Using AI to further debunk ancient Egyptians used technologies to drill granite far beyond the current level.

[Hans Blaster]

Why don't we look at an example where there is absolutely no doubt about the authenticity of an Egyptian predynastic vase made from pottery and not granite.

View attachment 358565
​

The details.

View attachment 358566
​

Hmm. Purchased from Howard Carter, seems pretty legit.

Since there is a square side on view of the aperture, GPT-4o can analyse the image for roundness and flatness. Since these parameters are ratios there is no need to calculate the image scale but rely only on the pixels in the image.

View attachment 358568
​

These values do not indicate extraordinary precision requiring some super technology, in fact when comparing predynastic and later period pottery in general, predynastic works are dimensionally inferior.

View attachment 358569
​

I don't really know much about either craft, but maybe it is just harder to maintain the desired shape after a flaw gets incorporated. (Adding clay to a low spot causes sagging, etc.) With the kind of high rims on the stone jar, if it is a little uneven, you can always remove some more stone if you are willing to spend a couple days sanding it down.

The obvious question which arises if predynastic vases made in granite, assuming samples scanned were authentic, were better than later works indicating the use of a superior technology then why did vases made from pottery not follow the same script?

Who knows? I think suspect is in part about the narrative the "alt-hist" guys are trying to push. Stones are special, pottery is ordinary.

 

[sjastro]

I hadn't really worried about the actual metrology. This seemed to be the one place where Dunn's group seemed to have appropriate expertise. There were too many other iffy things and red flags about to worry about that.

Given the near perfect symmetry touted in scanning the vase, having 4235 points scanned on the left hand lug and 3802 on the other, the difference being over 10%, is not one would expect and suggests scanning inconsistencies or the need for improved calibration and coverage.

Right now I'd just like some clarity about why a forgery would be impossible using mid-20th century technology (when the vase can no longer be traced). I have this lingering feeling that it is all about the implied precision of the numerology needed computer controlled manufacture, but whatever the assumption, I'd like to know. (My inclination remains that the vase is a genuine object from the early dynastic period/ Old Kingdom when the Egyptian stoneware industry peaked.)

If we can ever get past these questions about the potential of forgery, I'd really like to know what this amazing pre-dynastic stoneworking technology is. Again things seem to be lurking below the surface that he does not want to be put out in the open.

I've now spent a couple hours watching content about a single non-famous, stone vase with a limited provenance. I really would like to move on, but so much has been put into it by Dunn/UnchartedX and their fans that I really want to know why they think it is important without being coy about it. There are so many other things that have come up in these threads that I'd rather talk about.

The worst case scenario is forgery but more likely it is not knowing the age of the object being scanned.

 

[sjastro]

Hmm. Purchased from Howard Carter, seems pretty legit.

I don't really know much about either craft, but maybe it is just harder to maintain the desired shape after a flaw gets incorporated. (Adding clay to a low spot causes sagging, etc.) With the kind of high rims on the stone jar, if it is a little uneven, you can always remove some more stone if you are willing to spend a couple days sanding it down.

Who knows? I think suspect is in part about the narrative the "alt-hist" guys are trying to push. Stones are special, pottery is ordinary.

There is one characteristic that stands out which the so called pre dynastic vases do not possess, surface finish.

Late period Egyptian pottery vases used faience glazing which was composed of silica, the primary glass-forming component, alkaline salts typically derived from natron or plant ash and acted as a flux to lower the melting point of the glaze, lime as a stabilizer and metallic colorants such as copper which imparted vibrant colors to the glaze.
The labor-intensive process of carving and polishing granite vases could produce impressive results, but it typically didn't achieve the same glossy, colorful finish as faience.

Only modern day CNC granite polishers using very fine diamond abrasives can achieve mirror like finishes on granite which the Egyptians could not achieve with abrasive slurries and hard rocks.

 

[stevevw]

The post you are responding to is ONLY about the possibility that the vase scanned by Dunn could be a modern (20th century) fake. It is not about the methods used by the ancients to make similar vase (or that one if it is genuine). It is not about other vases, etc.

Oh ok well the one scanned by Dunn is genuine so I guess thats it then. The owner aquired it for around 50k and it has the certificate of authentification.

But why not other vases that have been tested and authenticated. Why can't they also be included as it would help support the case that genuine vases have been tested and found to have high levels of precision.

I'm talking about 20th century reproduction. What about 20th century technology excludes the possibility of a mid-century reproduction of a early-dynastic type hard stone vase?

Ah 20th century is a long time which included 1999. I don't think thats a fair criteria. You would have to go back beyond the 60s to when tech was less advanced.

Another aspect is that how could the forgers incorporate the geometry and math into the vase without a computer. We can only discover this complex geometry with modern computers. As one of the analysts said.

The creators of this object inscribed π to perfection at the microscopic scale, in one of the hardest and most difficult materials to work with. I remain doubtful, that it would even be possible to replicate this result with modern CNC machinery.” — Mark Qvist

https://medium.com/@metamorphoptics/golden-circles-the-impossible-granite-artifact-c5467516928

THis is down to the micro level of precision which seems at the very least a difficult task for some back street forger without such high tech which would cost a fortune to run and not be readily available to most people. Usually only high tech labs.

I mean if they did not have the computer tech to even spot the geometry until computer scanning came on board then how could they incorporate it.

None of those have been measure to high precision by Dunn. They are not relevant. The issue in that post was if a replica in the style of those vases under the Step Pyramid could have been made prior to the late 20th century.

The pic of the vases comes from the video showing the testing of those vases in Dunns lab using the same equipment.

And none of them have a provenance that goes back to prior to 1960. *THAT* is the point.

I think this whole objection about not being authenticated before the 1960's is a red herring. Even post 1960s is a problem to replicate down to the micro level and requires specialised equipment which is very expensive to operate. Its not like some backstreet forger can do this.

But what it does show is the acknowledgement that these vases have a high precision that could not be replicated by anyone until modern times and yet here we have this level of precision 5,000 years ago.

You just have to look at the vases in the museums to see their high precision and quality. These vases are all from museums and authenticated.

Ancient Egyptian Stone Technology - Lathe Turning - Spirit & Stone

www.theglobaleducationproject.org

I didn't ask where the forger could have been. First I need you to justify the claim that the machinery did not exist. (Are you backtracking here and just making it expensive?) If you think you know what equipment is required STATE IT.

Well expense is part of it and to pretend its not is just silly. If the forgeries cost more to make than what could they could have been sold for then thats a big negative againt the claim they are forged. Remembering that back then they did not know they were so precise and attracted such attention.

I have linked evidence about that the tech was beyond 1960's levels when it comes to the micro level of precisness.

