There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[sjastro]

Enough of this and I will refer you back to the findings of the tests doen. Which puts the dynastic vases in the high precision category on par with modern machining. It puts hand made ones, that is the ones made by experimenters many times inferior. Full stop.

You are one extremely confused individual; the issue is not about comparing dynastic vases to experimental ones but comparing the dynastic vase data which you provided to the capabilities of modern machining.
The facts speak for themselves predynastic granite vases come nowhere near modern capabilities and your inability of seeing this is due cognitive dissonance and not understanding the reasoning behind it.

 

[sjastro]

Its not gibberish but plain spoken words. Others came to the logical and reasonable conclusion that at least pretty good symmetry and circularity as seen in some vases are signatures of a method where the object is rotating to achieve such symmetry.

How is this unreasonable. Others suggest that this would achieve such symmetry and circularity. Tell me how else do you think such symmetry and circularity found could be achieved.

List the names of the individuals in this thread who agree with you and link them so they are aware of your sweeping statement and can reply if necessary.

Ah they did.

No they didn't and your attempts to show otherwise backfired when you conflated perpendicularity with concentricity.

To show the perpendicularity along the rotational axis of the vase they would need to have made cross sections at say 1mm intervals to make sure the axis did not deviate.
Perpendicularity results were only supplied for the top and bottom of the vase, the body of the vase is an unknown.

If you want to assume they did and the rotational axis in perpendicular, then the high cylindricity value is associated with eccentricity of the vase.
Unfortunately for you the high cylindricity value won't go way despite your attempts to hand wave it.

Ok lets do some psychology. Where do you think the vase sits. Pretty good for the time, nothing just average, to be expected for the tech and knowledge. Nothing compared to other vases.

Anything at all about them that stands out. I mean you keep saying theres nothing special about the tech and knowledge and yet people look at them and recognise intuitively there is something special about them. You compare them to others and it seems precision or symmetry or just straightness or something sticks out about them.

I think this is a reflection of the knowledge and not just the art. Like I said we can recognise a perfect cube or sphere or pyramid and see some underlying tech as far as how it was created to achieve this rather than something that is off center or line technically.

Maybe some people see this more intuitively than others. But I am certainly not the only one and everyone that does is not crazy I don't think.

I have answered your question in the past, the predynastic vases are exquisite examples of craftsmanship from the Naqada culture but as your supplied scans show they were not produced by 5 axis CNC machines as idiotically claimed by unchartedX.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and in this case the evidence totally contradicts the requirement of modern technologies.

Don’t kid yourself of being intuitive, your attitude is typical of modern day snobbery which denies the technical skills of the ancients using the tools of the trade as uncovered by archaeology.

 

[stevevw]

A cube is a cube. Few things in nature make cubes naturally and granite is not one of them. A granite cube would only demonstrate that the person who made the cube wanted to make a cube and knew how to do it.

So if you found a perfect granite cube you would wonder how did they make such a thing, right. Especially being an ancient culture.

Their was an alien intellegence behind it and a documentary film. Come back when you are more familiar with that event.

Oh yeah I remember this. This was part of the ongoing UAP investigation. There were also spheres I think.

The units used to measure the angle between the base and rim structures and the axis of the various circles that make up the horizontal cross sections. That angle tells you how stable the rotation was during manufacture. What do the angle values from any specific "ancient precise vase" tell you.

Angles, Steve, we need angles.

Do you mean paralellism. How paralelle each layer is to the bottom. Except this would be from the top which was determined as axis A (horizontal). Is that what you mean.

If you find a few more "formulae" to test, you can get even more equivalences. They are as meaningless as the patterns in the stars.

To me having such particular formulas repeated on the vase would be like finding star formations that repeat a specific relation precisely. Say they formed a perfect cube over and over. You would begin to ask is that just random.

Thats different to spotting clouds that sort of look like something but not exactly. Pi and Phi are specific, unique numbers/ratios that must be incorporated into an objects design through their defined mathematical constant to achieve the specified proportions in that object.

No.

