There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[BCP1928]

Yes exactly what skeptics do lol. Ironic that aint it.

Afterall these researchers are saying things you don't like. They are making the claims about lost advanced tech and knowledge.

It is you who are claiming these researchers are villians and whackos and living in fantasy land because they present something that refutes the orthodox pet theory lol.

Shouldn't you be discussing this with those who hold to this "orthodox pet theory" of yours? Nobody here is interested in defending it for them.

 

[stevevw]

Shouldn't you be discussing this with those who hold to this "orthodox pet theory" of yours? Nobody here is interested in defending it for them.

First its not orthodox but very much unorthodox and thats why its being objected to on this thread.

Second its not my idea but the researchers findings that I have been linking all through this thread.

Third it is those who disagree with the researchers that need to discuss their objections with the researchers. I don't expect anyone to support the researchers claims or argue for them. I am just the relayer of the research findings. Don't shoot the messenger.

 

[BCP1928]

First its not orthodox but very much unorthodox and thats why its being objected to on this thread.

Second its not my idea but the researchers findings that I have been linking all through this thread.

Third it is those who disagree with the researchers that need to discuss their objections with the researchers. I don't expect anyone to support the researchers claims or argue for them. I am just the relayer of the research findings. Don't shoot the messenger.

You presented the researchers' conclusions but they are not here to defend them. If you are not interested in defending them then why did you present them?

But that was not my point. You presented their work with the claim that it contradicts the "Orthodox view." You have been a little shifty about what that is, but as far as I can tell, no one here holds to what you think "the Orthodox view" is.

BTW, did you watch the video I just posted? What do you think of it?

 

[Stopped_lurking]

First its not orthodox but very much unorthodox and thats why its being objected to on this thread.

Second its not my idea but the researchers findings that I have been linking all through this thread.

Third it is those who disagree with the researchers that need to discuss their objections with the researchers. I don't expect anyone to support the researchers claims or argue for them. I am just the relayer of the research findings. Don't shoot the messenger.

Have Karoly Poka gotten his PhD yet? Actual researchers will come around and interact with the findings when they are actually published in a decent journal. As it is right now it's all conjecture, and you are spreading it. It's going to be interesting if they ever dare to publish their findings.

 

[stevevw]

You presented the researchers' conclusions but they are not here to defend them. If you are not interested in defending them then why did you present them?

I do defend them lol. Thats the point. I would rather believe the researchers who have done the work and formally published the results. Than someone on a social media platform objecting to them. Until there is a formal refutation of their work thats all I can go with.

But that was not my point. You presented their work with the claim that it contradicts the "Orthodox view." You have been a little shifty about what that is, but as far as I can tell, no one here holds to what you think "the Orthodox view" is.

Then why are they objecting to the view of those who propose these unorthodox ideas about ancient advanced knowledge. The two positions are clearly destinguished.

That is the orthodox tools and methods which are on the walls such as the Bore stick or bow drill method, chisels and pounders and rubbing.

Or some sort of lathing like modern machining.

There are two different industries. The Bore stick, pounding, chiseling and rubbing produce the imprecise vases as per tests and experiments done. The precision vases belong to a different method with different signatures which are more like modern day than the ancient methods as mentioned.

Simple as that. Except if these vases are from the pre dynastics and Naqada people. Then this is a problem and these vases are out of place artifacts or evidence of lost advanced knowledge because at that time there was no Bore stick, bow saw, potters wheel let alone a sophisticated lathe.

Sophisticated lathe because such tight tolerances of precision require a sophisticated lath that is tight, stable and the cutter is fixed or the vase is fixed and spinning at a fair speed. Or the cutter is very stable that it can handle high pressure to cut into granite. THis level of tech seems unreal for basically a mud brick and flint tool Neolithic culture according to the orthodox narrative.

BTW, did you watch the video I just posted? What do you think of it?

Yes, its a good example of a bush lathe. Basic wheels, pullies, leverage ect. But thsi was not yet introduced to these ancient people. This is the point. Its not that later dyansties or in fact the potters wheel came from Mesopotamia to Egypt around 2600BC. But these vases go back 1,000 years earlier.

