There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[Hans Blaster]

It is from the depictions that the experiments have been done. So we took those pics and applied the science with trying to replicate the pics. That gave us the methods of tool making and there have been different experiments with different cutters and agents ect. Followed by micro analysis ect. We understand pretty well how the method on the walls works.

They have replicated the material and form of those vases and jars. If they wanted to spend a lifetime becoming master craftsmen, I suppose they could, but their point is made and made well.

Its the hard stone signatures we cannot fully work out exactly how they achieved a destint and different signature.

It's a well crafted vase with handles made with hard stone. There is no other signature to make.

lol and I covered the assumption made of my assumption.

Actually I think its the exact opposite. If its subtraction then would not the fact that you can't add back make hard stone harder as you can at least turn around and make another. Whereas making another hard stone vase is not easy turnaround. Thats not taking away from softer vases.

But when you consider the abundence of softer works compared to hard stones or even specific hard stones, this is pretty rare and strangly most come from the earliest periods, even predynastic. Based on this idea the fact that these vases are so precise is even more amazing if they had to be careful of misaligning the geometry and the risk of ruining the entire work.

My point was only that you shouldn't necessarily assume that hard stones are harder to produce final product from. Softer stones might be more delicate and cause more breakage (and maybe they hadn't found the best soft stones to turn into pots yet. I don't know.) or grind in grooves that can't be ground out, etc.

Another ad hominem. They are coming thick and fast.

Dunn is a precision vase nut because he publishes and "investigates" all of the "vase precision" and puts out all of these speculative "theories". You, I don't know what you are. That is up to you. You were only mentioned in that you "read the stuff from Dunn and the other nutjobs"? You are not doing that "work" so why would I think you are one of them (the nuts)?

I think a strawman. I never said such.

What else would you call the smooth circular cross sections if not "precise". Is that not what you have been writing about? (If it isn't, your communication has not been very effective then.)

Ok so 2 years for a rough vase. The inside was not attempted to bring any shape. So longer was needed to get the basic shape. Then the rest is polished into precision. Is that what you are saying. That all the precision is polished into precision.

You are talking about people who are essentially apprentices, but with out a master to train them. No one thinks that these fine quality Egyptian vases are not product of a chain of development and building expertise passed down from craftsman to craftsman establishing and refining the methods and techniques.

How did they manage to get things so precise by freehand. Do you think they had some sort of guide to ensure they freehand was taking the right amount off and not going a micron over.

Because the "precision" is just the consequence of crafting it (including polishing the surface smooth) while rotating it. That makes stuff axisymmetric.

I don't think the uniqueness of these vases is about changing styles. That deminishes them. Makes it a fashion change rather than a knowledge and tech change.

Why?

If your talking about that particular article thats because I was not using that for the specific claims I was making. Rather to show that even before all this conspiracy came up others were alluding to that precision in the language they used ie page 69, the Naqada II period is often considered the zenith of Egyptian stone vessel manufactoring and page 95 A difference has to be made between mass produced of objects and the great value of objects due to their material, exceptional craftmanship and intellectual implication.

I read those parts. Do you see that "precision" is not a term they use. Instead they talk about "exceptional craftsmanship" quite the same concepts I have referred to.

Petrie specifically singles these works out as hard to explain and implied some advanced tech over 100 years ago. Theres several references which I can't be bothered finding that say similar well before all this conspiracy now about pointing out the same thing in more detail.

And there is 100 years of archeology since then.

Lol what is the rest you speak of. If its the out of place signatures I have posted plenty of evidence. If its how this happened yest I have not posted any evidence.

"the rest" -- I thought I was clear. There is no science in your Egyptian posts on artifacts, only pseudoscience. (And I don't read signatures including my own.)

But as I have mentioned several times This debate over specific examples can go on forever and we have not even begun on other works around the world that are out of place and point to advanced knowledge and tech in ancient times. But this is not the point of the thread.

The point of the thread was lost long ago as is whatever this specific block of text was "originally" about. Your posts are about 5x too long. I have to open up a new tab just to have some clue what of mine you were responding to. (Frankly I don't like the quotation style of this board. It sucks. It is really bad for posts with lots of points and claims.)

Its about the overall idea about knowledge and how the orthodoxy makes it a gradual evolution from simple to complex according to material sciences ie archeology, evolution, anthropology ect. The title of the video mentions a "giant flaw in human history". That is is that the story told may not represent what has actually happened.

That knowledge can come and go and may have peaked a number of times and then was lost ie (the knowledge of precision vases) and other amazing works.

That we see our present advanced time as the most advanced when therte may have been a world that was very advanced in other ways and even more advanced and we have actually become less knowledgable as a result. Thus turning the orthodox narrative on its head.

Some day we may discuss that again, but not before you stop posting about vases and jars.

But your accusing me of pushing pseudoscience when I am not and I clearly stated to you I am not. So your moral outrage is misplaced on me. Now its going to become proving your moral outrage is justified. Seems rediculous when its simple about alternative knowledge and now your claiming a moral truth.

You are parroting the pseudoscience. The pushers are frauds like Chris Dunn and his youtube buddies.

This seems to be supporting my point that when it comes to peoples subjective worldviews its more about epistemics and metaphysical truths than the actual material evidence. Your claiming a superior knowledge and truth wheich includes how we should see knowledge and truth.

Irrelevant. No claims have been made about meta"physics". I do know there is *ZERO* evidence for the kind of tools Dunn thinks were used.

I think this is a misrepresentation and based on false assumptions. The assumption that the lost knowledge and tech must be like todays knowledge and tech. I have not said this. Only that the signatures look like they have been made by todays tech.

You haven't? I know you dance around it. I know you know you sources think that it does. If it isn't something like modern machining, what fantasy ancient tech do you think it is?

Thats part of the problem. That people cannot get outside todays knowledge an dtech in how we understand alternative knowledge and tech.

Are crystals involved? Artron energy? What?

