There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[stevevw]

It certainly is on both counts.

Since when do archeologists specialise in engineering and precision tool making. It would be like saying an engineer is an expert in archeology. Or a antiques expert was also an expert in physics.

I did see an object (for the first time in the last couple days) with modern machining signatures, but we'll get to that later.

But its the whole point of my reasoning as to why I think these examples are out of place. The very same logic you use to identify signatures are looking modern. Thats it full stop. Theres nothing else, no speculation about how. Just simply the observing of marks in the works that look like modern signatures. The links I have posted are giving specific deatils on those marks and how they relate to modern tech.

This is not the way to show that. Experiments are needed.

Yes and testing is being done. What other experiments. Do you mean repeating the metrology.

The problem, Steve, is that the experiments did show that these kinds of devices can produce the basic shapes of these vases. The "precision" of the axis centering is just about how stabilized the rotation axis is during grinding, particularly the later fine polishing stages that were omitted from the experiments. (I'll get to some "precision cutters" later.)

Actually its not. The methods on the walls have been tried many times. No matter how stable it is the method cannot reproduce the signatures in the vases. Not even theorectically. As the findings mention some sort of CNC cutting is involved.

That is an arm that cuts automatically and not by human hand. One that can move to the line of the shape of the vase. The depictions on the wall are nowhere near like this. You would have to start adding parts to it and then end up with something modern looking anyway.

Go find a published scientific paper that includes detailed measurement of an artifact and read the methods section. Then find another.

But the method section is in the article from the very scientists who did the test. I have said this several times now. Why does the methods in the original article not count as valid methods.

In fact there is video of the live tests being done with the equipment identified showing the readings on the instruments as the tests happen. Then the data is linked to the tests. It explains claibration and the step by step process.
What more do you want.

Scan Acquisition
The scans were captured using a Keyence VL-500 coordinate measuring machine (CMM) / 3D scanner, which allows for full 360-degree scanning with traceable measurements. The measurement accuracy of this system is 0.0004″, which corresponds to its maximum measurement error.

3D Scans of the Naqada Period Stone Vessels from the Petrie Museum of Egyptian and Sudanese Archeology

I hereby publish nineteen 3D scans of Naqada period (predynastic) Ancient Egyptian stone vessels that I captured during my research visit to the Petrie Museum of Egyptian and Sudanese Archaeology o…

maximus.energy

An actual museum would have no reason to let *me* even touch their stuff. Measuring the dimensions of solid objects is not an area of expertise for me, so I would have no expectation that my effort to do so would be good.

Exactly. But if they did let anyone it would be someone knowing what they were doing. Don't you think. Not some back street cowboys like you say.

Steve, the only thing about these measurements that have any value is their use in drawing conclusions about the object and the culture that made it. That's why archeologists make precision measurements. Otherwise it is just a bunch of numbers or a digital representation of a physical object. It didn't get mentioned here because it was some achievement in measurement. It was for the conclusion your website sources draw from it.

Yes but they are still not experts in precision tool making which is more to do with engineering sciences. Similar to forensics. If anything its when archeologists who don't know this and hold to the traditional view that the tools found are the tools used no matter what.

I want the peer review. Until these amateurs are checked by professionals, further testing isn't going to do anything for me.

Are you saying the Petrie museum arranged for amatuers to measure artifacts. With fake machines and all that. Are you saying the video that shows the metrology step by step and the readouts are all faked like the moon landing. It sounds like this is a conspiracy being pushed itself.

The handles aren't well aligned and are truly done "freehand".

See this is the the inconsistency for criteria as to what is allowed as far as evidence. You want others to jump through hoops to support the claim for advanced tech and knowledge. But then its ok for you to make unsupported claims off the top of your head as though its peer reviwed lol.

The handles are the most astonishingly precise aspect of the vase. The handles are not only almost perfectly positioned in relation to horizontal and verticle axis (0.001 to 0.005 inches) and aligning with the radial traversal patterns mentioned above in another post with the small holes and curves on the handles. A hair is around 3 to 5 thousandths of an inch.

