Yes page 4 is of a particular point on the vase which is highlight by the blue band. This represents the widest part of the vase. In other words the furthest point from which the vase outter walls are away from the Z axis. This is to be expected and is on par with modern vases being that its the point at which a deviation will happen.
To only get 0.313 which is around a couple the thickness of a couple of pieces of paper so not much at all. But to only get 0.313 is amazing considering that the cencentricity relies on many points being spot on within the sphere of the vase at its widest point. If that sphere is only slightly out in its 1,000s of points it will skew the concentricity. So to only get a couple of papers thin at the center is incredible. The video will excplain this.
So from the data they show there are things that needs explanations, they show their own measure but I don't believe that measure means what is normally used in 3D tolerance specifications more than in name.
The problem is like many of these precision vases they were found under the Stepped pyramid and we know they are predynastic. Its well acknowledged that Pharoah Djoser collected these vases nad stacked them under his pyramid.
So which of Petries vases came from where? This is what an archeologsist would contribute.
This happens a lot with Egyptian works they get usurped. Most of the sites in Egypt were continuations of earlier works. So you can have old Kingdom pillars standing right next to New Kingdom ones in the same temple.
This is not something that inspires confidence.
Look at Perus. The megalithic walls have been attributed to the Inca around 800 years ago and yet there are megalithic walls with a completely different method and material that even the Inca say they did not build and comes from prehistory. But the archeologists stubbonly attribute this to the Inca. The small stones are Inca but the megalith blocks are always at the foundations and are prehistory.
View attachment 371515
The Worldwide Megalithic Wall Mystery #podcast #science ...
Thats why the vases in the meseums like at Petrie Museum are important to test as they come directly from digs. Most at the Petrie museum actually come from Petries digs. He discovered the most artifacts and recorded them. Has an entire museum full of his artifacts. So he ain't no average archeologists who knew what he was doing.
Most means that they all must be individually evaluated preferably by archeologists.
No its not. Social media is social media. Its social and not formal. You don;t have to meet the rigorous standards of testing. Or at least prove them. Whereas like the researchers they had to go through step by step, get proper equipement, arrange with museum to tests vases, calibrate equipment, perform rigorous tests, scan in all data and then prcess it in the software and then analyse it explaining all the steps.
Self-publishing is not formal.
None of that is expected on a social media platform. The rules say someone can just make a claim without the rigorous step by step verification. That you still try and equate the two as the same shows your bias when they are clearly the same. Show me such a rigorous attempt on this thread. Not pick out bits out of the context and misrepresent them as the entire vase as you have done.
What bits did I pick out of context? The surface deviation plots at the Artifact Foundation shows deviations in the mm scale, belieing modern lathing performance
https://3ee9be00-b8a0-4f00-991d-97c...d/3ee9be_e79661f238934aed91a28269a61725d8.pdf. It's a very big pdf.
Lol then why are you insisting that someone on a social media platform can do peer review or even retest this work. I have seen no one on this thread re test and do the hard work to be able to make any formal claims at the researchers. And yet it seems your willing to allow your side to make these social comments as though they are peer reviewed.
No, I view the analysis that have been presented in this thread as on par with what is presented by the Artifact Foundation and Max. It's interesting but probably not the final word, it is enough to realise that more analysis on well provenanced objects is needed.
Ok fair enough. But you just wiped out all that has been said against the researchers on this thread. None of it counts or had credibility either. When you complain about a measure you have no credibility as you have not met the rigor of peer review. Or even science for that matter.
They have as much credibility, I'm for peer-review. It is done by experts in their respective field, but then Chris Dunn, the Artifact Foundation and Max need to get going and actually publish their findings.
No it hasn't. The objections need to be made in a formal article and done officially and then at least published on line in some formal way. Preferable sent to the researchers. In that way its formal and official and can be reviewed by all. But especially the researchers who have the chance to respond.
They haven't presented any formal article, so they get what they wanted.
How do you know he hasn't. This is what I am saying. Your making social media coments that have no backing or rational as to why you even make it or come to that conclusion. He may be the silent expert that helps with the analysis which someone else writes. Thats obviously true because we see hom testing and commenting on the vases. You have no evidence that he is not involved and frankly all this concern is a fallacy.
