That is not true. Why do you lie?
How am I lying. What is untrue in what I said.
Read the full sentence you quoted.
How is that not making out he is an amateur when it comes to the marks on stone. What is the difference in knowing the strirations and marks on vases to the marks on other works as a machin ist and tooler who understands how marks are created and with what tools.
Calling the stone Egyptian does not matter. Its still a stone with machining marks.
Cite which article by him you believe supports this "...with the academic knowledge relating directly to software creation relating to ancient artifacts.". In which article did he create any software?
I linked his page and its full of papers dealing with the digitalisation of artifacts and shapes into 3D and the dealing with difficult shapes being digitalised into 3D. Seems the exact same process as working with the vases.
If Marian is working with different 3D objects including cultural works in digitising them for measuring why would he not understand the difficulties in mapping out the vases digitally for they reflect an acurate representation in digital 3D. He would have to know how the software works to be able to even do that.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marian-Marcis-2
But your still making a fallacy by demanding he be an expert in a particular aspect. When his expertise may have been in a certain aspect of developing the software.
The point is his credentials were not even checked full stop. Thats where the bias came in and you can't even acknowledge this. So why should I even bother with your doubling down trying to discredit him.
So far they seem to be amateurs, when you don't tendentiously twist others words.
Your still missing the point. There was no "so far" as though an investigation was made prior. There was none at all so they did not know. They had decided he was an amateur without any investiogation. Thats the bias and from that they are disqualified on everything else that is said. Once bias is shown you cannot trust any further comment from the posters.
But listen to you. They 'seem like an amateur'. That is a unsure subjective claim. Yet you want to double down and declare him an amateur. Talk about credibility, I don't trust you full stop no matter what you say.
Because the claims are not published in scientific journals, therefore it becomes an issue of why we should believe them.
Ah the good old peer review. This does not automatically make it wrong. There was not even any reference to the content and it was dismissed. No likewise rigor in the objections or critical thinking. Just plain outright dismissal.
Why should I take the word of those who have already shown bias. They disqualify themselves from the get go.
In evaluating ancient egyptian artifacts!
Yes in evaluation the tooling and machining marks on ancient Egyptian artifacts. Or any object that has been made by a tool or machine.
I've seen it, it doesn't seem to be true you can import the public STL files and do the analysis with standard tools, if you try.
Well others have. Its stated that the files can be utilised as an open file. In fact third parties have already used them. Dr Max and Karoyl used the files existing on Olgas vases and the OG vase. They did not make the files but utilised the existing ones from the Vase scan project done by Nick Sierra and Alex Dunn.
They don't, it is not even the same measure.
How is it not the same measure when they measured the same vases and got the same results. They both found Olgas vases to be in the imprecise range. They both found the OG vase to be in the precise range.
Their own data belies their claims of precision. Look at the mm surface deviations reported.
I don't want to go through the whole fixation on microns of difference again. Its a red herring and does not negate that these vases are lathed.
For Karoyl 5 vases fell in the precise range.
For Dr Max several fell in the precise range using their own methods for median deviation errors.
Class Averages
The ‘PRECISE’ class average errors are as follows:
● <
<RMSE>> = 1.3 thousandths of an inch (0.03 mm);
● <<dR>> = 1.3 thousandths of an inch (0.03 mm).
Such surprising precision indicates a highly advanced manufacturing technique consistent with machining on a lathe as the modern lathe-made vases ‘M1’, ‘M2’, and ‘M3’ fall into this class.
The Vase scan project got the same results.
The original vase was put into a cartesian coordinant grid (X,Y,Z axis) and analysied in Polyworks for precision.
New Video – Scanning a Predynastic Ancient Egyptian Vase down to 1000th of an Inch! – UnchartedX
No, that is not a conclusion that can be drawn from Marians article.
What are you talking about. Who said Marian had anything to do with the scoop marks. I said we have evidence of alternative methods besides the orthodoxy such as the small dolerite pounders were not what was used to dig out the unfinished obeliske.
That evidence has nothing to do with Marian Marcis.
So making stainless steel bearings and aluminium bodys make you an expert on ancient egyptian manufacturing? Why?
Yes as far as what tools or machining could produce such an object. Look at the parts. They are contain the same shape as vases, flat tops with wide lips, cone type bodies, flat bottoms. But also other angles and shapes associated with a vase.
Smith is a machinist and precision tooler and also makes the machines and tools to make the parts. This is hypocritical and double standard that you now want to question where a machinist is an expert. When people on this thread have claimed their own expertise in machining as part of the evidence they sight. Why did you not question others on machining wood and metal when they claimed it was expertise in making vases.
Still is this software public? Their own analyst (Stine Gerdes) thinks their claims of precision are smoke.
Lol you can see the precision compared to later vases by the naked eye. You can get a hand held guage and measure the circularity of the vase that shows high precision circularity enough that it was lathed. Most people agree they were lathed.
They are more precise than that which come 1,000 years later by using a Bore Stick on softer stone. Thats why I kept things simple and said that we can at least say these vases were lathed to pretty good standard.
Then why are you objecting. He clearly knows what he is talking about. Theres a few videos actually where he goes into the technical aspects.
They are completely free to make the investigations and publish them in a journal.
They have for some things. Its all relatively new so give them time. Watch this space lol.
And there have been no modelling of energy extraction.
What do you mean by modeling of energy extraction. How could this even be possible. We would have to work out what the method was. If it involved additional aspects like thermal or stress then who is going to allow such things in the pyramid lol.
How is it that the modelling for say theorectical physics is not always replicated yet accepted.
So why don't do the science and publish it?
Well we know such stones have the effect. We know the pyramid itself creates the effect. Theorectically why would it not produce an effect of some sort.
www.christianforums.com
