| Author | Stonehenge Hypothesies for the Major Lunar Standstill Season! |
Orpbit
Joined:
24-06-2012
Messages: 1580
from Shropshire
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 18-02-2024 at 14:42
Part 1: ALERT for Stonehenge 18th February (tonight) and Monday 19th February
I've been working on a three-part Stonehenge hypothesis for the coming year leading up to the Major Lunar Standstill in 2025. I realised a few days ago that weather conditions might be suitable to observe an event at the Heelstone in Stonehenge - preliminary hypothesis explained below. Unfortunately due to personal circumstances, I've been delayed in posting this alert by a week or two! The title is:
As the Gardom's Edge Standing stone is to the summer solstice, so the Heelstone is to the Major Lunar Standstill
Bullet point details:
1) During my investigation on the observation of the lunar Standstills at Stonehenge I noticed that the shapes of the bluestones (No. 49 and No. 31) in front of the Avenue alignment through Sarsens 1 and 30, could be interpreted as representing, respectively, the changing angles of the rise trajectory of the Moon at Major Lunar Standstill(MLS).
2) Furthermore, the Moon's "rise" at the lintels above stone 31 appeared to be very close to the lintel join. So, I went back in time to the MLS at around 2500BC and everything appeared very precise for that time, bearing in mind the restoration works carried out at Stonehenge and the passage of time!
See image below:
3) I then considered the Heelstone with respect to the slope angle and orientation of its rear face, which always appeared to me to have been carefully dressed at some time and offered a large surface area - but why? It then came to mind, having read Dan brown's hypothesis on the Gardom's Edge standing stone(see links below), that to be lit up by the light of the Moon, this would indeed require a larger surface area. But what would be the point unless it was to capture a particular, and special, point in time i.e. the MLS!
Dan Brown's links:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLNAV6_J3Gw
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1206/1206.0113.pdf
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1203/1203.0947.pdf
4) I estimated the altitude slope angle of the rear face to be somewhere between 64°.5 and 65°.5. This is clearly beyond that of the sun at highest during mid-summer solstice. The orientation of the rear face also appeared to be meridional, so two parameters for the hypothesis appeared reasonably present.
5) Trawling the web for possible night time images the closest to what might have been observed was as at the image link below:
https://flic.kr/p/2mX8AFs
as opposed to the more familiar shadow images - i.e Terence Meaden's hypothesis.
https://flic.kr/p/2jfhqzo
6) I then calculated the dates at which the phenomenon might be observed at MLS. But it wasn't until recently that this year's early opportunities came to mind. So the times to make observations would clearly be a) at night and b) at phases from Waxing Gibbous through Full Moon (Moon age 14.7 days) to Waning Gibbous.
It happens, depending on good weather, that tonight and tomorrow present potential opportunities as follows,
Sunday 18th February 2024(all times approximate to within a minute or two):
Sunset - 17.19hrs
Moon at Meridian - 19:56hrs
Moon Age - 9.5 days (Waxing Gibbous)
Altitude - 66°38'
Monday 19th February 2024
Sun rise - 07:19hrs
Moon in Avenue window - 12:25hrs
Moon at Meridian - 20:51hrs
Moon Age - 10.5 days (Waxing Gibbous)
Altitude - 66° 40'
There is also an opportunity on Tuesday 20th
Sunrise - 07.17hrs
Moon in Avenue Window - 13.18hrs
Moon at Meridian - 21:44hrs
Moon Age - 10.9 days
Altitude - 65°08'
Simon Banton's site is a very useful reference to the stones:
http://www.stonesofstonehenge.org.uk/p/who-did-this.html
I'm not aware of anyone else proposing this hypothesis, but obviously anyone who has come across it please advise where and when!
[ This message was edited by: Orpbit on 2024-02-18 14:48 ]
 Profile
 Reply
|
Orpbit
Joined:
24-06-2012
Messages: 1580
from Shropshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 18-02-2024 at 16:44
Hi Andy,
I was concentrating on getting the contents of this thread as correct as possible and completely forgot to check the title! It should read Hypotheses not hypothesies. Dear oh dear, the Ancients' way of getting back at researchers who come too close to their secrets - no better than to tie things to the uneducated lunatic fringe!
https://www.reverbnation.com/lunaticfringepunk/song/15492968-curse-of-the-bog-people
Can you correct the title for me please Andy.
Cheers
[ This message was edited by: Orpbit on 2024-02-18 16:57 ]
Profile
Reply
|
Orpbit
Joined:
24-06-2012
Messages: 1580
from Shropshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 18-02-2024 at 22:51
Results of Experiment
I live nowhere near Stonehenge so I set up a board to experiment with light and shadow from moonlight as at 'A' in the image below.
I was very surprised at the results.
The Moon's meridian passage at home was to be at 20.01 hrs. By 7.30pm the sky was clear and although it was extremely difficult to gauge moonlight on the upright board, I could get a very strong and edge-sharp shadow on the horizontal board. Transit here was at 65° 8" altitude, so I set the vertical board up at 64° and perpendicular to the meridian - not that the iphone measuring tool is particularly accurate, imo.