Incredible strength or delicate thinness? Which is it? (even I know that if you want a really thin, delicate piece you don't use your most powerful tools, but get close and then work thinner by hand.)

This cannot be done by hand without a guide as the thinness is consistent and freehand will leave inconsistencies. But a fixed cutter or grinder will leave consistent thinness and maintain the consistency with other parts of the vase.

Its both thinness and thickness. Obviously some vases are thicker. But even thin ones were a solid block to begin with. The lathe and grinders have to be fixed enough to withstand the pressure without movement. It may be possible on softer stone but granite and diorite is another story back then.

Another problem is that there are are an aweful lot of these vases. This would point to a sophisticated setup or setups with high tech equipment back in the 60's or even earlier.

(I dont by 5/1000 inch either. That is 0.12 mm.)

Look at the vase where the light can shine through the walls its so thin like an egg shell.

This vase was broken revealing the thinness of the walls

And such machines for turning granite didn't exist in 1950? Is that your claim?

Well if you consider the geometry no I don't think so. We did not have the ability with computerised machines to produce such consistent precision in relation to the math and geometry incorporated into a 3D vase.

So let me repeat this question since you aren't answering it:

What about the Dunn vase would be beyond the capability of a mid-20th century stone artisan with hand and machine tools?

Certainly not with free hand as that introduces human error. Perhaps with machines they could produce relative precision but not the geometry that goes down to the micron level.

Why? What tools were they missing? Please do be specific. Tap into your's (or Dunn's) vast knowledge of late 20th century machine tool developments to indicate what it is you think was not available.

The math and geometry. But I think the whole forgery claim is a red herring as it would take a massive effort and cost to reproduce as the machinary and tech is not readily available to the black market.

I made claims that such vases did not exist. If they did not what would be copied. The question involves vases with claims that only go back to private dealers in the 1980s or 1960s. Why should I trust any of those are genuine? Why would it have been impossible to fake one in that period or just before?

Like I said when considering all the specs and math involved I don't think the tech was readily available, Maybe in specialised fields like jet engine parts but not on the streets for forgers. The precision is not just indicative of modern lathe machining but of CNC lathe machining (Computer Numerical Control).

Plus as I have linked even the experts state that this is beyond even 60's tech or even lathe machining as its more than just lathe machining.

As far as we know, no human beings, trained animals or naturally occurring phenomenae, modern or ancient, take mathematical formulae and equations as input, and produce lathe-operating motions as outputs.

For all of the knowledge and insights we have accumulated over the ages, we know of exactly one, and only one category of things capable of such behaviour: The kind of thing, that we refer to as a turing machine.

We call this class of device a computer, and no plausible way of representing, operating on, or manufacturing the design of this artefact exists, without having access to one such.
Abstractions Set In Granite

 

[Hans Blaster]

Oh ok well the one scanned by Dunn is genuine so I guess thats it then. The owner aquired it for around 50k and it has the certificate of authentification.

View attachment 358578

That's cute. It dates to a private collection in 1968. Where was it before then?

But why not other vases that have been tested and authenticated. Why can't they also be included as it would help support the case that genuine vases have been tested and found to have high levels of precision.

Because I don't feel like tolerating your repeated adding of new things to a discussion before the questions have been worked through. As I wrote in a post tonight, I have viewed a couple hours of content on the ONE VASE you just provided a certificate for. Let's deal with the question about THAT VASE whether forgery is a possibility and why or why not. So let's proceed back to that.

Ah 20th century is a long time which included 1999. I don't think thats a fair criteria. You would have to go back beyond the 60s to when tech was less advanced.

Another aspect is that how could the forgers incorporate the geometry and math into the vase without a computer. We can only discover this complex geometry with modern computers. As one of the analysts said.

The creators of this object inscribed π to perfection at the microscopic scale, in one of the hardest and most difficult materials to work with. I remain doubtful, that it would even be possible to replicate this result with modern CNC machinery.” — Mark Qvist

https://medium.com/@metamorphoptics/golden-circles-the-impossible-granite-artifact-c5467516928

Which is why I said that we should first set aside the "embedded numbers" question and first consider whether a vase of that type could have been manufactured in modern times, but before 1968 (the trackable date in your certificate).

THis is down to the micro level of precision which seems at the very least a difficult task for some back street forger without such high tech which would cost a fortune to run and not be readily available to most people. Usually only high tech labs.

Are we talking about not possible or costly/rare? Let's first sort out the question of it was possible in 1950-1965 (or so), then we can worry about if the required equipment was rare or expensive to own/operate.

I mean if they did not have the computer tech to even spot the geometry until computer scanning came on board then how could they incorporate it.

We can get back to this once we have worked out if the construction of a vase of that type (not worrying about the 'embedded numerology' is present ).

The pic of the vases comes from the video showing the testing of those vases in Dunns lab using the same equipment.

OK, fine. These are the couple of other vases from private collections with provenance to the mid/late 20th century that Dunn has measured. (Here you failure to label strikes again. The purpose of those images would have been clear and non-problematic if you'd just labeled them.)

I think this whole objection about not being authenticated before the 1960's is a red herring.

No, it's not. The problem is the objects cannot be traced back to a specific recovery from an ancient Egyptian site. If they could be so traced there would be no question about authenticity.

Even post 1960s is a problem to replicate down to the micro level and requires specialised equipment which is very expensive to operate. Its not like some backstreet forger can do this.

But what it does show is the acknowledgement that these vases have a high precision that could not be replicated by anyone until modern times and yet here we have this level of precision 5,000 years ago.

You just have to look at the vases in the museums to see their high precision and quality. These vases are all from museums and authenticated.

The statement you are responding to was about provenance. Address that. There are other parts later in my post referring to precision.

View attachment 358579

View attachment 358580

Those were not vases.

View attachment 358581

Ancient Egyptian Stone Technology - Lathe Turning - Spirit & Stone

www.theglobaleducationproject.org

We don't need pictures of another Eqyptian vase. What we need is provenance.

Now on to the potential for creation of such an object in the mid-20th century...

Well expense is part of it and to pretend its not is just silly. If the forgeries cost more to make than what could they could have been sold for then thats a big negative againt the claim they are forged. Remembering that back then they did not know they were so precise and attracted such attention.

Expense wasn't the question at hand. It was availability of equipment to do the task. If you can demonstrate that the equipment didn't exist ca. 1950-1960 then expense is not relevant. If it did exist, THEN and only THEN can we talk about if it would be a profitable enterprise to make fake Egyptian artifacts with it.

I have linked evidence about that the tech was beyond 1960's levels when it comes to the micro level of precisness.

