Where are the current ripples from Noah's Flood?

[BCP1928]

I think thats a misrepresentation. When you make your claims or objections I go and research. I check things. I don't just say it off the top of my head. I think its an appeal to authority to say that the only person who can comment is an expert on this thread. Otherwise we would have 2 people debating.

People have brains and eyes and they can research. They can get to know what a stone mason thinks. I put all that together and then reason out the arguement. Yes in some ways I learn as I go. But you can't use an appeal to authority to dismiss everything or because someone disagrees.

Yes, I can appeal to authority--my own. I can, and have, made metal objects to within 0.0001" with a 4 micron finish using only hand tools and it is not considered a remarkable accomplishment. Even an apprentice in my trade is expected to work within 0.001" with hand tools. Do you know how we do that?

You mention watches. Watches and other clockwork mechanisms of great precision were made with hand tools long before the advent of modern machine tools, all the way back to the Anklethyra Mechanism in the first century BC. The Anklythera Mechanism reflects an astonishing sophistication in mathematics and astronomy but construction of the mechanism itself is well within the capacity of hand tools and techniques known to be in use for centuries before that.

I don't think you know what you are talking about and I don't think you even understand the "experts" you are quoting.

 

[sjastro]

Another logical fallacy. I am not using UnchartedX as my evidence base. I am using the evidence that they refer to which is scientific testing.

What a stupid remark.

I also have not just accepted this without question. I have stated that I just don't know at the moment. Some evidence brings into question methodology and its right to take this into consideration and not dismiss it as you and others have done.

In fact its really the other way around. I have emphasized being open to all evidence. But it seems by some making out that any evidence that even suggests advanced tech or question the traditional beliefs is immediately shot down as fantasy. So I think its more that hyper skeptics are the ones claiming they are right without question.

First you have to compare like for like. It may be that if the ancient Egyptians choose to make such a thing as your example that they would also do the same if they had the tools.

Second these works are up to 5,000 years old so of course they are going to look worn and have degrading over the years. But I am sure they looked a lot shinnier and new when first made.

You say the opening of the vase is not sharp whatever that means. But the opening is near perfect in all orientations. In fact some vases are so close to perfect in their circumference they may as well be perfect. By the way the handles are set forward but the reference points are exactly the same to all points on each side and to each other.

As far as thinness some vases are as thin as paper and light shines through them. Look at this strange granite vase as far as bends and thinness.

View attachment 357395

Maybe, mabe not. The evidence is inconclusive. As mentioned not a trace of copper has been found in some of the vases they tested for mentals. If they used copper tools then you would think there would be traces embedded in the granite at the micron level. But interestingly they found titanium.

Actually the pyramids were built with mud bricks and then covered with blocks. Its just that Ramese the 2nd took them all to rebuild.

As you can see the scattered blocks left after they were taken. More have probably been taken over the years.

View attachment 357375

I am not saying that theres a neat straight line between the precision works and then less quality works. They may have happened at the same time depending on what was worked and for what reasons.

But the level of precision and works was around early and seemed to dwindle out. It wasn't the other way around how the traditional story goes of rough and rudimentary works gradually evolving into amazing and perfect works. There was a period of very high quality and megalithic works that disappeared Thats the intriguing thing.

By the way if you look at some of the statues and Sarcophagus from the early period you will see some of the shine still there. Plus it may not have been that some vases were polished.

Another consideration is that the statues and vases were made by to precision by a certain process and the finished product was then left to another group to polish which makes sense.

View attachment 357374

The rest of your post is pure denial and littered with inaccuracies.

(1) The reason why predynastic vases look duller compared to modern carved and polished granite is the surface roughness is far greater.
(Rₐ = 10 – 50μm compared to 0.1 – 5μm for modern granite polishing.)

(2) You are confusing diameter with circumference and clearly do not comprehend what your so called experts were measuring.
They were measuring the outer lip or outer diameter for eccentricity, if they measured the inner diameter or aperture they would get a far different result as the image of the vase clearly shows the edge of the inside lip is not sharp.

(3) Sorry to rain on your parade but yes copper has been found in granite works using SEM (Scanning electron microscope).

In studies examining Egyptian stonework, SEM has been used to analyze the marks on stone surfaces, such as those found on granite, to identify traces of copper tools. These SEM analyses reveal the wear patterns on the stone that are consistent with copper tools working in combination with abrasives like quartz sand. For example, SEM images show microscopic abrasions that align with the use of copper saws and tubular drills, supporting the idea that these tools were employed effectively in creating precise holes and cuts in hard stone

The use of copper tools on artifacts like the granite sarcophagus found in the Great Pyramid's King's Chamber through SEM and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS), researchers have identified traces of copper corrosion and residue on these stone surfaces. The fine, even marks left by these tools suggest that they were able to carve granite at a remarkably efficient rate, which would have required both skill and advanced understanding of materials and abrasives.

