Awareness and the Unborn

March 21st, 2021

This paper was written for the Buddhism and Australia conference in february this year (2021):
Wed, 17 Feb at 19:35
Awareness and the Unborn
Dalai Lama: “Buddhist cosmology establishes the cycle of a universe in the following way: first there is a period of formation, then a period where the universe endures, then another during which it is destroyed, followed by a period of void* before the formation of a new universe. During this void, the particles of space subsist, and from these particles the new universe will be formed. It is in these particles of space that we find the fundamental con-substantial cause of the entire physical world.

If we wish to describe the formation of the universe and the physical bodies of beings, all we need do is analyse and comprehend the way in which the natural potential of different chemical and other elements constituting that universe was able to take shape from these space particles.

It is on the bases of the specific potential of those particles that the structure of this universe and of the bodies of the beings present therein have come about.”


The Buddhist concept of a space-particle was a welcome confirmation of my conviction that space is granular as I had experienced it myself and as it had later emerged from a natural number logic and geometry I had developed for resonances. In my unique peak-experience I realized that space and matter were different appearances of the same stuff, it was all one sparkling energy field, it was all light, in essence. There was no separation between things and space, it was one field of appearance and experience.

‘How am I ever going to put this into words’, I thought to myself, then; and what you are going to read here is a first full attempt to put this ‘truth’ into a more comprehensive whole.


As cited above the Dalai Lama expects that study of the ‘aethereal’ space-particle will reveal how the whole world has come about.

My tentative contribution to the study of space particles seeks to give them a logical and mathematical basis as the substance of reality and to show they can form the conceptual bridge between the physical and the mental, which we must cross if we want to preserve oneness.

It won’t do to say that matter is a fabrication of mind, because it does not solve the continuity of Nature in the space-particles as outlined by the Lama. Here we touch on the Unborn as the source without beginning and the Undying as the eternity of the source-less source.

The concept of the Unborn as the unfathomable ground of all, is already present in the Rigveda where it says: The Unborn upholds Earth, the Unborn supports Heaven. Katha Upanishad: ‘The soul is unborn, eternal, permanent’ and Krishna says: ‘I am unborn, I am imperishable’.
In Buddhism Unborn is ‘An-utpada’, which means ‘without-origin’ and is used equivalently with ‘Sunyata’ or Emptiness, the central teaching.

The aethereal space-particle is what ‘subsists’ and out of which a universe is formed, so our interest is in how these aethereal particles constitute the ‘substance’ of the world and, as I will argue, how they produce awareness by resonances that spring from the unity of it all. In the oneness is the overall integration of all awareness, the concord of the whole. The oneness is the primal awareness, as such.

I use Oneness as a prime postulate in the ultimate state of the natural laws because all mystical traditions mention the revelation of the One (-ness) as the core of spiritual transformation in experiencing reality, so it is a most inspirational approach to science.

Because the One encompassed ‘everything’ for the ancient Greeks they did not consider 1 a proper number which shows their cosmological conviction as well. Here we split up the One in infinite many space-pixalls (-particles) to allow for a ‘deepfield’ and a granular substance of the world.


The Kalachakra aethereal-particle is associated with sound, I learn, the space-pixall I have always associated with light, but now I see that my two basic mathematical forms for the geometry of space, the sphere and the horn-torus (donut without hole), allow to symbolize both; the sphere as source of vibration (sound, resonance) and the horn-torus as the source of energy (light, radiation) and magnetism.
It could be that the sound-particle transforms into a light-particle by polarisation, or that there is a constant interaction of the two. Hopefully the clue to this interaction will some day spring from the model and be apparant.


Space in this cosmology is the transparent state of an aggregate of space-pixalls (picks-all) that form the substance of everything, including space itself. I call it the deepfield, also ur-field.
What is probably original in my approach is that forms move through 3-D space, as do images through a 2-D pixel screen. Literally forms then move through the densely packed pixalls substance of the deepfield as electromagnetic and geometric wave configurations.
The density of space shows in the infallible rhythms of the wave-fields. Iron-cast order of the waves.

This ‘transvibration’ of forms means also that forms have no eigen-substance that entities have no eigen-mass, that nothing has persistent self-identity, that everything is in flux. This is reminiscent of sunyata, emptiness.

What I suspect is that we are made of space, and that we constantly move as waves in the medium of space in which we have our being. We borrow our mass, our body, from the deepfield of space-pixalls, which makes us essentially one with it all. We feel the density of space in our body, no organs no muscles, just dense volume. Solid space.

I think this is a transparent way to make intelligible that our substance, our body (the observer), is always at rest relative to light, because it is part of the unmoving deepfield at any one moment (like you are sitting at rest in a moving car), the form of our body (the car), though, is always seemingly moving through space, while the substance is at rest. (at least this is a real explanation of why lightspeed remains the same in any observation).


What most people probably imagine a photon to be is a light-blob shining all-around (what else could it be), but if that were the case we would never be in the shadow, in the dark, because a massive amount of these photons passes us in the night — see the moon bathing in light, the farthest planets— no, we only see light that is coming our way in rays, by means of waves that light up the pixalls as the substance of the space-medium, the deepfield.

This description solves the wave/particle mystery, as well. The wave is the specific energy/momentum that moves through any space-medium (solid, liquid, gaseous, aetherial), the quantum/particle is the geometric aggregate of affected space-pixalls (certain numbers maybe) that give substance (mass) to the particle. when also themselves momentum/substance of that specific wave.

We experience outer-space as dark, seen though from far away our galaxy must look like a blazing star, like we see other galaxies. How come? A bright star with a dark heart, an optical illusion?

The universe appears dark because we only see light that is coming towards us, the rays that resonate with us, we all have our own rays. Light that passes us by we do not see, only when it is somehow reflected coming to us; how is that possible with individual blobs of light? These simply do not exist, but are suggested by the granularity, the discreetness of space itself.

I analyse these building blocks of reality to form a different picture of space, than the ‘(quantum-!) vacuum’, ‘void’ and ‘nothingness’ of science. Space, not as a container, not as a volume (expanding!), a timespan (curved?), but as an original state, an ur-state, without physical properties a priori, without limits; eternal, infinite; as the Unborn, an ur-awareness, which lifts reality beyond any materiality.


Resonance is the key concept for transforming space particles into matter and matter into awareness. Resonance today is a word used in a wide variety of contexts. While from old it was restricted to studies in acoustics and sound, in the middle of the last century the use of ‘resonance’ shot up manyfold and stayed there to this day. Now rather the wide range of occurrences, even healing aspects, of resonance have come to the fore.

It was probably in the sixties that the term ‘resonance’ started to ‘resonate’ with more and more educated and younger people for whom ‘vibes’ and ‘tuning-in’ (harmonizing), were household terms

It is indeed the vibration, its perceived field of influence, its ‘working’, that is the characteristic of resonance, the field it specifies, the resonance frequency emitted and ‘responded’ to, by every object, universally.

A resonance is a region of specific presence in our view, not of force. A resonance has a quality. It is much more subtle than the term force suggests, although it is true that it is as mechanical as a common reflex, it is also a joining, a harmonizing, a synchronizing; it’s a verb.

What I want to put forward here is that the working of resonance is nature’s pillar of interaction, of communication, of transmitting information and bringing a world into being by standing waves of sound and light.

In physics resonance is seen as: one object vibrating ‘forcing’ another object with same resonant frequency into vibrational motion. (Note we need a medium for resonance)

From our perspective it is the receiving object which ‘recognizes’ the vibration of its environment as the same as its own and ‘tunes in’, ‘joins in’, harmonizes, synchronizes, this is the seed of awareness, because of the shared-ness, the condition of interaction.
We see now how the pixall-fields, constitute the substance of space. It is by interconnection, by resonance, that the awareness originates.

Resonance as primordial ‘cognition’ and ‘recognition’, which subsequently ‘solidifies’ in ‘memory clouds’ with ‘resonance frequencies’, seems to pervade everything, tangible and intangible

It is important to see that ‘recognition’ is not some mental/conscious act of will, but based on mechanical conditioning, on a law of nature, mind you. We cannot help recognizing, we cannot help resonating with our environment, we are built to resonate to survive, we are full of resonators ourselves.

It is this involuntary awareness, which is the ‘hard problem of consciousness’ (Chalmers) in physics and philosophy today, which was addressed by zen-master Bankei, just 400 years ago and by him revealed to be our innate Buddha-nature, called: the Unborn. (Ur-awareness)

It is our inborn natural awareness of our experienced environment, which is the gateway to our awakening to the Unborn.

In this one word ‘Unborn’, Bankei wonderfully and mysteriously, summarizes the core-teaching of the Buddha.

The ‘Unborn and Undying’ designates the state without beginning, without end, the state without origin, without destination. The unborn is what has always been (this is, of course, an overwhelming concept to contemplate), a state of total inclusion.

It means eternal and infinite, both terms we have a hard time understanding. But then, ‘understanding’ has no place here, maybe. Only direct experience may give us a glimpse or even an awakening.


Resonance could be a viable vehicle for understanding awareness, especially when we consider interrelatedness as leading principle.  The oneness forces us to consider where the mind-matter duality becomes fluid, conceptually, what the conditions are when it becomes hard to distinguish what is what.

Resonance is an expression of awareness of other, often similar, presences. In the resonance the individual thing ‘experiences’ its environment and reacts to it, joins it in a natural reflex.

The space particles of the deep-field provide the basic resonance, the ur-vibration or ur-sound, Nada; it is this resonance which connects all and everything and in this one-ness there is the aware-ness. The oneness creates the recognition, the transparency, the immediacy (it entangles entanglement).

In that sense then we consider all of nature is in a state of awareness, everything is born out of awareness. This is the insight Bankei gave me, that nature is awareness itself and creates new awareness (because nature is nosy).

To experience this innate natural quality of connecting to the full environment we are in, we should realize the Unborn in us all. This was Bankei’s teaching: to connect with the deep awareness of the world you are born from, open up to your Unborn Buddha-nature. This basic awareness of the natural world is exactly what lifts it beyond materiality and up to the fathomless abundance of permanent creation. There is no beginning or end here, no origin even, it is the Unborn, an-utpada, in its all-pervading aware-ness, in its one-ness.

Awareness is independent of us individually, it is resonances shared by everything, it is the state of the atmosphere, the state of the world

Bankei points to our awareness of the background and brings it to the foreground; the unintentionality, the naturalness by which we perceive the noises of our environment and can identify them flawlessly; so as you are not trying to experience; you just do experience spontaneously, it’s everywhere, this is the Unborn state of nature you’re enveloped by, and want to open up to.

Listen to Bankei:

“Listen carefully! What you all have from your parents innately is the Unborn Buddha Mind alone. There is nothing else you have innately (…) This Buddha Mind you have (…) is truly unborn and marvellously illuminating”.

Mind here the emphasis on the innate nature of the unborn state and on its intelligence, its awareness, ‘marvellously illuminating’.

The next quote was a revelation to me because it says we are unintentionally aware anyhow, we cannot help being aware, this is our natural state; it is this ‘resonance’ we are subject to; even ‘made’ or ‘created’, to be subject to. Our whole body is constructed to resonate with the outside world, from senses to food, we interact with the environment constantly and react on the base of resonance (memory, knowledge).

“While you are all turned this way listening to me talk, you don’t mistake the chirp of a sparrow out back for the caw of a crow, the sound of a gong for that of a drum, a man’s voice for a woman’s, an adult’s voice for a child’s – you clearly recognize and distinguish each sound you hear without making a mistake. That is the marvellously illuminating dynamic function of the Unborn”.

Bankei here shows in a wonderful way how we are bound to experience our wider environment and that we unvoluntarily recognize and distinguish between sounds, and all, in this, our environment that we share. This involuntary, but crucial resonance and awareness of the common world is where the Unborn resides.

When Bankei says the innate Unborn Buddha-nature is in us all, then, since the Unborn is without beginning or end (while we are), it must be there all the time, independent of whether we are born or not. This is the crucial point, nature’s awareness is independent of us, we are dependent on it.

Bankei says: ‘Everything is perfectly managed with the Unborn’. So the Unborn is an ur-state of Nature that manifests itself in you as awareness. So your awareness is actually Nature’s awareness taking form in you and providing you with your private consciousness, so that you can find your way about. (everything is taken care of; there is a strong resonance with ‘wu wei’ here).


Your awareness of your environment is your brain resonating with all the fields it is subject to. The image of your room and the space outside the window is not in your brain somewhere, it is the mirror-image your senses reflect, what you experience by resonances, it is out there for everyone else to see, not private, it is ‘awareness come to life’, you are the whole experience in space, immediately, because you are space yourself, there is no separation, his wholeness is the awareness. Space is awareness, it lights up before our eyes.

It is nothing personal. It is the field of awareness in which also animals partake and trees, plants, all of nature. This awareness has not the privacy of consciousness, it is for all to experience according to disposition. Nature is awareness.

I hope to shed some light on the different connotations of ‘awareness’ and ‘conscious-ness’, because they are often used interchangeably, but have really different flavours.
Consciousness is a cultural thing, full of taboos and rules; not so awareness, awareness is impartial, nothing in between. Animals have awareness, unclouded by consciousness, they are completely ‘natural’, they live the Unborn.
Consciousness is our own private world with a lot of ego, tainted by personal experiences, awareness is the world we share. Our consciousness defines the life we live, our awareness is defined by the world we live in. In sleep we are not conscious, but we are aware (sound, light).
Awareness is survival-mode, consciousness is leisure-mode, even dream-mode (you remember, as if conscious). The archer has no consciousness but is all awareness.


My aim is to find a vocabulary that can translate intuitive, mystical, even supernatural, knowledge into a rather neutral philosophical language. My use of the term the ‘One’ for instance can for one person mean ‘God’, another “Great Mother”, for another the ‘Dao’, for the next ‘Nature’ or ‘Cosmos’. Because the term is neutral it cannot be tainted by dogma, other than its own.

“In experiencing the grace of the Unborn is the overwhelming embrace of the One”; it can be poetry. The experiences of bliss or grace which accompany great awakenings in many cultures bear witness of what an overwhelming encounter with the ‘pure awareness of the world’ an awakening can be. You become one with it all and are never alone anymore.

The Oneness, the primal awareness, is the basic ontology of reality, carried by the ‘resonances’ of the space-particles and their fields (objects), so here the fusion of the mental and physical is realized. The aethereal particles are the ‘condensation’ of awareness as geometry of space, the deep-field. The space-particles sustain the form by providing fleeting substance.

The resonances of the vibrating deep-field fill the inexhaustible well of Deep Awareness that ‘everything’ takes its unique form from.

In this view the Ur-field is the Substance in which all forms partake, but forms have no eigen-substance, no eigen-mass, no persistent identity. Having no self-substance is described as ‘emptiness’ which is reminiscent of the concept of Sunyata, Emptiness, and relates to the Unborn as formless, but aware.


The Neolithic Ice Age

April 24th, 2016

(This is a substantial revision of an earlier page, april 2016)


Our days are about ‘the global issue’, about ‘climate change’. All temporary human conflicts dwarf in comparison to the disasters we are about to bring upon ourselves and all generations to come. We are about to lose a paradise, because of our greed and folly, our short-term thinking and ignorance, we are creating a ‘paradise-lost’, forever, a living hell for posterity. We may look at human life as a murderous deal or as a great spiritual opportunity, whatever it is, we all agree on the beauty of Nature (without us). Life is a miracle, that is its entrenching beauty; we can’t get enough of it although or because we don’t understand it and we live most of the time as if we will never cease to exist; we haven’t got a clue.

To what extent we actually bother about the future of humankind is hard to say. At least we have no qualms about using all the natural resources within our grasp. We use the rarest materials and turn them into waste, we are prepared to risk immeasurable ecological disasters to squeeze the last drops of oil from the earth’s crust; our time will be loathed and cursed by future humankind, because we have wasted resources we did not even know the real value of (platinum in exhaust pipes, tungsten in batteries), all very rare metals and resources gone in the foreseeable future and no way to stop it, not to mention the ‘invisible’ biological resources and diversity dwindling at an alarming pace.
This whole (economical) attitude of short term goals and reckless exploitation brings us the waste and pollution that will eventually suffocate us probably, a process that is already visible in the smogs in Chinese and Indian cities, but will exacerbate as the oxygen production falters when the green lungs of the earth will turn into brown slime and the end of higher life must be nearing. Most of this disaster was foreseen, but we do not have the political structures that provide a quality of leadership that can absorb information and see ahead in wisdom.

To what extent the global pollution is the major agent of the present climate change may be under debate, which only means there may be other considerable natural factors that have an influence as well. For me it is a glimmer of hope that the present climate change may be exacerbated by accidental natural coincidences like planet alignments that cause gravitational friction within the liquid bodies of planets (tectonics, volcanism) and even in the body of the sun itself. I need this hope because otherwise I do not see how long-term effects of the present volume of ongoing destruction can be avoided, since the point of no return in terms of accelerating decline may well have been reached already in that case.

