Mysteries :  The Official forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Flinders Petrie measured the Sarsen circle to the inside edge of the each stone: 1167.9 ± 0.7 diameter He believed this indicated a diameter of 100 Roman feet, because he had found 11.68 imperial inches was a length the Romans had used in Britain. Flinders Petrie did not believe the Romans had constructed Stonehenge but he was of the view the Roman measure was ancient. He wrote ‘Not that this shows Stonehenge to be post-Roman, as the unit was the great Etrurian and Cyclopean unit, unit derived from Egypt, and it may have been introduced at any date into Britain’ (p23).

There is an interesting coincidence with Flinders Petrie’s diameter of 1168 imperial inches. If his diameter of 1168 imperial inches is multiplied by the Babylonian value for pi (3.125), then the circumference of the Sarsen circle equals 3650 imperial inches—an interesting coincidence with the number 365. Gerald Hawkins (1989) says ‘The Sarsen circle diameter is 99 feet, 1 inch, measured at the center of the stones’ (p52). So here is another estimate for the diameter of the Sarsen circle, and a remarkable result: 99 imperial feet = 90 Saxon feet Here, a 90 Saxon feet diameter gives a circumference of nearly twice the square root of two; that is 1.414213 × 2 = 2.82842, more closely when the approximate for pi of 22/7 is used: 90 Saxon feet × 22/7 = 282.857 Saxon feet.

Also interesting is the length of a square constructed about this circle with a diameter of 90 Saxon feet. The perimeter measures 360 Saxon feet.
The Stonehenge–Sarsen circle Figure 5 represents the Sarsen circle at Stonehenge. I have drawn a square around it to emphasise the coincidence that the length of the perimeter of a square surrounding the Sarsen circle = 360 Saxon feet or the number 360 of degrees in a circle.

Another important cycle of time may also be observed within the boundaries of the Sarsen circle. This is the Saros, a cycle of 6585.321 days. This cycle is used to predict eclipses. The diameter of a circle with an area of 6585.321 square Saxon feet = 91.56 Saxon feet (1208.6 imperial inches). By coincidence, this also falls within the boundaries of the Sarsen circle. For interest look at the diameter it is actually 91.56795898 now if we said it is the number of the volume of the GP.

91,567,958 cubic find the base of the pyramid / 481 = 190,369 x 3 = 571,109 square root = 755.718.

The outer bluestone circle Flinders Petrie wrote ‘the outer bluestones ... may be anything between 900 and 920 diameter, owing to the curved faces of the stones’ (p 22). Here I started with the mean of 910 imperial inches and converted to Saxon feet (68.939 Saxon feet) and found the circumference to be 216.579 Saxon feet

The number 216 is known as a sacred number, because 2160 years is very close to one-twelfth of the time needed to complete the precession of the equinoxes’ 25 920 years. The number 2160 is found as a circle inscribed in the base of the Great Pyramid at Giza and therefore the diameter of the outer bluestone circle is one-tenth of the base of the Great Pyramid. There are 687.07 Saxon feet (9069.324 imperial inches, 755.77 imperial feet) in the mean length of the base of the pyramid. Flinders Petrie wrote that the outer bluestone circle contained 44 stones. This is interesting, because 68.75 Saxon feet = 44 royal cubits. Therefore, the diameter is 44 royal cubits.

David have a think about this next measure 472.7 and think 472.5 / 12 = 39.375 Stevens no and a radius of the earth in miles.

The inner bluestone circle Flinders Petrie gives an accurate measure for the inner bluestone circle: ‘The inner bluestones 472.7 ± 0.5 inches diameter’ (p23). This measure also appears to be the inner edge of the circle: 472.7 × π = 1485.03 imperial inches, 123.75 imperial feet and 112.502 Saxon feet for the circumference of this circle.

It may be of interest to study the measure used here and apply it to other circles. The circumference of the inner bluestone circle is 123.75 imperial feet. The old measure can be converted to digits, feet, royal cubits to start: 123.75 imperial feet = 112.5 Saxon feet In turn, this can be converted to digits by multiplying by 16, because there are 16 digits in a foot. Therefore, 112.5 Saxon feet × 16 = 1800 digits. Then it can be converted to royal cubits by dividing the digits by 25, because there are 25 digits in a royal cubit: 1800 ÷ 25 = 72 royal cubits.

Moving a little bit further, the architect used an approximate for pi (3.125) to obtain an even number for the diameter of the bluestone circle, and a sacred number at that. The diameter of 35.808 Saxon feet is almost 36 Saxon feet. If the approximate value for pi (the Babylonian value three and of 3⅛, or 3.125) is used, then 36 Saxon feet × 3.125 = 112.5 Saxon feet. This is the circumference of the inner bluestone circle.


Options: ReplyQuote

Subject Views Written By Posted
Aubrey circle and Sarsens. A Link 891 673 molder 16-Jul-18 23:03
Re: Aubrey circle and Sarsens. A Link 891 201 DavidK 17-Jul-18 05:16
Re: Aubrey circle and Sarsens. A Link 891 180 molder 17-Jul-18 08:10
Re: Aubrey circle and Sarsens. A Link 891 137 DavidK 17-Jul-18 08:35
Re: Aubrey circle and Sarsens. A Link 891 213 Manu 17-Jul-18 06:03
Re: Aubrey circle and Sarsens. A Link 891 165 DavidK 17-Jul-18 07:26
Re: Aubrey circle and Sarsens. A Link 891 242 DavidK 17-Jul-18 10:01
Re: Aubrey circle and Sarsens. A Link 891 207 Manu 17-Jul-18 17:41
Re: Aubrey circle and Sarsens. A Link 891 154 molder 17-Jul-18 22:06
Re: Aubrey circle and Sarsens. A Link 891 167 DavidK 17-Jul-18 22:16
Re: Aubrey circle and Sarsens. A Link 891 127 Manu 17-Jul-18 22:19
Re: Aubrey circle and Sarsens. A Link 891 131 DavidK 17-Jul-18 22:35
Re: Aubrey circle and Sarsens. A Link 891 147 Manu 17-Jul-18 22:44
Re: Aubrey circle and Sarsens. A Link 891 173 DavidK 17-Jul-18 22:49
Re:Coincidences Stonehenge 194 molder 18-Jul-18 02:03
Re: Re:Coincidences Stonehenge 285 DavidK 18-Jul-18 10:02

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.