-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History
- By stevevw
- Physical & Life Sciences
- 1426 Replies
The marks left by the Egyptians is the same marks the experts are trying to determine what made them. How are the marks any different because they are Egyptian. If they are made on a lathe it does not matter if they are Egyptian marks lol. They are lathing marks, not Egyptian marks.
Unless there is a special Egyptian lathing mark. Or maching mark. The machine cuts in granite such as the arc cuts are not Egyptian cuts but machined arc cuts. Similar mached arc cuts we may see later in history made by the same method. You don't have to be Egyptian to know this.
I am sure his expertise came in valuable in developing the software. You don't know whether he knows coding as part of the areas he specialises in. So you can't make these absolute claims without evidence. This is what I mean by the double standards. You double down without showing this is the case.
Then show he has no understanding of coding. From what I understand Marian specialises in the 3D digitalisation of ancient and cultural artifacts. That is transforming 3d objects into the digital space. I would say that includes knowledge of coding in digitalising objects into ,amagable software programs.
Nevertheless he may offer a specific expertise in the process of relating artifiacts in the software. The unusual and unprecedented shapes and how best to accommodate this in specific aspects of the software.
The point is we don't know and your making claims without evidence based on your unsupported opinion. All the researchers were called amatuer and I know the others have software expertise.
Dr. Márton Szemenyei, PhD is an assistant professor at the Department of Control Engineering and Information Technology
Rólunk – Vision
deeplearning.iit.bme.hu
lol fair enough. Everyone can suit themselves.
Just be fair and honest. Thats all. So long as the criteria is fairly applied to all.
Now its just not acknowledging the bias.
Yes and the different ways the vase can be measures all come to the same result. Whether you use a professional ruler like Petrie 100 years ago. Or the guague metrology that monitors the vase directly through sensors. Or the different scanning techniques such as structured light, X ray or Photgrametry.
The end result is the come to the same measures. Just some are more refined and down to the micron. But the micron level today is not disputing Petries measures. They are actually confirming them with even tighter precision.
So are you saying that if they took one of the vases from say Karoyls results and applied Dr Max's and the Vase Scan Projects methods that they would come to a different measure for circularity for example. Some will find it with good circularity and the other will find poor circularity for the same vase.
I am glad you say "don't believe" as there is ample evidence they were lathed or turned on something to achieve such high precision.
Part of Karoyls scanning was to scan the best example of an 18th dynastic alabasta vase made with the Bore Stick method depicted on the walls. I linked this vase before here. As Christ King says the Alabasta vase clearly matches the Bore Stick method. Which could grind out a softer vase but because it was a wobbly device you can see it is lop sided.
So we accept that the pretty good finish from the 18th dynasty using a form of lathe in the Bore Stick produced softer vases.
Yet in the British museum they have two preynastic large precision hard stone vases sitting just under a picture of the same 18th dynastic relief implying they were also made by the Bore Stick method. Quite deceptive. They never state how the predysnastic vases were made. Just that they were for Royalty.
So if the soft alabasta vase shows evidence of a simple lathing mechanism that created 18th dynasty vases. Then why all of a sudden argue that there was no lathing involved in far superior vases with better circularity.
Its inconsistent and double standards. Somehow ancients by sheer freehand grinding, poundin g and rubbing made better vases than later ones which we know were made using Bore sticks and not freehand.
Lol I actually forgot this was Marians work. I didn't refer to it because of Marian but as an example of evidence showing that the small dolorite pounders was not the method.
I already have.
Do the use similar principles for setting the cuts, the angles of the arm and how a machine can manovour to cut such shapes.
But I keep saying this is hypocracy. Others have cited their knowledge and experience of lathing on wood and metal and there was no issue. Why are you now making it an issue. This is why I don't trust what is said as its double standards.
Sorry King. No people were using their knowledge and experience of lathing on wood and metals to argue their case and it was all acceptable then. Funny how the goal posts change when it comes to the people I link.
We don't need to. We can check it out ourselves and see the measurements. Numbers don't lie.
This is what they said was next
The team is now looking at how pyramidal nanoparticles can be used in new and innovative ways to create new technologies such as nanosensors and highly efficient solar cells. The team also plans to do further simulations of the Great Pyramid using radio waves at shorter wavelengths.
Chambers in Egypt's Great Pyramid concentrate radio waves – Physics World
Computer simulations reveal electromagnetic properties of huge structure at Giza
physicsworld.com
I think this is a bit different. But nevertheless no one was calling the idea of the Higgs boson as psuedoscience. It was expected that it would be found because the modelling was correct.
Or Quartz watches that only need a shake to get the electro charge going. Its a common material but potententially a material that can be utilised to generate electrical effects.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