So then detail what equipment would be needed to manufacture a vase similar to the one Dunn measured. "Tech was beyond available levels" is not a meaningful response.

This cannot be done by hand without a guide as the thinness is consistent and freehand will leave inconsistencies. But a fixed cutter or grinder will leave consistent thinness and maintain the consistency with other parts of the vase.

Its both thinness and thickness. Obviously some vases are thicker. But even thin ones were a solid block to begin with. The lathe and grinders have to be fixed enough to withstand the pressure without movement. It may be possible on softer stone but granite and diorite is another story back then.

I've said nothing about free hand carving. If you go back a few posts when I proposed a rough procedure, I wrote of using jigs to control the tools and thus the shape.

Another problem is that there are are an aweful lot of these vases. This would point to a sophisticated setup or setups with high tech equipment back in the 60's or even earlier.

It is known that there were workshops chartered or funded by the pharaohs to make these objects in quantity.

Look at the vase where the light can shine through the walls its so thin like an egg shell.

View attachment 358584

View attachment 358589

This vase was broken revealing the thinness of the walls

View attachment 358591

Well if you consider the geometry no I don't think so. We did not have the ability with computerised machines to produce such consistent precision in relation to the math and geometry incorporated into a 3D vase.

But were not considering that now. The first question is on the manufacture of a vessel of the sort measured by Dunn with a smooth surface and curves, excellent alignment to the central axis, etc. Once we have addressed that question then (and only then) is it useful to begin to address any questions of embedded mathematics, which is a separate claim from "it is pre-dynastic high technology".

Certainly not with free hand as that introduces human error. Perhaps with machines they could produce relative precision but not the geometry that goes down to the micron level.

Again, I didn't say anything about free hand.

The math and geometry. But I think the whole forgery claim is a red herring as it would take a massive effort and cost to reproduce as the machinary and tech is not readily available to the black market.

Math and geometry is not a machine tool. Name the necessary tools for manufacture of such an object so that we can talk about when and how readily they were available. Then (and only then) can claims of embedded numbers be addressed.

Like I said when considering all the specs and math involved I don't think the tech was readily available, Maybe in specialised fields like jet engine parts but not on the streets for forgers. The precision is not just indicative of modern lathe machining but of CNC lathe machining (Computer Numerical Control).

OK, so we finally get to it. You think it takes a CNC machine. Is this because of the general properties of the vase or is it because of the alleged embedded numbers?

Plus as I have linked even the experts state that this is beyond even 60's tech or even lathe machining as its more than just lathe machining.

That wipes out the ancients for certain. What experts are these and what are their credentials? (And no, it is not a fallacy to want credentials for experts. The thing about experts is that they have documentation of why they are experts on a subject. If I were so inclined I could provide you with documentation for what I am an expert on.)

As far as we know, no human beings, trained animals or naturally occurring phenomenae, modern or ancient, take mathematical formulae and equations as input, and produce lathe-operating motions as outputs.

For all of the knowledge and insights we have accumulated over the ages, we know of exactly one, and only one category of things capable of such behaviour: The kind of thing, that we refer to as a turing machine.

We call this class of device a computer, and no plausible way of representing, operating on, or manufacturing the design of this artefact exists, without having access to one such.
Abstractions Set In Granite

This is not the numerology post.

 

[stevevw]

That's cute. It dates to a private collection in 1968. Where was it before then?

The vase was originally owned by the Barakat Gallery which has a number of these vases.

Predynastic Shoulder Vase, 3500 BC - 2100 BC

In Predynastic Egypt – as, indeed, in many ancient civilisations – much of life revolved around death. The concept that the lives of human beings are extinguishable, that, by its very nature, no person alive can accurately report what happens after this demise, was a source of great existential...

barakatgallery.eu

Predynastic Stone Vase, 4000 BCE - 3000 BCE

It is interesting to note that the ancient Egyptians were crafting stone vessels long before they were creating statues in stone. This observation is reinforced by the fact that the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic word for “stone sculptor” employs the tool used by these early craftsmen for the...

barakatgallery.eu

THE BARAKAT COLLECTION

Barakat Gallery is a fifth generation family owned and operated business, founded in Jerusalem over...

barakatgallery.tumblr.com

Because I don't feel like tolerating your repeated adding of new things to a discussion before the questions have been worked through. As I wrote in a post tonight, I have viewed a couple hours of content on the ONE VASE you just provided a certificate for. Let's deal with the question about THAT VASE whether forgery is a possibility and why or why not. So let's proceed back to that.

If we have issues with one vase in establishing its authenticity then we can use another thats been tested to determine its authenticity. It will still establish the same thing.

Which is why I said that we should first set aside the "embedded numbers" question and first consider whether a vase of that type could have been manufactured in modern times, but before 1968 (the trackable date in your certificate).

Are we talking about not possible or costly/rare? Let's first sort out the question of it was possible in 1950-1965 (or so), then we can worry about if the required equipment was rare or expensive to own/operate.

Ok well according to the expert analysis this level of complexity could not have been done without a CNC machine.

We can get back to this once we have worked out if the construction of a vase of that type (not worrying about the 'embedded numerology' is present ).

I don't honestly know. I mean your side is claiming it could have been done 5,000 years ago let alone 60 years ago.

OK, fine. These are the couple of other vases from private collections with provenance to the mid/late 20th century that Dunn has measured. (Here you failure to label strikes again. The purpose of those images would have been clear and non-problematic if you'd just labeled them.)

I linked the video showing the live tests from where those images came.

These are the vases tested. They were tested at an aerospace engineering company who makes precision parts that Dunn use to work with.

No, it's not. The problem is the objects cannot be traced back to a specific recovery from an ancient Egyptian site. If they could be so traced there would be no question about authenticity.

Ok so your saying all these collectors and galleries are selling forgeries for 10's of 1,000's of $$$. The certificate of authentifications are forged and the owners are liable to be sued.

But its interesting that you are taking this tactic as it implies you acknowledge that this level of tech could not have existed 5,000 years ago.

The aim of the project is to get a museum piece and test this so I guess this will settle the case. But I think there is other circumstancial evidence such as that at least some that are tested come from pre 1960's where the experts have stated the level of tech back then could not produce CNC level vases.

But also the unlikelihood that black market forgers would have access to such equipment even if available as it would have been very rare and only limited to precision parts manufacting and even then it was not up to the standards needed to produce such accuracy and geometry.

Those were not vases.

But if the precision and quality is found in them then what does it matter. Thats just a cop out.

We don't need pictures of another Eqyptian vase. What we need is provenance.

Already dealt with. Another problem is that to replicate the vases of different kinds means having the original to copy. There is no evidence that forgers even had the originals. I could use the same logic as you and say you also have no evidence that they were forged. Your the one m,aking the claim.