Ok there you go. Its a matter of worldview. Others and I probably the majority of people coming from ancient cultures and still today have thought this geometry found in the vases ie Flower of Life, Golden ratio, Vesica Piscis, the Tree of Life and other related natural or sacred geometry as meaningful in some way.

You haven't show that the Egyptians did at the time.

Lol I think I have. You just say its meaningless.

Show them the "idea" of finding circles in the picture of an object and an 8 year old will draw plenty of "found circle". It takes a delusional adult to assign "meaning" to them. Why do you keep following the delusions of these people?

So if the 8 year old draws a poerfect circle and only deviates by a hair or two you would not think how did they do that. What if they create a perfect plasticine cube lol. Maybe they were actually an alien kid.

What? SMH.

And nothing about that particular wavelength/frequency of light has any meaning. That was my point. I'm not sure what yours could possibly be other than the "roundness" of the 16 in 16 GHz, which is an entirely *arbitrary* system of units established by the French Academy during their revolution.

As mentioned it was that the base unit calculated in the vase which was the opening that seemed to match exactly a 16Ghz electromagnetic wavelength in a vacuum. 1 U = 18.739mm is the base unit of the vase. This is within 2 microns of a 16 Ghz electromagnetic wavelength travelling in a vacuum by dividing the vase unit with the speed of light.

No, all light travels at the speed of light in a vacuum when it propagates through a vacuum.

But there are different wavelengths. The vase was being linked to a specific wavelength.

LOL.

Utter nonsense we have discussed before. The pyramid is not a device built for its electromagnetic properties. Those are accidents of its construction (big pile of limestone), not design.

This is interesting as its another piece of possible evidence for lost advanced knowledge and tech. As far as I understand the research shows its no accident. There are a number of ongoing research in various forms of energy created by the Giza pyramid.

In standard binary logic 0 represents "false" not "true", but 0 is also the amount of meaning found in the dimensions of a cube. There is no way to hide special information in a cube because they are all the same.

You keep missing the point. Its the precision in creating the near perfect known shape. We already know the shapes and so did the ancients. Its the fact they were able to make this into a 3D shape to near precision.

Huh? I just said all cubes are the same. The ratio of the lengths of edges to each other is 1, to the length of a diagonal on a face is sqrt(2), to the diagonal thorugh the center is sqrt(3). The ratio of the area of the largest circle inscribed on a face to the area of a face is pi/4. Could the ancient Egyptians have known this basic math? Sure, but we need written evidence because all the manufacture of a "perfect" cube demonstrates is that their craftsmen could make a cube. Do we have cubes from pre-dynastic Egypt that need interpretation or is this just a diversion?

No I was using the cube example for the precision shapes that are actually made. In some ways you could say we have a cube like structure in some of the granite boxes. Though rectangle (rectangular hexahedron). But even harder to make as the box is also made into a coffin. Its not just art and made freehand.

Rather like the vases a mathmatical and technical feat to be able to make it so near perfect in dimensions, angles, flatness, ect. Which we usually associate with machine precision like the vases. Theres only a few thousands of an inch in deviation.

By the way the slop is purposely incorporated yet the top and interior only varies a few 1,000th of an inch from perfectly flat and paralelle. The radius of corners is no bigger than the tip of a ball point pen.

I think the Giza pyramid itself has some pretty precise dimensions. I am sure they knew some math.

Part of our problem is that you seem to be defining "precision" in turned object with three factors:

1. The regularity of the circles of various cross sections and angles of flat tops to that axis. These are just products of the level of control of the axis during the clearly spinning formation process. (And that is the case if we are talking about a work piece with a shaft through it spinning against fixed grinding rocks, a spinning lathe, a pottery wheel, a drill, or a robot arm with a cutting tool rotating about a fixed axis to make a circular cut.)

Correct. Vases show precise regulation down the vase in those cross sections. It maintained very precise symmetry down the vase. The greatest deviation being at its widest. Yet still very, very small that it would not have mattered.

2. The smoothness/roughness of the surface -- mostly a product how much effort is expended to polish the surface.

Yes and for hard stones its very, very hard. We see the natural shine in some of the black granite works that look machined polished.