Although we jolly well knew that there had been changes in climate most notably ‘remembered’ as ‘Ice Ages’, still in our everyday life’s experience the climate was quite stable although the weather was a bit unpredictable in the short term but as it was, not much climate change was going on, it seemed and it was no issue. This is remarkable because the Little Ice Age, a recent 500 year long cold spell in Europe lasted well into the 19th century (1850) and was known to geo-scientists and art-historians (winter landscapes). Things are changing now that the first extremities have manifested, we are a bit more aware of the global climate, but not yet of its status embedded in the solar system, it seems to me.
Although there is still a strong and very powerful contingent of ‘climate change-deniers’ under scientists, politicians and business professionals, the wider public and media get more and more concerned; especially so when indeed now extreme circumstances are occurring in many different places and being highlighted by the media.
During my research concerning the recent Little Ice Age (1350-1850),  I came across this graph where a similar glaciation and high wind circulation occurred during a period in the Neolithic. What especially intrigued me were the relative abrupt start and finish, this abruptness was accentuated by great temperature differences, from high to low in a short while, say, less than 50 years and at the end of ‘the age’ a similar sudden change again.
I am still hoping against hope that part of this climate change has to do with an incident of geometrical (gravitational) friction in the solar system orbits which would cause a heating of the Earth’s core which would then result in an imperceptible rise in (infra-red) radiation through the crust, causing a warming of the atmosphere. Especially recent alignments of the planets may have caused stress to the Earth’s inner core (think unexpected Mt. St Helens eruption), because, if a major alignment of the Moon can trigger as much as a 2% rise in the global high-tides (eclipse), then -given that all is vibration- such major alignments of planets and corresponding gravitational friction will have affected the ‘tides’ of the molten core of our planet as well and may have produced a heat generation in excess of the normal.

Major alignments seem to be quite common, but is this a period we are in just now or is it over the complete cycle of all orbits in the solar system in general? And have all alignments the same character?  Maybe we have to deal with different time-cycles then, but still they may have their underlying influences. Cycles of 26,000 and 100,000 years are scientifically identified and just now it is confirmed that volcanic activity has a major influence on climate change and correlates with greenhouse-icehouse changes over the longer term (720 million years)
I think it is important to view big issues over long periods of time in their proper perspective, we cannot deal with climate change properly when we have a rigid, short term view on the climate. There is no such thing as ‘a stable climate’, we very well know that, but what the leading causes for the big changes that occur are, we do not know so well, although now some strong indications are present.
Our everyday weather is a result of the inherent instability of the greater climate. There seems to be a theory which links the big climate changes of the past to the Sun’s activity. The so called sun spots, which have a recurrence cycle of about 11 years, would, in a bigger picture, be the causes of the ice ages.
I believe though that the general climate changes so far are expressions not of the activity of the Sun itself but of the frictions in the solar system’s gravity and inertial fields as a whole played out in the sun. Scientists still refuse to appreciate the one-ness of the totally integrated system.

The so-called Bary-center of the solar system is its real centre of gravity, but this centre moves in and out of the body of the Sun, or maybe better to say: the Sun wobbles around this centre in a perpetual stress, sometimes more, sometimes less.
This measure of stress is depending on the planets and especially on Jupiter with its dominating mass of which the orbit coincides with the Sun spots every 11- something years. So this is my theory of hope, that the sudden warming of the atmosphere is partly due to temporary stresses in the solar system’s inertial deep-fields (rotating planets = gyroscopes).
[[It should be noted here that Jupiter is only 1/1000 the mass of the Sun, revolves in an orbit far, far away, but is still capable of causing sunspots that would cause changes in the Earth atmosphere in the shape of ‘cold spells’, which we have named ‘Ice ages’. Jupiters influence is so strong probably because it rotates so fast (imagine one rotation in 10 hours only, for such a huge body, as does Saturn btw, something that generates huge inertia-> dark matter), spins which must have extra leverage in the equilibrium of the Sun that is very dependent on at least Jupiter’s orbital rotation. This is like the stability of the Earth roation depending predominantly on the orbit of the Moon. Although the stabilizing forces are enormous, they cannot be measured, let alone felt, only calculated. This is what they erroneously call ‘dark matter’, I think.
It are these same hidden stresses that ‘kneed’ the innards of the planets and the Sun. The inertial potential of a spinning object (gyroscope) is not fully understood by science it seems to me, it is most probably related to the so-called ‘dark matter’ enigma, as I explain elsewhere. It is all a complete misunderstanding of gravity still on the side of science.]]

The Neolithic Ice Age (NIA; 3800-2900 BCE)

To understand the building activities of Stone Age Atlantic European people we do well to place them against a background of climate change as stated above and to learn from them to see our own future and future generations in that perspective and to build huge communal refuges also in times when there is no immediate need for them yet. (for instance as quarantaine for lethal epidemics).
The megalithic chamber is seen as initially a communal refuge place, or bad weather hide-out (fishermen on small islands, Brittany! dozens of chambers, Molene archipelago; for the dead?, or for the fish?), later evolving into multipurpose spaces (cosmological, clinical, healing), spaces where very seldom burials took place and where the bones were initially of those who perished in the refuge. So death is definitely related to the chambers from the onset, but survival as well; this is the cornerstone of my theory.
Burial in a megalithic chamber has as little to do with its original function as burial in a church has with the function of the church. Apart from that it is maintained here that the bones of people in the chambers are usually of those who died there and did not survive the cold spell they took refuge from. It is a totally different perspective from the archaeological paradigm of a Neolithic death-cult and it is probably with its wealth of better arguments a lot closer to the truth.

The year 3800BC is on the record as the period that severe storms started to batter the Atlantic coast of Scotland. This date coincides with the start of a glaciation that is similar in character to the one that accompanied the recent cold spell in Europe from the 14th to 19th century, known as the Little Ice Age (LIA). The here proposed cold spell towards the end of the Neolithic I have coined the ‘Neolithic Ice Age’ (NIA), lasting from about 3800-2900BC. Like in the Little Ice Age this must have meant a severe worsening of weather conditions.
For what I gathered (over the years by now) I’ve become convinced that it were extreme weather conditions along the Atlantic littoral, from Portugal to Sweden, that made people decide to build huge refuge places insulated by massive amounts of stone, the origination of the megalithic chamber, the shelter of rock ‘above-ground’, like a cave in the rock ‘under-ground’.
With their sometimes long narrow entrance tunnels they resemble animal dens and with their corbelled domes they resemble igloos. There is at present no archaeologist who agrees with me, but that is mainly because it would be too embarrassing to have to admit a totally wrong interpretation on their behalf of these chambers as iconic buildings of the New Stone Age; archaeologists have never questioned the megalithic chambers had a primarily funeral function, whereas that ‘use’ was in fact an outflow of the tragic circumstances that would develop when people could not survive a cold spell one winter and died collectively in a chamber, as I maintain. It could very well also have been custom to leave the dead where they were when their remains were found by others during a next forced use of the chamber, this could be a generation later and by people who were no relatives at all, but often places seem cleaned out. The treatment of bones in chambers is very diverse, from ordered to absolutely chaotic, and seldom interred.

Like in the Mesolithic era people were probably used to keeping bones of the dead near them in their dwelling places or even take the dead into the house, as is still done in Guadeloupe today (for instance), and also very evidently happened at Skarabrae in Orkney at the time, where two cist graves were found under house-walls. Death and burial was probably much more a domestic issue than is suggested by the ‘cult of the dead’-paradigm that holds sway over archaeology today.

When we come to understand that the chambers were refuges then things seemingly ‘inexplicable’ become a ‘matter of course’. This is so convincingly the case with the long narrow tunnel-like entrances of many ‘passage’-chambers which provide a means to keep the cold out of the perfectly insulated chambers and cells (why insulate for the dead?). The mass of stone preserves the body heat generated by the people packed together in small cells for 6-12 people connected to a high hall. (HolmPapay, 14 cells, in 20m hall, over 3m high, narrow low entrance passage some 10m long)
The long uncomfortable entrance tunnel has no conceivable use in any funeral setting, this seems to me rather clear, but archaeologists won’t give in, I know, although they won’t come with a better explanation.
This whole idea of cold weather that I have argued, does not fit the received wisdom under archaeologists that it was warmer than today in that period and it’s just not true as we will see.

Below a graph of the ice core accentuated in colours by me

memory stick sony 1 181A

Greenland Ice Core Graph, Neolithic Ice Age (central dark blue block)

What particularly interests us here is the blue period of high circulation in the middle of the graph which is evidently related to a massive increase in glaciation shown in the grey and blue blocks below the peak period, this occurred roughly between 4000 – 3000 BCE, the fourth millennium. This then is the Neolithic Ice Age. This name is chosen because this period is similar (in glaciation!) to the recent Little Ice Age (1350-1850) in dark red on the graph (extreme left). And that is really not long ago.

memory stick sony 1 258A


‘Little’- and ‘Neolithic’- Ice Ages







The Neolithic warm?

The picture usually drawn of the late Stone Age is one of rather benign weather several degrees warmer than today even (mind you). This remarkable consensus seems to be based on some occasional finds of the bones of fish found in Orkney (Quanterness) that cannot survive in present day water temperatures ……. , they say. The sub-tropical species, corkwing wrasse,


though, is known to stray into the North Sea today and is remarkable for its tropical colours, so a precious and possibly easy catch! This means its (rare) occurrence on the Orkney record is no argument at all for, overall, warmer weather.

The graph also shows that the climate is a changeable phenomenon and that the idea of a stable climate is a fiction, but this does not mean that human action has no influence for good or for bad. The point is we have to learn to live with sudden climate change as a real possibility. (One thing I’ve learned from my study of the megalithic stone age is that going  underground is a perfect option, for heat and cold). The graphs show that both starts of the recent Little Ice Age and of the Neolithic Ice Age were preceded by a sudden rise in temperature and then an extreme fall in a very short term.

This deterioration is comparable with, if not worse than, the Little Ice Age that ravaged Europe recently between 1350 and 1850 AD, (see the red block) of which especially the sudden extreme change at the beginning in the Middle Ages had a devastating effect on the resistance of the European people and hunger and epidemic plagues, Black Death, were rampant, decimating the population.
The graph shows clearly a new world wide advance of glaciation 6000-5000 years ago which cannot be explained other than in a drop of temperature, at least in those areas, as Orkney, closest to the major glaciations.
In the Little Ice Age, two centuries ago, the Greenland Inuit travelled to Orkney on icebergs, that is how cold it was.
The overall temperature seems not to drop as low as around 6200 BC, a notoriously cold snap in archaeology, but local conditions can differ considerably from the overall picture.
Around 2900 BC the weather was already above average again, which in fact meant the end of the use of the chambers as refuges and also the definite end of the megalithic Funnelbeaker culture in northern continental Europe, which are most probably causally connected.
It got eventually so hot in the Middle East that the Akkadian Empire collapsed, due to the drought around 2200 BC. You don’t see that in the graph. Local conditions and periods can be extreme for good and for bad.

It seems already around 4800 BC the weather deteriorated according to other graphs, then improved again, but around 3800 BC it is an established fact that the Atlantic Scottish coast got battered by severe storms; so how about Orkney?
This would not have been different for Orkney of course, close as it is to the Scottish coast ( some 20 Miles away in the south), but the Scottish Highlands had woods and sheltered valleys, whereas Orkney had only smooth hills, no caves, broad loughs and pioneer tree vegetation.

By 3000 BC though, the end of the Neolithic Ice Age, Orkney had only some scrub left, all birch, hazel and willow that had dominated the landscape of the southern isles, before the high winds came, had gone, used for housing and for fuel most probably, or just perished in the salt winds, as still today hardly any trees grow in Orkney because of the high winds. Thus, Orkney was certainly no paradise for a substantial period in the Neolithic, although it probably would have been warmer than Scottish northern Caithness where some similar chambers were built.
A telling quote from the Orcadian, Orkney’s weekly newspaper of sept’14, in a story about Orcadian women, gives a grim picture of the circumstances in Orkney during the Little Ice Age, in this case of around 1800 CE:

They used to guarantee snow, then… recalled a senior citizen: ‘From what old folk often said in my boyhood, it would appear that the winters of 120 or 130 years ago were infinitely more severe than they are now’ (1930).
For several weeks on end drifts as high as the roofs remained. There were occasions too on which occupants were snowbound, reliant on better placed neighbours to dig them out.
Nearer modern times (1870) ‘six weeks of continuous deep snow’ was the expectation and generally, experience of folk ‘some time before the New Year and always three or four weeks in March’ with obvious problems for those with animals to feed.
[Compare this with today, where hardly any snow falls on Orkney, except sometimes on the higher hills. Orkney bathes in the warm waters of the Atlantic Gulfstream, neither does the temperature ever fall much below zero in winter.]

A similar severe climatic period in the Neolithic brought about the challenge to improve living conditions to survive, which paid off in numerous innovations.
The Neolithic Ice Age conditions would have caused the widespread building of survival chambers where the coastal peoples of Europe could weather the gales from the Atlantic and North Sea when these ravaged their homes and the conditions became life-threatening especially for children, the elderly and pregnant women. The average life-span was about thirty; at that age the ratio of men to women was 3:1, at the age of twenty, it was already 2:1. The survival of the whole population may have been at stake for considerable periods, the demographic situation was alarming.

It is these demographic and climatic conditions that initiated the communal effort to building the sometimes huge chambers, not some kind of, by archaeologists invented, all pervading ‘cult of the dead’. The chambers were a symbol of survival, of intense communal experience and hardship, also of loss, and naturally of growing reverence for the ancestry who built them, and sometimes perished in them; they revered the chambers the older they got, no doubt.
Imbued with the auspicious spirit of the ancestry some people brought bones of their dead to the chambers, which they may usually have kept at home. It was very rare for a person to be interred in the floor of a chamber, may be even done ‘clandestinely’, but the chambers were in no way built for that purpose; churchyards and churches are the most obvious expression of the wish to be buried near or in an auspicious and ancestral place, where relatives and other dead people are gathered, as a preferred gateway to the other world.

Maeshowe, one of the most sophisticated megalithic chambers ever built, was probably not primarily built as a place of communal shelter and storage of food as earlier chambers, although it kept the possibility of serving as such, no, Maeshowe was built for scientific, clinical and healing purposes and for the ‘storage and immortalization’ of knowledge. Maeshowe may have been earlier than or contemporary with the Egyptian pyramids, it is anyhow a conceptual blueprint in terms of embodying the state of the cosmological/scientific knowledge of the culture of its day, solidified in stone, to be preserved for posterity. Most curious of all is that its mathematics and dimensions show striking similarities with Giza in Egypt. A full blown enigma. (see pages: On Maeshowe, the Measure of Maeshowe and Maeshowe as Science-friction).


Stonehenge, floating the sarsen megaliths

May 7th, 2013

This piece below was written 7 years ago and probably the first one ever to suggest the sarsens to have been transported by raft over de Avon river. Just now (July2020) archaeologists come with a new theory about the origin of the Stonehenge sarsens and their transport. Note that I specifically mention Westwood and a manmade transport road through the wood which may date to Neolithic times. This is about (Dutch inspired) stone age water-engineering.


The transport route of the sarsen stones

Devil’s Den, Stukeley

Below you will find the first ever analysis and argumentation for the transport route of the sarsen  megaliths to Stonehenge,  by water over the river Avon instead of overland…..


For over half a century the route of the transport of the sarsen stones (sarsen, specific gravity: 2.5) from the Marlborough Downs to Stonehenge as laid out by Atkinson has not been under discussion or seriously challenged by any archaeologists as far as I know, until a recent find of  sarsen at Marden henge put this topic in the spotlight. This is remarkable because this route would have gone through marshes and over the extremely steep Redhorn Hill, but this is archaeology, a science, which is most of the time in sleep-mode when it comes to important theory it seems and only progresses by chance finds.

Stukeley, self portrait

Fyfield Downs and Clatford Bottom
For three centuries British archaeology is in the invaluable possession of the works of William Stukeley, an antiquarian and close friend of Isaac Newton, about whom he wrote a biography relating the famous ‘apple falling from the tree’- story. To be valued as a friend by Newton you probably had to have a bright mind yourself I suppose, so this is how I treat Stukeley and his work. He believed Druids were the builders of the megalithic monuments and conjectured they built them around 500BC, much earlier then his contemporaries thought. Regarding the Druids it is not altogether fanciful or weird to think that the megalithic architects and scientists were their precursers. Anyway he calculated what he called the Druid’s Cubit as being 52.83cm (20.8 inch), which is less than 5mm longer than the Megalithic Ell (52.36cm) that I propose and use in my work . He probably found this value by dividing the inner diameter of Stonehenge by the number 56 of the Aubrey holes. 56 x .528 = 29. 57m! (Burl’s measure= 29.60m) and got it confirmed in other measures, 208 (16×13) x .528= 109.82m! (Burl’s diameter of the overall perimeter = 110m), 164 x .528 = 86.59m (Burl’s diameter of the Aubrey-hole circle = 86.6m). (164 = 2 x 82, a supposed total number of the Bluestones, 3 sidereal months 3 x 27.3=82!) These are all crucial lengths and numbers at Stonehenge, 300 years ago as they are today. Although every standing stone circle expressed a number, archaeologists are not very interested in their numbers, they have no use for them. (Brodgar? Avebury? numbers not known, only conjectured, as of many other important circles, never excavated for that purpose; where a ‘superficial’ dig suffices).