The other part at least for those who see this modern looking signatures and out of place works is that the idea of artistry as in creating an art piece is completely inadequate to explain the signatures and its frustrating that skeptics keep coming back to this to explain everything. Like its some magic solution.

Its a coverall. No matter how impossible it is somehow human artistic flair found a way. Even if that was rubbing an object into perfection. When art really does not need to be perfection in a tech sense. Why bother if its art. Make it a little crooked, its art afterall.

They are very fine and pretty vessels. If I was a rich Egyptian from 6000 years ago and I wanted to take my favorite spice or cosmetic into the afterlife, I might spend the equivalent of a few years of skilled labor (by someone else) to buy one of these jars for my fancy tomb to hold it.

But this is about tech and knowledge. Artistic knowledge is different to technical knowledge that is restricted to cordinates and needs tech to guide it to achieve the specific object. Yet skeptics are quite happy to conflate them as art and sheer human effort as a coverall to fob off the reality that these works are beyond art and into science.

Depending on the exact era stone working *was* the Egyptians highest technology. Then copper was added to their tools. We are talking about what was as the time one of the most sophisticated industries -- working stone.

Really its not too different to belief in God and gods. HUmans having a kind of magic well beyond their capabilities and reality itself. We happily admit that the precision parts for say NASA could never be made by artistic flair or any human freehand. Yet are quite willing to allow these ancients to have such ability.

I want you to remember when we get to the last paragraph that *you* mentioned NASA, not I.

You did not see the point. Why are you focused on NASA and not the point. Or was this a diversion. Could you see the paralelle I was making between precision vases and precision NASA parts that need modern tech to achieve and could never be made by artistic freehand.

Maybe you didn't.

I have only brought up NASA in direct response to your mentions of the American space agency. The NASA-talk is all on you pal.

 

[stevevw]

You don't need massive pressure. You don't need CMC. All you need is a way to spin it. That's it. Modern urns are made on lathes. Just mount the shaft vertically would simply things. Put tar on top of a shaft, secure the block to the tar, and turn. Use sheep's skin with the wool still on it, and you've got your pad. Mount the pad on a wood frame and spare you hands plus get a better product. That's all that's needed. Would take longer than a modern lathe holding a chunk of stone, like they do it now, but it's still do-able. No steel, no computers, no electricity, just ingenuity.

What? Djoser wants more power? Put a beam on the shaft and hook up an ox. Ox turns shaft. Slow but plenty of torque. Now Djoser really presses that grinding pad against it.

What? Djoser is in a hurry? Forget grinding pads; he's going for MORE POWER! So he replaces the pad with a stone for grinding. He pours water on it as it turns, making a nice, gritty, slurry that cuts into the stone. Now we're talking! Got to make that deadline.

To simply things, Djoser has an idea: bores out the center first, mounts that on the shaft, and now it's more secure. There's a risk he could break it turning it, but it's solidly in place. Then, when the outside is done, he grinds out the inside more.

All it takes is looking at the problem and thinking of ways to solve it with what's at hand.

Thats good that you are thinking that way. At least its delving into the process and walking through it step by step. For which we can then look in more detail at eash step.

I agree some basic principles could be engaged. The obvious and big one is the turning wheel. This revolutionised pottery. We can see the signatures of a turned pot as opposed to one shaped by hand.

But we can also look at the signatures and tell certain witness marks show something even beyond these rudimentary contraptions. Even if a bit sophisticated.

One is that the wall paintings we see of a wheel like device to rotate the work was not around in the predynastic times. Certainly not one capable of turning and cutting hard stones.

What your forgetting is regardless of how they did and even if they did setup some fairly sophisticated turning device with Ox power. The problem is getting the specific 3D object from the cutting devices movements. There is no pre programmed design in the device. Certainly not one that can make specific shapes aligning with preset math. That speaks of modern CMC.

This was the finding from the analysis on these vases of the micro signatures. It pointed to some sort of preset design within the output of the cutting device that cut and shaped to specific lines. Lines that amount near perfect alignments and ratios within the vase that are seen in nature.

Why this particular geometry should be reflected in these vases beats me.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Isn't this just an argument from incredulity? "I think the vases are seemingly to advanced for our understanding of the available tools (but we don't know how good they were with those tools)." Therefore there's some kind of lost technology or knowledge to be found. So look for the lost technology then. Do they have a proposed mechanism for how the knowledge was lost? Cultural advancements are very hard to erase, have it ever happened that we know of? I guess on some small scale, perhaps before the invention of writing.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What your forgetting is regardless of how they did and even if they did setup some fairly sophisticated turning device with Ox power. The problem is getting the specific 3D object from the cutting devices movements. There is no pre programmed design in the device. Certainly not one that can make specific shapes aligning with preset math. That speaks of modern CMC.

Must all be modern forgeries then.... (And don't say you never invoke or imply CNC machining. I can read what you just wrote and so can the rest.

This was the finding from the analysis on these vases of the micro signatures. It pointed to some sort of preset design within the output of the cutting device that cut and shaped to specific lines. Lines that amount near perfect alignments and ratios within the vase that are seen in nature.

Oh, come on man. The reproduction experiments make it quite clear that the basic features including the handles can be achieved in hard stone and without metal tools.

Why this particular geometry should be reflected in these vases beats me.

The picked a basic size and shape and stone and then started working the stone to that basic form and the specific details are just aesthetic choices or happenstance. Why this eludes you is baffling.

 

[stevevw]

They have replicated the material and form of those vases and jars. If they wanted to spend a lifetime becoming master craftsmen, I suppose they could, but their point is made and made well.

The question is what is their point. I am not saying they have made a sterling effort in experimenting on these vases. But what is the ultimate point. Is it to show that the precision vases could be made with the tools they used.

It's a well crafted vase with handles made with hard stone. There is no other signature to make.

Really. What do you think will destingusih any difference in these vases. If they look the same to the naked eye (which they don't). do you think there are further levels which we can determine down to the micro lele that are not apparent to the naked eye.

