Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What's your source for all of that? The Boy's Own Book of Ancient Civilizations ca. 1950?
I didn't say that it had to be like today's methods, though that seems the most probable. You're the one who wants it to be something that the Naqada people couldn't have developed themselves because you want it to be magic technology from Shangri-La.
Yes so why is this such a big thing.
Ok but are they wrong.
Oh I see "we don't know". Yet others are carrying on like they do know. Like this is evidence that everything is definietly wrong and whacko. This is the exact misrepresentation I am talking about.
The science is the measuring. Its done by proper equipment and technicians. It is a seperate stage of merely gathering the data of all the measurements of the vases. Nothing about speculation about what those measures mean. In fact that state is not science but speculation.
Oh yes I forgot about those tests. Yet Max states that they were "crafted with technical sophistication comparable to modern technology".
maximus.energy
Why would they publish fullstop at this stage. They obviously need more tests. But why a metrology journal.
What is the industry standard.
Yes ultimately if you want to make a strong case you have to eliminate as much as possible any issues that will come up in peer review. Thats what testing is about. Until you prove your case or not. Only two tests at museums so far. So more needs testing.
But the metrology is proposing nothing. Its just measurements and doing as much as you can and by similar methods to compare and by other methods to cover most methods. Especially the best methods like CT scanning that get down to almost perfect measures.
The median is a non-measure of precision (-1000, -500, 0, 1, 2) and (-2, -1, 0, 1, 2) both have the same median but if I said that they values measured a deviation from a centerline in the same units you would tell me that the precision was better for the second set of numbers.
Until we are certain the best approach is to not draw any big conclusions from the data.
There is almost no overlap between the green dots and the yellow ones. The precise class in the REVISED analysis of Matt Bealls vases are better or equal to the modern replicas.The science is the measuring. Its done by proper equipment and technicians. It is a seperate stage of merely gathering the data of all the measurements of the vases. Nothing about speculation about what those measures mean. In fact that state is not science but speculation.
Oh yes I forgot about those tests. Yet Max states that they were "crafted with technical sophistication comparable to modern technology".
No one is saying all the vases are precise or that they are perfect. Only that some fall into being precise enough that they match modern day tech.
Abstract
I analyzed 3D scans of 19 Naqada period stone vessels from the Petrie Museum of Egyptian and Sudanese Archaeology using the same algorithm and code as for Matt Beall’s collection. The analysis clearly shows that the examined Predynastic stone vessels were crafted with technical sophistication comparable to modern technology. The remarkable precision of the stone vessels, which starkly contrasts with the capabilities of late Neolithic societies, suggests these artifacts originate from a previously unrecognized, technologically advanced culture capable of rotational accuracy rivaling modern tools.
Precision of the Naqada Period Stone Vessels
Abstract I analyzed 3D scans of 19 Naqada period stone vessels from the Petrie Museum of Egyptian and Sudanese Archaeology using the same algorithm and code as for Matt Beall’s collection. Th…
They don't have to! Getting published in any journal at this point would be good.
ISO 1101 or ASME Y14.5, using terms defined in either two standards in a non-normal way should be avoided (as it can be seen as misleading). In this case calculating the RMSD instead of using an existing definition of circularity.
Without good provenance the results are almost worthless, at best they can inspire them to make more measurements of objects with better provenance.
Perhaps, but then they need to start publishing in peer-reviewed journals.
For all what. I said a lot lol. For the wheel not coming into Egyptian culture until around 2600BC
No I don't want it to be magic. That is your take on it. That is the skeptics take because we know the MO. Any time an alternative idea is proposed that messes up the nice orthodox worldview its called conspiracy and whackery.
But if we see both methods (the Mean and Median) showing similar levels of precision then its sort of repeating the precision. Like I said what about the simple guage metrology where we can see the circularity when we measure around the vase and its within 0.005 inch. What then.