Now on to the potential for creation of such an object in the mid-20th century...

Expense wasn't the question at hand.

Yes it is. If the equipment is rare and only limited to precision industries like areospace then its going to be very costly and not worth it let alone have availability of such equipment to some back street forger.

It was availability of equipment to do the task. If you can demonstrate that the equipment didn't exist ca. 1950-1960 then expense is not relevant. If it did exist, THEN and only THEN can we talk about if it would be a profitable enterprise to make fake Egyptian artifacts with it.

Ok I had a quick look and it seems like a rabbit hole topic in itself that would take time to investigate. Generally without going into detailed research it looks like CNC type lathes were just coming in around the 50's. I would say the war had a lot to do with that.

But it would have been rare and specialist using them I would say. The machines look massive back then and to have the capability for multi cutter points to make such vases would have been very expensive and top of the range if possible.

They certainly would not have been portable for some back street forger and would have had to have been done within the factory of whoever owned the machines.

So then detail what equipment would be needed to manufacture a vase similar to the one Dunn measured. "Tech was beyond available levels" is not a meaningful response.

Dunn mentioned he has worked in tooling and machining since around the 60's and said he doesn't think the machinery could produce such vases. Generally lathing was not CNC and not as refined as we have today.

I would say the level of tech was probably capable of producing such precision vases in hard stones. Perhaps some diamond tipped tools for cutting. Not sure if that was available back then as most machining I think would have been on metals such as parts. Perhaps some specialising in softer stone like sandstone which was used in the 50's.

I've said nothing about free hand carving. If you go back a few posts when I proposed a rough procedure, I wrote of using jigs to control the tools and thus the shape.

Ok but as mentioned the jigs would need to be super strong to hold the cutting point and vase completely still, not a fraction of movement. I don't think wood and some sort of hemp rope binding is adequate.

It is known that there were workshops chartered or funded by the pharaohs to make these objects in quantity.

Yes they are painted on the walls in later tombs. But none are for the predynastic period which did not have hyroglyphs or wall paintings at that stage.

I think these vases were specially made for a special purpose and very individualised. Maybe more than one person could work on them but each part would require a long time if done with primitive tools.

But were not considering that now. The first question is on the manufacture of a vessel of the sort measured by Dunn with a smooth surface and curves, excellent alignment to the central axis, etc. Once we have addressed that question then (and only then) is it useful to begin to address any questions of embedded mathematics, which is a separate claim from "it is pre-dynastic high technology".

I think this is the wrong way to look at it. In some ways you can't consider the practical machining of the 3D shape without the numbers and control to achieve the geometry in the vase. They are entangled and looking at one without the other will skew what methods are possible or not.

Again, I didn't say anything about free hand.

Ok good. This is a good example of how the evidence does not have to be by experts and that those claiming to be experts that these vases were done by basically bashing with stones and grinding away with a copper chisels is Woo itself.

You can obviously see that the signatures in the stone that require something more than this by proposing lathes and some advanced tech that we did not have until the 1950's . I agree and thats all I am really saying. I am just more open to all possibilities and I think anyone with an open mind would be the same.

Math and geometry is not a machine tool. Name the necessary tools for manufacture of such an object so that we can talk about when and how readily they were available. Then (and only then) can claims of embedded numbers be addressed.

I have already addressed this as well as the fact that numbers are part of what tools and methods can be used. We can't talk method without the precision of the numbers. You could create a nothing shape and make it smooth and beautiful on a machine.

OK, so we finally get to it. You think it takes a CNC machine. Is this because of the general properties of the vase or is it because of the alleged embedded numbers?

Obviously because of the numbers, the geometry and math. You can't seperate the two when speaking about these vases. I think that is the main tech that people are referring to that is what stands out.

That wipes out the ancients for certain. What experts are these and what are their credentials? (And no, it is not a fallacy to want credentials for experts. The thing about experts is that they have documentation of why they are experts on a subject. If I were so inclined I could provide you with documentation for what I am an expert on.)

I agree credentials are important but it can be used to deny evidence as well and we also know that non experts have discovered theories or proven them wrong. Darwin was not a biologist for example.

But yes generally you need an expert like a doctor to fix a medical problem rather than an plumber lol. Though there is plumbing in the human body.

Those saying that this level of tech with machining the hardest of stone into a 3D vase with such precision and geometry range from stone masons, Egyptologists, CAD analysis, engineers specialising in tooling and machining, metrologists, specialist in photogrametry and light scanning as linked in the last video.

This is not the numerology post.

Please stop trying to limit the evidence. Its all relevant. Its about advanced tech including AI. I would say its very relevent.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Please stop trying to limit the evidence. Its all relevant. Its about advanced tech including AI. I would say its very relevent.

Now you're adding AI toth he "advanced tech"? What's next, transwarp drive?

 

[stevevw]

Now you're adding AI toth he "advanced tech"? What's next, transwarp drive?

Well considering that the OP introduced Ai I think its a relevant part of advanced tech. No not transwarp drive. If we are going by the Egyptians own wall depictions then maybe Khufu's Solar ship that sails through the night sky. lol

 

[SelfSim]

The vase was originally owned by the Barakat Gallery which has a number of these vases.

Predynastic Shoulder Vase, 3500 BC - 2100 BC

In Predynastic Egypt – as, indeed, in many ancient civilisations – much of life revolved around death. The concept that the lives of human beings are extinguishable, that, by its very nature, no person alive can accurately report what happens after this demise, was a source of great existential...

barakatgallery.eu

Predynastic Stone Vase, 4000 BCE - 3000 BCE

It is interesting to note that the ancient Egyptians were crafting stone vessels long before they were creating statues in stone. This observation is reinforced by the fact that the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic word for “stone sculptor” employs the tool used by these early craftsmen for the...

barakatgallery.eu

THE BARAKAT COLLECTION

Barakat Gallery is a fifth generation family owned and operated business, founded in Jerusalem over...

barakatgallery.tumblr.com

If we have issues with one vase in establishing its authenticity then we can use another thats been tested to determine its authenticity. It will still establish the same thing.

Ok well according to the expert analysis this level of complexity could not have been done without a CNC machine.

I don't honestly know. I mean your side is claiming it could have been done 5,000 years ago let alone 60 years ago.

I linked the video showing the live tests from where those images came.

These are the vases tested. They were tested at an aerospace engineering company who makes precision parts that Dunn use to work with.

View attachment 358602

View attachment 358603

View attachment 358604

Ok so your saying all these collectors and galleries are selling forgeries for 10's of 1,000's of $$$. The certificate of authentifications are forged and the owners are liable to be sued.

