Saturday, 3 January 2015

Stone Plan Comparison

From http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stone_Plan.jpg ©Anthony Johnson 2008 ; this is the very large plan of the stonehenge stones as they are:


And this is what the assumed position of the stones would be if the Great Trilithon and nearby stones had been perpendicular to the central axis.




Click on plans to enlarge them and simply switch between them to do a blink comparison, as in this animated gif.




54 comments:

  1. Which is dependent on how you calculate the central axis - i.e. what time period and whether the stones (like to heel stone) was moved after it's original construction?

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  2. The animated gif neatly demonstrates the 80 degree deliberate positioning of the Altar Stone and Great Trilithon (aligned to 129 degrees east of north which is winter solstice sunrise) relative to the Stonehenge axis (49 degrees east of north).
    The latter is determined by the bisector of the 55-56 trilithon pair, the 31-49 bluestone pair, the 1-30 sarsen pair, and the whole length of the nearest section of the Avenue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And it also demonstrates that the Altar Stone was moved - probably at the same time as the heel stone (when it became a solar temple by the druids ).

      According to Cybersky 5 the winter solstice sunrise was (rounded figs):

      2000 AD - 129 degrees
      1000 AD - 128 degrees
      1000 BC - 128 degrees
      2000 BC - 127 degrees
      3000 BC - 126 degrees

      RJL

      Delete
  3. "2000 AD - 129 degrees
    1000 AD - 128 degrees
    1000 BC - 128 degrees
    2000 BC - 127 degrees
    3000 BC - 126 degrees "

    Oh dear . Almost certainly little wrong with cybersky.
    The failure to understand obliquity in particular and astronomy in general strikes again .
    Some clues .Obliquity is all important .Don't input contemporary solstice dates into prehistoric solstices . The errors can be highlighted by an an example .The actual WSSR in 3000BC was closer to 130.5 degrees .

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh dear Sherlock - maths was never your strong point!

    Follow your own logic (lol) if Cybersky is 4.5 degrees out then the 129 degree alignment Terence suggests would be in about 6000BC?

    Are you suggesting Stonehenge is much older than current estimations?

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  5. As noted earlier ,probably nothing wrong with cybersky , a poor workman etc or more likely ,daisy stuff in , daisy stuff out .The problem is in your own failings not the prog .
    Despite being quite simple it's obviously way beyond you .
    Before you make yourself look any sillier , check the obliquity for your "figures" and also look at the Juilan date that appears ,almost certainly , in your ignorance , you would have inputted 21/22 Dec for the prehistoric dates .
    Further , you don't date Stonehenge from "alignments " , come to think of it you probably would .

    ReplyDelete
  6. What a load of rubbish - why do you think I rounded up the numbers, we are not all as stupid as you!

    So at what date (according to you!) was the altar stone (at 129 degrees) aligned with the Winter Solstice Sunrise?? - we are happy to take your Julian dates, if you think that you can dig yourself out of 'yet another' hole.

    Of course we won't get a figure as your "The actual WSSR in 3000BC was closer to 130.5 degrees " is complete garbage!! no doubt calculated on the back of an old envelope with your slide rule Sherlock?

    RJL


    ReplyDelete
  7. Simply repeating what others call you without an explalnation
    doesn't cut it with with anyone past nursery age . It's the explanation that shows how appropriate the name may be.
    Here is data ,soemthing we rarely get from you , but when we do it is demonstrably wrong .
    The Julian date for WSSR as seen from Stonehenge in 3000 BC is January 13 . What is more salient is the figure for obliquity .

    Now go away and play with your prog ,here is what to do .
    Hopefully you would have the sense to have inputted the correct latitude ,but to be on the safe side confirm that is correct for the site . If you then supply the altitude and sun declination of the sun , and out of interest the date ,for your estimation of the WSSR in 30000 BC , I’ll show where you have gone wrong . Breath won't be held .

    ReplyDelete
  8. "The Julian date for WSSR as seen from Stonehenge in 3000 BC is January 13 " Actually the Julian Date was 625685.85098 - but I'm just being picky like you, annoying isn't?

