Help Wanted Solving the Neolithic Universe

by AHanna on July 3, 2013

Dennis first introduced Jon Morris and his book The Broken Stone and the Secret of the Heavens’ Henge here at Eternal Idol back in June 2011. Jon published his second book, Stonehenge: Solving the Neolithic Universe this past January. He’s presently working on updating this book and is hoping to enlist help from readers and contributors here at Eternal Idol toward that end. Below is Jon’s explanation of the process he’s gone through and the goal he hopes to achieve.

Solving the Neolithic Universe

Just over three years ago, I wandered around Stonehenge thinking that it looked remarkably familiar. The structure of Stonehenge appears to be an ideal system within which to construct a working model of a cosmos/Universe in which the Earth is believed to be fixed at the centre.

At the time, I thought this would make a marvellous basis for a novel, so wrote the story of Marce and Clende: Two children of the neolithic era journeying from Europe to the mysterious Arlth Island where they learn how the Universe works.

The post Broken Stone and Heavens’ Henge appeared in Eternal Idol about a year later: This project, which started life in about 2007 as research into an obscure form of renewable energy, had taken an unusual path.

 

02

 

This new solar method concentrates solar energy using fixed, and possibly irregular, plates of polished metal (mirrors). Polished plates of metal have been with us for an exceptionally long time (up to 8000 years) and Britain was, in antiquity, the source of the easiest metal to produce mirrors from (tin).

The sphere of the heavens and Solstice

The mathematics of the method are simplest to visualise if you think of the World as fixed at the centre of the Universe (geocentric). By looking east towards the direction of rotation of the sphere of the heavens, the layout of a geocentric Universe can be drawn as a simple diagram.

This diagram is identical to the eventual layout of Stonehenge, with the circle representing the Earth and the solitary Heel Stone in the Avenue now representing the precise position of the polar axis rather than solstice.

 

20

 

Over the next year or so, I went looking for errors in the novel’s theory. Largely in the Megalithic Portal, but also on Brian John’s site and Eternal Idol, these discussions worked through queries and evidence (special thanks for this to George and Neil, who also frequent all these places).

Rather than finding discrepancies, detailed examination unearthed more coincidences which fitted the theory.

Then, whilst discussing Stonehenge with George, I also found that the Avebury Circle had a similar layout. However, in one respect, this early construction at Avebury is remarkably different: Whilst it describes a fixed world Universe, it focuses on the Sun and Moon at one particular point in their cycle. In the Sun’s case, Avebury describes winter solstice and in the Moon’s case, Avebury describes one of the two major standstills. Both of these events occur, from a fixed world perspective, when these heavenly bodies are in the Southern Hemisphere.

So if Avebury is not just a coincidence, solstice was important to the people who lived in this area and the Avenue may not be only about the polar axis of the heavenly sphere.

The size of a fixed world

A question I had about all this was how could they know? Would it be possible to find put that the world was a sphere if you lived in England and had only sticks and stones?

To see if I could do it, I thought up a simple experiment that could be done looking from high land out to sea. Topographical maps of my local area suggested that one particular spot would be the best place to do this experiment. Knowing that the land would not be flat enough, and that scrub would probably obscure my view, I took some surveying kit and hiked up to that location to run an equivalent test using modern equipment.

At this point, it all started to get a bit spooky: On arrival, I found an unusually large and high neolithic barrow with a flat top surface located in exactly the correct spot to do the test. The height of the barrow got over the problem of scrub and its size and location were exactly what I needed to run the test to a good accuracy. I took all my equipment back to the car and resolved to return with a few sticks.

This experiment was done in 2012, and the size of the world measured to within about 5% using just bamboo, the neolithic mound and a tape measure. I then started to look at how other things could be done, and found that all of the barrows in the area appeared to be arranged for those purposes.

 

40

 

But this set of experiments only prove that the world has a certain size if it is a sphere. It does not prove that the world is not a disc. To prove the world is a sphere, you need tall and large barrows in similar high locations looking over sea.

There are very few locations that this can be done, but at all of the other locations, a similarly large and tall barrow exists. In other words, some sets of monuments appear to be designed to prove the nature of a Universe in which the world is fixed at the centre.

Why would anyone bother to do this?

Looking again at some of my very early solar engineering work, I wondered if other similar inventions, coming from the same train of thought, might also fit neolithic monuments. One modification did fit rather precisely: A whole series of neolithic monuments which appear to address a particular concern for the long term viability of the community.

But this second set of detailed coincidences was not related to the ‘stone era’ of Stonehenge. It was very much earlier.

Located in Ireland, these monuments have drawings which appear to describe the concern and also show how to solve a problem so that the population need not worry about it. All of this is based, to some extent, on a knowledge of what happens at solstice. Curiously, if Professor Parker Pearson is correct in some of his latest findings, the same basic arrangement can also be shown to have existed at Stonehenge and its environs, but at an even earlier ‘pre-stone’ phase of the construction.

The same story, but non-fiction

In late 2012, I compiled a short paper about the ideas to explain the geocentric principles and how they could apply to Stonehenge: These days, very few people think that the Universe rotates around our world, so showing how this all works can be a bit counter-intuitive to a modern way of thinking. The paper was published by the Megalithic Portal in 2012, and an updated version of it can be found here.

After writing the paper, I wrote an expanded booklet for the Amazon platform. This adds to the original paper by showing how the monuments along the South Coast can be used to find out the size of the world. In addition, I included some interesting coincidences concerning the Grail and other Celtic stories: For example, Chretian de Troyes’ original description of the Grail, its castle and the Grail procession are almost identical to a description of how the structure at Stonehenge can be used to create a miniature version of the Sun.