But its interesting that you are taking this tactic as it implies you acknowledge that this level of tech could not have existed 5,000 years ago.

The aim of the project is to get a museum piece and test this so I guess this will settle the case. But I think there is other circumstancial evidence such as that at least some that are tested come from pre 1960's where the experts have stated the level of tech back then could not produce CNC level vases.

But also the unlikelihood that black market forgers would have access to such equipment even if available as it would have been very rare and only limited to precision parts manufacting and even then it was not up to the standards needed to produce such accuracy and geometry.

But if the precision and quality is found in them then what does it matter. Thats just a cop out.

Already dealt with. Another problem is that to replicate the vases of different kinds means having the original to copy. There is no evidence that forgers even had the originals. I could use the same logic as you and say you also have no evidence that they were forged. Your the one m,aking the claim.

Yes it is. If the equipment is rare and only limited to precision industries like areospace then its going to be very costly and not worth it let alone have availability of such equipment to some back street forger.

Ok I had a quick look and it seems like a rabbit hole topic in itself that would take time to investigate. Generally without going into detailed research it looks like CNC type lathes were just coming in around the 50's. I would say the war had a lot to do with that.

But it would have been rare and specialist using them I would say. The machines look massive back then and to have the capability for multi cutter points to make such vases would have been very expensive and top of the range if possible.

They certainly would not have been portable for some back street forger and would have had to have been done within the factory of whoever owned the machines.

Dunn mentioned he has worked in tooling and machining since around the 60's and said he doesn't think the machinery could produce such vases. Generally lathing was not CNC and not as refined as we have today.

I would say the level of tech was probably capable of producing such precision vases in hard stones. Perhaps some diamond tipped tools for cutting. Not sure if that was available back then as most machining I think would have been on metals such as parts. Perhaps some specialising in softer stone like sandstone which was used in the 50's.

Ok but as mentioned the jigs would need to be super strong to hold the cutting point and vase completely still, not a fraction of movement. I don't think wood and some sort of hemp rope binding is adequate.

Yes they are painted on the walls in later tombs. But none are for the predynastic period which did not have hyroglyphs or wall paintings at that stage.

I think these vases were specially made for a special purpose and very individualised. Maybe more than one person could work on them but each part would require a long time if done with primitive tools.

I think this is the wrong way to look at it. In some ways you can't consider the practical machining of the 3D shape without the numbers and control to achieve the geometry in the vase. They are entangled and looking at one without the other will skew what methods are possible or not.

Ok good. This is a good example of how the evidence does not have to be by experts and that those claiming to be experts that these vases were done by basically bashing with stones and grinding away with a copper chisels is Woo itself.

You can obviously see that the signatures in the stone that require something more than this by proposing lathes and some advanced tech that we did not have until the 1950's . I agree and thats all I am really saying. I am just more open to all possibilities and I think anyone with an open mind would be the same.

I have already addressed this as well as the fact that numbers are part of what tools and methods can be used. We can't talk method without the precision of the numbers. You could create a nothing shape and make it smooth and beautiful on a machine.

Obviously because of the numbers, the geometry and math. You can't seperate the two when speaking about these vases. I think that is the main tech that people are referring to that is what stands out.

I agree credentials are important but it can be used to deny evidence as well and we also know that non experts have discovered theories or proven them wrong. Darwin was not a biologist for example.

But yes generally you need an expert like a doctor to fix a medical problem rather than an plumber lol. Though there is plumbing in the human body.

Those saying that this level of tech with machining the hardest of stone into a 3D vase with such precision and geometry range from stone masons, Egyptologists, CAD analysis, engineers specialising in tooling and machining, metrologists, specialist in photogrametry and light scanning as linked in the last video.

Please stop trying to limit the evidence. Its all relevant. Its about advanced tech including AI. I would say its very relevent.

One of the problems I see is that the conversation keeps reverting back to known terms of modern-day equipment terminologies which we're familiar with like lathe, CNC, etc. There is a need to abstract the issues the design of these machines might have evolved to address .. and not focus so much on the modern day solutions for these issues(?) After all, the same physical issues have been around for as long as human minds have been distinguishing them and coming up with solutions, (ie: hundreds, perhaps a couple of thousands of years of research/development).

The necessary equipment designs boil down to meet the physical requirements of;

i) removing unwanted part of the material chosen (which is hardness dependent).
ii) providing rigid supports for holding the object and the removal tools;
iii) generating a consistent rotation method capable of producing consistent symmetry;
iv) an energy source capable of operating over the long durations anticipated for achieving the end result;
v) producing high quality surface finishes by using technologies which also match almost the same requirements of (i) to (iii) above but at smaller scales.

From what I can see, all of these requirements are capable of being met with available technologies at various periods throughout the 6.5K year span of time in question. The question about the quality of the end product can also be viewed from the viewpoint of the (human) skill of the, perhaps, singular artisan addressing the individual requirements above. That the skill may have disappeared is no great surprise, particularly as we know as a fact, that the original artisan of the object, obviously, is longer around to tell us how they met these requirements.

The use of the term: 'Advanced Technology' has always been an emotive and subjective 'hype' term. The meaning of it, is completely irrelevant to the investigation, as it adds nothing to the quest of figuring out how these objects were actually produced at whatever timeframe they may appear to have originated.

 

[sjastro]

Since this thread is also about testing GPT-4o’s capabilities, I provided it with a test.

The table summarizes the 2010 experiment using a split copper tube, corundum abrasive and a motor drive supplying the RPMs.
The graph is a pictorial representation of the pitch displaying wide variations.

I supplied GPT-4o with details with of the experiment, it needs to show from the table why the pitch varies.

The answers are;

(1) Variation in the RPM alters the feed rate which in this case is the drilling speed.
(2) Tube wear also alters the feed rate.
(3) Not evident from the table but can be inferred from the experiment is the use of an abrasive slurry which is distributed on the outside and inside of the tube.
Variations in the distribution of the slurry can also alter the feed rate.

This was my question for GPT-4o, the table refers to a 2010 experiment using a split copper tube attached to a drive delivering variable RPMs and a corundum abrasive slurry.
This equipment was used to drill into granite and the table is the data generated from the experiment.
The graph is a pictorial representation of the pitch values generated from a close up image of the core sample.
Show how the pictorial representation can be explained using the table and the nature of the experiment.

GPT-4o's response next post.

 

[sjastro]

GPT-4o response.

​

The answer is clearly wrong, GPT-4o did not recognize the spacings between the groove lines does vary.
When I asked it to reanalyse the graph it realized the pitch does vary and recognized the variation in RPM as a cause.