I linked the article that analyses the Olga vase, (handmade), modern CMC vases and the ancient vases at the Petrie museum. The findings showed even for the Egyptian hand made ones, there was a big difference. Then the modern handmade attempts were another magniture down from this.

So even the Egyptian hand made ones which are suppose to be the experts. There was a destinct signature that was different to the handmade ones. Different signatures pointing to different methods to the handmade process. Olga's handmade vase was included in the analysis.

The developed metrological analytical technique of evaluation of the quality of ancient artifacts can clearly distinguish between the modern stone vases and those of purported ancient Egyptian origin. As such, the analysis of forty-three 3D scans uncovered three classes of objects:

1. ‘precise’ class, M ≤ 15, characterized by extremely high precision;
2. ‘modern’ class, 15 < M ≤ 50, consistent with modern machining on a lathe;
3. ‘imprecise’ class, M > 50, consistent with manual fashioning.

In terms of the total quality metric M, the ancient Egyptian stone vessels that I deem ‘precise’ are 5 to 10 times more precise than modern-day stone vases made on a lathe and out of softer stones (two modern vases were onyx and three were marble). This is a difference of 500 to 1000 percent!

My point was only that you shouldn't necessarily assume that hard stones are harder to produce final product from. Softer stones might be more delicate and cause more breakage (and maybe they hadn't found the best soft stones to turn into pots yet. I don't know.) or grind in grooves that can't be ground out, etc.

Ok yes I understand. There is pros and cons to both stones.

Dunn is a precision vase nut because he publishes and "investigates" all of the "vase precision" and puts out all of these speculative "theories".

Maybe its takes a nut (if you can call it that) to step outside the orthodox to even investigate such things in the first place. I find it interesting that the orthodox are resistent to such ideas. It has taken someone from outside the orthodox to begin to discovery these amazing finds. This is not an uncommon science. Looking at knowledge and different ways it was communicated and used.

You, I don't know what you are. That is up to you. You were only mentioned in that you "read the stuff from Dunn and the other nutjobs"? You are not doing that "work" so why would I think you are one of them (the nuts)?

What are you talking about. This all sounds conspiracy itself. Us and them and whose side is who on lol. I think you are making it so just as much as you think others are making it so.

What else would you call the smooth circular cross sections if not "precise". Is that not what you have been writing about? (If it isn't, your communication has not been very effective then.)

Or you only see what you see and miss it. If you don't think there is anything special about these vases and they were just made like all others then I guess its not that special that you would see the signatures all over the place. When I see the works, not just the vases I see a lot of modern signatures.

The orthodoxy is the were pounded and polished into existence. Some people think this is an inadequate explanation considering the signatures they see.

You are talking about people who are essentially apprentices, but with out a master to train them. No one thinks that these fine quality Egyptian vases are not product of a chain of development and building expertise passed down from craftsman to craftsman establishing and refining the methods and techniques.

But still somehow within the orthodoxy. Which for some is inadequate. No amount of learning, experience, craft or the possible methods within the material available could produce such signatures. But everything keeps getting put back to what more or less equates to humans able to make precision NASA parts by freehand and with rudimentary methods.

Because the "precision" is just the consequence of crafting it (including polishing the surface smooth) while rotating it. That makes stuff axisymmetric.

Really. crafting it. Do you mean by freehand. Without any guide to ensure the polished surfaced hit the specific limits without going over or under.

I will give you an example to help understand this astonishing feat. It would mean if we laid out the total lines of the vase which is 10 meteres. It means someone by freehand without any guide manage to draw freehand that line and only deviate a few times to with half a half width. Not just any line but one in the hardest stones. Not just a straight line but a dimensionally near perfect 3D object.

Thats why people say its impossible. We admit today that an artist could not provide the precision freehand for a part. So why are these ancients in the most primitive conditions being claimed they can by freehand.

Why?

For a number of reasons. One being fashion is different to engineering in precision. Like I said art as in archeticture is one thing but engineering a building is another which an artists is not a specialist in. The other reason is you can't freehand tech and math into the object. If we ackowledge the difference in architecture and art then why not these vases.

I read those parts. Do you see that "precision" is not a term they use. Instead they talk about "exceptional craftsmanship" quite the same concepts I have referred to.

Ah words again. So because the word 'precision' is not mentioned by the word 'craft' is this must determine the reality and truth of what is happening. Hum.

You don't know that. The idea of precise vases would not have even been a thing. So other language is used. The fact is these vases stood out as exception because they were so near perfect compared to the rough ones they found. They at the time are going to say this must be the craftmanship in the artistic sense.

"the rest" -- I thought I was clear. There is no science in your Egyptian posts on artifacts, only pseudoscience. (And I don't read signatures including my own.)

Lol, you should in case someone forges it lol. So to clarify you are saying there is no science in the links I supplied. The tests results from a number of independent sources. None of those tests are science. Is that right.

The point of the thread was lost long ago as is whatever this specific block of text was "originally" about. Your posts are about 5x too long. I have to open up a new tab just to have some clue what of mine you were responding to. (Frankly I don't like the quotation style of this board. It sucks. It is really bad for posts with lots of points and claims.)

Lol you love it, thats why you continually come in, time and time and time again lol.

Some day we may discuss that again, but not before you stop posting about vases and jars.

Yes I sort of agree that specific examples can go on and on. But then I think of maybe showing one clear example that cannot be refuted may prove at least the possibility that there was some alternative advanced knowledge.

The problem is when we get into the epistemics and that it reverts back to specific lol. Because people will claim that one way of knowledge is superior to another. But then you have to battle through all the baggage of biases. Including those who are skeptical. Or rather cynnical.

You are parroting the pseudoscience. The pushers are frauds like Chris Dunn and his youtube buddies.

No I am not and thats my point. I have not used the same language. If simply saying that there are some out of place works that have marks on them that look modern is equated with pseudoscience.

