Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures

August 17, 2016 by Robyn Mills, University of Adelaide
Researchers validate ancient astronomical structures
The great stone circle, Stenness on the Isle of Orkney, is situated in a “reverse” landscape. The project examined the alignments running from the centre of circle through the stones on the circle's perimeter and the stone holes where stones formally stood (as revealed by excavation). This told us that the stone furthest to the right is oriented upon the last glimmer of a southern Moon occurring only every 18.6 years; the second stone is aligned towards the winter solstice sunset and the stone furthest to our left is aligned to the Moon as it sets into its most northern position every 18.6 years. These are astronomical events that could be seen 5000 years ago. Credit: Douglas Scott

University of Adelaide research has for the first time statistically proven that the earliest standing stone monuments of Britain, the great circles, were constructed specifically in line with the movements of the Sun and Moon, 5000 years ago.

The research, published in the Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, details the use of innovative 2D and 3-D technology to construct quantitative tests of the patterns of alignment of the .

"Nobody before this has ever statistically determined that a single stone circle was constructed with astronomical phenomena in mind – it was all supposition," says project leader and University of Adelaide Visiting Research Fellow Dr Gail Higginbottom, who is also a Visiting Research Fellow at the Australian National University.

Examining the oldest great stone circles built in Scotland (Callanish, on the Isle of Lewis, and Stenness, Isle of Orkney ─ both predating Stonehenge's standing stones by about 500 years), the researchers found a great concentration of alignments towards the Sun and Moon at different times of their cycles. And 2000 years later in Scotland, much simpler monuments were still being built that had at least one of the same astronomical alignments found at the great circles.

The stones, however, are not just connected with the Sun and the Moon. The researchers discovered a complex relationship between the alignment of the stones, the surrounding landscape and horizon, and the movements of the Sun and the Moon across that landscape.

"This research is finally proof that the ancient Britons connected the Earth to the sky with their earliest standing stones, and that this practice continued in the same way for 2000 years," says Dr Higginbottom.

Examining sites in detail, it was found that about half the sites were surrounded by one landscape pattern and the other half by the complete reverse.

"These chosen surroundings would have influenced the way the Sun and Moon were seen, particularly in the timing of their rising and setting at special times, like when the Moon appears at its most northerly position on the horizon, which only happens every 18.6 years," Dr Higginbottom says.

"For example, at 50% of the sites, the northern horizon is relatively higher and closer than the southern and the summer solstice Sun rises out of the highest peak in the north. At the other 50% of sites, the southern horizon is higher and closer than the northern, with the winter solstice Sun rising out of these highest horizons.

"These people chose to erect these great stones very precisely within the landscape and in relation to the astronomy they knew. They invested a tremendous amount of effort and work to do so. It tells us about their strong connection with their environment, and how important it must have been to them, for their culture and for their culture's survival."

The research is part of the Western Scotland Megalithic Landscape Project carried out by Dr Higginbottom and Professor Roger Clay, astrophysicist at the University of Adelaide.

Explore further: Research finds Stonehenge was monument marking unification of Britain

More information: Gail Higginbottom et al. Origins of Standing Stone Astronomy in Britain: New quantitative techniques for the study of archaeoastronomy, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports (2016). DOI: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.05.025

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Hunting molecules to find new planets

June 19, 2018

It's impossible to obtain direct images of exoplanets as they are masked by the high luminous intensity of their stars. However, astronomers led by UNIGE propose detecting molecules present in the exoplanet's atmosphere in ...

Exploring planetary plasma environments from your laptop

June 15, 2018

A new database of plasma simulations, combined with observational data and powerful visualisation tools, is providing planetary scientists with an unprecedented way to explore some of the Solar System's most interesting plasma ...

NASA encounters the perfect storm for science

June 14, 2018

One of the thickest dust storms ever observed on Mars has been spreading for the past week and a half. The storm has caused NASA's Opportunity rover to suspend science operations, but also offers a window for four other spacecraft ...

64 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Chris_Reeve
Aug 17, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
HannesAlfven
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 17, 2016
Neither are there any mythologies, right?

Your approach to ancient humans is completely fragmented. Yet, the people of those times all started telling very similar stories at around the same time. Your fragmented approach completely ignores that.

Specialization can only take us so far. Eventually, you have to take all of those pieces of information and try to fit them together into a meaningful whole.

It seems that the scientific community is still decades away from starting that process which the comparative mythologists began 30+ years ago.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (11) Aug 17, 2016
The specialist approach will do no good here. We have to take the broad, interdisciplinary view in order to understand the meaning of these ancient monuments. And a crucial aspect of this investigation must involve research into petroglyphs, the mythological archetypes and any evidence of human-historical catastrophes we might find. The scientific community has been largely dismissive of all of these topics.

The idea that there is astronomical meaning in petroglyphs and the mythological archetypes is not a new discovery (monuments would be no different). Mythology scholars have been approaching the subject with that worldview since the 1800's, and there is a very large body of claims by now which all relate to this.


