Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Analysis Pushes Back Possible Origin For Antikythera Mechanism

Posted by timothy on from the spin-the-dials-backwards dept.

We've mentioned several times over the years the Antikythera Mechanism, the astounding early analog computer recovered from a Greek shipwreck in shape good enough to allow modern recreations. The device has been attributed to different Greek mathemeticians and thinkers, such as Archimedes, Hipparchus, and Posidonius, but as reader puddingebola writes, "Current research suggests its origin may be much earlier, and its working based on Babylonian arithmetical methods rather than Greek Trigonometry, which did not exist at the time. Puddingebola excerpts from the NYT article: Writing this month in the journal Archive for History of Exact Sciences, Dr. Carman and Dr. Evans took a different tack. Starting with the ways the device's eclipse patterns fit Babylonian eclipse records, the two scientists used a process of elimination to reach a conclusion that the "epoch date," or starting point, of the Antikythera Mechanism's calendar was 50 years to a century earlier than had been generally believed.

62 comments

  1. join gnaa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Are you gay
    Are you a nigger
    Are you a gay nigger?

    Then join gnaa!

    We get to necro butt fuck Michale browns nigger corpse too!

    1. Re:join gnaa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Not a long time ago, I was just a normal internet user that surfed various news sites like Sladshdot, reddit, or wsj.com. I read a story, perhaps clicked onto some links it contained, and I was mostly happy with my life.

      Then, one day, I surfed Slashdot. It was one of those days you will remember for the rest of your life. So, as I surfed Sladshdot, the title of a story got my attention. I read the summary. The topic seemed interesting, so I decided to read further. I read:

      Read on below for the rest what Bennett has to say.

      Usually I don't read first line of a story which contains the user who has submitted it. On that day, I didn't neither. As I've only read that bottom line, I asked myself: who is this misterious Bennett? I decided to click onto the "Read the comments" link to read more of the story that was, as it seems, written by some Bennett. During reading, I was already impressed by the clear and detailed but still concise structure of the text. As I finished reading, I was convinced it was the best story I've ever read on Sladshdot, or any comparable news site. I asked myself: perhaps this misterious Bennett has contributed more frequently than just once?

      To find that out, I went to Sladshdot's search bar and searched for "Bennett". I clicked the second entry, and it began with:

      Frequent contributor Bennett Haselton writes

      I searched for the "Read on" line, and I was happy when I found it. As it seemed, he was a frequent contributor. However the story was on a topic completely unrelated to the topic of my article. Would the other article still be as insightful as the first? And the other stories in the search result? Would they be also by Bennett? Or someone else? I decided first to be happy to have found such an insightful article, and decided to make a photograph of me, before I read the second story.

      I still have that photograph of me and I can see the hope and the satisfaction in my eyes, the hope that the other stories are also written by this brilliant author called Bennett, and the satisfaction of having read such an insightful article. As I've read the first couple of stories by Bennett, I couldn't believe what my eyes saw: all the stories were as insightful or even more insightful than the original story I read. I asked myself whether the spectators in the Globe theatre would have felt the same way when they watched a piece by shakespeare: Witnessing history of writing. I realized Bennett is one of histories great writers.

      As I've finished reading all contributions by Bennett Haselton on Sladshdot, I went back to the first Bennett story, and read them a second time. I sat three days straight, missing all social events during that span, only reading Bennett's stories, and reading them again and again. During that time my eyes opened to the fact that my whole life, I've known nothing. Bennett's stories explained every aspect of very complicated things in such detail, that I formed something in my mind. First, I couldn't describe it what it was, but years later I know that, for the first time of my life, I formed something called "opinion" on a topic. Previously, I've only adopted opinions from others, but Bennett's stories enable people to make their opinions for themselfes, to form them. With his stories, Bennett gives you the material to form your own opinion on your own. I know you will say that you can form your opinion on your own, and that you don't need Bennett for that. I
      disagree with you. What you call opinion, is in reality just ideology you imitate from others. You don't form your opinions, you don't have them.

      Every time Bennett writes a new story on Sladshdot, I take a free day and spend it reading the story

    2. Re:join gnaa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1
      Tsarkon Reports 9 Step Yoda Grease

      9 steps to greasing your anus for Yoda Doll Insertion!
      v 4.96.1
      $YodaBSD: src/release/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/yodanotes/9stepprocess.sgml,v 4.96.1 2014/11/27 01:04:20 tsarkon Exp $

