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

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Cool code to examine and graph a 2D photo combined with a manually entered data set of pitch measurements. To meet modern industrial drilling standards the graph should flatline but this one does not so the drill sample was produced by more ancient and imprecise techniques. This is science at its best. Moreover, the consequence is delightful, the ancient Egyptians were clearly not the beneficiaries of Stargate goa' uld knowhow

I need to rewatch that film.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No I have made claims to common sense and reality.

'Common sense' is the worst phrase to use since there is no such thing as common sense. If there was, this thread and the entire crux of the argument, that people are arguing against your claim that the Egyptians had more advanced technology than we know, wouldn't exist, now would it?

 

[stevevw]

This is a blatant lie show me where I linked to anything pertaining to Stokes.

Right here in the other thread on Ripples #876. Your exact words were

Sjastro said "Here is an example of granite cutting and drilling using copper and sand" and then linked Stocks experiment.

So one time your claiming its an uncut copper pipe with sand and a bow, the next its a pipe with a flywheel, then the next its a cut pipe with corrundum and a machine doing the drilling. This is inconsistant methods and results and not science.

No I said you were inept and I will cease making such comments when you no longer provide the ammunition.

But each time I showed you were wrong. You also provide mistakes and false claims but I don't call you names. Its unnecessary even if you think the other person is wrong or deluded. Often we end up regretting things when we jump the gun like that. I just showed you above the mistake you made and I am not calling you names.

Here we go yet again.
First of all, a comparison between the 2010 and 2016 tests.

View attachment 358297​

Both experiments used a split tube design and yes, the 2010 used a low speed drill as the drive, so why did I use 2010 image?
The answer is very simple the 2010 image is much more detailed because it is a close up image allowing analysis.

But the 2010 image is created by a split pipe and a machine and completely different to most other tests using a hand held bow or flywheel and an uncut pipe. Can you see the problem here. Its inconsistent and the Egyptians certainly did not use a machine.

So while you babble on

There you go again. You say its babbling because I caught your misrepresentation. Don't shot the messager lol. Its not babbling to simply point out facts. You making it personal only shows you are the one having problems with the facts.

about the use of a low speed drill instead of a flywheel invalidates the analysis, it is the copper and abrasive that largely determines the striation pattern.

This is just plain and outright denial and bias. Any scientists will tell you that replication is the name of the game. doing the tests exactly how they were done originally. Any variation introduces variables that not only will skew results but invalidate the entire evidence as anyone can then refute this by citing misprepresentation of the methods.

The other issue is that we were talking about how the Egyptians drilled these holes with the current tools in the records and you implied that either a bow or flywheel was used. That you did not acknowledge that a machine was used or provide a link is a problem and not good science.

The main point however is the average pitch/turn is 0.075’’ which using Dunn's logic is way beyond the performance of any modern granite cutting drill of around 0.004”/turn which is complete nonsense.

Your misrepresenting Dunn again. Its not the pitch but the spiral in the pitch that cause Dunn and Petrie to spectualte the fast feed rate. Perhaps its best to actually quote Dunn.

Petrie described an artifact with marks of a drilling process that left a spiral groove in granite that indicated that the drill sank into the granite at .100 inch per revolution of the drill.

The most startling feature of the granite core Petrie describes is the spiral groove around the core indicating a feed rate of 0.100 inches per revolution of the drill.

So not the pitch but the spiral which was causing Dunn to spectulate such a fasr=t feed rate. Because say 4 rotations of the drill that leaves a horizontal pitch will not cut as deep as 4 rotations with a spiral cut and pitch.

As mentioned previously you cannot use pitch as an indicator for feed rate when the SD is high as it is for the Petrie sample.
Hence Dunn’s conclusion is emphatically wrong.

Thats because Dunn was not using the pitch but the spiral incline of the cut just as Petrie was. Look at how each spiral pitch lands lower down the core than a horizontal one.

Its nearly and entire pitch lower if you notice the bottom line of the first horizontal pitch is level with the top of the top of the second spiral pitch. So for even rotation of a horizontal pitch a spiral pitch will cut into the granite nearly double the horizontal pitch.

That means each rotation is cutting deeper and thats where they are getting the feed rate from. It will only take nearly half the rotations with a spiral cut compared to a horizontal cut

I’ve heard it all before, and confirms you don’t know what you are talking about.

Please refer to above. Your now saying Petrie and Dunn don't know what they are talking about and to be honest I would rather believe Petrie and Dunn than someone on a public thread I hardly know at this point in time.

Firstly since Dunn assumes the pitch is fairly constant, the equation Feed rate = Pitch x RPM applies hence the feed rate is very much dependent on the pitch.