 

51

 

The expanded booklet version, Stonehenge: Solving the Neolithic Universe, was published to quite good reviews. For example, Tim Darvill wrote to say that “while I do agree that the basic structure of Stonehenge is essentially a working model of their cosmos/perceived universe, I don’t think that was itself the reason that Stonehenge is what it is or where it is”.

I agree with Tim about this: If Mike Parker Pearson is correct in some aspects of his recent discoveries, the rest of the evidence at Stonehenge tends to support the idea that its location, and its original reason for existence, was based on the same fear as appears to be shown in Ireland. If this is not just another coincidence, the stone phase of Stonehenge shows that man had obtained a mastery, and perhaps even control, over that original fear.

Cloth-hinge: The ‘new’ prototype

The next step was to build a simple prototype. This uses the structure of Stonehenge to recreate a ‘mini-sun’ which rotates around the polar axis over the course of an afternoon.

 

60

 

From an engineering perspective, this was seriously useful: I found ‘new’ methods of making the system work much more effectively. None of these ideas had occurred to me before and none had been obvious in any of the previous ‘pre-Stonehenge’ prototypes: At Cloth-hinge, it was really obvious what to do and how to do it better.

The next stage

My work-load has taken off and, a bit like Dennis, I no longer have much time available to develop the coincidences. So I thought it would be worth expanding the booklet to show my late stage ‘Stonehenge-related’ references so that others can explore the ideas as and if they wish.

But how much should be shown? An expanded introduction to Stonehenge could show all the coincidences relatively easily and quickly: I have already collated some two hundred or so required references to books such as Cleal, Pearson and other archaeologists. This avoids repeating too much of what has already been written. Similarly, the Avebury description and coincidences can be covered with just a few dozen references, as can the monuments of the South Downs: These secondary coincidence sets are relatively small compared to Stonehenge and the other place.

Perhaps also the engineering needs more explanation? For example the booklet shows how the monuments fitted, but it did not go into any depth about why each set of Stonehenge features works so well. Perhaps this needs a section covering design and going into detail on what the design considerations are for this sort of thing? But this would be a lot of work.

So if anyone here at Eternal Idol would be kind enough to look through the existing booklet; Stonehenge: Solving the Neolithic Universe, to comment on what you think is necessary by way of expanded references, I would be very grateful.

I’ll make it available as a free download from Amazon every morning for the next few days starting tomorrow (July 4). Unfortunately, there are problems with making it available in the afternoon or evening. Apologies in advance for this.

Jon Morris

{ 37 comments… read them below or add one }

Jonathan July 4, 2013 at 7:24 am

I should have said what “morning” means in Amazon-time:

In Pacific Standard it’s about midnight to about 9am +/- an hour either end
Eastern time, it’s about 3am to about 12pm give or take an hour
British time, it’s about 8am to about 5pm give or take an hour
Australia, it’s sometime in the afternoon

In their blurb, it says that the actual time can be up to 2 hours different, but in the past it’s always comes in within the half hour.

Red Raven July 4, 2013 at 12:50 pm

I can confirm that the download is available on amazon.co.uk as I downloaded it this morning. Will read it in the next few weeks (lots of things on the go at the minute). As someone with a strong interest in the neolithic, I look forward to reading this.

Gilbert July 4, 2013 at 1:23 pm

The Church’s Restoration
In eighteen-eighty-three
Has left for contemplation
Not what there used to be.
John Betjeman

Jon, assuming the lintels were level, fearfully level, thousands of years ago and not as a result of the many improvements made with the best intentions in the last 200 years, does your working model explain why this is so?

Jonathan July 4, 2013 at 1:45 pm

Hi Gilbert

Yes, it does: It’s a requirement of the system to make winter-set easier. In practice you can arrange it, albeit with a lot more difficulty, without having a level rim but this means you have to spend a lot more time setting up. I think I covered this in the book, but if it’s not, then I’ll add it to the list of things to refer to.

Thanks!

Jon

Dan H. July 4, 2013 at 4:00 pm

Jon,
This theory is absolute gold-dust as it offers a credible solution to the problem of why the Stonehenge lintels were so very level; they didn’t need to be in a Solstice celebrating system.

Thank you.

JohnWitts July 4, 2013 at 10:01 pm

Got it.

Jonathan July 5, 2013 at 9:43 am

Thanks Dan

If there’s anything you spot that you think there’s not enough evidence or needs more explanation and/or citations, could you let me know?

I have something close to a thousand references to data sources for all of this. Years before going to Stonehenge, this project was put together as engineering research into obscure forms of renewable solar energy, so references are very finely catalogued.

Thanks again for looking at it!

Jon

Gilbert July 5, 2013 at 12:21 pm

I hope the free download will still be available on Sunday as that is the first time I can get to my home PC in the morning.
In the meantime thanks Jon for answering Q47.

As you know Dennis ran off a 100 questions that were on the top of his head for an answer to SH.
http://www.eternalidol.com/?p=11080
This could be regarded as an independent check-list of interests and any further questions your theory and model provide answers for are of much interest to us here.

When you have no idea what something is for there are clues when its use stops.

If the monument as a whole became a geocentric model of the universe this would seem irrelevant to life and survival during a period when this universe was no longer visible.

So one additional question pertinent to the cessation of activity at SH around 1600 BC and the eruption of Thera at the same time: Am I right in thinking that it matters little what the air temperatures are but your model depends on clear direct sunlight? If it is overcast, or hazy your model does not function?

Jonathan July 5, 2013 at 3:20 pm

Hi Gilbert

The ideas could only answer a small percentage of Dennis’s list. If anything, they would add more questions to the list. It should be OK until Sunday, but after that I’ve run out of allowable days.