These numbers and the ratios in the design of their buildings are the only intellectual data Stone Age man has left us, but archaeologists are not interested. Even the highly significant recently found Blue-stone circle near Stonehenge is not further excavated for the purpose of finding a clear number, ‘some 25’ is enough for archaeologists, not ‘some 23’, for instance, as ever there stood in the centre of Stonehenge.
Now it may seem that the apparent accuracy of Stukeley’s Cubit undermines my claims for my own Megalithic Ell, which is 5mm shorter, but I don’t see it that way, because my numbers as there are 210ME= 109.96m (Burl 110m) and 165ME (B: 86.6m) are also meaningful  (165= 5 x 33 year sun-cycle, MacKie, Heath). Besides that I have always stressed my system is foremost a calculator, I don’t claim the precision, for instance Alexander Thom claimed for his Yard, which actually became his undoing, whereas still my measures stand up to any thorough scrutiny and remain more meaningful in mathematical and cosmological context than most others. So Stukeley’s cubit actually strengthens my case because I have found in him an undisputed early authority backing one of my principle lengths, that is, the Megalithic Ell, though with a 5mm difference, like with Thom’s Yard (6mm), differences which, given the inherent uncertainties about the exact measures, if ever there were, and the technical circumstances of the Stone Age itself, are not essential. My measures still make perfect mathematical sense, it’s up to others to further apply Stukeley’s Cubit and even if it turns out to be more precise in other places, which I doubt, it doesn’t touch the peculiar enigma of my calculating system which encompasses the most important measuring units of antiquity in clear whole number ratios.
Once people start to appreciate the practicality, spirituality and beauty of this system, it will be used widely, I’m sure (although it may take a new generation of archaeologists to change their ways).

Aubrey Burl, doyen of the British stone circles
There is obvious logic in Stukeley’s reasoning and measure and I must confess I am not able to get a whole number for the inner diameter length of Stonehenge in Megalithic Ell, but I do get it in Megalithic Yards, Remen and Feet, whereas Alexander Thom did not succeed with his Yard, nor with his Rod.
Aubrey Burl, the doyen of the British stone circles, dismisses Stukeley’s cubit unit measure as erroneous and comes with his own (why not), but had he checked the merit of Stukely’s unit he would have found that indeed his own crucial measurements would have got him the significant whole numbers I give above and moreover his own sarsen circle diameter of 29.6m divided by Stukeley’s ‘cubit’ of .528m would have got him the number 56, being the number of the Aubrey holes, that bear his very name.
I am not a man of ‘statues’ but if one person deserves to be remembered in a bust in every English archaeological institute it is William Stukeley. Here we have someone with, unwittingly, a rare intuition for Stone Age archaeology and architecture, an independent mind and a remarkable talent for drawing. He conjectured and described the Beckhampton Avenue at Avebury, which was done away with as a phantasy by the professionals (left, on the picture below), until he turned out to be right as they found out only recently (by chance): there was a Beckhampton Avenue. (below left ‘tentacle’)

When Stukeley says the cursus near Stonehenge was probably a race-course, to which conclusion I came independently in an ‘aborted novel’, in which it was a ‘dog-race course’, then according to Burl it was something else: it is ‘funerary’ he says! Where have we heard that before? Funerary. They all say it: ‘funerary’; it’s never really substantiated, it’s just a paradigm. Would then the whole megalithic culture be one all consuming laborious dance with the dead? I very much doubt it. (below Stukeley’s ‘Cursus’ as race-course)


The above picture of Stukeley depicts the huge sarsens he found at Clatford near the Kennet river close to the Marlborough Downs. Sarsen A (centre) is described on the picture as some 5 yards long and 4 feet high (thick) (4.60m x 1.20m), this is the right measure of a sarsen for the Stonehenge main circle, as he stated himself. I quote: ‘they are all very large, being about the size and shape of the stones of the outer circle of Stonehenge’ (see extensive quote below). The same stones were even mentioned and pictured by John Aubrey, another giant in early archaeology, nearly half a century earlier. Note the sharp edges and the text ‘rudely hewn’, which makes them definitely different from Avebury’s stones and akin to Stonehenge’s. Aubrey draws a circle whereas Stukeley does not clearly, but mentions a circle as well and draws some stones which seem broken up and moved.

Stonehenge unfinished
Stukeley’s picture may be pivotal in quelling the debate about whether Stonehenge was ever finished or not; it was most probably not! The main circle at Stonehenge counts 17 or 18 sarsen stones that made it all the way, may be a few more, here we find the rest, some 8 -12 stones. That they found indication of more dug stone holes at Stonehenge recently (by chance, because of drought and a too short hose pipe!) does not necessarily mean stones were actually ever placed in them (see the Aubrey holes). Would our Stone Age forbears arduously hew these stones to more regular proportions (it was a hell of a lot of work, the sarsen is extremely hard) at Clatford Bottom to keep such an amount in reserve, if need be, or for setting up a mini-Stonehenge? It seems highly unlikely. Look how regular most are pictured by Stukeley and Aubrey (‘rudely hewn’), compared to Avebury’s irregular sarsens, which seem not hewn at all. These early pictures also tell us that the route of the sarsens was down the Downs, past Devil’s Den, along Clatford Bottom, not up to Avebury as Atkinson argued fifty years ago; mind you: to get blessed by a priest; ‘spiritual benison’, he called it. Megalithic archaeologists seem convinced that they deal with a pristine religion here, priests and all, but it seems though their own self-conjured up religion they believe in, for which some like to act as the high priests themselves one wonders at times.

‘A’ lane
So, no hauling of huge stones up to Avebury for ‘priestly benediction’ but just down the valley on the shortest and straightest way to Stonehenge  from Clatford up the side valley to Oare, Pewsey and the river Avon, that is the better story, as I will show. Like all of nature also humans usually prefer the way of least effort and resistance and that is downwards if possible and over the shortest feasible distance. When one goes down the ‘Sarsen-valley’

fyfield downs sarsen field

one reaches the Kennet river either west of Fyfield or east at Clatford Bottom, the place where John Aubrey and William Stukeley found the huge stones; again, both resounding names in early archaeology, reporting on huge handled sarsens first hand, but completely out of the picture until only recently, as mentioned and still the stones that are known to lie there are ignored. Incomprehensible.
Here are quotes from English Heritage some known for over 300 years:

The earliest reference is a description (late 17th century) by John Aubrey of “eight huge stones in a circle”, all of which “doe lie fall’n down”. In 1723 William Stukeley referred to “twelve stones flat upon the ground in the middle of the road which seems to widen on purpose for it… Eight of them seem to lie in a circle…”.(see picture above,YG) The precise location of the stone circle is unclear; based on Stukeley’s description, place names and other documentary sources it has been suggested to lie south east of Clatford cross roads at ‘Broken Crosses’, or at ‘Broadstones’ where a widening of the road is suggested by the 1792 Inclosure Award.

The Aubrey and Stukeley pictures, with text, clearly indicate where it was: “In a lane between Preshute and Clatford” (Stukeley) or “a lane between Kennet and Marlborough” (Aubrey) This is not necessarily on the Roman Road, as the Romans with their cohorts would not be ‘slalom-ing’ between Stone Age megaliths, you bet, they would move them aside or go around them. The next quote wrongly suggests again it is on the Roman Road itself; this is where all the trouble starts, when you don’t do your close reading, as I will show presently. Here is the next quote:

“In 1723 Stukeley noted that in the lane, or rather Roman Road between Marlborough and Devizes (wrong inference!!!,YG), over against Clatford and on the edge of the meadow just by the side of the Kennet, close to Clatford Bottom “lie twelve stones flat upon the ground in the middle of the road which seems to widen on purpose for it and takes a little turn, too, upon that account. Eight of them seem to lie in a circle (see plan (2)) and the other four may possibly have been the entrance or beginning of an Avenue; they are all very large, being about the size and shape of the stones of the outer circle of Stonehenge. I measured one, 16 1/2ft long, 2yds broad (5.03 x 1.83)…. There are two barrows within sight of it …. a little further westward you turn on the right into the fields which leads (leaving a barrow on the left hand) into the Clatford Bottom”. With close reading we find that it is obvious here that Stukeley is coming from the direction of Marlborough going westward, where you first get Preshute (before modern day Manton, see picture below far right), a very old parish (priest-hut), and then Clatford (far left), so we are here on the south side of the river in a lane, not on the Roman Road on the north side of the river. (Also John Aubrey again speaks of ‘a lane between Kennet and Marlborough’, not the well-known and 2 millennia old and used London-Bath road and he mentions (East-)Kennet (a village), older than West-Kennet (a hamlet), which is south of the river, again). Then Stukeley says ‘a little further westward you turn on the right into the fields’ to get to Clatford Bottom (the bottom part of the Marlborough Downs near Clatford), leaving a barrow on the left hand’, (on the picture) so the site of the stones was before the barrow, which is pictured on the other (north) side of the river with even a windmill in the distance which would have stood on top of the Downs. It even seems Stukely pictures the ‘bend of the river’, since trees get smaller in the middle of the picture and grow larger at the sides, the road then leads to the island in the bend of the river towards Clatford Bottom. So there can be little question about our lane being south of the river, as there is no question about the Roman Road (A4) being definitely north of it.

The white curving line through the length of the picture is the Kennet river, the ‘flexure’ is to the left clearly visible, where there is even a small (manmade?) island in the river and after the bend downstream eastwards is a small creek, with trees today, this would have been the ford probably, somewhat further down there is a real ford today (see Google Earth), so fording the Kennet in that area was and is no problem, that is clear enough. Fording places are usually natural and used since time immemorial by humans. Somewhere in the triangle of land in the bend are big stones close to the river today, just as Stukeley describes. All rather straightforward one would say, but not for archaeologists, they dig somewhere else as we shall see. The trees in Stukeley’s picture suggest this is indeed the bend in the Kennet river, which Stukeley mentions in Burl’s quote: “over against Clatford at a flexure in the river we met with several great stones” (note Stukeley has given different descriptions, some more precise than others) so the picture is in the bend, because ‘against Clatford’, where moreover it is known sarsens are still lying till this day, the Broadstones, completely grown over and forgotten by archaeologists, no interest, but vital clues in ‘the route of the sarsens’, of course.
It is true that Stukeley speaks elsewhere of ‘in the Roman Road’ but one letter change to ‘on the Roman road’ makes it equivalent to saying that ‘West Kennet Longbarrow and Silbury Hill are on the road from Marlborough to Devizes’, this does not mean they are physically on the road, but close by. Since Stukeley does write ‘in’ (at least it is transcribed as such) this is the only weakness in my argument, but he did make mistakes sometimes and there are different versions of the description, besides that ‘in’ may have been a way of saying it in those days, or it was actually written as ‘on’, but wrongly transcribed. Again the overriding argument is that it is hard to believe that  the Romans would be negotiating these stones on their main road to London and Bath, it is rather unthinkable. Moreover there is no reason for another lane next to the Roman Road, since people from old were living on the south side of the river where there is ample space for fields and lanes, not on the north side.

 Parker Pierson dig

As soon as it became clear Marden Henge was involved in the dressing of sarsens, Mike Parker Pearson has launched a new theory on the trajectory for the sarsens: from the Downs over West-Overton, along Knap Hill to Marden Henge. Obviously MPP and a couple of colleagues have thought it might be time to have another look at the Stukeley records, after 300 years, as the website makes clear and they dug twice at the wrong place to see if they could find traces of the stones Stukeley depicted. Mind you, we know big stones are lying in the field in exactly the area Stukeley describes, the Broadstones, very near by. So would it not be a better idea to define the type of these stones and if ‘sarsen’ start digging there to probably find layers and layers of sarsen chips, broken mauls, pottery, you name it, and get radio-carbon dates at sufficient depth and take it from there? It could have been the assembling place of the sarsens, where they got there first dressing to make them as light as possible for further transport. The whole Broadstones area full of chips and broken mauls, imagine!

 From Clatford to Pewsey, the alternative route
My alternative trajectory of the sarsens is simple, straightforward and shortest of all, since it leads from the Downs to the crossroads between Preshute and Clatford and then on southwards through the gently upwards sloping valley, a local road to Pewsey. This natural valley road splits several times to the right, once at the present beginning of Westwood, famous for its blue bells, where a road forks off to a car park a few hundred yards up the road. The track I particularly remember is a rather straight and broad, definitely man-made, hollow road with flat surface, expressly made for the transport of the sarsens, I claim. Towards the end of it there is a longbarrow in the forest on the right (if I remember well) and coming out of the forest there is a big, rather deep pit, possibly material for the barrow (it is over 15 years ago I was there). When you continue south you will at some point come to the ridge of the chalk escarpment, the physical boundary of the Vale of Pewsey which is down below. At certain places at this point in the ridge there are more than a yard deep grooves several yards apart, which in my view would be testimony of the controlled lowering of the sarsens by grating ropes down the rather steep slope into the Vale from where they would be transported onwards towards the river Avon. (Below Atkinson’s overland route – dotted line-, with mine in red at beginning, sarsen valley, and end, Bluestone-henge to Stonehenge, the rest of the transport by the river Avon in my analysis)

This scenario leaves us at least two routes at the beginning so as to prevent stagnation of transport, once, for whatever reason, a stone got stuck and would block the road for another transport. The other route would be the natural valley road, with several hairpins going down in the Vale to get to the Avon river. They knew how to use water for the transport of the Blue stones, now incontrovertibly proven by Bluestone-henge, so here I argue for the short-cut route from Clatford to the Avon and on to Stonehenge, the route I surmised now 15 years ago.

Transport by water
Once down in the Vale the stones would be dragged past present day Oare and Huish to Pewsey where the river Avon finds a confluence of several of its springs, they may even have canalised it partly. As I claimed elsewhere the sarsens, like the bluestones were transported by water most of the way, which would also have been feasible from Marden henge onwards. Remember this, reader, there is nowhere any suggestion from anyone of using the rivers for the transport of the sarsen stones to this day, because the river is deemed too shallow, not?
Since Marden Henge has forthwith to be taken into account as regards the dressing and transport of the sarsen stones it is necessary to also account for transport over water to that place. So in my account (some) stones could have been transported over the Avon river from Pewsey to Marden henge, which is right at the riverside, specifically for further dressing probably (the lintels!) since they were only ‘rudely hewn’ at Clatford Bottom, and would then from Marden be taken down to Stonehenge by river again. So let me now explain how I see the water transport.

Summer bed, winter bed
A lot can change in nature especially when humans interfere and that is what happened progressively over the last 5,000 years in Western Europe with the advance of agriculture and all that came with it. Europe was mostly one big dense forest some 7000 years ago, today forests are sparse in Western Europe. Enormous amounts of soil have been carried away by the rivers and filled their original beds. Holland, the Netherlands, where I come from is the delta of the Rhine, the largest river of Western Europe. In my country we are aware that a river has a summer and a winter bed, and the mighty Rhine is kept within bounds with long stretches of high winter dams. In Britain they seem to have long since forgotten about winter beds and started building houses on the floodplains; that’s why they get wet feet in places where rivers get swollen in times of heavy rain recently, which is during the winter usually.  In a recent winter the river Avon, the subject of our study here, swelled to ten (!) times its ‘normal’ width in places with a volume of water not on the record yet.

A quick-witted reader now already gets the point: there must have been times that there was enough water and depth in the river to transport the sarsen stones since they knew how to go about it, given the now, since finding Bluestone-henge, established transport of the Bluestones from Wales over the sea up the Avon river. (There simply is no better rationale for the Bluestone-henge being just in the place that it is). This practical knowledge may even have been the very reason they thought hauling the much larger sarsens from the Downs to the Stonehenge area was a feasible project. All they had to do is cut the trees along the summer beds, possibly slightly canalize the beds in places and wait for enough water to do the job, aided by building barrages to raise the water levels locally, all during the winter of course. This was the reason people came to Durrington Walls in winter time and brought their own food in the form of cattle and pigs, not to feast as Stone Age people are perennially deemed to do according to archaeologists, no, just to feed themselves as everyone else does and certainly does when engaging in big exhausting communal efforts and enterprises, like hauling stones over land and water or quarrying moats like  for instance Brodgar and build from the huge quantities of quarried stones (where have they gone? well, to the Ness of Brodgar, of course!) communal halls and kitchens, surrounding them by huge walls against the high and cold winds of Orkney for one thing. It is all practical and useful in my approach, nothing ceremonial per se.
Important always is to wonder what people really need; what you would need in their circumstances, not ceremony and ritual, but shelter and knowledge of the seasons.
So winter was the time to move the (big) stones (no work on the land) and the Grooved Ware people from all over the place descended on Clatford Bottom and on Marden and Durrington Walls henges to participate in the communal effort to build their ‘clockworks for the heavens’. It was this participation with many in something big, which was their spiritual high point and caused their ‘enthusiasm’, it became the hallmark of the agricultural revolution, the communal spirit, as we see it also in the graffiti of the Pyramid workers and as we see it in the ‘Rausch’ or ‘euforia’ of crowds to this day; it is not so much the celebration of the winter-solstice at Stonehenge, as the coming together of a unique and sophisticated culture which was possibly the first to use flat tables, benches and flat bottomed pottery in Western Europe. It was probably the Grooved Ware culture which set itself apart from others in its scientific and innovative approach to daily life as we see it in the insulated houses of Skarabrae built in a refuse heap! with its peculiar dressers, which were probably coolers and storage places for meat and vegetables, built high and deep to keep dogs and goats from stealing the food. All useful, practical and innovative; no showcases, let alone altars.