So does a spiral pitch show the cut went deeper or the same as a horizontal pitch.

Secondly your description as vague as it is, is describing pitch and the larger the pitch the more it will deviate from the horizontal which should be self explanatory and not require your use of word salad involving spiralling pitches and horizontal pitches.

Well it seems I have to go to such lengths because you keep refusing to acknowledge this important point.

In case you didn’t understand the first time around, simply showing one method where the pitch/turn which greatly exceeds the limits of modern granite drilling tools is enough to show Dunn’s conclusion is nonsense.

But that wasn't what Dunn was showing. He was talking about the spiralling of the pitch that he determined the feed rate as stated above.

Your 'logic' is based on willful ignorance copper has a Mohs hardness 2.5-3.0 and granite 6-7.
I'm sure even a primary school kid would understand copper will not nick granite.

Then why did the core from the split tube leave such uniform horizonal light surface lines while the unsplit copper tube did not.

Repeating myself again it only requires one method to debunk Dunn's hypothesis.

But your method is a red herring. It seems its myselof and Dunn which have to keep repeating what he actually said caused the fast feed rate.

The most startling feature of the granite core Petrie describes is the spiral groove around the core indicating a feed rate of 0.100 inches per revolution of the drill.

It was this feed rate he used to determine it was faster than modern drills.

Now we have gone back to quote mining refer to post #11 for the response.

Cannot see what the problem is. These were tests and one was done with corrundum and a copper tube. The latext molds do not change the results and its magnified and is nothing like your example.

But remember I provided other examples done with corrundum and a copper tube even from the same Russian scientists and they also look nothing like your examkple. Here they are again.

Done with corrundum and flywheel copper tube drill. No lines or very little lines and mostly abrased smooth.

Done with corrundum and a split copper flywheel tube. Some lines but very patchy with large areas having no lines at all.

Done with corrundum and copper tube. Under magnification shows not deep lines or cuts like Petries core number 7. Only light stratches with light strirations which would be hard to see without magnification.

From the same scientists who did your example which is Scientists against myths. Done with corrundum and a flywheel copper tube drill.

Dunns test using corrundum and there are once again few lines and mostly abrased smooth.

Where did you get this image from it looks nothing like 2016 sample.

That image which is also above is from the same experimenters who did your drill core except this is a seperate experiment. I think you or someone on your side linked this experiment. The core is at the 14,27 minute mark.

The striations in the hole are particularly striking and makes a mockery of your argument the 2016 experiment does not produce deep grooves.

There are hardly any lines on the core and that is where we want the lines not on the sides. It would make sense that the lines appear on the walls as the copper tube is wobbling mostly against the outside of the walls. Those lines are not caused by the abrasion. If they were then they would also appear on the core as abrasion will be on the core.

Here is a pic of the walls of the core from the other tests the scientists did with the core you asked where it was from. Once again completely different and yet it used corrundum and a copper pipe.

As you can see hardly any lines and very smooth. The inconsistencies are too much to be good science in all these tests.

For someone who plays the victim card with claims of being labelled stupid, you are insulting the readers and my intelligence with this blatant piece of deception.

Its not playing the victim car your side is engaging in persanl jibesd and attacks full stop. I have treated you with respect and not personally insulted you. Calling me stupid and nothing is insulting fullstop and that you make out its playing the victim card is just doubling down and not even acknowledging this.

There is no deception. I linked the evdience in black and white. Whereas you did not tell me the core you linked was done with a machine when you implied it was done by hand as that was the whole point of copying the Egyptains.

Be very careful what you write as the search function will catch you out.

I have done nothing wrong to be scared to be caught out on.

You have made it very clear there is absolutely no evidence of copper being used in drilling holes in granite and when the evidence shows otherwise suddenly there is a 180 degree turn as if it supports your position.

Another misrepresentation. Show me where I said as you put it "absolutely no evidence of copper being used in drilling holes in granite" Go on show me. Otherwise stop misrepresenting me as you have been doing all through these threads.

But you are right the search function is good for catching people out.

Here is evidence that I have not claimed that I have not claimed "absolutely no evidence of copper being used in drilling holes in granite"

Post #8 I posted evidence supporting Petries finding that a fixed point diamond or currundum graver embedded in a copper tube or rod may have been used.

Maybe points made from hard minerals like corundum, microcrystalline varieties of quartz or other gemstones could be embedded in another material like copper or wood and used as a graver.

