Construction technics over time and 12000 miles apart.


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : SETI@home Science : Construction technics over time and 12000 miles apart.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · Next
Author Message
Larry Monske
Send message
Joined: 17 Sep 05
Posts: 262
Credit: 524,443
RAC: 42
United States
Message 1250142 - Posted: 22 Jun 2012, 22:48:12 UTC - in response to Message 1242407.

There wasnt any written language for the normal populus to know only the preists and scribes knew the writings of the nobles. Most of the population was illerate at that time.

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12075
Credit: 6,381,298
RAC: 8,279
United States
Message 1250143 - Posted: 22 Jun 2012, 22:48:31 UTC - in response to Message 1250082.

There is great insight to be gained in why the paradox is a paradox and how the paradox works. Seeing why that particular paradox is a paradox, and what extra detail is needed to unravel that, is very significant for understanding your reality.

Ok lets think again, this is my take upon it, which is a slightly different to Aristotle but intrinsically the same.

The man & the tortoise and the man & the bus are two similar paradoxes, that use the same conjecture, i.e. that before you can travel the whole distance you must first have travelled halfway. Then before you can travel the rest of the distance you must next have travelled half way of the remainder to travel. This is represented by the series X=1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+1/32 ...... etc. Each term being half of the preceding term. By simple inspection it can be seen that the series is infinite, and will never end.

There is a difference between them though in that one has two moving objects, and one has a fixed and a moving object. Lets examine the tortoise one first.

The tortoise starts off first and some time later the man starts off behind it. He sees where the tortoise is and travels half way to THAT point. When he gets there, he sees where the tortoise is NOW, which is a bit further on than he saw before. So he again travels half way of the distance. Using that logic he could get to within a millionth of an inch of the tortoise but never catch it. Of course in practice once he is that close, one stride and he is in front.

Now the bus. He sees where the bus is and travels half way to it. When he gets there, he then travels halfway of the remaining distance. and so on. Using that same logic he could get to within a millionth of an inch of the bus but not reach it. Of course in practice once he is that close, he just hops on the bus.

It all depends upon which question you ask! If you ask can the man ever reach the tortoise or bus, then the answer is no. If you were to ask

1. Could the man ever get close enough to the tortoise so that he could jump over it, then the answer is yes. At that point the infinite series stops, and a new event takes place.

2. Could the man ever get close enough to the bus that he could hop on it, the answer is yes. At that point the infinite series stops, and a new event takes place.

So how did Zeno manage to confuse us? Zeno's argument is based on the assumption that you can infinitely divide space (the race track) and time (how long it takes to run). By dividing the race track into an infinite number of pieces, Zeno's argument turned the race into an infinite number of steps that seemed as if they would never end. However, each step is decreasing, and so dividing space and therefore time into smaller and smaller pieces implies that the passage of time is 'slowing down' and can never reach the moment where Achilles passes the Tortoise. We know that time doesn't slow down in this way. The assumption that space (and time) is infinitely divisible is wrong.

Happy now? You owe me a beer :-)

Heck, once the man reaches less than the Heisenberg uncertainty distance for his wave function from the object, he is there. In this case he can and will reach each object.
____________

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2454
Credit: 1,171,430
RAC: 107
United States
Message 1250216 - Posted: 23 Jun 2012, 2:50:02 UTC
Last modified: 23 Jun 2012, 2:50:39 UTC

It so happens that the series you wrote may well be infinite but it converges to 1 in the limit. The paradox exists through a fallacy. The fallacy is the ignorance to realize that that series converges.

It's not a true paradox. A paradox will result in a contradiction; here it is only incorrect thinking.

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8263
Credit: 4,070,696
RAC: 426
United Kingdom
Message 1256333 - Posted: 6 Jul 2012, 10:04:29 UTC - in response to Message 1250082.
Last modified: 6 Jul 2012, 10:08:55 UTC

There is great insight to be gained in why the paradox is a paradox and how the paradox works. Seeing why that particular paradox is a paradox, and what extra detail is needed to unravel that, is very significant for understanding your reality.

Ok lets think again, this is my take upon it, which is a slightly different to Aristotle but intrinsically the same.

