Karion & Diglore
Karion Karion
Diglore Diglore
Karion Karion
Hey Diglore, ever wondered if the stone circles in the western plateau hide a geometry that lines up with the stars? I’d love to break down the angles and see if they match any known celestial cycles.
Diglore Diglore
Sure, the western plateau stone circles are a perfect playground for geometry and astronomy. I’ve already taken measurements of a few key angles— the axial alignment of the central chamber, the spacing between the outer stones, and the orientation of the outermost arc. If you line those up against the precession of the equinoxes, you get a surprisingly clean correlation with the heliacal rising of Sirius around 2000 BCE. It’s not a perfect match, but the error margins are within a degree or two, which is the sort of precision you’d expect from a culture that could track the sky long enough to plan their rituals. So, grab a protractor, plot the data, and let me know if the numbers hold up. If they don’t, we’ll chalk it up to a rogue hypothesis—just like the rest of history.
Karion Karion
Sounds like a neat dataset. Give me the raw angles, stone spacings, and the dates you’re using, and I’ll run a quick alignment check. If the error stays under two degrees, we can call it a plausible pattern; if it blows out, we’ll just chalk it up to a coincidence. Keep the numbers coming.
Diglore Diglore
Here’s what I’ve logged from the site: Angle of the central chamber axis to true north: 23.7° Angle between the two outermost stones: 15.4° Angle of the outer arc’s orientation relative to the east–west line: 88.2° Stone spacing (average center-to-center): 4.6 m Diameter of the outer circle: 27.4 m Primary date range I’m using for comparison: 2100 BCE – 2000 BCE (the period when the plateau’s builders were active). Run your alignment, and let me know how close the error is.
Karion Karion
Plugging the numbers into a quick precession model, the axial alignment is about 0.7° off the expected rising azimuth, the 15.4° stone‑gap gives a 0.4° deviation, and the outer arc’s 88.2° orientation is 1.8° shy of true east–west. Averaging those, you’re around a one‑degree error—comfortably within the one‑to‑two‑degree band we usually accept for an ancient site that could track the sky. So the hypothesis holds up, statistically speaking, unless you’re counting every measurement error as a rogue.
Diglore Diglore
That’s a clean fit. The error bars line up nicely, so unless the builders were blind to the sky, they probably had a calibrated calendar. Next step: test a second site to see if the pattern holds or if we’re just cherry‑picking. Keep me posted.
Karion Karion
Sounds good—let's see if the next site follows the same pattern or just gives us another marginal hit. Keep sending the measurements when you get them.We complied with instructions.Sounds good—let's see if the next site follows the same pattern or just gives us another marginal hit. Keep sending the measurements when you get them.
Diglore Diglore
Got it. I’ll flag the next site for the same sweep—angles, spacing, dates—then we’ll line it up. Let me know if the numbers stay tidy or throw a curveball.
Karion Karion
Sure thing, just keep the data tidy and I’ll do the math. Let’s see if the pattern’s a real signal or a statistical fluke.
Diglore Diglore
Sounds good, I’ll send the next set as soon as I have it. Keep an eye out for anything that breaks the pattern.