The weird thing is even the later Flywheel type lathing that wobbled could not produce such precision vases even in soft stones. So the tech 1,000 years later was not as advanced as the tech that went into these predynastic vases.

 

[stevevw]

Have Karoly Poka gotten his PhD yet? Actual researchers will come around and interact with the findings when they are actually published in a decent journal. As it is right now it's all conjecture, and you are spreading it. It's going to be interesting if they ever dare to publish their findings.

Yes from memory a PHD in Electro Engineering. His research has been featured in the Journal of Critical Care, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and the International Symposium on Measurement and Control in Robotics.

The researchers come from diverse fields such as Mathematics, Physics, Engineering, Manufacturing, Geology, Computer Science, History, Art, and Literature.

Christ Dunn has over 50 years experience in Engineering and precision tooling and worked with NASA aerospace and pioneered precision tooling methods. Other metrologists work in aerospace and precision tooling.

But how do you suppose its conjecture. How can hard data be conjecture. If a vase measures for good roundness its not conjecture but factual metrology.

They at least have some knowhow. I would rather trust them than someone on a social media platform.

 

[BCP1928]

I do defend them lol. Thats the point. I would rather believe the researchers who have done the work and formally published the results. Than someone on a social media platform objecting to them. Until there is a formal refutation of their work thats all I can go with.

Where did they publish?

Then why are they objecting to the view of those who propose these unorthodox ideas about ancient advanced knowledge. The two positions are clearly destinguished.

That is the orthodox tools and methods which are on the walls such as the Bore stick or bow drill method, chisels and pounders and rubbing.

Or some sort of lathing like modern machining.

There are two different industries. The Bore stick, pounding, chiseling and rubbing produce the imprecise vases as per tests and experiments done. The precision vases belong to a different method with different signatures which are more like modern day than the ancient methods as mentioned.

Simple as that. Except if these vases are from the pre dynastics and Naqada people. Then this is a problem and these vases are out of place artifacts or evidence of lost advanced knowledge because at that time there was no Bore stick, bow saw, potters wheel let alone a sophisticated lathe.

That you know about.

Sophisticated lathe because such tight tolerances of precision require a sophisticated lath that is tight, stable and the cutter is fixed or the vase is fixed and spinning at a fair speed. Or the cutter is very stable that it can handle high pressure to cut into granite. THis level of tech seems unreal for basically a mud brick and flint tool Neolithic culture according to the orthodox narrative.

Ah, yes. I had forgotten about the "Orthodox narrative."

Yes, its a good example of a bush lathe. Basic wheels, pullies, leverage ect. But thsi was not yet introduced to these ancient people. This is the point. Its not that later dyansties or in fact the potters wheel came from Mesopotamia to Egypt around 2600BC. But these vases go back 1,000 years earlier.

The weird thing is even the later Flywheel type lathing that wobbled could not produce such precision vases even in soft stones. So the tech 1,000 years later was not as advanced as the tech that went into these predynastic vases.

The precision of that lathe in the video depends on two things: the rigidity of the structure and the closeness of fit of the lathe centers in the countersinks in the workpiece. If the lathe bed is rigid and the centers a tolerably snug fit to the workpiece then there will be rotational symmetry to a high degree of precision. Those two constraints are exactly the same as the constraints on precision of rotational symmetry of work produced on a modern machine tool. Adding electric motors and a computer doesn't help.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Yes from memory a PHD in Electro Engineering. His research has been featured in the Journal of Critical Care, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and the International Symposium on Measurement and Control in Robotics.

The researchers come from diverse fields such as Mathematics, Physics, Engineering, Manufacturing, Geology, Computer Science, History, Art, and Literature.

Christ Dunn has over 50 years experience in Engineering and precision tooling and worked with NASA aerospace and pioneered precision tooling methods. Other metrologists work in aerospace and precision tooling.

They at least some knowhow. I would rather trust them than someone on a social media platform.

