For starters, I want to see a reviewed publication with a full description of the methodology and analysis. Enough of this amateur stuff. If they want to play at archeology, they need to do it the way archeologists do it.
Its not archeology and its not amateur. You just admitted that the signatures look modern. You don't have to be an expert to recognise this. I agree when further reviews are made and more duplicated tests come out that this will lend weight to the evidence.
But I think there are some interesting observations anyone can see that can in itself be challenging. Aready we are beginning to see quite a different method to what is on the walls. In fact much more sophisticated just from simple observations.
The axisymmetry is entirely a product of being rotated and that is true on a CNC machine or a simple lathe, or in one of those offset handle wheel machines on the tomb wall and in the experiments.
Except the rudimentary device on the walls would leave a completely different signature as already acknowledge. It would also not be able to explain the shaping of such a cyclynder. A uniform cut is different to one that allows the cutting arm to move in and out and create such tapered shapes.
Certainly not free hand in getting the precision in line with the geometry and relations to the axis and symmetry. One slight movement off line would ruin the whole vase. Certainly the rudimentary method on the walls would have too much movement in itself let only precision cutter movement.
As
@sjastro has noted, the methods and calibration of the metrology must be characterized. If it isn't, what good is the data?
Do you mean the method of measurement. If so the articles include this. They explain the method and equipment used. Heck there are videos of the step by step process showing the readouts as they are done. So the average person can watch the entire tests.
In fact you can go to the meseum of arrange with a collector to measure it yourself. You can get a set of Calipers and measure say the inner and outer opening and see the closeness.. Which could then be backed by more detailed tests such as Dial Gauge or 3D light scanning.
What do you think "conclusions" are? It is the claims made and how they are justified. The analysis. The consideration of alternative explanations. Do you not have any familiarity with proper work on these subjects?
Of course, this is academia. But I think you are talking beyond the technical data of the findings and the conclusions related to that ie the precision matches the signatures of modern tech. That is based on sheer data (the measurements) and any geometry within those measurements.
As opposed to spectulating how this was achieved as far as the philosophical implications are. Facts are facts and they have no subjective way of seeing them.
I mean peer review. My message to Dunn et al.: Suck it up, buttercup.
Lol fair enough. So would not the peer review involve checking the metrology. Repeating the measures. In fact that would be the only way. So until those who call Dunn and other independent testers as psudoscience I think they need to wait until more tests are done.
But I also think its cynnical to dismiss all these tests as nothing. Especially when we have independent and different methods finding similar precision in the metrology whether by calipers, gague or 3D light.
Of the two vases I've seen closely (the original Dunn vase and the "S1" vase, the handles *don't* align. Not horizonatally, or even symmetric relative to the axis. They look *very* hand carved and drilled.
The original Dunn vase would be the original base fullstop that was tested. The one that led to further tests. It was astonishingly recise if its the same one. Further tests have now shown even more precision in the original.
But no one is saying all the vases are near perfect. Rather that such near perfect could even appear at such a time when the potters wheel was not even invented or just beginning with very basic examples. Certainly no such devices have been found in redynastic Egypt.
Sorry yes CNC. Computer numerical control (CNC) technology to automate the cutting and shaping of granite.
What that the device was different to that on the wall painiting much later. Or that the potters wheel was hardly invented at the time. Consensus has the potters wheel coming around 3,200 BC. Many of these vases come 6,000 years ago and some evidence for up to 9,000 years ago.
Evenso certainly being that the potters wheel was only just invented around the same time as the beginning of the 1st dynasty it is still an astonishing feat in that we have just been describing the level of sophistication of such a device for a beginner. Even outdoing methods that came nearly 2,000 years later.
On the material of a cutter this is nothing but speculation. There is no evidence of a circular saw on these objects. There is on the inside of some of them something that looks like lathe-type machining which is not a circular saw.
I was referring back to the images of saw cuts that even skeptics admit looks like a modern circular saw cut. Even to the point where they say these modern cuts are forgeries. So the signatures in the stone is recognised as modern looking. Its because they are modern looking that we can spectulate about what kind of cutter.
If modern signatures look the same and use specific cutters then its reasonable to spectulate that a similar method would be used to produce similar signatures. But that is not saying that this is actually modern circular saws or CNC cutting. Just that the signatures look similar and beyond the orthodox tools claimed.
And what evidence of a "cutting arm" is available?
Well nothing found in the ground. Only that to achieve such 3D precision that some sort of guided cutter to keep the shape precise and aligned to the geometry. Rather than freehand, naked eye and feel.
Though I heard an explanation that they may have had extraordinary feel and could sense any deviations and then rub and keep doing so. But it begins to sound far fetched as well.
One millennium down, two to go.
Ancient origins is a crank atlantean site. Its not worth the effort to click on.
I don't know, it seems many sites say similar and date the Flower of Life symbol back as far as 6,000 years ago at the Temple of Iris Egypt. Which makes sense as we see it in the vases from that same time period.
Nevertheless the Flower of Life can be seen in some vases which are dated at least 6,000 years old and these ancients have a history of using natural geometric alignments in the works they create.
That's what happens when there is a symmetry axis.
No, I'm just not being credulous.
Yes, they are. That's the whole point of my disdain for the "embedded math" claims. The dingbats that are "finding" these ratios "embedded" in the shape are just finding a bunch of numbers, assembling a bunch of random ratios from them, and looking for numbers or formulae to "fit" them to. As I noted, phi^2 isn't special neither is SQRT(pi), or the cube root of 7, or whatever numbers they claim to find in it.
Seems cynnical when its more than just seeing numbers. Like the precision flatness wo within half a hair. Or the coaxality all the way down the vase and maintained over the shape. Or the perfect alignment of the handles to the top, bottom and each other. Simple measures but significant in their implications as to how this was achieved. Thats not imagined.
