That is a silly way to look at people. In fact it hinges on the very idea of using negative assumptions and stereotypes to generalise people.
What is the alternative?
But even if we go along with this assumption irs suppose to be a unknown one and not one that used against the person to discredit them. If its a neutral assumption that we just don't know.
Then using it as a weapon to discredit someone is no longer being neutral. It is then made into an absolute fact that the person is an amateur. Without the proper investigation to determine that.
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.
That was never discussed. It was automatically assumed. Karoyl explained why and as far as I know nobody has mentioned this explanation as being wrong. As the vases were unprecedented there was no existing software that could capture the vases. So existing software was adjusted.
Needlessly so.
In fact Dr Max used a similar approach. But also the Vase project team did use the metrology software and came to the same findings. Which confirms the modified softeware was within the range of the metrology software.
No they didn't. Max used a different process and different definitions.
But also to further confirm the measurements guage metrology was also done which also came to the same findings.
So what was the overlap of tested vases between the different measures.
Basically the objections came down to the accuracy over what amounted to microns of difference. So I reduced the whole dispute from skeptics down to whether the circularity and concentricity was the result of lathing. Then it was a case of what level of lathing sophistication.
Fixating on microns of difference or even the vases as a whole is misleading. When we take a step back and realise that the vases look out of place for that time which did not even have the potters wheel.
No they didn't.
Looking at the precision looking vases in the context of other signatures such as the obvious machining marks on stones, the softening of stone and other precision works allows us to understand that overall these ancients were capable of something greater methods than pounding, grinding and rubbing stones into such precision and quality.
This just your assertion.
The point is if someone is going to make a claim of being an amateur then they should investigate first if this is the case. I am saying that no investigation at all was done beofre this accusation was hurled.
If they are not involved in the field professionally they are amateurs.
Karoyl states that the researchers that helped develop the software were "professionals" and not amateurs. So theres the first hint. Why would Karoyl use an amateur who knows little if his aim is to prove the precision of these vases. He chose to measure vases in museums because of the provenance issue. So why would be then throw another obstacle in his work.
A simple search gives you one of the researchers Marian Marcis who is a Professor in Photogrammetry, Image Scanning, #d reconstructions and Digitalisation of cultural images. That seems the exact expertise needed. Or at least beyond the amateur level lol.
I've read his output, he is no professional coder.
Why do you skip the most important points about how bias is being used. How Christ King like the professional software researchers are called amateurs as part of discrediting the whole research project.
I don't think it is important.
The new tech that was derived from the modelling is stated by the scientists involved. Unless you think they are lying.
They are exaggerating, it is what is in the article that is important.
There are two aspects I think. The modelling of the entire structure, its shape and how this itself causes radiowaves of a particular length are concentrated into the chambers and base.
Then there is investigation of the specific of the internal structure as to how this may further concentrate electromagnetic waves into the chambers or other parts of the pyramid. Such as thermal or acoustics. Thats not to say that the placement and use of granite or specific stone types are not themselves the generator of certain effects. Such as the granite in chambers being under tremendous pressure.
No one has connected the radiowaves(200-600 m wavelength) to any way to extract the energy.
I am pretty sure there have been tests done in the pyramid chamber and ante chamber that have shown high piezoelectric effects. I know there have been acoustic tests.
So link the article that describes how they measured the voltages caused by the piezoelectric effects in the chambers.
What do you mean by energy extraction. Is this the mechanism that can utilise the energy that has been generated. As far as I understand the modelling and evidence shows that the pyramid could potentially be an energy generator
Not really it might focus radiowaves of a certain length, but the source in the simulation was external to the pyramid.
and that this could be a source of energy that could be utilised by the Egyptians.
There is no source proposed and no mechanism for turning the radiowaves into a useable energy source.
They just have not yet joined the dots in showing how that energy could have been utilised.
Yes and my point is like all good science the modelling and theorectic science is done first based on a hypothesis. Which is usually imagined based on some indirect evidence ie good acoustics in pyramid, some anomelies such as finding certain signatures.
Then its a case of testing directly to confirm. My point is as this is all fairly new science due to the new tech available that these preliminary tests and science is not psuedoscience as its all been labelled but part of the science process. That its being lumped as all part of the conspiracy of lost advanced tech nutters is bias.
I think I have more than proved the bias and double standard. So its hard to take anything further on this thread as serious.
Suit yourself.
