Thursday, 19 June 2014

Summer Solstice Sunrise at Stonehenge 2014 - Video


Published on 19 Jun 2014

Solstice Sunrise Timelapse June 19th 2014 from O5:OOGMT

Note that the trees on the horizon displace the Sun’s “first gleam” position to the right of the tip of the HeleStone.

If the Larkhill “SunGap” was restored first gleam would appear to the left of the HeleStone as it still did only 100 years ago.

4,500 years ago first gleam was approximately 1° further to the left (ie two solar diameters)

The difference is due to the the change in the obliquity of the ecliptic in the past four and a half millennia.

Taken with Canon 1100D from just in front of the Altar Stone directly on the solstice axis.

Video and Text by and Copyright Simon Banton

25 comments:

  1. Good Video Tim!

    You're quite right 4500 years ago the sun would have risen over the Heel stone (no doubt that's why they placed it there) due to 'precession of the ecliptic' yet the centre of the Avenue is another 1° even further left making it much older than the Heel stone placement.

    Any guesses on the date of construction?

    RJL

    http://robertjohnlangdon.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/astroarchaeology-dating-of-stonehenge.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. "You're quite right 4500 years ago the sun would have risen over the Heel stone "
    Tim didn't say that . The position of the observer is all important , Tim mentioned it , you didn't .

    " due to 'precession of the ecliptic' "
    Tim was right to describe the cause as being due to "obliquity of the ecliptic " . Precession of the ecliptic is something else entirely and nothing to to do with the change .
    The problems with dating the Avenue using your logic have been mentioned previously ,and are still waiting on the details of that "calculation " .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'obliquity of the ecliptic' is the earth's axis tilt - if it was permanent the Solstice sun would rise and set in the same position in history. But it doesn't due to this angle changing - this is due to precession which is known to astronomers as 'precession of the ecliptic'.

      Delete
    2. "The difference is due to the the change in the obliquity of the ecliptic " expresses the change in declination perfectly well.

      You are getting confused again .'precession of the ecliptic' is a term used by astronomers but it does not explain the change in obliquity . It is something entirely different . It is a term used to describe what used to be called planetary precession ,a part of general precession and distinct from lunisolar precession or the more recent term precession of the equator .

      Still waiting for the Avenue "calculation " .

      Delete
    3. Yeah, the 42,000 year wobble of the earth axis will have no effect on the stars and planetary alignments. Another great deduction Sherlock!

      Delete
    4. As usual the more you respond the deeper into mire you get .
      Wobbles are not measured in years ,cycles are .
      Do you have any idea what the approx 42,000 year cycle may be ? Clue ,it is not "precession of the ecliptic " and it is related to the original comment "The difference is due to the the change in the obliquity of the ecliptic "
      You have avoided facing up to the fact that "precession of the ecliptic " does not explain the change in declination and once again you were getting confused .

      Delete
    5. Ok I know I'm going to regret this - I believe the changes to the azimuth Solstice sunrises is due to 'precession' the earth wobble which is well known. Yet you believe that 'obliquity of the ecliptic' is due to ...... (your answer here) if you have one Sherlock??

      Delete
    6. It's hardly surprising , given the number of mistakes that you make , that you regret commenting .

      This is what you believed a day ago "4500 years ago the sun would have risen over the Heel stone (no doubt that's why they placed it there) due to 'precession of the ecliptic' "
      That is wrong . You keep avoiding this .

      Keep reading , you might get there eventually , possibly not , as this has been pointed out to you many times .
      For the 2nd time re. "precession of the ecliptic " that is a term for planetary precession , neither term explains obliquity .

      You failed to answer the question re. the approx 42,000 yr cycle , which may have helped clear the mist .
      You have also failed to provide detail of your Avenue "dating "calculation " .
      Any word on the antler digging vid ?

      Delete
    7. Pathetic answer - Mr Cur!!

      You remind me of some of my phd archaeology tutors at UCL when you pin them down to prove a simple specific archaeological 'fact' - they can't. They just waffle on about nothing and then try to use technical terms which they have no idea of the meaning or an understanding of its concepts hoping that people will think they understand their subject, which clearly like YOU they simply don't!!

      Simple question 'obliquity of the ecliptic' what causes it?.... you're answer - gobbledigook and lets change the subject!!