The engineering
So how did they go about ‘floating the sarsens’, the key question? We have to keep in mind that the sizes of the stones differ considerably. By far the biggest stones are to be found in the horseshoe setting inside the circle of sarsens, the biggest two are estimated at about 50 tons each, but also the circle contains massive stones of up to 30 tons, only the lintels are of relatively ‘reasonable’ size being over 3m long, a metre wide and 75cm thick on average, but still some 6 tons each (3.2x1x.75= 2.4 m^3, times 2.5 specific gravity= 6,000 kg); so for about 33 lintels that is 200 tons lintel weight alone.  I hope the reader agrees that when I can make the case for floating the biggest stones it implies the others were feasible as well, so we go for the 50 ton upright (in weight similar to an army tank).
‘Specific gravity’ is crucial to our calculations so it must be explained first. All specific gravities of materials are ratios gauged against the weight of pure water, which is by definition 1. This means that 1 litre of water weighs 1 kg, sarsen stone has specific weight 2.5, thus 1 litre or better 1 cubic decimetre of sarsen rock weighs 2.5 kg. So our sarsen of 50,000 kg has a volume of 50,000 / 2.5 = 20,000 litre or 20 cubic metre.
All materials with a specific gravity smaller than 1 float in water, like most types of wood, which range from about 0.4 (aspen, willow, poplar) to 0.65 (oak), some tropical types though sink. Let’s make it easy and suppose our wood has s.g. 0.5, this means that a volume of 20 cubic metres of wood weighs 10,000kg  or 10 tons and can carry about another 10 ton of material before it definitely sinks, the principle of the raft, well known in those days. The Stonehenge builders had already found out with the Bluestones that when you submerge the stones in water they become much lighter because of buoyancy, you don’t have to be an Archimedes for that, it’s just experience, so you need less wood to make them float. This is the first trick they knew from past experience: submerge your stone and it becomes (40%) lighter, that is 20 tons in our case, that’s not nothing. So effectively for the 50 ton stone submerged we need 30 ton buoyancy which means 60 cubic metres of wood of 0.5 s.g. The crucial question is then how many tree trunks from what length deliver that volume of 60 m^3. We think of straight poplar trees (s.g. o.45) and then that we need a trunk section of an average of 1m diameter, this gives us a volume of  0.5×0.5×3.14=0.785m^3 of wood in 1 metre trunk, this times 13 metres = appr. 10m^3 wood, so we need about 6 of those average 1m diameter trunks of 13 metres long to get our 50 ton 9 m long sarsen stone just afloat, that’s all.

The pictures show two different ways of doing it of which the right one seems the best because it uses the depth of the summer bed. It all depends on how deep and wide the Avon was in its summer bed, but it is obvious this is all feasible with between 1.5 to 2 metres of water depth and, as said, this could be achieved by building barrages, to begin with south of Upavon downstream of the major confluence of the Avon, where the initially two arms of the river, one from Pewsey, the other from Marden, join. This barrage would make sarsen transport from Pewsey to Marden an option and in the meantime they could start building barrages down river, with the last one downstream of the natural ford in the bend of the river at the end of the Stonehenge Avenue, near todays Amesbury.
The picture below shows the summer and winter bed of the Avon in dark ands light blue. As far as I remember the river drops only 20 metres over 20 km or thereabouts, so 1 metre per km, which is very, very little and makes for a gentle stream, easy to manipulate and even to go against, firmly embedded as it is between river banks. (Remember they transported the Blue stones upstream from the sea)

The lower picture shows the final route of the sarsen transport from the new-found ‘Bluestone circle’ and the ford in the river, not over the Avenue but along the easiest and most gradually climbing route through the valley nearby and then to Stonehenge, which is the black trajectory. This route presents itself in the middle black relief in the upper picture. QED. Mystery of transport solved!

Again climate change

When I take this argument further it could very well be that the sarsens that Aubrey and Stukeley found at Clatford Bottom are indeed the proof sarsen-Stonehenge never got finished and that the reason for this could very well be another minor climate change, that is, that the rivers for a considerable period of time did not carry or never again carried enough water to move the stones and that this became the loss of momentum in the building process which eventually halted the whole enterprise. The amount of water could also be decisive in the movement of the biggest stones ahead of smaller ones, so that they took every opportunity to move the big ones, which could also imply that most of the biggest stones were already at hand and ready before they started moving any stones whatsoever. (You see this at Banks chamber in Orkney where the form of the available big roof-stones decided the form of the individual side-cells, they had their most important material at hand before they started building)

This first assembling and dressing could have taken place at Clatford Bottom. This all ended when there was just not enough water anymore to move anything. Then when people would come year after year from far in vain, they would eventually stop coming.
For half a century everything went well it seems from evidence at Durrington Walls and then the weather-gods turned against the Grooved Ware people again as this may have happened in Orkney where the land started to sink into the sea after the millennium long Neolithic Ice Age, with rising sea levels heralding the end of the flourishing Maeshowe Grooved Ware culture.
Maybe others from the earlier culture outside the Grooved Ware culture began to perceive it as an evil culture with its cosmological knowledge interfering with Heaven, causing climate change and these therefor sought to expel everyone from the islands and eradicate all traces of it, as the Ness of Brodgar may be testimony of, buried as it got, as if it never existed and  that even, with a warmer climate, the now obsolete refuge places with remains of some of their dead were completely sealed so their ‘evil’ spirits would no longer roam the land.
Skarabrae, Ness of Brodgar, Durrington Walls and Stonehenge, all seem to have come to a sudden end.
Will we ever know why?

Stonehenge, a gigantic graveyard?

March 15th, 2013


About Stonehenge there is a leading archaeological theory around today which explains its function in terms of concepts of physical realms of the living and of the dead, as this is custom in Madagascar today. Indeed you read right, Madagascar today, the huge tropical island off the east coast of Africa. That is what I would call a far-fetched theory. There, in Madagascar ‘some people today’, as Mike Pitt reminds us, associate wood with the living and stone with the dead. This simple straightforward belief (wood is alive, stone is dead) of ‘some African people’ has become the cornerstone of a complete theory about actual physical domains 5000 years ago in Europe, at Stonehenge to be precise. Not only would this ‘explanation’ of necessity imply that all so called ‘henges’ would have had this purpose (similar architecture, similar function), but also that all standing stones are erected for the dead as the African colleague of Parker Pearson, Ramilisonina, the actual creator of the theory, would have it.
Ramilisonina came to Stonehenge, as the story goes, and immediately proclaimed from his gut-feeling: ‘these stones were put up for the ancestors’, and that was it, enough ‘proof’ for MPP to accept his theory and write a book about it. Nowhere else has this connection been substantiated since nowhere else any significant numbers of burials are found in connection with henges or stone circles. Some pit circles seem to have burials, but you can’t have it both ways in Stonehenge, it’s either pit or standing stone. This by itself already completely undermines the ill-founded theory of an ill-informed foreign archaeologist, a theory which by now has become the most prominent one in the media in Britain, probably America, possibly the world; British archaeology is squarely put back to the death cult ‘cul de sac’ it has been in for ages.
One wonders whether it will ever want to work its way back to reason.


The fact that most of the examined bones from Stonehenge come from the upper layers of back-filled pits, the well-known Aubrey Holes, 0.6 to 1.15m deep, shows that these pits were most probably originally intended to hold enormous wooden posts, like it was custom in the area at the time. Like Woodhenge (pictured, with close-by tree-lined Durrington Walls’ green in upperrighthandcorner) more and more of these timber and pit circles come to light these days. Such deep pits as the 56 of Stonehenge were certainly not for burials as burials were, as observed, usually in the upper fillings and not over a metre deep in the ground. Here I quote Atkinson, the first scientific excavator in the fifties of the last century extensively, with my comment in brackets and bold script: “The sides are steep, the bottoms flat. Their contents were extremely mixed. In general, however the filling consisted of chalk rubble originally dug out of the hole, which had apparently been deliberately shovelled back soon afterwards, some of it having been disturbed by the digging of later holes into it, often right down to the bottom, which were filled with burnt soil containing fragments of charred wood. In most of the holes there were deposits of cremated human bones, either in compact masses (a hat full) or scattered throughout a large volume of filling. Sometimes these cremations were in the primary filling, but more often in the later disturbances.”(…) “The main concentration (of other burials) is near Aubrey Holes 14 and 15, with smaller groups in the ditch

What can we learn from this, when we don’t start with preconceived ideas? That there was a rather well-measured circle of evenly spaced deep holes, as all the pictures show, that the regularity implies they were dug in the same short period and that they were part of a design which by now has been proven to be highly likely cosmological, pertaining to the moon cycle and eclipses. (Burl says the pits were not so regular, but this happens when you start digging at your reference point and lose it that way, worsened by others taking over). There were 56 pits in number relating to 3 moon cycles in years (3 x 18.6) and to twice 28 relating to the female fertility cycle in days. After having been dug completely(?) (were the shallower pits ever finished?) they were then back-filled rather soon, it seems (but really it is high time 2 or 3 fresh holes are meticulously and, if possible, objectively excavated). This could mean a change of plan from holding wooden posts to holding standing stones, but this is by no means certain from the evidence because the crushed chalk at the bottom could just as well have been from heavy wooden posts later dismantled. (Is there no report from Woodhenge on this?) By all means the Aubrey-circle was primarily a spiritual/scientific/cosmological place (which were ‘one thing’ then) where days and years were counted and recorded, eclipses predicted, so absolutely not a cemetery. That it got used for possibly ‘clandestine’ burials may have been the very reason for the quick back-fill by the cosmologists, but it is useless speculating until a thorough investigation of preferably several new holes is done. And what about ‘scattered bones throughout a large volume of filling’? This happens when you start digging for your own family burial at an auspicious site in the soft material of a back-fill, very convenient, and that you find out too late that someone had already been buried there, the place was occupied, so you back-fill and try find another back-filled hole. It is this which most probably caused the scattering of the earlier burial. Besides that, again, it was most probably done ‘clandestinely’ at times it was not much used because the place was not a burial ground, but a lunar observatory in the first phase.

The whole picture is one of haphazard burial by private groups of people (not the kind of large gatherings of today) at some preferred but random places (nr.14, 15 due south-east of centre and in the ditch) over a long, but possibly even short, period of time, just as you would expect from a place which was not intended for burial, but auspicious for other reasons as it happens throughout history.

Spotted bluestones from Preselis
The spotted bluestone as shown in the picture, is reminiscent of the night sky relating to the Milky Way, the moon, fertility, the cosmic cycle. Some claim now they were brought to the area about 3000BC, this is 500 years or more earlier than has been presumed until now and has not been substantiated yet. Some claim now they were burial markers completely ignoring the question as to why they would take the trouble of getting them from the Preselis in the first place and then would have placed the stones subsequently in the Bluestone Circle on the bank of the Avon at the end of the Avenue. I have no doubt that the spotted bluestone was coveted for its special starry sky-like appearance, the fairytale-like landscape it originates from where (holy) springs abound and possibly for its healing powers, as others have suggested. Even in the latest settings at Stonehenge the bluestone numbers are related to the moon cycle in the numbers 19 (horseshoe) and 23 (earlier oval)(230 moon cycles in 18.6 years, 235 in 19 years, Metonic cycle; you have to know your numbers to give meaning).

Giant graveyard
We see from the above down-to-earth analysis, that there is absolutely no indication of organized burial at the site, let alone 56 reservations for members of a royal family for the next millennium, on the contrary it has all the features of, as said, occasional ‘clandestine’ burial, just as in the megalithic refuge chambers, mostly a handful over time-spans of many hundreds of years, but we find in the Guardian this quote of Parker Pearson: “The first bluestones, the smaller standing stones, were brought from Wales and placed as grave markers around 3,000BC, and it remained a giant circular graveyard for at least 200 years, with sporadic burials after that”. This is just completely unsubstantiated kladderadatsch, because it suggests that for every burial they went to Wales to get a stone which everybody can surmise will never have been the case. These projects of hauling stones were of course big long term enterprises with a lot of mainly men involved over doubtless many, many years and seasons, but inspired by some great spiritual vision, because an enormous amount of ‘enthousiasm’ (etymology: by a godhead inspired) is needed to motivate people in undertaking it. It is inconceivable the transport would happen every time someone, a child, a woman or a man died and was interred at the site. There is absolutely no connection between a standing stone and a burial, except that some people may have liked to bury or be buried near standing stones, but that is a completely different perspective. The idea of the Aubrey Holes being originally dug for the Blue Stones is nowhere substantiated.

Hawley and Cunnington
Hawley, who excavated about 30 Aubrey holes between 1919-26 and discarded all the bones he found and which have just now been investigated, into one pit nr.7, Hawley initially thought the holes were for stones, indeed, but changed his mind when he saw with his own eyes Maud Cunnington’s excavated pits at Woodhenge which were exactly the same. Since there is absolutely no doubt about Woodhenge holes being for wood, this is for me full proof the Stonehenge holes were initially dug for placing wooden posts, not burials, so the concept of a cemetery is false. The closeness of Woodhenge is significant because that seems a very interesting building with a circular beamed roof possibly ( the biggest posts are in the middle rings) and an open space in the middle. This woodwork would come back in the typical connections of the stones. I am pretty sure Woodhenge is earlier than the  sarsen period, but may have been contemporary with the early Bluestones, of which some also have the ‘wood-connection’ fo lintels, this may have been the architecture of the Bluestone circle in the bend of the river Avon, later brought to the centre of Stonehenge. Bluestone chips in some filling, may be of a much later date, because the holes were dug out again and again over a long period of time. The holes are round like tree trunks are, like Woodhenge, the bluestones are not round. It is noteworthy in this respect that in the Y and Z holes only one bluestone chip in each was found placed at the very bottom, a foundation burial of sorts; this, to me, is clearly a symbolic act and emphasizes the bluestones had a specific spiritual meaning, maybe the Preselis in Wales  where they came from were seen as a holy place with its profusion of sacred springs and the quarry for these magical stones. (the Dragon’s Back). It was also almost certainly related to the moon and fertility since there were 59 Y and Z holes equal to 2 synodic moon cycles of 29.5 days. There were 23 bluestones in the centre: 59 +23 = 82, this is 3 x 27.3 (sidereal months), all connected to bluestones. You see here again how Stonehenge abounds in meaningful numbers: 29 and a half sarsen (nr.11) in the ring. All coincidence? (the half sarsen in the outside ring would not have supported a lintel, so in design there were 28 lintels and an opening with a sun-dial in the ring to the south, with the sun in zenith. (28 + 5 central lintels = 33, which times 10 is 330, the number of days of waxing and waning sun volume, the sun cycle) The sun and moon cycle became numerically integrated in the whole design. A further problem with a very early hauling of the bluestones for a two hundred years burial span, as would follow from some theories, is that it suggests that there was a time gap of some 500 to 700 years between a practice of moving huge stones over long distances which in my view is highly unlikely since people don’t take up practices of a long gone ancestry. A circle of bluestones in the Aubrey Holes is contrary to the evidence in the excavation records of the pits.

The chance discovery of Bluestonehenge in 2009 at a ford of the River Avon at the end of the Avenue is a major find, because it is the final proof the bluestones were transported by water all the way, that is, not only by sea but up the river Avon as well. Atkinson proved this possibility already in 1954 in a television program! (Quote: It was clear that the raft could have been propelled at least in slow-flowing water, by a single man).This means the widely published overland route from the Bristol Channel coast

is at least not correct for Stonehenge, it was by river, the easiest way.

