4 ms·

It is indeed a bit unhinged. It seems they just measured the diameter of the holes and then formed a series of integer multiples of these measurements. And some

by dthul 6y ago

It is indeed a bit unhinged. It seems they just measured the diameter of the holes and then formed a series of integer multiples of these measurements. And some of these multiples happen to coincide with numbers used in specific settings (navigation, astronomy...). How surprising... They fail to explain how those objects would be used in practice according to their theory without modern highly accurate calipers. Not even speaking of the general tone and wild ramblings scattered throughout the article. Edit: The number series are not even correct. For the first series (.875, 1.75, 2.265, 3.5, 4.375, ...) the third number should be 2.625 and not 2.265. It is even bolded.

weare138 6y ago
The problem with the measurement device theory is the dodecahedrons found don't seem to be consistent. Speculated uses include as a candlestick holder (wax was found inside two examples); dice; survey instruments for estimating distances to (or sizes of) distant objects;[4] devices for determining the optimal sowing date for winter grain;[5] gauges to calibrate water pipes, army standard bases, a coin measuring device for counterfeit detection. Use as a measuring instrument of any kind seems improbable since the dodecahedra were not standardized and come in many sizes and arrangements of their openings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dodecahedron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dodecahedron