or pothole

Where are the mod points when you need them.

In the end all I got was a table with three legs!

I have a gasoline generator that I can run when power falls over... I have it set so I have to start the generator as opposed to automatic... so I get to decide when or when not to start it. Have only needed it a couple of time in the last few years fortunately.

It is such a peaceful feeling knowing that everything will work in the house even if main power is missing. My partner is not adept at operating technical stuff so if I was not at home and the power went off then she would have to wait for my return.

At my university ( Ohio Northern) we had to use the Post Versa-log slide rule. If I remember correctly it had 30 scales or something like that.

Lots of important things were designed with slide rules back before electronic calculators existed.

Not having calculators or computers did not stop us from doing complicated things, like going to the moon, figuring out the double helix, or designing the Boeing 747.

Dear AC

Thanks for your lucid response. For me to attempt to describe what 10 years of research and 258 pages of the text had to say would be difficult so here is a summary from one writer on amazon. I assume that nearly no one went to Amazon to read about the book and like typical Slashdotter's believe they are already keyed in and know the answers off the top of their heads.

Here is one Amazon Writeup: This is not mine but a reprint from Amazon.

This book makes the assumption that knowledge is a very difficult thing to lose. For example, the world uses the metric system (mostly), yet in the UK and America we still have rulers that measure in feet and inches.
The authors take measurement systems as an example and try to find common themes between those of different cultures. Their goal was to prove/disprove the existence of a unit of measurement that was defined by Prof Thom before he died. This unit was based on his statistical analysis of Megalithic sites across the UK.

The authors examine measurement systems from Egyptian times, the Minoan culture, the Mayans, India, China/Japan and Megalithic peoples. They find common links between them all and they suggest that they are derived from a single source. The result is a theory that explains the British Imperial system and links to the metric system we think is 'modern'. This is the only unique point that the authors have contributed to this field and it seems to have taken some experts by surprise.

The reader needs a simple knowledge of the maths and physics of pendulums and the willingness to read through a great deal of irrelevant information. I would regard such information as the authors attempt make a boring subject matter seem exciting. It does, after all, represent 10 years of research!

What follows is some info about some of the things that stopped people completing this book. These are what people think are incorrect or wrong assumptions about the book, which by the way addresses some of the mistakes in Uriels Machine (one of the authors earlier books). These mistakes make people think the book was a waste of time. Infact, I have read it 7 times now and I am still doing research to make sure the authors are not conning me.

This is going to be a bit of a spoiler so look away if you dont want to know what the book discusses before you read it.

Firstly, the size of the aperture (through which to view Venus) is specified as the distance between two poles placed on the circumference of a circle forming an arc of 1 degree. In this example, you need to remember the authors say the ancients defined a circle to be made up of 366 degrees because this was how many rotations of the earth there are in a year.
Note 1: We use 365.25 solar days in a year which is based on the definition of a day being a solar day (Based on the sun), whereas the authors say the ancients used what we call the sidereal definition of a day (Based on the stars) which has 366 days.
Note 2: If we were to use the moon as the reference point to measure the day then there would be no way to take into account the fact that your measurements would be distorted by the moons orbit around the earth. We measure the day using the sun as the reference point but this does not take into account the fact that the earth orbits the sun which is why we get an average of 365.25 days in a year. The stars are far enough away that they appear fixed (reasonably over the time scales we are discussing ~ 10,000 years because the stars orbit the galactic center). This is why you get 366 star days (properly called sidereal days).
Anyway, back to the point:
To set up the circle just place a pole in the ground and tie one end of a rope to it using a knot. Use the other end to trace a circle, making sure the knot is loose enough not to cause the rope to wrap around the pole thus reducing the radius. Once the circle is made, there are some simple rules of maths that allow you to accurately measure out 1 degree of arc on this circle without knowing any trigonometry. Once the aperture has been created, you must always observe Venus from a fixed point on the center pole. This means that if you move, you can easily come back and continue counting.
The only problem that I have with what the authors say (and on this point I may agree with other critiques) is that a larger radius will produce a larger circle and so 1 degree of arc will be longer. The authors say that there was a preferred radius, but I cant say that I agree with the logic used to support this idea.
If you agree with the authors, then there is no 'chicken/egg' problem as stated by some reviewers. However, I think I need to read this part of the book again to see if I can figure out the logic used by the authors regarding the preferred radius.

Secondly, you dont need the aperture to be a box. Start counting when Venus passes the first pole on the circumference and stop counting when it passes the second. If for some reason you happen to move, then move back to the fixed point on the center pole and continue. In this way, the system does not fail. Easy :)

Thirdly, the authors were trying to find a way of producing the measurement defined by Prof Thom before he died. The authors knew that every single expert on archeology believes that megalithic sites such as Stonehenge and Scara Brae are observatories of some sort. Infact, It has been well documented that the Newgrange megalithic observatory was designed to let the light from Venus shine through a shaft every eight years. Also, the planet was regarded as the godess of fertility and all experts agree on this. The authors used Venus because they tried everything else and couldnt get the right number. Once they tried Venus and got the right number, they backed up the logic of using the planet using the above reasons. They also state that the "planet has a forty year cycle (made up of five patterns of eight years)... making it so accurate that it can only be beaten by atomic clocks." Wow, not sure that I believe that, but can't be that difficult to prove (ie googling and research)
I accept the authors arguments for the use of Venus but this leads to its own problems.

