Talk:Antikythera mechanism/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Attributes by de Solla Price for Intro

According Derek de Solla Price, who did the first modern technical investigation, it is "the most complex scientific object that has been preserved from antiquity." Price (1959). Still today there is no known object for any objection.

At first glance "it must have resembled a well-made 18th-century clock." Price: "Consisting of a box with dials on the outside and a very complex assembly of gear wheels mounted within, it must have resembled a well-made 18th-century clock." Price, D. de S. (1959). "An Ancient Greek Computer". Scientific American 200 (6): 60-67.

This may have caused the objection that it may be a later time work sunk there or a fraud. I think both citations should be mentioned in the intro to get the object in historical perspective. Price was Avalon Professor of the History of Science at Yale University and therefore qualified for such statements. -- Portolanero (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Mentioned around the year 500

A device like the reconstructed Antikythera mechanism existed was known (1) in Italy around AD 500: "A machine has been made to exhibit the courses of the planets and the causes of eclipses." According a letter by Cassiodorus King Theodoric send it as gift to the Burgundians.

By the translator in 1886 - before the Antikythera find - it was called "perhaps something like a modern orrery": "It will be a great gain to us that the Burgundians should daily look upon something sent by us which will appear to them little short of miraculous. Exert yourself therefore, oh Boetius, to get this thing put in hand. You have thoroughly imbued yourself with Greek philosophy[246]. You have translated Pythagoras the musician, Ptolemy the astronomer, Nicomachus the arithmetician, Euclid the geometer, Plato the theologian, Aristotle the logician, and have given back the mechanician Archimedes to his own Sicilian countrymen (who now speak Latin). You know the whole science of Mathematics, and the marvels wrought thereby. A machine [perhaps something like a modern orrery] has been [Pg 170] made to exhibit the courses of the planets and the causes of eclipses. What a wonderful art is Mechanics! The mechanician, if we may say so, is almost Nature's comrade, opening her secrets, changing her manifestations, sporting with miracles, feigning so beautifully, that what we know to be an illusion is accepted by us as truth." "The Letters of Cassiodorus - Being A Condensed Translation Of The Variae Epistolae Of Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator", Translator Thomas Hodgkin, London 1886. BOOK I. 45. King Theodoric to Boetius, Vir Illustris and Patrician.

It is the third known such device located in Italy. But it is unlikely to be identical to one of those two mentioned by Cicero as located in Rome. The lifetime of such a bronze mechanism is limited to few centuries. So this is evidence for a tradition to build such devices still in Roman Imperial times. -- Portolanero (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

(1) The translation by Thomas Hodgkin seems in error regarding the actual presence of a device as a gift in 506. Certainly the machines were known. Either by use with astrologers like mentioned by Nonnus (see Mike Edmunds "Before & After the Antikythera Mechanism") or known from the book Cassiodorus mentioned above. It was sometime called the "Mechanica" and probably of 4th century origin but attributed to Archimedes. It existed in the Middle Age and Renaissance but is now lost. Probably Leonardo da Vinci had access to it. -- Portolanero (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Documentaries and Popular Culture

There is a paragraph about this device being mentioned in the latest installment of the popular video game "Assassin's Creed". However the author of that section neglected to provide 1) a reference, and 2) the name of the particular installment (there are many). This needs to be corrected.

75.192.216.216 (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Why would anybody waste a mechanical computer for planetarium purposes, rather than naval artillery fire control?

A strong argument could be made that "Antikythera clock" tech being useful for the Greeks and getting forgotten later on, is not a very realistic squence of events.

I mean, this kind of mechanical computer technology is higly useful for ballistic calculations and is actually not much different from the "artillery tables" used for fire control in WWI era battleships, allowing them to pound each other with large caliber shells, from up to a dozen miles away.

I would argue it is much more like an ephemeris rather than ballistic tables. One could perhaps use the same technology to build an analog ballistic computer, but that is not at all what this is. SkoreKeep (talk) 09:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Considering makind's desire to find ever more innovative ways to cut thy neighbour's throat, why would any civilization allow an important tech to go to waste that could otherwise support a revolution in naval warfare waged with ranged weapons? Who cares about watching mini celestial bodies dance, when the mechanical computer allows vanquishing the other kingdom's battle fleet? 82.131.134.106 (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. The torsion catapults of classical time were more difficult to predict than modern guns. Their energy storage element was of biological origin. They used the best available and I heard it was human female hair. Today we still use it for hygrometers because it is sensitive to moister. By such hard to predict material and the rather short distance (< 500 m) I expect tables or graphs would do the calculation faster but with still sufficient accuracy. -- Portolanero (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
The Greeks of this time were under Roman control; they did not have the same drives for such tools as we do today. Drawing suchparallels is pretty faulty. SkoreKeep (talk) 09:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, ancient artillery controlled range through the torsion of the fiber bundle which gave the necessary energy. One of such controls has come to us, from the most unlikely source (the Samnites, who fought bravely - and won - the Romans in the IVth century b.C.), and is on display in the Chieti Museum. Its use was only recently recognised. Its stops are numbered by letters in the Samnite alphabet (used for numbers in the fashion of the Attic convension of numbering: A for 1, B for 2 and so on). The range was roughly proportional to the torsion, as can be shown by a little of mechanics: the ancient must have discovered the relation through practice rather than theory.

