More incoherent ramblings.
I would appreciate it that you don't start with everything I say as being ramblings or delusion or anything like that until we go through this and determine if this is actually the case.
I keep correcting your misrepresentations but you keep on wwith the same demeaning language that another persons opinions are ramblings or delusions. Even if they are wrong or misinformed you don't tell people their opinions and beliefs are delusions. You explain perhaps why they are for which you have not done by the simple fact that I have knocked down you misrepresentations many times already.
Here are three more to the list.
(1) "Actually he agrees with Dunns findings."
“He” argues that Dunn is wrong because a chemical treatment can explain the high feed rate. Your denial mode has now degenerated into total delusion and you wonder why I question your reading comprehension skills.
You completely missed the important point. The fact that the author is proposing that the stone was softened to explain the fast feed rate shows that he agrees with Dunn on his findings that there was a fast feed rate.
Isn't that the big furore your going on about that Dunn was wrong about the fast feed rate.
They are only disagreeing on how that fast feed rate happened. Dunn says with some sort of sonic pulse like a hammer drill and the author claims its stone softening with chemicals which allows the drill to drill through the granite faster.
But I also find it ironic that you want to use someone promoting alchemy stone softening to disprove Dunn is promoting psuedoscience when your claiming not to use woo as your evidence.
(2) "I am not saying that."
This seems to be a general theme, I’m the one making the statements not you.
You are now so confused you don’t understand who said what.
Not confused at all. I think I have maintained consistency in navigating through all these logical fallacies. I spot them a mile away. The only reason keep clarifing that I am not promoting Woo or that the links I am providing are not promoting woo is because I have to due to the large number of ad hominems being made falsely make out everything said is woo lol.
Its actually you who are confused because of the fallacious thinking. You have created for yourself a cow web of mispresentations and you can't tell fact from fiction anymore.
Once again I come back to basic. Show me exactly where I have promoted anything psuedoscience. You tried with Dunn but I showed it was a misrepresentation. You had not even read his papers or writings on this and assumed it was all bunk. I showed you that several scientists are now agreeing. I showed you they have found electrodes in the great pyramid just as Dunn predicted. Isn't correct predictions good science.
(3) "Show me an experiment where that particular bow drill that made that hole in softer limestone doing the same in the hardest of stones and cutting through quartz just as easily as feldspar."
This is nonsense and you keep avoiding the question why would the Egyptians use primitive tools to drill through limestone and technology well beyond current levels to drill through granite?
Its not nonsense and a ligitimate observation. You can't apply the same tech used some 2 or 3,000 years later in a completely different stone as evidence. Its the wrong stone and time period for starters. When do we ever do that in science. Use a completely different time period as evidence for another time period.
We can then take the type of drill or saw or sled from the pic and apply it to these ancient megaliths and works to see if they also apply to works beyond that period.
Guess what they don't match and the primitive tools don't scale up to account for these precision and megalithic works fullstop. The small saw and bow drill in the pics cannot scale up. They are inadequate and we can't assume there's bigger versions because there are none in the archeological records nor painted examples on the walls.
I don't know how they did it. Thats the whole point and dilemma we have. We don't know how they did it. But they certainly didn't do it with the tools in the archeological records.
Its well acknowledged by many archeologists that we see two types of tech in the rocks. As though two completely different skills and knowledge sets were at work where one is with the megaliths and precision works in the hardest stone that come very early and the other is with less quality works in softer stone for the most part that come later.
You can't equate the two with the same culture. If the later culture is the same culture that made the earlier megaliths and precision works then whydid they then start to make less quality works. Even when repairing, adding extensions or something like Hiroglyphs later they are all inferior as though a completely different culture with a different level of skill and tech were working on the same peices.
Go back into this thread and look at the video which shows a flywheel, copper tube and on further investigation corundum instead of sand as the abrasive which the Egyptians imported.
I have looked at the video several times now and found other ones from the same guys Scientists against Myth. The name itself says a lot. Yes we see experiements with a weighted flywheel copper tube drill drilling out granite. They got the idea for the flywheel from the pic so of course its going to be the same.
But that does not prove the earlier ones like Petrie's core 7 were made this way. Look at all the cultures who had bow and flywheel drills. They all came around much later at the same time and most do not have granite cores. They all have softer stones and human knowledge was at this point. The same principle was used for fire making.
I showed you the results of that video where the signatures on the cores were not only different to Petries but different to other independent experiments and even their own. There are only light lines, strirations rather than deep cuts into the granite as though cut with a diamond or corundum as a fixed point or points. There was no spiral.
Only horizontal; strirations and light stratches or abrased sections which had not lines. Which is exactly what we would expect if the granite is being abrased and worn down by grinding with a sand, quartz sand or corundum and lubricants. Because there are not fixed points that will cause a single cut but a powery grit of varying grades which will sandpaper the walls.
The copper pipe will leave light lines depending on whether the pipe is cut or holed and the method where the pipe is rocking into the walls as it rotates and the bottom edge will fray leaving light horizontal lines. But certainly not spiral or deep as there is no fixed point of cutting and copper is way softer than granite.
This is the main dispute in the signature of the stone that the grooves are deep and spiral.
So far your side has presented several experiments and examples such as Stocks demonstration on the PBS Nova doco and the Russian scientists. There are also the 1983 findings and another 3 or 4 I have presented. All have varying results and none match Petries core number 7 good enough to delare victory.
Depending on the material being drilled they used a bow drive or flywheel as the evidence shows.
Yes and as you said depending on the stone. Why is it we find plenty of softer sones in the later works but the precision granite works stop.
Yes and as I said this comes later. The granite vases are at least 5,000 years old if not older. Found under the Stepped Pyramid which goes back at least 5,000 years.
You can't use a couple of blokes that look like they are having a casual afternoons work on a completely different stone in a completely different time period. Thats not science but assumption.
The logic would also follow if you are saying the flywheel drill proves all drill cores then the small saws depicted accounts for all the saw cuts that look machined. For which we can clearly see between the size of the saw and the massive and precision cuts it completely unreal and a denial of objective reality.