(4) The Egyptians only started to use mudbrick in pyramid cores by the 12th dynasty reflecting the decline in pyramid building, before this they used limestone.

(5) Using a 4th dynasty statue image of Chephren only serves to illustrate predynastic vases were archaic by comparison.
The reason why Chephren's statue is considerably smoother is by this time the Egyptians were using much finer abrasives such as emery and corundum which they imported and also reflects the further development of artistic skills.

 

[sjastro]

Show me exactly where I said this. I have done no such thing.

I have responded to posters. I have responded to your posts. I made reasoned arguements why your assumptions and conclusions were not necessarily what you claimed. How is that disrespect. I have not personally derided anyone with such language as I must have comprehension problems or am ignorant, stupid, a spin doctor and engaging in fantasy.

Presenting the evidence and questioning the status quo is not being disrespectful. Its actually part of finding the facts and truth. I have had pushback just for simply suggesting such things. That to me suggests its more than just evidence but a personal thing because it should not upset people that much.

I honestly don't care either way what the end results show. But I am not going to pretend something is not there when it is and many people think the same. We have two sides with different beliefs about the evidence so we have to go through the evidence to work out who is right.

OK such as what. Here is my situation. I can read and look at the evidence. So I have on one side experts saying the signatures in the rocks don't match the tools found. They have tests and analysis which question the method of tools found. I see with my own eyes that the tools don't match the end results and most people agree.

But on the other side people just go along. Oh that must be the way they did it because they are the tools we found. No questions ask and just assumptions. I look at their evidence and though some impressive they still don't account for the results. I have some people attacking me personally for mentioning this who claim I am all wrong and its fantasy.

So what am I to do. Pretend that the evidence is see before my eyes is wrong. See I agree expert opinion is important especially looking back at these ancient works. But everyone is a scientist in a way. We can observe things with our own eyes, touch them and measure them. I can see that the tools said to have made these works is inadequate. I don't need an expert to tell me that.

What is the fatal flaw in their reasoning. Lets get down to it. Reasoning is good.

No I have not preached but reason. Its just my reasoning has become greater to explain and overcome the many logical fallacies thrown my way. Someone said on this issue that sooner or later you begin to realise theres no arguing with skeptics. They have a set worldview that history must follow a certain narrative and won't be open.

As I mentioned I am open to all the evidence. You presented your modern works example and while impressive is not going to win me over and nor should it. I explained why it doesn't work. THis is all part of sorting the facts and truth. We may never find the truth satisfactory to either of us. BUt we have to go through the process and cannot just dismiss things and deny them.

Initially you state this.

"I have responded to posters. I have responded to your posts. I made reasoned arguements why your assumptions and conclusions were not necessarily what you claimed. How is that disrespect. I have not personally derided anyone with such language as I must have comprehension problems or am ignorant, stupid, a spin doctor and engaging in fantasy."

A few pargraphs later.

"What is the fatal flaw in their reasoning. Lets get down to it. Reasoning is good."

I rest my case, if you didn't have a lack of comprehension skills or didn't utilize the written equivalent of shooting your mouth off with irrelevancies which is a sign of disrespect, you would have noted the reason why Dunn's reasoning is flawed.
As an exercise I want you to find where I made this reference.

The rest of your post is the same tired old arguments particular with regards to evidence which you don't seem to be able to grasp despite the efforts of posters to set you straight.

 

[sjastro]

Here is more evidence that @stevevw can hand wave away when he is in denial mode.
A partially drilled hole in a piece of limestone found at the temple of Aten from the 18th dynasty with not only copper corrosion products but an actual broken copper tube drill and abrasives inside.

​

"This fragment has several vestiges of what resemble drill holes, cut at slightly different angles. The main drill hole is about one centimeter wide and has a protruding stump at the bottom left by a broken drill core. Lightly consolidated material, the possible remains of an ancient abrasive powder, is deposited around the stump. To the naked eye, it consists of a fine-grained, whitish powder speckled with dark, slightly coarser grains. The whole material is stained light green (fig. 3).

Scientific analysis, using scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM-EDS), identified the material as a mixture of predominant angular grains of corundum (aluminum oxide, Al2O3) with jagged edges and a few other minerals such as quartz, rutile, feldspar, apatite, ilmenite, augite, biotite, and chromite, usually smaller in size and with high angularity (figs. 4–5). Very fine particles of calcite surround the bigger particles, which are most likely remains of the indurated limestone that had been drilled. Several particles of corroded bronze and green copper corrosion products are intimately dispersed among the above-mentioned particles, imparting the light green color."