This is not an appropriate discussion. Talk pages aren't forums to discuss the whys and wherefores of the subject of the article. Unless you all have reliable sources, please try to find a web forum. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Very long article

This article is over 120kb, and when exported to pdf is 27 pages long. There is a lot of room for the prose to be condensed, which would improve the article's readability and navigation. It seems like right now the article is a mashup of the Mechanism and the entirety of several researcher's careers. Tagged with the 'long' template. R0uge (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. A while back I thought to remove two sections, The "Latest results" and the "Investigations and reconstructions". This is where most of the "researcher's careers" information lies. I'm going to go ahead and do that as it appears to me to be mainly 20th century history rather than about the mechanism itself. Later this data can be collected into a "Hunt for the Antikythera Mechanism".  :) SkoreKeep (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I also removed exhibitions, Purposes and oher similat machines. That reduced it about 40%. It's now 70 kb. SkoreKeep (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Comes cplakidas to restore some of the now missing history back into the History section. I appreciate the additions, but please wait until the companion article, containing the information that I deleted yesterday from this one, is published; it should be within the next couple of days, and the story of Admiral Theofanidis will be there. I don't really intend to squat on this article and not allow others to edit, just give me a little time from the rather brutal cuts of yesterday to get coherence back into both articles. Thanks. SkoreKeep (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I had not seen that there was a wholesale restructuring, I just happened to come across it and found it odd that Theofanidis had been removed. I am eagerly awaiting the companion piece. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 15:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that you move the "Descrition" section to the end. Such changes must be made after careful reading of the entire document, but after a first reading I think "Description" (with major and minor fragment subsections) should be moved to the end. Encyclopedic articles almost by definition must contain more information than the average reader wants to read. This can be alleviated by putting less relevant material at the end of the document. I rarely find the second half of any WP article very interesting.--guyvan52 (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
A good suggestion. The problem is that in the detailed re-construction to follow some references to "fragments" and specific fragments are made. I did look at it and decide the size of the description could be reduced by moving the fragment specific notes into the table. Not too sure what else can be done. SkoreKeep (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy

Concerning the changes made to the text by 75.34.103.201 and my reversion of them, allow me to be clear: the Ptolemaic system with deferents, single epicycles per deferent, eccentrics and equants, is precisely as predictive as Copernicus' system of deferents, double epicycles per deferent, and eccentrics, and also indeed to Brahe's hybrid system. They are mathematically equivalent systems: given the same input data, they will generate the same orbital predictions. More epicycles added to either system was an attempt to make the orbits more closely match the unevenness now attributed to elliptical orbits under Newton's gravitational theory. Geocentrist/heliocentrist point of view is irrelevant to this fact. SkoreKeep (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Instructions

The text in the article implies that the "instructions" part of the inscription has been translated. Why then, is it not in the article?--Auric talk 00:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

About 2200 of the estimated 22,000 characters of text that once existed on the face plates and the covers has been detected. Obviously, given the nature of the wreckage, it is in localized chunks and individual small groupings of disconnected text in areas of less disintegration. Some of it is displayed on the front cover display linked to in the text. The ability of the modern technical means to read the text is amazing, but that has about reached its limit, unless new archaeological finds are made. The text is in the papers which discuss findings. SkoreKeep (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Return to Antikythera

Project in Sep 2014: http://antikythera.whoi.edu/ 80.226.24.7 (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

A clock?

An edit defining the AM as an "astronomical clock" (in addition to the earlier "analog computer") was added to the lede. I don't think this can be supported. The mechanism has no autonomous time-keeping mechanisms; it has only a crank, gears, and indicator pointers on fixed dials. At best (vis-a-vis time keeping), it performs calculations between various solar and lunar calendars. It's best resolution is a solar day; turning the crank one revolution advances the calendar by approximately 73 days. The use of "astronomical clock" might be stretched to cover calendrical functions; only in this sense would the phrase work. SkoreKeep (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy

After a discussion of the pre-equant theoretical inaccuracy and the mechanical inaccuracy, this line was added:

Carmen and Evens believe that many of these inaccuracies can be remedied by using a Babylonian arithmetic model based on center and day velocities as opposed to Greek trigonometric models.[7]

The article cited discusses inaccuracy in time-of-day predictions made on the Saros dial on the back, and how the Babylonian data used to compute the inscriptions on that dial may be slightly off due to misunderstandings of the Babylonian timekeeping practices; it has nothing to do with either the length of the planet retrograde (which the equant of Ptolemy would eventually fix) or the mechanical accuracy. A rewrite to make that clear, that this is a separate form of inaccuracy, would be welcome. For that purpose the named reference was left in place. SkoreKeep (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The Olympic Dial

A point could be made that the Olympic dial was not meant as an indicator of the actual games (which would be pretty useless) but helped to set the date on the front side. Since the calendar ring was based on the Sothis year, it deviated from the solar year by one day within four years. To compensate this deficit, the calendar ring was readjustable, as the main article correctly states, but only to one day = four years precise. The Olympic dial would then have helped narrow the setting of the date down to the exact year. This hypothesis was to my knowledge first suggested in The Dominion Device. 2014. ISBN 1502558211.. Nafiris (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

That might be true, but your use of a gaming fiction book would probably be inappropriate as a reference...unless it references some other document in support...? The one thing I note is that the names of the years events are inscribed on the dial, which doesn't preclude your suggestion, but does indicate what, basically, the dial is for. In your sense, ALL of the dials perform the function of informing the year set, as long as no gearing ever slips internally, and the pointers on the backside are always attended to. SkoreKeep (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's obvious that the names are inscribed on the Olympic dial. That's exactly why said authors build their description on the hypothesis that predicting games was likely not its primary purpose: It would seem a too trivial use of such an elaborate instrument. The Olympic dial would make sense, however, according to what seems to be their genuine assumption, in identifying an individual year out of a sequence of four in the Sothis period that cannot be distinguished from reading the front dials only. Since the Greek calendars lacked any consecutive numbering but referred to great games only, some other means would be necessary to adjust the Sothis calendar ring (365 days) to the solar calendar (365 1/4 days), they ascertain in their description, and the Olympic dial with its period of four years served that requirement perfectly. Nafiris (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, fine. I'm more than happy to see a writeup of this notion as long as it is clear ("The Olympic dial would then have helped narrow the setting of the date down to the exact year" needs to be expanded, for example) and that there is some scholarly authority for it. Finding a meaning for this dial, when it would appear to be no more and no less than one more small tour-de-force in a box full of such, will need some explanation. I have to deny that the indication of the year in the Olympic cycle is far from "pretty useless", in a society without common clocks or calendars. SkoreKeep (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
As Shorekeep said, this is Original Research at best, and speculation at worse. It shouldn't go in the article unless you can find a legitimate source for it. R0uge (talk) 03:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Point taken, R0uge. Nafiris (talk) 07:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

A set of quizzes for this article is under construction.