    So we'll ask again Sherlock...

    So what date do you predict the winter solstice sun rose on the 129 degree alignment? - which was the topic of the blog.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  9. What no name calling ?
    Hard to believe but it looks like something may have clicked .
    You have been given the data , although there was no reason for me to have produced it ,but you have still failed to answer , as exepected , what alt.and declination you had for the sun and also the date you had inputted for WSSR in 3000 BC . Are you concerned we may laugh ? Don't worry Daisy it is not nearly as funny as the other errors .
    Point them out , as requested earlier ,and I'll show you where you keep going wrong and if you really try you might be able to work out stuff for yourself , as they are certainly not the "complex calculations " you imagine .Breath not held on either point .

    ReplyDelete
  10. So we'll ask again Sherlock...

    So what date do you predict the winter solstice sun rose on the 129 degree alignment? - which was the topic of the blog.

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm not in the business of doing work for , or having discussions with you . I am only concerned in pointing out your errors that clutter the blog ,not providing oxygen for your fantasies .
    It appears that you now realise that your figures are wrong . When you admit to that and also answer what was requested of you prior to your request then , if you behave I might tell you .But isn't it better to work out these things for yourself ? Then we wouldn't have to keep pointing out your mistakes . As requested a few posts ago supply the data that was the basis of your errors then I or others ,will explain where you went wrong and hopefully you might learn from that .
    Fwiw the blog has nothing to do with the date of the WSSR when the sun's azi was 129 degrees .

    ReplyDelete
  12. Look at this it explains something that is very simple .www.astro.virginia.edu/class/oconnell/.../ras_stonehenge_factsheet.pdf
    Scroll to page 4 and read .
    “Consequently, in Neolithic times the summer solstice Sun rose and set about 1° further north and the winter solstice Sun rose and set about 1° further south than it does now. This effect must be kept in mind when horizon alignments are being considered.”
    In baby steps this means if the sun rose at WSSR circa 2014 at 129 degrees in the past it would have risen further south which means 129+ , now look at your figures and note that you aree going in the wrong direction i.e. 129- .
    Not only making a mockery of your data but showing how highlighting how pathetic comments like ,
    "The actual WSSR in 3000BC was closer to 130.5 degrees " is complete garbage!! no doubt calculated on the back of an old envelope with your slide rule " appear to others .

    ReplyDelete
  13. Your very good at trying to changing the subject, which is the angle for the Altar Stone (just in case you forgot) - although I would agree that the info from the cybersky software is 'problematical' and not suitable for this purpose so I will use a simpler tried and trusted solution as in previous comments.

    The Visible Winter Solstice Sunrise 128.0714 degrees (http://astrosociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/B-4001.pdf)

    Change in Horizontal position is .0.000255* degrees per year (one degree every 3922 years) and eye line is accuracy is about half a degree.

    Terence's 129 degree date is 1628 BC +/- 1908 (which sadly agrees with both of us)

    Alas your date for 130.5 degrees would be 7,510 BC not 3000 BC and sadly, not even close Sherlock - but we all make mistakes, you more than most!!

    RJL

    * based on the known change in Solstice azimuth of 0.51 degrees between 1000 AD and 3000 AD

    ReplyDelete
  14. No subject was changed .
    I was responding to your listing of a number of azimuths and dates for the WSSR at Stonehenge and I pointed out where you had gone wrong .
    Attempting to evade admitting to the errors by blaming the prog is typical
    Cybersky is not problematical , it is your lack of knowledge about astronomy and use of the prog that is the problem . If you provide the data from the prog for your errors we can show where you have gone wrong but you fail to do so .

    "Change in Horizontal position is .0.000255* degrees per year "
    Not quite accurate for obliquity today but close enough for you . What have I been telling you to understand for years ?

    How can Terence’s data agree with mine when I didn’t provide any data for that Azimuth or date ?

