ArticleslgStudy

science

Pseudoscientific metrology

Pseudoscientific metrology is a science topic covered in the lgStudy science library. This page brings together a partial reference excerpt, illustrations, worked examples, real-world applications and a short study plan, so you can understand Pseudoscientific metrology rather than just read about it. In short: Some approaches in the branch of historic metrology are highly speculative and can be qualified as pseudoscience. Origins In 1637, John Greaves, professor of geometry at Gresham College, made his first of several studies in Egypt and Italy, making numerous measurements of buildings and monuments, including the Great Pyramid.

Pseudoscientific metrology — main illustration
Pseudoscientific metrology — illustration

Key takeaways

  • Pseudoscientific metrology belongs to science; place it in that map before memorising details.
  • Learn the definition first, then one example that makes the definition concrete.
  • Connect Pseudoscientific metrology to a quantity you can measure, compute or draw — that is where exam questions come from.
  • Reproduce the core statement of Pseudoscientific metrology from memory before moving on to harder problems.

Reference excerpt

Some approaches in the branch of historic metrology are highly speculative and can be qualified as pseudoscience.

Origins In 1637, John Greaves, professor of geometry at Gresham College, made his first of several studies in Egypt and Italy, making numerous measurements of buildings and monuments, including the Great Pyramid. These activities fuelled many centuries of interest in metrology of the ancient cultures by the likes of Isaac Newton and the French Academy.

Charles Piazzi Smyth John Taylor, in his 1859 book The Great Pyramid: Why Was It Built? & Who Built It?, claimed that the Great Pyramid of Giza was planned and the building supervised by the biblical Noah, and that it was "built to make a record of the measure of the Earth". A paper presented to the Royal Academy on the topic was rejected. Taylor's theories were, however, the inspiration for the deeply religious archaeologist Charles Piazzi Smyth to go to Egypt to study and measure the pyramid, subsequently publishing his book Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid (1864), claiming that the measurements he obtained from the Great Pyramid indicated a unit of length, the pyramid inch, equivalent to 1.001 British inches, that could have been the standard of measurement by the pyramid's architects. From this he extrapolated a number of other measurements, including the pyramid pint, the sacred cubit, and the pyramid scale of temperature. Smyth claimed that the inch was a God-given measure handed down through the centuries from the 'Time of Israel', and that the architects of the pyramid could only have been directed by the hand of God. To support this Smyth said that, in measuring the pyramid, he found the number of inches in the perimeter of the base equalled 1000 times the number of days in a year, and found a numeric relationship between the height of the pyramid in inches to the distance from Earth to the Sun, measured in statute miles. Smyth used this as an argument against the introduction of the metre in Britain, which he considered a product of the minds of atheistic French radicals.

The grand scheme By the time measurements of Mesopotamia were discovered, by doing various exercises of mathematics on the definitions of the major ancient measurement systems, various people (Jean-Adolphe Decourdemanche in 1909, August Oxé in 1942) came to the conclusion that the relationship between them was well planned.

Livio C. Stecchini claims in his A History of Measures:The relation among the units of length can be explained by the ratio 15:16:17:18 among the four fundamental feet and cubits. Before I arrived at this discovery, Decourdemanche and Oxé discovered that the cubes of those units are related according to the conventional specific gravities of oil, water, wheat and barley. [1]Stecchini makes claims that imply that the Egyptian measures of length, originating from at least the 3rd millennium BC, were directly derived from the circumference of the earth with an amazing accuracy. According to "Secrets of the Great Pyramid" (p. 346), his claim is that the Egyptian measurement was equal to 40,075,000 meters, which compared to the International Spheroid of 40,076,596 meters gives an error of 0.004%. No consideration seems to be made to the question of, on purely technical and procedural grounds, how the early Egyptians, in defining their cubit, could have achieved a degree of accuracy that to our current knowledge can only be achieved with very sophisticated equipment and techniques.