      You really don't have a clue do you? Hence your nickname 'Sherlock' or should we call you after that reply Wayne instead??

      Delete
    8. You were told a long time ago that precession of any description is not the cause of change in the declination or azimuth of a solstice event . Here is an example from December 2012 "As has been pointed out to you numerous times the effect of precession on solar and lunar azimuths and declinations is minimal and what matters is far more important in archaeoastronomy is obliquity of the ecliptic . Whilst you don’t actually name this important factor you do sneak in the math i.e. the 0.0002 degrees annually , and fail to mention that the rate of precession is 0.014 degrees . If you applied this rate , as you have suggested in the past ,then you would find the sun rising at a position 70 degrees different from that in 3000 BC . You’ll get their eventually . "
      You never learn do you ? This had been pointed out to you even earlier and you still get it wrong .
      As for your question ,it only goes to show the depth of your misunderstanding .
      We don't know for sure the cause of obliquity , I doubt you know even know what it is . It may have been Theia maybe not .
      Again , when you don't have a clue you turn to name calling and attempts at your "humour" which is probably safer than actually attemting to say anything sensible because that is when you get stuck .
      Still waiting for your reply to 4200 yr cycle , explaining why "precession of the ecliptic " (something you also don't understand )has any anything to do with the change in obliquity and your "calculation on the Avenue dating .
      You are incapable of providing anything sensible in relaytuion to any of the above and all that is expected is more "humour " and name calling .

      Delete
    9. Lots more Gobbledygook and then a classic academic answer..

      "We don't know for sure the cause of obliquity"

      or to be more accurate YOU don't know what causes the changes in Solstice azimuth positions.

      Consequently, If YOU don't know then you can NOT rule out 'Precession' you idiot!!

      Delete
    10. Again you have failed to reply to questions . Does that not tell you something ?

      So you didn't understand the post , that was apparent a long time ago and you have still failed to do the work .

      And as expected nothing of any substance except the stand by , name calling .

      You also , as always , have a major problem with your reasoning
      . We do know what causes the variation in solstice declinations it is obliquity , we are sure of that ,(it is only you who is totally confused about it ) but we don't know for sure the cause of obliquity .
      If you understood what obliquity and precession are you wouldn't make such stupid comments like " you can not rule out 'Precession' ".
      The ignorant do have problems with concepts and terminology that are beyond their ken and those with a large enough chip on their shoulder might hide behind terms like "gobbleydook" , when others who post here clearly understand .It is very unlikely given what we have seen ,but you maybe one day (in the distant future ?) you will be able to communicate here sensibly using these relatively simple terms but we won't hold our breath .

      Delete
  3. "Robert",
    If the horizon were visible today instead of being shrouded by trees, we would see the full-disc Sun rise to the left of the Heelstone, arc up and be slightly occulted by the top cone of the rock - exactly as intended.

    Because of early morning ground-fog and those trees, Simon's vid shows the Sun first appear at the apex of the Heelstone. This would, unfortunately, be somewhat misleading to a novice such as yourself.

    4,500 years ago, due to a gradual shift in Earth's obliquity, the Sun rose about 1-degree farther west, and it is at This point that the Avenue is centered.

    Stone-96 was never intended to occur at the point of the Sun's rising, and this demonstrates that the Heelstone in that configuration is far older than construction of the Avenue - which in those days was perfectly bisected by the Solstice Axis.

    It is positioned to the right of Sunrise and always was.

    Neil

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look more closely Neil - if the eyes are up to it?

      The 'ground fog' is actually the tree lined horizon!!

      Therefore unless you remove the horizon (and the trees) - you will never see the sun rise over the place you're stating (as it would be behind the horizon). Simple schoolboy error!

      Consequently, the sun's first point of 'visibility' would be as I have already stated in detail within the blog - if you care to read it?

      Fortunately, this 'novice' has 20/20 vision and knows the horizon well - I would suggest that you use Google Earth and the street level view to confirm your mistake.

      Delete
    2. And I can't let this nonsense about the Heel Stone go without comment (I did try for about two hours!).

      "Stone-96 was never intended to occur at the point of the Sun's rising, and this demonstrates that the Heelstone in that configuration is far older than construction of the Avenue - which in those days was perfectly bisected by the Solstice Axis."