​

 

[stevevw]

But there is no other evidence to consider. All it is claims from you and so-called experts who you even misrepresent and bad post-hoc logic from you.

You have presented nothing so there is nothing to consider.

But I just listed 3 issues that bring into question that the tools found are responsible for the results and you just dismissed it out of hand. How can anyone ever present evidencee if you don't even look at it. If this was a court you would be thrown out for not allowing the opposition to present their evidence.

And even if they do bring into question, which they don't, until any evidence for the supposedly advanced tools is presented, then the current methods are still the most likely and most accurate methods used.

But they do bring into question current methods. For example no traces of copper were found in the vase at the micron level. If copper chisels were used there would be traces of copper. So this brings into question the copper chisels that were said to be used.

The scans show the vases may have been turned. This suggests some tool that can turn the vases and additional tech besides the tools found.

Thats just two issues and you claim that there is no evidence but there is. You don't even mention this like your too reluctant to even go there and discuss this.

The only questionable assumption here is yours, which cannot be backed up anything despite what you think. You have presented nothing, therefore there is nothing to consider.

You keep saying that but I think those observing know I have presented at least some evidence that needs to be considered and not dismissed. I can show you exactly how you have ignored these issues by the fact you have not said one word about them Anyone knows if we are being honest and reasonable that any good researcher will discuss all the issues and not avoid them which you are doing.

Again: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Until you present it, then there is nothing more to discuss.

Thats already been provided through electron microscopes. tests for metals, light scans which I have presented the results. Explain to me how these are irrelevant and don't bring into question the methods of producing the vases.

 

[stevevw]

Initially you state this.

"I have responded to posters. I have responded to your posts. I made reasoned arguements why your assumptions and conclusions were not necessarily what you claimed. How is that disrespect. I have not personally derided anyone with such language as I must have comprehension problems or am ignorant, stupid, a spin doctor and engaging in fantasy."

A few pargraphs later.

"What is the fatal flaw in their reasoning. Lets get down to it. Reasoning is good."

I rest my case, if you didn't have a lack of comprehension skills or didn't utilize the written equivalent of shooting your mouth off with irrelevancies which is a sign of disrespect, you would have noted the reason why Dunn's reasoning is flawed.
As an exercise I want you to find where I made this reference.

The rest of your post is the same tired old arguments particular with regards to evidence which you don't seem to be able to grasp despite the efforts of posters to set you straight.

I fail to see a problem here. I explained I have given reasoned arguements with evidence as to why the claims made are not what you or others claim. I then responed to the other poster who said my arguement had fatal floors. So I asked what are the fatal floors and lets reason them.

That is consistent with what I have said. If the posters thinks there are fatal floors then lets reason them out.

 

[stevevw]

Here is more evidence that @stevevw can hand wave away when he is in denial mode.
A partially drilled hole in a piece of limestone found at the temple of Aten from the 18th dynasty with not only copper corrosion products but an actual broken copper tube drill and abrasives inside.

View attachment 357425

View attachment 357426
​

"This fragment has several vestiges of what resemble drill holes, cut at slightly different angles. The main drill hole is about one centimeter wide and has a protruding stump at the bottom left by a broken drill core. Lightly consolidated material, the possible remains of an ancient abrasive powder, is deposited around the stump. To the naked eye, it consists of a fine-grained, whitish powder speckled with dark, slightly coarser grains. The whole material is stained light green (fig. 3).

Scientific analysis, using scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM-EDS), identified the material as a mixture of predominant angular grains of corundum (aluminum oxide, Al2O3) with jagged edges and a few other minerals such as quartz, rutile, feldspar, apatite, ilmenite, augite, biotite, and chromite, usually smaller in size and with high angularity (figs. 4–5). Very fine particles of calcite surround the bigger particles, which are most likely remains of the indurated limestone that had been drilled. Several particles of corroded bronze and green copper corrosion products are intimately dispersed among the above-mentioned particles, imparting the light green color."

​

Ok have you got the original paper or article. This is good and its all part of the evidence. But if this is evidence then you will have to acknowledge the evidence that has found no copper traces on the vase tested. You will have to acknowledge the scans showing the vases may have been turned.

You will also have to acknowledge that the cut marks on core no 7 are spiral meaning we can measure the feed rate and its well beyond what a copper pipe can achieve. Petrie talks about a copper pipe or rod with a fixed cutting point like a diamond cutter.

So it may be copper was still used as the plunger but it was a different cutting method to just a copper pipe rubbing on the granite which would be extremely slow.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But I just listed 3 issues that bring into question that the tools found are responsible for the results and you just dismissed it out of hand. How can anyone ever present evidencee if you don't even look at it. If this was a court you would be thrown out for not allowing the opposition to present their evidence.