Post #74 Is consistent with post 8 which was at the beginning of this thread.
The copper tubes had fixed cutting points so of course there will be copper. The copper tube was the tool as there was no other metal to use as the drill. But as the evidence shows there must have been fixed cutting points embedded in the copper that could penetrate deep and cut through quartz as easily as feldspar.

What a pathetic turn of events.

Lol I just showed you are wrong and I have not said what you claim. You continue to make these personal and absolute claims and statements and I keep showing you are wrong.

No they are not completely different, given the high quality image of the striations inside the hole from the 2016 experiment which are clearly not light scratches and I might be able to analyse.

I am taling about the inconsistencies between all the tests. We have some lines on inside walls and some without using the same methods, we have different methods creat\ing different results. We have mostly no lines and large abrased areas with no lines. Its all over the place. Its not good science.

You started off with Stocks experiement using a completely different abrasions and methods and results and you have been trying to fit the results by searching for all sorts of experiments. Its not good science.

Surely you can admit that. Good science is when we can replicate the findings over and over with the same method. THis has not been done and in fact the opposite has happened as some of the experiements used exactly what your example pics from 2010 and 2016 experiments but produce completely different results. Its not good science.

At least 4 of the independent results above all using corrundum and a copper pipe and flywheel all showed there were hardly any lines and were nothing like your example. So thats good science as its repreated findings that are the same, using the same method.

Anyway I know you hyave had enough and so jhave I so I will leave you with the evdience and you can continue to investigate. Perhaps we can discuss it l;ater when we have time to process everything. But at present we are just going in circles.

 

[stevevw]

'Common sense' is the worst phrase to use since there is no such thing as common sense.

What, how can you say that. Its common sense to acknowledge theres common sense lol.

If there was, this thread and the entire crux of the argument, that people are arguing against your claim that the Egyptians had more advanced technology than we know, wouldn't exist, now would it?

It has been a common theme with Egyptian discoveries that we have acknowledged they were more tech savy than we thought. When King Tuts tomb was discovered there was amazement at the Egyptian skill and knowledge. When they dicovered the many precision vases under the Step Pyramid there was amazement.

Theres been a continual acknowledgement of the elevel of skill and knowledge of the Egyptians and anyone who denies this is living on another planet.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What, how can you say that. Its common sense to acknowledge theres common sense lol.

It has been a common theme with Egyptian discoveries that we have acknowledged they were more tech savy than we thought. When King Tuts tomb was discovered there was amazement at the Egyptian skill and knowledge. When they dicovered the many precision vases under the Step Pyramid there was amazement.

Theres been a continual acknowledgement of the elevel of skill and knowledge of the Egyptians and anyone who denies this is living on another planet.

So what does your common sense say about using having evidence that people CAN lift multi-tonne pieces of stone easily and with rudimentary, historically accurate tools and knowledge. like in the video that @SelfSim link to and I shall link now?

 

[stevevw]

Whenever @stevevw brings up "facts" treat it with caution.
One of the oldest mummies found was of the 5th dynasty pharaoh Djedkare Isesi found in his pyramid at South Saqqara.

Expanding the search reveals bits and pieces of what are assumed to be of pharaohs who were subject to the predations of tomb robbers have been found in various pyramids.

View attachment 358310
​

Construction of pyramids commenced in the 3rd dynasty and ended with the first pharaoh of the 18th dynasty spanning 2670 BCE – 1550 BCE.

I am talking about the great pyramid builders from the Old Kingdom period from the 3rd and 4th dynasties. The Mega pyramids, the ones we all recognise the Egyptians by.

This lasted around 200 years beginning around 2686BCE with Djoser who built the Stepped pyramid. But this is not really regarded as a pyramid but more a Mastaba which were built before the pyramids. This is where we find around 40,000 of the precision vases under the pyramid and the massive precision granite box in the granite burial chamber. These represent a big jump from the mud works and pottery we find beforehand.

Sneferu who ruled between 2613BCE to 2589BCE was really the first to build the great pyramids beginning with the great pyramid of Meidum. He also built the Bent and Red pyramids. So he built 3 of the mega pyramids within 3 or 4 decades as his dates are not specifically known. There are questions as to whether he did build them all. If these were tombs why would one pharoah need 3 pyramids.

Then came Khufu his son. He was suppose to have built the great pyramid of Giza in around 25 years. Its estimated that to achieve just the pyramid would take cutting, transporting and laying 3 ton blocks on average every 5 minutes 24 hours a day for 25 years.

Djedefre, Khufu son built the great pit and possibly a pyramid at Abu Rawash. Khafre was Djedefre brother and he built the 2nd pyramid which is slightly smaller than the great Giza pyramid. Khafre son Menkaure was suppose to have built the 3rd great pyramid which ended around 2510BCE.