I happen to know and have investigated the river Avon (pictured) some 15 years ago when I was researching for a novel with the title ‘The building of Stonehenge’, which did not get past its 36 pages when they found evidence for a Beckhampton Avenue at Avebury, which Stukely had reported 300 years ago, a man I hold in high esteem, for his phenomenal intuitions. It ruined my set-up, but that is another story. (William Stukely, I recently found out (Burl) derived the Druid’s Cubit from Stonehenge and it measured 20.8 inch, that is 0.5283m, which is just 5mm difference from my Megalithic Ell of 0.5236m, remarkable. My Meg.Yard differs 6mm from Thom’s, nevertheless both Thom and Stukely have priority when it comes to these units, of course). The Avon is a smoothly flowing rather shallow river about a metre deep without any cataracts and with a firm level sandy riverbed from Pewsey to its mouth at Christchurch. It is found to be the river with the most species of fish in Britain, by the way (Wikipedia). [In my next post which I hope to get out soon, I will show how the huge sarsens of Stonehenge (up to 50 tons) were transported by water over the Avon river. I think I am the first to suggest this and carry this idea for 15 years now, obviously it’s about time it gets out.] The new Blue-stonehenge circle of purportedly 25 standing stones (I bet it’s 23 or 22) is 10m diameter (19 Megalithic Ell= 9.95m!) and is right on the riverside, where there is an easily accessible natural ford (wading place) which is unique just in this section of the river down from Durrington Walls because the river cuts through a ridge with steep riverbanks in this area. A ford is essential for and used by living people, not by the dead, so the theory of a stone circle as symbol of a domain of the dead where the living keep away from ends here. You don’t make an exclusive domain of the dead at the only place for miles where the living can cross the river. It is more likely this circle, if it was a bluestone circle, was placed as a symbol of spiritual connection with the sacred Preselis in South-Wales and as marker for the main entrance of Stonehenge as cosmological centre, the spotted stones as symbolising the night sky, the Milky Way. These 23 Blue-stones would then eventually have been taken up and placed at the heart of Stonehenge in the horseshoe.


Again and again archaeologists make the mistake, their persistent scientific fallacy, the Achilles heel of a beautiful discipline, that when they find burials at a prominent site they think that that is the ‘raison d’etre’ of the site, whereas of course the opposite is true, a site is prominent for spiritual reasons and this is the ground some people bury their dead there so as to give them an auspicious passage to the afterlife. All the subsequent bronze age barrows testify to that. Would the Beaker people and Bronze Age chiefs honor Stonehenge as a funerary site for the ‘conquered’ elite that were buried there? Give me a break. The practice of interring at such sites in the late Stone Age was moreover just as rare as cremation still is today in Europe, or even more so, because comparatively very few burials are found of these ages. They just did not make a difference between people in those halcyon days, even children were treated as equals (no babies though it seems). It was probably a burial tradition in some families or in certain spiritual convictions or circles, nothing more. It is a practice you find all over the world at spiritual sites. This is why people get buried in and around churches, caves, waterfalls, places of outstanding natural beauty, their own estates. No church was ever built for the purpose of burying people in or around, everybody knows that, neither were megalithic refuge chambers, as I maintain. Do you think there were Stone Age guards around a bare henge or a chamber for hundreds of years to prevent ‘commoners’ from burying at the Royal Cemetery? It is even known that until quite recently druids did burials at Stonehenge. Quote Atkinson: ” Well within living memory the latter-day Order of Druids buried portions of the cremated remains of their deceased members within the Stonehenge enclosure, a practice now forbidden.” How about that? Well, that’s what happens, that’s what people do.

Time span
Archaeologists often seem obsessed by burials, and by finding them, because it indeed often are the richest sources of insight in former cultures in their field. This is exactly the problem: Because burials are so important for archaeologists, they assign a totally disproportionate importance to them in the assessment of the cultures they investigate, the whole thought of ‘royalty’, of any structural ‘power’ hierarchy is squarely at odds with the shamanic spirit of the Stone Age, which is indeed marked by indiscriminate burials of men, women and children, a rather sure sign of an egalitarian and largely ego-less society. If there is one thing that characterizes the watershed between Stone-age and Metal-age culture it is just this: the birth of the ego from competition and inequality, following horse-riding, superior weapons and wine (signs of nobility to this day)

Another solid proof
According to Alexander Thom and Aubrey Burl (Stone Circles Br.Isles I) the dimensions of the Aubrey holes ring are as follows expressed in their data and in my units of length, see how close Aubrey hole circle: Perimeter: 271.60m = 330 Megalithic Yards = 330 x 0.8228 =  271.52m (Thom= 327.6MY) Diameter:    86.40m = 165 Megalithic Ell       = 165 x 0.5236  =  86.39m  (Thom = 104.2MY) This is another striking example of my formula of Pi as 2MY circumference and 1 ME as diameter Pi = 2MY/1ME. (330/165) This outcome is far better than Thom’s 131 Megalithic Rods (271.5m), where the prime number 131 means absolutely nothing and his Megalithic Rod (2.5MY) looks like a desperate attempt to make things fit where his Yard failed. In my model nothing is ‘forced’, I don’t do anything but apply the data, it just always fits meaningfully as this website shows over and over again. It is sad Thom was wrong with his Megalithic Yard by just  some 6 mm and never got what he so rightfully deserved. The rationale of the 330MY can be found in the sun cycle of 33 years after which an alignment with the sun at the equinox will be exactly the same as 33 years earlier, so posts set every 10MY (8.23m) on this circle can be markers for the count of years.(Heath, 1998, Mackie, 2003) A cache of 33 quartz pebbles was found close to an equinox alignment near Argyll, Scotland. (33 is also the amount of lintels in the design, with 28 in the ring and 5 in the horse-shoe, the number 10 is in the horse-shoe sarsen uprights) [28 = 30-2 at the south half sarsen nr.11, 1/2 of 29.5 days moon cycle] Just now (may, 2015) I read that the sun has also an internal cycle of 330 days waxing and waning, another ‘year-cycle’, by which its volume and activity waxes and wanes, this cycle the ancients could have known by shamanic insight, like most of their mathematical and cosmological knowledge.
The overall diameter of Stonehenge (plus ditch) is given as 110m (Burl), which is 210 Megalithic Ell (210 x 0.5236 = 109.96m) so we find again the Rainbow Proportion, since 210/165 = 14/11 = 1.272727.. or 110 / 86.4 = 1.273 which is also 14/11 = 1.2727272…. (you want more precision?)
A diameter of 210ME gives a circumference of 210 x 22/7 = 660 ME (2 x 330), which is of course 420 MY, (since 11ME=7MY), again 420/210 = 2MY/1ME, which is Pi, isn’t it neat?
The ring of 660 ME can also be used for the sun cycles of 33 years and 330 days of course with markers every  2 or 20 ME (1.05m or 10.5m) on the circumference, possibly aligned with those posts in the Aubrey ring. There always is astronomical or mathematical meaning in this system, or both, it just works infallibly.

(photo) The Aubrey Holes are the biggest yellow ring of dots which relates to the outer ditch perimeter as the Rainbow Proportion, 11 : 14, (as area ratio it is 100:162 or better 1 : 1.620, but also 1 : 1.618, the golden mean, since sqrt(1.6180……) = 1.272 0196….  and 1.272 72727….. =  11 : 14  (differences in the thousandths are of no consequence, they function identically in our system, they resonate, tune in.

At the Ring of Brodgar the stone circle is related to the outer circumference of the sloping ditch as 198ME : 252ME or 103.67m : 131.94m = 11 : 14, also the Rainbow Proportion. These two world famous henges, one in the south, the other in the far north of the British Isles, relate exactly in the ratio 5 : 6, a proportion which figures prominently in the amazing double square design of Structure 1 at the Ness of Brodgar in Orkney. (See: Math at the Ness)

Double Rainbow proportion between stone circle and outer circumference ditch at Brodgar.

Isn’t it again all perfect coincidence. Well, at least I do nothing but relate known scientific data in an ordered manner with a perfect mathematical model, just desktop science. You cannot keep on saying that all successive mathematical fits and facts are mere coincidence. I try to interpret it all as ‘consciously designed’, if that is not the case then it is of miraculous subconscious design, because the maths does not budge and the data don’t go away, and the neglect of coincidence as ‘meaningless’ is a fallacy every Buddhist will raise his eyebrows on.


Afterword: After publishing above post an important citation of Hawley came to my attention which comes from his preliminary report for the Antiquaries Journal in 1921, his first and biggest excavation, Hawley:
“The holes vary very little in size and shape: the biggest is 3 ft. 5 in. deep, its maximum diameter 5 ft. 3 in. and the minimum 4 ft. 6 in. The smallest is 2 ft. deep, maximum diameter 2 ft. 6 in., and minimum 2 ft. 5 in. They are as a rule sharp and regular cuttings in the chalk, and are all more or less circular. ( Trees are circular, bluestones are not. YG) Many have the edge of the chalk crater shorn away, or crushed down, on the side towards the standing stones of Stonehenge, this being apparently due either to the insertion or withdrawal of a stone, probably the latter. From their appearance and regularity there can be little doubt that they once held small upright stones; for, in two cases at least, a portion of the excavated chalk appears to have been returned, as if the hole had been too deeply dug to suit the intended height of the stone. This returned rubble was extremely hard and compacted, as if a very heavy weight had rested upon it for a long time. (Note this crucial argument. YG) With the exception of four holes, all bore evidence of cremated human remains having been deposited in them, and at least three showed signs that actual cremation had been carried out in them.”

This was in 1921 when nothing was known of big post-holes anywhere, until Maud Cunnington caused a sensation by excavating Woodhenge with its big post-holes in 1926-27, posts not bigger than the Aubrey holes, I know from seeing the concrete stumps myself, the largest being at most 1m diameter, if I remember well.
Seeing this excavation is what made Hawley change his mind on stones having been set in the Aubrey Holes, it would have been big wooden posts. QED.

The Shaman and the Standing Stone

April 24th, 2012

The Shamans


In the three years I have been running this website the truly innovative ideas I have launched here as regards archaeology are several. The concept of a climate change between 4000-3000 BC, coined the Neolithic Ice Age (NIA), is one such idea which then is seen as the primary reason for the profuse building of artificial caves as refuge places on the windy sea coasts of Atlantic Europe, this being a new approach to the well-known megalithic chambers, deemed burial places by all archaeologists.
Then I have argued that subsequently some of these chambers were explicitly built as maternal clinics, like Newgrange and Maeshowe or single delivery rooms like Knowth, Dowth and Cairn L, Loughcrew and that only after the Ice Age was truly over, say 2900BC, the chambers, which had lost their primary functions, became used as burial chambers (like a church can contain burials from long after its erection, however it was never built for that purpose).
So I place the megalithic chambers initially in the context of bare survival, as refuge under forbidding weather circumstances, a fortiori survival of women and new-borns, which would subsequently evolve into centres of cosmology (observers staying over at night), medicine and mathematics (Loughcrew, Maeshowe, NessBrodgar), in short, centres of learning. The alarming demographic under-representation of women (1:3 at thirty) must have had a profound impact on society with a substantial amount of ‘idle’ men with a lot of time on their hands. This is the group which must have formed the core of the work forces which brought these giant megalithic works about.
In continental Europe the end of the Neolithic Ice Age also meant the end of the megalithic culture (Trichterbecher,TRB) with its communal outlook and burial practices around 2900 BC. The individualistic, fully agrarian, axe wielding and alcohol drinking Beaker culture became dominant, the ego had triumphed and the erstwhile spiritual ‘Rausch’ got degraded into a ‘recreational Rausch’ and began conquering Neolithic Europe bringing to an end a spiritual era which would never return again.
Last but not least I claim the standing stones, be they single, aligned or in circles, were found to be lightning conductors and, placed in circles, became instrumental in triggering downpours from a thunderstorm, that is, it was a technological innovation in the long standing tradition of shamanic ‘rain-making’. The shaman is the ‘master of fire’ and impervious to it, some do even aspire to be struck by lightning, so the shaman is the perfect conductor to orchestrate a stone circle with drums, you bet, create a thunderstorm and ‘let it rain’.
On top of that I have, I think convincingly, shown that many megalithic designs are intricately geometrical and symbolize a mathematical truth which is found in the ratio of the double rainbow, 14 over 11. (Maeshowe, Brodgar, Stonehenge)
Although I had mentioned ‘rainmaking’ as relating to shamanism earlier, it is only since I have been reading more extensively about shamans that I realized that also ‘lightning’ as symbol of fire, the ‘rainbow’ as the ladder by which the shaman climbs to heaven and not to forget the ‘circle’ itself, as ring of people, are key symbols of shamanism, so I came to the conclusion that unawares I had been describing the shamanic horizon underlying the design of the megalithic buildings and that therefor shamanism is likely to be the key to the spirit of the Stone Age and its final scientific apotheosis in the Atlantic Megalithicum of the British Isles.
I once attended a ‘shamanisation’ by an Hungarian shaman, the late Joska Soos, in Oibibio, Amsterdam, and I found recently in an ‘autobiography’ of him and in his paintings an explicit confirmation of the link between mathematics and shamanism (see below). Since Soos explicitly denies that shamanism is a religion – which I sensed about the Stone Age all the way – he nevertheless sees shamanism as ‘the source of all religion’. Let us take that authoritative insight as the theme by which we can try to weave a ‘spirit of the Stone Age’ out of the above mentioned cultural threads.


30,000 year old West-European cave painting of a shaman

There can be no doubt that the shaman has come down to us from deep in the Stone Age, that the shaman, in an important sense, is the spirit of the Stone Age, all over the world. Although the shaman was of the highest authority in the community, they usually were a ‘primus inter pares’, a ‘first among equals’ in daily life and up until this day, in those rare communities in Siberia, where the ‘original’ shaman still exists, this is the case. The spirit of equality and compassion is very strong in the shamanic society and symbolizes the egalitarian character of the Stone Age, since both men and women were shaman.
The shaman is in a sense the Ur-typ, the arche-type, of the enlightened personality, the truly ‘inspired’ teacher, the accomplished human being, and whatever their many baffling skills, it is the healing of body and mind, the restoring of harmony to the soul, be it individual or communal, which is their essential function, their ‘raison d’etre’ (reason of being). The shaman is there to help and cure others, that is what they are chosen and educated for, he or she is originally a ‘chosen-one’. Their spiritual training of seclusion, celibacy and meditative practices, lies at the root of yoga and meditation, their spiritual flight is at the heart of our dreams, their ‘Rausch’ (trance) has produced visions, medicines, arts and sciences, they are the masters and magicians of the mind, the sufferers of every human illness, the seers of future and truth; in their extra-ordinary practices they need the help from the spirits of animals, the spirits of trees and of rocks and sometimes they engage with the dead, indeed. This extra-ordinary personality was the spiritual refuge for Stone Age society; it’s a world where the Mind rules supreme.

A heavy way

Only few are called upon to become shaman, it is a heavy way and only few possess the personal integrity to deal with the power they can wield over others; if a shaman makes a (moral) mistake it can mean their own death. The essence of the shaman, and this is their deep humanity, is that her or his life itself is a sacrifice to the community, because to become a healer they have to go through great ordeals of body and mind themselves, so as to be thoroughly purified and free from ego and selfish motives to serve the ‘world’; they must be prepared to face death for the well-being of others without harming others. Where do you find that today? Only in the highest teachings on selflessness in our religions.
We see that this highest ideal of self-sacrifice for the ‘benefit of the whole’ comes straight from the shamanic ethics, that is, from the Stone Age.

No doubt there have been evil shamans as there are evil thinkers, but the essence of the general occurrence of both these types of teachers is that they use the gifts of their extraordinary or superior insights for the good of all, not for the greater glory, power and advantage of themselves and their kin. The profound compassion embodied in the shaman is the most solid proof of the sincere humanity of Stone Age society, thus all the prejudice in talk of ‘barbarian practices’ is obviously blown out of all proportion when set against the essentially ego-less altruism of the shaman, as a moral role model of his age. It is in the ‘outstanding otherness’ of the shaman, that we can understand the basic equality of the Stone Age society, its natural caring for the fellow human, its purity of intentions, its purgations by psychotropic substances, processes in which there are no spectators only participants, where the family or the community as a whole become the healing agent guided by the shaman, be it man or woman, as the medium, as the messenger of the Beyond. This can only function when all barriers between people fall away and this can only happen where egos dissolve and equality arises as the source of healing harmony in humanity.


When we do not grasp the profoundly egalitarian spirit of the Stone Age, the personal sacrifice of the shaman and the highly communal emotional cohesion, which during deteriorating weather conditions was further fostered in the long spells of hardship when they were sometimes packed together in the refuge spaces, collectively surviving forbidding circumstances, with a lot of patience and forbearance, (communal chambers became huge in Orkney, several of them 20m inside), if we do not see the spiritual purity and humanity of their society, then all our imaginations about life in those ‘halcyon’ days start from a biased ‘primitive’ perspective, a misunderstanding, if not a caricature of ancient human beings, the very people we descend from.
The equality of the Stone Age, as evidenced in the communal burials of people of all ages, is best gauged in the equality between male and female shaman, this is the root of the egalitarian society and why shamanism cannot be called a religion. Religions are institutions based on collections of moral stories and prescriptions, ‘received and passed on’ by enlightened male teachers, usually put down in scriptures, guarded and ruled by men, inside male bastions also known as monasteries. Women have traditionally no role of substance in religion, this is so all over the world; a priestess occurs only in a shamanic setting.
It is this hierarchical social inequality between male and female which justifies all inequality in society. ‘Inequality’ is a state of mind, it is the ego, which is urged to stand out and triumph (hero), but on the other hand also ‘equality’ is a state of mind, it is without ego, it is the union with the One as the source of compassion and ‘enlightenment’, which is a female aspect. Shamanism has all the characteristics of the female, religion has none.
So where did women lose equality along the way, one may wonder?