Complete and utter bollocks.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Aug 17, 2016
@Chris Reeve,
We have to take the broad, interdisciplinary view in order to understand the meaning of these ancient monuments.


Which 'interdisciplinary' view would you like? The one where the idiots Thornhill & Talbott f*** up so much 'science' that anybody scientifically literate just rolls their eyes? That what you're talking about? Anything else in mind?
The one where the world class moron Velikovsky tries to overturn various aspects of science, and fails miserably? Whereby 'Velikovskyism' has become a byword for crankery?
That the sort of sh*t you're talking about?
If not, please spell it out. And include the maths.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) Aug 17, 2016
@Chris Reeve.

The scientific community has been largely dismissive of all of these topics.


You talking about the total lack of evidence for any of it? If not, please show us where evidence has been ignored by actual scientists. How about them totally missing the ice core data that would have shown that the moron Velikovsky was right? Yes? Where was that?
Mate, do yourself a favour, and bugger off back to la-la land. Yes?
amiabledunce
1 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2016
"Afaik there are no petroglyphs in Stonehenge"

You might have a point if the article was examining Stonehenge.
GailMH
5 / 5 (4) Aug 17, 2016
Hello everyone, especially, Chris_Reeve,

for interdisciplinary research feel free to check my past and recent work in archaeology/GIS/landscape archaeology from which all of this stems, see my work on academia.edu/GailHigginbottom
especially the paper: A Re-creation of visual engagement and the revelation of Bronze Age views in western Scotland.

Thank you,
Gail.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (13) Aug 18, 2016
Hello everyone, especially, Chris_Reeve,

for interdisciplinary research feel free to check my past and recent work in archaeology/GIS/landscape archaeology from which all of this stems, see my work on academia.edu/GailHigginbottom
especially the paper: A Re-creation of visual engagement and the revelation of Bronze Age views in western Scotland.

Thank you,
Gail.


@Gail,
Unless your work includes references to Velikovsky's nonsense, or to Earth once orbiting Saturn, then it is unlikely to impress electric universe adherents! The interdisciplinary studies they would like to see do not include those by people who are scientifically literate enough to see through the nonsense that they advocate.
Look forward to reading the paper.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 18, 2016
According to jonesdumb humans were incapable of having the ability to form complex reasoning such as what is suggested above. According to him they were incapable of understanding where the sun and moon went when they weren't visible in the sky. He says he "looks forward to reading the paper", yet his preconceived notions of prehistoric humans as being mindless apes precludes his ability to accept that this was little more than chance. That they were able to construct such a monuments yet at the same time to suggest that the petroglyphs they produced were meaningless scratches on walls is irreconcilable. That he commends this scientist for the use of computer models to support the views while concurrently scornful of Anthony Peratt's research the shows with even more support that petroglyphs found worldwide match the perspective those individuals would have witnessed if they were in fact recording plasma formations in the sky. BTW, A Peratt is a plasma physicist.
jonesdave
3.6 / 5 (14) Aug 18, 2016
@cd,
Where did I say humans weren't capable of complex thought at those times? If you knew anything about palaeoanthropology, you would know that the brain, and its capabilities, would have been no different 30 000 years ago than today.
What people do have a problem with, is the totally loony interpretations by obsessed people, about what these people were describing.
Peratt may well have been a plasma physicist, but his interpretation of ancient rock art is crap. What may well be a snake falling out of a tree, becomes a Birkeland current for those obsessed enough to want to see such things.
I imagine that there are loads of plasma physicists who would not wish to be associated with Peratt's imaginings.
Von Daniken saw aliens, Peratt sees plasma; chances are that they are both wrong.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2016
Peratt may well have been a plasma physicist, but his interpretation of ancient rock art is crap. What may well be a snake falling out of a tree, becomes a Birkeland current for those obsessed enough to want to see such things.

His interpretation is supported by supercomputer simulations which show the expected morphology based upon location from sites all over the world which have views of the southern polar sky. He has confirmed this with 56 different plasma formations, not just a snake falling from a tree.
The difference between Von Daniken and Peratt, is Peratt observed real plasmas in the lab for decades and applied his unique knowledge to a real life problems. Von Daniken instead recognizes the failure of the standard theories to explain the numerous observed anomalies and then postulyzes that some unseen, unfalsifiable entity is responsible. Sorta like astrophysicists and their dark matter fairy tales.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2016
@cd,
His interpretation is supported by supercomputer simulations....[/]

Of what, exactly? Scaled up lab views of things that have never been seen in our skies? Why do they mysteriously (like so many things) stop being visible once we have the equipment to see and record them? Do the ancestors of the people who made them support his views? What are their interpretations? What are the views of other mythologists? How many interpretations are possible? Is his idea falsifiable? It isn't science, that's for sure; just one man's interpretation of something he's become obsessed with. Judging by the lack of citations of the work, nobody else is taking it seriously, either.
I've seen a vary rare aurora from 37 south. Just a glow. Nothing to write home about at that latitude.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2016
Of what, exactly? Scaled up lab views of things that have never been seen in our skies?

