Date:
               Tue, 08 Apr 1997 10:27:21 -0700
 
  Newsgroups:
               sci.archaeology, alt.alien.visitors, soc.culture.usa,
               sci.history.science, sci.anthropology, sci.skeptic, sci.math

Prof. Vincent Brannigan wrote:

> > > >Aw, c'mon then why does the professor say things like :
> > > >" To work a harder stone, one simply has to work harder."
> > > >Eh?
 
> What I said was "hard stones simply mean you work harder".
 
> by transposing the words you make it appear that hard work alone is
> the requirement. it is not.

You made it so appear. But I got blamed.

> Working a stone with abrasives clearly requires
>  an abrasive harder than the stone.  no one suggests otherwise.
> But there is nothing magical about it.

Exactly. Therefore let one of the many guys around here, who
claim  to know everything about the exceedingly simple art of
stonemaking, replicate some of these Egyptian artifacts.
Perhaps, you will give it a try? Remember, if you exude
enthusiasm -  half the work is done already.

> > .> >> >The Irish workers had modern tools. Steel, and a range of other
> > .> >> >thoroughly modern gizmos, even if none of these were
> > power-driven.
 
> none of which have anything to do with laying precise blocks of stone.

How can you say such a thing with a straight face!
All of those tools were instrumental in producing precise
blocks of stone and transporting those to their destination.
 
> > Mean deviation from a perfectly flat plane was the miniscule 1/100"
> > over a distance of 75". This spec allowed for the incredibly thin
> > film of superfine quality mortar (1/50").
> > 1/100 of an inch is slightly thicker than a hair..
 
> dig a 500 foot trough.  fill it with water on a flat calm day.
> you can get this kind of accuracy.

Okay, you can get flat water surface, then quick-freeze it,
before the tide sets in, or someone breezes:-)
But I was talking about stone, and stone is thicker than
water. How do you fit stones to this flat water surface?

> not thayt I buy without cites your claim.

Not my claim, it's widely known facts of life at Giza.
 
> > All measurements are approximations. Measuring by eye, without
> > precise instruments always results in, at best, a tiny error.
 
> thats whjy you replicate the measurement over and over.

So what, they're still gonna be unaided eye-measurements.

> > I'm sure, you won't dispute that. Two-hundredths of a degree,
> > or even more is an error one just cannot perceive by eye. But,
> > measure by eye a few times under unfavorable conditions of uneven
> > terrain, and the errors will start adding up, despite some errors
> > cancelling out others.
 
> prove that they are systematic.  random errors do tend to cancel

Random errors do tend to cancell out each other - yes - but
not exactly. That's why they are called random errors.
They tend.. Tendency is nothing accurate - it can mean anything.
We could show this on a graph of continuous average errors.
The longer the distance and the greater the number of random
errors, the more scatter we get in the average error.
It's a statistical certainty. You should know as much.
You do know as much. But you act, as if you knew nothing
about it.
Professor, you have to be more truth-loving. You shouldn't be
caught in this eagerness to entangle your opponents in verbiage.

>  Before you know it, you'll be out a whole
> > degree, but to know it, you would have to see and measure the
> > entire miles long line from high above the Andean foothills..

> nonsense.

" Nonsense!" declared the king. Everyone was executed,
and they all lived happily in the hereafter.

Jiri Mruzek-discovered by the world's oldest image of a horseman
 

         Date:
               Wed, 09 Apr 1997 02:35:33 -0700
        From:
               Jiri Mruzek <jirimruzek@lynx.bc.ca>
 Organization:
               Ancient Science-Art
  Newsgroups:
               sci.archaeology
   References:
               1 , 2
 
 
 

ANTTI TOLAMO wrote:
 