Three quizzes specifically targeted to this article are currently under construction at: Antikythera mechanism/Quizzes

They can now be found at https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism/Quizzes --Dweller (talk) 11:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

"only 17 further gears"

Given that we know of 30 gears, the "only" that precedes "17 further gears" in our article seems very strange - and unscientific. Is it in the original source, or have we editorialised? --Dweller (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

As an engineer, it sort of surprises me that the additional functionality can be had that cheaply, but that's just me. I suppose that's what comes with practicing science without a proper license.  :) SkoreKeep (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Lol. Yes, I see your point. Either way, we shouldn't be expressing an opinion, unless it's sourced. "Only" is a judgement, not a fact. If the source expresses the same surprise you have, then it's fine to include. (Probably best to put in the verbatim quote). --Dweller (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Other machines

It may be worth noting that if other copies were built it is likely that when they broke down there was probably no one around who could repair it, and the kparts were probably melted down and reused, explaining why we can't find any other versions.--Varkman (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this has been noted by other researchers, such as Jo Marchant. The relatively expensive bronze available during the middle ages meant that almost anything made of bronze would have been scrapped once it had stopped working, or had even outlived its inventors. SkoreKeep (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

My edits today on the "Accuracy" section

Re: these changes - I wanted to make clear that the reason I altered the wording is that those particular statements did not appear within Freeth & Jones 2012 IASW paper. While they were true & verifiable from other sources the paper 1)did not mention Ptolemy's equant and, re circular/elliptical orbits, 2)only mentioned Kepler's Second Law ("true orbits are not uniform and circular but elliptical and subject to Kepler's Second Law") with no mention of the 1609 date. To include them in that section, while apparently only discussing the 2012 paper, could be seen as possibly veering into WP:SYNTHESIS territory. Also, the text within the one block quote was not completely accurate so I changed it to a direct quote. I also wanted to make clear that the block quotes are directly from the Freeth/Jones paper so altered the referencing somewhat. Shearonink (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

South Facing Chariot

To all 

"rotation of the ball. It requires a differential gear, a gearing arrangement that sums or differences two angular inputs. Among its other first-known aspects, the Antikythera Mechanism is the earliest verified construction of a deliberate differential gear scheme in history.[citation needed]"

is incorrect. The chinese south pointing chariot was Ref- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South-pointing_chariot

also no mention is made of Allan Bromley (aus) see references

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_G._Bromley#CSIRAC http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/24/1030052995887.html


regards

chris Johnson wsouthcott@bigpond.com

P.S. It interests me that no check/search was run through Wikipedia itself :-). Shouldnt this be standard practice for all artic les and edits?

My guess is that the paragraph should be saying is that the AM is the oldest extant use of a differential gear. I cannot find any mention that any of the south-facing chariots exist from the times mentioned. I'll try out an edit to that effect.
At one time there was extensive words about all the people involved in discovery/recovery of the AM in the article. These were removed in favor of a description of the mechanism, with the intention of bringing them back in a separate article. Time can be a real task master. You are certainly welcome to essay such an article; the deleted text can be easily recovered from an edit on 7 Aug 2014. Noting the length of the current article, a new, separate article is recommended.
As to your question about standard practices, certainly something like that would be desirable. It assumes that any editor be fully aware of all the wiki pages that may have a word to say, let alone the outside references you cite. By all means, an automated tool to search for references in a text and find all that have pages in wikipedia would be welcomed. Giving the tool enough smarts to finish before Andromeda crashes into our galaxy, or more likely completely bog down the wikipedia servers, might be a challenge. I for one, was not aware of the chariots page; I was aware of Allen Bromley, having read Jo Marchant's book and working through all the controversy on that, but it's of interest mainly in the history of the AM, not its functionality, and so was edited.
Thanks for your comments. Be bold and edit where you think it may be necessary; all you have to fear is fear itself. SkoreKeep (talk) 11:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Antikythera mechanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Expeditions

In the text it says 'another expedition was planned for spring 2015': did this happen? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Astrolabe

Could the mechanism be an double astrolabe? --Nfarrow (talk) 08:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

If you mean it showed the positions of celestial bodies; yes. But as far as I'm aware only the single-dial side of the mechanism did this; the two-dial side indicated not positions but dates/times of certain (celestial) events. Drabkikker (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The dial on the side is input, and is in terms of relative time. A full rotation moved the mechanism forward or back 72 days. The two major output dials and the associated small dials generated approximate dates for some celestial phenomena and theoretical clock times. The concentric dials on the front (with from 3 to 8 needles) read out in circular degrees along the ecliptic, therefore a position in the sky sphere. 16:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Babylonian speculation

I'm not going to argue this, but there's this a few days ago and I've seen some before. Doug Weller talk 16:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Sorry Doug, I hadn't seen it was you who added this at the time of the revert, otherwise I would have explained it in more detail, or not reverted at all, as I don't revert editors I have known and respected for a long time. Only after I performed the revert I realised it was you. My point was that in the article the Babylonian origin theory/speculation has not been covered so it would seem as undue to add it to the lead. Dr. K. 16:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
@Dr.K: No problem. You are of course right, careless of me. In any case, it is certainly just speculation. It's a bit more than speculation that the mathematics is Babylonian though. Doug Weller talk 16:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Doug for your kind comments. I agree about the underlying math. A case is being made in the article that they could have been of Babylonian origin. Dr. K. 17:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
My understanding is that the instrument was the fusion of Babylonian long time-line astronomical observations, Egyptian calendars and Greek theoretical astronomy and mechanical abilities. It is the latter capability which has most surprised modern technologists, and mainly because all examples of it, other than the AM, have been long destroyed.SkoreKeep (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Mechanism in the news and question

Would a link to [1] be appropriate?