3. The matching of certain measurement to each other is patterns extracted by these "vase measuring guys".

Not necessarily and I think a bit cynnical. These vase measuring guys are qualified experts in their fields. Something you never admit for some reason. Second just because someone sees a pattern in something doesn't mean its whacko. Science does this all the time. Maths especially does it.

Like I said your discounting an entire worldview of the ancients and even today that sees the world in this way. Sees these patterns and math and it has important meaning.

It seems to me that much of your precision claim is about #3, and none of the rest of this things that #3 is anything other than the delusions of some "vase guys" on the internet (Dunn, etc.).

Glad you said "seems" because your bias is showing through.

#2 demonstrates the quality of the workmanship, but isn't super interesting.

To you, not interesting to you. Your projecting.

#1 is the only one of real interest as it demonstrates the stability of the axis of rotation during working of the shape.

No its not, once again this is what you think and not others. For example the near prefect flatness of the vase lip is also interesting. The Lug handles are very interesting in how they are perfectly positions on the vase and the surface between the handles is like it was turned and yet could not have been.

How stable is that axis Steve? What does it tell us about the manufacture??

I think this is all a fallacy, red herring. Your complaining about a very, very small deviation which I don't think is going to make any difference to a wobble in the turning.

We could take any point and see its near precision to center and paralellism or perpendictularity to the flat top and know that it was turned. It has many signatures it was turned.

Yet some want to quibble about a slight percieved wobble. What are you saying that because there was a slight wobble (which I disagree) that it was not lathed. What is the point. This is all a red herring, a storm in a tea cup and does not change the fact that some pretty sophisticated turning was done.

You're talking about things seen, not demonstrated. I don't really care.

What are you talking about. The precision has been demonstrated. It has been demonstrated byond doubt the vase was turned on some sort of lathe. The lug handle precision position has been demonstrated. The Phi and Pi have been demonstrated. The geometry (shapes in the vase) that we all recognise and not imagine) have been demonstrated in the vase. All by seperate independent tests.

 

[stevevw]

You are one extremely confused individual; the issue is not about comparing dynastic vases to experimental ones but comparing the dynastic vase data which you provided to the capabilities of modern machining.

Stop being so morally outraged lol and making personal attacks Ad hominems. It only shows your arguement is weak that you have to add insults.

Of course comparing to the experimental vases is part of the experiment. Have you seen the experiments. They literally compared many times during the experiments how the marks compare to the original works. How they can achieve the same signatures of the original works.

Comparing the signatures to modern machining is the same thing as comparing to the hand made ones. The Russian experimenters ("Scientists Against Myths") and others are comparing their primitive efforts to the works and claiming evidence that the primitive methods can produce the results.

The facts speak for themselves predynastic granite vases come nowhere near modern capabilities and your inability of seeing this is due cognitive dissonance and not understanding the reasoning behind it.

I think its the other way around lol. Its quite obvious even to the naked eye that these vases stand out in comparison to the majority of others that come later and are closer to modern CNC vases. Even before a measure has been taken.

Its no surprise they measure up. What is the surprise is they come from the earliest dynasties and even predynasty.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So if you found a perfect granite cube you would wonder how did they make such a thing, right. Especially being an ancient culture.

When one is found, let me know, until then...

Oh yeah I remember this. This was part of the ongoing UAP investigation. There were also spheres I think.

... are you getting cheeky with me Steve?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Do you mean paralellism. How paralelle each layer is to the bottom. Except this would be from the top which was determined as axis A (horizontal). Is that what you mean.

@sjastro has already dicussed this with you about how the geometry is impacted by the stability of the rotational axis of manufacture. I leave you to his tender mercies.

To me having such particular formulas repeated on the vase would be like finding star formations that repeat a specific relation precisely. Say they formed a perfect cube over and over. You would begin to ask is that just random.

And yet I am perfectly willing to claim that we can fine triples of stars where the angular distance of star B from star A and star C from star A fit the same "exactness" your sources show in this vase geometry. It would be equally meaningless.