    How many times must it be said that simply repeating what people say about you i.e. “your wrong because ….. “ is worthless without data ? I have provided data showing where you went wrong ,all you do is say something is wrong without explanation. E.g. “Alas your date for 130.5 degrees would be 7,510 BC not 3000 BC “ Where is the data supporting this nonsense ?
    You are way out of your depth , as always .
    We don’t all mistakes , however you continually do so .If I have made a mistake provide the data to show where I went wrong . That is what I continually do with your errors .

    ReplyDelete
  15. Sherlock - As it was simple schoolboy maths - I thought even you could do this one!!

    Your azimuth estimation for 3000 BC minus 2014 Winter solstice reading:

    130.5 - 128.0714 = 2.4286 degrees

    diff divided by yearly change

    2.4286 / 0.000255 = 9523.92 (years difference from today)

    9524 - 2014 = 7510 BC "We don’t all mistakes" - oh yes you do!!

    "How can Terence’s data agree with mine when I didn’t provide any data for that Azimuth or date ?"

    When I commented "Terence's 129 degree date is 1628 BC +/- 1908 (which sadly agrees with both of us)" I was referring to Terence's observation and MY comment about moving the stones in the Druid Period ITS NOT ALWAYS ABOUT YOU - you're not that important!!

    RJL

    ReplyDelete

  16. Try astronomy when you are attempting to work out astronomical problems . Clue , knowing obliquity for the date might help .
    Remember , even in simple arithmetic ,daisy stuff in ,daisy stuff out .
    Cybersky will help , if you can use it properly , but that seems like a step too far .
    Here is a comment from your blog from two years ago "What is a factor , and as you have been told often enough , is obliquity which is 0.0002 degrees . Precession is 0.014 . 20 december 2012 . "
    As can be seen from the quote you had been told even earlier ,it takes a long time and multiple repeats before it sinks in , but it looks like it soon falls out .
    You clearly accept the errors in your original dates ,it's starting to look like you might appreciate the error in your misunderstanding about precession and obliquity .

    ReplyDelete
  17. Lol - "Where is the data supporting this nonsense ? "

    Here it is refute by showing us your calculations??

    You quoting 0.0002 places the date even further back at 10,129 BC!! and the 0.014 is for a totally different calculation!!

    This bombastic nonsense is only an admittance of ignorance and lack of understanding of the subject matter!

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  18. When you get described as being ignorant iti s explained why ,you still haven't quite got the hang of adding the explanation to the comment .

    As usual you are digging the pit ever deeper .

    You made this claim in your second post .
    "2000 AD - 129 degrees
    1000 AD - 128 degrees
    1000 BC - 128 degrees
    2000 BC - 127 degrees
    3000 BC - 126 degrees "
    At the most basic level you are wrong , the azis are going north instead of going south . You try to evade the issue by blaming your tools . That is an example of ignorance and failure to understand the subject matter

    You have consistently claimed that precession is involved in the change in the position of the solstice sun despite numerous explanations showing you that you are mistaken . here is the most basic one .The rate of change for precession per century as even Hipparchus could calculate was "not less than 1° " ,try to work out how much that would mean over a millenia .Of course 0.014 is a different number , it's the the rate for precession ,cant' you read ?
    That is an example of ignorance and failure to understand the subject matter
    Now that you have finally realised (despite having been told countless times and you mooing your usual data free protests ) that obliquity , which is much smaller and actually is the cause for the change , you attempt to introduce into your "calculations " . It's a small step in the right direction , it's taken years and multiple posts and you are still getting wrong , what hope is there of you understanding and applying declination ?
    10,129 bc , you are getting worse
    Show us the detail of how you "calculate" and we'll point out where are going wrong . Clue , avoid the primary arithmetic .
    Unless you do this it will take even longer and you will drive us as daft as yourself .
    All this nonsense that you come up with , which is usually ignored , but when it does get corrected ,it's odd that you never consider thanks .
    Maybe it would be better to allow you to wallow in your ignorance as most folks obviously feel that is the best response .

    ReplyDelete
  19. "The actual WSSR in 3000BC was closer to 130.5 degrees "

    Refute with sources or calculation or admit you wrong again!!

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Crikey Robert.