Well sorry even those on this thread have used the exact some language in claiming the signatures in the saw cuts look like modern circular saws. They are using the signatures of modern tech to claim that any ancient works which display such signatures must be modern forgeries. Can you see the irony. This is all I am doing and you call it pseudoscience when I use such language but science when someelse does.

Irrelevant. No claims have been made about meta"physics". I do know there is *ZERO* evidence for the kind of tools Dunn thinks were used.

Once again this is a total fabrication. Did not I just give you scientific tests that state the signatures match the kind of tools Dunn suggests.

You haven't? I know you dance around it. I know you know you sources think that it does. If it isn't something like modern machining, what fantasy ancient tech do you think it is?

Now your just making stuff up. So you think the technical paper for the link I used which clearly states in words, you seem to like words as they represent truth. Well here is a couple more. What about these already posted

The analysis clearly shows that the examined Predynastic stone vessels were crafted with technical sophistication comparable to modern technology.
Precision of the Naqada Period Stone Vessels

Based on the best understanding we currently have of the object, and on the knowledge of normal fundamental limits of physics and laws of nature, we have to conclude:

• That this object was fabricated on a highly sophisticated subtractive manufacturing system, from a solid piece of granite.
• That the manufacturing system would require, at the very least, sophisticated mechanical technology and high-precision components.
• That the manufacturing system would necessarily have been guided by an automated control system, which could read the design as input, and produce the required motions as output.
• That a turing machine, of considerable sophistication, would most likely have been employed to create and operate on the design, and to finally transfer it to the manufacturing system.

There is no way, in which we can attribute the production of this artefact, to anyone who do not possess, at minimum, the level of technological sophistication and capabilities mentioned above.

That could not be more clear and direct. Let me spell it out. It shows you are making stuff up because it says exactly what you claim was not said or never said by my posts.

Are crystals involved? Artron energy? What?

Like I said 10 times now I honestly don't know. Another logical fallacy you make. I have never said such a thing. I have suggested as spectulation that it could have something to do with nature. Just like Indigenous knowledge of some sort.

I have spectualted that it may have something to do with nature as the geometry incorporated in aligned with natural geometry such as the Golden Ratio. But I don't know how. Maybe they did make big stencils to follow. But I don't know how they then mde that 3D. I( cannot accept that it was freehand art with a guide.

Let me ask you, do you think the idea of there being knowledge from God, nothing to do with tech. But knowledge from God, from the spiritual domain that can relate to fundemental reality. Give knowledge that naturalistic science cannot.

 

[Tuur]

What your forgetting is regardless of how they did and even if they did setup some fairly sophisticated turning device with Ox power. The problem is getting the specific 3D object from the cutting devices movements. There is no pre programmed design in the device. Certainly not one that can make specific shapes aligning with preset math. That speaks of modern CMC.

No. CMC isn't needed at all. In my teens used a grindstone to convert a piece of rebar into a spike to pry out fence staples. The result was symmetrical simply because I rotated the rebar by hand. To make fancy three-dimensional spindle a block of wood, all you need it to rotate it and hole a chisel against it. That's all. The rotation does the rest. Need to duplicate it? Easiest way is to make a 2-D pattern and use that as a guide to turn out duplicates. Not quite as easy is to trace an existing piece. IF you've got a device that's essentially cut wires laid side-by-side and secured, you press that against the original and use that to trace out your pattern.

That's the principle with a potter's wheel. Turn that lump of clay around and around and shape with your fingers. Hold your hands steady, and you end up with a smooth, symmetrical, piece of pottery.

No lathe or a way to turn the piece? Have seen straight cuts used to remove excess material from wood, with sanding to finish it. What was called a surform tool (think industrial thickness grater in a frame with a handle) smooths the corners off quicker. No surform tool? Try a rasp.

I know all this is possible because at various times I've seen it or have done it myself with wood and metal, maybe 90% of it before CMC existed. Not many weeks ago I made a round leather key fob using nothing more than a paper pattern, straight cuts with a utility knife, and sanding. That's all. I'm sure there's a computer controlled laser cutter out there that could do the job faster, but none was needed to do the job at all.

That's the situation here. Modern tech may do the job faster, but modern tech isn't needed to do the job at all.

 

[Tuur]

Isn't this just an argument from incredulity? "I think the vases are seemingly to advanced for our understanding of the available tools (but we don't know how good they were with those tools)." Therefore there's some kind of lost technology or knowledge to be found. So look for the lost technology then. Do they have a proposed mechanism for how the knowledge was lost? Cultural advancements are very hard to erase, have it ever happened that we know of? I guess on some small scale, perhaps before the invention of writing.

If I had a lathe, would like to try to make a collapsible drinking cup. Medieval craftsmen were turning these things out for travelers and we know they used a lathe. To the best of my knowledge, the how was never recorded. Wouldn't doubt that even today someone is turning out wooden collapsible drinking cups using the same method. For all I know it simply consists of turning a tapering cup, cutting it into sections, then fitting one ring inside the other. Whatever it was, it was common enough no one thought it was worth writing down.

 

[stevevw]

No. CMC isn't needed at all. In my teens used a grindstone to convert a piece of rebar into a spike to pry out fence staples. The result was symmetrical simply because I rotated the rebar by hand. To make fancy three-dimensional spindle a block of wood, all you need it to rotate it and hole a chisel against it. That's all. The rotation does the rest. Need to duplicate it? Easiest way is to make a 2-D pattern and use that as a guide to turn out duplicates. Not quite as easy is to trace an existing piece. IF you've got a device that's essentially cut wires laid side-by-side and secured, you press that against the original and use that to trace out your pattern.

That's the principle with a potter's wheel. Turn that lump of clay around and around and shape with your fingers. Hold your hands steady, and you end up with a smooth, symmetrical, piece of pottery.

No lathe or a way to turn the piece? Have seen straight cuts used to remove excess material from wood, with sanding to finish it. What was called a surform tool (think industrial thickness grater in a frame with a handle) smooths the corners off quicker. No surform tool? Try a rasp.

