Apart from Max, where are the witten papers by Karoly, the Artifact Foundation and Chris Dunn?
The Chris Dunn's team has done a Report which is another form of an academic paper with Overview, method, then analysis, findings and conclusion.
Also here with the geometry which is fully laid out in steps with calculations.
An interesting geometrical analysis of an extremely precise and high-resolution mesh, obtained via structured light scanning of a granite artifact, that is purpoted to originate from pre-dynastic Egypt.
unsigned.io
The Artifact Foundation also done a Report.
www.artifactfoundation.org
I like Max's papers, I just feel that they would be better if they would go through peer-review. How big a problem is the lack of provenance? Why did he use that particular quality metric?
I think they all explain why they used the specific quality metric. I think Karolys method is the same. Certainly in using layers to determine circularity and concentricity. I think the method had to be adjusted to measure the vases as there was no precedent to go by.
Providence seems to be an issue in the least because skeptics use that to dispute the vases. The Artifact Foundation began testing museum vases only this year.
Are there others? Why is no of the Petrie vases from his analysis in the precise class? When others sort them into their precise class (why is there a difference?).
There are Petrie vases in the precise class from the Artifact Foundations tests. They set the parameters of the precise class which was 0.001mm to I think 0.200mm which was the tolerance accepted in precision tooling. Five or 6 vases from memory came under this. One at 48 microns median score.
Max was testing vases that were from a private collections (Matt Beall) but also housed at the Petrie museum. Thats why I was saying that people can question the providence of private collections but the Petrie museum regards them as genuine enough to display them as authentic. Max also found around 11 vases in the precise class.
There are no other researchers or tests as far as I know. Like I said there are many small tests of one off vases. You can even see a guage test done on line before your eyes showing the precision.
Starts at 1.20 minute mark. Now thats a proper social media test. Live on camera for everyone to see.
Login to view embedded media
Sure, keep saying it if you feel like it. I'm not saying what we do here is science, I'm saying that neither Karoly, Max, the Artifact Foundation, Chris Dunn or we are doing science right now. We are all just discussing the data they have put on the table.
I disagree. Karoly and the Artifact Foundation, Chris Dunn and team and Max are all doing science. The equipment they have used, the calibration of that equipment, the various methods of testing ie Light Scan, Lazer and Guage sensors and the reports coming from them are science. Theres no spectulation. This is hard data and not spectulations about peoples credibility.
No sure if you have used all these devices or even understand them. Or actually done tests on vases. Your standing on the sidelines. If you want to dispute the tests then you have to repeat the tests and show how you done it to arrive at a different finding.
I want peer review for it to be science, what is so hard to understand about that?
Peer review does not make it science. You don't need peer review to confirm that an object measures 5 cm on a ruler. Do you think you need some professor in a tower confirming that the guage measure above is correct. You can get a set of guage sensors and see for yourself. No better evidence.
Without good provenance we don't even know if the data is relevant.
WE have good providence vases showing precision. This whole thread has become about knocking down logical fallacy. You know very well that vases from Petrie museum tested precise.
Only if they are correctly measured and the provenance is good.
They have been measured in various ways 50 times over. They have been measured properly. And even if we go with the exaggerated slight deviations in some places on the vase. We are talking 2 or 3 thinness of paper. Other parts within a hair thinness. This level of precision has to have been made by a pretty sophisticated lathe. It was not by sticks, flint, chisels and pounders.
Or the methodologies are not the best, there are many possibilities. The provenance question for the precise class is a big unknown, at least as Max uses the precise class.
We have 3 independent tests and they use the same and different methods. The light scanning is a matter of levels of accuracy. The Artifact group mentions results from the OG vase guage method and that the light scans confirmed and tightened the accuracy. Each method is showing the precision in various ways. None are contradicting each other.
I've never said they require it. I think Olga vases could be good enough if you had literally thousands of vasemakers making vases for most of their lives.
The trouble is OLga cheated. She actually used the wheel (like a lathe) to get the better precision and only proving that tech is needed to achieve such precision lol.
It's not a question of if he could, has he done any research in metrology? This is normally the part where you point out his articles.
I don't know what you mean. I am saying as part of being a precision machinist in making parts you have to be able to know the metrology to ensure the parts are precise lol. Its just a given. You don't need an article to prove that.
If they studied precision tooling and did not teach the science of measuring those precision tools and parts then thats pretty silly.
That is not supported by his scientific output.
Most papers don't go into proving the scientists have the equipment or whether they can use them. They just state the equipment, the calibration and the method and findings. Your placing criteria in a paper that is not expected and therefore being bias.
If you want to know the specific scientists ability you research the scientist seperately. If you do that you will find he has vast experience and knowledge in metrology. He measures stull all the time even down to the micro level.
Max does Gamma Spectroscopy, Neutron Detection, Alpha Dection which all require an understanding of metrology. Even more complex than simple vase measures.
maximus.energy
Because they are not arguing that their objections are the final word. They are highlighting what they see as problems, then the researchers should go back and do some additional analysis. This is what happens in peer-review but since they never publish in any journals it remains just conjecture.
I think you will find they are arguing their opinion is the final word lol. When they call the very testers they are disagreeing with whackpos and amateurs this is not about any fair process. They have it in for them because of an ideological belief and not science. You don't call those who scientists disagree with whackos lol.