      The axis of the Earth, relative to the orbital path, varies between 24.5 and 22.5 (roughly). At the moment this range is mid-way and decreasing: Going from its maximum to minimum.

      At its maximum, the range of angles of solstice sunrise are higher than at the minima. Therefore, in 3000BC the angular range between solstices would have been higher. If the maximum winter solstice angle today is 129, its range in that angular direction (clockwise) would be higher in the past. The other direction (summer solstice sunrise azimuth) would have been lower in the past.


      Delete
    2. Yer thanks Jon I know!

      Hence the comment and MY calculation (not cybersky)

      "The Visible Winter Solstice Sunrise 128.0714 degrees (http://astrosociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/B-4001.pdf)

      Change in Horizontal position is .0.000255* degrees per year (one degree every 3922 years) and eye line is accuracy is about half a degree.

      Terence's 129 degree date is 1628 BC +/- 1908 (which sadly agrees with both of us)

      Alas your date for 130.5 degrees would be 7,510 BC not 3000 BC and sadly, not even close Sherlock - but we all make mistakes, you more than most!!"

      RJL

      Delete
    3. You didn't know yesterday .
      How did you learn that what you had claimed was wrong ?

      Delete

    4. I pointed out the error , prior to that you were oblivious .

      Delete
    5. "Change in Horizontal position is .0.000255* degrees per year (one degree every 3922 years) and eye line is accuracy is about half a degree."

      The change varies sinusoidally with some minor factors for other effects, so whoever wrote this will have simplified: The derivative (rate of change) is currently at a maximum.

      Out of interest, the eye's accuracy can be less than one second (I know this because I have tested my own eyesight, so know that I can personally distinguish to less than a second of accuracy. When I was younger, my eyesight was a lot better). So not sure where the figures are from, but in practice there are many methods of getting an eye line accuracy much better than half a degree.

      One of the methods of doing this, for which you don't even need to have good eyesight, appears to be echoed in the construction of a place called Newgrange:

      A method of distinguishing small changes in solstice azimuth without using optical equipment

      The above method would be good for distinguishing changes in azimuth down to about two seconds.

      Out of interest Tim, did you ever try this at the All Cannings Long barrow?

      Delete
    6. Wow - are you sure?

      Try you eyes on Castor that's just 2 arcsecs - I know some people have claimed to see it?

      Although splitting stars is much easier than aligning stones with a disk that's half a degree and moving at about 10 arcsecs per second will be an approximation even if you readjust every (clear morning WSSR).

      But i'm happy to listen to ideas on this and how accurate they could judge?

      As for the 0.000255 - I down loaded a couple of programs at tested them over a 1000 years to see what figure they produced (none the same!) - I've seen the 0.0002 figure before and wanted something more accurate as its measuring such small margins. Again if you have a more accurate average figure love to know.

      As for Newgrange, was there winter 2013 can't see how you would get a that level of accuracy as its a 30' disk not a pin point/laser even with a artificial slit above the door opening?

      RJL

      Delete
    7. Wow - are you sure?

      Haha.. good point. No, meant less than a minute. Should have engaged brain before writing: That test was to distinguish horizontal banding (another experiment related to another monument), so would not be expected to be as accurate as eyesight on individual stars.

      As for Newgrange, was there winter 2013 can't see how you would get a that level of accuracy as its a 30' disk not a pin point/laser even with a artificial slit above the door opening?

      Quite right.. Newgrange would only be good for distinguishing two minutes, not seconds. Not a bad accuracy though.

      Delete
    8. Thank goodness for that - I though my eyes had really deteriorated!!