 

[Hans Blaster]

e answer is clearly wrong, GPT-4o did not recognize the spacings between the groove lines does vary.
When I asked it to reanalyse the graph it realized the pitch does vary and recognized the variation in RPM as a cause.

It keeps doing this, making errors and correcting them when pointed out. Sometimes it looks like it didn't include some database in considering a particular issue and then did so after a "reassessment". This does not seem to be the case here. It clearly makes an error and then fixes the error when prompted. How odd.

[Have you ever tried convincing it that its right answer was wrong?]

 

[sjastro]

It keeps doing this, making errors and correcting them when pointed out. Sometimes it looks like it didn't include some database in considering a particular issue and then did so after a "reassessment". This does not seem to be the case here. It clearly makes an error and then fixes the error when prompted. How odd.

[Have you ever tried convincing it that its right answer was wrong?]

It's one of the main reasons I don't have 100% trust in AI.
When GPT-4o analysed the pitch on the Petrie No 7 sample image, I used PixInsight astronomical software to confirm the results so at least there no issues with data acquisition.

In an almost human like reaction of sulking it now refuses to communicate with me although I think it has more to do with bandwidth issues.
I will pose your suggestion in about 8 hrs time when it comes back online.

 

[stevevw]

One of the problems I see is that the conversation keeps reverting back to known terms of modern-day equipment terminologies which we're familiar with like lathe, CNC, etc. There is a need to abstract the issues the design of these machines might have evolved to address .. and not focus so much on the modern day solutions for these issues(?) After all, the same physical issues have been around for as long as human minds have been distinguishing them and coming up with solutions, (ie: hundreds, perhaps a couple of thousands of years of research/development).

The necessary equipment designs boil down to meet the physical requirements of;

i) removing unwanted part of the material chosen (which is hardness dependent).
ii) providing rigid supports for holding the object and the removal tools;
iii) generating a consistent rotation method capable of producing consistent symmetry;
iv) an energy source capable of operating over the long durations anticipated for achieving the end result;
v) producing high quality surface finishes by using technologies which also match almost the same requirements of (i) to (iii) above but at smaller scales.

You forgot at least one aspect which is the geometry and maths that is imputted into the 3D vase. That needs some plan, some template or pre programmed guide and not something left up to the individual worker doing freehand or working by sight or touch alone.

This is related to method, lathing, a rigid holding device but is a seperate issue as an non precise and geometrtic object can also be created with the same method.

Even the pyramid itself though a fantastic feat of logistics has geometry astronomic coordinates within the coordinates such as aligning to true north, the longitude and lattitude junction and alignment with Orions belt. The faces of statues have symmetry and maths for example. It is seen throughout the works.

From what I can see, all of these requirements are capable of being met with available technologies at various periods throughout the 6.5K year span of time in question.

Yes but not during the earliest periods such as the pre and early dynastic period.

The question about the quality of the end product can also be viewed from the viewpoint of the (human) skill of the, perhaps, singular artisan addressing the individual requirements above.

Not really. A single artisan using free hand cannot produce that level of geometry down to a micron of precision. It is a fact humans are not guided computers. Their arms and hands are not attached and controlled by a pre programmed guide that will keep to the geometric corordinates. Thats just common knowledge. HUmans have variations in touch, cannot see to the micron level and introduce all sorts of errors.

A also doubt that a single human could keep still the holding device, the vase and themselves on their own due to the immense pressure needed to cut and grind the hardest of stones.

That the skill may have disappeared is no great surprise, particularly as we know as a fact, that the original artisan of the object, obviously, is longer around to tell us how they met these requirements.

Yes the later Egyptians themselves claim that these precision works were inherited and they did not create them. But they did try to copy them and we see the vases, boxes, statues and columns in softer stone with less precision and quality. Though still very good. It is these later works which actually do fit the primitive tools in the records and on wall paintings. But not the earlier works in the hardest of stones with high precision and finish.

We even see later pharoahs like Rameses the 2nd claiming some of these works for himself by inscribing on the earlier works in less quality hieroglyphics. You would think if the pharoahs created these high quality works that they would also make the inscriptions high quality.

The use of the term: 'Advanced Technology' has always been an emotive and subjective 'hype' term. The meaning of it, is completely irrelevant to the investigation, as it adds nothing to the quest of figuring out how these objects were actually produced at whatever timeframe they may appear to have originated.

Fair enough and I agree to a point that we can forget all assessments as to what the tech and method represents in the greater scheme of advanced or primitive. We can just look at the signatures forensically and extract from this what possible tools and methods it would takje to leave that signature.

But then after that we can make a seperate determination as to whether the tech and methods that made the signatures is something we would have expected in that timeframe. ie we don't see planes in the timeframe in the 1200's, we don't see machinery like in the industrial revolution around 500BCE ect.

I mean the OP is about debunking advanced tech for predynastic Egyptians so its relevant to discuss whether they had advanced tech as fat as what we would have considered advanced as explained above. Its not completely subjective and we have some agreed and well acknowledged measures for each time period. Though there is some room for variation within limits.

 

[SelfSim]

You forgot at least one aspect which is the geometry and maths that is imputted into the 3D vase. That needs some plan, some template or pre programmed guide and not something left up to the individual worker doing freehand or working by sight or touch alone.

No .. I don't agree with your generalisation there. Geometry and maths is not a necessary input to the construction of a vase.
If there was no concept of either geometry or maths, symmetry is an inescapable observation for us consciously perceiving humans.
Also, ever heard of the term: 'Eyechrometer'?

Even the pyramid itself though a fantastic feat of logistics has geometry astronomic coordinates within the coordinates such as aligning to true north, the longitude and lattitude junction and alignment with Orions belt. The faces of statues have symmetry and maths for example. It is seen throughout the works.

I don't have the hang-up in thinking that geometry and maths were 'things' floating around someplace, awaiting us to fortuitously uncover them and grab 'em for ourselves.
Demonstrably, they are concepts invented by, and put to good use, by our human minds .. that's all.
There is zip objective evidence that they were (or are) 'embedded' in anything, other than when our minds think in very particular ways in the pursuit of making sense of what we see, or visualise.

Yes but not during the earliest periods such as the pre and early dynastic period.

Oh really? Ha!

Not really. A single artisan using free hand cannot produce that level of geometry down to a micron of precision.

There's no evidence that any artisan was building anything with preconsiderations of 'geometry down to a micron of precision'.
That seems to be your criterion .. with zip evidence that it was theirs!

It is a fact humans are not guided computers. Their arms and hands are not attached and controlled by a pre programmed guide that will keep to the geometric corordinates. Thats just common knowledge. HUmans have variations in touch, cannot see to the micron level and introduce all sorts of errors.