Thats different to spotting clouds that sort of look like something but not exactly. Pi and Phi are specific, unique numbers/ratios that must be incorporated into an objects design through their defined mathematical constant to achieve the specified proportions in that object.

It isn't. See my previous statement.

Ok there you go. Its a matter of worldview. Others and I probably the majority of people coming from ancient cultures and still today have thought this geometry found in the vases ie Flower of Life, Golden ratio, Vesica Piscis, the Tree of Life and other related natural or sacred geometry as meaningful in some way.
Lol I think I have. You just say its meaningless.

Your "source" claims meaning to the numbers I see as meaningless, but the issue is if the Egyptians would have seen meaning in them enough to carve them into some jar going into a rich guys tomb. Thats why I say you need evidence Egyptians cared about such numbers from other sources, not the fantasies of UnchartedX.

So if the 8 year old draws a poerfect circle and only deviates by a hair or two you would not think how did they do that.

Good control of their Spirograph?

What if they create a perfect plasticine cube lol. Maybe they were actually an alien kid.

A what?

As mentioned it was that the base unit calculated in the vase which was the opening that seemed to match exactly a 16Ghz electromagnetic wavelength in a vacuum. 1 U = 18.739mm is the base unit of the vase. This is within 2 microns of a 16 Ghz electromagnetic wavelength travelling in a vacuum by dividing the vase unit with the speed of light.

But there are different wavelengths. The vase was being linked to a specific wavelength.

Why is "16 GHz" relevant or important. It is a meaningless number. Now if it was 1.42 GHz, I might be intrigued. I am not.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This is interesting as its another piece of possible evidence for lost advanced knowledge and tech. As far as I understand the research shows its no accident. There are a number of ongoing research in various forms of energy created by the Giza pyramid.

The article you have posted about 6 times now doesn't have anything to do with "Giza energy". The authors never claim that it did.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No I was using the cube example for the precision shapes that are actually made. In some ways you could say we have a cube like structure in some of the granite boxes. Though rectangle (rectangular hexahedron). But even harder to make as the box is also made into a coffin. Its not just art and made freehand.

Rather like the vases a mathmatical and technical feat to be able to make it so near perfect in dimensions, angles, flatness, ect. Which we usually associate with machine precision like the vases. Theres only a few thousands of an inch in deviation.

By the way the slop is purposely incorporated yet the top and interior only varies a few 1,000th of an inch from perfectly flat and paralelle. The radius of corners is no bigger than the tip of a ball point pen.

Methods for leveling, straight lines, bisections, simple trianglular forms are known. (The experimentalists have also shown how to make interior corners like that too.)

I think the Giza pyramid itself has some pretty precise dimensions. I am sure they knew some math.

Egyptologists know what math they knew. Magic circles wasn't one of them.

 

[stevevw]

When one is found, let me know, until then...

Like I said we have near perfect vases and boxes coming from the earliest periods. What more do you want.

... are you getting cheeky with me Steve?

What do you mean lol. Yes its from Dr Who. But you do realise that these cubes were actually reported as real UAP's.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Finally, we get to the vases that have become the odd focus of this thread...

I started by listing the possible kinds of "precision" and then later commented on them. Unfortunately you chose to respond to the descriptions. I don't know why.

Correct. Vases show precise regulation down the vase in those cross sections. It maintained very precise symmetry down the vase. The greatest deviation being at its widest. Yet still very, very small that it would not have mattered.
Yes and for hard stones its very, very hard. We see the natural shine in some of the black granite works that look machined polished.
Not necessarily and I think a bit cynnical. These vase measuring guys are qualified experts in their fields. Something you never admit for some reason. Second just because someone sees a pattern in something doesn't mean its whacko. Science does this all the time. Maths especially does it.

Since you jump the gun and responded to the descriptions of the three types I'm going to skip those responses that were out of place.

Like I said your discounting an entire worldview of the ancients and even today that sees the world in this way. Sees these patterns and math and it has important meaning.

Which is not the view of the ancients but of these amateurs imposing their own ideas about meaning onto the objects.
What they have not done is to demonstrate that they understand the motives or even the construction of these objects.

Glad you said "seems" because your bias is showing through.