      RJL

      Delete
  20. Do you know what refute means ?
    That is rhetorical , you obvioulsy don't .
    Look it up , then consider ,why I would refute what I had written . If you believe it is wrong then refute it with data .
    Still not learnt that you can't say "Wrong again " without proving something wrong . When I point out your multiple errors the "wrong again " is accompanied with the evidence to prove it .
    As can be seen in the multiple posts showing the nonsense of your second post with the dates . (The first post was unintellgible ).
    However I now realise that asking for data is futile as you don’t know actually what it entails .
    One of the basics in archaeoastronomy is the concept of altitude , being formulaic it is easily calculated , but you neither know how it is applied , nor the formulae it would be used with , or even how to calculate or find it , do you ?
    You would neither understand the data nor be able to provide any .
    You have been asked for the data for the "complex calculation " for years ,it is not that you would embarrassed by it ,you don't actually know what is required .
    BTW ,if anyone wants the data for the WSSR 3000BC I am ,as always , more than happy to provide it .
    We don’t need a Turing test for bovids , even for those who can talk .
    Back to the byre Daisy , you are making a mess of the nursery floor .

    ReplyDelete
  21. More academic waffle to avoid answering the question... blah blah blah

    ",if anyone wants the data for the WSSR 3000BC I am ,as always , more than happy to provide it "

    Yes numpty that's what we been asking for so the answer is...

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  22. Academic waffle must be Daisy talk for " I don't understand ."
    Checked "refute " yet . it's got two moos not three .

    Not fair to call Bovids numpties Daisy , but it's been noted quite a few times by anyone who has encounteed your "knowledge " and bile .

    You have failed to provide data that has been asked of you for years and even in this thread ,you don't even know what to supply and wouldn't understand it if you saw it , it would only be more "acadenic waffle . "
    Anyone knows that I could supply the data , but they don't know that of you .
    Have you any idea of the difference in solar azi bearing between the WSSR OF 3000bc and 7510 BC ? A wee clue ,it's not as you have always claimed related to precession ,but it is obliquity .

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Anyone knows that I could supply the data" - I class myself as 'anyone' so show us the 'secret' formula...lol it's pathetic!

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  25. I should ,of course had said "any one here " .
    They are likely to understand the subject and I know that some certainly do .
    You obviously don't .

    ReplyDelete
  26. It finally appears to have sunk in (with no apologies and admission of error ) that obliquity explains the change in the azimuth of the solstice sunrise/sets and not precession . The next problem is to understand , that attempting to calculate prehistoric sunrise/sets is not best achieved by assuming ,wrongly , that the rate of change of obliquity was constant then arithmetically “calculating “ the prehistoric event .
    Any decent book on archaeoastronomy will give you the basics , you could then ask about the detail about how to put the concepts into practice . Cybersky will then be seen to be perfectly adequate for the relatively basic tasks .

    ReplyDelete
  27. "It finally appears to have sunk in (with no apologies and admission of error ) that obliquity explains the change in the azimuth of the solstice sunrise/sets and not precession"

    Again not true Sherlock.. where is the admission?

    "The next problem is to understand , that attempting to calculate prehistoric sunrise/sets is not best achieved by assuming ,wrongly , that the rate of change of obliquity was constant"

    Yet to be proven and I suspect that's why you have wildly miscalculated WSSR 3000BC - oh forgot it's a secret known to only those in white coats..or is that a straightjacket Sherlock??

    LOL !!



    ReplyDelete
  28. What ? Can't you read , I said there was no admission in the comment that you quoted . You never admit to errors , just slink away .

    Are you now back to claiming that precession is the cause and not obliquity ?
    If so what do you think you were "calculating " , albeit in error .

    Ask anyone who knows about the subject and they will give you a similar date and azi for the WSSR in 3000BC .Only you would disagree .
    Not only did you fail to answer if you knew the difference in obliquity between 3000BC and 7510BC you also mentioned 10129 BC , which you had continued to consider as part of the arithmetical progression . In the unlikely event that you ever learn to how to actually calculate (in the proper sense of the word ) WSSR azimuths you might notice that the obliquity for that date is actually less than that of 8000 BC a result that make a nonsense of your linear progression .

    ReplyDelete
  29. Taking one problem at a time .
    On those rare occasions when you do provide data it is demonstrably and often hilariously wrong .In this thread in your second post you listed azis and dates for the WSSR which were not only wrong they were actually going in the wrong direction .
    That was the initial problem .
    There was an attempt to blame the errors on Cybersky ,but this is extremely unlikely and was almost certainly due to a failure on your behalf to understand basic astronomy and how to handle the programme . If you had supplied the data we could have pointed out where you went wrong , but true to form you were evasive . Do you admit that error and don’t you think that thanks might be due those who pointed out your error ?