So if Bealls vases are better or equal to modern replicas whats the problem. No one was saying that all these vases are better than modern ones. But on par with them. As you can see the precision class are within a range and not specific. So long as they are in that range they are deemed as on par with modern machined vases.
Ok so whats the problem. I know that Bealls vases lack good providence. But as I said most of the best examples of vases are in private collections because they were the best. If there is say a 1,000 out there and they all have limited providence what then.
Well not really because by the looks of this thread there would be too much outcry from skeptics lol. You want to nullify most of that beforehand with robust evidence,
What is the existing definition of circularity. Did not Max also do this besides Karoly and used a non existing definition of circularity. Just different non standards ie Median and Means error or deviation from the perfect circle.
Yes and no. Like I said above there are literally 100s of genuine vases out there which are the very best examples to use if we want to determine the validity. So discounting them all is discounting probably the most important evidence. We have to also measure these vases and find a way to include them. If the museums can determine authenticity without full providence based on other factors then so should these vases.
Why, it seems that the disputes and skeptics can make their case now as being shown. It is better to sort this out before peer review lol. Thats what the tests and open source are for to allow the tests and to allow them to be challenged to sort out the evidence and then publish. No scientific hypothesis is proposed without a long testing period.
It was not required as its an adjustment of an existing method. In the case of Karoly Poka it was developed in as Petriescope which was basically a custom made software developed based on the same tech but to accommodate the vases as they had no precedent of form being ellipsoids andother weird shapes.
Ah because he makes, repairs and uses that equipment everyday lol. Because he actually has that equipment in his lab. Fancy having such expensive equipment and not knowing how it works.
Measurement experience. So if a scientists has a lab with the measuring equipment in it and he uses many times do you think they would gain experience and expertise in using that scanner or guage. You find every reason why he is not able. But overlook the most obvious that he actually owns the equipement, has a lab and has used that equipment many times in testing. Its really commonsense.
So what if their experience and knowhow in using these different devices to measure stuff translates into knowhow of using simple light scanners. Max is already showing he knows a range of testing and measuring equipment. How is scanners not related as far as understanding how the equipment generally operates. Do they need a degree in each machine lol.
Its the technical thinking. Scientists take a technical approach and have the kind of mind that will be able to breakdown the processes whether its spectrometry or CT light scanning. They think analytically and in maths and numbers. So its not a far stretch to adapt. Its the machine thats doing the work. You just have to learn the process of operating the machine. You don't need a degree.
This might be the most inane comment you've written. It was in response to this statement:
Ah yes, they were "primitive."For all what. I said a lot lol. For the wheel not coming into Egyptian culture until around 2600BC
The origins and the use of the potters wheel in Ancient Egypt
The potter's wheel was introduced to Egypt from the Levant during the reign of Pharoh Sneferu in the 4th dynasty (c.2600 BC).
The origins and the use of the potters wheel in Ancient Egypt -ORCA
orca.cardiff.ac.uk
This is the article I linked earlier. It actually says the Naqada people were making pottery before and without the wheel. It then says they made stone vases with some sort of turning device but never say that they had a turning device.
How could they when the evidence is that they had no wheel or turning device. They refer to the Bore stick device as wobbly and on the Old KIngdom wall painting. But thats 1,000 years later.
The point is everything about the Naqada people is how we would expect. Their level of tech was Neolithic and primitive. They used simple mud brick shelters and made pottery by hand by the coil method. Then we see these precision vases which completely contradict the culture being found.
"Some lost cultures who had lost knowledge" Comes down to the same thing as invoking "Atlantis."
How did the Egyptians get it, then?
"Atlantis" is just a placeholder for whatever "advanced lost knowledge" myth you happen to be pushing.in this discussion.
Some of the sources you have cited in this thread (less so since it became all vases all the time, but Dunn and "unchartedX" are among the believers) trace directly or indirectly to the Connolly Atlantis myth. (Hancock, Hyerdahl, "ancient aliens" all go back to Connolly's Atlantis myth.