Am I right in thinking that it matters little what the air temperatures are but your model depends on clear direct sunlight? If it is overcast, or hazy your model does not function?

It doesn’t matter what the air temperature is and it works when hazy, but it does not work when overcast.

It also works in partially clouded conditions: Tied to the polar axis (the one that looks like a lance), the light-carrier rod must point directly at the sun to work, so the cup would appear to light up with sunbeams, and then fade an instant before they fade (when light is no longer reflected from the dish/cauldron of metallic reflectors at the perimeter).

Jon

ND Wiseman July 5, 2013 at 6:44 pm

Greetings from Washington DC folks.

As Jon has mentioned, I have been aware of his process for some time now and if I have contributed any small incidentals, I blush at his noting it.

I confess that, given the body of evidence, his idea is rather difficult to refute. (And, oh yes dear readers, I have tried!)
Also difficult to refute is the Stonehenge Builders’ knowledge of a Geocentric World. This information or evidence is amply displayed by the Edifice itself, and reviewed in this context, reveals enormous cultural context related to their belief system – where the time-frame, internal bank, and placement of curated relics and tools, et al are only 3 of the more obvious examples.

Jon’s idea expands the ‘what they knew and when they knew it’ to such a fine degree that I would be hard-pressed to endorse an alternate viewpoint.

Gilbert’s fascinating idea with regard to Thera on Isla Santorini is as compelling a rationale as I have ever heard concerning the decline of not only the Great Citadel, but many others besides. It also in no way conflicts with any other premise.

So then, through the careful research and study of the last 10 years, we now have a Beginning, a Middle, and an Ending. Jon’s fresh new view provides a startlingly clear supposition which provides some ‘fleshing’ into the rest of the story.

Best wishes,
Neil

JohnWitts July 6, 2013 at 7:43 pm

Is there any dendrochronological evidence regarding 1600BC?

Robin Melrose July 7, 2013 at 5:52 am

If you want dendrochronolical evidence, read Mike Baillie’s “Irish Tree Rings and an event in 1628 BC’, in Hardy, ‘Thera and the Aegean World III’. He says (and I quote from ‘The Druids and King Arthur’):

The dendrochronologist Mike Baillie has studied oaks growing on the surface of Irish raised bogs and has concluded that there was a “large volcanic dust-veil event in 1628 BC”. He notes that ice-core acidity in Greenland peaks at 1644 BC – 20, which coincides with the widespread occurrence of narrowest growth rings in Irish bog oaks. In fact, six trees on four different bogs produced their narrowest growth rings in 1624 BC — and such extreme single-year events occur only nine times in 6000 years. However, it is clear that the “event” at 1624BC is not restricted to a single year, for 1624 BC is the low point of a reduction in growth which in general appears to start around 1628 BC and lasts for a number of years. This tree ring evidence is supported by data from English bog oaks: Croston Moss in Lancashire has oaks from 3198 BC-1682 BC, and from 1584 BC-970 BC, implying a catastrophic event between 1682 BC and 1584 BC, while the Hasholme chronology spans 1687 BC to 1362 BC and shows an extremely narrow band of rings in the 1620s BC.

You can find a summary of Baillie’s work at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v332/n6162/abs/332344a0.html

JohnWitts July 7, 2013 at 10:18 am
Gilbert July 7, 2013 at 12:04 pm

Yes John starting with the post from Dan Johnston here:
http://www.eternalidol.com/?p=9328

Jonathan July 7, 2013 at 5:37 pm

Is there any dendrochronological evidence regarding 1600BC?

Yes, Robin’s right: Mike Baillie’s done some great work on this. I met him and discussed it a couple of years back at and after a Neolithic Studies Group meeting. Mike’s book The Celtic Gods develops the idea of comets in the context of Arthurian and Irish legend (which also happen to fit the descriptions of Stonehenge being used as a geocentric device).

There’s plenty of other indicators for past climate change, but only to general centuries rather than specific dates. Some of it could be localised climate change. On the comet idea, last time I spoke to Mike (by email), he mentioned that he’s sent the Irish oak downturn results to a comet astronomer who had said that no stream of debris could stay coherent for thousands of years; so I’m not sure if Mike has remained on that track (I haven’t heard since so don’t know).

If the Irish monuments are not a coincidence, the very reason for their existence contains the seeds of their own, and Stonehenge’s, end-stage abandonment. Climate factors as described by Mike would have been a significant contributory factor, but if the ideas at Stonehenge don’t grab any significant interest then the other coincidences won’t; so I figure it’s better to try to expand out the detail on Stonehenge.

Jonathan July 8, 2013 at 6:37 am

As Jon has mentioned, I have been aware of his process for some time now and if I have contributed any small incidentals, I blush at his noting it.

Hey Neil. Thanks for the glowing report, but I think you underestimate how important you guys are to all this. For example, without knowing what others see as being the flaws in the idea, it’s seriously difficult for me to write up an explanation or show what the evidence is.

Neil Wiseman July 8, 2013 at 2:03 pm

We all certainly had some lively, informative discussions, yes. (I miss those days! Remember Chris from Cambodia?)

Lest there be confusion, let me state for the record that Jon’s exhaustive research of available information greatly assisted me in assembling my own analysis of Stonehenge. Typically, his is straight-forward, streamlined, and concise while mine is layered, complex, and interpretive. e.g.: I was the ‘Ice Striation Guy’ well before it became generally accepted, and he was the ‘South Trilithon Guy’ who still takes a lot of heat for his supposition concerning those 3 curious inclusions on S-54.

By some wild and curious alignment of Earth and Stars, the 2 theories are independent and complimentary.