I know all this is possible because at various times I've seen it or have done it myself with wood and metal, maybe 90% of it before CMC existed. Not many weeks ago I made a round leather key fob using nothing more than a paper pattern, straight cuts with a utility knife, and sanding. That's all. I'm sure there's a computer controlled laser cutter out there that could do the job faster, but none was needed to do the job at all.

That's the situation here. Modern tech may do the job faster, but modern tech isn't needed to do the job at all.

So could a precision part for NASA be produced by this hand held rotation and chisel and smoothing. How do you tell say the coaxial uniformity is maintained all the way down to within 1,000th of an inch and never deviates.

Or if say a preset patten in nature like a Golden ratio. How would you ensure the specific surfaces were correct down to the micro level without any way of even seeing down to the micron level with the naked eye. It would surely have to be an estimate. The coaxial shape may look somewhere in that region of the preset pattern to the naked eye. But theres no way to ensure it adheres down to the micron level as required in precision tooling.

Lastly how do you explain the testing and analysis of the vase signatures which state that it could only have been done by some sort of CMC setup where the precision was programed to guide the cut to align with the specific shape down to the micro. Just as signatures show from CMC and not from hand controlled methods which will vary and move.

Refer to links above. You are telling me from your personal experience one thing and these scientific articles are saying the opposite. Who am I to believe. Is their science wrong.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So could a precision part for NASA be produced by this hand held rotation and chisel and smoothing. How do you tell say the coaxial uniformity is maintained all the way down to within 1,000th of an inch and never deviates.

1/1000th of an inch was the tolerence my G grandfather used to machine large metal parts to on a lathe 100 years ago. No NASA. No computer numerical control (CNC). (Again this was your invocation of the American space agency, not ours.)

And there is no evidence that chisels were used in ancient Egypt for shaping rotated objects. All of the experiments have used abrasion, not cutting. (And the best cutting method available in this period was actually abrasion by copper saws/drills and wet sand.)

Or if say a preset patten in nature like a Golden ratio. How would you ensure the specific surfaces were correct down to the micro level without any way of even seeing down to the micron level with the naked eye. It would surely have to be an estimate. The coaxial shape may look somewhere in that region of the preset pattern to the naked eye. But theres no way to ensure it adheres down to the micron level as required in precision tooling.

The coaxial shape of the turned vase comes from the fact that it was shaped during rotation. That was the point of @Tuur
's post to which you were responding.

The "mathematical relationships" Dunn and his buddies are "seeing" are just that "things they are seeing". There is no need to explain it.

Lastly how do you explain the testing and analysis of the vase signatures which state that it could only have been done by some sort of CMC setup where the precision was programed to guide the cut to align with the specific shape down to the micro. Just as signatures show from CMC and not from hand controlled methods which will vary and move.

Your examples don't demonstrate CNC matching. The only reason I can think your sources go to this CNC fantasy is that they have become enamored with the "information" they think is embedded in the object. The stability of the symmetry is entirely about how much smoothing is applied through many, many rotations with uniform pressure. Your complaints about the experimental reproductions are for object formed with only rough control on the stability of the rotation. This is what I mean when I say they are not master artisans of the kind found in pre and early dynastic Egypt with hundreds of years of cumulative experience and personal decades of training and experience.

Refer to links above. You are telling me from your personal experience one thing and these scientific articles are saying the opposite. Who am I to believe. Is their science wrong.

You have posted no scientific articles on the alleged precision or embedded mathematics, only personal web pages.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The question is what is their point. I am not saying they have made a sterling effort in experimenting on these vases. But what is the ultimate point. Is it to show that the precision vases could be made with the tools they used.

If you don't understand the point of experimental archeology I'm not sure how we can go on with this (or I should bother reading the rest of this). Perhaps you should take some time to understand what that is all about first.

One reason is that they want to understand the formation of the objects they study. Flint knapping is not technique used anymore, so if archeologists want to understand the knapped flint objects knowing how to make them is very useful. Archeology students routinely learn how to make basic ancient artifact classes so they can better understand the context of the artifacts they find.

The experiments on early Egyptian stoneware manufacture have revealed a lot about how they were done. The effectiveness of the tools depicted centuries later in that wall illustration has been demonstrated. to work effectively. There are also targeted experiments on certain things because they have become the focus of speculative fantasies and conspiracy theories.

 

[stevevw]

1/1000th of an inch was the tolerence my G grandfather used to machine large metal parts to on a lathe 100 years ago. No NASA. No computer numerical control (CNC). (Again this was your invocation of the American space agency, not ours.)

Petrie actually discovered these works over 100 years ago and around the end of the 19th century. Sure there was the industrial revolution but Petrie was describing witness marks that were beyond the current tech. Anyway they were his words at the time which was his expert opinion. He was not a conspiracists.

My example of NASA or it could have been any company that makes precision parts for whatever reason. Was that the level of tech in making the precision tools was reflected in the signatures of the vase. So I gave the example of finding these vases in ancient Egypt would be like finding a precision part from anyone back in 1900. We would say the level of tech exceeded that time.

Though now you have said your GF made stuff down to 1,000th of an inch a more realistic timeline would be like finding a precision part during medieval times. We would say this is out of place.

And there is no evidence that chisels were used in ancient Egypt for shaping rotated objects. All of the experiments have used abrasion, not cutting. (And the best cutting method available in this period was actually abrasion by copper saws/drills and wet sand.)

It has also been suggested that some sort of fixed quartz cutter may have been used on a rotating granite object. Which I think is closest to what happened. Something along those lines due to the precision symmetry and circular conformity. Which we would expect from such witness marks.

But remember the idea of pounding and grinding by hand into shape is still being pushed. This seems almost a belief in the light of the evidence that some sort of lathe may have been used. BUt if some sort of lathe is proposed I am not disagreeing.

The coaxial shape of the turned vase comes from the fact that it was shaped during rotation. That was the point of @Tuur
's post to which you were responding.