      So 'your logic' specifies that the Heal Stone was already there where they came to build The Avenue - as it was so important that rather placing it in the centre that placed it to the right as it was for the sun to 'graze the top'.

      If that's true:

      1. Why would you not have The Avenue 12 foot wider to the right - then its in the centre??

      2. If it is correctly "positioned to the right of Sunrise and always was" why has it been pushed forward at an angle to meet this alignment with the sun - one would imagine builders that can balance 4 tonne sarsen blocks on 16 tonne uprights could have buried it successfully at the right depth?

      3. There are two large Stone Holes in the Centre of the Avenue by the Heel Stone - if the Heel Stone was the most important and the Avenue built around it why bother with these stones at all?

      4 . The Heel Stone moat cuts into The Avenue bank showing that it is of a later date than The Avenue - are you suggesting that it never had a moat in the first place and if so why add one later, then fill it in??

      But Hey! I'm just a novice, so what do I know? The explanations must be so obvious for someone with your 'knowledge'? Can wait for the lack of explanation!

      RJL

      Delete
  4. 1. Because the Solstice Axis needed to be centered on the later Avenue ─ not the Stone. The Heelstone cannot perform its function if the Sun rises directly behind it, so to achieve this, the Stone is offset to the Axis and is therefore properly located.

    2. While it has not been conclusively proved that the Heelstone didn’t always lean, it does have a round bottom and is shallow in its socket. The chances are better than average that it stood upright when erected. This would have created a deeper shadow into the Circle, as the Sun would have been more fully occulted by it ─ keeping that shadow-emphasis for a longer period than it does today. It has simply rolled forward 20-degrees over the 46 centuries it’s been there.

    Many of the Sarsens in the ring have collapsed because they weren’t seated deeply enough. The most famous example of course is Stone-55 of the Great Trilithon ─ 27-feet in total length ─ but buried only 4-feet into its ground-socket.
    (fyi ─ the Circle Lintels are 9-tons and the Uprights average 22 / 24-tons)

    3. There is one large Stonehole about 12-feet to the North of the Heelstone. This was Stone-97 and part of its socket was disturbed when the Heelstone Henge was dug. Though situated more closely to the Axis, this one was positioned to the left of the line. It’s felt that this Stone marked the point of first-disc as the Sun rose, which would have occurred immediately to its right ─ or precisely on the Axis. This Stone was later moved to the southeast to become what we now call the Heelstone.

    But this was all hundreds of years before the Avenue was built.

    The other Stones you mention are -B & -C. They were used to create the Shadow when S-97 was in use. They are as old as -97 and served quite a different purpose when installed, but this primary rationale is beyond the scope of your points. Perhaps another time I can teach you their fundamental importance.

    4. Look more closely at the Heelstone Ditch and its proximity to the Avenue Bank. It is proved as well as clearly seen that this Embankment was constructed to avoid the little Henge. The Avenue’s Bank wraps around it ─ not cut into. This means that the small, older henge was not to be interfered with, such was its importance.

    The only time this ditch or any other at the site had water in it was when it rained. It’s now felt that perhaps the Ditch at Silbury Hill may have been intended as a ‘Moat’, e.g. 2013. But if true, it would be almost unique among ditches.

    5. I actually Do regard you as a novice in these matters, so it’s a matter of courtesy to try and enlighten you on some of the more elementary points.

    Happy Solstice!
    Neil

    Over to you GeoCur …

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. An the function of the Heel Stone is what? It either marks the Solstice or it doesn't? If the Solstice axis is of later important then the Heel Stone is superfluous and should be removed replaced by stones on the axis stone holes than we know exist??

      You analysis make no sense!!

      2. If the Heel stone stood upright the sun would have appeared from more the centre behind it to the left and would have nothing of significance to the Solstice Sunrise - so what was it originally for??

      3. "This Stone was later moved to the southeast to become what we now call the Heel stone" - using your logic and evidence then the Central Holes (which makes the centre of the Avenue made during the construction) was later placed to the right and become the Heel Stone - you're absolutely correct - as the Heel stone position is a later addition to the Avenue - well done!!

      4 ."The Avenue’s Bank wraps around it" - why would you do that - its just dirt? If its such a wonderful prize possession stick the dirt elsewhere - such nonsense!!