Has there been any attempt to create an Antykythera object using modern materials and levels of accuracy (a parallel to the Babbage Machine)? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. The earliest was done in 1950, but has been shown to have been in error in several parts. The most definitive has been Michael Wright's machin, as discussed in the article. Others have done the machine as well, in some cases quite stylized and "in the spirit" of theAM, if not an exact copy. There's been a Lego machine built reproducing the central mechanisms. SkoreKeep (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Deleted sections

Many sections were deleted on August 2014. SkoreKeep offered to create an article with the deleted sections. I believe that sections "Similar devices in ancient literature" and "Documentaries, exhibitions and popular culture" should be restored to this original article. The other deleted sections may be placed in his new article. Americanplus (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, I did. Unfortunately, reality imposed, and I was unable to do so. I still have the sections removed, but they're also available in the archive. I have no argument with re-expanding the article, as I don't carry hard rules about the size of article around with me. So, please, be my guest. Call on me if I can be of help. 20:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Youtube series on making a replica

Maybe of interest to people here. A youtuber called Clickspring (home shop clock-making type content) has a new series about making an Antikythera mechanism. Playlist here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZioPDnFPNsHnyxfygxA0to4RXv4_jDU2

His series tend to last a long time, but they are usually fun to watch and pretty informative. Anyway, maybe some people here would be interested.--Lead holder (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Gear directions

Are the gear directions (in the current version, table "The Antikythera Mechanism: known gears and accuracy of computation") really correct? The article and its sources clearly say that all pointers except the Olympiad pointer rotate clockwise (natural rotation of the pointers when viewed from front or back). That means that all axes/gears which are mounted to pointers in the front panel (i.e. axes/gears X and B) should rotate clockwise and all axes/gears for the pointers in the back panel except O (i.e. N, Q, G and I) should rotate counter-clockwise (rotation of the gears when viewed from front). But now all the gear directions in the table seem to be opposite. For front pointers: X is marked ccw, should be (->) cw. Similarly B ccw -> cw, as a consequence E* cw -> ccw. For back pointers: N* cw -> ccw, O* ccw -> cw, Q* cw -> ccw, G* cw -> ccw, I* cw -> ccw. All animations about the mechanism show B rotating cw. All the rest follows from the gear paths when B is cw. Or is it just my head where the gears are going backwards?

(I don't understand the planetary pointers (Freeth and Jones 2012) as well yet. The zodiac in the mechanism is clockwise, so I guess sun3*, mer2*, ven2*, mars4*, jup4* and sat4* are also wrong and should all be cw instead of current ccw (in prograde motion), but I don't yet understand how the gears produce it for mars4*, jup4* and sat4*.) --Tomisti (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I changed the directions in the article. The article was clearly contradicting itself, but that's understandable because it's easy to get confused especially with the pointers in the back panel, since their gear rotation and natural rotation directions are opposite. But I hope somebody can check (and hopefully explain better in the article) the gear directions for the superior planets system. --Tomisti (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

"Antikythera Mechanism" versions of month names

that were previously given here, at its Wikipedia article, and since copied around the internet were unsourced and are apparently utter bullshit. The complete treatment of the Antikythera parapegma is behind a paywall for Almagest Vol. 7 No. 1, but this source states that only three of the months—none involving variant spellings—survived and the rest are simply reconstructions. — LlywelynII 23:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Artefact/artifact

Both spellings are acceptable in British English, Americans prefer 'artifact' - see [2]. So it seems sensible to use the latter here. --TedColes (talk) 08:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

But the article uses British English, eg "centre" which is used 8 times. It's probably right that Americans still prefer "artifact", but not always, see this. Doug Weller talk 09:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. --TedColes (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Only B-class?

Dear Wikipedians, this article seems quite comprehensive so may qualify for "GA". How can we take it to that rating? Regards, DPdH (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi DPdH. Visit WP:GAC for the instructions. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes applied

The mechanism is being featured as a Google Doodle today. There have already been quite a lot of test/vandal edits, so I've applied pending revisions for 24 hours. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Pop culture section

"On 17 May 2017, Google marked the 115th anniversary of the discovery with a Doodle."

Does this minor acknowledgement of an arbitrary anniversary really belong in an encyclopedia article? I took it out but an editor put it back. --81.131.105.151 (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Richard Feynman discovery

I have seen in several articles that this item was noticed by Richard Feynman in a museum in Greece. Before he had come upon it, the item was only an oddity and had not been investigated further. The details explaining the Antikythera in this Wikipedia article do not mention the brief history of Richard Feyman's involvement with the progression of work put into it's understanding via science. Do you think the story of the Antikythera mechanism warrants a brief side paragraph about Richard Feyman's connection? Perhaps who he or someone else directly contacted in order to conduct further scientific and historical analysis? It may be nothing, like Feynman questioned the head curator as he was leaving and it went from there, but it would be interesting to read what history Wikipedia could come up with on this subject, especially for the Feynman fans out there! Thanks!1 Rezn8s4Evr (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I have to take some issue with your conclusion that "Before he had come upon it, the item was only an oddity and had not been investigated further." It had been an investigation first by Valerios Stais in 1902 and then by Derek de Solla Price in the 1950-1970s, which started the interest in it shown today, but x-ray technology of the time was not up to the challenge, and led him down some dubious tracks. Michael Wright was a great investigator and machinist who built the first viable model using techniques available to the times. Having nothing against Feynman, his interest in it did not do much to advance the investigations, IMHO.
But, if you believe differently, then by all means added it to the history of the device. Don't forget to reference your material. SkoreKeep (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes

Can someone more experienced with pending changes review confirm that the following edits have no chance of being applied? It is odd to me that they still appear "pending". This is from the busy pending-change protected period before the article was semi-protected. Here they are: [3] and [4]. Thanks, — PaleoNeonate — 21:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure, but I don’t believe it makes any difference how an edit gets reverted, through the PC interface or otherwise.—Odysseus1479 22:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, at least these are linked here, so it'll remain easy to check when protection is revoked that the false information did not creep in despite not having been individually undone. — PaleoNeonate — 22:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

BC dates should be BCE

Since this is a scientific article the date references should be in BCE instead of BC nomenclature. https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/ce-bce-what-do-they-mean.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.173.82.148 (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Please see MOS:ERA. Dr. K. 19:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, the OP did the right thing by starting a discussion here, per the second bullet point at that link. I’m generally in favour of (notionally) secular dating, especially in non-religious topics, so I would support this change. (Personally I would prefer astronomical dates, but few readers will be familiar with those—not that it makes much difference here, as few of the dates mentioned are precise.) OTOH if the principal sources for the article predominantly use BC (I haven’t surveyed them), that would provide some justification for the status quo.—Odysseus1479 20:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
WP:DATERETAIN goes further than that. If the format used in the article was BC, AD, then that's the one that should be retained. Dr. K. 20:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
"... unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page". "Detailed imaging of the mechanism suggests it dates back to 150-100 BC". A possible reason may be that it's from before-Christianity Romans. On the other hand, if most of our citations use BC/AD in quotes that we use, then this could be considered inconsistent. I currently see no quote containing BC. — PaleoNeonate — 21:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
The are no strong national ties and there is no consensus for changing the date format. However the earliest date format is from 2002 and it is BC. The original date format should be retained. Dr. K. 21:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I don’t think national ties have a lot to do with the era marker, more with DMY vs MDY and so on. Anyway, since this discussion has barely started it’s rather premature to be assessing consensus—I think everyone agrees that the status quo is BC, and has been ‘since time immemorial’. This doesn’t seem to have been discussed much before; all I can find is a short thread from 2011. Does anyone think a formal RfC is called for, or shall we wait and see what opinions are offered over the next few days?—Odysseus1479 21:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Unless there is a compelling reason to change the BC/AD date format, not advanced in any discussion so far, there is no reason for an RFC because retaining the status quo is automatically preferred by the MOS. Dr. K. 22:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
It continues to baffle me to see this argument peddled... that somehow "because this is a scientific/nonchristian/secular/etc. article, we should use BCE and CE". Okay... why doesn't anyone use this argument for the pagan-derived calendrical items such as Saturday (named after the god Saturn), Wednesday (named for the god Odin), Thursday (named for the god Thor), January (named for the god Janus) and so on? These are from the same calendar as AD and BC. Why is only the Christian element of the calendar targeted with these types of arguments? Why isn't anyone complaining that we might refer to Saturday instead of "Common Sixth Day" in an article concerning evolutionary biology?
Now it goes without saying that BCE/CE are more widely notable than any secular alternatives for the weekdays (despite Quakers having provided us with some), but the very reason for that is because of this strangely selective attitude on calendrical mythological references. As an atheist, or even as an adherent of any non-Christian religion, why are Christian references more imposing than prechristian Western religious references? Why are they particularly more "anti-science"? It doesn't make any logical sense. English is a language whose etymology and evolution is steeped in Western Christianity and paganism. Scrubbing religious references from an inherently religiously-derived calendar makes zero sense and accomplishes nothing other than bringing attention to the fact you tried to cover up a religious reference... and claiming that it's "because science" makes even less sense. So anyway, in case it wasn't clear — I am against the change in era notations. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 23:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

The "Popular culture" section is listed as a subsection of "Mechanism". It should be its own section. 81.131.105.151 (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Good idea. Jim1138 (talk) 08:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2017

181.50.140.165 (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 Not done - No request was made. TimothyJosephWood 18:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Analogue or analog

Pre-block, there was a lot of edit warring over whether the Antikythera device should be called an analogue (British spelling) or an analog (American spelling) computer. I am personally biased towards "analog", seeing that the main article uses the American spelling. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:C083:8400:D415:505F:3807:51BC (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The article was originally written by a European, apparently, and most of its main players, Wright and the AMRG, are Englishman, so British it is. See the on-going controversey over artefact/artifact, and I'd advise keeping your head out of the buzzsaw. SkoreKeep (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Please see MOS:ARTCON and MOS:RETAIN for more information. Thanks, — PaleoNeonate — 19:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Compromised sentence construction

"The artefact was recovered probably on or about 22 July 1901, according to the Julian calendar (which the Greeks continued to use at the time). That date was 4 August 1901, in the Gregorian calendar (used by then in most of the West, and now used worldwide).[14][15] from the Antikythera shipwreck off the Greek island of Antikythera, which in antiquity was known as Aigila."

I was attempting an edit of this sentence, but there was an "edit conflict" so I abandoned my effort. Please note that the period after both parenthetical phrases detach the rest of the sentence beginning at "from the Antikythera. . .".

I felt that the Gregorian mention should be separated in some manner. This is what I was attempting to correct. Perhaps another editor would like to to consider this issue and make any corrections necessary for sake of clarity in this matter. Thanks!THX1136 (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to the editor who cleaned up this issue! I appreciate your effort.THX1136 (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

antikythera-mechanism

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Copyright ?