      1. Defecate. Preferably after eating senna, ex lax, prunes, cabbage, pickled eggs, and Vietnamese chili garlic sauce. To better enhance the pleasure of this whole process, defecation should be performed in the Return of the Jedi wastebasket for added pleasure.
      2. Wipe ass with witch hazel, which soothes horrific burns. (Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda certifies that his lips, raw like beaten flank steak from nearly continuous analingus with dogs, are greatly soothed by witch hazel.)
      3. Prime anus with anal ease. (Now Cherry Flavored for those butthole lick-o-phillic amongst you - very popular with 99% of the Slashdotting public!)
      4. Slather richly a considerable amount of Vaseline and/or other anal lubricants into your rectum at least until the bend and also take your Yoda Doll , Yoda Shampoo bottle or Yoda soap-on-a-rope and liberally apply the lubricants to the Doll/Shampoo/Soap-on-a-rope.
      5. Put a nigger do-rag on Yoda's head so the ears don't stick out like daggers!
      6. Make sure to have a mechanism by which to fish Yoda out of your rectum, the soap on the rope is especially useful because the retrieval mechanism is built in.
      7. Pucker and relax your balloon knot several times actuating the sphincter muscle in order to prepare for what is to come.
      8. Slowly rest yourself onto your Yoda figurine. Be careful, he's probably bigger than the dicks normally being shoved up your ass!
      9. Gyrate gleefully in your computer chair while your fat sexless geek nerd loser fat shit self enjoys the prostate massage you'll be getting. Think about snoodling with the Sarlaac pit. Read Slashdot. Masturbate to anime. Email one of the editors hoping they will honor you with a reply. Join several more dating services - this time, you don't select the (desired - speaks English) and (desired - literate). You figure you might get a chance then. Order some fucking crap from Think Geek. Get Linux to boot on a Black and Decker Appliance. Wish you could afford a new computer. Argue that cheap-ass discount bin hardware works 'just as well' as the quality and premium hardware because you can't afford the real stuff. Make claims about how Linux rules. Compile a kernel on your 486SX. Claim to hate Windows but use it for World of Warcraft. Admire Ghyslain's courage in making that wonderful Star Wars movie. Officially convert to the Jedi religion. Talk about how cool Mega Tokyo is. Try and make sure you do your regular 50 story submissions to Slashdot, all of which get rejected because people who aren't fatter than CowboyNeal can't submit. Fondle shrimpy penis while making a Yoda voice and saying, use the force, padawan, feeel the foooorce, hurgm. Yes. Yes. When 900 years you reach, a dick half as big you will not have.

      All in a days

    3. Re:join gnaa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Not a long time ago, I was just a normal internet user that surfed various news sites like Sladshdot, reddit, or wsj.com. I read a story, perhaps clicked onto some links it contained, and I was mostly happy with my life.

      Then, one day, I surfed Slashdot. It was one of those days you will remember for the rest of your life. So, as I surfed Sladshdot, the title of a story got my attention. I read the summary. The topic seemed interesting, so I decided to read further. I read:

      Read on below for the rest what Bennett has to say.

      Usually I don't read first line of a story which contains the user who has submitted it. On that day, I didn't neither. As I've only read that bottom line, I asked myself: who is this misterious Bennett? I decided to click onto the "Read the comments" link to read more of the story that was, as it seems, written by some Bennett. During reading, I was already impressed by the clear and detailed but still concise structure of the text. As I finished reading, I was convinced it was the best story I've ever read on Sladshdot, or any comparable news site. I asked myself: perhaps this misterious Bennett has contributed more frequently than just once?

      To find that out, I went to Sladshdot's search bar and searched for "Bennett". I clicked the second entry, and it began with:

      Frequent contributor Bennett Haselton writes

      I searched for the "Read on" line, and I was happy when I found it. As it seemed, he was a frequent contributor. However the story was on a topic completely unrelated to the topic of my article. Would the other article still be as insightful as the first? And the other stories in the search result? Would they be also by Bennett? Or someone else? I decided first to be happy to have found such an insightful article, and decided to make a photograph of me, before I read the second story.

      I still have that photograph of me and I can see the hope and the satisfaction in my eyes, the hope that the other stories are also written by this brilliant author called Bennett, and the satisfaction of having read such an insightful article. As I've read the first couple of stories by Bennett, I couldn't believe what my eyes saw: all the stories were as insightful or even more insightful than the original story I read. I asked myself whether the spectators in the Globe theatre would have felt the same way when they watched a piece by shakespeare: Witnessing history of writing. I realized Bennett is one of histories great writers.

      As I've finished reading all contributions by Bennett Haselton on Sladshdot, I went back to the first Bennett story, and read them a second time. I sat three days straight, missing all social events during that span, only reading Bennett's stories, and reading them again and again. During that time my eyes opened to the fact that my whole life, I've known nothing. Bennett's stories explained every aspect of very complicated things in such detail, that I formed something in my mind. First, I couldn't describe it what it was, but years later I know that, for the first time of my life, I formed something called "opinion" on a topic. Previously, I've only adopted opinions from others, but Bennett's stories enable people to make their opinions for themselfes, to form them. With his stories, Bennett gives you the material to form your own opinion on your own. I know you will say that you can form your opinion on your own, and that you don't need Bennett for that. I
      disagree with you. What you call opinion, is in reality just ideology you imitate from others. You don't form your opinions, you don't have them.