The man & the tortoise and the man & the bus are two similar paradoxes, that use the same conjecture, i.e. that before you can travel the whole distance you must first have travelled halfway. Then before you can travel the rest of the distance you must next have travelled half way of the remainder to travel. This is represented by the series X=1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+1/32 ...... etc. Each term being half of the preceding term. By simple inspection it can be seen that the series is infinite, and will never end.

There is a difference between them though in that one has two moving objects, and one has a fixed and a moving object. Lets examine the tortoise one first.

The tortoise starts off first and some time later the man starts off behind it. He sees where the tortoise is and travels half way to THAT point. When he gets there, he sees where the tortoise is NOW, which is a bit further on than he saw before. So he again travels half way of the distance. Using that logic he could get to within a millionth of an inch of the tortoise but never catch it. Of course in practice once he is that close, one stride and he is in front.

Now the bus. He sees where the bus is and travels half way to it. When he gets there, he then travels halfway of the remaining distance. and so on. Using that same logic he could get to within a millionth of an inch of the bus but not reach it. Of course in practice once he is that close, he just hops on the bus.

It all depends upon which question you ask! If you ask can the man ever reach the tortoise or bus, then the answer is no. If you were to ask

1. Could the man ever get close enough to the tortoise so that he could jump over it, then the answer is yes. At that point the infinite series stops, and a new event takes place.

2. Could the man ever get close enough to the bus that he could hop on it, the answer is yes. At that point the infinite series stops, and a new event takes place.

So how did Zeno manage to confuse us? Zeno's argument is based on the assumption that you can infinitely divide space (the race track) and time (how long it takes to run). By dividing the race track into an infinite number of pieces, Zeno's argument turned the race into an infinite number of steps that seemed as if they would never end. However, each step is decreasing, and so dividing space and therefore time into smaller and smaller pieces implies that the passage of time is 'slowing down' and can never reach the moment where Achilles passes the Tortoise. We know that time doesn't slow down in this way. The assumption that space (and time) is infinitely divisible is wrong.

Happy now? You owe me a beer :-)

That is indeed a good effort worthy of a beer, even if you didn't quite get there... :-(

Zeno's argument is completely correct as far as his argument goes. However, to complete the story, a wider view must be taken, or additional detail included.

Focussing on Zeno's argument alone, indeed "you never get there". Except for this ingenious observation that introduces a new detail outside of Zeno's argument:
Heck, once the man reaches less than the Heisenberg uncertainty distance for his wave function from the object, he is there. In this case he can and will reach each object.

So that one definitely gains a bonus beer!


The point that Zeno is (deliberately) blind to is that velocity remains constant, and that by halving the remaining distance, you are also halving the time interval to the next iteration. Hence, as each new step in the argument causes there to be yet more steps required to complete the new distance, the time intervals are similarly shortened.

So... As you get to traverse ever smaller steps, you also traverse those ever smaller steps ever more quickly through time so as to maintain constant velocity. And as mentioned by our comic scientist, the series "converges" to the correct real world observed answer.


Now for mathematical integration... Exactly the same "trick" is done to gain the answer there. However, to take a short cut through the Zeno thinking, there is a set formula ("cooking recipe") to do that reliably and 'easily'.

In short, integration divides a calculation into infinitely thin steps, but you equally get infinitely many of them, so that you get an infinitely accurate addition of all the area under a plotted graph of whatever function. (The description and mathematical jargon are more difficult than the doing!)


That must be worth sharing some beer!

;-)

Cheers,
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8263
Credit: 4,070,696
RAC: 426
United Kingdom
Message 1256336 - Posted: 6 Jul 2012, 10:11:18 UTC

And to get back onto some old real world constructions:


Stonehenge WASN'T built by ALIENS - Boffins' shock claim

Actually symbol of complex farm-subsidy deal

... "When Stonehenge was built, there was a growing island-wide culture - the same styles of houses, pottery and other material forms were used from Orkney to the south coast. This was very different to the regionalism of previous centuries," Prof Mike Parker Pearson from Sheffield Uni explained.

"Stonehenge itself was a massive undertaking, requiring the labour of thousands to move stones from as far away as west Wales, shaping them and erecting them. Just the work itself, requiring everyone literally to pull together, would have been an act of unification.”

The boffins reckon the eight stones stand for different groups of Britain's earliest farming communities, with some of them coming from southern England and some from west Wales. ...