Your memory is playing a prank on you, he's got a MSc in electrical engineering not a PhD. Yes he got a article in the journal of critical care, but it is not related to metrology, arcehology or egyptology. Which of the researchers have published in any relevant subject? What is the relation between the vases and Chris Dunn? Who is Chris Dunn? Is he employed by the Artifact Foundation or a collaborator with Max?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Your memory is playing a prank on you, he's got a MSc in electrical engineering not a PhD. Yes he got a article in the journal of critical care, but it is not related to metrology, arcehology or egyptology. Which of the researchers have published in any relevant subject?

None, and that's the problem Steve runs from.

What is the relation between the vases and Chris Dunn? Who is Chris Dunn? Is he employed by the Artifact Foundation or a collaborator with Max?

Dunn is an aerospace engineer who has written books about garbage-tier pseudo-Egpytology, notably one about how the Pyramids of Giza are "power plants".

 

[Stopped_lurking]

None, and that's the problem Steve runs from.

Dunn is an aerospace engineer who has written books about garbage-tier pseudo-Egpytology, notably one about how the Pyramids of Giza are "power plants".

I got a little suspicious when I realised that the egypt-interested mr Dunn I could find, had published in Analog magazine (which is a cool magazine for science fiction nerds and SF authors, not a serious scientific publisher). At this point I guess this only some kind of mental masturbation anyway.

 

[stevevw]

Where did they publish?

They have not published yet. The tests are only just done. More data has to come from more vases. That will give a more robust sample.

That you know about.

Actually that everyone knows. This is the orthodox position not my position. Ther potters wheel and bore stick type tech was not introduced until around 2600BC. These vases are 3600BC.

In fact the weird thing is that we also know the Naqada cultures method of pot making which was the coil and slab method because they did not have the potters wheel yet.

Ah, yes. I had forgotten about the "Orthodox narrative."

The precision of that lathe in the video depends on two things: the rigidity of the structure and the closeness of fit of the lathe centers in the countersinks in the workpiece. If the lathe bed is rigid and the centers a tolerably snug fit to the workpiece then there will be rotational symmetry to a high degree of precision. Those two constraints are exactly the same as the constraints on precision of rotational symmetry of work produced on a modern machine tool. Adding electric motors and a computer doesn't help.

Its just that tech came way later and thats why this is so controversial. Also we are talking about granite and not wood lol. Then your talking a different pressure and stability under massive pressure. Thats why precision tooling machines are often much bigger than the piece to ensure stability under high pressure.

Even todays CNC machines have difficulty making these vases to that precision. As mentioned two attempts were made to replicate the vases and on both occassions the company could not complete the vase because it was beyond their capabilities. One only drilled a straight tube drill on the interior because they could not machine the inside to the same precision.

So imagine a device 5,500 years ago machining granite like in that image I linked earlier like its fresh off a modern machine lathing marks. Not wobbly but precision rings cut sharply into the granite. Even leaving steps as though the cutter pulled back and went in again.

 

[BCP1928]

They have not published yet. The tests are only just done. More data has to come from more vases. That will give a more robust sample.

Actually that everyone knows. This is the orthodox position not my position. Ther potters wheel and bore stick type tech was not introduced until around 2600BC. These vases are 3600BC.

In fact the weird thing is that we also know the Naqada cultures method of pot making which was the coil and slab method because they did not have the potters wheel yet.

Its just that tech came way later and thats why this is so controversial. Also we are talking about granite and not wood lol. Then your talking a different pressure and stability under massive pressure. Thats why precision tooling machines are often much bigger than the piece to ensure stability under high pressure.

Exactly as I have explained: rigidity is a key factor. I've turned metal on a springpole lathe--not as a regular thing you understand, but to verify the "Orthodox position" that it could have been done. It works just fine

Even todays CNC machines have difficulty making these vases to that precision. As mentioned two attempts were made to replicate the vases and on both occassions the company could not complete the vase because it was beyond their capabilities. One only drilled a straight tube drill on the interior because they could not machine the inside to the same precision.