      Well Neil you convinced me - that you are guessing and have no idea what you are talking about!!

      Empty ditches with no purpose are the imagination of fools and naves - since the Roman times people have dug ditches called moats - but in your reality, God knows what they are supposed to be (garden features - frog traps??).

      As for Post Glacial Flooding as you will notice from my web site nearly all 'intelligent' scientists have accepted the concept (as the evidence is now overwhelming) but if you wish to continue to believe in fantasy - be my guest, I live in the real world.

      As for you offer to 'teach me' - well i'm lost for words as I just finished my final script of the trilogy which now shows:

      WHAT Stonehenge was Built for?
      WHO built it?
      WHY they built it?
      By what the NAME the ancient Greeks called them
      What they LOOKED like?
      What LANGUAGE they used?
      There genetic DNA and BLOOD type?
      What HAPPENED to this civilisation after they left the Northern Europe?
      The MATHEMATICS they used to build Stonehenge?
      The ENGINEERING skills they had to transport the stones
      The ROUTES taken within their known world
      The TOOLS they used
      The Psychological & Psychological PROBLEMS they suffered?
      The MYTHS and LEGENDS that connect with this civilisation
      The current MEASURING systems we still use today invented by this civilisation.
      etc etc

      But if you think that your simplistic 'fundamental' sundial is of any interest - feel free to bore me!

      RJL

      Delete
  5. Neil ,
    I believe novice to be an aggrandisement . Novices learn and may begin with some ability .I see no evidence for either .

    ReplyDelete
  6. " The Heel Stone moat cuts into The Avenue bank showing that it is of a later date than The Avenue "

    Wrong . See Hawley , Atkinson , Pitts , Cleal . re C36 .
    The Avenue bank overlies the Heelstone ditch showing that the ditch predates the bank .

    "But Hey! I'm just a novice"
    Don't kid yourself . See above .

    ReplyDelete
  7. C36 tells you nothing - just speculation which you are full of Sherlock.

    The best section is C6 which the photographs clearly show that the Heel Stone moat was cut through the South Bank moat mound of the Avenue - if you look at tims early photograph before this excavation you clearly see again the moat cut into the bank of the South Bank moat:

    http://www.sarsen.org/2013/08/stonehenge-aerial-photo-from-south-west.html

    The reason for the 'experts' get confused is that they INCORRECTLY believe these moats were dry since they were dug and hence and debris coming from the moat is from the time of construction - but anyone with intelligence (that's excluding you Sherlock!) knows that moats get cleaned out at least annually over hundreds of years - so the dating evidence is misunderstood and the incorrect dating of C36.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Stratigraphy shows that the Avenue bank overlies the Heelstone ditch ,showing the the ditch predates the bank ,it has nothing to do with dating . You don't need to be an expert to to understand that . As usual you are the only one who is confused . Your fantasy moats change nothing . Read the excavation reports or get someone to explain them to you .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well this is where we are different - the 'experts' (like you and your 'obliquity of the ecliptic' ) are interpreting the evidence with a basic lack of knowledge.

      In computer terms - garbage in/garbage out!!

      Delete
    2. There is cetainly a huge difference between you and your fantasies and those who know about a subject .

      "you and your 'obliquity of the ecliptic' " Lol , back to your tea break Hudson , you capture her perfectly .

      You obviously don't understand the basic terminology .

      Variation in obliquity explains the change in azi/dec at solstice events .Precession doesn't .Nobody who knows anything about astronomy will tell you otherwise . It is quite simple and has been mentioned often enough, look at the rate of precession i.e. 0.014 degrees annually and note what impact it would have in a millenium then contrast that with the rate of change in obliquity 0.0002 degrees annually then compare with reality .
      Similarly , read the reports of excavators e.g.from Cleal "The Avenue bank tail overlies the Heelstone ditch " can't get more basic than that but if necessary look at the sequence on p 468 which might be even more free of difficult concepts/words note that the Avenue bank is above ,meaning later , than the Heelstone ditch .

      Still no repsonse to questions ,perhaps just as well, you only create bigger problems for yourself .

      Delete
  9. 1. Um … first of all, the Sun doesn’t just leap straight into the sky. It rises in an arc. At Stonehenge on 21 June, this arc originates directly on the Axis and passes Eastward at an angle which quickly takes it behind the conical top of the Heelstone, conveniently positioned off to the right of the Axis so this important event can occur.