      Every time Bennett writes a new story on Sladshdot, I take a free day and spend it reading the story

    4. Re: join gnaa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      I'd cut off your balls

  2. Push Back... Push Back... PUSH IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Thank you for your interest in joining the Gay Wigger Association of DICE* (GayWAD)! GayWADs worldwide are happy that you'd like to become part of our

    constantly enlarging member ship (come sail away 8====D~)

    Unlike other geek fraternities that you might have heard about, GayWAD accepts members of all races, creeds, and colors. We don't even have a technical inclination requirement. As our founders stated in the Annals of GayWAD, Chapter 1: "You don't have to be a geek, as long as you like it Greek." They were, of course, referring to the penis in anus style of sexual relations. Don't despair, as attaining full fabulous lifetime status in GayWAD is easy. The only prerequisites for membership in Gay Wigger Association of DICE* are that you meet all of the following conditions:

    1. 1. Ownership of penis, anus, or both

    To submit your Gay Wigger Association of DICE* Membership Application, simply do nothing. Congratulations, you're now a GayWAD!

    If you require a specific membership number for purposes such as framing, docking, or prestigious inclusion upon your business cards and resume, please take down this number: 69.

    Optionally, you may complete the following survey by replying to this post, indicating affirmative responses with an X in each appropriate box:

    GayWAD Membership Survey (OPTIONAL)

    [ ] I am gay
    [ ] I am a wigger
    [ ] I have used SLASHDOT BETA to find a sex partner

    After completion of this optional survey, your Slashdot post ID shall serve as your unique Gay Wigger Association of DICE* membership ID.

    Your GayWAD membership kit** is on its way.

    * GayWAD is neither affiliated with nor endorsed by DICE.COM.

    ** GayWAD membership kit no longer includes HIV self-test catheter.

    1. Re:Push Back... Push Back... PUSH IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Not a long time ago, I was just a normal internet user that surfed various news sites like Sladshdot, reddit, or wsj.com. I read a story, perhaps clicked onto some links it contained, and I was mostly happy with my life.

      Then, one day, I surfed Slashdot. It was one of those days you will remember for the rest of your life. So, as I surfed Sladshdot, the title of a story got my attention. I read the summary. The topic seemed interesting, so I decided to read further. I read:

      Read on below for the rest what Bennett has to say.

      Usually I don't read first line of a story which contains the user who has submitted it. On that day, I didn't neither. As I've only read that bottom line, I asked myself: who is this misterious Bennett? I decided to click onto the "Read the comments" link to read more of the story that was, as it seems, written by some Bennett. During reading, I was already impressed by the clear and detailed but still concise structure of the text. As I finished reading, I was convinced it was the best story I've ever read on Sladshdot, or any comparable news site. I asked myself: perhaps this misterious Bennett has contributed more frequently than just once?

      To find that out, I went to Sladshdot's search bar and searched for "Bennett". I clicked the second entry, and it began with:

      Frequent contributor Bennett Haselton writes

      I searched for the "Read on" line, and I was happy when I found it. As it seemed, he was a frequent contributor. However the story was on a topic completely unrelated to the topic of my article. Would the other article still be as insightful as the first? And the other stories in the search result? Would they be also by Bennett? Or someone else? I decided first to be happy to have found such an insightful article, and decided to make a photograph of me, before I read the second story.

      I still have that photograph of me and I can see the hope and the satisfaction in my eyes, the hope that the other stories are also written by this brilliant author called Bennett, and the satisfaction of having read such an insightful article. As I've read the first couple of stories by Bennett, I couldn't believe what my eyes saw: all the stories were as insightful or even more insightful than the original story I read. I asked myself whether the spectators in the Globe theatre would have felt the same way when they watched a piece by shakespeare: Witnessing history of writing. I realized Bennett is one of histories great writers.

      As I've finished reading all contributions by Bennett Haselton on Sladshdot, I went back to the first Bennett story, and read them a second time. I sat three days straight, missing all social events during that span, only reading Bennett's stories, and reading them again and again. During that time my eyes opened to the fact that my whole life, I've known nothing. Bennett's stories explained every aspect of very complicated things in such detail, that I formed something in my mind. First, I couldn't describe it what it was, but years later I know that, for the first time of my life, I formed something called "opinion" on a topic. Previously, I've only adopted opinions from others, but Bennett's stories enable people to make their opinions for themselfes, to form them. With his stories, Bennett gives you the material to form your own opinion on your own. I know you will say that you can form your opinion on your own, and that you don't need Bennett for that. I
      disagree with you. What you call opinion, is in reality just ideology you imitate from others. You don't form your opinions, you don't have them.