> > @FROM   :jirimruzek@lynx.bc.ca                                       N

: > Absolutely! It is obvious that the Egyptians used Hi-Tech..
: > On a chance you meant that their tools were typical primitive
: > tools of the day, that is unlikely, for if true, there would be
: > nothing to stop archaeologists and aegyptologists, and their
: > students from getting together and replicating some of the most
: > daunting Egyptian achievements by the sheer force of numbers,
: > and by the virtue of patience. I would love to see someone
: > finish that 1,000-ton obelisk, and float it several hundred
: > miles down the Nile, and then carry it next to one of the
: > 1,000-ton obelisks already standing in Egypt.
: > The absence of such demonstrations is conspicuous. It is a
: > glaring sign advertising the moderns' impotence in replicating
: > such ancient achievements.
: > Which is just too bad for the other side in this exchange..
 
.> >> : > Regards,
.> >> : > Jiri

> Hey!Are sure you don't think this all wrong way around?What if there
> were primitive tools but VERY advanced methods of understanding matter
> and it's priciples(like physics,chemistry,mathematics and etc...).After
> all,if you understand better laws which govern our universe,you would
> be able to need less so called 'Hi-tech' tools than a people who
> are more primitive in that respects.Isn't that only logical?

Yes, it is perfectly logical. The thought has flown through
my head many times. It is one of the possibilities - the alternative
of parallel technology, which we would call magic. Tales of magic
are dime a myriad.
 
> >> Why does it always have to be "little green men"?????
 
.> >If you were less than a foot tall, wouldn't you be
.> >green with envy, too?
.> >Do you think, you would look any better by the time you
.> >reached the center of our galaxy?

> Yes I agree and you have to remember too that most of the aliens are
> naked ,so wouldn't you be embarassed and wanting to 'sink' into the
> ground,if you noticed that after you had tarvelled half the galaxy,you
> found less developed culture which had devopled clothes?

I would set my laser - the great equalaser - to dissolve clothing.
 

               Thu, 10 Apr 1997 23:15:23 -0700
        From:
               Jiri Mruzek <jirimruzek@lynx.bc.ca>
 Organization:
               Ancient Science-Art
  Newsgroups:
               sci.archaeology, alt.alien.visitors
   References:
               1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5
 
 
 

fluid@alaska.net wrote:
 
> > Someone wrote:
> > > : > ...It is obvious that the Egyptians used Hi-Tech..
> > > : > On a chance you meant that their tools were typical primitive
> > > : > tools of the day, that is unlikely, for if true, there would be
> > > : > nothing to stop archaeologists and aegyptologists, and their
> > > : > students from getting together and replicating some of the most
> > > : > daunting Egyptian achievements by the sheer force of numbers,
> > > : > and by the virtue of patience...
 
> It appears that you lack understanding how the academic community works.

I always lack understanding. So I'm being told. But, I understand,
how the academia does not work..

> Why would
> ( or should ) numerous "archeologists and aegyptologists and their students" plan a
> major group study of this type?

Because they would provide an unforgettable service to science.
Cairo would speak of academic invasion years later, still.
They would bear me out.
Egypt is worth a visit, but writing history while visiting there
is like living with the boots on..
Be part of the cavalry to the rescue.
Because you are losing this argument:-)

> Money, scheduling, academic rivalry, better things to
> do with time and money...

Like what better things? But, surely not bigger things?
THink what this would do for our theoretical knowledge.

> these are among the reasons why this hasn't happened and won't
> happen.  Why should all these busy people get together to "prove"
> something they already  believe and see no reason to demonstrate?

And what is their belief based on, how did they test it?
They didn't, yet, they stubbornly refuse to consider any possibility
of such tests - ever. Can denial be more blatant? Can Pseudo-science
be far behind?
 

> They are not motivated by your feeble
> claims...feeble meaning low volume, not low importance.

You are right.
 

:> > > > The absence of such demonstrations is
:> > > > conspicuous. It is a glaring sign advertising the moderns'
impotence in
:> > > > replicating such ancient achievements.
 