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Legally speaking, nothing was copied by simply posting a link, which purpose was explicitly to be linked to. Links per se are not copyrightable. If this were a problem, then all exterior links are problems. If the youtube poster is posting the target video illegally, which is not a detectable state, then that is between the BBC and the poster; it is not our remit to police youtube links. Obligatory comment: I'm not a lawyer, not even a TV lawyer; I'm not allowed to tie lawyer's shoes. SkoreKeep (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add suggested origin

Please add the following. Göran Henriksson, Thales of Miletus, Archimedes and the Solar Eclipses on the Antikythera Mechanism, Journal of Earth Science and Engineering 4 (2014) 757-769, The author links the Antikythera mechanism to Sicily. 213.113.112.240 (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Please can you provide a link to the journal, if it is available on-line. It would need other eyes to check for WP:FRINGE. That's a minority opinion or view not yet accepted by the mainstream of any discipline. Thanks. Irondome (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Didn't take too long. JESE is published by David Publishing, which seems to have 20 or 30 journals in their stable, covering more than just science. Here is one review of the company:http://ethandoylewhite.blogspot.com/2013/11/theres-new-scam-targeting-academics-and.html. I wouldn't much trust anything published in it as being peer reviewed. SkoreKeep (talk) 03:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Wooden box

Was it found in a "wooden box" as the opening paragraph states? All the other descriptions describe a coralized lump that broke open exposing gears. I think it originally was mounted in a wooden box described in the text, but the wood had long ago decayed before it was discovered underwater. --RAN (talk) 05:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that there are/were still a few fragments from the original box still clinging to the find. They may have endured through a process similar to that which protected the marble statues which were buried in the sand. The copper sheathing of the wood is pretty much disintegrated, but it was covered with Greek characters, some 1/8 of which has been read off the mechanism itself; apparently the copper collapsed onto the bronze and left impressions readable with the HP texture mapping gear. I believe I read about the box fragments in Jo Marchant's book, but cannot be sure. It certainly had to have been enclosed in something; the dials and the input mechanism, as well as the copper plates, were supported in some manner. SkoreKeep (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Good stuff. I've tweaked the text. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Date of the Discovery

Escape Orbit, please bother to read the sources of the article before changing dates. The source being used for the date of the discovery is Hidden History: Lost Civilizations, Secret Knowledge, and Ancient Mysteries by Brian Haughton. Pages 42-43 specifically state that the wreck was discovered on Easter Day, 1900 (in April), and that the mechanism was discovered by Greek archaeologist Spyridon Stais "on May 17, 1902". The source states nothing about 1901.

Later on the article states that the 115th anniversary of the discovery was celebrated on May 17, 2017. Dimadick (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dimadick: I'm disappointed that you again chose to edit war rather than first discuss your edit. I acknowledge that what it says currently is confusing, and appears to be incorrect after a number of edits, but what you altered did not correct this situation, and did not support what the article itself said.
The statement that was being cited was when the artefact was retrieved from the wreck. Not the date the wreck was discovered, and not the date when Valerios Stais encountered it. So we are talking about three separate dates that should not be confused. This was previously sourced from here; http://www.antikythera-mechanism.gr/history, but recent edits had removed this cite.
I hope my modifications make this clearer. I've moved the date of retrieval to lower in the article, being of lesser significance, and left Valerios Stais' discovery in the lead. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
"I'm disappointed that you again chose to edit war rather than first discuss your edit." Unfortunately Wikipedi is full of know-it-alls, who revert because they do not like it, or never wrote it, etc, and are unwilling to talk. 90.213.248.226 (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Good. However, the website used as a source about the possible retrieval month (July, 1901) mentions Alexander Jones and Yanis Bitsakis as the compilers for their timeline, but not the sources they used. Is this website reliable? Dimadick (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

It's the website of the Antikythera Mechanism Research Project. You are unlikely to find a more authoritative source on the subject. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Archimedes connection

I think that the information under the section "Similar devices in ancient literature" strengthens the Archimedes connection and this should be mentioned in the Origins section.

Though it’s not known for certain, there is a lot of imperial and archeological evidence which supports the idea that Archimedes invented this. I believe showing this evidence to a reader is very important so that they can decide for themselves.Jgabe (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
(Moved Jgabe's comment into the topic, added an indent.) If you have the evidence you cite, then by all means edit it all into the article. I wouldn't know what "imperial evidence" even is. What is it, exactly, that we're expecting the readers to "decide for themselves"? Whether Archimedes had the wherewithall to create such an instrument himself? Had it made by someone else for himself? Invented it and sold the patent to someone else? Anyway, have at it and may the best evidence win. SkoreKeep (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Opening para

How does it work? Is it clockwork by a spring? Hand driven? Is there an input? Etc? 90.213.248.226 (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hand crank on the side. One rotation of hand crack was equivalent to about 72 days of elapsed time on the mechanism's solar dial. No clockwork; no spring, no pendulum. SkoreKeep (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Cicero's applications

Comes Curtis Buxton adding this: "Cicero records an account of such a device being used to show that an eclipse not only occurred at fixed times, but that those times could be predicted." I can't check his reference in Cicero's works where I am, but was Cicero ever noted for any astronomical work? AFAIK, he was an orator, a politician, and a translator (of Greek into Latin). Regardless of that, the comment has the idea backwards. The person who created the concept of the Saros and the Exilegmos was original work; committing them to the mechanism could be considered a demonstration of the predictability of eclipse cycles, but hardly a way to show that the cycles really existed, that eclipses were cyclic.

Is it significant here? Surely even a Roman could tell the difference between a mechanism and the concept of calendar cycles in astronomy? SkoreKeep (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Additional paragraph to the Origin section and the Accuracy section

In order to further reinforce the idea that Archimedes had significant influence on the development of the Antikythera mechanism due to the math and advanced technology used in order to model the celestial bodies and predict eclipses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curtis Buxton (talk • contribs) 15:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

New Changes to origin section

Adding new information on Archimedes about the origin of the mechanism. Also adding to the accuracy section to expand on the importance of the margin of error and how it effects the device.Bactx9 (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC) Now adding hyperlinks to other wiki articles. Bactx9 (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Name of discoverer

This article names Valerios Stais as the discoverer, but the http://www.antikythera-mechanism.gr/history page, cited in History - Discovery, says Spyridon Stais (http://www.antikythera-mechanism.gr/history/people/spyridon-stais). Which is correct? Photastro (talk) 06:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Apparently it's Valerios: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyridon_Stais Drabkikker (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Calling it a "computer" is a bit misleading...

