You can't work that out. Obviously you investigate first whether your claim stands up and is correct rather than making unfounded assumptions.
Its ironic because the objection is that these researchers are not using good science. Yet the very claims are not based on good science. Thus disqualifying themselves by their own logic.
If they want to convincing that is what they have to do, either by making their method explicit so that other experts can evaluate them or by providing credentials.
Your throwing back on the person who is being attacked without justification in the first place. The accusation of amateur was in response to the evidence the accusor could have checked for themselves. Remember the accusation is they are an amateur and don't know what they are talking about.
So if your going to make the claim they don't then you better have good evidence and support for that. This includes doing your investigation if this is the case. Afterall they are the one who introduced the claim.
No thjey have not. Show me where Karolys explanation for why the new software was developed. No reference was made to this section of the video.
No they didn't. Max used a different process and different definitions.
They both used a measure for circularity and concentricity that used slices of the vase compared to each other and a central axis.
So what was the overlap of tested vases between the different measures.
In the fact that where ever the guage metrology shows a certain precision measure for say circularity the scans did the same. They lined up. If the nech showed 1/1000 or 3/1000 of an inch from the gusgae metrology so did the scanning. It did not show a completely different measure.
Therefore any lathing is out of place for that time. To say that these high precision vases which are better than those that came 1,000 years later with the Bore stick on the walls is silly.
So at the very least we would logically conclude that if the later Egyptians got pretty good precision with Bore Stick tech. Then these predynastic vases must have also involved some sort of lathing or device that produced even better precision. Yet there was not even a potters wheel or Bore stick tech.
This just your assertion.
No its not. We have preliminary evidence of stone softening and casting or messing around with the texture and material of stones. We have evidence of alternative methods besides the orthodox dolerite pounders on granite in the scoop marks that look like stone was softened.
We have ample clear cut signatures of machining all over the stones. Why would we not be open to the possibility of advanced knowledge in working with the hardest stones. Afterall they had 10's of 1,000's of years of experience. Thats all they had to work with but stone up until the very later periods.
If they are not involved in the field professionally they are amateurs.
They were involved in the field professionally. They were at the professor level in the field of software development and specially related to ancient culture. In the case of Smith he was actually making very similar objects to the vases in the metal parts he made. He knew everything there is to know about tooling and machining when it comes to creating objects.
Yet because this was not investigated and it was assumed they were amateurs because the underlying assumption was already made that anyone suggesting such possibilities must be doing psuedoscience and therefore amateurs.
I've read his output, he is no professional coder.
Its so easy to make claims without actually providing the evidence. What part of Photogrammetry, Image Scanning, 3D reconstructions and Digitalisation of cultural images is not related to software development that can capture the vases.
I would have though digitalisation and 3D reconstructions of cultural artifacts is exactly related.
This is what I am talking about unsupported claims that double down and still with no actual evidence. Remembering these experts are said to be amateurs. To say they have no idea is rediculous and bias when at the very least they cover fields related.
I think once theses good people are made out to be amateurs they will never live that down. Because acknowledging they know what they are talking about means admitting defeat and I don't think skeptics will do that.
I don't think it is important.
Then this I think is part of the dismissal because KIngs case is a clear slam dunk case of bias. One you can't fob off with claims that he is not a expert in the fioeld. Yet was obviously made out to be one without proper investigation. Thus exposing the bias. Thus lending weight to the bias against others like Marcis.
They are exaggerating, it is what is in the article that is important.
See this is surely a subjective opinion. The scientists say it like they are not exaggerating. So who do I believe. You on a social media site or the direct words out of the scientists who did the tests.
No one has connected the radiowaves(200-600 m wavelength) to any way to extract the energy.
By the looks of it no one has tried yet. You have to get access to bring in machinery and all that. The last time this was allowed was to find any new cavities with Muon detectors. Or the acoustic tests mentioned.
But theorectically its a good possibilitiy. There are also some independent researchers like the vases who are gathering evidence. I have not mentioned these because they have no scientific papers yet.
So link the article that describes how they measured the voltages caused by the piezoelectric effects in the chambers.
It seems the only tests so far are the acoustic tests actually done inside the pyramid. But the tests showing that pink granite under stress of vibrations of some sort can produce piezoelectric effect is beyond doubt.
The combination of modelling that shows energy waves concentrated into the chambers already. Along with the potential effects of granite that is in those chambers supports the hypothesis so far. Certyainly nothing to be dismissed as Woo or conspiracy.
Not really it might focus radiowaves of a certain length, but the source in the simulation was external to the pyramid.
Yes but it was a certain energy wave and not any that is external to the pyramid. Did was not that the point. If it just captured the stuff that is everywhere then so what. Its that it captured a particular radio wave in a partuclar part of the pyramid as opposed to anywhere else.
Now what happens at that stage maybe something else that is added to enhance or utilised that energy into something else. But it seems the pyramid shape and its specific internal structure is able to capture certain radio waves. In a cavity that also has the potential for other energy manipulation in the material or with added acoustics or pressure or thermal treatment.
There is no source proposed and no mechanism for turning the radiowaves into a useable energy source.
Actually there is but its all spectulation. This is the part we have to test in various ways. All the modelling and hypothesis is done. Its now a case of testing this on site. Its exaciting I think.
www.justice.gov