Ummm, yes. Why are you so opposed to laboratory based science. This is the very methodology Birkeland used to develop his theory of the aurora. We know plasma phenomena are scalable to many orders of magnitude, apply the proper current density and the phenomena can occur. As shown by Peratt's supercomputer simulations based on real plasma physics.
Why do they mysteriously (like so many things) stop being visible once we have the equipment to see and record them?

Probably due to the fact that these would be incredibly destructive events, end of the world types of events. One where most of the people retreated to caves to survive, and recorded what they saw on the walls.
cantdrive85
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 18, 2016
I've seen a vary rare aurora from 37 south. Just a glow. Nothing to write home about at that latitude.

Well, I guess if you haven't seen it, it can't happen.
Do the ancestors of the people who made them support his views?

Are there similar mythologies from disparate parts of the world? Are religions pervasive around the planet? I can assure you that those who don't believe in gods, we are an extreme minority, a mere statistical blip in the history of humanity.
How many interpretations are possible?

Many. This one backed by science using an interdisciplinary approach.
Judging by the lack of citations of the work, nobody else is taking it seriously, either.

Ahh yes, science by democratic principles. How many archaeologists are experts in plasma discharge? How many plasma physicists are experts in archeology?
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2016
According to jonesdumb humans were incapable of having the ability to form complex reasoning such as what is suggested above. According to him they were incapable of understanding where the sun and moon went when they weren't visible in the sky. He says he "looks forward to reading the paper", yet his preconceived notions of prehistoric humans as being mindless apes precludes his ability to accept that this was little more than chance.That they were able to construct such a monuments yet at the same time to suggest that the petroglyphs they produced were meaningless scratches on walls is irreconcilable. That he commends this scientist for the use of computer models to support the views while concurrently scornful of Anthony Peratt's research the shows with even more support that petroglyphs found worldwide match the perspective those individuals would have witnessed if they were in fact recording plasma formations in the sky.
. Quite a strawman argument.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2016
Ummm, yes. Why are you so opposed to laboratory based science. This is the very methodology Birkeland used to develop his theory of the aurora. We know plasma phenomena are scalable to many orders of magnitude, apply the proper current density and the phenomena can occur. As shown by Peratt's supercomputer simulations based on real plasma physics.
It's not the experiments, its the faulty interpretation of them, then applying that faulty interpretation to myths. And there is no evidence that such are scalable. Why do you have such a hard time with actual observation?
Probably due to the fact that these would be incredibly destructive events, end of the world types of events. One where most of the people retreated to caves to survive, and recorded what they saw on the walls.
Or where they lived in caves because they offered the best protection from the elements and the fauna they encountered. Not invisible, physically impossible, imaginary events!
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) Aug 19, 2016
@cd,
Probably due to the fact that these would be incredibly destructive events, end of the world types of events. One where most of the people retreated to caves to survive, and recorded what they saw on the walls.


End of the world? Where is this extinction event in the fossil record? And the rock art survives in caves and overhangs due to the fact that it is better protected from weathering there.

Peratt has come up with something that he has seen at tiny scales, and scaled it up, and then suggested it could happen at these scales (never been seen), and then used that to suggest ancient doodles are therefore shown to be some sort of plasma weirdness. There is no way of proving this, short of it happening again, and there is no way of falsifying it. Ergo, it isn't science, just a belief.
If that convinces you, then fine. Sure as hell does nothing for me. People see what they want to see. Particularly when they are obsessed.

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2016
is Peratt observed real plasmas in the lab for decades
@cantthink
ok, quick question:
if you are someone who follows the evidence,
AND
you require laboratory observed physical evidence of real, existing phenomenon as you argue for above
THEN
why do you keep claiming that magnetic reconnection doesn't exist?
http://www.pppl.g...nnection

Researchers have run this and similar experiments - called "shots" - more than 100,000 times since 1995 and amassed volumes of data and numerous scientific papers
http://www.pppl.g...HEET.pdf

that is more than 100K validated experiments that you claim aren't real...

why am i asking?

b/c you keep making your claim of
based on real plasma physics
but yet you blatantly refuse to accept any "based on real plasma physics" studies/experiments

why is eu cult plasma better than validated PPPL?

cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2016
Peratt has come up with something that he has seen at tiny scales, and scaled it up, and then suggested it could happen at these scales (never been seen), and then used that to suggest ancient doodles are therefore shown to be some sort of plasma weirdness

Anything and everything plasma is wierdness to you, recall but a couple of months ago you were unaware electrochemical processes occur in plasmas. Your comment was along the lines of "where's the electrolyte"? Hey jonesdumb, it's the plasma.