After this theres no more great pyramids. Other pyramids are built but nothing comes close to the great megalithic pyramids. According to mainstream Egyptologists these were the first 7 pyramids built and yet are the greatest ever built.

So really if you don't count Djoser and from Sneferu around 2613BCE to the end of Menkaure in 2510BCE we are only talking about 100 years of great pyramid building and all the megaliths, temples and underground chambers, tombs, the Sphinx, all the basalt paving as well as the precision pottery, boxes and statiues in around 100 years.

Then it all more or less stops and we see the less quality works come along. It was an astonishing short time for producing such high quality and megalitic works.

 

[stevevw]

So what does your common sense say about using having evidence that people CAN lift multi-tonne pieces of stone easily and with rudimentary, historically accurate tools and knowledge. like in the video that @SelfSim link to and I shall link now?

Like I said these are small fry. Good effort and its amazing what we can do. But we are talking 1,000 to 2,000 or even more ton mega blocks not 20 ton blocks. Put it this way it would take 100 of those blocks he is moving into one massive block.

He is moving it a few metres. We are talking over 100 miles and up hills. In Perus 500 ton blocks were moved up mountains.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Like I said these are small fry. Good effort and its amazing what we can do. But we are talking 1,000 to 2,000 or even more ton mega blocks not 20 ton blocks. Put it this way it would take 100 of those blocks he is moving into one massive block.

So you don't know about scaling up things in engineering then? Or extrapolating?

Shocking...

 

[stevevw]

So you don't know about scaling up things in engineering then? Or extrapolating?

Shocking...

Maybe they did or maybe their didn't. I don't know and am not going to spectulate like you. You complain that I am proposing things that seem beyond the capabilities of the Egyptians. Well what your proposing seems beyond the capabilities.

There is no evdience of any equipment to scale up. It would have to be mega equipment itself so not to break. But nothing is found. He uses a wheel which is an integral part of being able to do what he does. Yet the wheel was not invented back then.

They would have to use hemp rope and yet we see steel cables snap on trying to life only 50 ton blocks let alone hemp rope on 1,000 plus ton blocks which would not stand the stress. Wooden levers would snap and sleds would be crushed.

Sp you tell me how could they have done this. Show me the evdience of the equipment used to achieve this. Like you said if we have no evdience of advanced tech then we can't say there was advanced tech. Likewise eif we have no evdience of how they did it with primitive methods then there is no evdience.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Maybe they did or maybe their didn't. I don't know and am not going to spectulate like you. You complain that I am proposing things that seem beyond the capabilities of the Egyptians. Well what your proposing seems beyond the capabilities.

There is no evdience of any equipment to scale up. It would have to be mega equipment itself so not to break. But nothing is found. He uses a wheel which is an integral part of being able to do what he does. Yet the wheel was not invented back then.

They would have to use hemp rope and yet we see steel cables snap on trying to life only 50 ton blocks let alone hemp rope on 1,000 plus ton blocks which would not stand the stress. Wooden levers would snap and sleds would be crushed.

Sp you tell me how could they have done this. Show me the evdience of the equipment used to achieve this. Like you said if we have no evdience of advanced tech then we can't say there was advanced tech. Likewise eif we have no evdience of how they did it with primitive methods then there is no evdience.

But we DO have evidence of the primitive methods. I showed you examples of such in post #35, but you just flat out chose to ignore because of your inability to even conceive that they could have done it that way.

Because that's all your have: a massive incredulity complex about this topic. You can't conceive that they did it, so to you there was no way they could have done it that way.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Never said anything about within the entire human context. But I think its a great achievement in that conext as well when you consider humans were suppose to still be hunters and gatherers up to 6,000 years ago when Mesamotopia came on the scene. Most of these pyramids and megaliths were made up to 6,000 years ago maybe even earlier.

We were talking about pyramids. The major pyramid building period is about 150 years (from Djoser's pyramid to the last of the main pyramids on the Giza plateau. (And all of that is around 3600 years ago or so, not more than 6000.)

The point was that it was within this short period at the beginning that all these great works, precision vases, boxes and statues and megaliths such as the pyramids and temples were built. Then it more or less stopped and nothing has matched it afterwards. In fact the later Egyptians tried to emmulate these works but never could.

The pyramids are in a relatively short period (a few generations), but the rest of the stuff you mentioned is all over the place in age and not related. Those "precision stone vases" you like to talk about from the early/pre dynastic period are 500 or more years older than the pyramids.

Usually its the other way around. We see rough and basic works gradually evolve into more complex and quality works. Like machining now compared to the later 1800's and early 1900s with the industrial revolution.