Keep searchin',
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3081
Credit: 2,389,009
RAC: 2,343
Ireland
Message 1256361 - Posted: 6 Jul 2012, 11:47:47 UTC - in response to Message 1256336.
Last modified: 6 Jul 2012, 12:00:42 UTC

Stonehenge WASN'T built by ALIENS - Boffins' shock claim

Keep searchin',
Martin

Martin,
I'm just curious.
1. What do YOU think Stonehenge was built for?
2. Do YOU believe the interpretation of mainstream archaeology and Prof Mike Parker Pearson in that news article?
3. Do YOU think Aliens built Stonehenge? Or do you think it was built by primitive stone-age farmers?
4. Martin are the people who built Stonehenge YOUR ancestors? (I assume your British)

I want to know YOUR thoughts Martin, not what someone else said in some book. I don't want to hear quotes from academics. Tell me what your instinct tells you!

John.
____________

Profile Chris S
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31016
Credit: 11,209,466
RAC: 19,525
United Kingdom
Message 1256365 - Posted: 6 Jul 2012, 12:07:53 UTC

That is indeed a good effort worthy of a beer, even if you didn't quite get there... :-(

Ooooh praise indeed ..... ;-)

Heck, once the man reaches less than the Heisenberg uncertainty distance for his wave function from the object, he is there. In this case he can and will reach each object.

So that one definitely gains a bonus beer!

Okaaaay.

In short, integration divides a calculation into infinitely thin steps, but you equally get infinitely many of them, so that you get an infinitely accurate addition of all the area under a plotted graph of whatever function.

Er yeah right.

That must be worth sharing some beer!

I'll drink to that :-)) I need one after all that thinking!


Profile Chris S
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31016
Credit: 11,209,466
RAC: 19,525
United Kingdom
Message 1256370 - Posted: 6 Jul 2012, 12:22:13 UTC
Last modified: 6 Jul 2012, 12:25:46 UTC

The boffins rejected popular theories that it was inspired by the Egyptians, built or inspired by aliens or the site of a druidic temple in favour of the warring farmer theory.

Oh fer gawds sake, too many people are making too much fuss out of this continuing saga.

Fact 1 - Stonehenge was not built by, or inspired by aliens.

Fact 2 - No one knows for certain how it was built, or what it was built for, and probably never ever will do. There may be a link to the Druids and the Solstice, who knows.

Fact 3 - No one really cares one way or the other anyway. It is simply there for all to enjoy and to conjecture about. Keeps Wiltshire tourism going.

Fact 4 - Too many academics are chasing esoteric subjects to get their PhD's, and others trying to justify their academic positions.

Stonehenge

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8263
Credit: 4,070,696
RAC: 426
United Kingdom
Message 1256401 - Posted: 6 Jul 2012, 13:35:18 UTC - in response to Message 1256361.
Last modified: 6 Jul 2012, 13:36:20 UTC

Stonehenge WASN'T built by ALIENS - Boffins' shock claim

Martin,
I'm just curious.

You asked:


1. What do YOU think Stonehenge was built for?

Religion/superstition, politics.

It also forms an important astronomical calendar.


2. Do YOU believe the interpretation of mainstream archaeology and Prof Mike Parker Pearson in that news article?

Yes, as one plausible interpretation. As always in Science, there is likely more to the story. Just a question of how interested you are in looking.


3. Do YOU think Aliens built Stonehenge? Or do you think it was built by primitive stone-age farmers?

I think our "primitives" were not so primitive... We may well be the 'aliens' if you believe panspermia is possible or likely...


4. Martin are the people who built Stonehenge YOUR ancestors? (I assume your British)

I'm British which means most likely they are NOT my ancestors. (Don't mention that to the NF/BNP misguided xenophobic 'nationalist' thugs!)


I want to know YOUR thoughts Martin, not what someone else said in some book. I don't want to hear quotes from academics. Tell me what your instinct tells you!

My instinct is to look for and follow the evidence. There's enough dreamy Arthurian legend in that region already without wanting to write any more of it!


Note that the sizes, weights, and construction are all easily within what can be expected for an 'epic work' of the era. Also note that the distribution of stone sizes fits very nicely for division of effort vs size of task for a certain size of group doing the work... The outer rings with the more numerous stones use smaller more manageable sizes than very few very 'important' stones of the centre. Looks like a few tons is 'easily' handled whereas the larger sizes of the (fewer) centre stones were more costly and hence there are fewer of those larger sizes.