But the space around and between the handles has the same precision and symmetry as the rest of the vase as though it was made without the handles and they were then stuck on seperately.

The surface between the lug handles was found to be only 0.005 of an inch off the same verticle axis as the rest of the vase in symmetry and coaxiality. As though the surface was made in one passing without any handles its so near perfect.

The tests reveal some sort of Toroid was made like a bullnose around the vase and then the excess cut out to leave the handles. Yet this is a seperate and different process to lathe work. Yet around the handles measures like lathe work.

Are they near perfect for the time or too perfect for the time?

Certainly I think too near perfect for the time. If its on par with precision tool making then that seems a strange level of tech and knowledge at that time when the potters wheel was not yet invented. Let alone some sophisticated lathe device that can mimick modern work.

for modern reproductions, sure. Ancient Egypt, nope.

Heres the problem. These vases have good provedence. Many of the latest being tested from Petrie museum. But also private ones going back to late 19th and early 20th century.

We did not even know about the level of precision until recently and no forgers would not care. It would take tons of money to replicate and negate making money from them. The tech was no even available until late in the 20th century. Still there was no need to make such precision as it was not even a thing.

I have seen exactly zero saw cuts on any of these vases.

I wasn't talking about the vases but the saw cuts in other stones, boxes, ect I have linked which show precision straight and fine cuts, precision arcs like a router cut the stone.

One such example I linked was claimed to be a modern forgery because they said it looks like a modern circular saw cut based on the signature. I mentioned there were many like this.

So all I am doing is using the same logic for the vases. Observing the signatures like for the circular saw cut and showing they also point to signatures of modern tech and knowledge.

For which we are now doing for the vase. What has gone from a rudimentary method on the walls which could not produce the signatures to some sort of sophisticated lathe setup which is more in line with the signatures.

I would agree that certain vases presented here (like the two shown in post #327) with a series of internal cut rings with variable radii were cut by a rotating cut-head on an arm or a fixed cut-head with rotation of the object and a hard cutter. The sequential pattern of the cut radii are not consistent with a copper drill, nor is the very bottom of the interior. Given the lack of aging, the two objects in that post seem likely to be modern reproduction, so that shaping method is to be expected.

Yes and one of the explanations because the modern signatures are so obvious is that these are forgeries. But what I have been pointing out for the past many pages are the signatures that look modern. First we have to agree they look modern. Then work out if they are forgeries.

But that cannot happen if as soon as they are posted they are dismissed as whackery. The only think I am doing is pointing out the out of place stuff and then its a matter of working out what is fact and what is fiction.

I don't care what "ancient origins" says. You are going to have to provide a real archeological source for this "Flower of LIfe" new age stuff.

Ok fair enough/ Maybe that will come in time. The more tests and analysis the better.

It is the seeing things in the numbers that don't seem to be there that is the problem I have with these amateurs.

I understand what you mean and a skeptic would want to seperate out what is imagined and what has some independent basis. I would have thought cold hard factual measurements don't hold any preconcieved ideas about numbers. Sers contain certain numbers. If the patter is the result of certain numbers or geometry is that not self evident.

If the box is near perfectly square or a shape is near perfectly cyclindric then this is not imagined. As opposed to any deviation that may be off or contain random numbers, ratios, and geometry.

There is such a thing as reading the math out of something. To make out its just any numbers when there are.

A product of rotation during shaping.

Actualy not just the rotation. The rotation itself can explain say the basic roundness with one dimensional cutting. Which could be setup fairly primitively. Though I don't think as precise as we see.

But its the multiple movements of angles, curves of the cutting arm and head in the geometric shapes is what CNC cutting is like for precision tools. Thats a big jump from a simple one dimension cutter which I think was even beyond the predynastics.

You keep forgetting we are talking predynastics. Not the wall paintings over 2,000 years later who seem to show much more primitive methods to what we are talking about. The potters wheel was not even invented then.

