Enigma of Antikythera Mechanism cracked

[JonClarke]

With the ability to make gears of such complexity and an interest in time keeping, it is surprising that they did not apply this technology to clocks. Maybe they did......<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

I don't think short period times, i.e. clocks were that important to them at that err, time.<br />Most sea voyages were short, so latitude was not a big issue.<br />The sky , on the other hand was very important.<br />Timing the seasons for crops was critical to survival. Not whether it's one o'clock or one-fifteen. All that was important in that err, time frame was, is the sun up or down, and there's a handy reference in the sky for that <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />Sundials were pretty elaborate, and served that function.<br /><br />It's pretty interesting how much of the device was dedicated to eclipse predictions and the moon including the Saros, Metonic, Callippic, Exceligmos cycles; Synodic months, draconitic months, anomalistic months. Man, did I get an education!!<br /><br />Of course, since eclipses were omens, the ability to predict them gave one great power if used wisely <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[silylene old]

<font color="yellow">With the ability to make gears of such complexity and an interest in time keeping, it is surprising that they did not apply this technology to clocks. Maybe they did...... <br /></font><br /><br />Jon, if you read the <i>Nature</i> article, it talks about how this device had "clock-hands" on both faces which kept track of the motions of the bodies, eclipse timings (days, months, year) and zodiac. It may have also have had a (lost) connector to further gears which calculated planetary motion and ran an orrery.<br /><br />I don't think there is much of a jump from astronomical clock hands moving across carefully calibrated, ruled and numbered circles and a real clock...other than the absence of a some type of constant force to drive the gears (coil spring or gravitational drive) (the Antikythera used a hand crank).<br /><br />When I read the article, my thought was that if the Greeks could build this, they could have more easily built a mechanical calculator that does addition, multiplication and division. A mechanical calculator with the operations I described would be much simpler to design and construct. Frankly, I would now be very surprised if the Greeks did not have mechanical calculators. Mechanical calculators are VERY useful for all types of engineering and shipbuilding projects. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Chapter and verse to support you assertion that the "Christian God" was anti science and technology.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> listen, religion, i.e., blind belief in supernatural where blind means not being supported by reason, by any sort of evidence and I mean scientific evidence based on rational logic, that in my eyes is as unscientific as you can get and you are telling me that such people devoted to unreason would be promoting rational science or technology that grows out of it, not by chance, and to the extent they did, they betrayed religion and in the process of doing it and to the extent they were rational they undermined it<br /><br />you see its one or the other - blind belief or rational evidence from which rational knowledge grows, Thomas Acquinas tried to reconcile the two realms and failed abysmally and in the proces started the downfall of religion (ushered in the Age of Enlightenment) <br /><br />the bible doesn't have to exhort against science, technology, advancement, against reason or against logic, the point is that qua blind belief religion it stands itself as an eternal foe to anything based on reason and that includes the science and technology and above all, reason which is our only tool of gaining valid scientific knowledge on which technology is later based<br /><br />I could also mention bible's exhortation against attaining earthly wealth (rich of this world won't pass into heaven no more than a camel can pass through the eye of a needle) and that saints and other representatives of religion (to the extent they weren't corrupt) espoused frugal life withdrawn from worldly pursuits and in deliberate poverty, i.e.., withdrawing from technological amenities that science has brought us... so bible nowhere exhorts against science and technology because these were nigh unknown and not important foe to religion in those days when the bible was written, still the bible contains such exhortation by d <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I don't think there is much of a jump from astronomical clock hands moving across carefully calibrated, ruled and numbered circles and a real clock...other than the absence of a some type of constant force to drive the gears (coil spring or gravitational drive) (the Antikythera used a hand crank). <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />'not much of a jump' in terms of mechanical gears and wheels but a big jump is there, two big jumps actually <br /><br />one technical is the invention of the so called 'escapement' which regulates the power supplied by a pendulum or spring, I don't see why Greeks couldn't have invented it (in the light of this Antikythera meachanism) but for one thing - when you talk of clocks you talk about utility, clocks are sort of useless and really uninteresting and even boring mechanisms (what that mechanism does that is) unless you need to measure time for some utilitarian reason and I am not so sure Greeks lived in a world where clocks would be imperative to drive their invention (like MeteorWayne says in his post), still in the light of this mechanism that was discovered I wouldn't be much surprised if they had made clocks too or perhaps not clocks as such but to have mechanism like this one driven like a clockwork to copy the motion of heaven automatically over time<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Mechanical water clocks were supposedly developed in Egypt in the 3rd-5th century BC. So there was certainly an interest in mechanical horology.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<i>When I read the article, my thought was that if the Greeks could build this, they could have more easily built a mechanical calculator that does addition, multiplication and division. A mechanical calculator with the operations I described would be much simpler to design and construct. Frankly, I would now be very surprised if the Greeks did not have mechanical calculators. Mechanical calculators are VERY useful for all types of engineering and shipbuilding projects.</i><br /><br />Were their mathematics up to it though? My understanding is that calculating algorithms were not developed until John Napier and the early 17th century. <br /><br />Could it even be done without the zero?<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<i>listen, religion, i.e., blind belief in supernatural where blind means not being supported by reason, by any sort of evidence and I mean scientific evidence based on rational logic, that in my eyes is as unscientific as you can get and you are telling me that such people devoted to unreason would be promoting rational science or technology that grows out of it, not by chance, and to the extent they did, they betrayed religion and in the process of doing it and to the extent they were rational they undermined it </i><br /><br />We are not talking about an a priori definition of "religion" that bears no relation to what people actually think, we are talking about specific cases. because we are talking about the rise of science and technology in the western world in the Christian era then we have to look at what the relevant people actually thought. Simply asserting what you have does not make it so, indeed the whole thrust of Christian theology has been that it is historically based. Whether or not those historically based beliefs are correct is a separate issue, and quite irrelevant to this discussion.<br /><br /><i>I could also mention bible's exhortation against attaining earthly wealth (rich of this world won't pass into heaven no more than a camel can pass through the eye of a needle) and that saints and other representatives of religion (to the extent they weren't corrupt) espoused frugal life withdrawn from worldly pursuits and in deliberate poverty, i.e.., withdrawing from technological amenities that science has brought us... so bible nowhere exhorts against science and technology because these were nigh unknown and not important foe to religion in those days when the bible was written, still the bible contains such exhortation by default without actually plainly saying so</i><br /><br />How does frugality and avoidance of ostentatious and selfish accumulation of wealth equate to hostility of science and technology? Furthermore it is not wealth as such which <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[silylene old]