But we still don't have the tools you claim they used! How do you not understand how important this is as a line of evidence?

But they do bring into question current methods. For example no traces of copper were found in the vase at the micron level. If copper chisels were used there would be traces of copper. So this brings into question the copper chisels that were said to be used.

The scans show the vases may have been turned. This suggests some tool that can turn the vases and additional tech besides the tools found.

Thats just two issues and you claim that there is no evidence but there is. You don't even mention this like your too reluctant to even go there and discuss this.

Even though there were tests with copper tools that showed they could be done with copper tools and that copper was used:

Ancient Egyptian Stone-Drilling An Experimental Perspective on a Scholarly Disagreement​

These guys in the 1980s found that the drill holes could be done with copper tools.

'May have been turned' makes no sense as a complaint against less advanced tools at all. Have you never heard of a turntable before? A potter's wheel?

You keep saying that but I think those observing know I have presented at least some evidence that needs to be considered and not dismissed. I can show you exactly how you have ignored these issues by the fact you have not said one word about them Anyone knows if we are being honest and reasonable that any good researcher will discuss all the issues and not avoid them which you are doing.

Again: until you produce the advanced tools you claim the Egyptians actually used, then there isn't much point considering your claim because there's no hard evidence for it.
We have evidence of the tools that ancient Egyptians used and it's a well recorded and established history. If you or others want to claim they used otherwise, then you need to actually present the tools themselves.

Thats already been provided through electron microscopes. tests for metals, light scans which I have presented the results. Explain to me how these are irrelevant and don't bring into question the methods of producing the vases.

Because you still haven't given us the actual tools!

 

[sjastro]

I fail to see a problem here. I explained I have given reasoned arguements with evidence as to why the claims made are not what you or others claim. I then responed to the other poster who said my arguement had fatal floors. So I asked what are the fatal floors and lets reason them.

That is consistent with what I have said. If the posters thinks there are fatal floors then lets reason them out.

First of all the term is ‘flaws’ not ‘floors”, secondly you have never given any reasoned arguments because you can’t even understand the most basic concepts such a meaning of evidence and thirdly to engage in a reasoned argument requires at the very least paying attention to what is being stated which you are incapable of doing by repeating the same nonsense over and over as if the counterarguments given have never been presented.

Despite this I will go into more detail for the benefit of other posters who might be interested, not you since I know I am wasting my time as to why Dunn’s hypothesis is ‘floored’.

Dunn’s hypothesis is the grooves in Petrie’s No 7 core sample has a helical pattern that advances into the granite at a rate of 0.1 inches per revolution, significantly exceeding the capabilities of modern diamond drills, which achieve a feed rate closer to 0.0002 inches per revolution in granite. He also envisaged a low wearing diamond tipped tool rotating at a constant RPM.

This allows a prediction to be made;

The equation F = P x ω/2π where F is the feed rate, P is the pitch and ω/2π the rotational speed applies.
If F and ω/2π are constant as one would expect from a low wearing tool running at a constant rotational speed then P is constant or very nearly constant if small variations are allowed in the rotational speed and wearing of the tool.

Petrie’s own values contradict this as the pitch is not even very nearly constant.

This is also supported by the left hand image of Petrie’s No 7 core sample provided in a previous post which also indicates the pitch is nowhere near constant.

This leads to the right hand image which is a granite core sample from an experiment using the Egyptian method of manual rotation, a copper tube, sand and water.
It looks similar to the Petrie sample; it has a helical pattern and the variation in pitch is easily explained as a combination of variations in the rotational speed since the equipment is manually operated and the wearing of the copper tube.

The equation F = P x ω/2π is not even an approximation due to the large variations and given the abrasives were not bonded to the copper tube and lubricated with water result in the observed pitch as not being indicative of a large feed rate as evidenced by the experimental sample.

Dunn’s hypothesis of an advanced technology required for drilling granite is debunked as it cannot explain the variation in pitch while the Egyptian method explains all observations and is supported by the evidence of the tools that have been discovered.

 

[sjastro]

Ok have you got the original paper or article. This is good and its all part of the evidence. But if this is evidence then you will have to acknowledge the evidence that has found no copper traces on the vase tested. You will have to acknowledge the scans showing the vases may have been turned.

What has this got to do with vases, are you that desperate to obfuscate the issue?