What "catastrophy"? much of the "catastrophy" destroyed lost civilization stuff, especially off shore, are Hancock's version of the Atlantis myth.
That you don't know the difference (and when informed apparently ignore the difference) between credible archeologists and Atlantis tainted nutters is the primary problem and why you get this kind of feedback.
The method must be fully detailed. That detailing may include references to earlier versions that are detailed, eliminating the need to repeat text.
Custom software? Needs to be fully documented. That's the way this goes.
Oh, you have? Can you link these papers?
I specifically mentioned his "CV". I was clearly pointing to his output as a scientist. A few papers with a few citations on topics that have nothing to do with stone artifact measurements.
I am evaluating the credentials of someone in a field that is not known to me because *you* taut their credentials. I generelly have little interest in credentials.
No such general thing.
Radiation measurement has what exactly to do with measuring vases?
You really don't know anything about those technologies, do you? NMR and mass spec. use large machines that cost millions. Facilities that have such equipment typically have professional technical staff to use it. We aren't anything near "light scanners".
Archeologists *are* scientists. Quit being so biased against them.
Wave your hands harder, you might start levitating. This is all motivated reasoning.
Because what you are describing is not what they are reporting, for that the surface deviation plots are much more informative. Some of the Petrie vases differs more than mm's between the highest and lowest points on their surface. Machining tolerances are limits on spreads not medians and averages, I'll have to add in my understanding here. Precision is the reciprocal of a measure of spread, as in when the spread is low the precision is high. Take this with a heap of salt I'm just putting machining terms in terms I normally use.
The Petrie vases are not as precise as modern vases or Matt Bealls vases in the precise class.
You do understand that the most likely source of modern machining marks, are modern (from the 19th and 20th century) machines?
Yes, we exclude them. If these precision vases actually were made 5000 years ago, we would expect to keep finding them in new digs.
I don't want to nullify anything, but without good provenance no one will ever be convinced that a vase should be taken seriously.
Both made mistakes, both need to go back and redo the analysis and report the radius difference between the minimum and maximum circle covering the perifery of the object. I gave you a picture from ISO 1101 in an earlier post.
Why, if they do not have good provenance? A measurement of something you don't know where it came from or what has a happened to it is next to meaningless. If one finds an object beautiful than one should of course display it.
If they want the input from the professionals they'll have to put it articles in journals.
What is spread. Why did both Max (mean) and Karoly (median) both claim the vases were in the precise class based on this measure. Karoyl explains this measure is the best way to measure the precision of the vase.
Nevertheless they fall in the precise class. If Max's precise class is M < 25 thousandths of an inch; then the Petrie vases are in the precise class.
Yes and this is why its an out of place artifact. That we find maching marks like modern machining on 5,000 year old vases. It is the same for the modern circular saw cuts in the stones. These are out of place signatures and they cannot all be modern fakes. Like someone was going around with a circular saw in the 20th century hacking into Egyptian monuments and works.
Lol new digs. I think they have dug up aaabout everything. Unless the authorities are hiding stuff from us. Or a new grave or tomb is found with some vases. Like I said we don't need to do that when theres literally 1,000's already available in museums and private collections.
Yes I agree. But I think there is pretty good provedence already on at least some of the vases. Like from the Petrie museum. Put it this way. Do you think they are good enough, round enough to have been turned.
Do you mean the difference of the radius from the center point of the vase slice to the outside of the vase at that particular point. Then the error or deviation from a perfect circle for that radial point. This is done for each and every point around each slice.
unchartedx.com
Because lets say that most of the vases have been found now. There are no more. So they are now either in a museum or a private collection. Most of the vases in museums are from Petrie. Yet Petrie gave 100s away as gifts from the same digs. But he gave away the very best ones. The vases that will be the most likely candidates of the precise class.