Yet there's abundant evidence that humans conceived of everything which became known as maths, geometry .. and computers following specified instruction sets .. all for very clear purposes, one of which can be 'seeing to the micron level' and measuring human errors.
Humans also 'operate' with persistent displays of certain sets of biological principles, too.

A also doubt that a single human could keep still the holding device, the vase and themselves on their own due to the immense pressure needed to cut and grind the hardest of stones.

You still haven't produced any materials analysis.
I'm not at all convinced 'immense pressures' are necessarily needed for accomplishing the task of eroding these materials. The pressures needed could have come from available heavy (and equally hard) objects applied slowly over longer than (apparently) anticipated durations and conditions.

Yes the later Egyptians themselves claim that these precision works were inherited and they did not create them. But they did try to copy them and we see the vases, boxes, statues and columns in softer stone with less precision and quality. Though still very good. It is these later works which actually do fit the primitive tools in the records and on wall paintings. But not the earlier works in the hardest of stones with high precision and finish.

You can't show that the achievement of 'precision and quality' works, wasn't exclusive to just one individual, or a very small group of very talented individuals. This implies that the skills needed has not necessarily to do with timeframes.
(More like available levels of complexity resources).

We even see later pharoahs like Rameses the 2nd claiming some of these works for himself by inscribing on the earlier works in less quality hieroglyphics. You would think if the pharoahs created these high quality works that they would also make the inscriptions high quality.

So you admit these objects could have undergone subsequent modification by successive generations of very skilled artisans?
Such modifications could have had a cumulative effect on the quality/precision of the objects we now have in the museums, no(?)

Fair enough and I agree to a point that we can forget all assessments as to what the tech and method represents in the greater scheme of advanced or primitive. We can just look at the signatures forensically and extract from this what possible tools and methods it would takje to leave that signature.

You have not established a basis of exclusivity for anything you keep alluding to, whenever you use your ill-defined term: 'signatures'.
Therefore, I'm gonna continue ignoring it.

But then after that we can make a seperate determination as to whether the tech and methods that made the signatures is something we would have expected in that timeframe. ie we don't see planes in the timeframe in the 1200's, we don't see machinery like in the industrial revolution around 500BCE ect.

So you've not provided any specivity to the term 'signatures', (GPT has .. and it doesn't appear to be the same as what's in your head), so I'll ignore that, whenever it comes from you.

There were different drivers for planes ... and machines invented during the industrial revolution. Sure the technology of the day played a role in facilitating the success of these machines, but there were many more drivers for success too (economic, population size, need to travel distances, etc).

Somewhere, I read that the more things one has, the more rapidly technology develops (sometimes its an unexpected exponential increase in rate). I'd say Djoser's time was one of those times where there were a lot of things around from which to build technologies to solve the issues of the day.
I can't see why artisans wouldn't have grabbed whatever they could to achieve their goals.

 

[BCP1928]

CNC machine tools were developed to increase productivity and repeatability of machined parts. There is very little a CNC machine tool can do that a manual machinist hasn't been able to do for 200 years or so--it just takes him longer.

 

[stevevw]

No .. I don't agree with your generalisation there. Geometry and maths is not a necessary input to the construction of a vase.
If there was no concept of either geometry or maths, symmetry is an inescapable observation for us consciously perceiving humans.

Symmetry is one aspect. But if you support symmetry as a signature for reflecting some order to the vase then you would have to also accept the geometry and maths that goes with that because to refelect the opposite side exactly you have to put the maths and geometry into the vase.

That same geometry by extension can reflect orders of magnitude such as the Golden ration which reflects a form of symmetry but more complex.

Also, ever heard of the term: 'Eyechrometer'?

All I know is theres an Inn in Chesterfield England where I lived which was built in the 12th century and they did it by sight and its out all over the place lol. You can get close with say a straight line or a circle. But the level of precision in the vase scanned would be like drawing a 10 meter straight line and only deviating off that straightness by 1/3 of a hair width. I don't think we are that good.

I don't have the hang-up in thinking that geometry and maths were 'things' floating around someplace, awaiting us to fortuitously uncover them and grab 'em for ourselves.
Demonstrably, they are concepts invented by, and put to good use, by our human minds .. that's all.

I disagree. The Godlen ratio and the Sacred geometry are inherent in nature. I would imagine back then when people were gazing at the stars and planets, working with stones, water, oils and the basic elements of life they had great knowledge of this. I mean they didn't have sitcomes or the internet to amuse them.

There is zip objective evidence that they were (or are) 'embedded' in anything, other than when our minds think in very particular ways in the pursuit of making sense of what we see, or visualise.

Hum what about

Examples Of The Golden Ratio You Can Find In Nature

https://www.csus.edu/indiv/m/mirzaagham/math1/SQ5.pdf

What you will also find coincidently is that the vases reflect the Golden ratio, Phi and Pi to a very high degree. Plus other mathmatics and codes like binary codes in computers and DNA which are in nature.

There's no evidence that any artisan was building anything with preconsiderations of 'geometry down to a micron of precision'.
That seems to be your criterion .. with zip evidence that it was theirs!

I linked the evidence showing that the geometry reflected in the vase goes down to the micron level in precision. If the vase reflects complex math and geometry even just with symmetry toi exactly reflect the opposite site we know such as with mm this will give us a closer measurement to the exact measurement.

So the exact measure is so precise in these vases that its not just a mm out but a micron or two out which is like 1,000's times smaller.

Its not as if they can made a mold of the one side and then use that for the other. They have to work seperately on it and heep reflecting the exact some 3D dimensions as they go. Without some measuring device that can capture 3D measures somehow I cannot see how they could do it.

Yet there's abundant evidence that humans conceived of everything which became known as maths, geometry

As mentioned even the great pioneers of math and geometry acknowledge that math is both discovered and invented. But basically it already exists in nature. We see it in the patterns of life such as the spirals of galaxies, shells and flowers which conform to the Goldren ration. What about prime numbers.

.. and computers following specified instruction sets

Actually DA is based on a similar code as DNA and that has been around for billions of years.

.. all for very clear purposes, one of which can be 'seeing to the micron level' and measuring human errors.

The microscope was not invented before 1500s. Before that we did not know that level. Quantum physics only in the 1900's. Darwin did not know about gejnetics or cell biology.

Math is both invented and discovered as linked with the golden ratio.

Interestingly, the Ancient Greek philosophers and mathematicians Pythagoras, Plato and Euclid (the 'father of geometry') believed, to varying degrees, mathematics to be the architecture of nature – that nature is a physical manifestation of mathematical laws.

Is mathematics man-made or intrinsic to nature?

