tiompan
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 06, 2016, 23:12
|
I am giving you data , if it is wrong point it out , just as I am showing where Michell was wrong .
Nearly all the grid refs are wrong , some to a great extent , e.g. 1000 yards and six miles , it fits in with all the other problems related to the methodology that have been avoided as it is old hat . Maybe we should discuss them .
If the fault lay with the publisher why didn't the author pick up on it ?
Of course the type of bearing makes a difference . I realise Michell was no astronomer but he should have realised that you don''t use grid north for astro calc .He should have realised that the bearing to the bs is actually 65 degrees and not on the line of the cross quarter day sunrise .
I keep asking you to tell me what is misleading , you never reply , just repeat the term .
A round field is not a dolmen , menhir or stone circle . The men an tol "alignment "1 has only one feature that fits the criteria mentioned by Michell .
The boundary stone does not fit that bill either and can't even be seen from the monument .If the point where the sun would be seen on the horizon is extended towards the stone the bs proves to be 132 yards out .
|
Andy Norfolk
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 07, 2016, 11:12
|
If you correct John Michell's grid bearing of 66.5 degrees to a true north bearing it comes out as 69.23 degrees which is very close indeed to the 69.36 degrees that I calculated.
And in case you, or anyone else is interested in order to calculate azimuth from declination the following formula was used: cos(azimuth) = (sin(declination) (sin(latitude) x sin(altitude)))/ (cos(latitude) x cos(altitude)).
|
tiompan
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 07, 2016, 11:33
|
If you want to represent the cross quarter day sunrise on a map you would draw a line showing that azimuth at 68 degrees not the 66.5 which he did draw .The “ley line” is not on the same bearing as the sunrise but it is made to appear as being “significant “in the text , when it isn’t . He tried to suggest the two were the same , they weren't .
Yes I know the various formulae thanks , and that is why I pointed out that the actual bearing for the cross quarter day sunrise seen from Men an Tol is 68 degrees.
|
Andy Norfolk
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 07, 2016, 11:40
|
Did you allow for the relative height of the horizon? No? Thought not.
Whatever...
|
cerrig
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 07, 2016, 11:58
|
|
Make the most of it George.
|
cerrig
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 07, 2016, 12:00
|
|
Remember what exactly George ?
|
Andy Norfolk
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 07, 2016, 12:02
|
|
If you look you'll find that there is an oval mound and related enclosure where John Michell refers to a round field. Is there any conceivable reason why he shouldn't have mentioned it? I cannot think of any logical reason to do so.
|
tiompan
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 07, 2016, 12:51
|
|
Andy Norfolk wrote: Did you allow for the relative height of the horizon? No? Thought not.
Whatever...
Thought wrong ,again .
Of course I didn't use the relative height of the horzon .I used the actual altitude .
|
tiompan
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 07, 2016, 12:52
|
|
The content of the link .
|
tiompan
|
Re: John Michell lecture
May 07, 2016, 12:52
|
|
Plenty more where that came from .
|