<font color="yellow">Were their mathematics up to it though? My understanding is that calculating algorithms were not developed until John Napier and the early 17th century. <br /></font><br /><br />Jon, I think so, but I don't know for sure. To build this device, they had to do complex calculations on gear sizes, tooth counts, reduction ratios (i.e. division), compensations for the elliptical orbit (gears with effective variable diameters via a pin and groove connection...division and multiplication). Greek math was rather highly developed (e.g, the Archimedes equation for the perimeter of a regular n-gon is quite complex). Only a small fraction of Greek mathematical texts have survived.<br /><br />This quote from the Nature article speaks to the difficulty of the algorithm:<br /><i>Gears with 53 teeth are awkward to divide. So it may seem surprising <br />that the gearing includes two such gears (f1, l2), whose effects <br />cancel in the train leading to the Saros dial. But the gearing has been <br />specifically designed so that the ‘epicyclic table’ e3 turns at the rate of <br />rotation of the Moon’s apogee—the factor 53 being derived from the <br />calculation of this rotation from the Metonic and Saros cycles, which <br />are the bases for all the prime factors in the tooth counts of the gears.</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[vandivx]

the bottom line is that religion, here specifically Christian religion is based on unreason while science is based on reason<br /><br />Christianity (as any religion) cannot afford reason and therefore science, that's like saying that fire cannot afford water <br /><br />to do science properly one needs to hold reason as one's highest arbiter and that means rejection of blind acceptance of anything including belief in some supernatural entities, proper science of nature cannot allow an idea of some suprenatural realm, reality cannot be partitioned off into two separate realms - rational and irrational - and neither can rational mind be divided like that if it is to be rational<br /><br />so the bible never needed to exhort explicitly (openly) against science (or its dependant technology) because it is qua rational realm inimical to the very base on which religion stands (on blind belief in suprenatural - that is, in God, in creation, in miracles etc)<br /><br />it is only confused minds that think they can have both, religion and science with both working in harmony or at least peacefully coexisting alongside each other, that's nothing but delusion of those who don't want to abandon their religious beliefs<br /><br />as one who (at minimum) has some ties or alegiance to religion it is not surprising your calling for authoritative texts to bolster your position and I grant you that in today's corrupted and confused world there will be tons of scholarly works of highest water testifying for your side in this argument, question is though are they right? numbers or credentials don't make right automatically or make certain what they claim<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>How does frugality and avoidance of ostentatious and selfish accumulation of wealth equate to hostility of science and technology? Furthermore it is not wealth as such which is wrong, but improper uses. Wealth, properly used<br /><br />To the contrary, the Bible says that natural r</p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