Here are a couple papers on those "doodles".
http://www.plasma...3clr.pdf
Doodles indeed...
http://www.plasma...008c.pdf

And an interesting article to boot;
http://www.plasma...2008.pdf

More plasma "weirdness";
http://www.plasma...rth.html

cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2016
And there is no evidence that such are scalable. Why do you have such a hard time with actual observation?

Figure 1 on page two shows you to be ignorant of factual observation. Why the hard time?
http://www.plasma...ures.pdf

And this does more of the same;
http://www.plasma...sler.pdf

Why is observation so hard for you?
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2016
@cd,
you were unaware electrochemical processes occur in plasmas......


Yes, you never did explain how the plasma was electrochemically creating ice. At distances from the Sun where ice can't form. Care to explain it? Or should we just stick with the bleedin' obvious, and scientifically literate conclusion?
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2016
He has confirmed this with 56 different plasma formations, not just a snake falling from a tree.

Sorry, I was incorrect in this statement. It is 86 different plasma formations represented in millions of drawings etched on rocks taken from thousands of sites from 139 different countries around the world. But it's just a grand illusion/delusion of prehistoric humanity.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2016
I'll repeat - Peratts imaginings are just that. No way to prove them, very difficult to falsify. So it isn't science, any more than Velikovsky or Von Daniken's nonsense was science. It is a belief system.
Mind you, I read of one study that looked at ice core data, that would seem to rule out this silliness at least as far back as 9400 years. The Carrington event stuck out like a sore thumb, and Peratt wants something 1 to 2 magnitudes higher than that! And again - if it was a catostrophic event/s, where is it in the fossil record?
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2016
Ice core data could very well be flawed. The assumption is that layers in the ice represent years, it could very well represent individual storms rather than years. This would change the conclusions dramatically.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2016
Ice core data could very well be flawed
@cd
the data is based upon decades of research which conclusively demonstrate the "layering" technique - unlike the opinionated conjectures of biased visual observations of glyphs
it could very well represent individual storms rather than years
before you speculate on the subject, you could always actually research it a little
a short search teaches us that there is a method to dating ice cores
http://www.talkor...res.html

IOW- they don't just "ASSume" a layer is anything, they search for the markers/contaminants
looking for items that vary with the seasons in a consistent manner
so that in itself debunks your ASSumption of flawed conclusions and storm vs year readings

more to the point:
the methodology is continually validated through constant research

IOW- it doesn't make an ASSUmption like the eu cult and stick with it, it constantly adjusts to reduce the error bars
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2016
@cd cont'd
The assumption is that layers in the ice represent years...
to continue...
here are more references
[1] C. Lorius et al., NATURE 316 (1985) 591-596.
[2] F. Yiou et al., NATURE 316 (1985) 616-617.
[3] J. Jouzel et al., NATURE 329 (1987) 403-408.
[4] J.M. Barnola et al., NATURE 329 (1987) 408-414.
[5] van Nostrands' SCIENTIFIC DICTIONARY
[6] THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
[7] E. Wolff, GEOGRAPHICAL MAGAZINE 59 (1987) 73-77.
[8] Julie M. Palais OCEANUS 29 (Winter 86/87) 55-60.
[9] W. Dansgaard et al., SCIENCE 218 (1982) 1273-1277.
[10] C.U. Hammer et al., NATURE 288 (1980) 230-235

so this isn't a matter of "bias" or "opinion" like your eu speculations on the universe or AGW
this is a matter of carefully researched data, study, experimentation, replication and validation... you know, that method you don't use: the scientific method
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2016
He has confirmed this with 56 different plasma formations, not just a snake falling from a tree.

Sorry, I was incorrect in this statement. It is 86 different plasma formations represented in millions of drawings etched on rocks taken from thousands of sites from 139 different countries around the world. But it's just a grand illusion/delusion of prehistoric humanity.
No Acolyte, it is the grand self delusion of someone desperately wanting to see something in cave paintings that is not there.

Like Bostock's paper you linked below - it does not provide any evidence for electric phenomena - at best it suggests that structures from the lab might help understand cosmic structures that look similar. It's similar to creationists seeing evidence of the Flood in every rock formation. Religious confirmation bias.

As I have said to you before Acolyte - we have come a long way in the 30 years since that paper.

So yes, you are correct - it IS just a grand illusion
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2016
And there is no evidence that such are scalable. Why do you have such a hard time with actual observation?

And this does more of the same;
http://www.plasma...sler.pdf
Why is observation so hard for you?
One other thing Acolyte - those are NOT examples of observation. Like other members of your cult, you confuse imaginative interpretation of cave drawings with things that are actually observed. You (well not YOU, you do nothing except criticize the work of others from the safety of your basement) employ a laughable parody of the scientific method - you "observe" something, you create some fanciful explanation of what that might be, then you stop.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2016
Yes, you never did explain how the plasma was electrochemically creating ice. At distances from the Sun where ice can't form. Care to explain it?


http://ve4xm.calt...asma.pdf

http://ve4xm.calt...view.pdf

Wilful ignorance is no excuse jonesdumb.

cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2016
And there is no evidence that such are scalable. Why do you have such a hard time with actual observation?

