Tag: Alexander Thom

Multiple Squares to form Flattened Circle Megaliths

above: a 28 square grid with double, triple (top), and four-square rectangles (red),
plus (gray again) the triple rectangles within class B

Contents

1.     Problems with Thom’s Stone Circle Geometries.

2.     Egyptian Grids of Multiple Squares.

3.     Generating Flattened Circles using a Grid of Squares.

ABSTRACT

This paper reviews the geometries proposed by Alexander Thom for a shape called a flattened circle, survivors of these being quite commonly found in the British Isles. Thom’s proposals appear to have been rejected through (a) disbelief that the Neolithic builders of megalithic monuments could have generated such sophistication using only ropes and stakes and (b) through assertions that real structures do not obey the geometry he overlaid upon his surveys.

Continue reading “Multiple Squares to form Flattened Circle Megaliths”

Angkor Wat: Observatory of the Moon and Sun

above: Front side of the main complex by Kheng Vungvuthy for Wikipedia

In her book on Angkor Wat, the Cambodian Hindu-style temple complex, Eleanor Mannikka found an architectural unit in use, of 10/7 feet, a cubit of 20/21 feet (itself an outlier of the Roman module of 24/25 feet, at 125/126 of the 0.96 root Roman foot).

She began to find counted lengths of this unit, as symbols of the astronomical periods (such as 27 29 33) and of the great Yuga time periods proposed within Vedic mythology. Hence Mannikka’s title of Angkor Wat: Time, Space, and Kingship (1996). Whilst the temple was built by the Khymer’s greatest king, their foundation myth indicates the kingly line was adopted by a matriarchal goddess tradition.

Numerically Symbolic Monuments

Continue reading “Angkor Wat: Observatory of the Moon and Sun”

π and the Megalithic Yard

The surveyor of megalithic monuments in Britain, Alexander Thom (1894 – 1985), thought the builders had a single measure called the Megalithic Yard which he found in the geometry of the monuments when these were based upon whole number geometries such as Pythagorean triangles. His first estimate was around 2.72 feet and his second and final was around 2.722 feet. I have found the two megalithic yards were sometimes 2.72 feet because the formula for 272/100 = 2.72 involved the prime number 17 as 8 x 17/ 100, and this enabled the lunar nodal period of 6800 days to be modelled and and the 33 year “solar hero” periods to be modelled, since these periods both involve the prime number 17 as a factor. In contrast, Thom’s final megalithic yard almost certainly conformed to ancient metrology within the Drusian module in which 2.7 feet times 126/125 equals 2.7216 feet, this within Thom’s error bars for his 2.722 feet as larger than 2.72 feet.

This suggests Thom was sampling more than one megalithic yard in different regions or employed for different uses. Neal [2000] found for Tom’s statistical data set having peaks corresponding to the steps of different modules and variations in ancient metrology, such as the Iberian with root 32/35 feet and the Sumerian with root 12/11 feet. It is only when you countenance the presence of prime numbers within metrological units that one breaks free of the inevitably weak state of proof as to what ancient units of measure actually were and, more importantly, why they were the exact values they were and further, how they came to be varied within their modules. However, the megalithic yard of 2.72 appears to outside the system in embodying the prime number 17 for the specific purpose of counting longer term periods which themselves embody that prime number.

The discipline of using only the first five primes {2 3 5 7 11} must have been accompanied by the perception that only if primes were dealt with could certain ends be served. This is crystal clear when we come to musical ratios in which the harmonic primes alone are used of {2 3 5} with an occasional “passenger” of the prime {7} as in 5040 which is 7 x 720, the harmonic constant.

Using 2.72 feet to count the Nodal Period

The first remarkable characteristic of 2.72 feet is that 8 x 17 in the numerator means that the approximation to π of 25/8 = 3.125 can, in (conceptually) multiplying a diameter, provide an image of 25 units on the circumference of a stone circle. For example a diameter of 2 MY would suggest 17 MY on the circumference, which is quite remarkable. Further to this, we know that the 6800 days of nodal cycle is factored as 17 x 400 and that the MY was shown (acceptably) to have been made up of 40 digits (in conformance to the general tradition within metrology that there are 16 digits per foot and 40 for a step of 2.5 feet, which a MY traditionally is). The circumference of 17 MY is then 17 x 40 digits which means that a diameter of 20 MY would give a circumference of 17 x 400 digits equalling 6800 digits as a countable circumference in digits per day.

This highlights how prime number factors played a role, in the absence of arithmetical methods, in solving the astronomical problems faced by the late stone age when counting time periods in days.

The Integration of the Megalithic Yard

Above is a proposed geometric relation between Thom’s megalithic yard (2.72 feet), the royal cubit (1.72 feet) and the remen (1.2 feet). Alexander Thom’s estimate for it based on decades of work was refined from 2.72 to 2.722 feet at Avebury. If the origins of it are astronomical, then its value emerges from the Metonic period of 19 years which is 235 lunar months, making its value 19/7 feet or more accurately 2.715428571 (19008/7000) feet and this makes it 2.7 feet x 176/175 within ancient metrology. Another astronomical derivation is found at Le Manio as the difference between three lunar and three solar years, when counted in day-inches as 32 + 5/8th inches which is 2.71875 (87/32) feet. The megalithic yard of Thom’s first appraisal, of 2.72, probably arose from its megalithic rod (MR) of 6.8 feet since, the Nodal Period of the moon’s nodes take 6800 days which in feet would be 1000 MR. For a fuller explanation see my the appendix of my Language of the Angels book and my discussions of the Cumbrian stone circle, called Seascale by Thom and the only known example of a Type D flattened circle.

One can see that the Megalithic Yard is a tale of many variations, some of which might not consider how or why the megalithic might have come to adopt such a yard. I have come to trust simple integers and ratios to guide me to a possible megalithic pathway. To demonstrate, the above megalithic yard at Le Manio, of 32.625 inches is 29/32 of the English yard, and 32 lunar months (at Le Manio Quadrilateral) is 29 AMY. Such simple rationics is explored here.

Continue reading “The Integration of the Megalithic Yard”

Sacred Number and the Lords of Time

Back Cover

ANCIENT MYSTERIES

“Heath has done a superb job of collating his own work on the subject of megaliths with the objective views of many other researchers in the field. I therefore do not merely recommend reading this book but can state unequivocally it is a must read.”
–John Neal, British metrologist and researcher and author of Measuring the Megaliths and The Structure of Metrology

“In Sacred Number and the Lords of Time we have an important explanation of how megalithic science was developed. This book is a long-overdue wakeup call to a modern culture that has abandoned this fully developed and astonishingly rich prehistoric model of the physical world. The truth is now out.”
–Robin Heath, coauthor of The Lost Science of Measuring the Earth and author of Sun, Moon and Earth

Continue reading “Sacred Number and the Lords of Time”

paper: The Origins of Day-Inch Counting

ABSTRACT
This paper presents the theory that in the Megalithic period, around 4500-4000 BCE, astronomical time periods were counted as one day to one inch to form primitive metrological lengths that could then be compared, to reveal the fundamental ratios between the solar year, lunar year, and lunar month and hence define a solar-lunar calendar. The means for comparison used was to place lengths as the longer sides of right angled triangles, leading to a unique slope angle. Our March 2010 survey of Le Manio supports this theory.