      Every time Bennett writes a new story on Sladshdot, I take a free day and spend it reading the story

  3. Training set... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That seems like a weak assumption to start from, that is, if you were trying to make a device that predicted eclipses and wanted to check that it was working wouldn't you set the device to begin calculations for some time period during which you have reasonable records, say 50-100 years in the past...

    1. Re:Training set... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      That seems like a weak assumption to start from, that is, if you were trying to make a device that predicted eclipses and wanted to check that it was working wouldn't you set the device to begin calculations for some time period during which you have reasonable records, say 50-100 years in the past...

      Not only that, but also 205 B.C. (this "new" date for the calendar's starting point - just seven years after Archimedes died) it was not even an "old" date for Greeks...
      (disclaimer: i am Greek!)

    2. Re:Training set... by fadethepolice · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Although I agree that the extra 100-200 years has been over emphasized I disagree with your general premise. These type of astronomical occurrences are easily predicted (past / future) by ancient mathematicians and were easily predictable at the time by civilizations worldwide from mesoamerica to china for the probable dates presented for the creation for the mechanism. The knowledge of astronomy, planetary and motion were pretty much common knowledge at 200 bc. This makes the 'revelations' of galileo rather comical in retrospect. What is remarkable about this mechanism is the degree of precision of its mechanical design which was unsurpassed at the time (as far as we know). The complexity of this device to accurately predict astronomical phenomena for centuries, mechanically, at the date of its creation belittles the acheivements of the renaissance and calls into question the belief that rome contributed significantly to mediterranean civilization.

    3. Re:Training set... by mrbester · · Score: 3, Informative

      The etymology of "renaissance" answers your last snark.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    4. Re:Training set... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Granted, but generally speaking epoch points are selected to be at some point in the past, for a variety of reasons. Just consider computer date epochs - virtually all of them count from years or decades before the software was developed, and many start from a point thousands of years in the past.

      The counterpoint of course is that for a simulation such as an orrery, the farther in the past the epoch is the more accurate the simulation has to be to obtain accurate results, and I don't know that the Greeks had either the theory or detailed observations to be able to compensate for a couple hundred years of accumulated inter-planetary perturbations etc. Though whether the Antikythera Mechanism was precise enough for the inaccuracies to be apparent, I have no idea. As I recall modern simulation resets the epoch every few decades to compensate for cumulative errors, but they are also so incredibly precise that no one in the ancient world could have detected the errors, probably even if we just ran the clock back a few thousand years and left all the accumulated errors in place.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    5. Re:Training set... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      This makes the 'revelations' of Galileo rather comical in retrospect.

      How so? Galileo was working on the problem of the actual relationships of planets to each other, not so much sky-position prediction, which was more or less a "solved" problem at the time.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    6. Re:Training set... by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Just consider computer date epochs - virtually all of them count from years or decades before the software was developed, and many start from a point thousands of years in the past."

      The most widely known being UNIX' epoch, which is January the first... 1970.

    7. Re:Training set... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      And Microsoft .NT and several others use 1/1/1. Over 2000 years in the past. Symbian and other go back even further to 1/1/0

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    8. Re:Training set... by RockDoctor · · Score: 2

      generally speaking epoch points are selected to be at some point in the past, for a variety of reasons. Just consider computer date epochs - virtually all of them count from years or decades before the software was developed, and many start from a point thousands of years in the past.

      Particularly relevant to the Antikythera Mechanism is the date system that astronomers use : the Julian Date, whose zero point is at mid-day January 01 4713 BCE. This software standard was introduced in 1583, though the definition of "year" was taken from work attributed to Julius Caesar in 46BC. Which is a citation separation time that is going to take some beating. I suppose that it would be just about plausible for modern biological work to cite Aristotle, for nearly 2400 years of separation, but it would probably be a little forced.

      As I recall modern simulation resets the epoch every few decades to compensate for cumulative errors,

      My copy of "Uranometria (North)" is plotted to epoch 2000.0 (i.e. midnight, Jan 1st 2000), but my tabulated copy of the Bright Star Catalogue (which covers most of Uranometria's plates - I found it in a second-hand bookshop, IIRC) was done to epoch 1950.0. The difference is because stars do move - slowly (proper motion, e.g. Barnard's Star does 10 seconds of arc per year), but also reflection nebulae do change (slowly), things like planetary nebulae expand (the Crab Nebula is only 960 years old and is 420 seconds of arc across, so in that 50 year epoch it should have widened by about 25 seconds of arc.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  4. look up also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    the arab map of western world circa 1500's

    piris reis

    or some such

    its accurate enough that in hte 50's after ground penetrating radar was invented that the usa govt called it accurate enough ot use back then ( regarding the land mass of Antarctica which is claimed ot have been under ice for the last 110,000 years...ironically coinciding with a ufo nutter website claiming a peruvian city 12 miles inland and 2 mile sup a mountain with docks made of stone was a landing pad for space ships was in fact at the coast using water levels and plate tectonics around that same period....

    neat what a few researched clues fitting together might mean....

    piris reis is said to have pieced this map together from sources at Alexandria they had as well as 12 "other" sources.

    anyhow you all one day may be if they let you find out that the 400K year old homo sapiens had been doing things an awful long time ago.....

    oh and before that 110K period antarctica was covered ina mile of ice after and before for 40 million years well before humans or apes for that matter existed.