And this does more of the same;
http://www.plasma...sler.pdf
Why is observation so hard for you?
One other thing Acolyte - those are NOT examples of observation. Like other members of your cult, you confuse imaginative interpretation of cave drawings with things that are actually observed. You (well not YOU, you do nothing except criticize the work of others from the safety of your basement) employ a laughable parody of the scientific method - you "observe" something, you create some fanciful explanation of what that might be, then you stop.

The paper shows the likelihood of plasma arc discharges on a planetary scale, based upon observation. You claim they were not possible, in direct conflict of observation. Why is that so hard for you?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2016
"Afaik there are no petroglyphs in Stonehenge"

You might have a point if the article was examining Stonehenge.

You would have a point but there are none in Callanish nor in Stenness either.

Megaliths may well represent a physical interpretation of petroglyphs, rock art using rocks rather than on rocks.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2016
Wilful ignorance is no excuse jonesdumb.
OMG, hypocrisy brought to new heights! What a pitiful fraud you are cantthink.

The first link is to a paper discussing the injection of water into an artificially cooled plasma, whereupon it forms ice crystals, and the experiment discusses how those crystals are different for different cooled mediums. It DOES NOTHING TO ANSWER the question you were asked Acolyte!

The second link is a report on experimental MHD simulations, including an investigation of magnetic reconnection and artificially injected water vapor to and artificially created cold plasma. Beyond it being a review of experiments you say are not done (or are done wrong or something) it also DOES NOTHING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Your High Priests will be most displeased with your display of hypocrisy and stupidity Acolyte.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2016
Yes, you never did explain how the plasma was electrochemically creating ice. At distances from the Sun where ice can't form. Care to explain it?


http://ve4xm.calt...asma.pdf

Wilful ignorance is no excuse jonesdumb.


I will have to commend you in one aspect jonesdumb, your ignorance of plasma physics is complete and thorough.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2016
"Afaik there are no petroglyphs in Stonehenge"

You might have a point if the article was examining Stonehenge.

You would have a point but there are none in Callanish nor in Stenness either.

Megaliths may well represent a physical interpretation of petroglyphs, rock art using rocks rather than on rocks.
Or they may represent attempts by ancients to satisfy their gods by aligning their rocks in such a way as to frame certain astrological events, such as a solstice, so that their god would smile on them and grant them a good harvest. Or maybe its to invite spaceships to land. Or maybe its to ensure their wives live through childbirth. Or that their children will live. Or that their crops won't be killed by an early frost.

All of these are just as scientifically probable as the tripe you peddle Acolyte.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2016
Wilful ignorance is no excuse jonesdumb.
OMG, hypocrisy brought to new heights! What a pitiful fraud you are cantthink.

The first link is to a paper discussing the injection of water into an artificially cooled plasma, whereupon it forms ice crystals, and the experiment discusses how those crystals are different for different cooled mediums. It DOES NOTHING TO ANSWER the question you were asked Acolyte!

The second link is a report on experimental MHD simulations, including an investigation of magnetic reconnection and artificially injected water vapor to and artificially created cold plasma. Beyond it being a review of experiments you say are not done (or are done wrong or something) it also DOES NOTHING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Your High Priests will be most displeased with your display of hypocrisy and stupidity Acolyte.

Wow, direct disregard of observation. At least you're consistent.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2016
The paper shows the likelihood of plasma arc discharges on a planetary scale, based upon observation. You claim they were not possible, in direct conflict of observation. Why is that so hard for you?
It does not! No where in that paper does it discuss observations of anything beyond what was produced in a lab! Jeezus you are thick Acolyte - and it is no wonder you have such a hard time with actual observation. You don't really have any idea what an actual "observation" is!

I cannot believe this needs to be explained to you Acolyte! An observation is what our spaceships see - including those that travel through the magnetosphere if this planet "observing" the magnetic reconnection you claim is impossible.

Get out of your basement, the lack of sun is affecting your mental capacity Acolyte.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2016
Wow, direct disregard of observation. At least you're consistent.
Wow, willful disregard of the conclusions and discussions of experiments in the very papers he cites. A stronger display of D-K syndrome could not be made. Not only do you not know what you are talking about, you actually do not know how much you do not know.

Really Acolyte, you should get out of your basement, stop reading all of the conspiracy and lunatic blog sites you frequent, and stop preaching the catastrophist mantra you are so enamored with. You really are terrible at it.

