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.
As far as I understand on this particular measure which is from the UnChartedX site is in both guage sensor and CT scanning from memory. Its in 3d as its talking about cyclinricity on the opening to determine axis B which is the horizontal center line of that cyclinder down the vase.
So the specific widest point on the vase that number is measuring for concentricity is based on a 3D reference point which is axis B the center line of the cyclinder running down the vase.
So which of Petries vases came from where? This is what an archeologsist would contribute.
The vases tested at Petrie museum are from Petries digs in the late 19th and early 20th century. Most vases would be from Petries digs as he was the pioneer and has whole museums full of stuff.
This is not something that inspires confidence.
Thats why it takes time to ensure everything is done properly. They started testing vases and came up against the providence issue and then Karoly began to test vases at museums with good providence only this year. So more needs doing. But so far very interesting results.
Most means that they all must be individually evaluated preferably by archeologists.
Yeah I would expect all areas need to be consulted. But as mentioned the aim is to test vases which have already been verified by archeologists like at museums.
Self-publishing is not formal.
Why. What I mean by formal is that if you notice the tests and analysis is written like a paper with method, results, discussion and conclusion. Proper tests are done and the process is explained. All the steps are laid out that will support the conclusion so that people can read it and check it.
Its sort of on the level of a scientific paper that is submitted to peer review. Except its just not being submitted to peer review if you know what I mean. Rather than on a social media site where you don't have to follow that rigor and formality.
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.
I don't know. Thats why I keep going back to the conclusions and summaries. They explicitly state that the findings show the precision in some vases to be on par with modern machining and lathing. I must have said this 10 times now. REgardless of all these objections they still clearly contradict the claim that these vases are not on par with modern machined vases on some sort of lathe.
They all, every independent research group all say this. Like I asked other posters. Are they lying, or misrepresenting the data. Or just so dumb that they don't see these obvious mistakes.
Are these deviations so big that these researchers are just blind that they cannot see what you see. This is what it comes down to. Your and other peoples opinion as opposed to these researchers.
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. Then perhaps we should dedicate as much time on scrutinising those making analysis on this thread to the same level as what has been thrust upon the researchers. Questioning their credibility, wanting to know every detail about their qualifications and questions their qualifications as to whether they are most suitable for the testing. I don;t see any consistency here.
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.
See this is a prime example of the inconsistency applied by skeptics. You and I know to what extent skeptics have been subjecting these researchers to. I can go back and show you if you want. But all sorts of demeaning names and questioning every little thing. I don't see that level of scrutiny on those objecting like yourself.
No one has hounded you for every qualification and then questioning whether you have the expertise. You don't question others on this thread to that level when they make their little claims and analysis. You just accept them as credible without asking to see their credentials. This reflects the inconsistency and bias.
They haven't presented any formal article, so they get what they wanted.
I think this is dishonest. To begin with the researchers article is done like a peer reviewed paper with the abstract, method, analysis, discussion and conclusion. Thats the formal way scientfific articles are done. I don't see any of that on this thread. Or are you now lowering the bar on this thread and allowing parts there of as equivelant.
They simply don't even look the same or have anywhere near as much info. Surely your not saying the complaints about one part of one a specific measure represents the entire article and testing of the whole vase. Where is this 3 or 4 page article with all these steps lol.
The point is I can say "it is a fallacy" just like you have your opinion. If you can say it without qualification then so can I and it can keep on going. If you say that remarks on this social media are good enough and are equivelant to a 5 or 10 page formal test and analysis. Then anyone can say anything and it counts as a formal scientific article. Its a crazy way to do acience.
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.
But what you don't realise in saying that their expertise has not been shown. I can just say your expertise has not been shown for you to make such a complaint lol. I can say I don't trust your credentials. If this social media site is equivelant to a formal science article then we can say anything and its classed as science.
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.
Wow, thats all I am saying but its like its the hardest thing for some to admit. Just to admit these vases are out of the ordinary for that time. You have added that perhaps a wheel or lathe was around 1,000 years before the orthodox story tells us.