What has the Antikythera mechanism to do with religion?<br />Can you guys take that part of the discussion to another thread?<br />Like "Religious implications of the Antikythera mechanism " or something like that?<br /><br />I'm fascinated with the device and what it did.<br />To me, that was the topic.<br /><br />Just my opinion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

I have tried to keep ithis discussion broadly within topic which would, as I interpret it, include the role of world view in limiting the extent to which the ancient greeks developed science and technology and comparision with the development of science and technology in other cultures.<br /><br />However, you seem intent into turning this into a platform for your view on of the validity of relgious perspectives in general and Christianity in particular. This is not the forum for that sort of thing and is completely off topic.<br /><br />If you wish to continue this dicussion, please do so by PM. <br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

I agree, while it was still discussing world view and how this impacts the development of science, it was still relevant. But now.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Now it has diverted.<br /><br />I certainly don't want the thread locked, as I'm still rereading the article to grok the whole thing, but can we declare the religious spur off topic?<br />Spin it off. Both of you <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Otherwise it won't work.<br />I have no problem with a discussion of societal impacts, since as I stated the ability to foretell eclipses wielded great power.<br />But I believe the religious implications belong in a separate thread.<br />Thanx for listening<br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

It is frustrating. The role of world view in the development of social constructs such as science and technology is a fascinating topica nd a major area of research in the history and philosophy of science. Useful and complementary work is done by people from many world views.<br /><br />Unfortunately here it has resulted a branch of the discussion going off topic. To continue the usefulness of the thread I have twice asked that further discussions be continued by PM. Any further posts on the topic here will be deleted, a process adopted by other moderators in such situations.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

How would such a device handled fractions in the absence of a decimal notation?<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[silylene old]

*sigh*<br /><br />I have tried to keep diverting this discussion back to a scientific discussion.<br /><br />The 'Tower of the Winds' built in Athens ca 50 BC was a water driven clock that kept time, and showed which contellations were rising and setting. The large octagon marble structure which housed it still stands. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[vandivx]

but it is scientific except from different angle, still I see your concern and it was on my mind from the begining, only justification I can draw is that I stood on the side of science's chief tool - on the side of reason<br /><br />anyway, here is something to ponder on topic<br />http://www.e-telescope.gr/en/cat05/art05_021129.htm<br /><br />and the same in more respectable form<br />http://users.otenet.gr/~tzelepisk/yc/at.htm<br /><br />I am pleased to point out that the maker of this website had the same estimate as I had here on forum (without first visiting this site) except that certain events shouldn't have taken place for that to have passed, the technological advance alone wouldn't have made it<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The Aeolipile of Heron exploits the pressure of vapour converting it into circular power, it is a precursor of steam engine. With a little more work on that, the Industrial Revolution could have happened a thousand years before.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />another nice read up from 1959 http://www.giant.net.au/users/rupert/kythera/kythera3.htm<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Everyone here is on the side of reason, not just you.<br /><br />The Greeks did not need steam industry, they had plenty of slave labour. Furthermore they had no deep mines to dewater, and and no proto industrial technology to which steam power could be applied. Plus there was not a culture of empirical innovation amongst the educated. Practical people like Hero were few and far between. Hence Hero's toy was never developed into something useful. <br /><br />With a different world view they mioght have had a culture of practical, hands on innovation and be less reliant on slaves. Under those circumstances we might have seen the undustrial revolution 2000 years ago, and be exploring the nearer stars by now. <br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"Everyone here is on the side of reason, not just you."<br />true enough, I grant that, except for religion <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> (that's what I tried to say in that comment of mine)<br /><br />I would see it a bit different that one about having slaves they didn't need (steam) industry, I'd rather say the idea of 'industry' was still foreign to them, same as it was foreign to ancient and not so ancient Asia but for different reasons<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Shall we agree to disagree not that matter then?<br /><br />Your comment about industry got me thinking about what exactly <i>is</i> industry.<br /><br />Certainly the Mediterranean economy during the Hellanistic and Roman periods was large and well connected. There were large engineering projects and ship building which required considerable amounts of raw materials, centralised production, and considerable organisation. But I can't think of many people who would consider this to protoindustrial.<br /><br />In contrast 18th century Britain was proto-industrial. There was no slavery and labour had to be paid for, especially skilled labour. There was considerable investment in wind and water driven power technology to drive machinery to dewater mines, crush rock, work metals, mill grains, etc. as a way of reducing labour costs and increasing outputs. Steam power, even the most primitive, could be used to power this machinery with great power and reliability. This paved the way for mass production, something that was largely foreign to the ancient world, where most items were hand made.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[silylene old]