Except that they aren't.

Hum ok check out the measures. I think they are about a hair width or two out from being perfectly aligned.

CNC machining is certainly imagined.

But if its natural to say that the other signatures like the circular saw cuts are from modern tech then why not the other signatures. You just admitted that the signatures on a vase from the Petrie museum from predynastic Egypt had the signatures of modern machining.

Except you say its a modern forgery. This is what I am talking about. You recognise the signatures like me. Its not imagination. Even to the point that you must say this is a forgery that it cannot be possible for predynastic Egypt.

 

[Hans Blaster]

In fact the curves in the neck and top match the same radial traversal pattern as the rest of the curves and radials in the entire vase. A specific mathmatical function used to generate a specific range of circles using different radii that share a fixed ratio with each other.

The equation allows for the interger (n) to be scaled up or down to generate the circle or curve of the (radii) that will match this pattern. Only circles or curves with a very specific radius can fit this pattern. A random set of curves with different radii would not match the algorithm. These curves and circles are found within the vase from circles 1mm to 5cm.

Steve, this is all just numerology. They picked a family of numbers that provide a lot of ratio values within the scale of the ratio of the largest to smallest "circle" on the object. Therefore *many* circles can be fit that match one of those ratios. (And that wasn't even the only set of numbers being "found".) Unlike the alleged finding of powers of phi or pi in the shape, (numbers that emerge from some mathematics) what is special about the sqrt(1.5) [sqrt(3/2)], why not sqrt(5/4) or sqrt(7/3)? (I'll tell you why -- the numbers matched. They don't tell you how many "formulae" they tried before "finding" the one that "worked".)

 

[Hans Blaster]

Since when do archeologists specialise in engineering and precision tool making. It would be like saying an engineer is an expert in archeology.

Archeologists study artifacts, their contexts, and clues to how and why they were made. Your vase measuring engineers seem to spend a lot of time ignoring the actual archeological context and conclusions. Precision tool making is not suggested by anything but (and I don't even there, but that is the issue at question here) these artifacts which these engineers claim require precision tools to make. There is no other evidence for such tools. No texts describing them. No drawings. No tools found in the ruins of a workshop or the tomb of a craftsman. Nothing. All we have is this particular interpretation.

What we do have are lots of "junk" left over from the manufacturing process that shows failed objects and the leftovers from core drilling. Here is a fun article:

Ancient Egyptian Copper Coring Drills

or this "familiar" image with the ring from the drilling process clearly visible:

Or a antiques expert was also an expert in physics.

Why would that be needed?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes and testing is being done. What other experiments. Do you mean repeating the metrology.

No. More experimental archeology work to reproduce the ancient methods of vase production.

 

[stevevw]

Steve, this is all just numerology.

Thats like say the theory of gravitry is just numbers, any numbers. Or the constants are just any numbers. They are particular numbers that could have been any set of millions of combinations. Thats the point. Like I said to sjastro finding one representation of Pi and Phi may happen but all over the vase no not really.

The vase base lip to diameter Pi, the top lip to the inside opening of vase Pi, the opening to the outside rim of vase Pi, ect ect. There are 1,000 or more numbers it could have been that did not make it Pi or Phi. That it falls into this ratio over and over to less than a human hair is quite impressive.

But thats just one relation. You make numbers nothing when it suits.

They picked a family of numbers that provide a lot of ratio values within the scale of the ratio of the largest to smallest "circle" on the object.

Do you know what your talking about. Study the article.

Therefore *many* circles can be fit that match one of those ratios.

Theres only one ratio that the circles and curves seem to conform to.

(And that wasn't even the only set of numbers being "found".) Unlike the alleged finding of powers of phi or pi in the shape, (numbers that emerge from some mathematics) what is special about the sqrt(1.5) [sqrt(3/2)], why not sqrt(5/4) or sqrt(7/3)? (I'll tell you why -- the numbers matched. They don't tell you how many "formulae" they tried before "finding" the one that "worked".)