Chris_Reeve
Aug 20, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Chris_Reeve
Aug 20, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
amiabledunce
2 / 5 (4) Aug 20, 2016
I agree. More Gallileos would be nice. Reminds me of this Heinlein quote:

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
-Robert A. Heinlein
baudrunner
4 / 5 (3) Aug 20, 2016
According to jonesdumb humans were incapable of having the ability to form complex reasoning such as what is suggested above.
Most adults today have trouble with fractions, algebra, trig, and don't even get them started on calculus. Yet, many people, albeit a minority, which is disturbing, are adept at those disciplines. That's how it was in ancient times. Eratosthenes of Cyrene (276 BC - 194) calculated the circumference of the Earth using wile and wit. Very clever guy. Problem with today is that everybody has the opportunity to earn academic credits, but are they yet as clever as he was? What we find on this site are people who think they know a lot and have the ability to theorize - everybody has that ability - but they seem to be most comfortable with mythology, and they habitually ascribe religious purpose to just about every ancient artifact they uncover. Nope, all those Stonehenge type "monuments" are indeed astronomical observatories.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2016
The Pagans were a monolithic culture.
Which ones? From what we can tell, they invented human storytelling (we call them the mythological archetypes). They also created etchings into rock called petroglyphs. It is today widely recognized that this culture was fascinated by astronomical topics -- so much so that they used the names of the planets as their gods. No, we used names given to gods by Pagens to identify the planets. Gods they saw in the sky which we now know as stars and planets. Because they did not understand what they were.
All of that is rather mainstream.
Well, except that you got it backwards.
Imagine that something happens to our culture and we are wiped off the Earth. And a future culture arrives to try to understand us. Suppose their science is just like ours, and they formulate specialists...Like it or not, the only group who is today trying to piece the details together is the Thunderbolts Group.
That's hilarious!
Maggnus
5 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2016
I agree. More Gallileos would be nice. Reminds me of this Heinlein quote:
You would. You also agree that invisible giant lightning bolts from Venus make Martian canyons. And that an invisible electric flow from somewhere that is also invisible powers our star. Kinda puts your agreement in perspective.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (4) Aug 20, 2016
Oops. Let me fix this:
From what we can tell, they invented human storytelling (we call them the mythological archetypes). They also created etchings into rock called petroglyphs. It is today widely recognized that this culture was fascinated by astronomical topics -- so much so that they used the names of the planets as their gods.
No, we used names given to gods by Pagens to identify the planets. Gods they saw in the sky which we now know as stars and planets. Because they did not understand what they were.

jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2016
@Chris_Reeve,
Like it or not, the only group who is today trying to piece the details together is the Thunderbolts Group.....


Now that genuinely had me rolling around laughing! They do this why? To prove that not only have they not got a clue about science (as shown many times), but that they are also capable of misinterpreting various mythologies to try to shoehorn it into the non-science?
This from idiots who believe that Earth used to orbit Saturn!!!!
Sorry, but you are in no position to lecture anybody about anything. And don't give me this 'interdisciplinary' BS. What you really mean is that never has a motley collection of individuals ever arisen before, who are seemingly capable of getting so much wrong about so many different disciplines!
Genuine ROFL moment!!!!!!!

Chris_Reeve
Aug 20, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2016
@cd,
As for your links to ice in plasmas; lol!!!!!! They used MHD (is that ok by you, now?), they saw magnetic reconnection (that ok now, too?), and, as Magnuss said, they cooled the electrodes to incredibly low temperatures, and then INJECTED liquid water!!!!!!
When there is the combination of weakly ionized plasma, water vapour, and
cooling, water ice grains spontaneously form and grow

How does this explain how an impactor, hitting a comet at 1.5 AU, manages to release solid ice grains? Within seconds? Or how CO2 jets at 1.3 AU manage to entrain water ice grains?
The plasma isn't supercooled. Temperatures at those heliocentric distances are too high for ice to form, and where are they getting the H2O vapour to start with? And don't give me that H + O nonsense; it has been shown umpteen times that the density of the SW cannot account for the amount seen, by many orders of magnitude.
Total nonsense.

jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2016
Re: "This from idiots who believe that Earth used to orbit Saturn!!!!"

Um, no. You're stumbling on the basics. The claim is that it was a Herbig-Haro configuration, which is a linear coaxial alignment which is a transient configuration which occurs prior to stellar capture (i.e., when a system is in transit). That means that the Earth would not be rotating around Saturn. Saturn would be at our pole, which is what the Atum and other monolithic structures were pointing at.


Really? Strange how nobody even remotely scientifically literate takes this seriously, eh? And how the hell do you know what ancient cultures were depicting? Purely due to the fanciful misinterpretations of some crank or other?

For anybody interested, here is a piece written by former Velikovsky insider C. Leroy Ellenberger on the idiot David Talbott, and his Saturn rubbish:
http://www106.zip...ile.html (.rar file, no password)

[cont....]
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2016
[cont.....]
And here are a couple of pearls of wisdom from Ellenberger, re Talbott, that people would be well advised to take note of:

"Dave Talbott's postings on his "Saturn thesis" are based on the "BIG LIE" and collectively are a pathological example of the triumph of ignorance over common sense and reason. There can be no question that his conclusions (which are mostly preconceived notions) are wrong....."

And.....