    ReplyDelete
  30. "we could have pointed out where you went wrong" - WE? OMG are there more delude and insane people on this site or are you bipolar? LOL!!

    Nurse!! - Sherlock needs his medication and the darkened room again

    ReplyDelete
  31. Yes , we , you even get that wrong . The BSE has got you to the extent that you simply can't pay attention or undertstand even simple stuff .
    On this thread others have pointed out your delusions , didn't you notice ?

    I'm taking the errors one at a time .
    Do you still stand by these demonstarbly wrong figures ?
    "2000 AD - 129 degrees
    1000 AD - 128 degrees
    1000 BC - 128 degrees
    2000 BC - 127 degrees
    3000 BC - 126 degrees " ?
    Or does it have to be spelled out again in even simpler steps ?
    At least by attempting to be abusive /funny in that daisy manner you are avoiding making further errors .





    ReplyDelete
  32. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I stand by MY figure that shows - "Terence's 129 degree date is 1628 BC +/- 1908" which I have given my workings and reasoning - WHICH IS THE TOPIC OF THE POST NUMPTY not your ego!!

    All we have got from you (not for the first time) are the ramblings of a mad man and no date for Terence's alignment - what we did get from you is a absurd reading of 130.5 degrees for WSSR 3000 BC - from a secret formula only known to you, which is no help to anyone as it doesn't answer the question.

    The main point my deluded Sherlock is that you do not contribute to the discussions in a positive way!!

    So if you're going to BE POSITIVE and add something worthwhile - be it either the date for the alignment or a better way to calculate the WSSR movement on the azimuth - then good!! If not - be quiet and take your medication, there's a good little boy!

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  34. The topic of the post is a comparison of stones .
    You listed demonstrably errorful dates and azis which you have failed to accept .
    Talking of ego , maybe that is the problem .
    Pointing out your errors is entirely positive for you and anyone who happens to think there might be some truth in them .
    How many times does it need pointing out that saying something is absurd without supporting the belief is even more absurd . You have to provide supporting evidence to support your delusions otherwise you only confirm the the delusional picture we have of you .

    If you had the gumption and understanding you might have noticed an example of the WSSR for 2550 BC provided here on May 2014 , it is unlikely that you will understand a word .
    There is no secret formula , anyone who understands how to calculate data in archaeoastronomy is aware of the formulae .You clearly are not .

    As you are unlikely to ever admit to your errors ,although they are perfectly clear to us .

    Here are the next problems in your thinking from this thread . Note they include data .
    “Change in Horizontal position is .0.000255* degrees per year (one degree every 3922 years) “

    If you believe that how does it reconcile with your other belief that precession is the cause for the shift when the rate for precession is 0.014 per year ?
    Notice the difference ? , one is 55 times greater than the other making a mockery of the comment .Worse while one of the beliefs is simply wrong the other has a fatal flaw . That will be explained soon in the next instalment of your bountiful errors .

    Rather than frothing BSE style Daisy attempt to provide a logical refutation . It gets tiresome hearing constant mooing .

    ReplyDelete
  35. We have data!!

    First we have:

    "The actual WSSR in 3000BC was closer to 130.5 degrees ".

    Second we have:

    Tim , here is the data I get for the WSSR c.2500 BC . Latitude 51.17 degrees , dec =23.98 degrees , azimuth 130. ,app alt=0.28

    My schoolboy maths suggest you've calculated a half a degree movement in just 500 years - and what was that quote you posted -

    “Consequently, in Neolithic times the summer solstice Sun rose and set about 1° further north and the winter solstice Sun rose and set about 1° further south than it does now. This effect must be kept in mind when horizon alignments are being considered.”

    That suggest one degree every 5000 years (half in 2,500 years) five times less??

    So are you suggesting the following?


