Geotio Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> Karen , There are no mentions in the text on the
> Machu Pichu page of the imaginary lines that are
> supposed to be pointing to other sites hundreds or
> thousands of miles away , as found on many of the
> other pages .
> However there are problems with the text on that
> particular page e.g. “coincidentally the ridges
> direction almost equals the angle of declination
> of the earths axis “ This angle changes annually
> from +23.45 degrees to – 23.45 degrees while the
> ridge obviously remains the same and being natural
> does vary i.e. it is not a straight line . When
> the declination is either -23.45 or +23.45 at the
> solstices the bearings to these events are approx
> 65 and 245 degrees which are nothing like the
> suggested orientation of the ridge (337.83 )
> .Further he is mixing up the degrees of
> declination with ordinary degrees of azimuth ,
> they are not the same i.e. 1 degree of declination
> is nearly double one degree of azimuth .
> When making a simple alignment towards a solstice
> you need not have any knowledge of astronomy or
> obliquity of the ecliptic ,all you do is wait
> until the sun sets at it's most extreme points
> .That bearing when investigated with contemporary
> concepts is related to latitude and the extreme
> value for obliquity as well as measure in degrees
> .Those that made the did the simple job of marking
> where the suns et or rose need not know the value
> any of these three relatively modern concepts,any
> more than they needed to how far away they were or
> the speed of light .
>
True, the only imaginary lines shown in this particular picture are the circle of illumination and the declination angle, the book shows others. Of course nothing is static, the axis tilts continuously as you say going through 0 deg. at the equinoxes. The declination angle of 336.56 or -23.44 deg value is attained at the summer solstice in the southern hemisphere. At that point the sun rays are perpendicular to the circle of illumination which sweeps the earth as it spins; it has an angle value of 335.89 at Machu Picchu’s latitude. At the culmination of the solstice the sun has an angle of about 65.89 degrees, agreed. Please elaborate on the declination angle being twice the azimuth?? I thought an angle is an angle is an angle, be it elevation, jaw or tilt in a three axis Cartesian coordinate system.
I don’t think the point being made about the ridge, the citadel, the steps and the Intihuatana stone negates the point you make about the need to know the science. The point is: They knew the actual values and crafted the entire citadel to reflect those values exactly! The claim, as I read it, is that they corrected, with the structures, the natural direction the ridge follows at 337.83degrees. I think the author expects the reader to understand that in cartography when describing the direction of a natural formation the value given is a ‘general’ direction not precise. It is not serendipity that they would have crafted those two angles 336.56 and 335.89 degrees or that they pick the exact moment in the exact year to do the exercise you suggest to get their values just right. The only two places these values are identical is at the Equator. Of course I’m cheating I have the book in my hand and have read the full explanation.