Because like other number sets such as the Madelbrot set not any numbers can be used. Its like finding a Cardioid shape in a Madelbrot set and saying its just numbers. Not any number but only certain numbers sets. If all the numbers in the vase fall within that set or in this case the Flower of Life then it suggests those specific relations were preset.

Whats more these numbers relate to other sets. Theres a double equivelance of Phi and Pi in some ratios. But they all generally fall into the Flower of Life and other natural numbers. For example the vase has been reduced to one unit which is the inside opening of the vase and all other radii are a precise part of that base unit either part of (arcs) or to the largest full circles.

Just one relation off by a small degree and the whole vase is affected. All other ratios then fall outside this basic unit.

Not just that the base unit equals exactly 18.739mm. That just happens to match the wave lengths of a 16 Ghz electromagnetic wave traveling in a vacumn. This is exactly 16 Ghz. This is very interesting as it seems the base unit of the vase is a whole subdivision of the speed of light in a vacumn. Maybe its a coincidence.

 

[stevevw]

No. More experimental archeology work to reproduce the ancient methods of vase production.

How could an archeologist build a precision tool device. They don't know about engineering and precision tools.

Besides they have built devices in the experiments. They used the methods they claimed were how the vases was made already. Are you saying they were wrong in what they think is the method of making granite vases.

Here we are scrutinising the methods in the articles I linked and yet the ones claimed to be the methods have not been scrutinised in the same way. Just blindly accepted as the method.

Yet as we have discovered the method is inadequate as I said pages ago. Now we are stepping through the process and the signatures we can see that a more sophisticated method is needed.

But then to do that, for archeologists to reproduce the ancient vase they would need to use some sort of modern lathe and flexible cutting arm which they would never admit to using because they blindly stick to the primitive methods on the wall paintings.

Why do we need to reproduce the vase signatures. We already have this with modern CNC cut vases.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

The vase base lip to diameter Pi, the top lip to the inside opening of vase Pi, the opening to the outside rim of vase Pi, ect ect. There are 1,000 or more numbers it could have been that did not make it Pi or Phi. That it falls into this ratio over and over to less than a human hair is quite impressive.

I've lost track exactly which article you're talking about, can you point it out to me? I'm trying to understand what you are talking about here that are not the just a restatement that the circumference is the diameter times pi.

 

[stevevw]

I've lost track exactly which article you're talking about, can you point it out to me? I'm trying to understand what you are talking about here that are not the just a restatement that the circumference is the diameter times pi.

Sorry, I assumed you had already seen this. I posted this a few times. This has the metrology, guage and light scanning and go through the measures and math.

New Video! Updates to the Vase Scan, Responses, and the STL file! – UnchartedX

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Sorry, I assumed you had already seen this. I posted this a few times. A couple have the metrology, guage and light scanning. This is the article on the math and geometry found in the vase.

New Video! Updates to the Vase Scan, Responses, and the STL file! – UnchartedX

Thank you. Yes, I've seen it but there are so many different articles floating around I have a hard time keeping track of them.

But the article you linked does not toalk about "...The vase base lip to diameter Pi, the top lip to the inside opening of vase Pi, the opening to the outside rim of vase Pi...".

 

[stevevw]

Archeologists study artifacts, their contexts, and clues to how and why they were made.

And what do they claim made these precision vases in the hardest of stone. The method on the wall. Yet we have already agreed that the method on the wall does not match the signatures and some other method such as a sophisticated lathe was used. Where is the lathe on the wall pictures.

The wall pics show vases being made in softer stone like alabasta which we have plenty of inferior works as examples from all over the world. But they don't explain the precision granite vases which strangly enough happen even before the potters wheel.

Your vase measuring engineers seem to spend a lot of time ignoring the actual archeological context and conclusions. Precision tool making is not suggested by anything but (and I don't even there, but that is the issue at question here) these artifacts which these engineers claim require precision tools to make.

