Tom
Do you know many scientists or engineers?

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: fostertom</cite>Not at all - scientists and engineers frequently claim to be uniquely above all that, because of their open, enquiring 'scientific' minds and methods that they're trained for, unlike mere humans. Scientists and engineers are notorious for hiding behind mountains of burden of proof, that they require before they'll even look at something wacky. Not all, just the humanly conservative ones, who deep down feel uncomfortable, like the rest of us, when the boat gets rocked too much. It's a specially effective means of defence, that only scientists and engineers have access to, if they're so minded, which they often are - ridiculous to deny that.</blockquote>

Cobblers!

I've worked in science all my working life, pretty much. All the practical, working, scientists I've met and worked with have been very curious about the world we live in, and have generally been the generators of more "wacky" ideas than any other group I know of. Science progresses by coming up with an hypothesis and then testing it through experiment. Without all the original (and sometimes wacky) hypotheses we would never come up with any innovation.

Some examples of wacky ideas from the bit of government I worked in might be in order. Around 30 years ago one of my colleagues came up with the idea of using explosives as armour plate (how wacky is that?) The idea proved revolutionary and allowed light tanks to be built with very good (some would say the best) armour system currently available. Another one. Lightweight vehicles were being blown up in Afghanistan and Iraq by RPGs fired by insurgents. Heavy armoured vehicles couldn't patrol in the narrow streets. Another colleague came up with the idea of bar armour, essentially a screen of steel bars spaced away from the vehicle that allows RPGs to detonate far enough away from the vehicle skin as to not cause internal blast damage.

Your view of scientists might apply to a tiny percentage of academics that are so detached from the real world as to have lost any purpose, but doesn't apply to the many thousands who are innovating and experimenting away, often out of the public gaze.

Posted By: jonethical treatment of embodied carbon

Do we have to be nice to Carbon now, it is so diverse

Tom
I want to keep this light hearted, and on this occasion I shall keep a very open mind,
Could you explain what Earth Energy Lines are, what they do and is the term 'Energy' used in the scientific sense?

One of the problems is that scientific language has been hijacked and the meanings distorted and misused.
So my question was genuine and serious, I want to know why and how, so I am asking for an explanation from you. But before that can start there has to be clarity on terms used. If the terms do not match my understanding of them, then I will have to substitute your meaning, but I need to know what you mean first.

jon, grab a coathanger, walk out into the garden, ask 'show me something interesting' and with a bit of luck you'll get something that will silence all mealy-mouthed

Posted By: jonexperiment perhaps seem to indicate a slight bias towards

precaution. Only busy-mind notions of 'scientific method' stand between any of us and an undeniable experience. 35yrs ago I read about dowsing, got my family interested, they cd do it, I couldn't, because I was so busy thinking instead of allowing. Then one time quite recently, I suddenly could do it, but was careful not to take in anyone else's ideas about how and why or what it meant.

"jon, grab a coathanger, walk out into the garden, ask 'show me something interesting' and with a bit of luck you'll get something that will silence all mealy-mouthed.."

Sure Tom, but it's important to look at how other people view things?

Just going back to the thread for a moment,

Origins: http://ow.ly/7SE0A
Of Hyperion: http://ow.ly/7SEcy

These coincidences appear to have a much stronger circumstantial evidence base than the dowsing trial. This doesn't mean that people will agree that the coincidences mean anything or, in particular, that anyone could use the circumstantial evidence as having a legal standing of proof.

It's only when something becomes provable that it gets accepted by society?

Posted By: JoinerBarring all religions, of course.

And Climate Science
Health Risks
Behaviour
Drinking
Drug taking

I am sure there are more

Hi Tom

The dowsing experiment was map dowsing (which sounds suspect to me, but did achieve a higher correspondence rate for the 'dowsers' than the 'guessers')

The Stonehenge stuff was mostly generated as an example of how the technology could be used: It was a surprise to visit Salisbury and find that a neolithic monument had all the features and the same relative dimensions. After checking against the CAD model, the model's data said that there also must be 3 holes in Stone 54 for it to work: So I went back to the inner circle to have a look and found the 3 holes in exactly the correct location, size, type and orientation. Then we found that the grounds of Stonehenge also exactly matched the geocentric description of the universe which I used to develop the design.

Do you remember the original experiments on this forum and in the GBM? I took them through to grant of patent because I wanted a marker to show that the ideas were new. It was published but I decided not to file for grant because the whole idea was more about finding new simple ways of producing power and showing that it could be done. All of that was "pre-Stonehenge".