Until a technology supplants the old one or something goes out of fashion. Pyramids went out of fashion, so the technology for building them was lost.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Moreover, the consequence is delightful, the ancient Egyptians were clearly not the beneficiaries of Stargate goa' uld knowhow

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well OP was about core drills and Petries core in particular. But it seems to have expanded on that which I guess is natural as it relates to all tech. If we see advanced tech in other works then this bolsters the arguement that drill cores may involve tech beyond what we thought as well.

Yes it was, and perhaps it should be again about "core 7". It stayed that way (despite your stone-meltiing post in #24) until #34 when for some unknown reason you post was about moving large blocks. This still wasn't too badly off topic until I wrote a "meta" post about the comments about other posts you were making including a claim about "woo" that was referencing a post I made in a different, but related thread. Perhaps this was a mistake, because afterward your response included a lengthy section about saw cuts that no one had been discussing. It went down hill from there.

No sure what you mean.

Other stone cutting = not core drilling.

No I don't mind. But I was talking specifically about core number 7 as the poster was complaining about using Petrie all the time. The only item I have used Petrie on is drill core number 7.

Given how readily you flit between topics in your posts, it is difficult to keep track of everything you said and what sub-side topic it refers to. I am willing to accept that you think you have only used Petrie as an authority on core 7.

I wasn't the the only one who went into other works besides drill cores. In fact someone else expanded the thread into other artifacts besides drill cores.

That would be you.

I am not the one responsible so I don't know why your singling me out. Your jumping into other peoples discussions again without understanding the context. I was specifically talking about drill cores and Petrie for that one conversation.

See above. (To repeat, my first post here was in response your complaint about "woo" from a post I wrote in A DIFFERENT THREAD. I was trying to diffuse things, but that did not work.)

By the way if it was the wrong thread Petrie would be completely relevant because he is about the only egyptologist to have studied drill cores and has a drill core named after him.

We are not talking about al;ternative tech. We are just assessing the signatures in the stones as to what may have caused them. Whether the tools in the records that are claimed to have created them is valid or not.

I was trying to point out what might be called the "creationist's fallacy". It is common for creationists to work hard to tear down evolution thinking that if the succeed, the creation must be true. So, for whatever hypothesis from Egyptologists you wish to supplant (or Dunn want's to supplant, or whomever elese), the replacement needs to be demonstrated to provide a better explanation of the evidence.

So what is the actual claim being made as a replacement for the drilling of cores like Petrie's core #7?

Theres two claims here we can investigate. One is whether the tools on record created the signatures. The other is to the spectulate what may have created the signatures if not the tools in the records.

As far as the small saws in the records at least for some signatures they are inadequate.

As far as speculating on what could have created the signatures they tell us some sort of machining was involved. It may not have actually been a mac hine but the signatures are what a machine would create when compared to other machining signatures we know of from the signatures we see in the works we have created.

You do know the difference between a hand saw cut and a machine cut don't you. The first question would be 'is there a difference between a hand saw cut and a machine cut'. If so what are those differences. The you can look for the signatures.

In parallel, the terminology is getting a bit fuzzy. My circular saw is a hand held tool and guided by my hand and eye, but it is powered by an electric motor. My mitre box uses a hand saw to make cuts that are guided by the fixed angle of the saw to the wood. When you make these claims about ancient Egyptian technology what exactly do you think the main stream archeologists think was being used, what do *you* think was being used. Start with core 7 and for now maybe leave it that way.

 

[SelfSim]

Here's a really good ~3 minute summary of the illogical argument of Precisionism (attempted by @stevevw):

BAD SCIENCE: You Can't Identify a Civilization by Measuring an Artifact:​

It covers just about every point made throughout the threads on this topic thus far and makes the point that precision artistry is not so much about the tool .. but about the human hand that wielded it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It covers just about every point made throughout the threads on this topic thus far and makes the point that precision artistry is not so much about the tool .. but about the human hand that wielded it.

The horrible thing is that that comment alone by itself should spell the end of the commentary... but sadly, it will not.

 

[SelfSim]

The horrible thing is that that comment alone by itself should spell the end of the commentary... but sadly, it will not.

Still, the theme of 'Precisionism' explains the incoherency of @stevevw's argument this far.
It may be more productive to tackle that, rather than the facade of Petrie's one-off core #7.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Here's a really good ~3 minute summary of the illogical argument of Precisionism (attempted by @stevevw):

BAD SCIENCE: You Can't Identify a Civilization by Measuring an Artifact:​

It covers just about every point made throughout the threads on this topic thus far and makes the point that precision artistry is not so much about the tool .. but about the human hand that wielded it.