By the time I set up my camera the sky had become overcast and there were some very dark cloud patches, but I was really surprised at how much shadow I could still see. At image 'B' I experimented with an ISO 100 setting and exposure at 8 seconds.
At 'C' the cloud had really thickened up but I could still see shadow. However, the camera settings had to be upped to ISO 1600 and 16 seconds.
At 'D' I managed a 10 second exposure at ISO 1600, but that was the end of the experiment as the cloud had thickened up over the whole of the sky and large areas of almost black cloud made sure I wouldn't get to the transit time of 8.01pm.
Conclusion
I can't say whether a larger board at Full Moon would be lit up and distinctly observable. Perhaps from a distance at Stonehenge, if the rear face was covered with a reflective material or "plastered" with a chalk concoction, then it might have performed as a distant brighter "landmark", against the dark of the rest of the monument in shadow(, at MajorLS season. This would have presented a more symbolic function for the Heelstone. But most definitely a chalk base or other material laid down would easily expose a shadow. In short, it is the shadow that may have been tracked over the 18.61 year cycle, with the longest shadow being at MinorLS. Furthermore, any vertical standing stone otherwise could have been used for "scientific" purposes of tracking moon shadow. It will be interesting to calculate where the end of the longest shadow fell at Stonehenge - a reverse of the sun shadow falling at the centre of the monument.
Anyway, I'll have another go tomorrow night, if other commitments don't interfere. Transit will be approximately an hour later and the moon phase a little "older"!
Profile
Reply
|
akhen3sir
Joined:
11-05-2006
Messages: 8
from 3 miles north of Amesbury
OFF-Line
| Posted 19-02-2024 at 06:35
Interesting experiment, but one error in the write up. Longest Heelstone shadow wouldn't be at Minor Standstill, it'd still be at the Major - in the summer when the Moon is transiting while at its southernmost extreme rising and setting.
Profile
Reply
|
Orpbit
Joined:
24-06-2012
Messages: 1580
from Shropshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 19-02-2024 at 07:41
Yes indeed, but we are talking summer and that means long days and short nights, so the opportunities for observing the actual end point of a very long shadow are very much reduced, as opposed to the Minor LS - still a big question mark. I haven't yet finished my table of maximum opportunities for MajorLS yet alone the Minor. I may not be around for the latter but I'll do my best to keep going! This year will see June and July as the best months but this extends either side from May to September. Perhaps the Moon will surprise us then too, despite the pollution.
Cheers
PS, I forgot to mention the Moon's age as another factor to consider - I'll do my best to complete the table asap - must rush now and hope to repeat the experiment tonight. The forecast looks good for a clear night at SH tonight!
[ This message was edited by: Orpbit on 2024-02-19 07:54 ]
Profile
Reply
|
Orpbit
Joined:
24-06-2012
Messages: 1580
from Shropshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 20-02-2024 at 22:47
Just to clarify following comment by akhen3sir, I was interested in the shortest shadow (MajorLS)and longest shadow (MinorLS) with respect to northern standstills. Yes akhen3sir is correct re the technically longest one being at MajorLS, but with respect to southern standstills. I've finished my table for 2024 and also, therefore, decided to include perhaps the most favourable opportunities for the southern standstill dates.
It would also be useful here to refer to Archastro's excellent postings and links to videos and tools on page 5 of the 'events for archaeostronomy' thread at this link here at the Portal:
https://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=Forum&file=viewtopic&topic=8318&forum=4&start=80
There is a specific query I have conerning declination values returned on his spreadsheet but I'll deal with that on his thread. Bear in mind that Archastro's tools are mainly concerned with rise and set positions for the Moon, whereas I'm specifically interested in meridian transits. However, his 'Time and Date' website link will detail the meridian transit for the site of interest selected.
But firstly, to continue my shadow experiment, I was able to get some positive results yesterday, despite the cloud cover being worse than the day before - I had a fortunate snap during a thinner cloud patch as it drifted across the Moon:
As time proceeds this year I'll be giving some attention to erecting a more permanent structure and to the best options for materials. I'll set it up with a much more precise alignment using my theodolite and equatorial telescope mount pointed at the NCP.
Now for the table of dates for 2024.
For phases "G" = Gibbous and "C" = Crescent. Times are rounded to minutes and altitude angles are rounded to minutes of arc too. I changed the format a little for October to make it more sequential, hence the same date across double rows. I continued that for November and December. I gave September a miss.
Page 1:
Page 2:
My current thoughts, following on from my simple experiment, is that the "scientists" of the day may have explored methodologies using Moon shadows to gain data on celestial cycles. However, bearing in mind the difficulties, as compared to Sun shadow methodologies, I would suggest that Moon shadows were sort of 'relegated' to more creative artistic and symbolic ends. Having said this I have a specific reason for concentrating on the Heelstone since the altitude angle of MajorLS transit at Stonehenge of primarily 66° at this latitude is extremely pertinent to Part 3 of my intended presentations.