    There is a growing school of thought which says that the shadow thusly created is cast into the Circle as a phallus, or symbol of the Sun-Father’s impending visitation on his Earth-Wife ─ the Stone Circle and Trilithon Set. This shadow culminates at the Altar Stone. The shadows of the upright Slaughter Stone and now-missing Stone-E on either side of the Axis are interpreted as the testes.

    This is why the Heelstone is offset to the Axis.

    fyi ─ Except for the Altar Stone, there are No stones on the Axis . Neither Stones -B nor -C are directly on that line.

    2. Again ─ you’re supposing the Sun just shoots straight up into the sky …

    3. I’m not the only one who maintains that Stone-97 eventually became the Heelstone. But even if there were 2, neither was on the Axis.

    4. They avoided the Heelstone Henge when they pitched the spoil from the East Avenue Ditch. Inevitably, some of it wound up in the Heelstone Ditch, which is the main reason we know the Avenue is newer. No need for any dating techniques but the eye for that one. (The newer stuff’s on top … just sayin)

    5. The Ditches around Stonehenge, the Cursus, Avebury, Durrington Walls ─ all of them ─ had much more important purpose than to collect rain for a ‘Moat’. Whichever side of the Ditch an Embankment was located determined (more or less) whether or not something should be kept inside or kept outside.
    The external Ditch at the Cursus, for example, was to prevent something that was inside from getting out. At Stonehenge, the reversed Ditch/Bank was probably to prevent something outside from getting in. But we’re not talking about people intruding or escaping. We’re speaking of a long-standing cultural metaphor which involves things which go well beyond the finite concepts of Life or Death.

    You might ask yourself why certain tools were left in these Ditches. Additionally, why was reverential homage paid in the form of curated animal skulls, also found in Ditches ─ and not just at Stonehenge. How would these carefully placed icons maintain significance if drowned under water? The short answer is simple: There is utterly no evidence of long-term standing water in any of them. Nice try.

    6. There is evidence suggesting that the Ditches at Stonehenge were cleaned only once ─ possibly twice. It’s assumed that the dirty fines were then used to construct the Counterscarp, then whitened when they dug the East Terminal overcut. These events occurred long before the Sarsens were erected and the Ditches were never serviced again.

    7. Any ‘Post-Glacial Flooding’ would have occurred thousands of years before the time in question. In fact, we know it did. It’s seen all over the countryside, near and far.
    The Avenue from Stonehenge runs downhill. How would water sit in those Ditches?

    8. ‘Naves’ is spelled ‘Knaves’.

    I wish you the best of luck with your Trilogy, Steve, but I know that I speak for many seen and unseen contributors here on Tim’s blog when I ask: At what point will you be introducing Aliens into the mix?

    Happy Solstice,
    Neil

    ReplyDelete
  10. "There is a growing school of thought which says that the shadow thusly created is cast into the Circle as a phallus, or symbol of the Sun-Father’s impending visitation on his Earth-Wife ─ the Stone Circle and Trilithon Set."

    There is also a growing school of thought that 'Archaeologists' for a lack of a better word have lost touch with reality!!

    "fyi ─ Except for the Altar Stone, there are No stones on the Axis . Neither Stones -B nor -C are directly on that line."

    At the time of The avenues construction they were - thats how you can accurately date it - its not rocket science!!

    "the reversed Ditch/Bank was probably to prevent something outside from getting in. But we’re not talking about people intruding or escaping. We’re speaking of a long-standing cultural metaphor which involves things which go well beyond the finite concepts of Life or Death."

    Don't mind and I can accept symbolism - but this is just pure nonsense and fantasy!

    6. is pure nonsense!

    7. Dig a hole in an area of high groundwater - its called a well, groundwater run alone contours of the ground thats why springs are on hills and not in the valleys - that is obviously rocket science to you!

    8. is pretty or is that petty - I can't tell the difference from pratt or twat either!

    9. No need for aliens with you ideas as they are literary (did I spell that right?) out of this world - good luck on your planet!

    RJL

    Warning this is a draft copy and may contain spelling gramatical errors due to the fact that I have better this to do during my morning tea break.

    ReplyDelete