Actually you also recognised the modern signatures. So did others. You don't have to be an engineer or an archeologists to recognise this. Actually Flinders Petrie was the first archeologist to discover these before the onset of modern tech and he thought no existing tech or method available in his time could have made those signatures.

He spoke of there being tremendous pressure on the cutting mechanism to be able to cut into the granite yet remain perfectly still. He more or less came to the same conclusion as those proposing some sort of advanced tech and knowledge before there was advanced tech and knowledge.

There is no other evidence for such tools. No texts describing them. No drawings. No tools found in the ruins of a workshop or the tomb of a craftsman. Nothing. All we have is this particular interpretation.

What, we just worked out what sort of device may have been used such as some sort of sophisticated lathe. We certainly went beyond the wall painting method.

I don't know how the vases were made. All we have is the witness marks which point to some sort of sophisticated lathe tyo be able to achieve such precision.

What we do have are lots of "junk" left over from the manufacturing process that shows failed objects and the leftovers from core drilling. Here is a fun article:

Ancient Egyptian Copper Coring Drills

Yeah I have seen this one. They once again show the wall method into softer stone which no one is saying did not happen. As I mentioned it seems it was like there were two different industries. One with plenty of common softer imprecise vases and one with a smaller amount of precision vases.

As though like a specialist sector in precision works that everyone tried to copy. That happened in the earliest times in predynastic Egypt.

or this "familiar" image with the ring from the drilling process clearly visible:

How do you know its from a drill bit. Its a pretty big one. It may be just a design. A glyph. Is is a perfect circle lol. So was this made on a lathe. But I think you meant this one

Why would that be needed?

I am pointing out how an antiques expert is no more knowledgable on precision tooling and engineering than an archeologists.

Note I did not ask Ai if there was advanced tech and knowledge. Only if archeologists pocessed expertise in engineering and precision tools. It just spat that out like its a commonly known possibility when it comes to the precision found in ancient works. A natural follow on.

AI Overview
Archaeologists use modern engineering principles and technology to analyze ancient engineering, but they are not inherently experts in engineering or precision tooling; instead, they collaborate with engineers and use high-tech equipment like 3D scanners and lidar to study and understand the incredible precision and advanced engineering found in ancient monuments, which continues to puzzle experts and suggests lost technologies or advanced knowledge beyond what is currently known.

 

[sjastro]

@stevevw

It is getting rather monotonous with your continuous rambling about predynastic vases indicating signatures requiring a lathe for manufacturing when your very links contradict this idea.

​

The high cylindricity value of 0.326 mm indicates there was considerable wobbling of the rotation axis which is uncharacteristic of even non CNC lathes where over a 100mm length the cylindricity range is typically 0.020 - 0.050 mm.

Once again the question rears its ugly head of whether you understand your links or are trolling by ignoring your own (counter)evidence and carrying on regardless.

 

[Tuur]

Let's make a stone vase!

Really, once you can make stuff go around and around, you can do all sorts of things.

 

[stevevw]

@stevevw

It is getting rather monotonous with your continuous rambling about predynastic vases indicating signatures requiring a lathe for manufacturing

Let me remind you that this is also the conclusion of others on this thread. We worked out that the symmetry and coaxiality were most likely due to a lathe. In fact everytime I mentioned the near perfect symmetry I was told this could easily be achieved on a lathe. So even others were arguing for a lathe lol.

when your very links contradict this idea.

View attachment 370212
​

The high cylindricity value of 0.326 mm indicates there was considerable wobbling of the rotation axis which is uncharacteristic of even non CNC lathes where over a 100mm length the cylindricity range is typically 0.020 - 0.050 mm.

Once again the question rears its ugly head of whether you understand your links or are trolling by ignoring your own (counter)evidence and carrying on regardless.

I think I understand the vase pretty well. Perhaps you have misunderstood this. First we have the flat top of the vase (verticle axis A). From this they formed a cyslinder in the mouth and opening extending down the vase to bottom. They then determined the center line of the cyclinder (horizontal axis B). So all measurements can be taken from the top and the inside neck which forms the cyclinder.