I try not to characterize other posters, so I'll ask it out clearly:

Do you take your ideas about embedded mathematical designs in these vases from Dunn et al. or does it come from elsewhere?

To you, not interesting to you. Your projecting.

If you have even the slightest experience with polishing or sanding things then you know that smoother surfaces require finer grit and more time. All the smooth of the surface tells us is how much polishing there was. It isn't very interesting.

No its not, once again this is what you think and not others. For example the near prefect flatness of the vase lip is also interesting.

The flatness of the lip *ALSO* comes from the turning and is dependent on the stability of the rotational axis, so it is very relevant.

The Lug handles are very interesting in how they are perfectly positions on the vase and the surface between the handles is like it was turned and yet could not have been.

Except that the handles I have seen (including on the original Dunn vase) up close are *NOT* perfectly positioned. The drilled holes in them are not level. The handles are not exactly opposite each other, and they have visually rougher shapes. (Because they *can't* be turned)

I think this is all a fallacy, red herring. Your complaining about a very, very small deviation which I don't think is going to make any difference to a wobble in the turning.

We could take any point and see its near precision to center and paralellism or perpendictularity to the flat top and know that it was turned. It has many signatures it was turned.

Yet some want to quibble about a slight percieved wobble. What are you saying that because there was a slight wobble (which I disagree) that it was not lathed. What is the point. This is all a red herring, a storm in a tea cup and does not change the fact that some pretty sophisticated turning was done.

Far from it. Every turned object will have a wobble. The measurements should tell us things about the stability of the rotational axis. @sjastro has been trying to have a conversation with you about that, but you seem to be ignoring what he is trying to show you.

What are you talking about. The precision has been demonstrated. It has been demonstrated byond doubt the vase was turned on some sort of lathe. The lug handle precision position has been demonstrated. The Phi and Pi have been demonstrated. The geometry (shapes in the vase) that we all recognise and not imagine) have been demonstrated in the vase. All by seperate independent tests.

Again it seems we are all in #3 the perceived notion that shapes and ratios are embeded in the objects. I see no reason to care about those wild claims.

 

[sjastro]

Why did you not provide the list of linked posters who support your position?
I will take your failure to do so as an admission of dishonesty.

Stop being so morally outraged lol and making personal attacks Ad hominems. It only shows your arguement is weak that you have to add insults.

Pointing out your confusion is not making personal attacks, you were just as confused by quoting the vase link dimensions in millimetres instead of inches which are greater by a factor of 25.

Of course comparing to the experimental vases is part of the experiment. Have you seen the experiments. They literally compared many times during the experiments how the marks compare to the original works. How they can achieve the same signatures of the original works.

Comparing the signatures to modern machining is the same thing as comparing to the hand made ones. The Russian experimenters ("Scientists Against Myths") and others are comparing their primitive efforts to the works and claiming evidence that the primitive methods can produce the results.

Are you serious?
You are comparing a predynastic art school where skills have been passed from generation to generation to experimental archaeologists producing vases as a one off exercise.
The point of this thread is to compare the dimensions of predynastic vases to the capabilities of a CNC machine.

I think its the other way around lol. Its quite obvious even to the naked eye that these vases stand out in comparison to the majority of others that come later and are closer to modern CNC vases. Even before a measure has been taken.

Its no surprise they measure up. What is the surprise is they come from the earliest dynasties and even predynasty.

I have never seen cognitive dissonance to this degree.
I have gone to the trouble again this time including the CNC parameters for the specific measurements which does not include temperature controlled CNC which would further reduce variations by minimizing thermal expansion.