The surface of a vase is the only area which can be tested for copper and its corrosion products but since surfaces are buffed and polished with abrasives all evidence is erased.
This leaves the inside of the vase but unfortunately XRF (X-ray fluorescence) which I am very familiar with as a scientist has a limited depth of only of a few microns in granite and the only way to test for copper inside is to destroy the vase which is a highly unlikely proposition for priceless objects.
Will you stop with this turning nonsense of the vase, as pointed out in post #975 when the data is examined from two different sources, the surface and dimensional characteristics are nowhere near the level required to be explained by the use of advanced technologies and is simply a media beat up by your scientists.

Anyway here is the link.
Hidden Secrets of Ancient Egyptian Technology - The Metropolitan Museum of Art

You will also have to acknowledge that the cut marks on core no 7 are spiral meaning we can measure the feed rate and its well beyond what a copper pipe can achieve. Petrie talks about a copper pipe or rod with a fixed cutting point like a diamond cutter.

So it may be copper was still used as the plunger but it was a different cutting method to just a copper pipe rubbing on the granite which would be extremely slow.

I don’t have to acknowledge anything you say, this has been explained in my previous post in the debunking of Dunn’s hypothesis.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, I can appeal to authority--my own. I can, and have, made metal objects to within 0.0001" with a 4 micron finish using only hand tools and it is not considered a remarkable accomplishment.

Could you do it with a rock, rubbing and copper saw though. What your forgetting is that this is happening 5,000 years ago lol. That means 5,000 years ago they were matching modern day cuts.

Even an apprentice in my trade is expected to work within 0.001" with hand tools. Do you know how we do that?

I don't know how you would do that. But even cutting a circle freehand is not going to be near perfect within a hair. Let alone a 3D sphere that aligns with 77,000 reference points all within a hair.

So tell me how could you do this. Could you maintain that precision. Just the movement of arms tiring or twitching or with varying strengths application or the changing of tools will introduce imperfections.

The other problem we have is that if you claim that you can match this high level of precision today and it was also displayed 5,000 years ago why isn't this level of precision freehand seen all through history. I mean we only come to even understand this during the industrial revolution.

The test reveal such a high level of precision that humans cannot mimick this machine and computer level of precision.

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

You mention watches. Watches and other clockwork mechanisms of great precision were made with hand tools long before the advent of modern machine tools, all the way back to the Anklethyra Mechanism in the first century BC. The Anklythera Mechanism reflects an astonishing sophistication in mathematics and astronomy but construction of the mechanism itself is well within the capacity of hand tools and techniques known to be in use for centuries before that.

I wasn't mentioning the watch for its mechanisms but for the precision of parts. Probably a jet engine and parts is a better example. These are made with precision machines and need to be near perfect. The findings in the vases meet this level and even exceed it.

I don't think you know what you are talking about and I don't think you even understand the "experts" you are quoting.

I disagree and I think your creating a logical fallacy to avoid the evidence.

 

[stevevw]

First of all the term is ‘flaws’ not ‘floors”,

Yeah sorry, that really floored me lol.

secondly you have never given any reasoned arguments because you can’t even understand the most basic concepts such a meaning of evidence and thirdly to engage in a reasoned argument requires at the very least paying attention to what is being stated which you are incapable of doing by repeating the same nonsense over and over as if the counterarguments given have never been presented.

Actually I do understand exactly the concept of evidence and that is why I am presenting these anomelies as opposed to dismissing them like some are doing. We have to whether we like it or not go through each one of these anomelies to determine the facts.

That requires unfortunately this back and forth exchange of data and reasoning. That is exactly what I am doing. I have presented a number of anomelies and at the very least issues that need thorough investigation.

Despite this I will go into more detail for the benefit of other posters who might be interested, not you since I know I am wasting my time as to why Dunn’s hypothesis is ‘floored’.

Dunn’s hypothesis is the grooves in Petrie’s No 7 core sample has a helical pattern that advances into the granite at a rate of 0.1 inches per revolution, significantly exceeding the capabilities of modern diamond drills, which achieve a feed rate closer to 0.0002 inches per revolution in granite. He also envisaged a low wearing diamond tipped tool rotating at a constant RPM.

This allows a prediction to be made;

The equation F = P x ω/2π where F is the feed rate, P is the pitch and ω/2π the rotational speed applies.
If F and ω/2π are constant as one would expect from a low wearing tool running at a constant rotational speed then P is constant or very nearly constant if small variations are allowed in the rotational speed and wearing of the tool.

Petrie’s own values contradict this as the pitch is not even very nearly constant.

View attachment 357467​

This is also supported by the left hand image of Petrie’s No 7 core sample provided in a previous post which also indicates the pitch is nowhere near constant.

View attachment 357468​

This leads to the right hand image which is a granite core sample from an experiment using the Egyptian method of manual rotation, a copper tube, sand and water.
It looks similar to the Petrie sample; it has a helical pattern

No it doesn't. The core made by a copper pipe in a previous tests was shown to make horizontal patterns and not spiral. That is the whole issue here.

and the variation in pitch is easily explained as a combination of variations in the rotational speed since the equipment is manually operated and the wearing of the copper tube.