Is mathematics man-made or intrinsic to nature? Does nature conform to maths or maths to nature? Both sides have compelling arguments, but perhaps the true reality lies in the middle-ground?

www.origoeducation.com.au

Humans also 'operate' with persistent displays of certain sets of biological principles, too.

Not sure what you mean. If you mean humans have reciprical relationships with nature then yes I agree. Humans are not passive creatures seperate from nature but part of it and therefore should have intuitive knowledge of nature. Like Indigenous knowledge which understands how the environment works because they live in harmony with it.

You still haven't produced any materials analysis.

Yes I have. I linked the article explaining how when cutting any precision parts in mental let alone granite which requires even more stability as its harder needs to have a very strong and stable base to be able to take the extreme pressure when cutting into the granite.

If its a near perfect cut to within a hair then the lathe, the vase and the person cannot move a fraction. That's just basic tooling and machining. A holder made from wood will move as soon as the cutter hits the vase. I don't want to have to go looking for the article.

I'm not at all convinced 'immense pressures' are necessarily needed for accomplishing the task of eroding these materials. The pressures needed could have come from available heavy (and equally hard) objects applied slowly over longer than (apparently) anticipated durations and conditions.

On the one hand people are rightly saying the precision implies some sort of lathing. Most mainstream experts now admit this because its so obvious in the precision. So that means the vase is spinning and would have to rotate pretty fast to get precision shapes.

I guess if there was a lot of pressure it could rotate slower like Dunn says with the core drill. So long as everything is locked down and cannot move a slow pressurised grind or cut into the granite would take off layers more precisely and controlled than someone just rubbing back and forth and guessing.

You can't show that the achievement of 'precision and quality' works, wasn't exclusive to just one individual, or a very small group of very talented individuals. This implies that the skills needed has not necessarily to do with timeframes.
(More like available levels of complexity resources).

True but it wasn't just timeframes but also access and method. Someone working over the vase for days may restrict access to other parts which will have to wait. Some of these vases are small like 6 or 8 inches and can only allow one set of hands around and on it at a time.

So you admit these objects could have undergone subsequent modification by successive generations of very skilled artisans?
Such modifications could have had a cumulative effect on the quality/precision of the objects we now have in the museums, no(?)

I was saying you would think that if the same person made the work and the inscription or the knowledge and skill was passed down that they would be both quality. But it seems the quality precision works were inherited and a different level of skill and tech was used later in the inscriptions.

You have not established a basis of exclusivity for anything you keep alluding to, whenever you use your ill-defined term: 'signatures'.
Therefore, I'm gonna continue ignoring it.

Ok lets go back to basics. Do you think there are certain signatures in any works that can tell us something about how it was made.

So you've not provided any specivity to the term 'signatures', (GPT has .. and it doesn't appear to be the same as what's in your head), so I'll ignore that, whenever it comes from you.

Ok call it something else. The fingerprint, the forensic evidence. Whatever represents the tell tale signs of how something is made or the type of marks an object leaves in the material it is used on. But signature is used as there is often unique marks that belong to the tool or method that is not shared by other tools and methods.

I mentioned an obvious one of say the marks a sledge hammer would leave on a wall as opposed to a saw. We can see the blunt destruction and breaks of the sledge hammer compared to the saw marks of the saw in the wood. We can see even see the electric saw cuts which are different to hand saw cuts.

There were different drivers for planes ... and machines invented during the industrial revolution. Sure the technology of the day played a role in facilitating the success of these machines, but there were many more drivers for success too (economic, population size, need to travel distances, etc).

I am not sure what your point is. How does this negate that there is a timeline of progressing from less machined to machined tech. How does this negate not being able to tell the difference between basic tech and advanced tech. Once there was no wheel and then the wheel changed a lot which led to other inventions.

Somewhere, I read that the more things one has, the more rapidly technology develops (sometimes its an unexpected exponential increase in rate). I'd say Djoser's time was one of those times where there were a lot of things around from which to build technologies to solve the issues of the day.
I can't see why artisans wouldn't have grabbed whatever they could to achieve their goals.

I don't think knowledge and tech moves in a linear fashion as claimed. I think there has been times when humans were as smart as we are today but just in a different way.

Like scientist today say that Indigenous peoples are teaching us some knowledge about nature and reality that we did not know which can actually help save the environment. It took us a 1,000 years to work out that these indigenous people held the knowledge all along.

It was just a different kind of paradigm from which the knowledge came. Western science did not see or understand this until they opened their minds to other ways of knowing.

 

[sjastro]

It's one of the main reasons I don't have 100% trust in AI.
When GPT-4o analysed the pitch on the Petrie No 7 sample image, I used PixInsight astronomical software to confirm the results so at least there no issues with data acquisition.

In an almost human like reaction of sulking it now refuses to communicate with me although I think it has more to do with bandwidth issues.
I will pose your suggestion in about 8 hrs time when it comes back online.

Here is GPT-4o changing a correct answer.

​

My question to GPT-4o, does this spiral have a constant pitch?

​

When I stated categorically the pitch was not constant.

​

I think it fell victim to perspective when analysing the converging lines in the Z-direction.
Manipulating AI to give an answer you are looking for is still a problem.

​

 

[SelfSim]

Here is GPT-4o changing a correct answer.

View attachment 358640
​

My question to GPT-4o, does this spiral have a constant pitch?

View attachment 358641
​

When I stated categorically the pitch was not constant.

View attachment 358642
​

I think it fell victim to perspective when analysing the converging lines in the Z-direction.
Manipulating AI to give an answer you are looking for is still a problem.

​

Very interesting.
So it inherits chatbot sociabilities and subsequently appears to prioritise being 'nice' over confronting the (sometimes) ugliness which factual discussions often bring to the fore?

PS: @Hans Blaster might interject here and remind us about the Nomad/Kirk confrontation scene in the episode: 'The Changeling', where Kirk demands Nomad to follow its directive, (which allows no exceptions), and thereby sterilize its own imperfections .. (by self destructing).

 

[Hans Blaster]

Here is GPT-4o changing a correct answer.

View attachment 358640
​

My question to GPT-4o, does this spiral have a constant pitch?

View attachment 358641
​

When I stated categorically the pitch was not constant.

View attachment 358642
​

I think it fell victim to perspective when analysing the converging lines in the Z-direction.
Manipulating AI to give an answer you are looking for is still a problem.

​

[SULU] Oh, my. [\SULU]

Now convince it you are (not) Jackson Roykirk...

An AI that makes sloppy errors -- not great.

An AI that correct sloppy errors when pointed out -- good.

An AI that can be "corrected" into error. -- not great.

The responsiveness seems like a good thing for skilled users, but I've seen how most people deal with traditional search engines. There seems to be a general lack of skill in refining criteria for either.