    1. Re:look up also by jeffasselin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except for the fact that it's complete pseudo-scientific bunk, promoted by the likes of frauds like Von Daniken:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
    2. Re:look up also by smittyoneeach · · Score: 2

      Hey, he may not have been Tolkien, but it was still some great fantasy there. . .

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    3. Re:look up also by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      It's not really significant that Von Daniken used it in his work, it's that at least much of it seems to have originated there, and for the bits that may not, there aren't any references from earlier sources that are actually considered any more reliable. What a hoaxter promotes is less significant than what he originates. I bring this point up because there are some people, such as Carlos Casteneda, that tend to occasionally mention some real bits in the middle of runs of pseudo-science, and readers end up dismissing those bits when they run across some obvious hokum. Velikovsky is another good example. A good con-artist bothers to build on some real research, making it harder to winnow the chaff because they have left clues to a little wheat.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  5. So old, it was built by the ancient jamamaites. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Nobody has found the original kythera mechanism this neutralized either, fucking worthless science, paleontology.

    1. Re:So old, it was built by the ancient jamamaites. by smittyoneeach · · Score: -1, Troll

      Jamama so fat, she sat on her computer, and flattened it.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  6. Tower of the winds by giorgist · · Score: 1

    There were other such devices such as the tower of the winds. The Greeks did not nessasary discover log the data from the heavens, what they did work out is that the heavens followed mathematical rules and so simple equations could be used to predict the behavior of the heavens and not the whims of the Gods. Hence you could convert the equations to gear mechanisms and off you go ...

    1. Re:Tower of the winds by buchner.johannes · · Score: 1

      What happens when you link the Antikythera mechanism with the Kythera mechanism? Fusion experts should investigate!

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    2. Re:Tower of the winds by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Before the fusion experts get at it, you need the diving experts to go here to find it.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  7. Re:join gnaa Robin sharpe gay lude songs and poems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    CONFESSION

    Father
    A bearded man
    A pedophile of sorts
    Put his hand
    Inside my jocky shorts
    I have the right to say "no"
    Everyone agrees
    But tell me Father
    Is it so
    That I can't say "Please"?

  8. I wonder by koan · · Score: 2

    How many ideas and creations have been lost only to be rediscovered, like the Baghdad battery, or the antikythera mechanism.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      7.

    2. Re:I wonder by lannocc · · Score: 2

      42. Gotta catch 'em all!

      --
      -IOVAR Web Dev Platform
    3. Re:I wonder by sound+vision · · Score: 2

      Who's that Pokemon??

    4. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Did you even read the link you posted? Those vases as found don't make electricity, because the bitumen used for sealing them is an insulator; moreover, even if you do alter the design, as the pseudo-archaeologist nutters did back in the day, you can't get enough charge out of a whole rack of those vases to do anything, because the design is so bad that no matter what electrolyte you use, you'll end up with problems. Real archaeologists suggest that the "battery" idea was always just wishful thinking on the part of fringe hobbyist archaeologists, and that the vases were instead used to preserve documents (held inside the inner metal vessel) much like similar vases from nearby cities.

    5. Re:I wonder by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

      The process of manufacturing concrete was lost, the process of manufacturing wootz steel aka damascus steel is still lost, there are ancient Chinese tombs with stainless steel swords. In all of these cases the manufacturing method relied on some naturally occurring material which was eventually exhausted and eventually painstakingly recreated from more basic sources much, much later on.

    6. Re:I wonder by AC-x · · Score: 1

      Most archaeologists seem to have come to the conclusion that the Baghdad battery probably wasn't a battery after all...

    7. Re:I wonder by koan · · Score: 1

      Yep it's debated.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  9. A lesson about History- and the liar narrative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    If this device hadn't been found, anyone and I mean ANYONE who dared to suggest that such technology existed in this time-frame would be described, ESPECIALLY on forums like this one, as a complete 'anti-scientific' 'nutter'. And 'learned experts' would be falling over themselves to explain to the betas why such a claim was absolute nonsense.