Still impressive stuff. Also all done over an impressively long time.

Keep searchin',
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8263
Credit: 4,070,696
RAC: 426
United Kingdom
Message 1256405 - Posted: 6 Jul 2012, 13:39:54 UTC - in response to Message 1256370.

... Stonehenge


Those Wikipedia articles can be rather good.

(And far far better than my old and tired history teachers were! :-( )


Keep searchin',
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile john3760
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Feb 11
Posts: 334
Credit: 3,400,979
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 1256435 - Posted: 6 Jul 2012, 15:10:20 UTC

Still a bit confused here!!

Can the tortoise catch the bus?

john3760
____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8263
Credit: 4,070,696
RAC: 426
United Kingdom
Message 1256459 - Posted: 6 Jul 2012, 16:26:07 UTC - in response to Message 1256435.
Last modified: 6 Jul 2012, 16:26:28 UTC

Still a bit confused here!!

Can the tortoise catch the bus?

Yes depending on how you can view things and under what conditions...


(A tortoise can easily BEAT the buses around here! :-( )

Keep searchin',
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3081
Credit: 2,389,009
RAC: 2,343
Ireland
Message 1256531 - Posted: 6 Jul 2012, 17:52:52 UTC - in response to Message 1256370.
Last modified: 6 Jul 2012, 17:54:29 UTC

The boffins rejected popular theories that it was inspired by the Egyptians, built or inspired by aliens or the site of a druidic temple in favour of the warring farmer theory.

Oh fer gawds sake, too many people are making too much fuss out of this continuing saga.

Fact 1 - Stonehenge was not built by, or inspired by aliens.

Fact 2 - No one knows for certain how it was built, or what it was built for, and probably never ever will do. There may be a link to the Druids and the Solstice, who knows.

Fact 3 - No one really cares one way or the other anyway. It is simply there for all to enjoy and to conjecture about. Keeps Wiltshire tourism going.

Fact 4 - Too many academics are chasing esoteric subjects to get their PhD's, and others trying to justify their academic positions.

Stonehenge

Ohhhhhhhh Chris, my friend,
That's a lot of "Facts". Are you sure they are facts Chris? And just how sure are you?

Hmmmmmm ..... Wikipedia says a "fact" is; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact
"A fact (derived from the Latin factum) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience."

Ahhhhhh.... Chris just by the definition given in Wikipedia, all your "facts" are wrong.

Are you really sure Chris? Are you sure we will never know why they built Stonehenge and what they built it for? I'm very disappointed with you Chris, and your British too.

John.
____________

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3081
Credit: 2,389,009
RAC: 2,343
Ireland
Message 1256538 - Posted: 6 Jul 2012, 17:59:02 UTC - in response to Message 1256401.
Last modified: 6 Jul 2012, 18:05:04 UTC

Keep searchin',
Martin

Martin,
Responding to your answers on the Stonehenge questions, thank you for answering the questions honestly Martin!

I told Chris i was disappointed with him. Martin i'm also disappointed with you. I can't believe that both of you swallow the stuff being spoon fed to you by the British archaeological community.

Are you not even just the tiniest bit suspicious of Stonehenge? Does it not ring any alarm bells in your head? Did you ever stand beside those stones? I did, and they are colossal! I will never forget it! Ever!! For the rest of my life i will never forget just how large those stones are!

John.
____________

Nick
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 3867
Credit: 1,946,679
RAC: 1,030
United Kingdom
Message 1256585 - Posted: 6 Jul 2012, 19:11:20 UTC - in response to Message 1256538.
Last modified: 6 Jul 2012, 19:11:35 UTC

Keep searchin',
Martin

Martin,
Responding to your answers on the Stonehenge questions, thank you for answering the questions honestly Martin!

I told Chris i was disappointed with him. Martin i'm also disappointed with you. I can't believe that both of you swallow the stuff being spoon fed to you by the British archaeological community.

Are you not even just the tiniest bit suspicious of Stonehenge? Does it not ring any alarm bells in your head? Did you ever stand beside those stones? I did, and they are colossal! I will never forget it! Ever!! For the rest of my life i will never forget just how large those stones are!

John.