They determined how perpendicular the cyclinder was to axis A and it was 1/1000th of an inch from perfect. Thats near perfectly perpendictulat to the near perfectly flat top.

They were then able to take measures from control axis B the horizontal to all points on the vase for coaxiality (how close to center was axis B to the outside and inside walls all the way down.

At the top of the vase between the lip and handles it shows two paralelle bands where readings were taken. This showed the top was near perfect to the perpendicular axis B (0.003) of an inch.

They found at the bottom of the base it was only out 0.005 inches. Another interesting finding was that the coaxiality all the way down the vase was only out by 0.003 inches on average.

This is amazing when you consider the further you get away from the reference points the greater for deviations. Yet its pretty perfect all the way down making it near perfectly balanced to center and more evidence it was made on some sort of lathe with very stable cutting.

That seems pretty close to modern tech and if true amazing tech for the predynastics.

 

[stevevw]

Let's make a stone vase!

Really, once you can make stuff go around and around, you can do all sorts of things.

I agree, but its getting it to go round and round really steady and then have a cutting arm that is fixed and not human held. In other words a mechanical arm that is similar to CNC cutting ie

Or maybe. Something that can change angles and move in and out without any change or deviation. A freehand would cause many deviations.

I don't know how true this is but a comparison was done that to achieve the precision in the vase it would be like drawing a perfectly straight 10 metre line by hand to within a couple of hairs of being perfectly straight.

But I think it would be harder than just drawing a line. You would have to do it in the hardest stones. Not just a line but near perfect spheres, cones, arcs and circles in granite by hand.

 

[Ophiolite]

I agree, but its getting it to go round and round really steady and then have a cutting arm that is fixed and not human held. In other words a mechanical arm that is similar to CNC cutting ie

View attachment 370219

Or maybe. Something that can change angles and move in and out without any change or deviation. A freehand would cause many deviations.
View attachment 370220

I don't know how true this is but a comparison was done that to achieve the precision in the vase it would be like drawing a perfectly straight 10 metre line by hand to within a couple of hairs of being perfectly straight.

But I think it would be harder than just drawing a line. You would have to do it in the hardest stones. Not just a line but near perfect spheres, cones, arcs and circles in granite by hand.

The strongest element of your thesis, that shines through each post, is personal incredulity. It's not a good look and a weak foundation for an argument.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Thats like say the theory of gravitry is just numbers, any numbers. Or the constants are just any numbers. They are particular numbers that could have been any set of millions of combinations. Thats the point. Like I said to sjastro finding one representation of Pi and Phi may happen but all over the vase no not really.

It isn't.

The vase base lip to diameter Pi, the top lip to the inside opening of vase Pi, the opening to the outside rim of vase Pi, ect ect. There are 1,000 or more numbers it could have been that did not make it Pi or Phi. That it falls into this ratio over and over to less than a human hair is quite impressive.

But thats just one relation. You make numbers nothing when it suits.

Do you know what your talking about. Study the article.

Theres only one ratio that the circles and curves seem to conform to.

C = 2 pi r ?

Because like other number sets such as the Madelbrot set not any numbers can be used. Its like finding a Cardioid shape in a Madelbrot set and saying its just numbers. Not any number but only certain numbers sets. If all the numbers in the vase fall within that set or in this case the Flower of Life then it suggests those specific relations were preset.

Whats more these numbers relate to other sets. Theres a double equivelance of Phi and Pi in some ratios. But they all generally fall into the Flower of Life and other natural numbers. For example the vase has been reduced to one unit which is the inside opening of the vase and all other radii are a precise part of that base unit either part of (arcs) or to the largest full circles.

Just one relation off by a small degree and the whole vase is affected. All other ratios then fall outside this basic unit.

SMH.

Not just that the base unit equals exactly 18.739mm. That just happens to match the wave lengths of a 16 Ghz electromagnetic wave traveling in a vacumn. This is exactly 16 Ghz. This is very interesting as it seems the base unit of the vase is a whole subdivision of the speed of light in a vacumn.