All this and much more was moderated in part by George ‘Tiompan’ on the Portal, whose careful guidance, incredible knowledge and well-placed measures of gentle public and private scolding, provided a key control by which these ideas were launched.

I credit both in my boiler-plate efforts.

In addition, speaking for myself, another gentleman who perhaps unknowingly plays a role here is Dennis Price, who provided (among other things) his incisive 100 Questions about Stonehenge. Although I still haven’t answered them all, they helped set in motion the springboard by which I was encouraged to continue; learning that I wasn’t the only one asking many of the same questions.

So then, rather than working in a vacuum, to one degree or another we all rely on each other for support, feedback and the endless search for repeatable results.

Best,
Neil

Jonathan July 8, 2013 at 5:33 pm

So then, rather than working in a vacuum, to one degree or another we all rely on each other for support, feedback and the endless search for repeatable results.

Quite right. George and Dennis are especially knowledgeable. However everyone’s opinion is valid. If anyone has any views: Things that should be expanded in more detail, things that you think are not explained properly or even just queries about parts that seem not to make sense (my writing may not have explained it well), I would be very keen to hear.

Jon

Jonathan July 9, 2013 at 10:43 pm

‘South Trilithon Guy’ who still takes a lot of heat for his supposition concerning those 3 curious inclusions on S-54.

Hey Neil

This has been bugging in back of my mind all day (and now the evening). Has anyone mentioned the three vertically aligned sockets (in Stone 54) which exist directly south of the centre of the monument to you? Just that I don’t recall anything being said about them.

We had a chat about this a couple of years back and I did eventually figure out a way to tell one way or the other. But the likes of you and me aren’t allowed to get up close and personal with the stones (and anyway it wouldn’t mean anything unless an independent party did it without prior knowledge of the likely outcome), so I figured that it was something that should just be put on the back shelf and forgotten about.

Jon

JohnWitts July 10, 2013 at 9:03 pm

Jon

I have ‘galloped’ through the first section and admit I found it difficult to relate how it all comes together. I will read it through more carefully next time but with a plan of Stonehenge and the stone numbers.

Bear in mind I am someone who finds it difficult to picture in 3D the ecliptic, celestial sphere and so on, leave alone how the moon enters into the scheme. So please do not despair.

That said, am I on the right track in thinking the sarsen circle provides a support for the mirrors and that some (not all?) of the trilithons are connected to the pole aligning to the “north star” and also help support the swiveling “sun-ball” pole? I assume the sarsen lintels provide an artificial horizon for the reflected light displayed by the sun ball?

Am I correct in thinking that there was some redundancy as some stones did not have a significant part to play in your scheme?

A very interesting point is the possibility that the original alignment was out by 2 degrees due to an error. I have long assumed that the “causeway holes” indicated that originally the interest was lunar and that aspect dictated the initial axis. This was later adjusted to accord with a solar emphasis. (Not sure now where I got this from now I will have to review it).

I found myself thinking that tin mirrors seemed to have been very easily arrived at. From out of nowhere? Although the explanation that tin pest will destroy tin so leaving no archaeological record of it eliminates any development of that argument.

I must admit that I had not really grasped the hinge and think I am clearer now and I will enjoy trying to get to grips with the concept. I will try and master it before moving on to the next section (sizing the earth) which seems to be even more complex. In this respect one has to admire Eratosthenes of Alexandria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes .

Jonathan July 11, 2013 at 9:44 am

Hi John. You’re not alone: It can be quite difficult to imagine a world which is fixed at the centre of the Universe and then visualise in 3-D the effects of that type of thinking.

That said, am I on the right track in thinking the sarsen circle provides a support for the mirrors and that some (not all?) of the trilithons are connected to the pole aligning to the “north star” and also help support the swiveling ‘sun-ball’ pole? I assume the sarsen lintels provide an artificial horizon for the reflected light displayed by the sun ball?

That’s it! The 53/54 stones provide the seasonal support, which can be used to raise the ball of reflected light above the outer sarsen ring. Without the seasonal adjustment (the three holes in 54), the reflected ball of light would disappear below the artificial horizon (of the outer lintels) in the spring and summer: The sun is high at these times so the ‘mini-sun’, which is created by the mirror-plaques, would be too low.

When using the scale model, I found that the trilithon frames formed by stones 51/52, 57/58 and 59/60 were essential: They allow stay-ropes to gradually rotate the ball around the polar axis. The Great Trilithon (55/56) is less useful for this, but does form a critical function which I haven’t yet described: I only found out about the extra function when I did the full scale model tests about a month ago.

I also found that the height of each set of trilithon stones was critical: If something goes wrong while you’re using the system, it’s too high up for people to get to; so you need a method of accessing the reflector (‘mini-sun’). Stones 55/56, 57/58 and 59/60 are just the right height for each of the three seasonal set positions. 55/56 doesn’t work quite so well in the position it is in now: However, these 55/56 trilithons, also known as the Great Trilithon, were perfectly located when they were in the original locations which existed before the restoration attempts (as described by Johnson and Parker Pearson in their books)

Thanks for this John: I think I need to add in a section showing the results of the scale model tests. Wasn’t sure I needed to do this, but I’m pretty sure it’s necessary now. I did a time-delay set of photos of the scale model (which shows the rotation of the ‘mini-sun’ around the polar axis when seen in sequence). When I get time, I’ll compile these into a video so it can be seen working.

Am I correct in thinking that there was some redundancy as some stones did not have a significant part to play in your scheme?

Yes: The whole South West segment is all pretty redundant but looks better than if it had been left open. When you do the extended operations analysis (or ‘how do we make this work in practice?’), outer sarsen stones 17 and 18 are more of a hindrance than a help, which is why I showed these two missing in the 2011 novel (though I was half-and-half about this because the monument would look nicer if they are included).