In the meantime, talking of 'artistic' ends perhaps there will be many a photographer brave enough to get out at all sorts of strange hours to get those special shots for posterity! We'll see.
[ This message was edited by: Orpbit on 2024-02-20 22:55 ]
Profile
Reply
|
Orpbit
Joined:
24-06-2012
Messages: 1580
from Shropshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 28-04-2024 at 13:07
It looks like a good opportunity for observing the moon rising very close to major standstill south, tomorrow morning at Stonehenge. Bearing in mind that EH are planning to do a live stream to this direction, it's a good opportunity also to get data to help calibrate my Stellarium landscape. I've given the heads-up to someone who lives locally. Obviously it requires access to the centre of the monument, which won't be granted to anyone but the investigation team, previously reported.
At the same time, it's also important to point out that Trilithon Upright 54 has the southern meridian running through it and therefore interesting to note if there are any specific markings/carvings indicating "rock art" or perhaps astronomical significance.
In the image below you can see that the three circles indicate what looks like lichen growth patches which are quite separate from other areas of lichen growth and match the orbital tracks of solstice and lunar major/minor tracks.
Below are links to studies, including an EH commissioned one which specifically wanted information about potential prehistoric carvings obscured by lichen growth. In this context it would be interesting to investigate whether what might have been astronomical carvings have created a micro environment for specific lichens at these points.
https://historicengland.org.uk/research/results/reports/6075/StonehengeLaserScan_ArchaeologicalAnalysis
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359649911_Using_Communities_for_Monitoring_Lichens_at_Stonehenge
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/heritage/sites/bartlett/files/gavin_leong.pdf
More here:
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=2146414252
https://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=Forum&file=viewtopic&topic=6803&forum=4&start=0
Profile
Reply
|
Orpbit
Joined:
24-06-2012
Messages: 1580
from Shropshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 30-04-2024 at 19:37
Update for 29 April
It turned out that conditions locally thwarted any efforts for more early morning observations, but not so at Stonehenge. The EH investigation Team braved the conditions and had a successful session. I've had the times of the Moon rise passed on to me and so took the opportunity to calibrate by Stonehenge landscape for Stellarium. At the moment I'm working on improving it so that, hopefully, I can produce a standardised landscape with reasonable accuracy for others to use too. There isn't one available from EH unfortunately - at least not for public use.
Image 1
This image illustrates the difference between a photographic and a digital landscape. The latter is the one generated by David Hoyle, which by now most people should be aware as available from his website.
The rise location on the photographic version is higher in altitude due to the tree growth, particularly Luxenborough Plantation, which is directly in the line of sight. Simon Banton tells me that this is the case but the image shows an earlier time when perhaps the trees weren't yet so tall. I await photographic confirmation.
Also back in 2500 BC firstly, the rise position would have been further to the south, hence closer to Bluestone 63, and secondly, the view would have been largely blocked by Sarson upright 8 - more about this in my next post, once I finish the first stage of improving my landscape.
Image 2
This image shows the sequence of first glimpse, centre and full globe on the horizon. The times given to me were in rounded minutes which didn't quite match my landscape and also as I can only adjust it in pixels the result is the closest match - which in fact is very close! However, the horizontal alignment can only be adjusted more precisely if we get a photographic report in due course. That should also hopefully detail the impact of the plantations.
Next opportunity is towards the end of May which also includes the Bank Holiday - see my table above, and Archastro's thread for other locations. Now that I'm able to re-calibrate my landscape the times will vary, but not too much so I'm not going to bother to revisit my tables unless I spot a significant change.
Profile
Reply
|
Orpbit
Joined:
24-06-2012
Messages: 1580
from Shropshire
OFF-Line
| Posted 03-05-2024 at 00:01
What did the moonrise look like at Stonehenge on the 29th April? Well, there aren't any photos from within that have been posted anywhere that I can find, but a few from outside. So here's next best: - wide angle, telescope and even with the lintels and Sarsen uprights.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53694598081_5bf68f8888_h.jpg
Viewed from the centre, the setup raises some interesting questions regarding light and shadow across the 18.61 span of time. The image below illustrates the difference between then (2500 BC) and now.
If the Sarsen upright - stone 8 - were in place then we wouldn't be able to see the actual moment of moonrise at the horizon, whereas it could be seen back in Stonehenge time. Would our ancestors have simply enjoyed the spectacle as in the linked image, or would they have been more scientific about it. I'll add this image and let you muse.
An important point to note is that there is line of sight along the path formed respectively by the pairs of stones, 21-22, 56-57, 53-54 and 9-10. It'll be interesting to find out if the observation Team investigated this alignment.
Were stones 62 and 63 placed there for Moon light effects or was that just an accident?
Cheers
[ This message was edited by: Orpbit on 2024-05-03 00:05 ]
Profile
Reply
|
|