Yes I I thanked him for really being so basic and breaking down the steps as this is exactly what these tests are doing reverse engineering the steps as to what could achieve such signatures.

I agree that some sort of lathe was used and really thats all these testers are saying as to the witness marks. As you will not in the link of tests done at the Petrie museum on some of these vases. The signatures matched modern lathe precision tool marks and in some cases even better. But they did not match the handmade method. The precision was magnitudes greater.

BUt I am not sure if I agree that the contraption was so basic as described. I think some sort of packing or stability was used to keep the whole mechanism almost perfectly still. But also was able to sustain tremendous pressure to be able to cut reasonable deep. I mean we have trouble with modern tech to produce such results. Nevermind say back in 1800, or 1200 or 100AD.

If we take a step we are basically saying the Egyptians has some sort of mechanism that could mimick modern precision cutting that we have only recently developed into over a long period of progression and improvement. Yet somehow no matter how these ancient people that is predynastic or first dynasties could achieve this end result.

The "mathematical relationships" Dunn and his buddies are "seeing" are just that "things they are seeing". There is no need to explain it.

The initial metrologists were not looking for geometry and math. They were just doing the measures and data banking them. It was further analysis by others besides Dunn that found the mathmatical relations.

Plus like I said which you keep ignoring Dunn and his team were not the only ones. Dunn being a areospace engineer and having access to equipment did the guage metrology. But the links from 3D, Gamma and other light scanning at the Petrie museum was done by a seperate and independent team.

Your creating another ad hominem as there are independent testers who are coming to these same findings. The mathmatical relations were found from the data. Are you saying its just a coincident that many geometrical patterns like Pi, Phi, Flower of life which were common geometry in ancient times was just in the testers imagination. This geometry was not really there. Or is made out to be bigger than it is.

Your examples don't demonstrate CNC matching. The only reason I can think your sources go to this CNC fantasy is that they have become enamored with the "information" they think is embedded in the object. The stability of the symmetry is entirely about how much smoothing is applied through many, many rotations with uniform pressure.

Yes and I have agreed that some sort of lathe device was used. Thats ok for uniform circularity. But how do necks and varying coaxiality down the vase to a precision within 1,000th of an inch say. Either the fixed point was able to move mechanically in and out without any deviation. Or as you say the near perfect varying coaxiality was hand rubbed into shape.

But then theres another problem. Because that varying coaxiality does not just vary to any shape. It is a perfect ellipsoid. Then the central boby itself the buldging part fits a perfect circle which happens to align perfectly with the curves of the handles when they meet. Then the Flower of life can just overlayed on the central circle and guss what. The petal points also aling perfectly with the junctions theese other shapes are found in the face. I have not even begun to mention how the virticles and horizontal relations, radials ect also match into the same geometry.

When you start seeing this math and geometry you begin to see how its not just lining up one unifrm round shape on a lathe. But something that could know all those relations prior as input and then be able to precisiely cut that out in 3D maintain all those tight parameters. That speaks CMC. Have you even gone into the metrology results. Or the methodology of the further analysis for the math. Math experts finding the math.

Your complaints about the experimental reproductions are for object formed with only rough control on the stability of the rotation. This is what I mean when I say they are not master artisans of the kind found in pre and early dynastic Egypt with hundreds of years of cumulative experience and personal decades of training and experience.

The problem is like I said. An artists is not the one who will make the tech that gives the precision on the lathe. These are two seperate industries. What you are more or less saying is the better the device is on controlling and being stable the better the result will be. But is that art or engineering.

I think the pics on the wall are basic and inadequate to explain such precision. Every experiment I have seen including the Russian guys which I like as they are good at it. They make some pretty good setups. But I still think inadequate and probaly close to the limits of this basic kind of setup. It needs to go to another level of sophistication is they are to achieve similar results. But then thats the tech not the rubbing or pounding.

You have posted no scientific articles on the alleged precision or embedded mathematics, only personal web pages.

I thought I did. Ok here they are again.

Precision and Classification of Predynastic Egyptian Stone Vessels: REVISED
The developed methodology for quantitatively analyzing 3D scans of archaeological artifacts enables the classification of objects into distinct quality categories. These categories reflect variations in the tools and fabrication techniques employed in their creation.

Precision and Classification of Predynastic Egyptian Stone Vessels: REVISED

Abstract Predynastic Egyptian stone vessels (c. 4000–3100 BCE) offer unique insight into the remarkable technological sophistication of a culture that significantly predates Egypt’s unification. Hu…

maximus.energy

Scanning a Predynastic Ancient Egyptian Vase down to 1000th of an Inch!

New Video – Scanning a Predynastic Ancient Egyptian Vase down to 1000th of an Inch! – UnchartedX

Initial Geometric Analysis of The Pre-Dynastic Vase

Geometric Analysis of The Pre-Dynastic Granite Artifact

An interesting geometrical analysis of an extremely precise and high-resolution mesh, obtained via structured light scanning of a granite artifact, that is purpoted to originate from pre-dynastic Egypt.

unsigned.io

Abstracts in Granite

Abstractions Set In Granite

This article will describe the preliminary results of our ongoing analysis of the Granite Artefact scan data, our CAD reconstruction, and some remarkable insights into the design of the object.

unsigned.io

 

[stevevw]

If you don't understand the point of experimental archeology I'm not sure how we can go on with this (or I should bother reading the rest of this). Perhaps you should take some time to understand what that is all about first.

One reason is that they want to understand the formation of the objects they study. Flint knapping is not technique used anymore, so if archeologists want to understand the knapped flint objects knowing how to make them is very useful. Archeology students routinely learn how to make basic ancient artifact classes so they can better understand the context of the artifacts they find.

The experiments on early Egyptian stoneware manufacture have revealed a lot about how they were done. The effectiveness of the tools depicted centuries later in that wall illustration has been demonstrated. to work effectively. There are also targeted experiments on certain things because they have become the focus of speculative fantasies and conspiracy theories.

