PDA

View Full Version : Ancient Greek "computer" analysed by scientists



Maciamo
30-11-06, 18:27
BBC News : Ancient Moon 'computer' revisited (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6191462.stm)

The delicate workings at the heart of a 2,000-year-old analogue computer have been revealed by scientists.

The Antikythera Mechanism, discovered more than 100 years ago in a Roman shipwreck, was used by ancient Greeks to display astronomical cycles.

Using advanced imaging techniques, an Anglo-Greek team probed the remaining fragments of the complex geared device.

The results, published in the journal Nature, show it could have been used to predict solar and lunar eclipses.

The elaborate arrangement of bronze gears may also have displayed planetary information.
...


This shows just how advanced the Ancient Greeks and Romans were, and how long it took for Europeans to catch up after the fall of the Roman Empire, mainly because the Catholic Church hampered scientific development for over 1000 years.

Mitsuo
01-12-06, 19:25
Yes, this is very interesting. I'll get back to this one!

Has anyone read 'Chariots of the Gods?'?

Mitsuo
10-12-06, 04:51
Finding devices such as this really makes you wonder how advanced ancient people really were. How did they get the knowledge? Were there visitors from the "heavens"?
These are the questions that the book I mentioned earlier ask. This book is just one big Hypothesis. The hypothesis is created by many observations of ancient texts and archeaological findings. Findings that contradict our own thoughts about the past. They have actually found Electric Batteries south of bagdad, that date back thousands of years old.
How could this be do you think?

Maciamo
10-12-06, 17:55
Finding devices such as this really makes you wonder how advanced primitive people really were. How did they get the knowledge? Were there visitors from the "heavens"?

I don't know what makes you think that the Ancient Greeks and Romans (which we can considered to be the same "civilisation") were "primitive people". After all they are the one who founded the Western civilisation, invented (or reached the highest ancient level in) philosophy, biology, physics, military strategy, classical architecture, theatre, drama, democracy, the republican system (senate), as well as the Ancient world's most efficient weapons (e.g. phalanx, catapult, mirrors to burn ships' sails) and technology (e.g. aqueduct, central/floor heating, fire engine).

After all, genetically speaking, they were almost the same people as modern (southern) Europeans. Ancient Greek language and Latin were gramatically more complex than modern Greek and modern Latin languages. I don't see how you can view them as primitive. Europe only started to recover from the plague of Christianity in the 18th century, and only from that time on was European culture and society as great as in Ancient times (until Christianity became the dominant religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th century, a period known as the Decadence of Rome, immediately followed by many centuries of ultra-religious Dark Ages).

Without Christianity, it could be argued that Europe would have reached the same level of development as today over 1000 years before it did.

Kinsao
11-12-06, 16:56
I'm not disputing the point you are making, but I take offence at Christianity being referred to as a "plague". :box:

Rather, I would say it is ignorance that is a plague, and religion can be, and as you pointed out has been, used as a tool to keep people in the dark and suppress progress. However, there is no stipulation within Christianity itself (as far as I know! o.o) that instructs its followers to be ignorant, superstitious, and/or resistant to ideas of scientific progress. :souka:

Maciamo
11-12-06, 17:49
When I say Christianity, in this historic context, it means the Catholic Church (or possibly also the Orthodox Church).

Mitsuo
12-12-06, 02:35
Yes, you are correct Maciamo. I should have rephrased my sentence better. I wasn't trying to say that the Ancient Greek/Roman civilizations were primitive. But I was rather referring to Ancient People. Sorry about that.

Maciamo
12-12-06, 11:04
Yes, you are correct Maciamo. I should have rephrased my sentence better. I wasn't trying to say that the Ancient Greek/Roman civilizations were primitive. But I was rather referring to Ancient People. Sorry about that.

Ok, but why would ancient people be less intelligent or creative than us just because they lived a few thousand years before us ? As long as they had the means to support an organised society with a class of intellectuals who didn't have to produce food, make clothes or build houses, and thus had enough time to think about politics, philosophy, develop new technologies or the arts, I do not see why their reasoning abilities or imagination should be less good.

So why in Anatolia, Greece and Italy rather than elsewhere in Europe ? In ancient times, such a society could only develop in a warm climate like the Mediterranean, the Middle East or India, because food didn't grow as well or wasn't so abundant all year round in higher latitudes. Spain was too dry, and too far from the place of origin of agriculture.

Thanks the the 18th and 19th cnetury agrarian and industrial revolutions that have greatly facilitated the production of food and goods, the West was able to develop superior systems, sciences, technologies, and more varied and mature arts and fashion than the rest of the world.

The only thing that doesn't change much is the cultural differences between the great civilisations : Europe, the Middle-East, the Indian subcontient, and East Asia. Whatever the culture, linguistic group or country within one of these civilisations, there is always something similar between them. It is normal as each civilisation has its own the ethnicity, sensitivity and philosophico-religious influence.

Mitsuo
13-12-06, 02:52
Ok, but why would ancient people be less intelligent or creative than us just because they lived a few thousand years before us ? As long as they had the means to support an organised society with a class of intellectuals who didn't have to produce food, make clothes or build houses, and thus had enough time to think about politics, philosophy, develop new technologies or the arts, I do not see why their reasoning abilities or imagination should be less good.


?

I never said that ancient people were less intelligent or creative than us. I never even hinted toward that conclusion. My question is simply asking whether or not we have a strong base of understanding about the knowledge the ancients had. No, not just the Greeks or Romans (the only reason why I mentioned those two cultures were because they were brought up by you, mainly Greek). Yes, we have a basic understanding of what they knew and what their minds were capable of. But my question is merely asking if they could have been more advanced than we really think. Again, not just the Greeks and Romans, but the Egyptians, the Incas and the Mayan cultures and more.

You see, I am not trying to state facts or my opinions. I am asking questions.

Maciamo
13-12-06, 10:47
?
I never said that ancient people were less intelligent or creative than us. I never even hinted toward that conclusion.
Nevertheless you said :

Finding devices such as this really makes you wonder how advanced ancient people really were. How did they get the knowledge? Were there visitors from the "heavens"?
The part "Were there visitors from the "heavens"?" seemed to be hinting that they were too primitive or not intelligent/creative enough to have thought of such technology (e.g. analogue computer used to display astronomical cycles), so that some visitors from the "heavens" (aliens ?) would have helped them. Why is it normal for someone who lived 200 years ago to come up with the idea of the combustion engine or the phonograph, but if some more basic technology was developed 2500 years ago one wonders if there were visitors from the "heavens"?

Kinsao
15-12-06, 15:42
It's an interesting question. I think (correct me if I'm wrong ;-)) that Mitsuo was thinking specifically of "knowledge" rather than "intelligence". Of course, there is no reason to suppose that "ancient" people had a low intelligence or a poor thinking or reasoning capacity. I don't know for sure, but I'd always assumed that their brains were fairly similar in capacity to ours now. However, these days we have a lot more knowledge in the sense of factual knowledge, most particularly about how things work and in scientific/science-related fields. So we're not necessarily inherently brainier, but we do know more - as you'd expect after having hundreds and thousands of years to figure things out. (E.g. any child could go on Google or to an encyclopaedia and find out the distance of the moon from the earth, without being particularly intelligent, but way back in the mists of the past there was a time when humanity actually didn't have that knowledge at all. However, that wouldn't necessarily mean that people were less intelligent.)

I think that what Mitsuo might be driving at, is that although we can take it more or less that "ancient" people had a similar level of intelligence to us, they didn't have the same knowledge - but something like this "computer" theory challenges that preconception by suggesting that perhaps they had more knowledge than we thought. Ok, so why should we be surprised if we allow that their intelligence probably wasn't less than ours? Why should they not therefore have also acquired a high level of knowledge? Well, the reason it seems to me surprising is that the knowledge (of things like computers and batteries) then seems to have become "lost". O_O After making significant advances in knowledge, generally, if these things are useful, they stick around - like the wheel, and fire, and the idea of farming animals. I suppose the question is why this device wasn't more well-known, more often-used, noted in records of the time... or, if it didn't turn out to be really practical, why the technology and discoveries of the making process weren't turned to other uses and developments which outlasted the original gadget? :?

Maciamo
15-12-06, 19:25
I don't see how with their knowledge of sciences and engineering, the ancient Greco-Romans could not have developed this kind of computer-like astronomical clock.

Maciamo
31-07-08, 12:09
There is a new BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7533457.stm) on the subject. They have found that one of the dials corresponds to the dates of the ancient Olympic Games (Panhellenic Games). Contrarily to modern games, the ancient version had one event every year, over four years.


The four sectors of the dial are inscribed with a year number and two Panhellenic Games: the "crown" games of Isthmia, Olympia, Nemea and Pythia; and two lesser games: Naa (held at Dodona) and a second game which has not yet been deciphered.

In addition, the team was able to identify the names of all 12 months, which belong to the Corinthian family of months.

Blaze Master
28-01-09, 01:02
It's an interesting question. I think (correct me if I'm wrong ;-)) that Mitsuo was thinking specifically of "knowledge" rather than "intelligence". Of course, there is no reason to suppose that "ancient" people had a low intelligence or a poor thinking or reasoning capacity. I don't know for sure, but I'd always assumed that their brains were fairly similar in capacity to ours now. However, these days we have a lot more knowledge in the sense of factual knowledge, most particularly about how things work and in scientific/science-related fields. So we're not necessarily inherently brainier, but we do know more - as you'd expect after having hundreds and thousands of years to figure things out. (E.g. any child could go on Google or to an encyclopaedia and find out the distance of the moon from the earth, without being particularly intelligent, but way back in the mists of the past there was a time when humanity actually didn't have that knowledge at all. However, that wouldn't necessarily mean that people were less intelligent.)

I think that what Mitsuo might be driving at, is that although we can take it more or less that "ancient" people had a similar level of intelligence to us, they didn't have the same knowledge - but something like this "computer" theory challenges that preconception by suggesting that perhaps they had more knowledge than we thought. Ok, so why should we be surprised if we allow that their intelligence probably wasn't less than ours? Why should they not therefore have also acquired a high level of knowledge? Well, the reason it seems to me surprising is that the knowledge (of things like computers and batteries) then seems to have become "lost". O_O After making significant advances in knowledge, generally, if these things are useful, they stick around - like the wheel, and fire, and the idea of farming animals. I suppose the question is why this device wasn't more well-known, more often-used, noted in records of the time... or, if it didn't turn out to be really practical, why the technology and discoveries of the making process weren't turned to other uses and developments which outlasted the original gadget? :?

It was already answered my theory is this humanity in four times had a major contact with alien civilisations.
1) The 'Egyptian Gods' While most people consider them a myth there is no logical explenation how did the pyramids were build were talking about constructing cranes and efficient ways of material distribution in an era humanity belived that a sun can get angry on them the Egyptian priest somehow were able to acquaire very good astrological maps and were able to use this knowledge ! Or were given these knowledge in order to support something and suply it !
2) The 'Greek Gods' althought it may be just a myth but its suprising that Greek philosophers had some knowledge if it were acquired by human means why it was forgotten
3) Our GOD this example has a very good scientific research and evience we know that Bible was created we can read it we know where Eden was located there are historical facts that are indentical with the Biblical ones !
but we don't know what on this matter is keeped in secret libraries of Vatican (of course there is a possibillity these secret libraries hold nothing secret but just the things Vaticans considers their treasures for example rare books that have only artistic and no scientific value you may not exclude this possibilitty)

4) Mayans there also many ancient computers found resembling the same type the greek one does in fact Mayans did create this calendar that states the world will end in 2012 (althought in this meaning the 'end of the world' might mean change and yes if you look around you can feel something will happen I can feel it the world is going crazy ! And ussually when something of this kind happens something Major is bound to happen thats what I think )

Thats my opiniom on this !