    What we know about the past is shockingly limited, and controlled almost entirely by LIAR NARRATIVES- stories crafted by the servants of elites (from various eras) promoting an acceptable view to the sheeple. Here's a test for you betas to prove the point. Slavery- actually American style Human slavery, was wide-spread in America's favourite Middle East nation, Saudi Arabia, in 1961 (yes, you read that date correctly- 1961). The Saudis had a taste for rape slaves dating back many many centuries, and had enslaved literally MILLIONS of African females across the years up to 1961.

    What's my point? Find a first hand narrative from a Saudi slave (owned for the purpose of 'legally' raping her by her 'master'). You won't find one. Tens of thousands of rape slaves were 'liberated' when Saudi Arabia finally abolished slavery in 1962, but 'ordinary' people leave almost no impact on historic records, even when their lives are this extraordinary. America's vastly powerful allies, the House of Saud, don't wish for any such record to exist, so it doesn't. The LIAR NARRATIVE, as found in many Saudi/US sponsored Wikipedia articles, is that 20th century slavery in Saudi Arabia was just a 'fiction'.

    The most famous Saudi citizen in the USA is Bandar 'Bush'- so named because of his closeness to the family of two recent US presidents. Bandar 'Bush's mother was a rape slave- purchased for the purpose of being his father's sex toy.

    Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING officially written about Human Society in the 'official' historical narratives denies the possibility of the Antikythera Mechanism- the mechanism effectively exists in a parallel reality where those that know of it accept its significance, but move out of the light of this truth, and the LIAR NARRATIVE reasserts itself when sheeple are given any description of the period involved.

    Those that control the sheeple INVENT History- in the same way as they INVENT current 'concerns' (like the oncoming 'ice age' that became 'peak oil' that became 'global warming'). The sheeple always love a good 'horror story' about the imminent future, and also to be told that their ancestors were complete duffers compared to themselves.

    We should remember that even 20,000 years ago, ordinary people were just the same as we are today. The impact of natural ALPHAS was somewhat different, though, because of the way knowledge was accumulated and disseminated. The Antikythera Mechanism proves that alphas were capable of great achievements while leaving ZERO written records that survive to this day. Maths and the consequence of maths, and its application to engineering , can safely be assumed to have existed at a VERY high level of sophistication THOUSANDS of years ago, amongst small teams of Humans. The people the LIAR NARRATIVE tells us were the smartest people in Ancient History are clearly NOTHING compared to the best nameless alphas that existed at the time.

    But you Betas should remember that 'making a name for yourself' always has more to do with natural self-promotion skills than any REAL talent. And millions of people can live in a city across its lifetime, but after that city ends we are lucky if even one or two made a written record of their experiences. Statistically, that means the written evidence that survives is as good as JUNK.

    The Antikythera Mechanism is a living example of what we do NOT and can never know about the real lives of the people from the time (due to lack of REAL surviving records of statistical significance). Our fictional projections based on various LIAR NARRATIVES are mostly about the agendas that caused the LIAR NARRATIVES to be written in the first place.

    1. Re:A lesson about History- and the liar narrative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why governments hate the internet.

    2. Re:A lesson about History- and the liar narrative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Whoa. Did you skip your meds today?

    3. Re:A lesson about History- and the liar narrative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Who up-voted this crap? What the hell does Saudi Arabia have to do with anything?

    4. Re:A lesson about History- and the liar narrative by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Informative

      If this device hadn't been found, anyone and I mean ANYONE who dared to suggest that such technology existed in this time-frame would be described, ESPECIALLY on forums like this one, as a complete 'anti-scientific' 'nutter'.

      Correctly so because science is based on evidence, not wild speculation or serendipity.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:A lesson about History- and the liar narrative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot anti-semitic, for good measure.

    6. Re:A lesson about History- and the liar narrative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this device hadn't been found, anyone and I mean ANYONE who dared to suggest that such technology existed in this time-frame would be described, ESPECIALLY on forums like this one, as a complete 'anti-scientific' 'nutter'.

      Correctly so because science is based on evidence, not wild speculation or serendipity.

      Much of current science is completely based on what was originally wild speculation or serendipity. And without imagination and creativity we wouldn't have the theories of Relativity.

    7. Re: A lesson about History- and the liar narrative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Difference being that relativity was mathematically deduced from a simple set of hypotheses.

    8. Re:A lesson about History- and the liar narrative by umafuckit · · Score: 4, Informative

      If this device hadn't been found, anyone and I mean ANYONE who dared to suggest that such technology existed in this time-frame would be described, ESPECIALLY on forums like this one, as a complete 'anti-scientific' 'nutter'.

      There are records of such devices (or at least related ones), but the Antikythera mechanism is the only surviving one. Cicero, for instance, describes an orrery which shows the motions of the moon and planets. Ancient Rhodes was famous for its automata.

      --
      soylentnews.org
    9. Re: A lesson about History- and the liar narrative by umafuckit · · Score: 1

      Antibiotics are a nice example of serendipity.