Yeah that will come. In the mean time its a bit of fun. But also as I said getting fixated on this specific example takes away from the overall view of out of place works all over the world that lend support for ancient lost advanced tech and knowledge. As with the circular saw cuts and many other examples it gets to a point where you cannot deny something is out of place in ancient times.
Spread, how much variation there are in circularity. Modern lathing have very low variation in circularity, these vases have a large variations in the surface deviation plots. And their proposed quality metrics doesn't capture this, which I personally find problematic.
They dont. The combined quality metric he proposes (in the earlier unrevised version) sums both the inner and outer quality.
Because the median is just a point estimate, and the geometric mean are always less or equal to the arithmetic mean (it's only equal if all numbers that are the same). They should include some term that actually takes into account what can be seen in the surface deviation plots.Lol new digs. I think they have dug up aaabout everything. Unless the authorities are hiding stuff from us. Or a new grave or tomb is found with some vases. Like I said we don't need to do that when theres literally 1,000's already available in museums and private collections.
The best examples have already been found and are in private collections. These are the ones that we need to test as they are the best. But theres 1,000s in museum basements as well lol. Karoly has another two museums to test more vases. One with the Petrie museum and another with the Egyptian Museum in Turin, Italy.
Yes I agree. But I think there is pretty good provedence already on at least some of the vases. Like from the Petrie museum. Put it this way. Do you think they are good enough, round enough to have been turned.
If you were to compare a precision vase sitting in the Petrie museum with a known softer vase handmade with a borestick you will see the difference in signatures just by eye sight. You will see those machine marks on the inside where they have not been fully polished out. Funny enough the exact same machine marks on Bealls vases. Must have used the same maker.
Do you mean the difference of the radius from the center point of the vase slice to the outside of the vase at that particular point. Then the error or deviation from a perfect circle for that radial point. This is done for each and every point around each slice.
What about this.
Accuracy is how close a measured value is to the actual value. Precision is how close measured values are to each other.UnchartedX - Ben Van Kerkwyk
Exploring the mysteries of our past, civilizations, cataclysms, and what it all means for us today.
We can’t measure accuracy of the vase since we don’t know what the original design was. An example of accuracy is creating a 1kg weight. How close it is to actually weighing 1kg is a measure of its accuracy. 1kg is a predetermined target.
For this vase, we are going to measure precision. We can see that it has a circular shape. This is true at any vertical position. So one measure of accuracy would be to take points along a narrow vertical height, say less than 1cm (the vase is about 12cm high) and compare the distance to the center axis for all the points. This would give an idea of the precision of the vase for representing a circle.
This has already been done for the vases. Why is this not a representation of the vases roundness.
Each and everyone of the "out-of-place" works, need the same fine-combing and granular critique before they can be used to support any arguments. Saying "Don't look at the trees, see the whole forest!" isn't helpful. The forest is made of individual trees, first we look at each tree individually, plot them on the map and then we say there is the forest.
So you ask for the evidence and I give it and you say nothing. This is what I mean. How can anyone every argue the evidence when they ignore it. They complain that theres no evidence and then ignore it when its given.
No, completely different. Atlantis is a legend. Like the legend like the Flood myth. Theres a degree of truth to something happening but it has been made into legend. Exaggerated and elabortated on. But like the Flood myth which is reflected in most cultures its based on a real flood event.
This is the question. We can ask the Egyptians. They tell us their culture went on far earlier back in time than we give them credit. Most of these cultures speak of their ancestors as having great knowledge from the gods. Or it was a time when the gods roamed the earth. So they believe this themselves as part of their culture.
Why on earth would I do that. If everyone is triggered by even the mention of spectulative ideas that involve magic or supernatural phenomena then it would be asking for trouble lol. I have some giving me the 3rd degree on tiny errors is scientific measurements. Why would I propose such an obvious impossible thing to verify.
Gee you packed in a lot of assumptions doing my thinking.