Thats better than pretending that these vases don't exist. But it does acknowledge how we have to somehow adjust things ie either they are fakes, the measures are wrong or the tech must have been there earlier than we think.
Which all supports what I have been saying all along. Which was that simple these vases are out of place artifacts. It may be they are fakes, or that the tech was there earlier than we thought. But please don't pretend the question and mystery does not exist one way or another.
You have come closest because you at least acknowledge that they exist and come from that time and that they are at least precise enough to have required a wheel which is like a lathe.
Most engineers do not do the science of metrology.
Of note I pointed out that these engineers are also specialists in precision tooling up to the aerospace precision. Dunn in particular over 50 years in machining, tool making from the basic laths of the 60s to modern CNC for NASA. So they know metrology as that is a key part in tolerances.
To do the measurements, not the metrology.
Do you honestly think a expert precision tool maker could not do both the measurements and the scientific study of measurements as part of the same expertise in making precision tools. In fact Dunn makes the machines that make the precision tools.
Why? There's no connection between having a nuclear reactor in the lab and using a light scanner.
I only mentioned that as it sounds cool. But Max does all sorts of scanning and testing. Thats what he specialises in. Half thee reason he is doing the vases is because he already has an equipped lab. Why would he have the equipment and not know how to use it lol.
I would say Christ Dunn, Alex Dunn, Nick Sierra and Chris Knight have the most expertise being machinists and precision tool makers. Petrie was a machinist and archeologists. But when it comes to precision its a machinist and precision tooling. The best as far as practical experience would be a Stone mason and any Stone mason will tell you that these vases could not be done by hand.
Then why have not you questions others on this thread about their credentials as much as you have these researchers.
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.
Actually they speculate and they are never specific. They have too as the evidence shows these vases were lathed. But the fact is its orthodoxy that the potters wheel and bore stick type lathe did not come in until the old kingdom around 2600BC. A 1,000 years before these vases.
But its also that even if we try and force fit that some sort of lath was around. It would be such a basic one that would not be stable and have tight tolerances. So either way these vases exceed the tech available.
But I keep saying your seeing these vases in isolation. When you understand that there are many examples of advanced tech and knowledge across a variety of works you begin to sort of expect this and not try to deny it. It forms a worldwide pattern that makes too strong a case.
No, I'm not an expert in these fields.
Yet you make claims like you an expert and don't subject yourself to the same scrutiny. You just questioned that the researchers were not qualified enough. But neither are you to make the determination.
Without an editor and peer-review that is all that is presented to us.
The point is you can write in and dispute the findings. Thats how its designed. To be able to down load the files and do it yourself and either find fault or find new discoveries in the works like Unsigned.io did with the geometry.
At least its got a site and base to collect and compare.
There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History
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.
Ok and I agree that its not just peer review but more tests of more vases in museums. More repeated tests of the same vases by the same method and by independent testers. THis is ongoing and the testers admit this. But the findings so far are interesting.
Three independents, are we talking about groups or tests now.
Well thats officially as there have been may 10 plus. A few single tests such as the OG has been done around 6 times or more. A couple of vases replicated by modern CNC and compared, and a lot of guage testing as this is easy. But more museum tests are needed.
This wouldn't solve any systemic errors. And for it to help they need to measure the same vases.
Yes I just mentioned that. Like I said its relatively new and more of a data base is needed.
I don't think you realise. For example when you say
"I don't believe that measure means what is normally used in 3D tolerance specifications more than in name" or
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.
Just these two and theres more just in this post but also in others are making a unsupported claim as well as one that needs qualification as to what expertise you have to know these things. You may have this but you have never qualified this and just assumed it holds enough factual weight to stand on its own.
Especially the first one which would require some step by step explanation and context. Put it this way I am suspect of your expertise just by the fact you say you "don't believe". So this is clearly an unqualified claim. So imagine all the others from other posters where they have made claims or objected and never gave any qualification of their expertise.
Yet as a total I think we have spent half this last part of the thread on scrutinising the researchers. While accepting out of hand the qualifications and expertise of the objecters.