Like you said you keep quiet about that and just do the science. Prove it with the actual science. That means doing exactly what the testers did. Redo the tests in the proper way they claim and see what findings they get.
Given that we don't even know the provenance of any vase in Max's precise class (which is populated only by vases from Matt Bealls collection,
Precision and Classification of Predynastic Egyptian Stone Vessels: REVISED), I think that it is premature to invoke machining on par with modern machining to explain anything (this is a statement about my opinion).
Well we sort of do know the providence. If the Petrie museum thinks they are genuine enough to house them as examples of Egyptian predyanstic vases then thats pretty good support. Many artifacts in museums come from private collectors on loan. .
Do you have a reference for that? This isn't a normal scientific statement, "they look to good therefore it must be unknown method X". Find the tool that match those toolmarks, then you can make a statement like "it's probable that these marks where made with this tool". Hence, why I think they should be out doing digs.
Lol so if they don't find the tool or device what then. That this must mean no advanced method was used. Of course not. NOt finding the method does not negate the method. The method is determined by the signatures. A certain level of precision in symmetry and roundness is commonly associated with lathing. If we don't find a lathe does that mean it was not created by a lathe.
The problem is we don't find much of any tools and methods fullstop. Even the basic tools. Metals like copper or bronze were reused as it was precisious and useful. BUt if they had some other way we don't understand we would not even know what to look for.
Every instance of advanced tech and knowledge will need to go through the same tedious process with editors and peer review for me to take it serious, I'm sorry that's just the modern scientific process. You can't build a holistic argument if you haven't first shown that the parts are relevant.
Yes for specific examples you have to do a thorough investigation into not just the science but also like you said the cultural aspects, the archeology, social and religious aspects. All aspects to understand the culture and their practices and how this relates to the worls they produce.
But like cultural practice and phenomena we can step back and make some general observations. We can say for example that at a certain point in pre history the world was full of Megalithic cultures as we see the massive works. We don't need to prove every single example. We can make hypothesis about the level of knowledge they had at that time which stands out above other periods.
Even just investigating the out of place works is enough to warrant further investigation and being open to some sort of alternative knowledge that appears beyond that time. Thats why I think those who immediate cry whacko and conspiracy are actually the non scientist. Because science is full of out of place and contradictory ideas that move it forward. Shutting it down immediate is anti scientific and more a belief.
I'm not an expert and any data I have highlighted have come from the researcher themselves.
I have noticed that some are highlighting the less precise specific examples and trying to make out this is the entire vase and therefore not CNC machines. Or exaggerating that less precision when its actually still very good.
Thats why I say I think a formal and complete retesting is required to properly refute the researchers. All this bits and pieces of complaints on social media are too hard to control and ensure proper methods themselves.
But at the same time I am reducing things to the basics and saying ok lets forget about all the semantics about a few so called imprecise examples. As there are many more precise ones. But forget about all that and the basic idea of whether they had a lathe at all. Or made these by chisels, pounders and rubbing. I think we can say the metrology is precise enough to say a lathe was involved. Its just a case of how sophsiticated.
Whilst highlighting that they don't believe the OG vase in its current form to be from ancient Egypt.
Yes the providence again. Thats fair enough. So other vases like the OG have tested precise from the Petrie museum. One I think even more precise than the OG vase. Which sort of lends support for the OG as its not just a one off anymore.
These are statements about ME and my opinions, you do realise I have first-person access to my own thought processes?
But the problem is like all of us when you challenge the tests your not just making a personal opinion. It has to be qualified. It seems everyone in going crazy about the qualifications of every little thing said by these researchers. But no scrutiny on the people who are questioning their credibility.
So what is it in those two statements that you mean I need to support?
You need to support what you said because its actually challenging the testers. In the first example your disputing a measure. But you have provided no support. This is undermining the testers measures. You need to do tests and show how their measures are not reflecting the 3D dimensions of the vase.
The second one is more a general claim that the formal tests that have been officially published and laid out in academic format are the same as a few sentences on a social media platform. Your word just can't be the evidence. I disagreed and gave the arguement why ie done in academic format, did the tests and explained the steps to get to that specific measures.
They are clearly two different formats. You have not provided any evidence for how they are the same. Just your personal opinion.
It's a claim about me! I didn't say "They are using circularity in a non-standard way". Even though I think I can argue that point if you would like? The normal way to report circularity according to ISO 1101 (see below) is different than what they do. So to use the term circularity in their case is (slightly) misleading. So a quality measure dependent on circularity and concentricity is a bit unfortunate, as circularity sounds like it is one thing but they actually mean something else.
Ok well thats a better response. But I think its still out of context. As far as I understand they have done the 3D measure for circularity and concentricity. They even state this. They aim was to prove the precision in the physical 3D vase. Why would they not do this. Are they lying.
- Structured light scanning:
This process uses structured light to capture the surface of the vases, creating precise 3D models with high resolution (better than a thousandth of an inch).
View attachment 371557
Stop, making it sound as the researchers are victims in this. If they wanted to they could have published their findings in an appropriate journal. They want this kind of attention, that why they present it as they do.
Like I said I am only trying to apply the same criteria of what is being applied to these tests and researchers. Like proper science if a test or claim is being disputed then they should redo the tests and show how this was wrong. Not pick out bits out of context which misrepresents things.
But with all this fixation on a specific example of a specific example is taking away from the bigger picture.