I’ll add in ‘operations’ into another appendix. I was hoping that the results of the recent ground surveys (which apparently show that stones 17 and 18 were never installed) would be published sometime soon.

I found myself thinking that tin mirrors seemed to have been very easily arrived at. From out of nowhere? Although the explanation that tin pest will destroy tin so leaving no archaeological record of it eliminates any development of that argument.

Molten tin is very similar to solder (the stronger solders are up to 70% tin): If you drop a bit of hot tin solder on a flatish surface, the droplet automatically forms a miniature mirror-like splatter. To check whether or not I could make one easily, now knowing from the splatter that a mirror could be made from tin, I had a go at it in my back garden using a fire, some tin, simple pottery, chalk and cloth. Turns out to be really easy to do. There are a couple of blog posts about this below, but you’re right; it does need expanding into perhaps an appendix section? (I kept the blogs very short).

Thanks again John, another one for the revision list!

My tin casting experiments:
http://heavenshenge.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/neolithic-tin-mirrors-casting.html
My tin polishing experiments:
http://heavenshenge.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/neolithic-tin-mirrors-polishing.html

But on tin pest, it does seem that a tin-lead plaque was found buried at Stonehenge in the time of Henry the Eighth (Juris mentioned it on this site: http://www.eternalidol.com/?p=9335 ). Only one side of each mirror-plaque needs to be mirror-like. Nobody knows what happened to the plaque that was discovered:

“I have heard that in the time of King Henrie the Eight, there was found neere this place a table of metall, as it had been tin and lead commixt, inscribed with many letters, but in so strange a Character, that neither Sir Thomas Eliot, nor master Lilye School-maister of Paules, could read it, and therefore neglected it. Had it been preserved, somewhat happily might have been discovered as concerning Stoneheng, which now lieth obscured” (quote from Anthony Johnson, quoting William Camben (1551-1623) on page 46 of ‘Solving Stonehenge’)

When Bronze (the alloy of tin and copper) was discovered, sometime after Stonehenge was built, tin would have become one of the most valuable resources in the world (to make weapons from by melting it down): The quantity that would be required at Stonehenge would perhaps be worth fighting over?

I think I mentioned all this in the booklet, but will add it to the list just in case it’s something I overlooked. Thanks again John!

I will try and master it before moving on to the next section (sizing the earth) which seems to be even more complex. In this respect one has to admire Eratosthenes of Alexandria.

As soon as you get the idea of geocentric thinking, it all becomes simple (though I know it’s easy for me to say having been working on the engineering for the last six years). Greek culture was astounding but, if this is true, the peoples of Britain (and North Europe and Spain) knew all about the nature of the Universe thousands of years before the Greeks thought of it.

Jon

JohnWitts July 11, 2013 at 6:35 pm

Thanks Jon – I will try the next section and let you know.

Neil Wiseman July 13, 2013 at 6:21 am

Has anyone mentioned the three vertically aligned sockets in Stone 54, which exist directly south of the centre of the monument to you?

Jon: I had asked a number of my learned friends about this around the same time as I was looking into the curious properties of S-16. I asked blindly, as you hadn’t published yet and was loath to ‘upset your cart’ as it were.

3 responses were that they were almost certainly natural, and while I noted that it was unlikely that the holes would be positioned with such certain equidistance by chance, was given several examples of curiously placed inclusions in other Stones. More than once I was directed to S-60 with the huge void at its north-side base – now known to have been raised like that (and now filled with concrete). While these were well meaning notices within the constraints of my query, I felt the somewhat mainstream answers were a bit vague. Completely understandable.

Therefore, as you may recall, I had a flashed photo taken of the 2nd hole, and it shows the interior to be ambiguously natural. While this doesn’t prove much by way of your theory, I have a sense that if valid, perhaps not all the inclusions are man-made. Unfortunately, the bottom hole is quite battered from the passage of aeons, so I might be reluctant to call it ‘Proof’ in its present condition.

However – the fact remains that they are all situated precisely on the corner of -54, and that this corner is exactly on the South Line. This is compelling enough (to me) to warrant a more comprehensive investigation of the upper hole.

All of this occurs without mentioning the interesting, interpretive, but definitely man-made markings on the east side of -53 and the west side of -54 (aka: Terry Meaden’s ‘Chief’s Face’)

So, at least circumstantially, there’s something significant about the massive South Trilithon – and with these examples being only 3 of several, underscore the perfectly viable assumptions.

Best,
Neil

Jonathan July 14, 2013 at 6:18 am

3 responses were that they were almost certainly natural, and while I noted that it was unlikely that the holes would be positioned with such certain equidistance by chance, was given several examples of curiously placed inclusions in other Stones. More than once I was directed to S-60 with the huge void at its north-side base — now known to have been raised like that (and now filled with concrete). While these were well meaning notices within the constraints of my query, I felt the somewhat mainstream answers were a bit vague. Completely understandable.

Thanks Neil. I imagine that the vast majority of inclusions at Stonehenge are natural, so any first response would also be that an inclusion is likely to be natural. That they are equidistant, vertically aligned and directly south of the centre of the monument could also be happen-stance. Nevertheless, there might be traces of rough tooling because the peculiar internal shaping of these inclusions is also a necessary requirement?

The lowermost hole creates a hinge intersection point way above the centre of the monument. From this, you must create a bowl which fits the winter (outer) ring of sarsen stones (a bit of wind could easily de-stabilise the winter mirror set positions so this has to be seriously solid). Because the solar plane changes over season, the distance between holes also has to correspond to the most efficient case for other times of year: Stonehenge’s holes are set at this optimal distance.