The question for me, I suppose, is whether or not this coincidence information should be fully exposed to public scrutiny (there's a lot more than what's described in the book and not just the one monument). The reason for posting up the initial data on archaeological sites was to find an error or non-correlation, but that hasn't happened: All I've been given is more affirmatory circumstantial evidence.

Either way, a structure which is identical to Stonehenge does produce a marvellous demonstration system showing concentrated solar energy and how the Sun appears to move around our World. The Irish structure, if it was made identical to Stonehenge (and particularly including the holes in Stone 54), could do that job. Hence the reason for interest in what's happening in Mayo County.

If there is a connection to Stonehenge, it could be beneficial to society to have this back-reference to renewable energy? On the other hand, if the coincidences would not be accepted, and thus give no immediate benefit to sustainable development (particularly the renewable power industry), it could be more useful to withhold the rest of the design coincidences until solar power generation really comes into its own (this would also give me a lot more time to write a few novels in my retirement).

A bit of a conundrum?

Jon

Thus "whether or not this coincidence information should be fully exposed to public scrutiny". But why not, exactly?

Takes time Tom: It took five years to get to this point. For instance the .dwg models could be converted to Acrobat, the book could be condensed to just evidence maybe for publication and so on. if there's a high level of interest, it's worth doing as a priority.

How was the map-dowsing experiment going to help with your 'proof'?

I was just interested in the experiment Tom, it doesn't help either way!

Cheers

Jon

Hi Tom

"That is very nearly incredible!"

Yes, it was a stroke of luck finding them in the 53/54 stone pair. Another stroke of luck was finding that the 53/54 stone pair have special packing foundations relative to the rest of the stones. Even luckier finding all my design requirements: An inwardly facing circle with a perfect level rim and worked inner faces (outer sarsens), seasonal support rim (outer bluestone circle), seasonal adjustment and hauling platforms at exactly the correct height for each season (sarsen horseshoe) and the timing ring (inner bluestone horseshoe).

Another stroke of luck was finding the avenue, the station stones, the Aubrey holes, outer bank, Heelstone and Slaughter Stone all in the correct location and orientation.

Then there's the coincidences with all of the markings on the stones. What you won't know from reading the book is that a copy of the pole and rotator (the relief carving on stone 54 known as “The Chief's Face” [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/474977.stm ]) has also just been discovered on the other side of stone 53. An even cooler coincidence is that the relative dimensions both sides are also correct and even mirror each other so that the longer 'arm' faces the correct direction (of north).

The next stroke of luck was finding that the surrounding barrows were correctly located: It all fits very nicely with my demonstration system showing how the Sun appears to move around our World using a solar energy concentrator.

To work, the system must have its polar axis pointing to the North Star: So at 51 degrees latitude, it points up by 51 degrees from horizontal. There's a really good picture on the link below of the stars revolving around the polar axis:

http://www.peteglastonbury.plus.com/StonehengeStars.jpg

To make something that demonstrates the spherical nature of the heavens using small flat pieces of reflecting material arranged as an inwardly facing bowl (using an inwardly facing & level circle as the winter setting rim), it's local centre for each season must intersect with a support point directly South of the centre (and going down from the reflection centre at 51 degrees). There's only three support points because spring and autumn are effectively the same.

At Stonehenge, the Trilithon set directly south of centre is the 53/54 pair: The positioning holes, to carry the pole and rotator, must be angled slightly up and able to receive a tree-pole pointing to the North Star: So it was an incredible stroke of luck that these coincidences exists as well. The picture of the 53/54 pair below doesn't show the holes well; I had to go to the site and measure the bottom one, chuck it into another CAD model to see if it really would locate the base of a tree propped and angled up at 51 degrees. You don't get a good idea of the massive scale of these stones until you go there.

Here's another of Pete's pictures: Look to the left and you can see the back of the 53/54 pair (51/52 are on the right). You can also see, just about, the angle at which the tree-pole must point relative to the positioning holes:

http://www.peteglastonbury.plus.com/StonehengeStars1.jpg

Following that, the extra coincidences that we've found elsewhere in other neolithic monuments will be good for a few more novels when I get the time. Better stop writing. Looking back at what I've just written, it's a bit long winded. Interesting set of coincidences?

Seems that a senior archaeolgist at Stonehenge is going to investigate the holes:

http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=Forum&file=viewtopic&topic=4877&forum=4&start=190

Might be interesting?

And maybe we'll 'ave bury them?

http://ow.ly/837ju