Jon, I agree with your comments on 'proto-industrial' economies. <br /><br /> However, I want to point ut that proto-industrial economies can have some level of moderate technological sophisitication, at least by copying a design someone else invented. Examples are Afghanistan, where AK-47 clones are hand-made in garage metalshops, in Gaza, where small but deadly rockets are handmade in basement factories, and in Central/S. America where 3 home-designed small submarines were hand-built by drug cartels have been subsequently seized by authorities in the last few years. I wish I had some good-for humanity examples! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

It is sad endightment on our priorities, is it not?<br /><br />But be not too downcast. I've seen some quite amazing examples of ingenuitity in the poorer parts of the world that just don't make headlines, but do make live easier and enable people to earn a better living. Pedal generators, simple power farm machinery, diving compressors, remarkable adaptations of bicycles, both motorised and un motorised. They just are not news worthy.<br /><br />It is work noting that rockets probably aren't that sophisticated and have been used in warefare for perhaps a 1000 years. Of course the Gaza rocketeers to have access to welding technology, metals, and exposives that would to have undreamt of by the Chinese and Indian rocket builders.<br /><br />The gunsmiths of the Khyber are remarkable in that hundreds of peole working in little shops, are able to produce automatic guns of a high enough standard to use mass produced ammunition without jamming. It's not like making muskets after all, which is what their ancestors did. But the business is suitably lucrative for them afford access to precision metal working tools and dies and the right alloys.<br /> <br />It's the same with submarines. Provided you did not want to go very deep a small submersible is well within the reach of a backward engineer who has a good budget. A lot of the tricky bits can be bought of the shelf.<br /><br />It was very different for the 19th century pioneers, who had todo it the hard way. We often forget how much basic technology we take for grantedwas beyond the capabilities of a century or so ago. A pratical bycle could not have been built before the 1880's beause a practical bicycle needs mass produced precious parts like ball bearings and chains, it also needs peumatic tires, not possible until the vulcanisation of rubber was perfected. The supposed epitome of low tech, a bicylce would have been impossible for Archimedes or even Fulton to duplicate (although I am sure they would have loved one <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"Shall we agree to disagree on that matter then?"<br />--<br />I agree<br /><br />"This paved the way for mass production, something that was largely foreign to the ancient world, where most items were hand made."<br />----<br /><br />this is the kernel of industry being born, when someone got the idea of organizing people into factory units for mass production as opposed to artisan shops "where most items were hand made."<br /><br />it really has nothing to do with slaves, you could have slaves in industrial age too except that it wouldn't be competetive with factories full of free men and they could at best play extremely marginal role - it might not seem so at first look but that's the reason slaves don't fit into industrial economy, they do only unskilled labor - it is a myth to imagine that slaves would strive to better themselves and even educate themselves, why should they? and you can't force people into education<br /><br />industrial age is what brought freedom to West and would have eliminated slavery if enlighened American Fathers didn't move to abolish it before it would have vanished of itself given time<br /><br />however this is something I am sure will meet with opposition, I will say no more on that<br /><br />medieval Europe built big ships and all kinds of things but that wasn't industrial age yet, that came with those factory sweatshops in 18th century Britain as you say, give or take some time<br /><br />Europe had artisan shops for ages but it never could do what factories did - in matter of couple hundred years the West totaly changed into modern and afluent world, something that old economy could never do and it had lots of time to prove itself<br /><br />the idea of industry was totaly foreign to Greeks as anything could be, there can't be any mistaking it<br /><br />and it should always be emphasised that slavery in their times was an innocent thing, there was no explotation in it like it was in medieval times for example when slaves were shipped by force from <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Slavery is an institution that us always brutal, degrading, and exploitive. Aristotle believed that slavery was a natural estate and slave were little different to animals. During the Roman republic slaves had not rights and could be killed or mutilated at a whim. One writer (Varro) called then "vocal agricultural implements".<br /><br />of course in practice, the treatment of slaves varied greatly. Many were highly educated and held very responsible positions and law enforcers, educators, doctors, administrators and the like. Some were close family retainers. Others were brutalised and worked to an early death. <br /><br />Death was often preferred to slavery, which is sucide was an accepted way of avoiding capture, and people killed their families rather than see them sold. This shows that slavery was not innocent that deep time knew it was contrary to human dignity when it was a person's own dignity that was threatened.<br /><br />But we are in danger of moving off topic again.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>