It's not a fallacy.
Ah like they are not experts. Like there were no experts involved. Thats disparenging to those who are actually experts. Everything I have said in support of these researchers you have more or less said, "so what" without one bit of evidence. Thats disparaging and a misrepresentation. Simple because you don't know but you chose to make out they were unrelaible and discredited.
Where did I say they are not experts? I said their expertise in relevant subjects haven't been shown. Do they publish in metrology? Max is the closest one but his scientific output is not in 3D scanning.
Thats the problem. Your biased and have it in for them before we have even formerly investigated lol. Because you don't like their findings.
The data if true is nothing more than there exists vases with very good quality. I have no problem with someone arguing, that perhaps the potter's wheel made it across the Red Sea 1000 years earlier therefore I'll go and try to find it.
Yet you like disparaging and discrediting them and their work. Its easy to knock people from far away on a social media platform.
Yes they do. Please do the research before you opem you make these off the top of your head claims. Half the testers work in industries that do metrology as part of the industry. They are engineers and precision tool makers.
Most engineers do not do the science of metrology.
They already own the equipment or have contacts in the industry to access the equipment to do the metrology. Which is half the issue. Can you souse the equipement. Can anyone one this thread thats complaining.
To do the measurements, not the metrology.
Dr Max has a neuclear reactor in his lab for God sake lol. He has all the equipement, has worked in metrology or various sorts for decades. He taught Computer Engineering Science at Penn State Uni for years and has a Cold Fusion Nuclear reactor in in lab lol. I think he knows how to use a light scanner lol.
Why? There's no connection between having a nuclear reactor in the lab and using a light scanner.
Your being oh so bias. More than you would if these scientists were agreeing with you.
No
Who would be most suited to tells tooling marks and methods of tooling. An engineer and precision tool expert or an archeologist. I am talking about the specific identification of marks in stone or metal that show precision such as tight tolerances that can help determine methods.
The problem is the signatures. Even if we say they are not as precise as claimed they are precise enough that a lathe was used.
But the use of turntables has already been hypothesised by an article that YOU referenced. They existed in the world at that time, there would be cool if they found explicit evidence for it. This wouldn't be a crisis for egyptology.
Is that your expert and peer reviewed opinion lol.
No, I'm not an expert in these fields.
Thats obvious bias because its obvious they are not the same. The research articles are full of steps and explanations, have done actual tests. Where are the tests and steps with the social media examples. They just give a social opinion.
Without an editor and peer-review that is all that is presented to us.
I did not claim that Karoyl had a PhD.
stevevw said:
From about the 28 minute mark Karoyl Poka who also has a PHD in Electrical Engineering and computer science explains how the software was developed and how it does render 3D models for analysis.
There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History
Its a ad hominem because you are claiming they have no credentials or enough to support proper research which is false and you have focused way more on credentials then the actual content.
Ah its quite easy to find the data. Even you found it with the measure you mentioned. Numbers don't lie. If the instrument shows near perfect circularity then its near perfect circularity.
No its not. You complained about credibility about the researchers and then you make claims without any credibility. Thats not even science or anything. Just a laymans opinion. You need to qualify everything like they did. Show the step by step process and not just say this or that measure is wrong without any explanation.
I have never said that any specific measurement is wrong? I'm saying they need to get their data published and peer-reviewed, if they want to be taken seriously. Right now all they're doing is conjecture.
When they measure near perfect circularity and I see it live on the readouts and then they put that in the rport I know its correct as I witnessed the test. Besides three independents did the same tests and got the same results. Your too skeptical to the point where you would not do this for something that you agreed with.
Three independents, are we talking about groups or tests now.
Independent tests. They redid tests and got the same results.
This wouldn't solve any systemic errors. And for it to help they need to measure the same vases.
It doesnpt matter whether its different methods. Its like using a steel ruler and a plastic ruler. They do the same thing. All light scanning is the same. Just different degrees of accuracy. But the degree of accuracy is all in the micron level so they are all accurate. Your too skeptical. Even cynnical.
You have made all sorts of unsupported claims. Never provinging credentials or any formal article published on line to be serious. All social media claims.
What claims?