The edge of the equinox circle must also intersect with a support for each mirror set (summer doesn’t matter so much). The equinox bowl (created by the second hole’s hinge) intersects with the top of the bluestones, so that’s perhaps an extra coincidence related to the holes?

Then each bowl rim must also be placed so that it uses the sun’s rays most efficiently. This dictates where the ‘three support point’ must be placed. This optimal position (distance from the centre) is also exactly where stone 54 at Stonehenge is located. On top of this there’s also a few extra weird coincidences.

The main thing about the three holes are that they are vertically aligned, placed and shaped and are set directly to the south of the centre of a monument which is perfectly suited to the purpose; and which also has the entire arrangement written out as a diagram using every single feature of the station stones, heel, bank, Avenue and so on? But I guess that it is unlikely that anyone would have looked in detail at the holes to see if they are wholly natural.

Many thanks!

Jon

JohnWitts July 24, 2013 at 7:04 am

Having read the second section (I am sorry it has taken so much time but geometric demonstrations do not offer light reading).

So – as I understand it – Jon is saying that tumulus (round barrows) on the South Downs are sighted in relation to each other (shades of ley lines?) so that their exact height can be determined through surveying using poles of a known height with reference to sea level.

Then on an individual barrow (Bourne Hill – a high point in the area) this calculation was used along with those from an experiment based on the setting and rising sun at equinox. This experiment showed a difference in height of 6″ over 10 yards (a slope of 1:130) which I think can be plugged into the diagram of the geometry and then used to calculate the radius of the earth. It is more interesting to me (40+ years on from geometry lessons) that the diagram is shown to be repeated in the schematic of an actual Neolithic site at Combe Hill Camp – perhaps this could have been expanded upon as it seems very convincing – something tangible.

I thought that the surveying of heights would be used as an explanation of the Long Man of Wilmington but it seems that two sticks are needed to observe the rotation of the stars (I thought you only needed to find the pole star and watch it all spin around that?) .

In this respect I do like the reference to Polegate although referencing place names I find Pol is indicative of a pool or stream. Could a pool, which is used to level the barrows, be interesting in that respect as opposed to the implied stellar reference?

As I am mostly turned off by geometrical explanations (feeling that they are in the main back fitted) but I did found this more than plausible. I do remain to be convinced the some very small measurements (“6″ over 10 yards) can be noticed to be practical. I also feel that I wanted to know if barrows in other locations were likely to have been used to perform similar experiments or was it likely to be unique to the Eastbourne area? And the area around Stonehenge has numerous to choose from.

Anyway good effort Jon – I enjoyed and on to folklore (feel a bit more home there)

Jonathan July 24, 2013 at 12:54 pm

Hi John

Thanks: I’ll look at expanding Combe Hill and see if it can be explained a bit. I went there and did the experiment myself (using poles set on the mounds) just to check that you really could see everything that you needed. In the book I reduced this to a very quick one and a half pages (most of which is diagrams) and didn’t describe my experiments.

The measurement thing is very difficult because different people have different eye tolerances. I tested my own eyesight in another set of experiments to see what my own tolerances are (again to see if this was really practical before going out to do the Bourne experiment). The way I checked this was to find different pieces of wood with different grains and to see which grains I could accurately count at a distance. In my case, I can see tolerances of about two millimetres for every 10 metres, so finding the alignment point (about 150mm above the ‘datum twig’ in the other direction) had an error of about +/- 2mm: This goes to a total +/-4mm error because you have to sight in both directions (so an error which works out at up to about 3% for the experiment as a whole).

I’m not that young a man. Someone who is 40 years younger will have sharper eyes than me and should be able to do better than 2mm in 10 metres.

There is additional evidence that Bourne Hill is particularly special: I tested the conductance of the top surface and found it to be very different from everything else in the area: It’s exactly what you would expect if a bowl had been originally used to construct it. Again, I’ve cut all this out of the book because I felt it just complicated things.

There are barrows in other locations but I doubt the ones at Stonehenge would serve this purpose because you have to be near the coast to do these particular experiments accurately: It’s definitely not unique to the Eastbourne area (I mentioned this in the book, but I think only as a one-liner). Even the Eastbourne run isn’t unique to itself: There are other barrow runs which also lead to the coast, particularly from the adjacent hills beyond the Long Man: One run appears to go from a place called Firle Beacon, another run goes from Bostal Hill and yet another run goes from Bostal to Bourne (though some of the mounds are Saxon. The smaller Saxon mounds are always in the ‘wrong’ place whereas the older larger mounds are always in the ‘perfect’ place.)

Again, I didn’t mention all this because I felt it just complicated things too much. Do you think more of this should be in? The evidence isn’t quite so strong for the other runs.

Reason for asking is that the whole of the second part was supposed to be more about Stonehenge than the South Downs. One of the objections to Stonehenge representing a fixed World and geocentric Universe is that that they could not have known about it or how to find out. Then a second objection is that, if they had known, there’s no evidence that they did it.

So the South Downs experiments (regardless of the monuments) show that you can measure the World, and show that it is a sphere, just with pieces of wood. The second objection, that there’s no evidence that they built anything which could measure their world, is then discounted by the fact that the monuments are in the right places and seem perfectly arranged to do the job.

Hope that explains it! It’s why I finished off part two with the comment:

It is not possible to say what these monuments were really for. Nevertheless, the claim that Neolithic peoples did not have access to materials good enough to find out about their Universe is demonstrably wrong. If Stonehenge represents their knowledge, other monuments do exist in the location, setting, arrangement and type which would have allowed them the best opportunity to prove it

For anyone who wants to check that this all really does exist, the run to Bourne Hill is by far the best and also the easiest (it runs along the current South Downs way so you can’t get lost or accidentally trespass). I guess I could expand on all the extras above, but I’m not really sure it would add anything (and might make it more confusing).