This is another good channel for archeology videos.

 

[sjastro]

Right here in the other thread on Ripples #876. Your exact words were

Sjastro said "Here is an example of granite cutting and drilling using copper and sand" and then linked Stocks experiment.

So one time your claiming its an uncut copper pipe with sand and a bow, the next its a pipe with a flywheel, then the next its a cut pipe with corrundum and a machine doing the drilling. This is inconsistant methods and results and not science.

But each time I showed you were wrong. You also provide mistakes and false claims but I don't call you names. Its unnecessary even if you think the other person is wrong or deluded. Often we end up regretting things when we jump the gun like that. I just showed you above the mistake you made and I am not calling you names.

But the 2010 image is created by a split pipe and a machine and completely different to most other tests using a hand held bow or flywheel and an uncut pipe. Can you see the problem here. Its inconsistent and the Egyptians certainly did not use a machine.

There you go again. You say its babbling because I caught your misrepresentation. Don't shot the messager lol. Its not babbling to simply point out facts. You making it personal only shows you are the one having problems with the facts.

This is just plain and outright denial and bias. Any scientists will tell you that replication is the name of the game. doing the tests exactly how they were done originally. Any variation introduces variables that not only will skew results but invalidate the entire evidence as anyone can then refute this by citing misprepresentation of the methods.

The other issue is that we were talking about how the Egyptians drilled these holes with the current tools in the records and you implied that either a bow or flywheel was used. That you did not acknowledge that a machine was used or provide a link is a problem and not good science.

Your misrepresenting Dunn again. Its not the pitch but the spiral in the pitch that cause Dunn and Petrie to spectualte the fast feed rate. Perhaps its best to actually quote Dunn.

Petrie described an artifact with marks of a drilling process that left a spiral groove in granite that indicated that the drill sank into the granite at .100 inch per revolution of the drill.

The most startling feature of the granite core Petrie describes is the spiral groove around the core indicating a feed rate of 0.100 inches per revolution of the drill.

So not the pitch but the spiral which was causing Dunn to spectulate such a fasr=t feed rate. Because say 4 rotations of the drill that leaves a horizontal pitch will not cut as deep as 4 rotations with a spiral cut and pitch.

Thats because Dunn was not using the pitch but the spiral incline of the cut just as Petrie was. Look at how each spiral pitch lands lower down the core than a horizontal one.

Its nearly and entire pitch lower if you notice the bottom line of the first horizontal pitch is level with the top of the top of the second spiral pitch. So for even rotation of a horizontal pitch a spiral pitch will cut into the granite nearly double the horizontal pitch.

That means each rotation is cutting deeper and thats where they are getting the feed rate from. It will only take nearly half the rotations with a spiral cut compared to a horizontal cut

View attachment 358329


Please refer to above. Your now saying Petrie and Dunn don't know what they are talking about and to be honest I would rather believe Petrie and Dunn than someone on a public thread I hardly know at this point in time.

So does a spiral pitch show the cut went deeper or the same as a horizontal pitch.

Well it seems I have to go to such lengths because you keep refusing to acknowledge this important point.

But that wasn't what Dunn was showing. He was talking about the spiralling of the pitch that he determined the feed rate as stated above.

Then why did the core from the split tube leave such uniform horizonal light surface lines while the unsplit copper tube did not.

But your method is a red herring. It seems its myselof and Dunn which have to keep repeating what he actually said caused the fast feed rate.

The most startling feature of the granite core Petrie describes is the spiral groove around the core indicating a feed rate of 0.100 inches per revolution of the drill.

It was this feed rate he used to determine it was faster than modern drills.

Cannot see what the problem is. These were tests and one was done with corrundum and a copper tube. The latext molds do not change the results and its magnified and is nothing like your example.

But remember I provided other examples done with corrundum and a copper tube even from the same Russian scientists and they also look nothing like your examkple. Here they are again.

View attachment 358332
Done with corrundum and flywheel copper tube drill. No lines or very little lines and mostly abrased smooth.

View attachment 358333
Done with corrundum and a split copper flywheel tube. Some lines but very patchy with large areas having no lines at all.

View attachment 358334

Done with corrundum and copper tube. Under magnification shows not deep lines or cuts like Petries core number 7. Only light stratches with light strirations which would be hard to see without magnification.

View attachment 358337

From the same scientists who did your example which is Scientists against myths. Done with corrundum and a flywheel copper tube drill.

View attachment 358339
Dunns test using corrundum and there are once again few lines and mostly abrased smooth.