Description​	Model dimension variation (μm)	CNC machine variation (μm)​	Measured variation (μm)​
Vase Lip​	Flatness 0​	50 -100 (over 300 mm length)​	80​
Vase Mouth​	Perpendicularity 0 Cylindricity 0​	≈ 70 (over 200 mm length) ± 50 (for 200mm length)​	21 326​
Vase Body​	Concentricity 0​	50 -100 (diameters ≈ 200-300 mm)​	313​
Lug Handle Right Hand​	Parallelism 0 Perpendicularity 0 Parallelism φ 0​	± 10 (for surfaces 100mm apart) ≈ 70 (over 200 mm length) ± 10 (for surfaces 100mm apart)​	123 91 213​
Lug Handle Left Hand​	Parallelism 0 Perpendicularity 0​	± 10 (for surfaces 100mm apart) ≈ 70 (over 200 mm length)​	28 61​
Vase Top​	Parallelism 0 Perpendicularity 0​	± 10 (for surfaces 100mm apart) ≈ 70 (over 200 mm length)​	54 71​
Vase Lip Bottom​	Concentricity​	50 -100 (diameters ≈ 200-300 mm)	257​
Vase Bottom​	Parallelism 0 Perpendicularity 0​	± 10 (for surfaces 100mm apart) ≈ 70 (over 200 mm length)​	197 132​

In case you fail to understand the table, the results in red fall outside the variations if CNC equipment was used, I could have highlighted the other measurements in red as the flatness and perpendicularity measurements were below the CNC specified lengths resulting in smaller deviations as explained for perpendicularity in a previous post.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Like I said we have near perfect vases and boxes coming from the earliest periods. What more do you want.

What do you mean lol. Yes its from Dr Who

I'm glad you caught on to me, but what is this...

But you do realise that these cubes were actually reported as real UAP's.

Humans. Such silly people.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I never seen cognitive dissonance to this degree.

Yep.

 

[stevevw]

Methods for leveling, straight lines, bisections, simple trianglular forms are known. (The experimentalists have also shown how to make interior corners like that too.)

What do you mean pounding and rubbing into precision. If the vase near perfect flat top and symmetry is the result of some sort of machining on a lathe. Then why cannot the near perfect flat top of the box lip be a signature for machining or some sort of precision cutter or method that produces that finish instead of rubbing.

You seem to want archeological expertise. Here is what one of the greatest archeologist on Egyptian works Flinders Petrie said about the rose pink granite box.

"The sarcaphagus is perhaps the finest piece of mechanical work ever executed in such a hard and difficult material".

He goes into its precision and what he calls "exquisitively flat and the straight lines over 106 inches along the box with only an error of 7 thousandth of an inch. The curveture of the plains is almost nothing. On the east side hollowing only 5 thousandth and the west wall 2 thousandth of an inch".

A difference Petrie says is probably covered by the errors of measurement.

"Lastly after straightness, flatness and paralellism there is the question of ratio between dimensions or accuracy of proportions. This is far more difficult as it requires all the previous accuracies and in addition a truely divided scale, and an irremediable truth of work since nothing can be corrected by removing more material. This is indeed a brilliant piece of skill in such an untractable material.

In other words Petrie is saying that the box is so precise that the tiny errors could fall within the margins of error in the measurement itself.

Just like the vases.

Egyptologists know what math they knew. Magic circles wasn't one of them.

OK so Petrie knew what he was talking about when he said the box was the finest piece of mechanical work. Not art but technical, mechanical in its creation to be so near perfectly aligned.

 

[stevevw]

I'm glad you caught on to me, but what is this...

What is what. Have you not followed the congressional hearings on UAP's lol. More nutters claiming advanced tech and knowledge lol.

Former Lt. U.S. Navy and F/A-18F pilot Ryan Graves was the first actives duty pilot to publicly disclose regular sightings of Unindentified Aerial Phenomenon (UAP) talks about his encounter with what he describes as a solid black cube inside a translucent sphere.

Former Navy Pilot: "I witnessed a solid black cube inside a translucent sphere"

Latest UFO Sightings, Daily UFO News, Alien UFO Disclosure, Ancient Mysteries, Moon and Mars Anomalies, Paranormal, Spirituality and more..

ufosightingshotspot.blogspot.com

Humans. Such silly people.

No its not humans, its the Shakri.

 

[BCP1928]

What do you mean pounding and rubbing into precision. If the vase near perfect flat top and symmetry is the result of some sort of machining on a lathe. Then why cannot the near perfect flat top of the box lip be a signature for machining or some sort of precision cutter or method that produces that finish instead of rubbing.

