movement of Gamma Draco overhead. I'll try to find the link, it was making a connection between the 'dragon star' and Avebury being a 'dragon observatory' a la Stukeley. Is it plausible that Gamma Draco was directly above Silbury and six thousand years later its position was above London or is someone on a vaguely mystical site just looking for a 'dragon' link?
| Ah, was that why you were talking about meridians? |
I was wondering about Norfolk which is crossed by the meridian and famously flat but it probably has no relevance to your measurement matter.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Keimpe
In: Leeuwarden, Frisia
|
|
|
|
I'd better move on and tell you all some more, instead of turning this into a guessing game.
During the first week of September, me and two friends walked the Ridgeway National Trail. Because of some bad cases of blisters we had to shorten our route and stopped at Streatley (where the Goring Gap is). That gave us an extra day to spend at Avebury with Hatty (who picked us up at Streatley - I haven't thanked you enough for that, Hatty!).
Before coming to England I already had this vague notion of a possible connection between the St. Michaels Line, May 1st sunrise and measuring the earth, but I couldn't put two and two together. I also thought Silbury Hill would somehow be key, but didn't yet know exactly why.
Then, on our final day at Avebury (on 9/11), thanks to Hatty's keen observations, in an outburst of serendipity, all pieces suddenly fell into place.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
You originally create your line in stages by, every May 1, working away from your chosen starting observatory (St.Michael's Mount). When you get to the sea at the other end, you stop and set up a second observatory there.
Once you have the end points, your observatories, you can measure the variation of noon-day sun projected down a closed-top well through a 'lens' (hole), onto a grid, the centre of which is carefully calibrated using a plumb-line.
Due to the curve of the Earth, the two 'sticks' (the wells) are tilted with respect to each other. If we take observations at Midday on May 1st, we get opposite oriented (but equal) readings from our grid. Divide this angle by two to get an approximation for two triangles representing the curve of the Earth. Obviously, the point on the line which is at the centre of the observatories will show a neutral reading; that's how you find Avebury.
At Avebury, all you need now is a very high pole from which you can see St.Michael's Mount, measure its height and you can work out the distance, thus providing all you need to calculate the size of the Earth. Since that is rather impractical, you create a series of in-between monuments to get the (effective) height instead.
Or something like that...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Keimpe
In: Leeuwarden, Frisia
|
|
|
|
| Brian Ambrose wrote: | | When you get to the sea at the other end, you stop and set up a second observatory there. |
Unfortunately, there isn't one there. If there were, it might have sealed your theory, but there are hardly any monuments on the right half of the St. Michaels Line. Maybe they only needed to go halfway?
| Once you have the end points, your observatories, you can measure the variation of noon-day sun projected down a closed-top well through a 'lens' (hole), onto a grid, the centre of which is carefully calibrated using a plumb-line. |
Would that also work when the sun is not directly overhead?
| If we take observations at Midday on May 1st, we get opposite oriented (but equal) readings from our grid. |
I think that trick would only work on an equinox day where the sun rises exactly due east and sets exactly due west, so you know where the middle is.
| At Avebury, all you need now is a very high pole from which you can see St.Michael's Mount, measure its height and you can work out the distance, thus providing all you need to calculate the size of the Earth. Since that is rather impractical, you create a series of in-between monuments to get the (effective) height instead. |
How?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, there isn't one there. If there were, it might have sealed your theory, but there are hardly any monuments on the right half of the St. Michaels Line. Maybe they only needed to go halfway?
|
How do they know where halfway is? That would require measuring the distance, which I thought you had forbidden?
Would that also work when the sun is not directly overhead?
|
Of course - you just need to look at the difference between the readings at each observatory (on the most suitable day, May 1st).
I think that trick would only work on an equinox day where the sun rises exactly due east and sets exactly due west, so you know where the middle is.
|
I thought that was the point of May 1st? The sun travels along that line, no?
I take it I'm not even warm.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Keimpe
In: Leeuwarden, Frisia
|
|
|
|
| Brian Ambrose wrote: | | I take it I'm not even warm. |
Some of your casual remarks in previous posts were boiling hot!
But remember, my solution is a solution, not the solution. If yours works too, it's just as valid. Then all we have to figure out is which one is the more likely or practical, and/or which one left more physical evidence to support it.
In fact, I have already found signs of other 'earth measuring features' in England, that I need to investigate.
For now, please wait for me to finish my story, then we can discuss whether it's likely/practical.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
BRILLIANT!!!!
Keimpe. How many years in this group??? I've never seen anything like this from you.
But this is outstanding!!!!
Completely AE thinking. Holy smokes but I am blown away.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Keimpe wrote: | The sun is never directly overhead in Aswan.
Alexandria is not directly north of Aswan.
The distance between Aswan and Alexandria is different then the distance Eratosthenes measured.
He probably used a sun dials as described above, so 'noon' might have been slightly (but only slightly) off.