So imagine a device 5,500 years ago machining granite like in that image I linked earlier like its fresh off a modern machine lathing marks. Not wobbly but precision rings cut sharply into the granite. Even leaving steps as though the cutter pulled back and went in again.

Why would you expect it to be "wobbly?" Why would you expect the tool marks to be different? I don't know whether the ancient Egyptions had any particular kind of machine tools, but like I explained to you earlier with the 1" metal cube, they certainly had the knowledge and technical ability to construct them. We do know that they had a sophisticated understanding of measurement standards, calibration and precision sufficient to do the job.

 

[stevevw]

Your memory is playing a prank on you, he's got a MSc in electrical engineering not a PhD. Yes he got a article in the journal of critical care, but it is not related to metrology, arcehology or egyptology. Which of the researchers have published in any relevant subject? What is the relation between the vases and Chris Dunn? Who is Chris Dunn? Is he employed by the Artifact Foundation or a collaborator with Max?

The good old logical fallacies again. I have lost count of the ad hominems lol. As I said last time this logical fallacy came up. If you want to play that game then Sir Flinders Petrie agreed with these researchers that these ancients had some sort of advanced knowledge and tech like a sophisticated lathe. You can't get a better credentialed expert of Egyptian artifacts.

Christ Dunn is associated with a seperate research team that did the guage and scan tests. He's a engineer and precision tooling and worked with NASA aerospace. A pioneer in precision tooling and published plenty of papers.

Dr. Max Fomitchev-Zamilov is a physicists and engineer with Penn State Uni. Published plenty of papers.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Max-Fomitchev-Zamilov

I also mentioned other scientists that worked with Karoyl

Chris King Precision Components, with over 50 years of expertise in super high-precision manufacturing and machining across aerospace, medical, and biking industries.
Professor Marian Marcis PHD: Photogrametry, image scanning, 3D reconstruction and digitalisation of cultural heritage.
Johannes Bjorn Meyer PHD: Mathmatics, Geometry on negatively curved spaces, Signal Processing, and Medical research Engineering.
Marton Szemenyei PHD: Electrical Engineer, Computer Vision and Deep Learning research, Ai and 3D in Robotic perception.

Theres more but I can't be bothered having to address ad hominems.

Heres the thing. Your scrutinising these researchers while its ok that a few people on a social media platform can make objections and claims the research and testing is all wrong without any formal credentials or published work and its ok. The same level of scrutiny is not applied. So long as they are of the opinion that the researchers are wrong they don't need to be questioned. Their opinion is correct automatically.

I don't think thats consistent or fair. Like I said when a skeptic or objector does their own tests and research and then published their work refuting these researchers I will go with the researchers. Three independent published tests and findings all saying the same thing regardless of peer review is better than objections on a social media platform.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

The good old logical fallacies again. I have lost count of the ad hominems lol. As I said last time this logical fallacy came up. If you want to play that game then Sir Flinders Petrie agreed with these researchers that these ancients had some sort of advanced knowledge and tech like a sophisticated lathe. You can't get a better credentialed expert of Egyptian artifacts.

So what did Sir Flinders Petrie publish that is peer-reviewed then? From a quick glance it is much less than one would think, the science of archeology have come a long way since his heyday.

Christ Dunn is associated with a seperate research team that did the guage and scan tests. He's a engineer and precision tooling and worked with NASA aerospace. A pioneer in precision tooling and published plenty of papers.

So why did you bring him up in relation to the vases then? Can you link to that teams webpage, if possible please avoid video, it is not format best used to give tables or figures. What papers are you thinking of?

Dr. Max Fomitchev-Zamilov is a physicists and engineer with Penn State Uni. Published plenty of papers.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Max-Fomitchev-Zamilov

Nothing in relation to metrology, arcehology or egyptology though? It is not much that is actually published is it? It is one report in Scientific Reports, and perhaps one in Oil and Gas Journal, the rest I don't believe have been through peer-review. Not really relevant.

I also mentioned other scientists that worked with Karoyl

His name is Karoly. He's not an PhD, he hasn't published anything in metrology, arcehology or egyptology. His podcast is one the level of social media postings.