      --
      soylentnews.org
    10. Re: A lesson about History- and the liar narrative by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Difference being that relativity was mathematically deduced from a simple set of hypotheses.

      Are you saying that archeologists don't follow scientific method? Because that is not how I have experienced archeology. Archeologist have to construct hypotheses based on certain evidence and then set out to prove them like everybody else. Of course you can't obtain your proof sitting on your ass in an air conditioned office deducing mathematical formulae, you have to go out and dig around in the dirt to find you proof. If an archeologist finds marble sheets in Roman ruins around Europe and the the Middle East bearing clear saw marks he can go with conventional wisdom which for a long time would have had us believe these slabs were produced by slaves using bronze hand-saws in painstaking and wasteful manual labour. However, an archeologist, with a bit of imagination might note that the slabs are a bit too uniformly sawed to have been produced by hand and he might also recall from conversations with his colleagues in the department of history that there are plenty of accounts in ancient sources pointing to sophisticated machinery being used in ancient times even though these accounts are often dismissed as fantasy or written off as references to grain mills etc. So taking the risk of applying a bit of imagination to the scientific process the archeologist could perhaps hypothesise that the Romans weren't stupid and that it is likely they developed the process of sawing stone to a high degree of technological sophistication. He could then go and try to confirm that hypothesis by looking for remains of stone processing facilities like, say the stone saw mill at Gerasa in Jordan where large blocks of half sawed marble blocks have been found with several parallels saw marks in them. This site and others like it demonstrates conclusively that the stone was being mechanically sawed into sheets of marble using water wheels at least some 1300 years before the industrial revolution. While I'm sure that mathematics is more logical, rigorous and absolute than many other disciplines of science I'm pretty sure that Einstein in particular with his numerous and fascinating thought experiments found plenty of room for imagination in his work.

    11. Re:A lesson about History- and the liar narrative by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Correctly so because science is based on evidence, not wild speculation or serendipity.

      The scientific process involves all three. Scientific results is the subset limited to evidence.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    12. Re:A lesson about History- and the liar narrative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Much of current science is completely based on what was originally wild speculation

      Originally. It ceased to be speculation when the evidence arrived.

    13. Re:A lesson about History- and the liar narrative by azcoyote · · Score: 1

      Correct. The scientific method requires a hypothesis, which may be hinted at by evidence but still requires imagination to extrapolate from preliminary evidence and hints toward a possible outcome. A bad hypothesis can stifle an outcome. Moreover, once evidence is gathered, the more speculative the conclusion the more imagination is required to piece disparate evidence together into a plausible possibility. The Antikythera device is a great example of this, because at least from what I've seen, much of the speculation about it is grounded on some very tenuous evidence because of the condition of the device. It is not entirely clear what it looked like, because its original appearance has to be extrapolated from heavily corroded junk, and this requires a lot of speculation and imagination.

      --
      Incipiamus, fratres, servire Domino Deo, quia hucusque vix vel parum in nullo profecimus.
    14. Re: A lesson about History- and the liar narrative by AC-x · · Score: 1

      But your example is about fitting various pieces of evidence together to come up with a theory that challenges previously held beliefs, our AC friend at the top there seems to have missed that bit out. It doesn't matter how true something is, if there's no evidence for it then it's not scientific.

    15. Re: A lesson about History- and the liar narrative by AC-x · · Score: 1

      But also of observation (that bacteria were killed by mold) and methodical experimentation (isolating the mold, extracting the antibiotic chemical and performing control trials on animals). Use of Penicillin wouldn't have happened without those further steps.

    16. Re: A lesson about History- and the liar narrative by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Umm, no. Perhaps you missed the part where Einstein wasn't actually all that hot at math, and the mathematical formulation of his theories was actually constructed by a mathematician friend, with Einstein claiming (possibly only humorously) to be unable to understand them. Or so I remember the story.

      Relativity, like all theoretical physics, was constructed on thought experiments - aka logically creative speculation. There has been lots of mathematically deduced *implications* of the theory, but that "simple set of hypotheses" *is* the theory - the formula are only the mathematical description of it. And it wasn't until years later that there was the slightest shred of evidence that they actually described reality.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    17. Re:A lesson about History- and the liar narrative by Immerman · · Score: 1

      But without the speculation, the experiments which eventually accumulated the evidence would never have been performed.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    18. Re:A lesson about History- and the liar narrative by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "If this device hadn't been found, anyone and I mean ANYONE who dared to suggest that such technology existed in this time-frame would be described, ESPECIALLY on forums like this one, as a complete 'anti-scientific' 'nutter'."

      Yes, exactly that.

      And there lies the difference between a scientific mind and a nutter: once the device was found and found to be legit, the 'anti-scientific' tag is gladly removed and the implications researched.