And it seems he was also slightly off with the angle he measured towards the sun.
|
Sounds like the whole story was made up by someone who never visited either place! (And never anticipated his readers would be able to check the story.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Keimpe wrote: | | Tuck that one behind your ear for later. |
Fires or flags on the tops of the artificial mountains.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Brian Ambrose wrote: | | Well, I'm not saying you can directly measure the distance between two hills, but you can measure the distance down to the bottom of the valley between, and using the angle of the hill work out the direct line distance. But you're looking for a more accurate method. |
If you built the hill, you'd have engineered a precise angle, making your measurement pretty accurate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Keimpe
In: Leeuwarden, Frisia
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | BRILLIANT!!!!
Keimpe. How many years in this group??? I've never seen anything like this from you. |
I'm as surprised as you are.
(mind you, I didn't invent the St. Michael's Line and all its special features (the ruins, May 1st sunrise, it being the longest land line). People have known about this for ages. All I did, was find a practical purpose for it).
| Holy smokes but I am blown away. |
Better stay put, 'cause there's more.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Keimpe
In: Leeuwarden, Frisia
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | Sounds like the whole story was made up by someone who never visited either place! (And never anticipated his readers would be able to check the story.) |
Or maybe he had access to older historical descriptions (in Alexandria's famous library) and tried to see if he could also think of an experiment to measure the earth. We'll never know.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Keimpe
In: Leeuwarden, Frisia
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | Brian Ambrose wrote: | | Well, I'm not saying you can directly measure the distance between two hills, but you can measure the distance down to the bottom of the valley between, and using the angle of the hill work out the direct line distance. But you're looking for a more accurate method. |
If you built the hill, you'd have engineered a precise angle, making your measurement pretty accurate. |
I wasn't thinking about one particular hill, I was wondering if there was a method of measuring the distance between any two hills (within sight of eachother), anywhere. I don't know if there is such a method.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Keimpe
In: Leeuwarden, Frisia
|
|
|
|
Time to finish my story.
Back to our 9/11 2009 Avebury expedition:
As we walked down to Silbury Hill from West Kennett Long Barrow, Hatty made the first of her two startling observations: "it doesn't really look like a landmark at all, does it?"
And indeed it doesn't. If Silbury Hill was built to be noticed, the architect did a very poor job. There's hills all over the place, and most of them higher. You have to know it's there.
This reminded me of the legend of Silbury Hill, which says that inside the hill, King Sil lies buried with his golden armour. But knowing Silbury Hill is on the St. Michael's Line with the sun rising over that line every May 1st, I realized this legend was not about Sil, but about Sol, making its golden appearance every year. So I suggested to Hatty that instead of a landmark, it was probably an observatory, to which we both agreed.
But then when we were standing at the foot of Silbury Hill, Hatty made her second - and most important - observation: "don't you think the top of that hill looks remarkably straight?" Coming from The Netherlands, I would never have noticed that, because all our hills look like that, because (emphasis added) they're all artificial. We call them dykes.
The hill Hatty was looking at was Waden Hill, and has a long flat top instead of a small round one. Here's two pictures I took:
Now compare those to what I see around me every day:
There's no difference.
It was then and there that I realized we now definitely had our 'fixed moment in time' (prerequisite A for measuring the earth). Because you can't see the Norfolk shore from Silbury Hill, you have to have another fixed moment in time on May 1st. And because of Waden Hill, we now have one: the moment the sun on May 1st comes up over Waden Hill and 'touches' Silbury Hill. The fact that Waden Hill's top is 10 feet (3 metres) higher than Silbury Hill, means you have a clear line of sight (from Silbury over Waden Hill to the sun) without interruptions from other landscape features.
Now, all I needed to 'prove' the ancients could measure the earth, was prerequisite B: another location some 50 to 100 kilometers away (preferrably straight to the north) where the angle towards the sun would be measured at the exact same moment. But where on earth could that second location possibly be?? Is there a second Silbury-Waden-Hill-like aligment on May 1st somewhere?
Any ideas anyone?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| Is there a second Silbury-Waden-Hill-like aligment on May 1st somewhere? |
You passed by Uffington didn't you? Dragon Hill, north-east of the famous White Horse Hill that's been compared to an amphitheatre, is described even by (some) orthodox archaeologists as artificially flat. Not dissimilar to Silbury in shape. There's a large chalk patch on top of Dragon Hill where nothing will grow (said to be where the dragon's blood was spilt). The hill is natural according to geologists but the top has been artificially flattened. It is 456 ft (139 metres) high.
Reading about stones you notice how often 1st May comes up in connection with supposed fertility rites. I'd assumed that mid-winter or mid-summer solstices were the dates set aside for measuring but it could be that people were taking measurements all over the place on May Day. There may be a connection with 'beating the bounds' ceremonies which took place on or near Beltane/May Day, later Christianized as a Rogation Day service even though no particular saint(s) were invoked.
The other thing you notice is that "hill forts" are almost always north- or north-east-facing. This is supposed to be for defence purposes of course. The majority of long-distance trackways in England trace a SW-NE line, they rarely go from east to west. People can't have always wanted to travel in that direction surely.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