"Do not let Talbott's feigned erudition obscure the fact that he is just another in a long line of intellectual con men, such as Lyndon LaRouche, whose verbiage exceeds his grasp of reality."

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2016
Wilful ignorance is no excuse jonesdumb.
OMG, hypocrisy brought to new heights! What a pitiful fraud you are cantthink.

The first link is to a paper discussing the injection of water into an artificially cooled plasma, whereupon it forms ice crystals, and the experiment discusses how those crystals are different for different cooled mediums. It DOES NOTHING TO ANSWER the question you were asked Acolyte!

The second link is a report on experimental MHD simulations, including an investigation of magnetic reconnection and artificially injected water vapor to and artificially created cold plasma. Beyond it being a review of experiments you say are not done (or are done wrong or something) it also DOES NOTHING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Your High Priests will be most displeased with your display of hypocrisy and stupidity Acolyte.


He also failed to notice that the ion densities were ~ 10 orders of magnitude higher than would be seen at the relevant distances!
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2016
So, just to claify for cd; from the paper:
"FORMATION AND ALIGNMENT OF ELONGATED, FRACTAL-LIKE WATER-ICE GRAINS IN
EXTREMELY COLD, WEAKLY IONIZED PLASMA"

While the lab experiment provides many insights, we do not claim that the lab plasma is an exact replica of any particular astrophysical situation. In fact, the number densities of neutrals, ions, and ice grains are all substantially larger than the corresponding densities in astrophysical dusty plasmas.


Translation: we can do this in the lab, but know of no way that it could occur in astrophysical situations.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2016
Ice core data could very well be flawed. The assumption is that layers in the ice represent years, it could very well represent individual storms rather than years. This would change the conclusions dramatically.


B*llocks. Like to link to somebody who is saying that they could have it so wrong? As I said, the Carrington event of 1859 was exactly where it was supposed to be. Volcanic eruptions known from ancient sources can often be seen and dated to when they were said to occur. They can also be cross checked with tree ring data. http://www.latime...ory.html
As usual, as per the Talbott and Velikovsky nutjobs, anything that shows them to be wrong must have been misinterpreted by *real* scientists.
It couldn't possibly be contemplated that these geniuses have been shown to be wrong, despite their evidence-free, scientifically impossible rubbish ideas.
amiabledunce
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2016


I agree. More Gallileos would be nice. Reminds me of this Heinlein quote:
You would. You also agree that invisible giant lightning bolts from Venus make Martian canyons. And that an invisible electric flow from somewhere that is also invisible powers our star. Kinda puts your agreement in perspective.

Excuse me.How would you know what I do or do not believe? I do not think we have met. Did you infer all that from my comment? May I suggest that you stick to the things you know,and from reading through your comments that appears to be everything.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2016
Excuse me.How would you know what I do or do not believe? I do not think we have met. Did you infer all that from my comment? May I suggest that you stick to the things you know,and from reading through your comments that appears to be everything.
I wonder if you realize Dunce, that one can check your posting history on this site?
Likely pinched off from the main sequence star. Not sure how many more hot Jupiters needed for astronomers to let go of their inward migration hypothesis.
http://phys.org/n...html#jCp and I was referencing Dr. Peratt's work on plasmoids, and
I believe ancient people witnessed some rather large auroral phenomena globally.
http://phys.org/n...html#jCp So, by all means Dunce feel free to pull a Peter and deny your support for the cult you have posted for. Or is it you only believe some of it? Sort of a lukewarm EU Cultist?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 21, 2016
The Pagans were
@chris/alfven
1- as Maggnus noted: which "pagans"?

2- you should define how you use the word considering the technical (no longer used) term means "polytheistic religion" - http://www.dictio...se/pagan

the only group who is today trying to piece the details together is the Thunderbolts Group
this is called a false claim ( http://www.auburn...ion.html ) not only b/c you don't know what all anthropologists, archeologists and all other fields are working on at this moment, but because it's proven false by anyone with the ability to search the internet and taking two seconds to do it
https://scholar.g...roglyphs

if you're going to make a claim about how your thunderDOLTS are the only [insert claim here] you should at least check your facts before you post them
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2016
Re: "This from idiots who believe that Earth used to orbit Saturn!!!!"

You're stumbling on the basics.. .


Hilarious! How can I stumble on the basics of something that CANNOT happen, and DIDN'T happen?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far, you have zero evidence of any nature. Merely the ramblings of a scientifically illiterate con man, who thinks his misinterpretation of ancient writings is the only possible interpretation. Even when it contradicts the laws of physics.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2016
@CS,
this is called a false claim ( http://www.auburn...ion.html ) not only b/c you don't know what all anthropologists, archeologists and all other fields are working on at this moment, but because it's proven false by anyone with the ability to search the internet and taking two seconds to do it
https://scholar.g...roglyphs


And failing to mention, for instance, that Velikovsky's claims were looked at by people of the various disciplines upon which his nonsense impinged. Without fail, they all declared it to be utter rubbish.
It'd be interesting to know how many experts in astrophysics, Egyptology, geology, palaeontology, palaeoclimatology, palaeobotany etc, etc, happen to find their way to the quasi-religious cult of Thunderdolts. Zero would be my guess.

torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.3 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2016

for interdisciplinary research feel free to check my past and recent work


Nice to see a corresponding author! But whil I haven't dug too deep into the paper [ https://arxiv.org...1338.pdf ] as of yet, my assessment such as it is is dire.