The equation F = P x ω/2π is not even an approximation due to the large variations and given the abrasives were not bonded to the copper tube and lubricated with water result in the observed pitch as not being indicative of a large feed rate as evidenced by the experimental sample.

Dunn’s hypothesis of an advanced technology required for drilling granite is debunked as it cannot explain the variation in pitch while the Egyptian method explains all observations and is supported by the evidence of the tools that have been discovered.

Your still missing Petrie point for which Dunns verified. Its not the pitch its the spiraling of the thread that is the problem. In some places it extends to 3 feet without a break. It is this spiral that cuts in and spirals down that gives us the feed rate. It is this feed rate that is beyond the capabilities of a copper pipe with sand and lubricant grinding it away very, very, very slowly.

I am skeptical of the modern image as the depth of cut was greater in core 7 than copper piper examples. Here is Dunns result from tests with copper pipe.

As you can see the copper pipe leaves little trace of engraved lines into the granite. Which makes sense as there is nothing cutting into the granite on a 90 degree angle. Thats why Petrie mentions some sort of diamond fixed point cutting into the granite protruding from the pipe or shaft at a 90 degree angl;e from the pipe doing the cutting.

A copper pipe is flush on its sides so the grinding action is happening at the base and not the sides. This will leave slight horizontal lines or stratches as it grinds deeper. But it certainly won't cut into the granite being a much softer substance and having no cutting points protruding into the granite.

As you can see in other independent tests this one from the paper below the abrasions leave light stratches and not cut grooves.

Another problem identified is that some drill holes are in corners or against walls making it impossible to have a pipe and bow setup which would be restricted. Also drill holes overlapping and on edges, and massive drill holes.

So its not an open and shut case either way and there's a lot to be explained if conventional tools in the records are said to be the only tools used to explain these anomelies in the stones. Like how do they drill in corners, on edges, and larger holes. But the main issue is the spiral cuts that go deep and wind down that a copper pipe and sand abrasion cannot produce.

Notice the spiral thread pattern.

Finally we have an analysis of the possible methods of how the holes were drilled which sort of supports Petries original findings that some sort of fixed point such as diamond was doing the cutting.

A functional analysis of the drilling of a granite sarcophagus lid from the Old Kingdom period has begun to suggest resolutions to an important scholarly controversy between Petrie and Lucas, and has produced some preliminary insights into the hitherto speculative technology used. These are: 1) loose, dry abrasives (except diamond) did not produce concentric lines; 2) fixed abrasives or those in a watery slurry or a lubricant such as olive oil did produce concentric cutting lines; 3) corundum and diamond cannot be ruled out as not having been used to drill granite.
Expedition Magazine | Ancient Egyptian Stone-Drilling

I will once again state my position. I don't know how these were done. I am not claiming any specific tech. I am merely providing evidence that shows anomelies in the mainstream narrative that these precision results are done with the tools they found them with. This is supported by other findings.

Reading Tool Marks on Egyptian Stone Sculpture
This systematic recording of tool marks also generates a number of new questions, and there are still some tool marks that cannot yet be explained by existing scholarship. Are there, as Stocks suggests, tools that are completely missing from the archaeological record? 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. All of these hypotheses require further investigation, including the consideration of contemporary gemstone carving technologies around the region.82
Reading Tool Marks on Egyptian Stone Sculpture - Rivista del Museo Egizio

 

[stevevw]

What has this got to do with vases, are you that desperate to obfuscate the issue?

Of course its got to do with the vases. Its testing a vase for cryin out loud lol.

The surface of a vase is the only area which can be tested for copper and its corrosion products but since surfaces are buffed and polished with abrasives all evidence is erased.

No its not. Other metals were found in the surface like Titanium. The copper will penetrate the surface and embed itself at the micron level. The tests went into the tool mark below the surface level and found no copper.

But its interesting that they found titanium.

This leaves the inside of the vase but unfortunately XRF (X-ray fluorescence) which I am very familiar with as a scientist has a limited depth of only of a few microns in granite and the only way to test for copper inside is to destroy the vase which is a highly unlikely proposition for priceless objects.

Ah if you read what I said these tests were on broken bits of the vases from the 40k stache under the stepped pyramid.

Will you stop with this turning nonsense of the vase, as pointed out in post #975 when the data is examined from two different sources, the surface and dimensional characteristics are nowhere near the level required to be explained by the use of advanced technologies and is simply a media beat up by your scientists.