That image which is also above is from the same experimenters who did your drill core except this is a seperate experiment. I think you or someone on your side linked this experiment. The core is at the 14,27 minute mark.

There are hardly any lines on the core and that is where we want the lines not on the sides. It would make sense that the lines appear on the walls as the copper tube is wobbling mostly against the outside of the walls. Those lines are not caused by the abrasion. If they were then they would also appear on the core as abrasion will be on the core.

Here is a pic of the walls of the core from the other tests the scientists did with the core you asked where it was from. Once again completely different and yet it used corrundum and a copper pipe.

View attachment 358338
As you can see hardly any lines and very smooth. The inconsistencies are too much to be good science in all these tests.

Its not playing the victim car your side is engaging in persanl jibesd and attacks full stop. I have treated you with respect and not personally insulted you. Calling me stupid and nothing is insulting fullstop and that you make out its playing the victim card is just doubling down and not even acknowledging this.

There is no deception. I linked the evdience in black and white. Whereas you did not tell me the core you linked was done with a machine when you implied it was done by hand as that was the whole point of copying the Egyptains.

I have done nothing wrong to be scared to be caught out on.

Another misrepresentation. Show me where I said as you put it "absolutely no evidence of copper being used in drilling holes in granite" Go on show me. Otherwise stop misrepresenting me as you have been doing all through these threads.

But you are right the search function is good for catching people out.

Here is evidence that I have not claimed that I have not claimed "absolutely no evidence of copper being used in drilling holes in granite"

Post #8 I posted evidence supporting Petries finding that a fixed point diamond or currundum graver embedded in a copper tube or rod may have been used.

Maybe points made from hard minerals like corundum, microcrystalline varieties of quartz or other gemstones could be embedded in another material like copper or wood and used as a graver.

Post #74 Is consistent with post 8 which was at the beginning of this thread.
The copper tubes had fixed cutting points so of course there will be copper. The copper tube was the tool as there was no other metal to use as the drill. But as the evidence shows there must have been fixed cutting points embedded in the copper that could penetrate deep and cut through quartz as easily as feldspar.

Lol I just showed you are wrong and I have not said what you claim. You continue to make these personal and absolute claims and statements and I keep showing you are wrong.

I am taling about the inconsistencies between all the tests. We have some lines on inside walls and some without using the same methods, we have different methods creat\ing different results. We have mostly no lines and large abrased areas with no lines. Its all over the place. Its not good science.

You started off with Stocks experiement using a completely different abrasions and methods and results and you have been trying to fit the results by searching for all sorts of experiments. Its not good science.

Surely you can admit that. Good science is when we can replicate the findings over and over with the same method. THis has not been done and in fact the opposite has happened as some of the experiements used exactly what your example pics from 2010 and 2016 experiments but produce completely different results. Its not good science.

At least 4 of the independent results above all using corrundum and a copper pipe and flywheel all showed there were hardly any lines and were nothing like your example. So thats good science as its repreated findings that are the same, using the same method.

Anyway I know you hyave had enough and so jhave I so I will leave you with the evdience and you can continue to investigate. Perhaps we can discuss it l;ater when we have time to process everything. But at present we are just going in circles.

(1) Stocks was not even mentioned in this thread and the Russian experiments were used as the baseline for comparison confirming your dishonesty or living in some alternate universe divorced from reality.

(2) For all your babbling and bluster about procedures not being consistent, playing the victim card, keep showing how I am wrong etc, is nothing more than a diversion because this thread has achieved its objective of showing Dunn is wrong.
What you continually ignore is the 2010 experiment which was analysed and using Dunn's methodology of a near constant pitch reveals the feed rate per revolution is way above anything modern drilling into granite can deliver.
The Russians also provided actual data on drilling speed in mm/hr and RPM to further confirm Dunn's method is rubbish.

(3) Don't try to be technical in defending Dunn because you make yourself look like a fool.
In this latest installment you claim Dunn (and Petrie) are not referring to pitch, yet both claim the feed rate per revolution is 0.1mm.
Yet again it needs to be pointed out feed rate per revolution is pitch, so not only do you misrepresent posters but the very individuals you think are unquestionably correct.

(4) So you have always advocated copper was used by the Egyptians when drilling into granite.

The reason I have used a screenshot is to make sure there is no tampering of posts, an issue incidentally I have taken up with the moderators.

 

[stevevw]

But we DO have evidence of the primitive methods. I showed you examples of such in post #35, but you just flat out chose to ignore because of your inability to even conceive that they could have done it that way.