The orbit of Venus is inside the radius of the earth. This has the effect of making the speed at which we perceive Venus to travel across the night sky to change depending on the time of year. The authors say that the longest length you get in a year is the one your looking for. If I remember correctly, the solstices are good days for this, but for the life of me I cant remember why this should be the case. (More reading required). Taking a year out to get the correct measurement was not a problem in Stonehenge and the pyramids (which the authors talk about in the 2nd half) because of the long build time to complete - eg 20 years for the pyramid.

OK, air drag isnt a problem if you know your basic physics.
The period of a pendulum swing is dependent on only two factors. These are the length of the pendulum and the gravitational constant of the earth. It does not depend on how heavy the pendulum is or how hard you push it. If air drag was slowing the pendulum to a halt, then simply push it again. If you push harder the pendulum swings further out but also travels faster. These two things work to cancel out the interruption of the push making the period the same as it always was. This is physics and cant really be argued against. So all you would do is provide as many extra pushes as required to reach your count of 366. No matter how many, you will never change the result.

On a final note, the authors seem to have found a theory that explains the British Imperial system and a link to the 'modern' metric system. They show that both are derived from this 5000 year old measurement system and we have simply rediscovered lost knowledge. This seems to have taken some experts by surprise so maybe there is some truth to it?

In summary, this book is not ad-hoc or made up and Stonehenge is not 300 bananas across and the pyramids are not 1000 bananas across. This book does, however, develop into a childish bit prattle in the second half, but this is because I dont under stand it .... yet. If the first half is anything to go by, then maybe the second half will turn into something more interesting and less childish. I hope so.

This book really makes you think about what could have been? How far the human race could have developed? (It seems were only discovered new knowledge in the last 100 years, everything else has been a rediscovery of 5000 year old knowledge.

This was before my time (barely) but it use to be believed that the Earth was the center of the Universe and that the Sun rotated around the Earth.

So when the pseudoscience idea was originated in Copernicus's day that the Sun was in the center and the Earth rotated around it... well a lot of people got upset especially the church... cause they did not check it out first.

The new idea got a lot of individuals in trouble including Galileo and others.

Now you did not go to a book site and review the book like I suggested... no, you seemed to do to me what the Catholic church did to Galileo... only verbally rather than physically... and so does that make you any better than the Catholic Church?

I have not finished the book yet... but there is merit in what I have read and was merely mentioned it for those who might be interested in the initial origin of weights and measurements... also it is a fascinating read and presents ideas that show that in ancient days that calendars and times were even more accurate than todays.

Just so you know who is talking here... my oldest child is 55 years old and I have been involved with electronics and computers since the 50's... so I do have a right to talk.

Mathematically I was under the impression that one kilogram is what exactly one liter of water weighs.

Do not believe that the French developed the metric system for it is based on an ancient system of weights and measures based upon the time for Venus to move (transit) a particular distance across the sky. In those days a circle was divided into 366 degrees rather than 360 which matches the number of days in a year. The ancient clock system used then was more accurate than what we use today as well as the calender. Their system avoided the "leap year"

This technique developed thousands of years ago combines both the avoirdupois pound and the metric system and is based on what is referred to as a "Megalithic inch".

There is much substantiated already that ancient monuments such as Stonehenge were measured with an accuracy of 1/10000 of a millimetre.

For further information check Amazon for "Civilization One" by Christopher Knight and Alan Butler. A very interesting book, I am about half through this very enlightening book.

See what a pint, gallon, or bushel really is and how it was developed.

You would just need really fast missiles. 5000 nautical miles in 2 microseconds ... well that would be a really bright idea.

I sense we are heading for an ice age actually and that the global warming is a bi-product initially, but I am not sure if that is any better than heading for global warming and having an ice age as a bi-product.

Anyway, weather in today's time-frame seems to be different.

Hope you feel better soon. Arthritis is no fun.

Wish I had mod points for that wry statement

Nice sig

More than a grain of truth in that.

I lived in Sedona, AZ for years and enjoyed the mild winters and the lovely summers... not being nearly as hot as Phoenix... but, alas my father got ill and died and so it was back to Ohio for me to be closer to my mother who is 89.

When it was time to get a new girlfriend then I drove out to Sedona, picked one out, and brought her back to Ohio with me.

One day, perhaps my home will be once again be in Arizona... but even as I am typing this... deep deep down, I know this is not the case. Being intuitive is not all it is cracked up to be.

Used to be that the Sydney harbor bridge only took tolls going one way and charged twice the amount thus assuming you were bound to return sooner or later. I worked in Milson Point right where the bridge started. My office had a window that overlooked the bridge and I always enjoyed watching the cars and lorries. I lived in Kirribilli so would walk to work on some days. times sure does fly... that was 30 years ago... yikes.

A first I thought she was being silly and playful with me, but then as the situation materialized with the dentist like it did makes me wonder if it was a "warning" of sorts, or if it all was just a coincidence.

I am seriously thinking of finding another dentist because of how it all unfolded.

"Creepy" is a good word for it.