What are your thoughts? If there’s things you think *must* be in from the above monologue, would be great to know!

JohnWitts July 24, 2013 at 5:29 pm

Jon

It is only my personal preference for archaeology over math. You are correct in that it is not necessary in the context as you have succeeded in getting your message across loud and clear – even to me.

Your explanation above of the Bourne Hill experiment is very clear and I cannot see how including it would do anything other than provide for clarity.

I do feel Combe Hill is very interesting and that if the first impressions conveyed by the diagram as to the geometry proves more than suggestive you really could be onto something.

Onto legend.

Jonathan July 26, 2013 at 7:39 am

I do feel Combe Hill is very interesting and that if the first impressions conveyed by the diagram as to the geometry proves more than suggestive you really could be onto something.

Thanks again John. I nearly left that out of the book because I didn’t think it was that significant! For me, the significant thing was being able to walk along a pre-determined route (to do this task) and to find all of the station points (that I would have selected had I been doing it from scratch) already there.

Even my ‘missing’ station point turned out to have existed in the place I expected. I walked back and forth in that area trying to find it: Can’t have looked good (pacing back and forth) in retrospect: It was down in the long grass near the cliffs just along from Beachy Head, so some passing yoofs shouted out encouragement to ‘jump’. In the end found out that it existed from doing a Pastscape inquiry (it had been ploughed out).

Gilbert July 27, 2013 at 12:30 pm

Having read your book Jonathan I have a few thoughts to pass on.

First wood then stone

The comment has often been made in this forum that Stonehenge was unlikely to have been the first of its kind and was probably preceded by lesser structures in stone and wood. Stonehenge being in the end the ultimate and best surviving.

Therefore if one purpose of Stonehenge was to provide the framework for a magic model to show the movement of the sun, are there any other lesser stone circles or evidence of wooden circles with a similar layout that suggest they may also have been constructed for the same purpose?

The solar system for children

Most books on Stonehenge are aimed at adults and it is assumed they are familiar with basics of astronomy. Without this basic knowledge the explanations do not begin to make sense. I thought to make your book more appealing to younger readers — and stand out from most others on Stonehenge – it might benefit by having a section with a simple introduction to the solar system including an explanation of the key aspect the tilt of the earth and the consequences of this tilt.

Geocentrism is natural

Without warning I asked my teenage grandchild if the earth went around the sun or the sun around the earth and she replied in ignorance and all innocence that the sun went around the earth and that as the moon was usually only visible at night it also circled the earth but it was opposite to the sun.

The Neolithic belief that the world is the centre of the universe — geocentrism was a belief that went 2000 years later into the Bible and today 2000 years after the Bible was written, a high percentage of the civilized world, ignorant or religious, believe the sun orbits the earth and that heliocentrism is a sort of science fiction.

Magic in Neolithic times, and the equivalent magic today

Your book describes how a model could have been constructed at Stonehenge to show an audience the movement of the sun, brought down to earth. Magic.

Today we understand the real motions within the solar system, the orbit of the Earth around the sun, the rotation of the Earth, the tilt of the axis of rotation, and the orbit of the moon around the earth.

But go beyond this and you are quickly into a world of science and things that cannot easily be perceived. For some it is theoretical physics, for others science fiction, for others magic.

Let’s begin with the sun. It rotates as well. This real motion is not apparent to an observer on Earth. The sun cannot be viewed directly. It looks the same most of the time, featureless, just changing from a large red ball to a small yellow ball and back again to a large red ball before disappearing over the horizon.

The rotation of the sun was discovered by Galileo in 1611, able with his telescope to observe the movement of sun spots. A few hundred years later most of us today still don’t know the sun rotates.

Now comes the modern cosmic magic. The solar system as a whole revolves around the centre of our galaxy the Milky Way. Again it was Galileo who discovered in 1610 that the pale band called the Milky Way was made up of individual stars. Our sun and solar system orbit at tremendous speed (220 km/s) around the centre of our galaxy. But the Milky Way is a big place. One revolution, the cosmic year, takes 200 million years.
The Galaxy as a whole is moving through the universe at a velocity of approximately 630 km per second with respect to extragalactic frames of reference.

You might think reading this that you are apparently sitting still. Far from it. With respect to a fixed point in space (an extragalactic frame of reference) you are:

rotating on the earth at 51′N (fastest on equator, zero at the poles) = 0.26 km/s (570 mph).
revolving round the sun = 30 km/s
revolving with the galaxy = 220 km/s
and speeding through the universe = 630 km/s

and assuming these movements don’t cancel each other out, moving at 880 km/s — around 2 million mph.
Not fast compared to the speed of light at 700 million mph but still fast enough to be mind-boggling magic today.

Jonathan July 28, 2013 at 2:27 pm

Hi Gilbert

Wood then stone

I think there almost certainly there would be wood before stone: I don’t know whether or not you could find archaeological traces of smaller versions if they existed. My 30% scale model, which is made of wood, wouldn’t leave a trace for archaeologists to find (details on blog). A good reason to do a new section on what else has been found from the working models that I’ve constructed?

There’s two sides to the ideas about Stonehenge: First the solar demonstrator (the thing which creates a geocentric mini-sun) and second the plan layout of Stonehenge (a geocentric universe). I doubt that any of the other stone circles were constructed for the ‘mini-sun’ purpose because they don’t have the characteristics.

