If ice has continued to melt from the poles since the last glacial maximum, then the Earth's moment of inerita presumably has increased, and the time it takes to experience a day has increased. In millennia past, if the days were shorter, there would have been more of them in a year. This reasoning seems to take an ancient definition of 360° per circle or 360 days per year further from what they should have observed with such precise alignments in ancient megaliths.
Does anyone know of estimates for the length of a day during the last glacial maximum?
Are there approximations for how much faster an inelastic collision with some number of astronomical bodies could have sped up earth's rotation?
Is anyone aware of other reasons that ancient cultures may have chosen to center on the number 360, even if the sky said otherwise?
(I am not a skeptic of Graham Hancock and really enjoy his work - but I also am fascinated with math and astronomy, and think it presumptuous to say that ancient people precisely measured a year and knew sacred geometry, then just rounded a year to 360 beacuase it's easier to work with)
Does anyone know of estimates for the length of a day during the last glacial maximum?
Are there approximations for how much faster an inelastic collision with some number of astronomical bodies could have sped up earth's rotation?
Is anyone aware of other reasons that ancient cultures may have chosen to center on the number 360, even if the sky said otherwise?
(I am not a skeptic of Graham Hancock and really enjoy his work - but I also am fascinated with math and astronomy, and think it presumptuous to say that ancient people precisely measured a year and knew sacred geometry, then just rounded a year to 360 beacuase it's easier to work with)