      The nutter, on the other hand, will still insist that "man was never on the Moon" or whatever is his preferred conspiracy theory no matter what.

    19. Re: A lesson about History- and the liar narrative by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Perhaps you missed the part where Einstein wasn't actually all that hot at math"

      Relatively speaking -pun intended.

      Einstein might not be as good at maths as his friend Marcel Grossman, but he still could beat your pants off any day of the week unless you are a professional physic or mathematician (and Grossman helped Einstein on his General Relativity work, once Einstein already had published what earned him his Nobel Prize -just to put things into perspective).

      "it wasn't until years later that there was the slightest shred of evidence that they actually described reality."

      Well, up to a point. Einstein didn't work in isolation and Michesol-Morley experiment, back in 1887, put a serious crack to the ether theory and Einstein just worked on that wave. Fizeau's experiment's results from 1851 also were a perfect match -another pun intended, for Einstein's special relativity. So by the time his paper was published (1905) it already described known reality better than any other theory and it also showed very promisory as it cleanly put together things that previously didn't fit (electricity and magnetism).

    20. Re:A lesson about History- and the liar narrative by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "But without the speculation, the experiments which eventually accumulated the evidence would never have been performed."

      That helps to produce a romantic narrative, but it is not usually the case.

      Usually evidence gets gathered by "mere" observation of natural phenomena or by structured attack to current theories that, oh, surprise, happens not to render the expected results (falsification).

      Usually, *only* when it's already suspected that a theory (or group of theories) has a flaw or a crack *and* there is an alternate theory that offers a clear falsification experiment, you go for the experiment after the speculation.

    21. Re:A lesson about History- and the liar narrative by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Generally speaking unexpected results point to a crack in the existing explanations, but they rarely point directly at an alternative. There then exists a period where lots of intelligent people speculate wildly and come up with lots of different alternate explanations that fit the new data, and try to come up with new experiments that would confirm them. Most explanations get rapidly disproven, and the handful that remain then compete for mindspace among the broader community until they are either disproven or another non-disproven hypothesis manages to decisively win the popularity contest.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    22. Re: A lesson about History- and the liar narrative by doccus · · Score: 1

      Ah yes "sigh" We all know that all great discoveries are made in a vacuum. That science is just religion in disguise and only the priests of it can undersand crazy new theories That science is a waste of time and has no bearing on modern society. And.. hoo.. must be a dozen more crackpot ideas floating around about science and scientists. Funnily though, the one that gets very little traction is that major scientific descoveries are made with plain old hard work. By examining other current research into that area. And that these discoveries do indeed impact society in a beneficial way. Not only do these last points get little traction, I read the antiscience brigade comments repeatedly aired out online! Written on a computer! Go figure....

    23. Re:A lesson about History- and the liar narrative by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      If you just take the CAPITALISED words and ignore the rest inbetween, you still get a load of nonsense, but at least it's only a couple of lines.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  10. Science Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately many supposedly intelligent people seem to constantly forget that Science isn't Truth and Reality, it is only a method of attempting to piece together an image of that reality with only the parts available to us.

    So they, especially those with little imagination or creativity, are very quick to cast out any concept that hasn't already been "proven" to their peers satisfaction (out of a knee jerk fear of being cast out themselves and no longer being considered a part of the Intelligentsia). Sadly those primitive social politics play a larger part in institutionalized science than the actual Scientific method does. This also goes for funding and tenure.

  11. Thank goodness for Greek 'mathemeticians' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't get to become a good 'mathemetician' just like that; you have to know a lot of 'mathemetics'. Knowing a bit of spelling helps too.

  12. This topic really shook the nut tree by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    To get today's reactions, it used to be necessary to drop the name Tesla - the man, not the car.

  13. Babylonian? or even earlier.. by doccus · · Score: 1

    Babylonian makes a whole lot more sense. By the time the Greek civilization was in full gear the deeper mysteries from pre-Egyptian civilization had already been lost. How do I know? Well, I don't KNOW first hand, but I believe the people who have been there, a-la- the old writings and edgar cayce etc. Plus there's the archaelogical records. And old structures, built for air breathing beings, that have been submerged for well over 18,000 years. And constructions of machined rock so hard that even diamond woould have a hard time cutting it. And 16,000 year old massive underground excavations in Turkey designed with modern scientific airflow principles. So that they would have an "abacus"like computer doesn'ty surprise me. And it's not made of iron and por copper or whatever metal it's made of, out of primitivism.It's advanced foresight, for a society that would have lost all electric power. A few Carrington events and this would be the only kind of computer we could use, too. It's obvious that they had electric power before that, because there is not a single mark from torchlight in the Great pyramid. None. So how did they see inside there, if not electric power? Besides theres heiroglyphics that show electric lamps. So yeah..the AK Mechanism? it's old old old...