I understood what you meant. Science is step by step and its not necessarily about proving any specific overall goal like proving the tools made the vase. But I know most of the other experiments and especially the Russian guys its all about proving the simple tools made the works.

Certainly people use the examples to support that the primitive methods were responsible. I disagree that the wall paintings show that the vases could be done that way. Already some have acknowledged some sort of lathe. I cannot remember seeing a lathe with a fixed cutter.

But then the later dynasties who painted those depictions and made those vases were not making precision granite vases but softer alabasta and limestone ones. So the method on the walls is a true reflection of the method for those particular vases.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I understood what you meant. Science is step by step and its not necessarily about proving any specific overall goal like proving the tools made the vase. But I know most of the other experiments and especially the Russian guys its all about proving the simple tools made the works.

Certainly people use the examples to support that the primitive methods were responsible. I disagree that the wall paintings show that the vases could be done that way

Not "proving", but demonstrating that tools like those depicted on the wall murals could be used to produce objects like the fine quality early Egyptian vases. It doesn't "prove" what tools were actually used. I am aware you "disagree", but frankly I don't care. Neither your opinion or mine matter. We are not experts.

Already some have acknowledged some sort of lathe. I cannot remember seeing a lathe with a fixed cutter.

I'd like to see this "cutter" notion in publication. All of the experimental results suggest abrasion and as I noted in the previous post even the "cutting" method used at the time on hard stone (copper saws and drills) are actually abrasive, rather than cutting as the "cutter" is softer than the material being cut.

But then the later dynasties who painted those depictions and made those vases were not making precision granite vases but softer alabasta and limestone ones. So the method on the walls is a true reflection of the method for those particular vases.

Softer materials (like alabaster) and harder tool make cutting and carving in the sense we are used to possible. Perhaps this is why they switched, you know, because abrasive cutting and drilling, then chipping away small bits with stone hammers, and finally grinding the shape with abrasives is long, hard work.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I thought I did. Ok here they are again.

You still haven't posted any scientific articles.

Precision and Classification of Predynastic Egyptian Stone Vessels: REVISED
The developed methodology for quantitatively analyzing 3D scans of archaeological artifacts enables the classification of objects into distinct quality categories. These categories reflect variations in the tools and fabrication techniques employed in their creation.

Precision and Classification of Predynastic Egyptian Stone Vessels: REVISED

Abstract Predynastic Egyptian stone vessels (c. 4000–3100 BCE) offer unique insight into the remarkable technological sophistication of a culture that significantly predates Egypt’s unification. Hu…

maximus.energy

Crank's website.

Scanning a Predynastic Ancient Egyptian Vase down to 1000th of an Inch!
New Video – Scanning a Predynastic Ancient Egyptian Vase down to 1000th of an Inch! – UnchartedX

Crank's website.

Initial Geometric Analysis of The Pre-Dynastic Vase

Geometric Analysis of The Pre-Dynastic Granite Artifact

An interesting geometrical analysis of an extremely precise and high-resolution mesh, obtained via structured light scanning of a granite artifact, that is purpoted to originate from pre-dynastic Egypt.

unsigned.io

Crank's website.

Abstracts in Granite

Abstractions Set In Granite

This article will describe the preliminary results of our ongoing analysis of the Granite Artefact scan data, our CAD reconstruction, and some remarkable insights into the design of the object.

unsigned.io

Crank's website.

 

[stevevw]

You still haven't posted any scientific articles.

Crank's website.

Ad hominem

Crank's website.

Ad hominem

Crank's website.

Ad hominem

Crank's website.

Ad hominem

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ad hominem

Ad hominem

Ad hominem

Ad hominem

They is what they is. I stated that you hadn't posted any scientific papers on precision vases. In responese you posted 4 links to things that are not scientific papers, but personal web pages. I am aware of these articles. They have no scientific value. They are the claim that needs scientific backing. (Please learn what an ad hom is. We've tried explaining it to you, but you don't seem to have understood.)

 

[stevevw]

They is what they is. I stated that you hadn't posted any scientific papers on precision vases. In responese you posted 4 links to things that are not scientific papers, but personal web pages. I am aware of these articles. They have no scientific value. They are the claim that needs scientific backing. (Please learn what an ad hom is. We've tried explaining it to you, but you don't seem to have understood.)

So was there any science done. Were the tests faulty and wrong. Did they mismeasure anything. Was the methods wrong and inadequate. Did they fudge the results.

Your creating logical fallacies.

Like I said there is no peer reviewed journals doing the work because its just happening now in the last year. No one else is bothered to do this and its rare and expensive to do in the first place. These tests are the scientists in the labs producing the data. The results are opened sourced which is similar to peer review but better as its open to more people.

So yes these tests results need to be peer reviwed as open source. There is a link to download the findings and upload further analysis or peer review. So why don't you offer your critique rather than keep making logical fallacies attacking the sources and individuals as cranks.

The data is there. Give your opinion on why its wrong. Engage in the content for once. You have done everything but deal with the findings as to whether they are wrong and actually pseudoscience.

The good thing is that even the average person can see the measurements and how near perfect they are. How is that pseudoscience. Did they lie about the measurements. Its not that hard to do if you have the equipment. The tests done at the Petrie museum had to be approved as legit as they were testing precious works. This was not some cowboy project.

I jusddt told you that several different types of metrology have been done (light scans and various guage metrology) and they both converge on the same findings of precision. Thats good science. Hod do you fudge metrology. If so show how the tests are wrong.

You even acknowledged the tests were ok when you said the scientists were seeing more to the measures than was there. You just disagree with the interpretation of the measures.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So was there any science done. Were the tests faulty and wrong. Did they mismeasure anything. Was the methods wrong and inadequate. Did they fudge the results.

No one has checked their results to know.

Your creating logical fallacies.

No, all the logical fallacies existed already. I haven't invented any new ones nor used any here. I want to see actual science done. That hasn't happened yet.