> The absence of demonstration proves nothing, as any thinking person knows.

Yes, when out of context.
But, you (your side) need to prove that something. Otherwise,
you have to consider the s.c. far-out ideas more somberly.
We've seen the ads - now, where is the beef (the feats)?

> We never
> proved that we could destroy all life on earth with our nuclear technology, but did that
> disprove the premise?  Of course not.  Science, and life for that matter, does not work
> that way, even if you desperately want it to.
 
You're wrong. We did prove that we could destroy all life on earth with
our nuclear technology, by destroying all life in test sites.
Likewise, If you could carry one 1,000 ton granite block for 100
kilometers, it would prove that the same could be done again and again.

> While I personaly do not believe that the ancients posessed high tech tools, that
> doesn't mean that the premise should not be discussed.

Do you agree that we should also check out my Science-Art, starting,
let's say, with the Nasca Monkey report? It would be important to prove
for a change that the ancients could do something. In this case, the
immediate benefit would be a truer estimation of the mathematical
knowledge of Nasca's designers.
 
> But let's try to keep things
> real, shall we?  Believe what you will, but don't put yourself in the same league as,
> for example, the "pyramid scheme" spammers with which we are all so familiar.  Their
> claims are half truths or logically flawed...let's try not to succumb to the "ends
> justify the means" groups.

You put me in the same league with spammers?
Now, I do see for certain that you are out of touch with reali

 Fri Apr 11 01:16:08 1997

Shooty wrote:

.>>>>> Mean deviation from a perfectly flat plane was the miniscule
1/100"
.>>>>> over a distance of 75". This spec allowed for the incredibly thin
.>>>>> film of superfine quality mortar (1/50").
.>>>>> 1/100 of an inch is slightly thicker than a hair..

>  a curved pipe, it finds its owm level, you put posts into the ground at
> points A and B. The pipe is between the posts, vertical extensions of
> the pipe go up the posts, fill with water to desired level and mark on
> posts. Set up another post at point C, move the pipe to between posts B
> and C, fill with water up to the mark on post B, mark on C, now all the
> marks are at the same height.

Yes, it is a nice method, but it has no application in
planing mantle-stone surfaces to the specs above.

namon

Fri, 11 Apr 1997 17:56:13 -0700
        From:
               Jiri Mruzek <jirimruzek@lynx.bc.ca>
 Organization:
               Ancient Science-Art
  Newsgroups:
               sci.archaeology, soc.culture.usa, sci.history.science,
               sci.anthropology, sci.skeptic, sci.math,, alt.alien.visitors
 
 
 

>From - Fri Apr 11 02:33:28 1997

ku6973@freenet.on.ca wrote:

> Clint Johnson wrote:

> > Jiri Mruzek <jirimruzek@lynx.bc.ca> wrote

.>>>>> Mean deviation from a perfectly flat plane was the miniscule
1/100"
.>>>>> over a distance of 75". This spec allowed for the incredibly thin
.> > > > > film of superfine quality mortar (1/50").
.>>>>> 1/100 of an inch is slightly thicker than a hair..

> > > > dig a 500 foot trough.  fill it with water on a flat calm day.
> > > > you can get this kind of accuracy.

> > > Okay, you can get flat water surface, then quick-freeze it,
> > > before the tide sets in, or someone breezes:-)
> > > But I was talking about stone, and stone is thicker than
> > > water. How do you fit stones to this flat water surface?

> > Submerge the rock to the desired level and pound and grind down anything
> > that sticks up above the water. Work on it for a while and you would have a
> > *very* flat surface.

Submerge the 17-ton rock, and do so do it with each of
the 115,000 casing stones? Gee, why haven't I thought of
that one before?
BTW, is this how you would work all the sides? How would
you get the sides to be parallel and perpendicular? This
is getting better by the minute, as we take a lot of breaks
waiting for the waves to settle after each little movement.

> > > > not thayt I buy without cites your claim.