Agriculture, a female revolution

In my analysis the whole Neolithic agricultural revolution is female in character, because it springs from the female side of the hunter-gatherer society, that is, from the gatherers, the women. To this day it are usually women who have and tend herb-gardens and we know that all early medicine is based on herbs and plants. Our Ur-typ of this female preoccupancy with herbal concoctions is, of course, the witch. She even flies like the shaman on her broom. Hunting and gathering is initially a state of ‘pursuing and taking’ from nature (male), whereas nurturing herb-gardens and nourishing animals (ducks, geese, goats) is a state of ‘giving, caring’ (female), so in effect it was a deep cultural revolution which took place and at first this gave women the upper-hand, they became the masters of the house and its direct environment, while the men ‘worked’ for them and their offspring in a secure and comfortable setting. Instead of ‘killers’ men became ‘carers’, instead of free-roaming, he had to manage a schedule, he started to manage time; many men psychologically never really took to the change, they have always remained hunters.
Hunting is not ‘working’, of course, otherwise it wouldn’t be a sport of the elite. Hunting and fishing is the male in his erstwhile free and pristine independent natural state, which he lost since the Stone Age and is still desperately trying to revive in the few ‘free’ hours that are left to him.

It has often been wondered why, for heaven’s sake, the hunter-gatherer lifestyle which was so much less labour intensive and cumbersome than agriculture was ever given up for the sedentary agricultural lifestyle. The answer in my view is clear, it was: the women. The women brought this about, they wanted a husband-man (husbandry) with a farm and a permanent shelter (house) for their children, no longer the exhausting life with a hunter without a home, than a feeble hut and sometimes even nowhere to go. So it was the preference of women which made young men go out into the woods with their axe and clear the land, build a firm wooden house, wait for local women to appear and start a family. And so it spread and came about (There seems to be genetic evidence for this scenario)

Master of the house

So agriculture was a female revolution and brought unwittingly a take-over of domestic power, the woman became the master of the house(hold) and had under most circumstances her man nearby; it became a success as we see today. In the Stone Age women languished in an alarming minority of 1 to 3 males at about 30 years of age, on average the end of their short lived lives. They lost their infants and own lives at an abominable rate under exhausting circumstances and with insufficient comfort to recover. Today though nearly everywhere women get older than men and are in the majority. Taken that it is a bare 10.000 years on the hundreds of thousands preceding, that is a resounding success for women.
Losing his dominance in the family life and the control of his transient ‘hut’, seeing women taking over on the domestic front, the male ‘conspired’ successfully to regain his dominance outside the house in the communty and did it by building himself the bigger house, where he and his ‘brethren’ were the boss again, he built himself the ultimate house, he built himself a ‘temple’, and he convinced woman that this was not for himself and his dominance, but for the ‘gods’ (his gods) and their dominance.
This gender inequality is the root of all social inequality and the bastion of male superiority in society. This is the paramount reason why religion is different from Shamanism, why the priest is just a shadow of the shaman, why women are banished from spiritual authority, why mysticism and morals are no longer at the heart but at the periphery of society. Religion is a male message, an urge to convert, a conviction of being right, of embodying the ultimate truth etc., shamanism has none of it, because it is from the heart not from the head, because it is rooted in compassion with fellow humans, whereas religion usually does not practice the compassion it preaches.

What I want to stress is that shamanism can be seen as the genealogy and evolution of the human mind, but also of its compassion, breaking free in susceptible individuals, where it manifests itself as, indeed, the ‘soul’ of the human condition, be it male or female. Undergoing and managing the hidden powers of the mind, that is the extraordinary importance of shamanism and the cause of its resilience and resurgeance in our age. It is an endangered wisdom which should not go lost.


‘Information’, ‘getting information’, are terms often used with respect to the ‘spiritual flight’ of the shaman which gives it an unexpectedly modern flavour. We read the shaman moves into ‘the other world’ to retrieve ‘information’, on how to heal a sickness, help a community, or do fortune-telling, or any other ‘incredible’ thing these shamans do in the eyes of an ‘ordinary mortal’. By encountering the spirit of a medicinal plant, for instance, the shaman, during the ‘Rausch’ (trance), gets ‘information’ by its spirit on how to use the healing qualities of the plant, this way they gain knowledge by, what seem to us, ‘supernatural’ means.
But then, if scientists, artists, composers find creative solutions given them in their dreams for free without the ‘supernatural’, would then not the shaman, the tireless worker and expert on dreams, be the most well-placed to retrieve even more knowledge at will, just by being ‘extremely natural’ about it all? This is more than likely precisely the way the most precious of knowledge has originally been gained by mankind, through mind-altering plants and fungi, producing extraordinary insights and revelations on plants, animals, the cosmos and themselves. A prodigy is born, not made, a prodigy is a shaman, a shaman is a chosen-one, a genius, answering a fateful call, without much choice. If it were common there would be more genius in humankind.

Shaman and the standing stone (part 2)

Apart from the fact that the Atlantic Megalithicum culture put so much energy in big stones, megaliths, they appear to have been actually very fond of stones in general as is again and again shown in the ‘uselessly’ small neatly polished stone axes found at the Ness of Brodgar and several mace-heads as well, sometimes small stones seem to have no practical function at all and are just extremely smooth and nice in the hand, the ‘nature and feel’ of the stone is the essence of its specific ‘healing influence’, you’d say. A lot of people today still believe in the healing influence of stones, a very old belief, no doubt.

The megalith

Putting the stone upright was honouring it and making it enter the world of man, who go upright. Everyone who ‘encounters’ a big standing stone knows it has an enormous ‘presence’, which is its ‘uprightness’, it has been singled out, been chosen to stand in the world of man, but it could not get there on its own, that is its mystery. Where do you come from, what are you doing here? In Holland the megalithic boulders come from the glaciers of Scandinavia, a thousand miles away carried by the glaciers of ice-ages. The more foreign a stone is to its environment (no living rock in the whole of Holland), the more magic and enigma it is bound to exude. Where do you come from? It could be, and this holds especially for the single standing stones, that it was raised where a shaman had been hit by lightning, or lightning had hit the ground, marking an auspicious place in the subtle power grid covering the upper surface of the earth. It could be. Nobody believes standing stones were placed at random and nearly everyone who knows sufficient places and gives it a thought will conclude that it usually enhances the power of an already special place by singling it out, giving it focus; a spot to experience the whole environment. I am pretty convinced that the triad lightning-shaman-standing stone is a valid one, that the standing stone through its ‘sun-spirit’ can be seen as a bridge between Us, the Underworld and the Beyond. The standing stone is associated with the energy of the Sun as well as of the Earth, but also with the spirit of male and female reflected in its shape.

Cult of the dead?

In Japan, where shamanic Shinto animism has reigned from time immemorial, spirits reside in the house preferably in the upper corners of a room. So the buttresses with their standing stones in Maeshowe, when pictured flat-topped and level at 10 Megalithic Feet height (2.96m), would provide an abode for the ‘cardinal spirits’ at the cardinal points of the central space of the building, North, East, South, West……, which figure prominently in shamanic invocations.
In the shamanic animistic worldview every block of stone in a building has a spirit (animus), how much more when these are upright stones like the buttresses in Maeshowe and all the other standing stones, aligned in line or in circle at given points in the landscape. The spirit of the stone though is not the spirit of the dead, it is the spirit of the stone. But since spirits are essentially equal (because all is One -which also explains the natural enlightenment and equality of the shamanic society) and since spirits are interchangeable, no doubt the spirit of the dead can enter the stone and find a temporary abode there. When you touch the stone and hold it for a while it may tell you its wisdom, like trees do. So that stone circles were places where shamans could convene the spirits of the dead, is plausible, but is it a cult of the dead? No, it is shamanism, and in shamanism everything is ‘alive’ and ‘spirited’, so how could it be a cult of the dead? The shaman communicates, as we say, with the spirits of the dead and many other spirits, that are very much ‘alive’ and no one with any knowledge of shamanism will judge that it is a cult of the dead, although the dead can play an important role in it, like they can in our own lives. We see the same ‘entering the sphere of the dead and of spirits’ in Tibetan Buddhism with a different emphasis, but in many of its cultural manifestations close to the shamanic tradition; but no one can seriously call Tibetan Buddhism a cult of the dead.

Listening to trees

We know it is not given to just anyone to listen to a tree (let alone talk to it), but this does not mean that we have some kind of superior rational understanding, when we think it is nonsense. That attitude of ‘rationalist science’ and the prevailing general ‘common sense’ in its wake, that attitude of ‘knowing’ something about the profound mystery of life is just preposterous, if not really stupid, and certainly one of the biggest spiritual deficiencies of modern day ‘scientific’ Western culture. It stems from the all-pervading materialistic scientific interpretation of reality, of which of course the Big Bang is the ultimate symbol. That ‘superior’ rational interpretation though always immediately breaks down as soon as it cannot explain phenomena outside its own reference frame, the mystical, the magical. Scientists ignore these facts or simply don’t believe them or, worse, ridicule them, as if they know something about the mystery of life. (I hope this site will provide a start for a vocabulary and logical framework which is able to translate also the ‘inexplicable’ in a consistent ‘logical’ description, because in my view all and everything that can be talked about can descriptively be brought back to a common ground.)
We know the druids revered the oak and its mistletoe and no doubt listened to the holy trees in their sacred groves, but we know also from Caesar that they were of the opinion that writing ruins the memory of man, so all knowledge should be memorized, not written down. Unfortunately there is great wisdom in those words, on the one hand their knowledge is lost, because not recorded, on the other it seems indeed the power of the human mind has deteriorated and that that is the reason why educated Stone Age people have the edge over most of us and our scientists today. Like druidic pupils also the shamans went through a long schooling and of course this was all memorization and direct experience, no reading and writing.


After having Socrates denounce ‘writing’ in his dialogue with Phaedrus, Plato wrote: ‘The first prophesies were the words of an oak” and he goes on to state about ‘the people of old’ that they thought it rewarding ”to listen to an oak or a rock, so long as it was telling the truth.” Socrates even lectured Phaedrus for not heeding the words of an oak, as if it were not the content of the words which mattered, but who they were related by.
You would never have thought this would come from Socrates or Plato, would you, and where do these oaks and rocks come from you may wonder, maybe Wales or Brittany? Or is Plato talking of the people of old in general as: all the Shamans, the innumerable enlightened-ones preceding the Buddha, the Immortals absorbed in the eternal Tao?

The state of knowledge that I attribute to the Stone Age is based on the assumption that they discovered the cycles of Sun and Moon, had to make calculations and records to do this, mastered prediction of eclipses, found the ratios between square and circle and derived the double rainbow proportion.
Patience is the key to this knowledge and to all the countless lost crafts of the past, it was after all a different state of mind, where time did not count and perfection was the norm. Already the audacity to dare start charting the night sky, given the tools they had, is awe-inspiring by itself. (Did you ever look up at the stars and imagined you had decided to understand and make sense of what you are seeing?) Night after night making observations, or waiting for the sky to clear in the North, generation upon generation memorizing the assembled knowledge.
Discovering after hundreds of years the intricate cycle of the moon must have been a momentous event, for which there was every reason to cast such knowledge into stone so as to never ever let it go lost. To this spirit we owe the great scientific megalithic works, also those of Giza, where the spirit of the great healer and architect Imhotep would hover over the work force.

European shamans

In the late eighties I attended a ‘shamanisation’ by the Hungarian Joska Soos in Oibibio in Amsterdam. He used Tibetan singing bowls in his performances. Soos tells us in an auto-biography how he was ‘born with the caul’, auspicious, and coming from a shamanic family background. He was educated by the shaman Tamas Bacsi who indeed listened to the rustling birch for predictions and exposed himself to lightning (to no avail). Lightning is the symbol of the power of the shaman: they control fire and are impervious to it.
In the context of this website Soos has some interesting experiences to share in that he tells how he as a kid had a profound vision on the nature of reality which he describes as follows in ‘I don’t heal, I restore the harmony’ p.39: ‘Then I did experience the mathematical structure of the micro- and macro cosmos and it were mathematical structures and fabrics of power-lines like you’ve never seen. This was not Euclidean mathematics, this was something completely different and they moved, they were alive. The one changed into the other and the differing mathematical figures were space and time at once. I felt space, time and light, the white light”.

I feel very much at home with such a description because it so closely describes the mathematics and ontology I propose in these pages. It was ‘alive’, it ‘moved’, it was ‘complementary’ as one moves into the other and there was the ‘white light’; so then we are ‘at home’.

In Soos’s adagium on healing we recognize the shamanic humbleness as: ‘it is not me who is doing the healing, I just put things back in the right place, the healing happens from the restored harmony of the soul itself”.

When we see Soos’s pictures it is obvious this deep early ‘revelation’ stayed with him all his life and evolved into light-beings and singing bowls.

The use of circles, half circles, straight and parallel lines remains part of Soos’s way of expressing the ‘Beyond’ and what he ‘sees’.

What I want to argue is that just as the shamans were capable of retrieving ‘information’ from a plant or tree they would have been able to ‘supernaturally’ retrieve information about mathematical rules and physical laws by producing circles and making geometric connections between the standing stones in the circle. This way they could not only physically enter the geometry of the circle, but in their ‘Rausch’ connect to the cosmic (mathematical) spirit of the design, which was revealed in ‘eternal’ ratios of numbers, held in patterns.
According to Soos the polar star is object of a cult in shamanism, because as central star, circled by all the others, it is ‘the great door to the Divine’. But also the Great Bear is singled out and revered. Do we call this religion? Or better shamanic cosmology? (I have argued elsewhere that the engravings in Newgrange and Orkney recumbent stones depict the Polar star and the Great Bear, see Skara Brae and Science)
Even more striking in my view are the descriptions of space by this old shaman Tamas Bacsi. The universe is full of tiny holes, he said, the cow, your hand, full of tiny holes. “You look at the sky and then you will see the little coloured holes which you can go into and enter a different space, a different existence”.
It certainly combines well with my concepts of space-pixall, zero-point, zero-dimension and pure light. As Soos relates his actual experience of the holes 30 years later, he describes something which I experienced myself several times long ago, that space is an aggregate of coloured sparks, that it is indeed granular and full of light. This experience is the basis of my certainty that my concepts are sound, I’ve ‘seen’ it, so to speak. Also Tibetan ontology has ‘sparks’ and ‘space-particles’ as fundamental concepts.

It may be clear that I have been inspired again by ‘the people of old’ where it comes to their piercing insights and intimate feeling for ‘reality’. I always come away wiser when I let them be wiser than me, that is also the best way to let them come close. The silence of the Stone Age has still a lot to tell us.



Gravity = the Cooling of the Cosmos

November 11th, 2011
 Gravity = the Cooling of the Cosmos

Introduction ‘Gravity’

In previous pieces I have advocated the idea that ‘gravity’ is the result of cosmic field pressure, emerging because of a ‘lee’ in the counter-pressure of the cosmic deep-field around a body. Although I was sitting in the bath, like Archimedes, when the idea came to me; unlike Archimedes, I stayed in the bath, not yet sure of my second ‘Eureka’ on gravity. I found just recently that Newton and Lorentz and several others had played with similar ideas a (long) time ago (see Wiki, history gravitation, paraphrased here), but although they all eventually dismissed it, I want to give it another try, from a different perspective. After all, gravity is still a mystery and here is a real (not abstract) and even understandable explanation.

Similar theories
Here are some points of similarity with those earlier theories:
1)Lorentz used electromagnetic radiation, like I do with Poynting vectors of EM-fields. 2) Newton and Riemann argued that aether streams carry all bodies to each other, similar to my principle of ‘source streams to sink’. 3) Newton and Euler (1760) proposed a model, in which the aether loses density near the masses, leading to a net force directing to the bodies, which amounts to the same as my insight of ‘depressions’, or ‘lee-fields’ near the bodies. The ‘depression’, loss of pressure density, is what Einstein calls ‘curvature’, but that is too much a 2-D description of a 3-D reality and is only mathematical (Riemann); in my picture it is a loss of cosmic field-pressure (loss of density) in the spherical ‘lee’ of the object (shielding) which is mathematical but has ‘mechanical’ components, as deepfield-density and cosmic field-pressure.

It is indeed the deep-field which reacts to the presence of the object, in this it is in full agreement with Einstein, but the object is on the deepest level part of the deep-field through which it passes, it moulds the deep-field in its passing. Gravity and electromagnetism are not separate distinct fields, as Einstein maintains, they are both emerging aspects of the one deep-field, but since electromagnetism is the deep-field of all ‘matter’ the whole concept of gravity becomes obsolete. The  EM-field is  probably the main push of the pressure-gravity.

