1) I couldn’t find your review “Stonehenge a giant graveyard? Bullocks”. It is a little confusing as to whether this review is published on your site, or whether it will be published. Could you please confirm its status.
2) I noted that one link I clicked on returned a page requiring a password for access. I couldn’t find how one gets a password and whether one password enables access to all such links (if there are others).
For your information, I have been researching Stonehenge science and similar at other sites (as a serious amateur archaeoastronomer) for many years but have not as yet published, although my first report will be published in the not too distant future.
Before I even became interested in archaeoastronomy, I designed my own method for finding Pi as 355/113, which any school child can determine in less than ten minutes, once they have a basic knolwedge of numbers. The same method finds sq.rt of 2 as 239/169. Mathematicians that I have spoken to seem unimpressed with such a simple procedure. They appear to be interested only in the more complicated ways of estimating it, and delight in, for example, referring to people like Zu Chongzhi and his method. in short they seem to be “blinkered” to complexity rather than intuitive simplicity!
More importantly, I came to the conclusion that one key aspect of late Neolithic / Bronze Age geometry and metrology involved coupling the circle with a square, where the sides of the square had a value of 9. You remain the only person I know (on the Internet) who, for different reasons, argues that construction and also argues the Roman Foot as a key quantum. Likewise, I spent much time delving into Ramanujan and his simplest estimate which includes the values 4412 and 9801, is much more than just involving the square of 99. The latter of course is key to the sq.rt of 2 being represented as either 140/99 or 99/70 (the 70 being a factor of 2, i.e. 140/2). I had also found these fractions in obscure places prior to finding your site. Having said that, much of what I have read on your site does appear to be original, although I think there are very close lines of thinking, and number crunching, elsewhwere.
Time will tell as to who can claim copyright, when ideas and hypotheses come to publication. Personally, I believe there is a much bigger challenge, and that is the “collective” one of alternative, lateral thinkers convincing academia of the veracity of their hypotheses and the need to change the current accepted paradigm of the capabilities of our neolithic ancesters!
Best wishes and good luck with the evolution of your work,
Hello Yan
1) I couldn’t find your review “Stonehenge a giant graveyard? Bullocks”. It is a little confusing as to whether this review is published on your site, or whether it will be published. Could you please confirm its status.
2) I noted that one link I clicked on returned a page requiring a password for access. I couldn’t find how one gets a password and whether one password enables access to all such links (if there are others).
For your information, I have been researching Stonehenge science and similar at other sites (as a serious amateur archaeoastronomer) for many years but have not as yet published, although my first report will be published in the not too distant future.
Before I even became interested in archaeoastronomy, I designed my own method for finding Pi as 355/113, which any school child can determine in less than ten minutes, once they have a basic knolwedge of numbers. The same method finds sq.rt of 2 as 239/169. Mathematicians that I have spoken to seem unimpressed with such a simple procedure. They appear to be interested only in the more complicated ways of estimating it, and delight in, for example, referring to people like Zu Chongzhi and his method. in short they seem to be “blinkered” to complexity rather than intuitive simplicity!
More importantly, I came to the conclusion that one key aspect of late Neolithic / Bronze Age geometry and metrology involved coupling the circle with a square, where the sides of the square had a value of 9. You remain the only person I know (on the Internet) who, for different reasons, argues that construction and also argues the Roman Foot as a key quantum. Likewise, I spent much time delving into Ramanujan and his simplest estimate which includes the values 4412 and 9801, is much more than just involving the square of 99. The latter of course is key to the sq.rt of 2 being represented as either 140/99 or 99/70 (the 70 being a factor of 2, i.e. 140/2). I had also found these fractions in obscure places prior to finding your site. Having said that, much of what I have read on your site does appear to be original, although I think there are very close lines of thinking, and number crunching, elsewhwere.
Time will tell as to who can claim copyright, when ideas and hypotheses come to publication. Personally, I believe there is a much bigger challenge, and that is the “collective” one of alternative, lateral thinkers convincing academia of the veracity of their hypotheses and the need to change the current accepted paradigm of the capabilities of our neolithic ancesters!
Best wishes and good luck with the evolution of your work,
Richard