I understand that the Antikythera mechanism is widely described as a "computer," especially in popular sources, but I think this label is rather misleading. First of all, it is extremely vague. If we define the Antikythera mechanism as a "computer," then we are clearly operating with the very broad definition that a computer is simply a device that computes things. If we take this definition, though, then computer is actually an extremely vague word. By the same definition, an abacus, a mechanical analog clock, Charles Babbage's difference engine, and a modern smartphone are all "computers" as well.

Second of all, not only is the word "computer" as it is used here quite vague, but it is also deeply misleading, because, while the Antikythera mechanism is technically a "computer" in the broad sense of a device that computes things, it is not at all what the average person thinks of when they hear the word "computer." When most people hear the word "computer," they think of a modern laptop computer, or at least a personal home computer like the ones from the 1990s. If you don't believe me, just give the word "computer" a search in Google Images and all that come up are images of modern laptops; you don't get any images of abacuses or analog clocks.

The persistent use of the word "computer" to describe the Antikythera mechanism has, unfortunately, given many people who don't understand what it was or how it worked the false impression that it was a device similar to a modern digital computer. I spend a lot of time on Quora and I constantly come across questions asked by people who were clearly under the misimpression that the Antikythera mechanism was something like a modern laptop. I list a few of those questions in this article I wrote on my website a couple days ago. They include questions of astonishment like "Do you think the 2000 year old Greek computer was actually real?" and "How did the ancient Greeks have their own Greek computer?" as well as questions that seem to illustrate a lack of awareness that the device was mechanical and not electrical, such as "How was the Antikythera mechanism 'fuelled'?"

When we call the Antikythera mechanism a "computer," we are essentially using the vaguest, most misleading word we could use to describe it while still technically being correct. This is frustrating especially because there is another word we could use to describe the Antikythera mechanism that would be far more precise and far less misleading; it is a mechanical orrery, a device used to model the movements of the celestial bodies. I think "mechanical orrery" would be the best phrase to describe it, but, if anyone objects to this phrase, at the very least, could we change "computer" to something like "mechanical computing device" or "mechanical calculator" to avoid giving people the impression that the Antikythera mechanism was a device like a modern laptop or PC? I understand that the word "computer" is technically correct, but the use of this word feeds a lot of popular misconceptions about the nature of this device. —Katolophyromai (talk) 19:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