How can you say I ignored this when I responded. Its more like you ignored my response. I said and even you acknowledge this that the depiction is a modern one just like today when we make pictures of how we thought the Egyptians may have moved things. Its not the Egytians themselves making this memorial so its not evidence. Its rather later people making the depctions.

Because that's all your have: a massive incredulity complex about this topic. You can't conceive that they did it, so to you there was no way they could have done it that way.

No I can't concieve how a 2 foot saw can cut a 10 foot granite box as flat and sharp as a machine. Its just impossible nd anyone who imagines they can are the ones in spectulating without evidence.

I have ask this before of you. Stop and think and explain to me how a small saw could cut such large precision cuts that look machines.

Egyptian wall painting and a image of Egyptian saws from Museum.

x.com

x.com

Abu Ghorab Unexplained Tool Marks Tour - techzelle

Abu Ghorab, near Abu Sir is closed to the public. By special permission, we were toured this site which is loaded with ancient tool marks. It's one of my

techzelle.com

These large flat and machine like finishes are from Egyptian sites. The bottom one is in basalt and is a leftover at Abu Ghorab
of a paver being cut out of the block to make pavers that suuround places like the pyramid of Giza.

The top one is from Abu Rawash and has what looks like a router or planer step that cuts in and come back out in the middle of the granite. The whole piece is also cut with a curved surface. How does a small saw cut a curved surface. Even a large saw can't as hand saws are only mean't to cut straight.

So for once rather than hand wave explain to me how a 2 or 3 foot saw could produce such signatures. For example did they cut it bit by bit making smaller cuts until they eventually cut the whole piece. This would leave uneven cuts all over the surface. So did they come back and then grind out these uneven bits and smooth it off.

I don't know but this is one of the anomelies that needs to be answered rather than ignored if you want to convince people that existing tools made these signatures. Otherwise your just going off blind faith.

 

[stevevw]

Here's a really good ~3 minute summary of the illogical argument of Precisionism (attempted by @stevevw):

BAD SCIENCE: You Can't Identify a Civilization by Measuring an Artifact:​

It covers just about every point made throughout the threads on this topic thus far and makes the point that precision artistry is not so much about the tool .. but about the human hand that wielded it.

The Bad science video is full of logical fallacies itself. First its creating a false analogy. The advanced tech arguement is not just from precision but from the signatures in the rocks and the inability for example of a 2 foot saw to cut a 10 foot slab. Or a 20 foot wood sled to carry a 1,000 ton mega block.

Next he makes the false analogy that the objections are based on the primitive tool and not the person operating the tool. He says quote "a tool no matter how advanced is only as good as the person operating it.

As he says give a sophisticated tool to a child and they will produce rubbish. This is just illogical because what if we give the sophisticated tool to a craftsman. The craftsman with the sophisticated tool will do better than with an inadequate tool.

Everyone knows a workman is only as good as his tools is a common known principle in any craft. A worker with a machine or proper tool for the job will produce a better finish than someone with a rock pounder or tool grossly inadequate for the job.

He is saying that a diamond tipped circular saw is not better than a 2 foot hand saw. It will make no difference and the hand saw can produce the same results as a machine designed to cut precision. Thats just illogical and false.

The commentator says its only an assumption that advanced tools were used and yet overlooks the massive assumptions that a small saw or rock hammer could produce the precision and large cuts by the existing tools in the records.

He then makes the false claims its an arguement from authority and yet this whole arguement from the skeptics is based on an arguement from authority by the constant ad hominemns against anyone who claims advanced tech and knowledge. We hear that true experts like archeologists know better or that Dunn is not an egyptologists ect ect etc. All arguements from authority.

The commentator is making a strawman. No one is saying the evidence is simply the result of the authority of the expert. Its also based on a number of other factors like the signatures in the rocks which question the status quo which has not been answered.

He says that this ignores the accumulated knowledge of how we could create super flatness and other geometric shapes with circles and arcs. Yet we see the evdience for highly flat surfaces and complex geometry in pieces 5 to 6,000 years ago well before we developed the knowledge for this.

He appeals to the wheel being the tool for creating these perfect round 3D objects and says the faster the object spins the more accurate the cut will be. Yet the wheel was not invented 5 or 6,000 years ago. If he wants to claim that people 5,000 years ago had a fast spinning turning wheel then fine because thats advanced tech for that period.

Then he makes the false claim that these precision works and megaliths were assumed to be made for no apparent reason. We have evdience that they were made for religious and ceremonial reasons. Like the great cathedrals they are made with dedication because of their gods and beliefs. What better motivation to create a works that is so perfect or large than for the gods.

The whole video is one big logical fallacy.