View attachment 370356

You seem to want archeological expertise. Here is what one of the greatest archeologist on Egyptian works Flinders Petrie said about the rose pink granite box.

"The sarcaphagus is perhaps the finest piece of mechanical work ever executed in such a hard and difficult material".

He goes into its precision and what he calls "exquisitively flat and the straight lines over 106 inches along the box with only an error of 7 thousandth of an inch. The curveture of the plains is almost nothing. On the east side hollowing only 5 thousandth and the west wall 2 thousandth of an inch".

A difference Petrie says is probably covered by the errors of measurement.

"Lastly after straightness, flatness and paralellism there is the question of ratio between dimensions or accuracy of proportions. This is far more difficult as it requires all the previous accuracies and in addition a truely divided scale, and an irremediable truth of work since nothing can be corrected by removing more material. This is indeed a brilliant piece of skill in such an untractable material.

In other words Petrie is saying that the box is so precise that the tiny errors could fall within the margins of error in the measurement itself.

Just like the vases.

OK so Petrie knew what he was talking about when he said the box was the finest piece of mechanical work. Not art but technical, mechanical in its creation to be so near perfectly aligned.

Petrie was a machinist? Who knew? BTW, seven thousanths isn't all that good for hand-worked flatness.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What do you mean pounding and rubbing into precision. If the vase near perfect flat top and symmetry is the result of some sort of machining on a lathe. Then why cannot the near perfect flat top of the box lip be a signature for machining or some sort of precision cutter or method that produces that finish instead of rubbing.

Square corners, oh no...

(And yes, she did it with *stone* tools.) Level and flat surfaces are not great mysteries. Just learn some techniques still used in construction.

View attachment 370356

You seem to want archeological expertise. Here is what one of the greatest archeologist on Egyptian works Flinders Petrie said about the rose pink granite box.

"The sarcaphagus is perhaps the finest piece of mechanical work ever executed in such a hard and difficult material".

He goes into its precision and what he calls "exquisitively flat and the straight lines over 106 inches along the box with only an error of 7 thousandth of an inch. The curveture of the plains is almost nothing. On the east side hollowing only 5 thousandth and the west wall 2 thousandth of an inch".

A difference Petrie says is probably covered by the errors of measurement.

"Lastly after straightness, flatness and paralellism there is the question of ratio between dimensions or accuracy of proportions. This is far more difficult as it requires all the previous accuracies and in addition a truely divided scale, and an irremediable truth of work since nothing can be corrected by removing more material. This is indeed a brilliant piece of skill in such an untractable material.

In other words Petrie is saying that the box is so precise that the tiny errors could fall within the margins of error in the measurement itself.

Just like the vases.

What I'd really like is for you to use reputable sources that are less than 100 years old.

OK so Petrie knew what he was talking about when he said the box was the finest piece of mechanical work. Not art but technical, mechanical in its creation to be so near perfectly aligned.

I was talking about "hidden math". Stay on topic.

 

[stevevw]

Petrie was a machinist? Who knew?

Actually Petrie was known as an Egyptologist. He also pioneered a systematic methodology in archaeology. Which was basically detailed measurements, illustrations and technical descriptions. He was maticulous in measuring every detail.

You would think a machinest background would be idea for understanding the tool marks in granite and the mechanisms required to create such works like the vases and boxes.

BTW, seven thousanths isn't all that good for hand-worked flatness.

A human hair is around 0.003 inches. So 0.007 is only a couple of hairs off perfectly flat. Asl remeber that this is for the longest part of the box of 106 inches where there is more distance from each point to cover and make errors.

Not just that as Petrie said "Lastly after straightness, flatness and paralellism there is the question of ratio between dimensions or accuracy of proportions. This is far more difficult as it requires all the previous accuracies and in addition a truely divided scale, and an irremediable truth of work since nothing can be corrected by removing more material.

I don't think the box was made freehand and by naked eye. No person can feel or tell by the naked eye that a surface or plane is so precisely paralelle, aligned and flat.

Just the simple pressure of rubbing will leave deviations everywhere.