No I am not going to allow you to bully someone to submit to your opinion. You carry on as though the articles you link are the truth which you did not put a link to and that any link I put is nonsense. That is not the case.

For example your link states that the accurracy of the vases is from 0.5 to 1mm in variation which is a complete falsehood. The deviation ranges from 1/1,000 of an inch to around 15/1,000 of an inch. Some areas have no deviation at all. In otherwords perfect.

I am not sure about what 'Roughness' represents in your link as you gave no link to the original paper. But roughness may be due to wear considering these vases are 5,000 years old.

So don't be calling my links nonsense when you are yourself providing suspect evidence with absolutely no links.

Anyway here is the link.
Hidden Secrets of Ancient Egyptian Technology - The Metropolitan Museum of Art

I don’t have to acknowledge anything you say, this has been explained in my previous post in the debunking of Dunn’s hypothesis.

OK I will check it out. No you don't have to acknowledge anything I say and no you have not debunked Dunns findings. Dunns findings are backed by Petrie and several other tests I linked including the ones in the previous post. You need to deal with them before you start claiming some absolute truth.

Thats the difference between us. I am not saying what you post is rubbish but questioning it and then providing counter evidence that needs to be addressed and questioned if needed. Then you will counter back I am sure. Thats how it goes until we can properly come to the truth.

 

[stevevw]

But we still don't have the tools you claim they used! How do you not understand how important this is as a line of evidence?

I think all the testing is revealing what sort of tools or possible methods were used. Like the evidence for turning the vase. This comes from both the metrology tests which show near perfect symmetry to a center axis all the way down the vase to within a 1/3 of a hair width. That would require the vase's axis fixed and the vase turned to achieve such symmetry.

Also scans reveal horizontal patterns which are actually signatures of the vase being turned.

Even though there were tests with copper tools that showed they could be done with copper tools and that copper was used:

Ancient Egyptian Stone-Drilling An Experimental Perspective on a Scholarly Disagreement​

These guys in the 1980s found that the drill holes could be done with copper tools.

But look what your own link states
A functional analysis of the drilling of a granite sarcophagus lid from the Old Kingdom period has begun to suggest resolutions to an important scholarly controversy between Petrie and Lucas, and has produced some preliminary insights into the hitherto speculative technology used. These are: 1) loose, dry abrasives (except diamond) did not produce concentric lines; 2) fixed abrasives or those in a watery slurry or a lubricant such as olive oil did produce concentric cutting lines; 3) corundum and diamond cannot be ruled out as not having been used to drill granite.

So they are agreeing with Petrie and Dunn that the possibility of a fixed diamond cutting point may have been used and can explain the spiral cuts in the drill cores.

This was also the consensus from another study.

Reading Tool Marks on Egyptian Stone Sculpture
This systematic recording of tool marks also generates a number of new questions, and there are still some tool marks that cannot yet be explained by existing scholarship. Are there, as Stocks suggests, tools that are completely missing from the archaeological record? Maybe points made from hard minerals like corundum, microcrystalline varieties of quartz or other gemstones could be embedded in another material like copper.
Reading Tool Marks on Egyptian Stone Sculpture - Rivista del Museo Egizio

'May have been turned' makes no sense as a complaint against less advanced tools at all. Have you never heard of a turntable before? A potter's wheel?

Ah the problem is these vases are 5,000 years or more old and the potters wheel was not invented yet. In fac the wheel was not yet invented. That is why they used sleds. If they had wheels they would have made life easier and put them on the sleds.

Again: until you produce the advanced tools you claim the Egyptians actually used, then there isn't much point considering your claim because there's no hard evidence for it.

But to do that we must first look at the vases and other works to determine the signatures as to what methods to then get an idea of what possible devices were used. Like the example of the evidence for turning in the scans of jars or the spiral cut of the drill cores. These help us build up a picture of what may have been used.

One method that has been suggested is stone softening as in some cases the stone looks melted and then hardened. Maybe there was some chemicals that were used in combination with traditional tools. We have to look at all possibilities.

We have evidence of the tools that ancient Egyptians used and it's a well recorded and established history. If you or others want to claim they used otherwise, then you need to actually present the tools themselves.

A few pics on walls tells us nothing. Plus many of these come from later Egyptians when the precision work stopped and they were working with softer stones which is more suited to traditional methods.

But thos pics actually suggest something weird going on rather than traditional with some sort of ray coming cout of vases and some sort of mystical ceremony going on that vase making. But they certainl;y don't go through the process step by step.

The saws on record seem grossly inadequate for the precision cuts, the sleds depicted can only carry 65 ton and not 1,500 tons. They are only about 20 feet long. There is a lot missing in the pics and a lot that just doesn't meet the results on the ground.

Because you still haven't given us the actual tools!