The megalithic system Christopher Knight and Alan Butler further develop the work of Smyth's and Stecchini's "Grand Scheme" in their Civilization One hypothesis, which describes a megalithic system of units. This system is claimed to be the source of all standard units used by civilization, and is so named after the Neolithic builders of megaliths. Knight and Butler contend the reconstructed megalithic yard (1 MY = 0.82966 m) is a fundamental part of a megalithic system. Although the megalithic yard is the work of Alexander Thom, Knight and Butler make a novel contribution by speculating on how the MY may have been created by using a pendulum calibrated by observing Venus. It also explains the uniformity of the MY across large geographical areas. The accuracy claimed for this procedure is disputed by astronomers. They derive measures of volume and mass from the megalithic yard, which is divided into 40 megalithic inches. Knight and Butler claim that a cube with a side of 4 megalithic inches has a volume equal to one imperial pint and weighs one imperial pound when filled with unpolished grain. They also posit ratio relationships with the imperial acre and square rod. Their book states that "The Sun, the Moon and the Earth all conform to a 'grand design' that is also evident in the Megalithic structures that are scattered across the British Isles and western Europe."

… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.

Worked examples

Example 1 — a first encounter with Pseudoscientific metrology

Start with the simplest possible case. Write down what Pseudoscientific metrology claims or describes in one sentence, then invent the smallest concrete situation in which that sentence is true. In science, the smallest case is usually a single object, a single equation or a single measurement. Check that every symbol or term in your sentence has a meaning in that case.

Example 2 — changing one variable

Take the situation from Example 1 and change exactly one quantity: double it, halve it, or set it to zero. Predict what should happen to Pseudoscientific metrology before you calculate. Comparing your prediction with the result is the fastest way to find out whether you understand the idea or only the words.

Example 3 — an exam-style question

Typical questions about Pseudoscientific metrology ask you to (a) state it precisely, (b) apply it to given data, and (c) explain a limitation. Practise writing all three answers in under five minutes; the third part is what separates a full-mark answer from an average one.

Applications of Pseudoscientific metrology

In research
Pseudoscientific metrology appears in science research whenever the underlying quantities have to be modelled precisely. Papers usually cite it as a starting assumption and then explore where it breaks down.
In technology and industry
Engineering practice reuses Pseudoscientific metrology in design rules, simulations and safety margins. Knowing the idea lets you read a specification sheet and understand why the numbers look the way they do.
In the classroom
Pseudoscientific metrology is common in secondary-school and first-year university syllabi. It links to neighbouring topics Metrology, Pseudoscience, so understanding it makes those chapters shorter.
In everyday life
Look for Pseudoscientific metrology outside the textbook — in sport, cooking, traffic, electronics or the sky above you. An example you found yourself is remembered far longer than one you were given.
Ask Teacher Smith questions about this articleOpens your AI tutor with a question about “Pseudoscientific metrology” →

Affiliate

Preply — study more efficiently by working with a personal tutor. 50% off.

How to study Pseudoscientific metrology in 20 minutes

  1. Read the reference excerpt below once, without taking notes.
  2. Close the page and write down what Pseudoscientific metrology means in your own words.
  3. Compare your version with the excerpt and mark what you missed.
  4. Work through the three examples above with pen and paper.
  5. Explain Pseudoscientific metrology out loud to somebody else — or to Teacher Smith in the lgStudy chat.

Frequently asked questions

What is Pseudoscientific metrology in simple terms?

Some approaches in the branch of historic metrology are highly speculative and can be qualified as pseudoscience. Origins In 1637, John Greaves, professor of geometry at Gresham College, made his first of several studies in Egypt and Italy, making numerous measurements of buildings and monuments, i…

Why does Pseudoscientific metrology matter?

Because it connects several science ideas at once: it gives you a definition you can apply, a quantity you can calculate, and a way to check whether a result is plausible.

How should I study Pseudoscientific metrology?

Read the excerpt, restate it from memory, then work through the examples and applications listed on this page. The five-step study plan above takes about twenty minutes.

What does this page cover?

It gives you a compact reference excerpt plus original lgStudy explanations, examples, applications and study material on Pseudoscientific metrology.

Tags

  • Metrology
  • Pseudoscience

Keep exploring