When you light a candle, you light the deep-field, the candle is not the source of the light, but the trigger of the deep-field. This is why the speed of light is independent of the motion of the so-called source, which is no source. The field is already there only has to be triggered to emerge. When you push the candle it will fall, the pressure-gravity field was already there, gravity ’emerges’ because of imbalance. When the candle falls, does its light fall? Can light fall?
Newton thought the Earth was attracting the falling candle, Einstein claimed that as far as the candle was concerned the whole universe made a somersault, but I think it is safer to speculate it is space  itself that pushes you down when you lose equilibrium.

Space wants (every)thing-s in a steady place. At the same time there is a kind of vortex, a sink in the deep-field, which induces rotation, like all orbiting in ‘free’ space. The spin is an individual anchor in space So the change in pressure of the deep-field is caused by the density and geometry of the deep-field.
The energy absorption by all bodies from space is a kind of ‘sucking-in’ which is the aspect of the vortex which then
in extremis becomes the Black Hole. It is also some kind of contraction.  By all means the concavity of the torus surface is the best example of the mathematical contraction of space. It is a state. Gravity is a state not a force It is this contracted state which induces the acceleration, but it is as with expansion it is the state of local space which induces a dynamic. The local state of space defines the rate of transformation (local time). This is why the universe is in a steady state, but its convexity is perceived as expanding, redshift, whereas space in our model is just as steady as the surface of a torus, with local contraction (concave) as intrinsic, (not dynamic), and local expansion (convex) dito, coexisting in a steady complementarity.

So my present description combines these insights and gives, I think, a more understandable picture of what really happens on all levels.

 An authority on what I try to say all the way with my ‘deep-field’, is the physicist John Bell in Wiki at ‘Aether theories’, who actually uses the same kind of reasoning I do about Lorentz, superluminal speeds and quantum behaviour, elsewhere he said that the ‘ether’-concept should be chosen if only because it is so much more adequate in making things easier to explain. But nobody listens. The concept of ‘aether’ has become completely ‘out of the question’, in physics, eradicated, and see what damage is done. I think the concept of the cosmic deep-field opens complete new vistas, if only one gets the (zero-)point.

Let me insert here an appropriate quote from another authority on the matter. ( I am pleasantly surprised by uncovering such unequivocal support for my own findings by several unquestioned authorities recently).

Robert B. Laughlin: Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University, had this to say about ‘ether’ in contemporary theoretical physics:

It is ironic that   Einstein’s most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil   down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in   special relativity] was that no such medium existed . . .The word ‘ether’ has   extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past   association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because,   stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most   physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says   nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe,   only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. It turns out that   such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies   of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had   spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and   fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us   to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal   Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with ‘stuff’ that is normally transparent   but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part.   The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment,   is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.”[3]

A relativistic aether’, let’s leave it at that. But we will return to this important issue because the conceptual reinstatement of the aether may turn out to be a key to solving the huge incompatibility problems in theoretical physics.

In the following I explain how I have deducted from the mathematics of natural number geometry the possible interaction of spherical and toroidal wave patterns of resonance which would pervade everything and go down to Planck levels, a grid of singularities in Einstein’s description, here called the ‘deep-field of space-pixalls’.

One circle rotating around an axis gives us the sphere, two interconnected circles rotating around perpendicular axes give us the (horn-)torus. The one is how energy manifests in absorption (contraction, spherical compression), that is: spherical stars, the other how energy translates in emission (toroidal expansion, radiation, momentum), that is: toroidal (standing) waves.

What I do here is constructing in my own language a scientific ontology which is based on natural number logic, geometry and harmonics (musical, overtones). It is completely based on logical reasoning on the basis of what the numbers my model generates mean in the reality of your everyday world and in the world of physics, possibly in a big way.

It looks like ‘Kindergarten mathematics’ to the professional, so this is how simple and understandable my model is, or rather, begins. This model’s ‘simple’ mathematics though could break the present mould of science. It is a different paradigm.

Permanent Creation
It should be borne in mind that my view of the cosmos is that of an integrated cyclical system, permanent creation, in which heating and cooling are two complementary phenomena. The heating is caused by radiation, which very much sustains the fabric of space by feeding into the space-pixalls, this is the pressure part. Absorption is excessively so when ‘matter’ (condensed/excited space-pixalls) is involved as a concentration of energy in the cosmic deep-field. This absorption creates the ‘lee-field’ around an object, it shields the general deepfield-pressure from the direction of the object, resulting in net-pressure towards the object, which is falsely seen as ‘attraction’, and called ‘gravity’ (gravitas). (some call this approach ‘push-gravity’ but this involves pushing particles, which is not the case here, also see Newton, Euler, above, I would prefer ‘pressure-gravity’, if ‘gravity’ is to remain as term; the best term would be aether- or deepfield pressure, it keeps everything restrained and in order).

In this logic the cosmic radiation and pressure is transformed by inducing spin, that is, into ‘mechanical’ unlimited motion and momentum in a reflection wave-field. All spin creates waves. This is the object’s inertial field. (And this is why Lorentz’s thermo-dynamic objection of ‘over-heating through absorption’ is void, the absorbed energy is transformed into momentum and field).
It are these inertial fields which give the final rigidity and high pressure in the deep-field (Dark Matter?) so in that sense Mach was right in claiming that inertial space was caused by the totality of the matter in space, but he and science in general forgot about the inertia of the spin of all these bodies ( like gyroscopes), this is the missing ‘dark matter’, it is ‘dark inertia’. It are possibly the reflection fields of the large heavenly bodies which feed into the high pressure of the deep-field at quantum level.
This draining of energy from the deep-field can be seen as cooling the deep-field to sustain the mechanical cycle of supplying and draining, to sustain the transformation by transfer of energy in radiation, or by draining, so that is: ‘cooling the cosmos’

So this is why the principle runs:

“Gravity is the cooling of the cosmos”

In the following I will set out how this relates to my present, much further developed, view of the cosmos. I now understand much better what I intuited at the time 14 years ago, but I would not have used those terms today probably and I actually had forgotten about it, I must confess, because it is so long ago I found it, but it remains a powerful comprehensive statement in its own right. And a complementary principle, added today, can run :

“Radiation is the warming of the cosmos”. (It could mean Dark Energy)

My cosmology revolves around principles, like rotation, cooling, contraction, least resistance, continuity, equilibrium, harmonics, not the usual rigid physical laws which are derived from mathematics and usually poorly understood by scientists themselves because the mathematics is clear because it works, but what it signifies isn’t so clear; because the laws are not properly understood they do not interrelate which makes for the lack of a comprehensive picture. All laws are presented as independent entities like in the case of the concept of Entropy. The notorious Second Law of Thermo-Dynamics is almost sacred to physicists, unfortunately it is a dead end street. In my model there is no disintegration other than as part of regeneration, but the Bigbang cosmology is a one-way alley, from the Bang to….. where no one knows for a long time now, but it seems to be dark and cold there. Wouldn’t it?

My description of the space-pixalls ‘aligning’, ‘contracting’ and ‘expanding’ is an attempt at really describing what ‘happens’ at the quantum level of the deep-field. The more so because this deep-field is the ‘screen’ on which ‘geometrical forms’ materialize. This sounds like holography. The object is a concentration of excited pixalls in a form which influences the geometry of its environment by its reflection-field: you can see it.
This ‘organisation’ of space around the object results in a ‘lee-field’, which functions as a ‘sink’ through pressure-differential. The general pressure of the cosmic deep-field accelerates all objects towards each other up to the point where there is an equilibrium in the pressure of the reflection fields, that is when they are in resonance and stable orbit.

As a metaphor the deep-field reaches to the deep of the ocean, motionless and under high pressure, but the deep-field is also the currents, major and shallow, it is the waves of the ocean and, eventually, between these huge forces Life emerges as the foam on the waves, sometimes abundant but always fragile in every bubble.

Canonical Pi is a Euclidean number

The most obvious fallacy of science is that, with much talk of ‘curvature of space-time’, expansion, acceleration etc. nobody seems ever to wonder what happens to Pi (as a Euclidean number), in a non-Euclidean setting like curved space. (True, Einstein mentions it, but relates it to the Lorentz contraction of measuring rods over the circumference by high rotation which makes a bigger Pi. In my view the radius is shorter because it figures in a contracted field relative to the circumference in most cases, a concave space, as you see it in the vortex of the horn-torus, this is the ‘pull of gravity’). This gives slightly bigger values for Pi.
Except for the rings of the giant planets, most visibly Saturn, the gyroscopic razor-thin absolutely Euclidian flat inertial fields rotating in perpetual vibrations, which help to stabilize the planet in its rotation, as the moons do, except for these fabulous geometries, there is no flat space. (without the stabilizing effect of the moon orbit, higher life would not be possible on earth, probably, it would wobble like ‘hell’, no stable rhythm). Except for these huge stabilising rotating inertial fields there is nothing Euclidean in space and certainly not at the quantum level, whatever scientists say about ‘flat’ space.
[[The rigidity of the flat of the Saturn rings is mindboggling, over some 280,000km it has a thickness in great parts of no more than 10m , in turbulent places can reach 3 km of verticals(!), but it is effectively pure Euclidean space, and most of all, shows an extremely rigid underlying geometry of space, which embeds the material around in resonant patterns.
Can general relativity account for this perfectly rigid un-curved space next to a massive body?]]

In my system the differing values of Pi could actually be the measure of space curvature, which will show in the specific number use and geometric place a measured value takes between two or more mathematically fixed standard values.

Pi=sphere, Pi^2=torus 

This system is built on two different incompatible approximate values for Pi and on for Pi-squared (²), all are rational numbers, which are based on contraction of the radius as we would expect in a vortex. Pi is for the sphere (axial rotation circle), Pi-squared for the (horn-)torus (tangential rotation circle). So because of the contraction of space they are slightly bigger than Pi, but only in the thousandths, as always in this system. (Canonical Pi = 3.14159265… squared = 9.86960440..):

Pi- Sphere (7) = 22/7 = 3.142857 142.. sqrd=9.8775510..

Pi- Sphere(11) = 2800/891 = 3.14253647.. sqrd=9.8755355..

Pi- Torus = 800/81 = 3.14269680.. (sqrt = 9.87654321)

Pi- Cube = 359/198  or 360/198  x  sqrt(3)  = 3.14 0 43…. smaller   or  3.14 9 18…. bigger than Pi.

We remenber that the circle formula is 2..r

the formula for the surface of a sphere is 4..r²

the formula for the surface of a horn-torus is 4.².r²

(note this is the square of the circle 2..r )

the formula for the volume of a horn-torus is 2.².r³

(note that the last formula is identical to Einstein’s formula for Riemann’s spherical space (4th dimension) which, thus, turns out to be a horn-torus volume).

These formulas are the core of these geometries and in this system the ‘vortex- or horn-torus’ is named ‘corus‘, as a contraction of ‘core’ (-point), ‘compact’ and ‘torus’, it figures prominently in the model.

This is what it seems all about: the secret versatility of the torus. (on internet the transformations of tori are ‘mindboggling’.

The torus

The mathematical torus is among my most valued tools and in relation to the sphere it is the heart of the cosmological model I present in these pages. The torus (ring) incorporates the important ratio 10:9, in my system, which is the crucial ratio in the natural number logic on which the ‘geometry of resonance’ is based and which, as I have shown, pervades the solar system (see Solar system resonances).

As Huygens laid down the patterns of light waves, I hope to lay down here the patterns of the ‘inertial’ waves of the reflection fields which we find in the ring-systems. It are essentially these emission wave-fields of the giant bodies which form the pressure of the deep-field. All the visible and invisible heavenly bodies produce together in resonance this all pervading pressure-field, which seems to increase with ever smaller dimensions. The shorter the wavelength, the more momentum it carries, the higher the pressure. That we don’t feel that pressure is the same as that we don’t feel the atmospheric pressure around us which is dramatically shown in the famous Magdeburger Hemispheres, where two span of 8 horses could not pull apart two vacuous hemispheres of 50 cm diameter. That is the pressure we live in without feeling it, believe me, there are higher pressures we don’t feel.


Two span of 8 horses cannot pull the vacuum spheres apart

That an electromagnetic field carries momentum and thus has considerable inertia seems overlooked (Dark Matter) by scientists, because of the ‘Nothingness’ of ’empty space’, and the wave without a medium, all huge fallacies. (In Wikipedia on Relativity ‘ether’ is now equal to ‘nothingness’, it’s ludicrous)


The essence of a wave is its ‘momentum’, that is: ‘velocity times mass’, the amount of energy it carries, and this can only be carried by a medium which provides the mass for the energy to be carried. In fact electromagnetic fields carry momentum, are momentum. Waves are momentum, because they move a medium, stir other things. The higher the wave the more mass it carries, this is the volume and energy of its momentum, still the substance remains in the same place, so the wave has no ‘eigen-substance’.

The wave has no self-substance

Just imagine a wave rolling to the beach, its momentum is just as big as the volume of water it is able to move, this hangs initially together with the force of the wind, but even when the wind is gone the waves still carry its momentum, it is kind of stored in the volume of moving water. But now be attentive, because this is the crucial thing: the wave moves the seawater only up and down , it does not take the water with it, neither does it take you when you are in there as you know (except in the breaker, the collapse of the wave), what goes through you as feeling of the passing wave is the up and down, the wave uses the water, and you in there, to carry its momentum, but it has no ‘eigen-substance’ (self-substance), the wave is the momentum carried by the medium, it is the resistance (inertia) against the push of the gaseous wind over the liquid water, because there must be a medium to carry momentum, the medium ‘materializes’ the wave, by carrying it as momentum. If we understand this thoroughly we can also see that any ‘object’ is just a bundle of waves carried by the deep-field and that no object has an ‘Eigen-substance’, which is the centre of my argument. We are only waves, we have no ‘own’ substance, our substance is ‘space’, ’emptiness’. (just close your eyes and look inside your head, all matter-space, myriads of lighting pixalls, very very small, the smallest you can ever see).

Energy sustains space

All the energy which is radiated out in space is needed for the very sustenance of space, because the space-pixalls need to be fed to keep their wave fields intact, otherwise space itself collapses as in the black hole, a border point of space, which eventually absorbs an old star or galaxy, as it ‘dies’.
Space is internally bordered by the essence of matter, a vortex obscuring the pure light, the zero-dimension. Every object is, after all, a border point of free space, it occupies space and gives it an ‘inside’; but where is ‘your inside’? all that ‘matter’ of yours, where is it located; without looking around, you would have no idea.

You can see our 3-D world is the inside of a horn-torus (below) and we walk on the contracted inside surface of that torus, thinking we walk on the surface of a solid sphere below us. Every point in our space is like the border point of the zero-dimension which pervades everything but has no dimension. The pure light sparkles in every point of space, we are made of light, if only we would see.

Geometry of universe and space-pixall

The best way to visualise this border point of our space is by imagining, that the volume of space is only bordered by ‘matter’, that we see space as totally surrounding objects, is the problem, because so to speak there is no other side to the centre of the world, so when you pull this sphere we imagine inside out (more or less like a glove), we get the horn-torus.
This dynamic between the geometry of sphere and horn- or vortex-torus is in my view the essence of the geometry of space and transmission of energy

the volume of a ‘corus’ (horn-torus, 2.².r³, Einstein’s 4th dimension !) as our universe, this universe is bordered by one point in the centre and it is this one point, in every point of space, which keeps us unaware of the ‘dimensionless pure light’ which surrounds us and connects us because it is One in every point of space. The space-pixall is hiding the ‘pure light’ in its heart, the pure light is all pervading emptiness itself, the zero-dimension, like the white of the page around the pictured torus and the blackness of the centre zero-point.(above). Every surface of our our everyday world is the surface on the inside of the horn-torus and around it the emptiness of the zero-dimension of pure light.

Entanglement (2-8-20)
With this universal connecting zero-dimension in every point of space we have the ideal model for the immediacy of entanglement. Entanglement occurs outside the electromagnetic field, that is why it is not subject to the speed of that field. De zero-dimension is outside space as border-point (zero-point), it knows no change (time, speed), it is the mathematical framework Information) that everything is subject to, exists by. But because the zero-dimension is in every pixall of space, it is pervading space at the same time. Because the zero-dimension (pure light) is everywhere at the same time there is no time. The idea that light has a speed is nonsense every photon is a ‘flash’ of aligned deep-field, like a wave lifts up the water surface, the photon is a (bundle of) excited space pixall(s) but does not move itself, it excites its neighbour on the pixall-string (ray of light), the deep-field does not move apart from vibrating.

Since all energy and matter are an excitement of the cosmic deep-field, there is no eigen-substance. There does not exist an individual photon, it is a cluster of excited space pixalls constituting a physical pattern of the deep-field. All elementary particles, are clusters of great numbers of excited space pixalls, in a mathematical order, which may spread out in space and contract when the central ray is disturbed.