So your logic is even though some results show existing tools inanadequate and suggests other methods ie 'turning and machine cutting' its all irrelevant because we have not found the tools.

The logic is the absense of evidence defeats the actual evidence pointing to something beyond traditional tools. Thats strange logic.

 

[stevevw]

This is why I am saying forget about the back and forth debate on the tech. Its never going to be resolved on this one thread. Its a wider debate that has not been resolved and is ongoing. It is becoming more clear as we investigate with more access and modern tech. Which is revealing more and more.

But I now this is too much to deal with in this thread and should be a seperate thread and is unfair to the thread. THat is why I say lets agree to disagree.

 

[BCP1928]

Could you do it with a rock, rubbing and copper saw though. What your forgetting is that this is happening 5,000 years ago lol. That means 5,000 years ago they were matching modern day cuts.

Yes, if I had enough patience. Copper is still an appropriate material for abrasive cutting tools.

I don't know how you would do that. But even cutting a circle freehand is not going to be near perfect within a hair. Let alone a 3D sphere that aligns with 77,000 reference points all within a hair.

Why not? All it takes is patience and repeated measurement.

So tell me how could you do this. Could you maintain that precision. Just the movement of arms tiring or twitching or with varying strengths application or the changing of tools will introduce imperfections.

Right. That's why the work takes training and practice.

The other problem we have is that if you claim that you can match this high level of precision today and it was also displayed 5,000 years ago why isn't this level of precision freehand seen all through history. I mean we only come to even understand this during the industrial revolution.

Hogwash. It is seen, but rarely, because hand made precision is time consuming and expensive.

The test reveal such a high level of precision that humans cannot mimick this machine and computer level of precision.

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

I wasn't mentioning the watch for its mechanisms but for the precision of parts.

So was I, as I specifically pointed out.

Probably a jet engine and parts is a better example. These are made with precision machines and need to be near perfect. The findings in the vases meet this level and even exceed it.

I disagree and I think your creating a logical fallacy to avoid the evidence.

In other words, You are accusing me of lying. That's OK. My true opinion of you and your moral character would not be allowed in this forum.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, if I had enough patience. Copper is still an appropriate material for abrasive cutting tools.

Why not? All it takes is patience and repeated measurement.

Right. That's why the work takes training and practice.

Hogwash. It is seen, but rarely, because hand made precision is time consuming and expensive.

Time is the great miracle worker. Sounds a bit like the arguement for life from non life. Given enough time anything can happen.

The strange thing is though most opf these precise works and megaliths happened in a very short time in the early period of around 2 or 300 years. Thats all the pyramids, precision vases, statues, pavements, blocks, millions of cut blocks, magaliths, everything within a small window within 5,000 years plus.

So was I, as I specifically pointed out.

Well the first watches were not made until the 15th century.

In other words, You are accusing me of lying. That's OK. My true opinion of you and your moral character would not be allowed in this forum.

Ok we will have to agree to disagree.

And I am not accusing you of lying when I call out your logical fallacies. Its just fallacious thinking and a form of faulty arguing.

Its also telling that you bring morals into this. Aren't morals subjective and not fact. Don't mistake morals for facts or that an opposing view or questioning the status quo is somehow morally wrong.

 

[BCP1928]

Time is the great miracle worker. Sounds a bit like the arguement for life from non life. Given enough time anything can happen.

The strange thing is though most opf these precise works and megaliths happened in a very short time in the early period of around 2 or 300 years. Thats all the pyramids, precision vases, statues, pavements, blocks, millions of cut blocks, magaliths, everything within a small window within 5,000 years plus.

Well the first watches were not made until the 15th century.

But mechanical objects requiring similar degrees of precision were made for millenia before that--using hand tools.

Ok we will have to agree to disagree.

And I am not accusing you of lying when I call out your logical fallacies. Its just fallacious thinking and a form of faulty arguing.

Its also telling that you bring morals into this. Aren't morals subjective and not fact. Don't mistake morals for facts or that an opposing view or questioning the status quo is somehow morally wrong.

You are accusing me of lying about my own personal experiences. You are accusing me of lying about my own ability to make precision objects using hand tools. Isn't that enough?

 

[stevevw]

But mechanical objects requiring similar degrees of precision were made for millenia before that--using hand tools.

such as. You said watches and now your changing the goal posts.

You are accusing me of lying about my own personal experiences. You are accusing me of lying about my own ability to make precision objects using hand tools. Isn't that enough?

When did I say that.

 

[BCP1928]

such as. You said watches and now your changing the goal posts.

You brought up watches. I specifically referred to the Ankleythera Mechanism as an example of an object of similar precision made much earlier.

When did I say that.

Bey denying that what I said I could do was possible.