    3000 BC 130.5
    2500 BC 130.0 (looks like an arithmetic progression to me)
    2000 BC 129.5?
    1500 BC 129.0?
    1000 BC 128.5?
    500 BC 128.0?
    0 AD/BC 127.5?
    500 AD 127.0?
    1000 AD 126.5?
    1500 AD 126.0?
    2000 AD 125.5?

    Fill in the ? and we will find out if you're the sum total of your bragging?


    ReplyDelete
  36. Not bragging , data . Something that you fail to provide when asked and when volunteered is woefully wrong .
    Note . you have failed to respond to the the second error .

    You can't really ,can you ?as it would mean admitting you were wrong .

    “Change in Horizontal position is .0.000255* degrees per year (one degree every 3922 years) “

    If you believe that how does it reconcile with your other belief that precession is the cause for the shift when the rate for precession is 0.014 per year ?
    Thats two errors from this thread that you have failed to address .
    Next instalment coming up .

    ReplyDelete
  37. “Change in Horizontal position is .0.000255* degrees per year (one degree every 3922 years) “

    This was one element of your “calculation “ ,which highlighted an inability to actually calculate the data for astronomical events , a failure to understand basic astronomical principles and an inability to find accurate information then apply it logically .
    Between 2014 AD and 1908 BC a period of 3922 years , the difference in azimuth for the WSSR as seen at Stonehenge differed by 0.9121 degrees
    Between 1422 AD and 2500 BC , a period of 3922 years , the difference in azimuth for the WSSR as seen at Stonehenge differed by 0.8829 degrees .
    Between 3000bc and 6922 BC a period of 3922 years , the difference in azimuth for the WSSR as seen at Stonehenge differed by 0.722 degrees .
    Between 6078 BC and 10, 000 BC a, period of 3922 years the difference in azimuth for the WSSR as seen at Stonehenge differed by 0.0063 degrees .

    Notice anything ? this ,makes a mockery of the 1) basing calculations extending to 10,000 BC on a guesstimate of “one degree every 3922 years “ . 2) the linearity of that guesstimate 3) Your logic and results .
    Needless to say , to those who know but that obviously excludes you when we see your data , the accompanying azimuths change 1.4 degrees between 2014 AD and 10,000 BC and the direction is diametrically opposite to what you suggest in your nutty list .
    Next instalment involves the other component of the “calculation .

    ReplyDelete
  38. This is excellent we have now your table of calculation!!

    2014 AD to 1908 BC = 0.9121 at a rate of 0.0002325 per annum
    1422 AD to 2500 BC = 0.8829 at a rate of 0.0002251 per annum
    3000 BC to 6922 BC = 0.722 at a rate of 0.000184 per annum
    6072 BC to 10000BC = 0.0063 at a rate of 0.0000016 per annum

    Well done nice figs - you need to check the last set the variation is too large I suspect unless its the time of 'processional reversal' - would explain it to you if I had the time.

    But you do realise it confirms my criticism of your 3000BC to 2500BC of 0.5 degrees which clearly is inaccurate.

    My quick 'ready reckoner' is slightly out by 0.0000112 and should be 0.00022367 making Terences alignment at 2139 BCE =/- 1908 (sadly still not answering the question whether Terence or I are correct in our assumptions).

    RJL

    ReplyDelete
  39. Note , I don't supply data because you asked for it but only to highlight your errors .
    You never respond with figures when asked and have failed to respond to the errors so far highlighted .
    1) The original list of mad azis and dates
    2)The cognitive dissonace evident in your belief that precession cause the shift in solstice azis when the rate is 55 times greater than what you provided for the shift .
    3) The misunderstanding of the nature of that change and how stupid it was to assume it an arithmetic progression .