We call it a computer because that what the sources do. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
They say there's more computing power in my hand held Antikythera mechanism than it took to fly men to the Moon. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
@Escape Orbit: Yes, there are sources that describe the Antikythera mechanism as a "computer," but there are also sources that describe it as an "orrery" and there are a lot of sources that describe it as an "astronomical calculator." For instance, this source, published in 2014, explicitly calls the Antikythera mechanism an "orrery." This other source, also published in 2014, does not explicitly state that the Antikythera mechanism is an "orrery," but nonetheless groups it in a section dealing with orreries titled "Archimedes' Orrery and the Antikythera Mechanism."
The term "astronomical calculator" is even more widely used in the sources to describe the Antikythera mechanism. For instance, it is explicitly called an "astronomical calculator" in this source, this source, this source, this source, and in dozens of others. In other words, there are plenty of valid terms that are used to describe the Antikythera mechanism in the sources, but, for some reason, we are choosing to use the term "computer," which is the least specific term that has the most misleading connotations. I say we should call it a "mechanical astronomical calculator," since this term is widely used in the sources and it is far less likely to be misunderstood than the term "computer," since the term "calculator" is somewhat less replete with modern technological associations than the term "computer." —Katolophyromai (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I support Katolophyromai. Before the advent of mechanical calculators a "computer" meant a lady hired to perform tedious calculations using pencil and paper, such as the computers hired by Edward C. Pickering for the Harvard College Observatory, who were known as the Harvard Computers. — Joe Kress (talk) 01:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I too support Katolophyromai's argument; "mechanical astronomical calculator" imparts more information and is unambiguous, unlike "computer". Carlstak (talk) 02:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I have never disagreed with Kat or Carlstak before, but this is one time that I disagree with them. The modern sources which describe it as a computer obviously apply the modern definition of "computer". Also, before the advent of electronic computers, mechanical computers existed. As long as these sources exist, it is not up to us to eliminate their characterisation from the article, or second-guess them. Dr. K. 02:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
My dad was an anti-aircraft gunner in WWII. I ended up working in the (modern) computer industry. To show he was way ahead of me, Dad repeatedly spoke of the computer he used as a gunner. The kind of thing he was talking about is covered by our article Tachymetric anti-aircraft fire control system. I see eleven uses of the word "computer" in that article. HiLo48 (talk) 03:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Analog computers existed way before the dawn of electronic devices. To err on the safe side, I also added four five seven additional RS describing the AM explicitly as the first analog computer. Dr. K. 03:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
@Dr.K.: I would be fine with us calling it a "computer" in the body as a compromise, as long as we use a more specific term in the opening and we clarify what we mean by "computer" so that, by the point we use the word "computer," the reader will hopefully understand that we aren't talking about anything like a modern digital computer. —Katolophyromai (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree that more specific language such as "astronomical mechanical calculator" works better in the lead. Like it or not, "computer" now covers so many disparate devices that it conveys little information about the subject of the article. In the "Origin" section of the body, "generally referred to as the first known analogue computer" fits nicely, IMO. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
@HiLo48: From WW II there was also the Norden bombsight which our article describes as using an analog computer. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes. I'm sure we could find plenty more if we went hunting. HiLo48 (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
@Katolophyromai: and a modern smartphone are all "computers" as well Duh of course a smartphone is a computer by almost any definition. modern laptop computer, or at least a personal home computer like the ones from the 1990s What do the 90s have to do with it as a point of reference, there were laptop computers then, personal home computers had been around since the 70s, and many people still use desktops today. Anyway, we call it what the sources call it, end of story. Cite some sources. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
@DIYeditor: My point with that quote in which I mentioned smartphones was to show the vagueness of the word computer as it has been applied here. I understand that most people realize that smartphones are computers, but my point was to juxtapose them with all the other things that are "computers" under the broad definition. I was trying to show the diversity of devices that could be classed as "computers," ranging from an abacus to a modern smartphone. As for your comment about "Cite some sources," I already have cited half a dozen sources that call the Antikythera mechanism various things other than "computer," which you have conveniently chosen to ignore. —Katolophyromai (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, when I encountered the 90s line I stopped reading what you had to say and felt the need to ask why you were phrasing things that way. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I am not seeing any vagueness in the definition of the AM as an analogue computer. There are also specialist computer publications referring to it as the first analog computer or simply the first computer so there is strong backup by strong sources for such description which is properly reflected at the lead. I can't see where the problem is. Dr. K. 00:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
My problem is not with the Antikythera mechanism's classification as a computer, but rather with the fact that, when most people hear the word "computer," they think of something significantly more advanced than what the Antikythera mechanism actually is. As I talk about in the article I wrote that I have linked above, I keep coming across people who seem to think that the Antikythera mechanism was something like a modern digital computer. This misimpression about what the Antikythera mechanism was, combined with the misconception that there is no mention of anything even remotely like the Antikythera mechanism in any surviving ancient texts (when in reality, as our article already correctly notes, similar devices are mentioned by ancient authors like Cicero and Pappus of Alexandria), feeds into a strangely popular notion that people in ancient times may have actually had extremely advanced technologies like cars, airplanes, electric lighting, modern digital computers, the internet, and atomic weapons, even though we have no record of them having had any of these things.
Again, all of this sounds completely absurd to anyone who knows anything about ancient history, but the notion that people in ancient times had these kinds of technologies is actually a shockingly popular one that has been promoted through various pseudohistorical writings, the internet, YouTube conspiracy videos, and so forth. I have an uncle who is quite convinced that ancient civilizations must have had modern technologies. Meanwhile, I keep finding questions on Quora like "Is it possible that an ancient civilization invented the Internet, digitized EVERYTHING, then wiped themselves out, leaving no trace of their existence?" and "Is it true that atomic weapons could have existed in ancient times?" and "If ancient Egyptians used electricity, how was it lost after generations?" and countless others.
My main concern here is that, by introducing the Antikythera mechanism at the beginning of the article as a "computer," we may inadvertently be feeding these notions. I think we should introduce it by calling it "a mechanical astronomical calculator," "a mechanical orrery," "a mechanical device used for calculating the motions of celestial bodies," or something along those lines. Again, all of these descriptions are supported by the sources, so none of them would qualify as original research in any way. —Katolophyromai (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Analogue computer is linked here in the lede and is the correct term for this device. Not introducing the ignorant to this term would be a disservice and an obfuscation. If analog computer were to be changed it would have to be so as well across quite a number of other articles IMO for consistency. We can't say the Norden bombsight used an analog computer it its lede without drawing the comparison to the same concept in this article. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. Well said, DIYeditor. I also add that if people think that the AM was similar to a laptop or a cell phone, obviously they have no idea what an analog computer is, in which case the link at the lead would enlighten them. As far as the rest of the devices mentioned above, like airplanes and electricity etc., if people believe in ancient aliens that's their problem, but it has nothing to do with RS supporting this article, so this line of argument is invalid. Dr. K. 04:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @DIYeditor: I am not saying that we can't call it an "analogue computer" at all; what I am saying, though, is that we should use a more specific and less misleading term for it in the introduction of the article. —Katolophyromai (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
You know what, never mind. Forget I suggested anything. I can tell that everyone is laughing at me for even suggesting that we should call the Antikythera mechanism anything other than "a computer" and that this discussion is not going to go anywhere. —Katolophyromai (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
@Katolophyromai and Dr.K.: I'd like to point out that the German version of this article argues that the Antikythera mechanism cannot be called a computer in any sense because it does not do any computing, and that it is best called an astronomical clock. I'm not an expert, so I do not endorse this argument, but I wanted to mention it here.
Remarkably, Richard Carrier, an expert on ancient science, not only explicitly calls the device a computer in several places, and in this blog post makes almost precisely the same point as the commenters HiLo48 and DIYeditor above:
"What is it? An astronomical computer using a sophisticated system of exquisitely crafted gears to calculate the relative positions of the sun, moon, planets, and constellations at any time of the year, even indicating lunar phase, with a set of cranks and dials. It is not digital or electronic, but a mechanical analog computer, similar to the early targeting systems on modern battleships, but a computer all the same."
The lede now calls the device "an ancient hand powered Greek analog computer", which I think should suffice to prevent giving the impression that the device is in any way similar to a modern PC. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Calling it a computer would indeed be misleading, just as calling a slide rule a computer would be misleading, but calling it an analog computer (with a wikilink) removes all confusion. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with both of you. Thank you. Dr. K. 03:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Excellent. By the way, I only just noticed a curious coincidence: before I butted in, this talk page had been unused and lain dormant since the end of last year, but it turns out Guy had added the section below about the spelling of "analog(ue) computer" even before I added my comment, and I cannot clearly remember if Guy's new section had even been there when I came here and started my comment. I think it wasn't there yet. How strange! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antikythera_mechanism/Archive_4&oldid=1136524540"