I'm getting what seems a lot of traffic to the "a neolithic universe" domain. 13,000 visits a week sounds impressive at first sight, but maybe it's just bots? Hard to tell if it's worth upgrading the site rather than just keeping it as a low cost support page for the book. Any thoughts?

This is exciting because it now gives two corroborating pieces of evidence for the [potential] sequence described in the book. No idea when it'll be added (there's 50 other evidential pieces on the list lined up to add to the book, so probably when there's time for a full edition update)

Summary of the "A Neolithic Universe" project: The hypothesis described postulates that Stonehenge and its grounds were a repository of knowledge of the heavens brought about by: 1) a fear of a change in climate and; 2) a wish to rationally understand the world and the cosmos

A gentle reminder you can get the initial works (2012) on the "A Neolithic Universe" project for free (end of this mini-thread). The project explains a potential explanation of Stonehenge and is unusual because it contains no special narrative devices (aliens, advanced technology and so on). #1 of 5

This question & reply work a retweet. Fred Hoyle said you must have traces in myth to be a valid hypothesis (those do exist), but the spectacularly successful result perhaps explains why we don't know the details of it. bsky.app/profile/paul...

Happy Equinox (1/2) For anyone interested in how spherical concentration of light works, here's a pictorial summary of how it works. The Alt Text is useful for additional notes.

A sign to post the first line of your book: <This book describes, and shows the evidence for, the idea that some Neolithic monuments in Britain, Ireland, and the European Continent are the result of early research into the nature of our world.> From "A Neolithic Universe" 🏺 #WritingCommunity

A gentle reminder you can get the initial works (2012) on the "A Neolithic Universe" project for free (end of this mini-thread). The project explains a potential explanation of Stonehenge and is unusual because it contains no special narrative devices (aliens, advanced technology and so on). #1 of 5

As an engineer, it's marvellous to see the work is still recognised after so many generations. It's an odd comparison: if this place were the result of research by generations of intellectual giants, that assembly of life-works is now largely interpreted as being devoid of intellectual substance?

A Stonehenge theory explained without having to mention Stonehenge. Detail in the Alt Text. Happy Solstice!

If anyone from a learned Institution wants to have a go at the hypothesis, and is willing to publish why they think it's not the most likely explanation, usually happy to provide copies for free. Please don't use websites and/or a google search again. (you may laugh.. but this happened)

Highlighting this as is never addressed by proponents of "alignment hypotheses": The choice of an unsuitable location could be explained as something we'll never know, but it seems to be a very thin argument given the amount of effort, and detailed engineering, that went into this monument.

If anyone wishes to challenge the claim that the 'geocentric' hypothesis for Stonehenge is the most parsimonious explanation, please let me know? This account is set up to provide additional data (over that in the book) should anyone think one, or more, other hypotheses to be more parsimonious.

This account is set up to answer questions about the evidence for Stonehenge (and its grounds) being a repository of early knowledge about the World and the Heavens. (More detail in Alt Text)

Off the beaten track, but the "A Neolithic Universe" project started out as research into a very obscure form of renewable energy (solar) and ended up with a viable explanation for Stonehenge. The only claim is that it is the most parsimonious of explanations offered to date bsky.app/profile/aneo...

Fun Fact #3 Many recent archaeo texts place Stonehenge in the Stone Age (before the age of metals). But research from The Institute of Metals puts the date of Tin Mining earlier (p182-184). If correct, Stonehenge's sarsen structure wasn't built in the Stone Age. www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/1...

Altar Stone sourced to NE Scotland. Long shot, but "Firsprofen" might be real. For anyone interested in that, go to firsprofen.com (a domain taken out well over a decade ago and redirects into the Megalithic Portal). Above is related to this paper: www.nature.com/articles/s41...

Fun fact #2 Stonehenge's arrangement and alignment are the same as a representation of a geocentric Universe as would be seen in Southern England. Sketch on left below uses 16th century images of same thing. Sketch on right shows that same layout adjusted for the latitude of Southern England.

Fun fact: There are 30 outer, and 5 sets of 2 inner, sarsen uprights. 30x2 average human feet (~0.263m) is the approximate radius of Stonehenge (outside face of lintels). Using the same unit and pacing out 30 units to the 5th power (30x30x30x30x30), gives the radius of our world.

If fear of a changing climate once existed, people would want to test if it will become a problem for them. With no modern technology, an umbral chamber can be used for that test. So my next step was to see if any Neolithic remains could be used as an umbral chamber (link uses Newgrange as example):

Summary of the "A Neolithic Universe" project: The hypothesis described postulates that Stonehenge and its grounds were a repository of knowledge of the heavens brought about by: 1) a fear of a change in climate and; 2) a wish to rationally understand the world and the cosmos