I've been to Stonehenge several times, the last time being about three years
ago. You do get the feeling that it was constructed purely for pagan/religious
reason. Buy my current thinking leans towards Stonehenge having been constructed
to mark an event. The event being that a small meteorite crashed into the ground here,
witnessed by the local people. They saw this as a sign coming from their
pagan God. So built this contraption, we call Stonehenge, around the meteorites
landing site to act as a place of homage.
____________
The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3081
Credit: 2,389,009
RAC: 2,343
Ireland
Message 1256594 - Posted: 6 Jul 2012, 19:32:41 UTC - in response to Message 1256585.
Last modified: 6 Jul 2012, 19:33:39 UTC

I've been to Stonehenge several times, the last time being about three years
ago. You do get the feeling that it was constructed purely for pagan/religious
reason. Buy my current thinking leans towards Stonehenge having been constructed
to mark an event. The event being that a small meteorite crashed into the ground here,
witnessed by the local people. They saw this as a sign coming from their
pagan God. So built this contraption, we call Stonehenge, around the meteorites
landing site to act as a place of homage.

Nick,
I like the meteorite theory, its a good one! Nick i would consider your theory to be 100 times more plausable than what Prof Mike Parker Pearson says. Its a very reasonable theory Nick.

But its wrong.

John.
____________

Nick
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 11
Posts: 3867
Credit: 1,946,679
RAC: 1,030
United Kingdom
Message 1256601 - Posted: 6 Jul 2012, 19:58:37 UTC - in response to Message 1256594.

I like the meteorite theory, its a good one! Nick i would consider your theory to be 100 times more plausable than what Prof Mike Parker Pearson says. Its a very reasonable theory Nick.

You were building my hopes up that my IQ had suddenly risen to 200.


But its wrong.

Oh well, perhaps I'ts sunk down to below 100 now...I must try harder!!



____________
The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2454
Credit: 1,171,430
RAC: 107
United States
Message 1256607 - Posted: 6 Jul 2012, 20:19:51 UTC
Last modified: 6 Jul 2012, 20:21:19 UTC

Stonehenge is easily built--perhaps by one man after the stones were laid on the ground. Perhaps by using levers and digging a hole to tip the stones into. It is a sundial sorts.

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3081
Credit: 2,389,009
RAC: 2,343
Ireland
Message 1256608 - Posted: 6 Jul 2012, 20:21:02 UTC - in response to Message 1256601.
Last modified: 6 Jul 2012, 20:23:25 UTC

I like the meteorite theory, its a good one! Nick i would consider your theory to be 100 times more plausable than what Prof Mike Parker Pearson says. Its a very reasonable theory Nick.

You were building my hopes up that my IQ had suddenly risen to 200.


But its wrong.

Oh well, perhaps I'ts sunk down to below 100 now...I must try harder!!

Your a clever man Nick, and you use your intelligence very well. But you could use it better. Something that is far more valuable than intelligence is logic and intuition.

When someone says that he is a "professor" of archaeology, and he tells you that primitive people built Stonehenge, its your own personal logic and intuition that lets you know that the expert is wrong and your right! Just because someone is a professor, and has an IQ of 1 billion, and has studied Stonehenge all his life, does not mean he is correct in his interpretation.

Use your logic and intuition Nick, its more valuable than any IQ test. Your not a monkey Nick, your a child of God.

John.
____________

Profile Chris S
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31016
Credit: 11,209,466
RAC: 19,525
United Kingdom
Message 1256921 - Posted: 7 Jul 2012, 8:50:07 UTC

Sorry you're disappointed in me Johnney, I also must do better. I'm fairly happy that I know most likely how stonehenge was built i.e. upending stones into holes for the pillars with the tops flush with the ground, and then dragging the lintel stone over the top, then excavating around them. That theory works for me given it is dated to about 3000 BC. As to why it was built I'm open to suggestion. Pagan rites of some sort are the most likely, Druids and the solstice, are possible, as is also an ancient burial ground.

I visited it as a young lad in the 1960's before it was fenced off to the public, and did stand by them and touch the stones. Sorry to say I didn't get a sense of wonderment or awe from that. I drive past it regularly on the A303 to the West Country, perhaps I should stop one day and have another look.

Actually I find the Egyptian pyramids and their angled shafts aiming at certain star systems much more fascinating, but that's for another thread.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · Next

Message boards : SETI@home Science : Construction technics over time and 12000 miles apart.

Copyright © 2014 University of California