-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History
- By Hans Blaster
- Physical & Life Sciences
- 761 Replies
Your claim that (almost) everything ancient in Egypt is already dug up is NONSENSE. As I said, new sites are still being found and unknown parts of existing sites are still being found, and plenty of known things that haven't yet been excavated still exist. In. Egypt.
Those two things do not correlate.
There is not a "your side", Steve. There is just you and the people you are arguing with. I read most of the other posts responding to you, but not always all of them. I read less of what you write back to them (TL;DR occurs a lot). I always eventually read what you wrote to me.
Way to infer things that weren't implied. SMH. Your original "they are hiding things from us" is paranoid conspiracy speculation.
I'm not interested in making gods. That's your thing.
What's the conspiracy supposed to be in that article? I didn't spot one.Cairo: Egyptology in crisis
Hawass quickly became tainted along with the crumbling regime and was engulfed by damaging charges of corruption and mismanagement. On Sunday 17 July, Hawass was abruptly sacked as the Minister of State for Antiquities Affairs in an overhaul of the country’s cabinet, and his controversial reign as one of the most powerful men in the archaeological world finally came to an end.
Cairo: Egyptology in crisis - World Archaeology
As the Arab Spring flooded through Egypt’s Tahrir Square, the old political order was swept away – and with it went Egyptology’s most controversial exponent, Dr Zahi Hawass. Tom St John Gray followed events earlier this year and now considers the consequences.www.world-archaeology.com
Now thats not whacko's saying this. This was generally acknowledged.
@Stopped_lurking makes a good point, or rather implies a good question. When new high status graves from this period (predynastic to early dynastic) are found do they contain hard stone vases? If they do, they should be examined and tested. If they don't, or contain very few, why is that the case? Is this related to possible fakes in private collections? I don't know, but the questions are interesting.
For some reason your reply to my comment about new sites and digs you continued...
There is no "tech" below the pyramids.
Pyramids *DO NOT* generate energy. Both of these are nutso claims from pyramid freaks that have been around for decades. Do you want us to take you seriously, or not?
Did you watch another "unchartedX" video? Sigh.
Now we get to your response to my criticism of the "find the best looking vases" scanning plan as bad science.
No one else is talking about "providence", just you. The rest of us are concerned about the provenance of objects for good reasons. These words are not the same. Please learn the difference.
Ideally all would be taken from a single cache, like a royal tomb with lots of objects to randomly sample.
I'm not calling for blind tests. I am calling for uniform sampling. The sampling you are proposing is anything but uniform and unbiased.
It isn't.
You are projecting it onto me. I am not involved in this testing nor do I have any plans to get involved with it. I question the claims made by your vase buddies, but that is irrelevant as I am not designing or executing a research plan. You are talking about a research plan that has confirmation bias built into it. That is *BAD* science.
I absolutely would. That's how science works.
Nope. You catalog the general features of an entire find and then take a balanced sample (by size, style, stone type, etc.) for detailed testing. Interesting questions include things like are softer stone objects more or less circular than hard stone objects. What about smaller verses larger? Etc. That is how you design a scientific study.
Good. Plenty of objects to draw a sample from. That sample has to be at least dozens, perhaps a couple hundred.
Don't trust your eyes. MEASURE. Science works on measurement not "eyeballing".
I was talking about sampling and you give a picture of a single object. Do you not understand what sampling is?
I gave a number above.
No, not that would "come close" to some idea of perfection. Ones that cover the variety of objects. The kind of testing you have in mind would probably need to exclude broken or damaged objects.
Absolutely the sample should contain objects of the different materials. That's how you tell if they are different -- measure both types.
It certainly isn't. As I said you clearly don't know anything study design. That's fine. I just wish you would be OK admitting it.
Before you can do a study of O-type main sequence stars you need to know how to define them and what is different about then and say ZZ Ceti stars or your study will be useless.
No you can't. The difference between hard and soft stone objects is quite important if you want to eventually draw conclusions about construction methodology.
If you can determine it, this would certainly be an actually reasonable selection criterion as it would eventually narrow the time period tested. Alternatively objects could be group by time period to see how they differ or are similar.
Different kinds of stone: good. Mixing in measurements from different studies: Problematic.
Huh?
They aren't "known imprecise vases until they have been demonstrated to be so by measurement.
Documentation on each object will be needed.
To repeat a third time: If you don't measure you don't know. Knowledge comes from measurement, not hope. I'm sorry if science is too hard for you and the vase guys. (OK, not that sorry. Buck up, buttercups.)
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
