Thread: Theory that Stonehenge is all about the proof science

Is it possible that Stonehenge is not religious and was about physics?

Playlist: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?p=PL5C6D8494EA2D8249

(all of the playlist takes about 10 minutes but skim through the recaps at the start.. makes it much quicker.)

Quick version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPNfpWGLnfM

Can you see anything wrong with this theory?

Heavenly alignments in prehistoric stuctures has become credible. Though I prefer this over dismissing structures like henges as serving nothing but religious fancy, it still comes down to mystical woo in the end, because neolithic people have little practical use for planetariums. That physics would be for purely religious effect right?

I doubt explanations premised on the thing being silly.

(This rejection puts me in the fringe, BTW)

I doubt explanations premised on the thing being silly.

Thanks, is it just a feeling that this idea is silly? Any chance of elaborating on why?
I'm particularly interested in any scientific reasons that would dismiss it out of hand (given the coincidence set that accompany it)

The idea is silly because a culture in 3000 BCE would not be capable of making mirrors. Nor would it make sense in the light of the countless examples of Stonehenge being the site of thousands of burials. It clearly had religious significance because they surrounded it with burial mounds.

The idea is silly because a culture in 3000 BCE would not be capable of making mirrors.

Thanks: Any other thoughts, particularly scientific, on why it's no good?

The idea that they couldn't make mirrors back then got shot down in flames:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_mirror
edit: then again when pushed on the history angle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_...ith_reflection

Any other thoughts on ways to scientifically dismiss the theory?

And it's been expanded more:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2YXOsdsR4I

Where's the flaw?

Originally Posted by jbor

The idea that they couldn't make mirrors back then got shot down in flames:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_mirror

Were those mirrors being made in western Europe in 3000 BCE? The Wikipedia article suggests that the earliest examples don't appear in Britain until the British bronze age, which would be about 1000 years later.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by jbor

The idea that they couldn't make mirrors back then got shot down in flames:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_mirror

Were those mirrors being made in western Europe in 3000 BCE? The Wikipedia article suggests that the earliest examples don't appear in Britain until the British bronze age, which would be about 1000 years later.

Have you studied the Indian mounds in southern Ohio?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Ancient_(Lebanon,_Ohio)

I was there a few weeks ago.

Were those mirrors being made in western Europe in 3000 BCE? The Wikipedia article suggests that the earliest examples don't appear in Britain until the British bronze age, which would be about 1000 years late

Trouble is, dated archaeological discoveries don't necessarily mean that the discovery, whatever it is, wasn't done also at an earlier date: So that's not a great reason to kill the theory. Also, Cornwall was apparently the source of tin for the bronze, and tin is a simpler metal to make mirrors from.

But, there's no tin mirrors been found have there? So that's a good counter-argument.

Any other ideas?

Originally Posted by jbor

Originally Posted by Pong

I doubt explanations premised on the thing being silly.

Thanks, is it just a feeling that this idea is silly? Any chance of elaborating on why?

I didn't mean the idea is silly. I mean the idea is that Stonehenge was silly (it was for mystical woo). Once we've dismissed an artifact as having ceremonial function, we needn't trouble with practical explanations.

The truth about henges may be less colourful, less sexy, than we like to imagine. History often proves so.

Originally Posted by jbor

Were those mirrors being made in western Europe in 3000 BCE? The Wikipedia article suggests that the earliest examples don't appear in Britain until the British bronze age, which would be about 1000 years late

Trouble is, dated archaeological discoveries don't necessarily mean that the discovery, whatever it is, wasn't done also at an earlier date: So that's not a great reason to kill the theory. Also, Cornwall was apparently the source of tin for the bronze, and tin is a simpler metal to make mirrors from.

But, there's no tin mirrors been found have there? So that's a good counter-argument.

Any other ideas?

Mirrors or not, if the positioning of the stones would have caused the sun to pass over specific places, then the Sun was probably part of its astronomy. However, the prevalence of tin in the area is a good observation.

Tin was valuable in a similar way to how copper was valuable, so the mirrors' absence is no surprise. Probably some succeeding generation would have decided to cash it in, or a conqueror stole it. Other wonders of the world suffered similar fates, such as the Colossus of Rhodes, which was sold for scrap metal after Rhodes fell to Caliph Muawiyah I.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossu...es#Destruction

Tin was valuable in a similar way to how copper was valuable, so the mirrors' absence is no surprise. Probably some succeeding generation would have decided to cash it in, or a conqueror stole it.

True, but there would be some evidence, somewhere, of tin mirrors wouldn't there? An example buried somewhere and found generations later. The reason given is that Tin suffers from tin pest so maybe there really would be nothing but dust?