Chris King Precision Components, with over 50 years of expertise in super high-precision manufacturing and machining across aerospace, medical, and biking industries.

Not involved in the scanning or calculations of the vases. The only thing I could see was that he was a guest on a podcast, is his name on any article they published together?

Professor Marian Marcis PHD: Photogrametry, image scanning, 3D reconstruction and digitalisation of cultural heritage.
Johannes Bjorn Meyer PHD: Mathmatics, Geometry on negatively curved spaces, Signal Processing, and Medical research Engineering.
Marton Szemenyei PHD: Electrical Engineer, Computer Vision and Deep Learning research, Ai and 3D in Robotic perception.

Not involved in the scanning or calculations of the vases. Consulted on using PCA to find a reasonable symmetry axis.

Theres more but I can't be bothered having to address ad hominems.

I have not uttered a single ad hominem, please show where if you believe I've done so.

Heres the thing. Your scrutinising these researchers while its ok that a few people on a social media platform can make objections and claims the research and testing is all wrong without any formal credentials or published work and its ok.

Because they have self-elected to use non-experts as peer-review by not publishing in scientific journals, I would be glad to read their findings in peer-reviewed journals.

The same level of scrutiny is not applied. So long as they are of the opinion that the researchers are wrong they don't need to be questioned. Their opinion is correct automatically.

That is just an effect of how they choose to disseminate their findings. Until they do, their calculations doesn't carry more weight than people "publishing" here.

I don't think thats consistent or fair. Like I said when a skeptic or objector does their own tests and research and then published their work refuting these researchers I will go with the researchers. Three independent published tests anf findings all saying the same thing regardless of peer review is better than objections on a social media platform.

No, it only shows your preference for non-peer-reviewed statements.

You made claims about their credentials in post #656 and I asked about them in post #658 this discussion is not in any way an exercise in ad hominem. It is perfectly acceptable to ask for their credentials in metrology, archeology or egyptology, it is directly relevant for the discussion at hand.

 

[BCP1928]

The good old logical fallacies again. I have lost count of the ad hominems lol. As I said last time this logical fallacy came up. If you want to play that game then Sir Flinders Petrie agreed with these researchers that these ancients had some sort of advanced knowledge and tech like a sophisticated lathe. You can't get a better credentialed expert of Egyptian artifacts.

And you have no idea what he meant by that because you have not got the technical background and because Petrie was working at the very beginning of our understanding about what ancient Egyptian craftsmen were capable of.

Christ Dunn is associated with a seperate research team that did the guage and scan tests. He's a engineer and precision tooling and worked with NASA aerospace. A pioneer in precision tooling and published plenty of papers.

Dr. Max Fomitchev-Zamilov is a physicists and engineer with Penn State Uni. Published plenty of papers.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Max-Fomitchev-Zamilov

I also mentioned other scientists that worked with Karoyl

Chris King Precision Components, with over 50 years of expertise in super high-precision manufacturing and machining across aerospace, medical, and biking industries.
Professor Marian Marcis PHD: Photogrametry, image scanning, 3D reconstruction and digitalisation of cultural heritage.
Johannes Bjorn Meyer PHD: Mathmatics, Geometry on negatively curved spaces, Signal Processing, and Medical research Engineering.
Marton Szemenyei PHD: Electrical Engineer, Computer Vision and Deep Learning research, Ai and 3D in Robotic perception.

Theres more but I can't be bothered having to address ad hominems.

Heres the thing. Your scrutinising these researchers while its ok that a few people on a social media platform can make objections and claims the research and testing is all wrong without any formal credentials or published work and its ok. The same level of scrutiny is not applied. So long as they are of the opinion that the researchers are wrong they don't need to be questioned. Their opinion is correct automatically.

I don't think thats consistent or fair. Like I said when a skeptic or objector does their own tests and research and then published their work refuting these researchers I will go with the researchers. Three independent published tests and findings all saying the same thing regardless of peer review is better than objections on a social media platform.