I’ve now taken a quick look at the possibility that the Stonehenge lintel circle width was two Royal Cubits as some have suggested. It’s a bit hasty, but offhand it does not look like a good model, for a number of reasons. It looks more like the kind of trouble you can see coming from a long way away.
I almost wanted to leave this next part out, and I’m not quite sure where to start.
I try my best not to get misfiled under “numerology” – I never add or subtract just to make an equation work out when my stock in trade is multiplication and division, and aside from the deleterious effect that the addition and subtraction mandated by architectural detail have on such mathematics, my standard of accuracy is absolute.
I’ve maintained a standard of accuracy I call the “Giza Standard” for forced approximations due to addition and subtraction of .9995 accuracy or higher, the two exceptions between several of Thom’s Flattened Ring types where the lapse in accuracy may be due to the particular geometric interpretation he used.
I didn’t think I’d see the day, but it looks to me as if with the Stonehenge lintel circle, the ambition of the architects became so great that they were willing to accept a lapse in accuracy down to .9993 that for me is an unprecedented thing to witness in ancient architecture.
Perhaps that’s not surprising considering that their ambition went as far as to convey the more accurate, if obscure, form of the Eclipse Year as described in the preceding post about the lintel circle.
As long as we understand I’m not just copping out and granting myself a free pass here because for once my numbers don’t quite work out. It’s the first time this has happened and I very much hope it’s the last, and hopefully the reasons the architect or architects of Stonehenge did this will quickly become self-evident.
The actual intended width of the lintels according to this system of math, to the best of my ability to determine, is 3.483165714 ft.
As seen in previous posts about Stonehenge, the difference between inner and outer circumference of the sarcen circle is
(120 x 2.720174974 = 326.4209971) – (80 x 1.216733603 x Pi = 360 / 1.177245771 = 305.7985077) = 20.62248937 = 20.62648062 ft = 12 Morton Royal Cubits, to an accuracy of .9998064989
For the lintel circle, the outer / inner circumference difference is
327.0127141 – 305.1421048 = 21.87060930 ft
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/janthro/2014/489757/
Table 4
Egyptian common cubit 18.24 inches
Egyptian royal cubit 20.64 inches
Great Assyrian cubit 25.26 inches
Beládi cubit 21.88 inches
Black cubit 20.28 inches
Table 6
Cubit Inches Meter
Roman 17.48 0.444
Egyptian (short) 17.72 0.450
Greek 18.23 0.463
Assyrian 19.45 0.494
Sumerian 19.76 0.502
Egyptian (royal) 20.62 0.524
Talmudist 21.85 0.555
Palestinian 25.24 0.641
The bolded values fine-tuned by simple circular geometry should be be (360 / (360 / 2 Pi) = 360 / 57.29577951 = 18.23781305 / 10 and 18.23781305 / 10 x 12 = 21.88537576
So we can easily see that as with the circumference difference of the sarcen circle, the circumference difference of the lintel circle is also a rather obvious metrological statement in any of the indicated units – not to mention that 1.5 of a short Remen of (12 / (Pi^2)) = 1.215854204 (this is analogous to John Michell’s “long” and “short” forms of measuring units).
That’s one reason to think they very purposefully accepted a lapse in accuracy just this once.
Here is another: the ratio between these two remainders is
21.88537576 / 20.62648062 = 1.061032959 = 1 / (30 Pi).
There is actually a meaningful comparison to be made between the two of them.
Also, having used a few mathematical probes to try to establish the intended for the lintel width, presumably 3.483165714 (accuracy relative to calculated values about .9993, as with 21.88537576)
20.62648062 / 3.483165714 = 5.921762647 = (12 x (Pi^2)) / 2 / 10
(12 x (Pi^2)) / 10 is the thread that connects the (half) Venus Cycle to the Venus Orbital Period
21.88537576 / 3.483165714 = 2 Pi
Imagine a circular monument (radius x 2 Pi = circumference) talking about 2 Pi, as does the Great Pyramid with which it has earned itself something of a reputation for being a physical embodiment of the “Squaring of the circle” – but there you go, for this school of math, the answers to the lintel width may have also been worked out.
–Luke Piwalker
Luke Piwalker 