Like I said there is no peer reviewed journals doing the work because its just happening now in the last year. No one else is bothered to do this and its rare and expensive to do in the first place. These tests are the scientists in the labs producing the data. The results are opened sourced which is similar to peer review but better as its open to more people.

So yes these tests results need to be peer reviwed as open source. There is a link to download the findings and upload further analysis or peer review. So why don't you offer your critique rather than keep making logical fallacies attacking the sources and individuals as cranks.

Then come back when that is finished. We can wait.

The data is there. Give your opinion on why its wrong. Engage in the content for once. You have done everything but deal with the findings as to whether they are wrong and actually pseudoscience.

Now you want *me* to do their analysis for them? I think not.

The good thing is that even the average person can see the measurements and how near perfect they are. How is that pseudoscience. Did they lie about the measurements. Its not that hard to do if you have the equipment. The tests done at the Petrie museum had to be approved as legit as they were testing precious works. This was not some cowboy project.

I jusddt told you that several different types of metrology have been done (light scans and various guage metrology) and they both converge on the same findings of precision. Thats good science. Hod do you fudge metrology. If so show how the tests are wrong.

@sjastro has addressed some of these issues in ways I could not. Ask him.

 

[stevevw]

No one has checked their results to know.

Yet your willing to preempt that and make a judgement based on what. If there have been no checks then you don't know. Yet you act like you already know the truth and have passed judgement. Which is exactly the point I was making.

The idea of open source is for anyone to check those results. You can if you want. I have. I can see the measures and how precise they are. So can you. What are you saying that no one has checked whether the measures are accurate and repeat.

I said that independent measures have been done which support each other. Are you saying they are all wrong. If so then how do you prove this. But this still shows that your more willing to dismiss these tests without any real basis. If they showed evidence that aligned with your position I am sure you would have been happy to accept them.

No, all the logical fallacies existed already. I haven't invented any new ones nor used any here. I want to see actual science done. That hasn't happened yet.

So your saying the tests were not science. As far as I understand the equipment is real and they were switched on and used lol. I am sure the data supplied came from that equipement such as the 3D light scanners. I linked the section about the methodology and equipement used. Are you saying its fake.

Then come back when that is finished. We can wait.

This is silly. You and I can peer review it now. For example here is a few examples of the results we can look at and peer review it ourselves.

The first shows the flatness of the top which only deviates by 0.003 mm in flatness. The second show coaxiality within the blue bands which only varies by 0.002 and 0.003 respectively. The last shows the deviation in diameter along the X (horizonta) and Y (verticle) axis.

In other words its circularity. It only deviates 0.004 mm which is a 4th of a micron. A human hair is 0.017 to 0.18 mm. So a 1/4 the thickness of a human hair in deviation.

You don't need peer review to see this and its not pseudoscience. Just the facts that come from the metrology. From this we can begin to work out what sort of method woyld produce such precision. Obviously having near perfect circularity suggests some sort of lathe.

The coaxiality is near perfect all the way down the vase (only deviating only 0.03mm) 1/3 the thickness of a human hair. This suggests some sort of fixed cutter that can contour and maintain precise coaxiality in the body.

The same with measures for veriticle and horizonal deviations (top to bottom, relations to handles and top and bottom and to each other near perfect. All suggest some sort of fixed guiding mechanism. The average person can see this.

Now you want *me* to do their analysis for them? I think not.

@sjastro has addressed some of these issues in ways I could not. Ask him.

I just did some for you. Its not hard. The numbers don't lie. We could go through the math incorporated in the vase as well based on the metrology which is amazing in itself in how it aligns near perfect to natural geometry such as Pi, Phi and the Flower of life.

Heres a simple one. How the angles of the top part of the vase perfect meet center of the diameter of the opening. Any slight deviation in those curves (too sharp or wide and it misses center. Oh for which also forms 1r (radian). Which is also reflected all over the vase in whole or part radians to near perfection.

This meets at perfect center and these relations are found all over the vase.

Or

The ratio between the diameter of the narrowest part of the exterior neck (Dn), and the inner radius (Ri) is φ2. Again we see a high level of precision thats hard to explain. You can or anyone can do the calculations but they speak for themselves. The very, very very small deviation from mathmatical perfection equates to approximately 20 μm. As with the incorporation of π, this finding is also in agreement with observations made by Marián Marčiš.

The same relations can be found at the base and in other places.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Petrie actually discovered these works over 100 years ago and around the end of the 19th century. Sure there was the industrial revolution but Petrie was describing witness marks that were beyond the current tech. Anyway they were his words at the time which was his expert opinion. He was not a conspiracists.



Precision and Classification of Predynastic Egyptian Stone Vessels: REVISED
The developed methodology for quantitatively analyzing 3D scans of archaeological artifacts enables the classification of objects into distinct quality categories. These categories reflect variations in the tools and fabrication techniques employed in their creation.

Precision and Classification of Predynastic Egyptian Stone Vessels: REVISED

Abstract Predynastic Egyptian stone vessels (c. 4000–3100 BCE) offer unique insight into the remarkable technological sophistication of a culture that significantly predates Egypt’s unification. Hu…

maximus.energy

So where can I get the data underlying the results on this webpage? UnchartedX have the scans behind a paywall, the Artifact Foundation seems to plan to release STL files, but have not done so (also STL files are not primary data). My russian is non-existent so I might have missed something on antropogenez.ru (I only got one page in english).

Maximus energy includes a step that actively minimizes any deviations during model alignment. These are things that should be discussed and remeasured by other researchers. But most importantly how is what is investigated selected? Is it just some kind of unconscious bias? Did low quality (using the modern definition of quality) artifacts have the same probability to be stored in a way that made it likely that they survive for thousands of years, or did they break with use? Is it some kind of conscious bias, romanticization of a distant past?

Me personally isn't knowledgable enough to answer any hard questions but I still don't understand why they don't publish in actual journals. Then subject matter experts would read and comment. I know reviewers can be a PITA some times, but generally the manuscripts improve with their suggestions. There are open-access journals that are available to the public, there are open data repositories.