 

[stevevw]

Square corners, oh no...

Its one thing to make a tiny 4 inch step compared to a 10 foot by 5 foot box with a massive lip. If the vase took 2 years and is still unfiinished imagine how long it would take for such a box. A small set square if the Egyptians had one is a big difference from steps and angles 10 foot long.As Petrie said while maintain true proportion as they go.

The flat cuts and corners look like the big wide cuts of other blocks. Why chip away which will cause many mistakes in dimensions when one big cut will do.

(And yes, she did it with *stone* tools.) Level and flat surfaces are not great mysteries. Just learn some techniques still used in construction.

Typical of most experiments. They do a tiny fraction and claim they can do the whole. It is rediculous that tan entire box was chipped and pounded into precision. The same thing was said of the vases and now we find they were turned on a lathe.

This is another box showing the super flat cuts into the granite and the fine and thin lines of what looks like a planer or machine cut leaving a thin edge. Did they chip away to create such signatures.

Remember that this box is damaged so the inside edge cut into the box on the right would have been super flat with sharp corners and lip all the way along. Its like4 one continuous plane cut in the box. Noy some tiny section by section chipping away. Like the many others I have shown.

A bit like this signature. Why chip away when they obviously had the ability to cut large flat slices out of the hard stone. Including sharp corners like on the box. Notice the router cuts across the edge of the slab on the right. It has these machine marks all over it.

What I'd really like is for you to use reputable sources that are less than 100 years old.

Isn't it funny, you post some experiment from a Russian in the kitchen and that seems ok. Or the posters word is good enough. But when it comes to showing advanced tech all these criteria are demanded.

I was talking about "hidden math". Stay on topic.

What is hidden math is there is the box. If the obvious math is near perfect that is the feat itself. What hidden maths could be found in a rectangle box. Its the ability to make a flat surface or plane and paralellism. In putting the maths into the granite.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Its one thing to make a tiny 4 inch step compared to a 10 foot by 5 foot box with a massive lip.

It's really like you don't understand the purpose of these kinds of experiments. They are exploration of technique and method. They are not investments of dozens or hundreds or thousands of years of labor. We are talking about high cost items.

If the vase took 2 years and is still unfiinished imagine how long it would take for such a box.

The vase is finished.

A small set square if the Egyptians had one is a big difference from steps and angles 10 foot long.As Petrie said while maintain true proportion as they go.

The flat cuts and corners look like the big wide cuts of other blocks. Why chip away which will cause many mistakes in dimensions when one big cut will do.

The sarcophagus is from the era of copper saws, drills and chisels. For the real object, it was likely drilled out with saws to connect the drill holes, then the corners were worked out and the final surfaces worked with pounding and rubbing.

Typical of most experiments. They do a tiny fraction and claim they can do the whole.

Sigh.

It is rediculous that tan entire box was chipped and pounded into precision. The same thing was said of the vases and now we find they were turned on a lathe.

We know that, do we? I don't think so. (At least we don't know that for the genuine objects.)

This is another box showing the super flat cuts into the granite and the fine and thin lines of what looks like a planer or machine cut leaving a thin edge. Did they chip away to create such signatures.

Remember that this box is damaged so the inside edge cut into the box on the right would have been super flat with sharp corners and lip all the way along. Its like4 one continuous plane cut in the box. Noy some tiny section by section chipping away. Like the many others I have shown.

It's great how you know how things were before they were damaged...

View attachment 370390 View attachment 370391

A bit like this signature

View attachment 370395

A couple of bad photos tell us nothing.

Isn't it funny, you post some experiment from a Russian in the kitchen and that seems ok. Or the posters word is good enough. But when it comes to showing advanced tech all these criteria are demanded.

I find Russian women in kitchens more plausible and trustworthy than alien artifact stories.

What is hidden math is there is the box. If the obvious math is near perfect that is the feat itself. What hidden maths could be found in a rectangle box. Its the ability to make a flat surface or plane and paralellism. In putting the maths into the granite.

If you can't keep track of what you were writing when you want me to reply to it, quit writing posts with more than one paragraph.