And what is special about 16 GHz? (Nothing).

There can NOT be any "subdivisions" of a length in a speed without defining a *UNIT* of time. All unit sizes are ARBITRARY. We can measure the speed of light in a variety of unit systems all of which will give different numbers for the value.

Maybe its a coincidence.

Of course it is. All of these "number matches" are just coincidence. Pick a different formula for selecting families of ratio and some of those will work too.

 

[sjastro]

Let me remind you that this is also the conclusion of others on this thread. We worked out that the symmetry and coaxiality were most likely due to a lathe. In fact everytime I mentioned the near perfect symmetry I was told this could easily be achieved on a lathe. So even others were arguing for a lathe lol.

You must be living in a dreamworld.
Who exactly in this thread is agreeing with you, I have clearly underestimated your degree of delusion.

I think I understand the vase pretty well. Perhaps you have misunderstood this. First we have the flat top of the vase (verticle axis A). From this they formed a cyslinder in the mouth and opening extending down the vase to bottom. They then determined the center line of the cyclinder (horizontal axis B). So all measurements can be taken from the top and the inside neck which forms the cyclinder.

They determined how perpendicular the cyclinder was to axis A and it was 1/1000th of an inch from perfect. Thats near perfectly perpendictulat to the near perfectly flat top.

View attachment 370213

They were then able to take measures from control axis B the horizontal to all points on the vase for coaxiality (how close to center was axis B to the outside and inside walls all the way down.

At the top of the vase between the lip and handles it shows two paralelle bands where readings were taken. This showed the top was near perfect to the perpendicular axis B (0.003) of an inch.
View attachment 370217

They found at the bottom of the base it was only out 0.005 inches. Another interesting finding was that the coaxiality all the way down the vase was only out by 0.003 inches on average.

View attachment 370215

This is amazing when you consider the further you get away from the reference points the greater for deviations. Yet its pretty perfect all the way down making it near perfectly balanced to center and more evidence it was made on some sort of lathe with very stable cutting.

That seems pretty close to modern tech and if true amazing tech for the predynastics.

This is total rubbish, it is clearly obvious you have zero comprehension of what cylindricity means. Cylindricity is a 3D property determined by two parameters, the roundness of a cross section and the straightness of the central axis.

In your first image the cylindricity of the vase mouth is high at 0.013”, which could be attributed to a bent axis and is further evidenced by the fact the perpendicularity is not the same at the top and bottom of the vase.
This contradicts your nonsense of near perfect symmetry and coaxiality.

A bent axis is a clear indication there was wobbling in the rotation axis during manufacture which would not be expected from a modern day lathe let alone one driven by CNC.
So while you engage in this exercise of hyperbole, the very evidence you have presented indicates there is nothing special with this vase and does not require any modern day technology to achieve.

 

[sjastro]

Another point that should be made @stevevw is ignorant of simple trigonometry.
When he sees scans of the upper and lower vase and notes the perpendicularity is 0.003" and 0.005" respectively, his eyes light up and reaches the conclusion this is an example of extraordinary engineering.

What he doesn't know is the magnitude of perpendicularity p depends on the measurement length L as explained in the diagram.

​

The perpendicularity p is the displacement of the vertical line perpendicular to the horizontal surface as is defined by the formula
p = L.tan(θ).
If L is small then p is small and since the perpendicularity has only been calculated for the top and bottom of the vase, it's not surprising the perpendicularity is small.
If it was possible to measure the perpendicularity over the length of the vase would result in a much larger value. The large cylindricity value as shown in my previous post prevents this as the axis is bent and the central axes at the top and bottom of the vase are not coaxial.

This leads to an interesting point if the individuals concerned are 'professionals' they would know calculating perpendicularity over short distances will artificially lower the value, or may be this was done deliberately as an act of deception.

 

[stevevw]

It isn't.