    The figures are correct ,refute them if you can , breath won’t be held , you wouldn’t know where to start .
    No ,you can’t explain your nonsensical “ processional reversal “ , the reasons are perfectly obvious to anyone ,unlike yourself , who knows anything about archaeoastronomy .
    Just as you usually misunderstand anything that is not linear you have taken the data for the 2500 -3000 BC azis out of context . The 2500BC example had data but the 3000 BC was mentioned in relation to your usual nonsense e.g. “The actual WSSR in 3000BC was closer to 130.5 degrees .” than your “3000 BC - 126 degrees " . Your 126 is at least 4 degrees out but more importantly as you have the azis moving north it is in the wrong direction . Note that there was no accompanying data for the 3500 date and it said “closer to “ ,which is different from 130.5 ,to even consider using the figure as a basis for a calculation involving small numbers shows the level of incompetence we have to put up with . Ready reckoner out , Cybersky at fault ,we know what the problem is .
    This only delays the next instalment ,part 4 , of the errors in this thread .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. Next instalment about the errors found in this thread .

      Another concept that you misunderstand is the accuracy of figures given for a sun rise /set alignment .
      It is possible to say that some figures are just plain wrong , like your “calculations “ . Others that understand the concepts and know the formulae may make a simple mistake like getting the alt. wrong . There are also the categories that are clearly not wrong but because of the variables (see below ) might not agree exactly with others who are also "not wrong ".
      It is telling that you couldn’t come up with your own “calculation “ of the WSSR . Equally telling was what you did choose as a basis and the failure to notice problems with that choice .
      First , the latitude for the site is given as 51 degrees 17 mins i.e. 51.28 degrees when it is actually 51.17 degrees .Co-ordinates and decimals may have been mixed up , whatever the explanation you might have thought they would have used the correct latitude and you would have noticed , luckily it doesn’t matter too much .
      The WSSR in the pdf is considered to be 128 degrees 14 mins ,which you took to be 128.0714 e.g. "The Visible Winter Solstice Sunrise 128.0714 degrees “ , when it is actually 128.233 .Not their error , yours , but now that you realise what a difference of 0.1616 means chronologically , your chronology has began on a major error .
      Then there is the problem with the bearing itself . If we look at that bearing on the day of the solstice in question the sun is at an altitude of minus 0.72 degrees below the horizon and the time is given as 8:10 .Come 8:12 and the sun is still below the horizon at minus 0.48 degrees . Neither are correct for the value of refraction at that alt . It appears that the horizon , although minimal , has not been taken into consideration and the azimuth is based on a time of “sunrise “ which has various definitions and in this case based on the latitude . Fundamentally the azimuth is wrong (see above ) . As a comparison with other researchers the same pdf gives the SSSR (2000AD ) as 49 degrees 06 mins i.e. 49.1 degrees ,the Freeman’s suggest that the present day (1999) SSSR =50.18 this is much more accurate and includes refraction and the horizon in the equation and is clearly recording an event that is taking place above the horizon .
      Note that the change in azimuths from present day to 10,000 BC only involves 1.4 degrees and you are starting off with nearly two thirds of that value in error This is then compounded with the previously mentioned errors in the “calculation” .
      Deep in the Daisy stuff indeed .

      Delete
  40. Part 4 - how exciting!

    "you have taken the data for the 2500 -3000 BC azis out of context" - Not really, you've just got it badly wrong with an average change of azimuth of 0.5 degrees in 500 year a change of 0.001 per annum which according to your own figures in my previous comment/table has never happened.

    No shame in being wrong Sherlock although clearly you have issues over making ERRORS !!

    "to err is human; to forgive is divine" - I forgive you Sherlock LOL!!

    ReplyDelete
  41. A complete failure , as always to face up to the all the errors .

    You did take the comment out of context . here is the original quote “The errors can be highlighted by an example .The actual WSSR in 3000BC was closer to 130.5 degrees . “ that was compared with your mad figure of 126 degrees ,which is not only out by degrees, not a fraction of a degree , it is also going in the wrong direction . I got a figure off the top of my head much closer to the real azimuth than you could with your “calculation “ .

    ReplyDelete
  42. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I have just had a look at the WSSR at Stonehenge 3000 BC .
    Here is some data .
    AZI =130.5
    Dec =-24.0
    Alt =0.03
    It looks like "closer to" , was much closer than I thought .
    Refute that .
    Even better provide data or a "calculation" showing your 126 degrees is not embarrassingly idiotic .
    Best stay in the byre you will only make your self even more ridiculous .

    ReplyDelete