I don’t imagine I yet have enough additional material on Stonehenge for another part in the series yet, but in case I have anything new to say on the subject in the meantime, let’s see what I can make out of another post.
With the rapid influx of Stonehenge data lately, I’ve begun building a table to keep it organized. I’ve made tables of Stonehenge data before which haven’t outlived their usefulness but a lot of this data is being tabled for the first time.
Even with the very few metrological columns I’m adding in order to get a bitter idea of what the proposed values are in various metrological units, I think some interesting things have appeared.
Partly because Petrie’s Stonehenge unit is probably more outstanding when expressed in inches as 224.8373808 inches, I’m looking at some of Stonehenge’s proportions in inches for probably the first time. Normally things work perfectly well if I simply work in feet, but Petrie’s unit does put focus on inches.
Something that’s already come out of that is looking at the Great Pyramid in inches a little bit for the first time. It’s really not necessary, we could (and should) use 12 or multiples of 12 as mathematical probes, but expressing things in inches can lend an expanded perspective that perhaps begins to shed light on what the mathematical advantages were of having so many metrological units that can be linked together very simply by the number 12.
That would seem to be a bit redundant, but maybe there’s wisdom in it?
I recently mentioned a raw figure from Thom’s data that might have suggested the original “Mayan Annoyance”, although 24 Remens may be more promising, and yet the “Mayan Annoyance” is there. The mean sarcen circle diameter of 50.30183830 ft is 29.26442327 standard Royal Cubits.
After a surprising amount of material generated on the presence of the Venus Orbital Period / Petrie Unit 224.8373808, I’m reminded by the unfinished tables that the minimum sarcen circle radius of 48.66934411 ft = 584.0321293 inches, 584.0321293 days being the standard Venus Synodic Period.
Having the data laid out for an overview also allows spotting metrological patterns. For example, the minimum (inner) sarcen circle dimeter of 97.33868822 feet is equal to 1168.064259 inches, and the suggested Aubrey Circle maximum (outer) radius of 142.1223025 is equal to 116.8064252 standard Remens of 1.216733603 ft each.
The suggested outer bluestone circle circumference value of 244.8157478 ft is equal to 201.2073532 Remens, twice the number of feet for the mean sarcen circle diameter, and having just pointed out where “Mayan” wonder number 1.424280287 occurs with using the Aubrey Center to re-apportion the inner bluestone circle in Part 10 of the “More About Stonehenge” series, I’m very pleased to learn that 244.8157478 ft in standard Royal Cubits is
244.8157478 / 1.718873385 = 142.4280287
The maximum sarcen circle radius value of 51.95151522 ft is in Royal Cubits
51.95151522 / 1.718873385 = 30.22416641, 1/100 of my base perimeter (unpaved) for the Great Pyramid.
These are some of the sort of things that can come to light with a more organized overview of the data.
More mysteries also come to light as well – there are some numbers I don’t recognize although I have reason to expect that they are there for good reason.
The logic of the Aubrey Circle is somewhat hard for me to grasp, though, even with a better view of it. The values proposed again:
Circumference, Max 892.9807632 ft
Circumference, Mean 891.0639963 ft
Circumference, Min 889.5317998 ft
The last one is 2 / 224.8373808, the VOP/Petrie unit again, but the same trick may not work with the other two. 2 / 892.9807632 = 2.239689904, which is in false square root 5 territory rather than VOP territory, so they don’t all have to be about Venus per se, but 2 / 891.0639963 = 2 / 224.44507699, which brings me back to the question of whether it was ever used to represent the Venus Orbital Period. I might believe it, but I want to see more evidence first.
I almost feel like I’m cheating readers with such a short post, so here’s a little more on the subject that I hope will be of interest.
When we convert it to inches, we can observe that the 305.7985077 min (inner) circumference of the sarcen circle is 305.7985077 x 12 = 3669.582093. That’s a number that’s come up again twice just in the past several days. I was scrambling for an example of where it may exist in real life (it may be involved in Hawass’ find of a Giza subsidiary pyramid, G1d, depending on what we think it the slope angle?) but it’s also posted thus at Stonehenge already, something one may tend to forget when heavily focused on measuring in feet.
That being the case, more background on this number is probably due soon.
Most recently, one of the reasons I had occasion to write about 3669.582093 is because its reciprocal may suggest some kind of Megalithic Yard to some of us (this may not include me, or at least not yet) in case three Megalithic Yards aren’t enough already.
1 / 3.669582093 = 2.725105951
What I hope to do, is round out my Stonehenge data table with more conversions of its proportions into other metrological units. Looking at things in putative Indus feet is something I’ve never really done in the past, as focusing on the Indus foot is something rather new to me that happened only after encouragement from Jim Wakefield who’s something of a champion of the Indus foot.
My favorite Indus foot candidate may well show metrological significance at Silbury Hill, which may still have the potential to be something of a metrological metropolis.
Naturally, when looking at additional components of Stonehenge, it would definitely be a good idea to try measuring things out in Squared Munck Megalithic Yards.
In my humble opinion, it was very astute of Munck to associate this unit with Stonehenge, because just as
360 / min sarcen circle circumference 305.7985077 = 1.177245771
360 / min sarcen circle radius 48.669334410 = 7.396853331, the Squared Munck Megalithic Yard (“SMMY”) in feet. Since 48.669334410 = 40 Remens, we see more about how the Remen and “SMMY” are directly related to one another.
At least as far as the minumum sarcen circle values go, 7.396853331 is able to put on quite a display, operating at least as high as the sixth power, SMMY^6. At or near the bottom of the series is another occurrence of the “Mayan” wonder number 1.02152107. On the way there, the sidelength of the Great Pyramid (unpaved) is also found, along with a figure equal to the sarcen circle’s mean radius in Remens, and a number that might be the main thing we’re supposed to think the Aubrey Circle’s 56 holes refer to, 55.8903914.
–Luke Piwalker
Luke Piwalker 