New Clues for Antikythera Mechanism 183
fuzzybunny writes "The Register reports that British and Dutch scientists located a previously undetected word on the Antikythera Mechanism which seems to confirm its nature as a tool for astronomical prediction. This device is one of the world's first known geared devices; while its purpose is still not 100% clear, according to the article, 'Athens university researcher Xenophon Moussas is reported as saying the "newly discovered text seems to confirm that the mechanism was used to track planetary bodies."'"
Not Surprising (Score:2, Insightful)
What's new? (Score:3, Insightful)
Check out the Wikipedia article.
So if these guys have really learned something new - they are failing to communicate whatever it ACTUALLY is that they've found.
Re:I'm amazed (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention, there's a tradition of automata similiar to this machine that has continued to the present day..wasn't exactly lost.
No, we don't know what they knew (Score:4, Insightful)
And what makes us think that most Greeks believed in a geocentric universe? We know precious little about what they knew back then, since we have only a handful of their writings. To insinuate that we have anything like a complete map of the intellectual landscape of the time is sheerest puffery.
A minute's thought might convince us that a heliocentric model was available to them: They knew the earth was a sphere; they knew its size; they knew the sun was far enough away that its rays arrived parallel for all intents and purposes. Add to that that as soon as someone tried to build something like the Antikythera Mechanism they must perforce have noticed (as did Kepler a millennium and a half later) that it's far easier to model the heavens if you place the sun in the center rather than the earth.
Even this mechanism itself cannot be unique, as some articles about it have hinted. An automaton/clockwork/astronomical model this complex cannot have leapt full-formed from the mind of a single inventor. There must be an entire lineage of similar devices. That we have only a single example is simply a hint that there was much more to their technology than we're currently aware of. It's also an indication of how easy it is for a cultural calamity to erase collective memories of high tech; a warning for our times if nothing is. Not to mention that the correct ideas are not necessarily those which survive such a calamity. After all, when the Roman Empire fell, Medieval Europe inherited the Ptolemaic model. Of course, by then Ptolemy was writing (ca. 150) he probably had to work without the benefit of the bulk of the Royal Library at Alexandria [bede.org.uk] so he may have been left to his own devices when considering a model of planetary motion.
Re:I'm amazed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Clear Skies (Score:1, Insightful)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/atlanti
It's my guess that you can find 'correspondences' between any selected group of points on earth and some group of stars especially if you aren't too fussed about precision.
As for the global civilisation destroyed in about 10,500 BC, does it not seen strange to you that -all- of their towns and structures were built on the coast? None inland where they could be found today?
Re:Let's stick with fact, not legend (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, even today, in a team of scientists discovering something new, the head of the project gets most (or all) of the credit...
In any company, managers take credit for the work done by others, but blame them if anything goes wrong.
I wouldn't say things have changed that much.
Too quick with the Submit button (Score:3, Insightful)
Forgot to mention... how many of Edison's inventions were really his own, and how many (should have) actually belonged to some lab worker/assistant in his labs?
Re:Clear Skies (Score:4, Insightful)
The idea of a nuclear war in antiquity is preposterous. They didn't have atoms back then. =)
Re:Clear Skies (Score:4, Insightful)
Knowing that there is iron in the concrete may lead to the conclusion that someone put it there, but not necessarily to why. One of the limitations of archaelogy is that the most believable story that incorporates all of the evidence wins. Knowing that something was a 3000 year old Anasazi field may be somewhat interesting, but generally isn't the level of detail people are looking for. While that may be true, it only tells us a little about how they lived. It doesn't tell us much about their culture, other than they farmed, which means they likely weren't nomads.
I remember an example used in class of how this process would work if it were applied to us. Some future archaeologist who came across the remains of our society would find most of it destroyed. Artifacts are rare, which is why they need a story to fill in the blanks. Many of the bodies found from our time would have groups of trinkets in close proximity, or in the clothes if they were still in tact. The number and types of these trinkets may be associated with someone's social status or religious beliefs. It would be curious because each group of trinkets would have similarities, but be different. In fact, no two identical sets of trinkets would be found across all of the bodies found. Someone could look at all of this and conclude that these were indications of social status and develop some intricate theory. Without someone from the present time to say "these are keys, they go in locks, we lock things because we don't trust people", the theory may sound solid.
Bloody Romans! What have they ever done for us? (Score:3, Insightful)
XERXES: Brought peace.
REG: Oh. Peace? Shut up!
(If you don't know what that's from, well, hand in your geek card on the way out.)