I see the double slit as follows.
the moment the photon leaves the device an immediate ray of pixalls is aligned in the geometry of the deep-field and this beam of aligned pixalls is stopped by the screen, this trajectory is fixed in the memory of space and subsequently all the aligned pixalls fire one after the other, this takes time and goes by the speed of the carrier field 300000km/sec., but the photon is probably not one but many excited pixalls at he same time, which travels as a blob through the fabric of the pixall-field, when it is disturbed, otherwise it spreads out being carried by many pixalls surrounding the central beam fixed in the memory of space. When you place a detector it damages the original geometry of the trajectory.
As soon as the two slits are opened the interference pattern is etched in the deep-field memory and its geometry, because myriads of fields go through the slits, not only the ones we can see, gentlemen, when a detector is placed the natural order is immediately destroyed, so the photon cannot spread because its central beam is disturbed and it concentrates its energy to sustain the central beam and push through the disturbed field.
the same holds for photon by photon spreading and the wave pattern emerging, one by one they follow the pattern of the wavefield etched in the deep-field immediately at first appearance of a source, and when the pulse has travelled along the beam, the beam will disappear, so they will never go to the same place on the screen again, a ray so to speak erases the initial instant memory of its trajectory.
(This present misconception about vacuum makes that they overlook that space is absolutely saturated by wave fields penetrating everything, these are fields so much more basic than a just produced photonic pulse, that they dominate what happens with the field, the whole detector is part of the deepfield there is no separation there anymore between space and matter, it’s all the same taste, it’s only densities of vibration.
It could  be that the photon operates on a deeper level than the complete atoms of the detector so that the photon wave in the natural state without extra detector field, will wave through the detector impervious of its substance. This is of course possible in this model because particles have no eigen-substance, they are empty forms sustained by the substance of the deepfield, the sea of pixalls.




I will use the model of the torus surface to explain the contraction and expansion of space in a steady state model of the universe. In my model the whole universe is a torus, but not necessarily like the one below.

Universe as primordial cosmic wheel

The surface of the torus is the answer to the question of the expansion of space. Three quarters of the ‘corus’ surface is convex , means: in a state of expansion and one quarter is concave means: in a state of contraction; but nothing moves, it is just a state of space in which the geodesics contract and expand, which, when wrongly interpreted, gives the idea of seemingly expanding space, where only the fabric of space is changing as the deep-field density and the permittivity-speed of the field (red shifts).

Concept gravity wrong

My analysis of the solar system (see: Solar system resonances) shows the prevailing concept of gravity must be wrong because it cannot explain that the 9-fold dominates the orbital resonances of the system, but crucially that the ratios of the masses of the planets themselves are also in that 9-fold resonance. This whole concept of resonance is alien to science when it comes to gravity, because gravity is, notwithstanding Einstein’s geometry, still seen as a ‘force’, whereas in fact it emerges as the lack of something, that is, lack of counter-pressure.

In my approach gravity is the effect of the ‘lee-field’ of an object and this ‘lee-field’ of any massive object creates a ‘depression’ and ‘contraction’ respectively in the pressure and the density of the cosmic deep-field. The lee-field of an object is thus a depression in the general field, because each object absorbs pressure by rotation and so shields its vicinity from general cosmic field-pressure, at the same time it structures this spherical lee-field geometrically by a partly toroidal ‘reflection-field’ with high resonance, which results in an equatorial standing wave-field, as we see it in the ring-fields around, especially, Saturn, showing extreme rigidity in its equatorial plane (1km thick over 280,000km diameter) but also other planets and of course the Solar System centred on the sun itself.


Since the deep-field pressure ‘hits’ every object spherically the object transforms this impact through rotation by creating a toroidal transverse reflection field. It is not so difficult to associate the outward-rolling torus as the essence of the momentum of the wave. When energies collide in a point, they create a border-point of space from which energy bounces back, this energy is the torus geometry, sphere and torus are the essence of the transformation of space. The torus just does not play a fundamental part in science’s picture, most scientists don’t know the formula for a torus by heart (try it!, they’ll tell you they can derive it) whereas in my picture it is the essence of the spindle-torus as geometry of rotation as we see it in the equatorial bulge of inertia of a rotating body, like stars and planets (Saturn -> 10:9= equ:pol).

A nuclear explosion is in fact local destruction of the deep-field, the gigantic pressure in every point of space is unleashed by the destruction of the space-pixalls constituting the nuclei taking part in the fission. So the space-pixall turns inside out and dissolves in a gigantic release of pressure. This explosion has a toroidal shape.

The most dramatic natural example of a giant explosion showing toroidal vacuum at the very centre is the meteorite that exploded in 1908 over Tunguska in Siberia at several hundred metres height in the atmosphere. At the epicentre of the blast all trees were still standing, stripped, but upright, no side-ward pressure, but in a ring around it the damage is still visible today, a hundred years on, the red ring shows the torus of destruction. (Scientists have no explanation for this torus-phenomenon, though also at the epicentre of the Hiroshima bomb the memorial building is still standing)


Tunguska, 1908-2009


The idea here is that the geometry of the reflection field, the transformation of spherical incoming wave-fields into transverse toroidal outgoing wave-fields is possibly the most fundamental mechanism in ‘space dynamics’ and forthwith in nature and determines the reflection-field of the object and its emerging inertial field.

We have to appreciate that every object is extended in the deep-field far beyond its appearance (with a sharp enough lens you are visible from space) this is its (your) reflection field, the beginning of which may show in the aura. It is a standing wave field, which is at the same time an inertial field as ‘con-firmation’ of the deep-field, it adds to the stability (inertia) of the whole. So every aspect of the transformation sustains the whole as an organic process and this is also reflected in the energy equilibrium like the cosmic micro wave background radiation (CMBR) at 2.73 degrees Kelvin, 1/100 of melting ice at 273 degrees K (1 + 99)( but coincidence, of course).

In my approach we see the cosmos as a self-contained integrated whole in which every aspect has, or reflects, a function. In the BigBang cosmology though everything runs in separate categories from a contingent beginning to a fading end, like an old fashioned alarm-clock unwinding its spring and ‘freezing in silence’. Instead my perceived cosmos is preferably cyclical, continuous and only locally entropic whereas the Big-Bang universe is blind and contingent, our universe ‘sees’ and has ‘purpose’, even if only it were to preserve ‘continuity’, but most of all our cosmos is ‘intelligent’ and ‘formative’. We see logic everywhere in nature, a logic of harmony and of beauty, a logic of economy, of how everything is recycled, nothing is wasted.

How nothing gets lost, until completed. (Law of Karma).

Cosmic Deep-field (Urfield)

The imperturbable rest of the deep-field is the basis of uniform motion, as in waves, and as is manifest in the electromagnetic fields which all have the same local speed depending on the condition (curvature) of local space. The uniform inertial motion of any object is the objects natural resonance with the deep-field, it is embedded in the motion of the field, because it is made of it. As soon as outside pressure is applied, the deep-field resists change by slowness, inertia. Inertia is in that sense the ‘stretching of time’, it is ‘slowing-motion’. But it is also the transfer of energy by increasing momentum of the object through increase of excited pixalls involved in the movement at any one moment. The higher the speed of an object, the stronger the inertial field by increasing numbers of space pixalls being involved at the same time, the higher the wind the higher the waves, thus increasing the ‘substance’ and thus the momentum.

Momentum is stored in the deep-field as the momentum of an ocean wave is stored in its movement, the more volume the wave has, the bigger its momentum and still the water (the medium) does not move, but up and down, in a cycle, the wave has no eigen-substance, is only momentum, movement of energy.


This is why momentum can be transferred in ‘entrainment’ (Huygens), (transfer of momentum and phase through space) because there is a medium; how could it be transferred through ’empty space’, this is a crucial argument for an ether

Lorentz commenting on Einsteins ‘absolute relativity’ wrote: “I cannot but regard the ether, which can be the seat of an electromagnetic field with its energy and its vibrations, as endowed with a certain degree of substantiality, however different it may be from all ordinary matter.” (Lorentz, 1906)

This is the Cartesian view, which was held by most scientists, who nearly all presupposed an ether to explain the fact that space can transmit a force and waves of light. Newton even stated that no one in his right mind could entertain the idea that force could be transmitted through empty space. (e.m.-waves without a medium is the fatal conceptual flaw of modern physics).

Here it is important to see that in our approach matter is an ‘excitation’ of the deep-field and that we have always to consider in physics the paradox of the moving form through the ‘unmoving’ medium. The substance of the form is anchored, at rest, in the deep-field, this is its inertia, this is why the electro-magnetic field speed (light) is always constant relative to the object. Its substance does not move relative to the waves of the EM-field. How could it, it is made of these waves. This is the puzzling paradox of a body’s substance at rest in the same frame of reference as in which its shape is moving, just like the moving shapes on an immobile pixel-screen.

No Space-time

This is a different approach from the Minkowski-Einstein explanation with regard to curvature of space-time, but it confirms that in a profound sense we are at rest in the deep-field, because it is the stuff we are made of; this is quite different from Einstein’s insistence on an inertial frame for every individual thing, which could be easily related to my idea of ‘inertial fields’.
The ‘separate thing’ does not exist in the deep-field, it is like the volume of a wave, the momentum, it has no ‘eigen-substance’. I am often very close to Einstein’s insights, because he became aware that general relativity cannot do without a medium, but was not listened to anymore in that respect, all too happy as scientists were to have gotten rid of that persistent antique concept of intangible ‘aether’. The problem they still haven’t solved.

All objects will move in the direction of least resistance in the deep-field, because of the omnipresent cosmic pressure-front of cosmic radiation, generated by the energy fields of the galaxies, neutron stars etc, so bodies will move in the direction of each others ‘lee-field’. The push of the cosmic pressure field, which secures uniform motion in the neutral deep-field, causes the acceleration in the lee-field of the object, the closer to the object the less the resistance of the counter-pressure from that direction, which falls off with the square (surface: r^2) of the distance (radius: r), and the higher the acceleration, even though the pressure of the general deep-field does not change. (It is G and very weak).
So ‘gravity’ (heaviness) is more caused by a lack of force rather than an act of force, but it is in fact an imbalance in the cosmic pressure field. This imbalance shows in the ‘curvatures’ of the ‘elastic’ deep-field, but is better expressed as local contraction or expansion of space, where the strength of the inertia in the deep-field, the permittivity of the medium, decides over the speed of a process. So with a proper use of the term inertia as the origin of a time-frame, we can probably make the concept of time in physics obsolete and have a definition of inertial space. QED.

((The ‘proof of relativity in GPS’ is due to the difference in ‘gravity’ on earth and in outer space, that is: the intensity of the lee-field, the state of the deep-field; no ‘time’-dilation, it is deep-field-dilation))

The major and decisive difference between my model and the Bigbang is, that mine shows cyclical (rhythmic) and continuous order (‘permanent creation’), whereas the BigBang is a sudden origin out of nowhere, with no mention of order, no explanation of what is now (as order), but winding down eventually into disorder (entropy, linear time). So they know everything of the beginning and of the end, but cannot connect it to the world we live in. It is maybe misplaced to call that ‘cosmology’, it’s just theoretical astrophysics groping in the dark.

Whereas scientists are again and again baffled by the subtle order of the processes in Nature, this bewilderment originates in their ignorance of the cyclical and objectively ‘intelligent’ character of the Universe and Nature as a whole, because of harmonics. Cosmos means order, Chaos means disorder. Overall we see order, not chaos, chaos is at the lower and individual levels and in the struggle for life, cosmos is when you look up to the night sky, a huge silent order.

Stone Age people may have known this and seen the deep harmony of the cosmos which they sought to express in the mathematically harmonic designs of their ‘megalithic works’, their ‘cosmic architecture’, which appear to hold the principles of resonance.

Stars and Black Holes.

What is interesting about the mathematical approach is that ‘mass’ is ignored and everything centers on what happens to points in space and their connections. This makes it immediately related to my model of space-pixalls and the mathematical foundation of reality. Riemann used the term ‘Stoff’ (dust, stuff) for the (liquid) aether which he presupposed, take note that Riemann thought in a. ‘granular’ (Stoff) sense. [the liquidity of dust, the vortex of the hourglass, this is the mechanics of space (-pixalls), stretched in time, the black hole as the vortex of a galaxy].

The black hole cools the cosmos as the galaxy heats it up, it is equilibrium in a process of regeneration (the black hole devours as much energy as the supernova it is the complement of. There is no conservation of energy, it is a constant stream of renewal in equilibrium with decay, but, yes, very big cycles.

We tend to see it as ‘conservation’, but it may be a wrong principle in general, it disregards the renewal factor, which enables the ‘permanent creation’, that I propose.
The Second Law is more an aspect of local decay, not a deterministic overall law, I intuit. We see in this black hole geometry the vortex, which has the dynamics of a (vortex-) torus, perpendicular circling creating the abyss, the cyclone. In this way it is surmised that the curvature of space by the vortex draw, inhibits the vision of the pure light that is behind it in the zero-dimension.
You could say that the neutrinos that the stars emit are carriers of the zero-dimension geometry that pervades all. They are the kernels of pure light and energize everything they pass through, they are the “ch’i ” that pervades everything and sustains the fabric of space. We see in this cosmology the stars and other energy-sources are part of the sustainance of the fabric of space. In this view it are the space-pixalls that are the constituant fields of space at Planck length.

The cyclone is an awesomely visible vortex  and resembles pictures of many galaxies, where we see the same whirl in the distribution of stars.

Cyclone is like galaxy

It is similar to magnetic field lines towards a negative pole. The black hole is a 4-D monopole. It is interesting in this respect that the amount of entropy which is supposed to be in the spherical black hole is 1/4 of its surface area. Nobody mentions that this means a reduction of 1 dimension since the spherical surface as border of 3-D space gets as ‘information’ compressed into a flat one-sided 2-D circle area, from 4..r² to ᴨ.r², since the spherical surface is 4 times the great circle area = 4..r².

In my view this implies the black hole is not spherical but a one-sided flat disc, so to speak, a monopole, the border and door to the zero-dimension beyond it, the border-vortex of 3-D space, opening to the zero-dimension. It seems to me this 1/4 reduction is rather important but nobody seems to notice it. It could also signify the 1/4 concave surface of the horn-torus. The cyclone has definitely a toroid geometry and creates a vortex between counterstreams in the deepfield
Space is limited on the inside by the zero-dimension, so a sphere becomes a one-sided circle surface with respect to the zero-dimension. The earth has no centre, no signals can penetrate it through the heart, they all bounce off because there is no other side to the centre, it is outside 3-D space, it is the zero-point as border-point of space.(Look at the ‘corus’ again) We see here, with some mindgymanstics, that we can imagine an imprenetable state with no dimension, which never the less pervades all.
I call it the zero-dimension of pure light, here is the source of all energy as it manifests in the world. All is made of light in a certain state of resonance, neutrinos may be the ashes of the pure light, ignited by excitement, feeding into the medium of space, giving it ‘body’.
What I try to describe is the mechanism of ‘permanent creation’

Vortex- or Horn-torus or short, Corus

Here the importance of the torus-geometry and especially the vortex-torus becomes apparent now. What makes the vortex-torus unique as mathematical form is that on the one hand its surface area is bounded by one single center-point and on the other it is also expressable in a 2-D square. These two unique properties give it a special relation to the sphere which properly speaking is also a unique moment in the torus-geometry and in the transformation of space.
In my conception of the geometry and dynamics of space the torus is pivotal, because it is the frozen geometry of rotation and ‘eigen-field’ and its surface curvature expresses the contraction and expansion of space in a steady state, it creates particulars .
The sphere is the global centre, a place of contraction and rest, the torus is a double perpendicularly rotational expansion in action, it is  a particular.
Although stars and planets look spherical they are due to their rotation flattened and bulging and consequently in my system spindle-tori (Saturn 9:10).
This rotation is also the origin of the waves it causes in its surroundings which are then carried by the deep-field and form a reflection field which is at the same time the ‘lee-field’ of an object. Saturn displays the 10:9 ratio dynamic in a dramatic way.
It is the ‘pressure-gravity’ emerging in the depression of the deep-field, because of the ambient ‘lee’ around any object, which absorbs and keeps everything rotating. The rotation absorbs the pressure and emits this energy as waves by which it shapes the geometry of the deep-field in its vicinity. So the objection of (over-)heating by absorption, which is held against this model is not valid, (Lorentz himself abandoned his own idea for this, unfortunately) because the absorbed energy is transformed into reflection wave-fields, which indeed affect the geometry of inertial space. These are the most fundamental of fields, here the interaction of mass energy and space energy create inertial field, there is an immediate complementary relation between mass and ambient space. This is the quantum description of ‘gravity’.

The idea is that there is this constant flux of energy which brings the antagonistic, complementary and constructive fields into being, these are mathematical necessities.
So we have this object that is an excitation of the underlying deepfield, this object by its very being made of the same substance as space, is a disturbance of space with a disturbed ( really curved) ‘lee-field’ surrrounding it, but it is all the same substance only the density varies. It is all one substance at the smallest levels and is is fluid.


More on this subject you will find in the chapters under the heading ‘Cosmology’