I can still confidently say that no "astroarchaeological" paper has ever managed to statistically test their hypotheses. The paper is, what I can see, not doing it. (Note also that it took 2 years, despite a short 4 week review period for the publishing magazine - meaning the reviewers had little time to assess - to publish.)

[tbctd]
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2016
[ctd]

The attempted methodology is to put down 12 great circles (GC) of astronomical interest. Then constructing an idealized 'mounting position' that they like better than the measured. That position range, which is 16 degrees, or half the range of a random 30 degree sector that hits their GCs, is scanned in 0.5 degree steps. The number of hits to GCs, typically 2-5, looks like a random noise series - no analysis of characteristics done - but is smoothed and used for two 'tests'.

The scare crows indicate my assessment, the author's don't really put up their vaunted cross correlation, nor do they put up a test statistic, nor assess the test selectivity. All they do in the simplest 'test' is to average out the noise _again_ and look for a random shift above average against the average number of hits. To be really sure of achieving significance they aggregate all the hits once again.

[tbctd]
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2016
[ctd]

What would we expect from a simple estimate? For example, Callanish has 9 test hits out of 18. A quick and dirty estimate is that this would be expected of a 16 degree range vs 30 degree random range. (Of course the GCs chosen from interest is clumped, I am simplifying for haste.) But by aggregating them, the author's p value gets down to 1 %. That is akin to aggregating faces on a coin throw, to be able to claim that the coin is weighted after getting 9 out of 18 faces.

The other 'test' is no better. And this passed peer review? Some archaeologists know statistics better than me of course, the question is if the reviewers did.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2016
@CS,
this is called a false claim ( http://www.auburn...ion.html


And failing to mention, for instance, that Velikovsky's claims were looked at by people of the various disciplines upon which his nonsense impinged. Without fail, they all declared it to be utter rubbish.
It'd be interesting to know how many experts in astrophysics, Egyptology, geology, palaeontology, palaeoclimatology, palaeobotany etc, etc, happen to find their way to the quasi-religious cult of Thunderdolts. Zero would be my guess.


Lol so true, even Peratt, who is an astrophysicist, completely disavows himself from their "teachings". Alfven must be rolling over in his grave considering the incoherent ramblings of his Acolytes.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Aug 21, 2016
[ctd]

What would we expect from a simple estimate? For example, Callanish has 9 test hits out of 18. A quick and dirty estimate is that this would be expected of a 16 degree range vs 30 degree random range. (Of course the GCs chosen from interest is clumped, I am simplifying for haste.) But by aggregating them, the author's p value gets down to 1 %. That is akin to aggregating faces on a coin throw, to be able to claim that the coin is weighted after getting 9 out of 18 faces.

The other 'test' is no better. And this passed peer review? Some archaeologists know statistics better than me of course, the question is if the reviewers did.

I have to believe the authors put more thought into this than your simple example would indicate. They are correlating the monuments to both the sun and the moon covering some 5000-7000 years and using different sites. I'll be watching for the author's response.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2016

I have to believe the authors put more thought into this than your simple example would indicate. They are correlating the monuments to both the sun and the moon covering some 5000-7000 years and using different sites. I'll be watching for the author's response.


Well, one could do a series of Monte Carlo simulations and see how a random set of their 'mounting positions' comes out. But I don't see much of an analysis of their 'test'.

I have decided that I won't dig further unless I see a response, I am taking on a new time consuming project tomorrow. My null hypothesis is that 'archaeoastronomy' hasn't provided anything acceptable as archaeology of yet, and any paper would have to be very solid to turn that around. "The reactions of professional archaeologists to archaeoastronomy have been decidedly mixed." [ https://en.wikipe...stronomy ]
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Aug 22, 2016

I have to believe the authors put more thought into this than your simple example would indicate. They are correlating the monuments to both the sun and the moon covering some 5000-7000 years and using different sites. I'll be watching for the author's response.


Well, one could do a series of Monte Carlo simulations and see how a random set of their 'mounting positions' comes out. But I don't see much of an analysis of their 'test'.

I have decided that I won't dig further unless I see a response, I am taking on a new time consuming project tomorrow. My null hypothesis is that 'archaeoastronomy' hasn't provided anything acceptable as archaeology of yet, and any paper would have to be very solid to turn that around. "The reactions of professional archaeologists to archaeoastronomy have been decidedly mixed." [ https://en.wikipe...stronomy ]
Yea, fair comment. Good luck with the new project!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.