Some types of circle do have very similar layout characteristics. For example, Avebury has an exceptionally similar layout to Stonehenge: It appears to describe a geocentric Universe except that it focuses on the sun at winter solstice and, to a lesser extent, the moon at one of the major standstills. That’s part of the reason I thought Avebury should be included in the update.

Other earlier monuments (including some circles) may instead be related to one particular early concern, or fear, of the community (I talked about this a bit in the intro above): Many of the early neolithic monuments appear to have characteristics directly related to this fear…. But Stonehenge would replace all of those concerns with a more durable philosophy, so that might explain why so much effort was put in to constructing it?

The solar system for children

I thought of that! The novel of 2011, which is ‘young adult’ fiction, has these descriptions at the end as an appendix. I’m going to use the ‘fear’ shown in the other monuments as the basis for future novels (this is more of a long term plan though).

Just in case the ideas of Stonehenge might help to validate archaeological research (by leading to an explanation for the monument), I thought that I should expand ‘Stonehenge: Solving the Neolithic’ for an adult readership and to give enough detailed information and references so that anyone (who wishes to) can research the concepts: It could be a very long time before I get enough spare time to do the novels.

Geocentrism is natural

It also struck me as very odd that nobody had previously noticed that Stonehenge is laid out as a picture of a universe (with the world fixed at the centre). There’s been an awful lot of people look at it, so I couldn’t figure out how it wasn’t noticed.

.
.
Thanks again for taking the time to look at the booklet Gilbert. If anything else occurs to you, any comments are much appreciated.

Jonathan August 15, 2013 at 4:08 pm

Thanks Gilbert, John, Dan, Neil, Red Raven and Robin for comments. I think I may have time next month to start to compile all this into a plan for the expansion of what is described (and also to significantly beef up the references).

If anyone has any extra comments on what should be in there, I would be very grateful.

Jonathan September 7, 2013 at 5:59 am

Hi Guys

More or less finished the first draft of the expansion. Adding in data and explanations, based on everyone’s comments, has meant that the size of the book has doubled (which came as a bit of a surprise). Special thanks to John for all your input.

It’ll go through at least 5 re-writes before it goes to print (the Broken Stone went through 17), so if anyone’s got any extra comments, or things they were not sure about or want explaining, please let me know: It would be much appreciated.

Jon

Jonathan September 21, 2013 at 3:07 pm

I’ve updated everything: The expanded edition will have 156 pages, 114 illustrations and 243 notes cross-referencing to 46 reference works on Stonehenge (it’s much more heavyweight than the original booklet version).

Price is set at 3.99 including delivery, but over equinox 2013 only: Can’t be held at this level because it’s a negative discount on their expanded selling thing (and they don’t allow you to sell stuff that you’re paying people to buy), so has to go up to normal price: No idea how Amazon managed to get it to print so quick this time: The files only got submitted this morning and in the past they’ve always taken days.

I think I’ve covered most of the comments. Not sure that there will be a Kindle version this time round. Thanks everyone for your help!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Stonehenge-Solving-Neolithic-Universe-expanded/dp/1492736880

JohnWitts September 21, 2013 at 9:46 pm

Got mine via my son who understands these things – cheers Jonathon

ND Wiseman September 22, 2013 at 4:34 pm

Stonehenge: Solving the Neolithic Universe. [Expanded Edition]
Jon Morris
CreateSpace Independent Publishing
20 September 2013.
156 pages
$12.99 / ??9.99 (Suggested)

A Review

For those who have read Jon Morris’ 2011 novel “The Broken Stone and the Secret of the Heavens’ Henge”, or the more conservative 2012 treatment of the current title, be of good cheer! Any and all questions that may linger within these initial presentations are fully answered and expanded upon.

Profusely illustrated and with in-depth descriptions of all of his ground-breaking ideas, “Stonehenge: Solving the Neolithic Universe (v.2)” is a comprehensive immersion into the theory that the mysterious pile of rocks out on the Salisbury Plain was, among other things, intended as both an illustration and demonstration of a working Geocentric Universe, which is shown to have been well-understood by its Builders 5000 years ago.
This was not theoretical to them — this was demonstrable Proof of Fact.

By guiding the Reader to the same conclusions, Mr Morris has tasked us to examine not only the physical nature and shape of Stonehenge itself, but how the incorporation of many, previously misinterpreted features across Southern England — indeed Ireland — had been created as simple experiments to understand the Nature of the Universe. Found to be completely valid, their progressive learning curve was ultimately reflected in the unique construction of the most famous prehistoric monument in the world.
Fascinating and compelling stuff!

Vetted by some of the leading researchers of the UK Neolithic Era, Jon Morris’ expansive overview and inclusive insight clearly illustrates the layered purpose and compounded cultural intent of a monument which has baffled both hard science and the idly curious for countless generations.

4 of 5 stars
ND Wiseman
22 September 2013
___________________________
(As seen on Amazon US & Amazon UK)

Rhynieman October 28, 2013 at 8:29 pm

The stone circles are calendrical devices you just need to know the viewing points, what you are aligning with the stones and the important stellar festival days and everything falls into place. No big mystery really it’s been under our noses for so long but you do need to wind back the night skies so an astronomical programme does help.

Jonathan October 28, 2013 at 10:00 pm

Greetings from Southern Ireland Rhynieman (though I’m not here for long). There are many ideas about what Stonehenge was for. You may enjoy Stonehenge Unhinged by Dan and Michael Johnson.

A version of the expanded version of Stonehenge: Solving the Neolithic Universe has recently been done for Kindle. This contains a heavily hyperlinked structure to all the references used to develop the book:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Stonehenge-Solving-Neolithic-Universe-Expanded-ebook/dp/B00G4CWIIK

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: