Antikythera Mechanism Shows Flat Earth Astronomy Works

A quick summary from a few random sources:

The Antikythera mechanism was discovered in the Antikythera shipwreck off Point Glyphadia on the Greek island of Antikythera. It is the only object of its kind and widely recognized as the first analog computer. It handled both Egyptian and Greek calendars, could predict eclipses and the movements of the heavenly bodies, and most recent estimates date it to around 200 BC supposedly of Babylonian or Greek origin. The complexity and theory behind this devices suggests a long history of devices that were pre-cessors to this only remaining piece of its kind.

Wikipedia relates that Michael Edmunds, who led a 2006 study of the mechanism, described the device as "just extraordinary, the only thing of its kind", and said that its astronomy was "exactly right".

The design suggests that it may have not been related to any particular geometric or planetary model and instead was based off empirical readings. This heavily suggests Babylonian design as their astronomy also did not bother with geometric and planetary models and instead relied on measurements.

Others suggest it was of Greek origin for a number of reasons. Specifically, the predictions of the moon matched a theory of a greek; its location;

Why does this matter to the Flat Earth? Whether or not it was made based off a model, and remember if its from Babylonian origin it likely wasn't, it is a solid example that these predictions do not require a model as the machine itself was not "embedded" with a geometric or planetary model and instead at most dealt with predictions based off what could be called equations that were not model dependent. This provides a great answer for when somebody tells you that "The ability to predict eclipses shows the Earth is Round."

Dating suggest the design may have been based on a geocentric RE model since the device is dated to have been designed after observations of the devilish Eratosthenes and Hipparchus.

I would suggest studying up on its operation and accuracy.  It requires entering the correct year before having the chance to get a reliable prediction. The predictions are not being made just based on the time between past events.

It is also not 100% accurate at making the predictions it is designed to make.  It however does it pretty good job at eclipses using a RE geocentric model.

If you are accepting this device works adequately at making certain predictions I would suggest reviewing your current model.

Here is an example of one of the Greek models used that this device would likely be using:



The Sun and Moon are not circling above the surface of the Earth, but orbiting the Earth at much further distances than any of the current FE models I am aware of predict.

For some reason this device is not as accurate predicting the movement of Mars as it is at predicting eclipses.  I will leave you to look at the Greek model of the solar system and make your own judgement to why this might be.

I will also suggest looking up when very reliable and accurate predictions started being made, not only with eclipses but planetary motion.  Notice what models were used. 

It's a bit more complex than that, though, with epicycles inside epicycles and deferents.

Like I said, even if it was designed off a geocentric model the model was not encoded into the device and so the calculations are model independent - much like those in Babylonians.


Also It was during the lifetime of Eratothenes that it was created, and we only found out about these calculations much later (165 BC). We have no idea when Eratosthenes made these calculations, but its safe to say they weren't in common knowledge until around this time. Likewise, the device has a long history of predecessors which are betrayed due to its complexity and design. This means the predecessors likely were designed before any calculations of this kind.  Also of note is that its of Babylonian origin and the babylonians did not use model based astronomy which fits the design of the device better  (Carman and Evans).

Are you seriously trying to suggest that that model is embedded in the design of the machine?! This is laughable.

I see no need to look into the Greek model of which I'm already very educated in. Because its not the "model" htis machine was designed under.  Even if it was, this model was lost in the creation of the device and the device simply holds the mathematical layer of it - making it an empirically based model rather than a geometric one.

So this device shows how people in South America and Austrailia can look south at the same time and see the same southern cross, even though they are looking 180 degrees in different directions?

The FES's inability to create a geometric model of the planets still shows that the theory is weak. Yes you can predict the positions of planets from empirical data, but the fact that the data fits into the solar system model highly implies that it is correct.
Having an overly complex system such as the ptolemaic system implies that it is wrong when a far simpler system exists.
Having no geometric model shows that your "theory" is incomplete, and isn't real a theory, more of an idea.

Why do you think having it fit into a geometric system implies it is correct?

Why do you think simplicity implies truth?

Why do you think not having a geometric model shows it is incomplete?

How do you differentiate a "theory" and an "idea"?

Quote from: John Davis on June 23, 2016, 08:37:20 AM

Why do you think having it fit into a geometric system implies it is correct?

If a model can explain every occuring phenomenon, it is correct until proven otherwise, I would say.

Well, we already know no model can explain every occurring phenomena as it must necessity must contain a Godel Sentence. However, what if two models can explain every occuring phenomenon. Are they both true until proven otherwise? How is having a geometric definition of things we can't account for with first hand experience "true"? Are the predictions of this machine "less true" because they aren't based off geometric models and instead empirical models?

What is so special about a geometric model that gives it some sort of weight to truth? It seems to me to be an alternate method to deriving truth, but certainly not truth itself.

Quote

Why do you think simplicity implies truth?

That part is true.

Why do you think not having a geometric model shows it is incomplete?

Well, this would be by the definition of incomplete. A complete theory would have a geometric model.

Sounds like a complete theory is a lot like a true scotsman.

Quote

How do you differentiate a "theory" and an "idea"?

Don't know, the differences between those terms do not really bother me. I would guess a theory has been tested and can account for/predict phenomena.

In this case, it can account for and predict phenomena. Just because it doesn't say why is irrelevant. Remember science is not about finding causes, its about describing the universe.

Well, to be honest, I take a very mathematical approach to this:
If two models can explain equal phenomena, then they are both true to me. In this case I would favor the more elegant one.
Our understanding of the universe will never be complete, but the heliocentric model (including GR) can explain most of the phenomena on a reasonable scale (quantum mechanics and dark matter/energy excluded). It is not complete, it never will be. But it is very good.

 Antikythera mechanism documentary. Good watch.



Astonishing but not a flat earth proof.  More just the ancient Greeks were even more clever than we think. 

Why do you think having it fit into a geometric system implies it is correct?

Informally, I don't think that two theorys that vastly differ can give the exact same results, but I haven't got any proof of that.
A more accurate thing to say would be that "it is necessary for a correct theory of the planets to have a geometric model". In the flat earth model the planets follow some path above the earth, so using the shape of the path of the object you should be able to calculate where the object is viewable in the sky.
Now proving that the FET doesn't have a geometric model is hard to do (but I might of found a way to do it, I just need to find a date when three gps satellites form an equilateral triangle), but the fact that no one has found one yet hints that something is up.

Why do you think simplicity implies truth?

Because it's easy to make a false theory that predicts events correctly by adding on ad hoc axioms, and adding them on makes it more complex. Yeah, it's not a rigous way of judging truth, it's more of a hint. Take the Ptolemaic system, it's complexity doesn't disprove it, it just hints that it is wrong, it was finding that Venus has phases and it is full when it looks smaller that disproved it.

Why do you think not having a geometric model shows it is incomplete?

Incomplete means something is missing, in this case it would be the geometric model. If the theory is correct there will be a geometic model, how could there not be.

How do you differentiate a "theory" and an "idea"?

A theory (in the physical sense) accurately describes an element of reality, how it works and how to predict what it will do.
The speed of light being constant is an idea, but special relativity is theory.
So far the FES has described a model of how the earth, planets and stars work. It kind of says how things work, but has got nowhere on the predicting front. So it is more than just an idea, but it's lacking an important element of what I think is a theory. At the end of the day a theory isn't a rigously defined term.


On a seperate issue.

Well, we already know no model can explain every occurring phenomena as it must necessity must contain a Godel Sentence.

I don't think godel's first incompleteness theorem applys to a model of reality. One requiment is that you need to be able to be able to incode all statments about the model within the model itself. If the universe is bounded, you won't be able to incode every statment, there will be a limit.
If you did have an infinate amount of mass to use, then godel's incompleteness theorems would apply, but that's likely because using an infinate amount of mass you can create a turing machine, so you can run a algorithm that checks if a goodstein sequence halts. Basically math existing within the universe would cause the incompleteness.