Let me break it down simply. If we find a shape, say a cube or tetrahedron. We find that they are perfect in their measurements ie perfect cube. But they could have been millions of other measurements ie one side slightly shorter, one face of pyramid slightly bigger ect ect ect.

Then we have cause to ask was this purposely made that way to have landed so precisely on those numbers. Even if it was a simple cube. Its not an unreasonable assumption and question to ask. Especially if we find several precise measures like the near perfect coaxiality because its about maintaining a near perfect roundness.

Just like if we found a set of near perfect discs. Sure nature may do this but theres a certain threshold where you begin to ask questions of whether there was some intent behind what we see. All we are arguing over is what that line is. I am saying even others on this thread recognise that line in these works.

C = 2 pi r ?

Its not just the pi. Its the perfect roundness say of the top. Or the coaxiality all the way down the vase. As mentioned the center verticle line was determined at the center of the vase opening. Circles could be formed all the way down the vase to test for roundness to the center line. The average divergence was 0.003 inches. Its this that is amazing.

Pi and Phi are also in the vase beyond the circles. Like the Flower of life which is made up of circles and relates top Phi and Pi in the overlapping arcs created which are found in the vase.

Its the fact that these circles and arcs could have conformed to less perfect circles and arcs related to the Flower of Life which is what gives it design features.

SMH.

Not sure what that means. Perhaps something to do with 'self' or 'subjective' lol.

And what is special about 16 GHz? (Nothing).

Nothing other than it was the exact electromagnetic wavelength in a vacumn. Probably a coincident.

There can NOT be any "subdivisions" of a length in a speed without defining a *UNIT* of time. All unit sizes are ARBITRARY. We can measure the speed of light in a variety of unit systems all of which will give different numbers for the value.

I think this was referring to a type of wave (microwave) that travels at the speed of light in a vacumn. Subdivision meaning its a type of wave rather than being subdivided into the speed of light.

I think this may be a reference to the electromagnetic microwave generation proposed in the Giza pyramid. Now I have opened a rabbit hole lol.

Of course it is. All of these "number matches" are just coincidence. Pick a different formula for selecting families of ratio and some of those will work too.

I refer back to the cube example. If you find a perfect cube do the numbers matter as to creating a perfect cube. If you measure something human made and a perfect cube or triangle or elipsoid or sphere is found. Do the numbers matter.

We just had others on this thread arguing numbers do matter when they said that because there is near perfect symmetry that a lathe must have been involved. Numbers do matter as to how something is made. If it was poor symmetry or off center or line then it makes a difference.

 

[stevevw]

Another point that should be made @stevevw is ignorant of simple trigonometry.
When he sees scans of the upper and lower vase and notes the perpendicularity is 0.003" and 0.005" respectively, his eyes light up and reaches the conclusion this is an example of extraordinary engineering.

View attachment 370251​

What he doesn't know is the magnitude of perpendicularity p depends on the measurement length L as explained in the diagram.

View attachment 370252
​

The perpendicularity p is the displacement of the vertical line perpendicular to the horizontal surface as is defined by the formula
p = L.tan(θ).
If L is small then p is small and since the perpendicularity has only been calculated for the top and bottom of the vase, it's not surprising the perpendicularity is small.
If it was possible to measure the perpendicularity over the length of the vase would result in a much larger value. The large cylindricity value as shown in my previous post prevents this as the axis is bent and the central axes at the top and bottom of the vase are not coaxial.

This leads to an interesting point if the individuals concerned are 'professionals' they would know calculating perpendicularity over short distances will artificially lower the value, or may be this was done deliberately as an act of deception.

But they did not just calculate the ends but the entire vase and the concentricity averaged at around a human hair. The biggest deviation was at the most bulging part of the vase that was the furthest away from the center line B. It was 0.017.

But what needs to be understood is that this was the most deviation and to even achieve that means that every other point had to be within that over 10s of 1,000s of points in a 3D shape. Being its at the point of the furtherest away is amazing I think for a human made vase. If freehand this is astonishing I think.