Notices
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Theory that Stonehenge is all about the proof science

  1. #1 Theory that Stonehenge is all about the proof science 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    7
    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?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    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)


    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    7
    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)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    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.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    7
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    7
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    7
    And it's been expanded more:

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

    Where's the flaw?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    7
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by jbor
    Quote 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.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote 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
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    7
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •