65 replies to this topic

[DieChecker]

Very cool article. I hope they locate other, even more interesting instruments.

I've always thought the Mechanism was the work of a Genius. Perhaps all coming from one workshop. The reason they are not found is that there were few of them. Even if two hundred were made, and distributed to heads of state and VIPs worldwide... after 2000 years it would not be usual to never find even one. Unless one was taken and buried with its owner, or buried in a jewelry hoard (Which I doubt anyone would let happen if they were as useful as they seem they would be), then you would expect them to eventually be damaged and destroyed and then melted down again.

The amount of stuff that gets preserved from antiquity is only a tiny percentage of what was.

[TheSearcher]

DieChecker, on 07 January 2013 - 09:19 PM, said:

Very cool article. I hope they locate other, even more interesting instruments.

I've always thought the Mechanism was the work of a Genius. Perhaps all coming from one workshop. The reason they are not found is that there were few of them. Even if two hundred were made, and distributed to heads of state and VIPs worldwide... after 2000 years it would not be usual to never find even one. Unless one was taken and buried with its owner, or buried in a jewelry hoard (Which I doubt anyone would let happen if they were as useful as they seem they would be), then you would expect them to eventually be damaged and destroyed and then melted down again.

The amount of stuff that gets preserved from antiquity is only a tiny percentage of what was.

quite correct. And you do find them mentioned in the works of different authors and engineers, so we know there was more than one.

[the L]

I wonder could antikythera mechanism purpose could be time keeping?
Could it be a precise watch?

We know that astronomy and time keeping are realy connected...so..just a thought.

[questionmark]

the L, on 16 February 2013 - 12:26 PM, said:

I wonder could antikythera mechanism purpose could be time keeping?
Could it be a precise watch?

We know that astronomy and time keeping are realy connected...so..just a thought.

A watch needs a power source. No evident springs were found in the machine.

[the L]

questionmark, on 16 February 2013 - 01:58 PM, said:

A watch needs a power source. No evident springs were found in the machine.

Perhaps they were lost.

[TheSearcher]

the L, on 16 February 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

Perhaps they were lost.

No, that would have become apparent, when they made the reproduction. A good mechanical engineer can extrapolate quite a bit from what they had of the mechanism in the first place. It doesn't allow for springs or a power source in the first place.

[the L]

TheSearcher, on 16 February 2013 - 02:27 PM, said:

No, that would have become apparent, when they made the reproduction. A good mechanical engineer can extrapolate quite a bit from what they had of the mechanism in the first place. It doesn't allow for springs or a power source in the first place.

Isnt surprising that they didnt developed a watch? To keep astronomical records you must have precise time keeping.
Maybe it was different type of power source...speculating.

[questionmark]

the L, on 16 February 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

Isnt surprising that they didnt developed a watch? To keep astronomical records you must have precise time keeping.
Maybe it was different type of power source...speculating.

They had no need for precise timekeeping. In fact, until the 18th century nobody came up with the idea that time had to be kept precisely (and that only because they needed something to measure the precise location a ship was at). Before that people thought in days, the impatient ones in hours.

Until  about the 16th century mechanical clocks did not even have minute hands, and they were not used for the average person to keep time with but so the night guards knew when to sound the all clear signal (i.e. no fire and no enemy in sight) twelve times a night in regular intervals.

[the L]

questionmark, on 16 February 2013 - 02:57 PM, said:

They had no need for precise timekeeping. In fact, until the 18th century nobody came up with the idea that time had to be kept precisely (and that only because they needed something to measure the precise location a ship was at). Before that people thought in days, the impatient ones in hours.

Until  about the 16th century mechanical clocks did not even have minute hands, and they were not used for the average person to keep time with but so the night guards knew when to sound the all clear signal (i.e. no fire and no enemy in sight) twelve times a night in regular intervals.

Didnt Huygens invent pendulm clock because of astronimical needs?

[questionmark]

the L, on 16 February 2013 - 03:39 PM, said:

Didnt Huygens invent pendulm clock because of astronimical needs?

Yep, in the late17th century. At the same time (give or take a few decades, Harrison build a handheld for navigation purposes)

[the L]

questionmark, on 16 February 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

Yep, in the late17th century. At the same time (give or take a few decades, Harrison build a handheld for navigation purposes)

But isnt that suggest that ancients might do that too? and that antikythera mechanism and similar might been used for that purpose aswell?

[Frank Merton]

There is a story about Archimedes that I wonder if it is true or not.  It seems a few hundred years after his death the great Cicero visited Syracuse and asked to see his grave.  The Syracusans had no idea what Cicero was talking about, so put him off, and a week later produced an elaborate grave with monuments and all that was appropriate to the great man.  I gather Cicero was not convinced.

[questionmark]

the L, on 16 February 2013 - 03:48 PM, said:

But isnt that suggest that ancients might do that too? and that antikythera mechanism and similar might been used for that purpose aswell?

.

The "ancients", especially the Romans and the Greeks left us lots of self adulation on how and what they did, I fail to see astronomy among them. But astrology was very common in Greece, where the exact hour is less relevant than the exact day. The ascendent theory was not introduced to astrology until the 17-18th century. And only there you need to know the hour. And as we see by the known machines, that is what they were used for: astrology, not astronomy.

[the L]

questionmark, on 16 February 2013 - 04:53 PM, said:

.

The "ancients", especially the Romans and the Greeks left us lots of self adulation on how and what they did, I fail to see astronomy among them. But astrology was very common in Greece, where the exact hour is less relevant than the exact day. The ascendent theory was not introduced to astrology until the 17-18th century. And only there you need to know the hour. And as we see by the known machines, that is what they were used for: astrology, not astronomy.

That isnt rule. There were people who argued that we are orbiting around sun and that sun is fire ball. There are people who argued that moon is planet. Ancient greeks. Im sure you know their names if not I could mention them.
There are pepole who argued that stars were another suns.

Not all think on Mars as warrior.

Whats ascendent theory?

Edited by the L, 16 February 2013 - 04:59 PM.

[questionmark]

the L, on 16 February 2013 - 04:57 PM, said:

That isnt rule. There were people who argued that we are orbiting aroun sun and sun is planet. There are people who argued that moon is planet. Ancient greeks. Im sure you know their names if not I could mention them.

Whats ascendent theory?

As I told you a million times: It does not matter what you think, it matters what you can demonstrate. Archimedes "could" have build a atomic bomb, he had everything he needed....except the need. And that is what it always comes down to: Was there a need for large scale need for open water navigation? No? Then there was no need to break your head about exact time. Was there international quick long distance communication? No? Well then time was irrelevant, you got there when you got there and so on.

Things, all through history, have not been made because they could (or could not) but because there was an immediate benefit or a need for it.

Speculating on all that "could have happened beyond what is demonstrable" is an exercise for those without any meaningful tasks to occupy themselves with.I don't fall in that category.