> > > Not my claim, it's widely known facts of life at Giza.

> > Been there. It is also a widely know "fact" of life at Giza that the Nile
> > river defies the law of gravity by flowing south to north. There are a         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
> Ahhmmm?  Explain that statement.  Are you sugesting the river flows
> up-hill?  Or that SOUTH, being at the bottom of the map, has a lower
> elevation with respect to sea level, than has the NORTH, which is located
> at the top of the map?  Have you learned how to read maps?
 
> > lot
> > of widely known "facts" that just ain't so.

He is suggesting that I am suggesting it. Or the equivalent of it,
in citing specs for the mantle stones. Some like to play it absurd,
when feeling righteous. He disbelieves those specs exist.

> > By the way, the pyramid looked quite impressive. A marvelous piece of human
> > engineering... but nothing unfathomable to my eye.

How would you transport the 70-ton blocks to the required level?
 

 Fri Apr 11 02:40:51 1997

Shooty wrote:
 
> Jiri Mruzek wrote:

> > .. Seal of Atlantis? Don't forget, the only other
> > place, where we can see this unique geometric design is in the
> > Stone-Age Cinderella Engraving from La Marche.
 
> You are the only one who seems to see this design, this so called
> 'Seal  of Atlantis'.

Maybe. Nevertheless, it is real. It's where I say it is.
Check the story out, and disprove it if you can. Since
you can't, this is the only way out for you - slandering
while generalizing. Don't forget - the s.c. Seal of Atlantis
is a mathematical idea, which I describe in detail.
Apply yourself to that!

> Why Atlantis by the way?

Plato's account of Atlantis is very believable.
Atlantis fits the Stone-Age time-frame.
Do you know of any other candidate civilisations
from the Atlantic regions, for the period?

Sun, 13 Apr 1997 22:50:36 -0700
        From:
               Jiri Mruzek <jirimruzek@lynx.bc.ca>
 Organization:
               Ancient Science-Art
  Newsgroups:
               sci.archaeology, alt.alien.visitors, soc.culture.usa,
               sci.history.science, sci.anthropology, sci.skeptic, sci.math
   References:
               1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16
 
 
 

Matt Silberstein wrote:

> In sci.anthropology Jiri Mruzek <jirimruzek@lynx.bc.ca> wrote:
 
> >Exactly. Therefore let one of the many guys around here, who
> >claim  to know everything about the exceedingly simple art of
> >stonemaking, replicate some of these Egyptian artifacts.
> >Perhaps, you will give it a try? Remember, if you exude
> >enthusiasm -  half the work is done already.
 
> I have seen many people suggest you contact someone who works stone,
> but I have not seen anyone claim even significant knowledge of stone.

I have seen a few people on both sides claim nice expertise.
We have Dunn, Maathusen, some others..

> And I am still surprised that you have not already contacted such
> people.
 
I am not sure that such people exist. Had they existed,
at least one of them would replicate the Egyptian long
necked granite bowls using the old tech just for kicks.
So says statistics:-)
If you look around, you will see humanity holding on
to the old arts and crafts. People weave, do pottery,
saw, sew, hew, and carve, and so on.
Ultimately, this leads to an observation that instead
of losing the old skills, even as we automatize our
industries, and go into space, we also accumulate more
knowledge of simple (Low) technologies.
Therefore, the situation in the craft of making exquisite
granite bowls is either anomalous, or imagined, because
of being impossible.
There is no replicating such bowls by Lo Tech, just like
there is no going to the Moon by Lo-Tech.

> [snip]
 
> >> > Mean deviation from a perfectly flat plane was the miniscule 1/100"
> >> > over a distance of 75". This spec allowed for the incredibly thin
> >> > film of superfine quality mortar (1/50").
> >> > 1/100 of an inch is slightly thicker than a hair..

> >> dig a 500 foot trough.  fill it with water on a flat calm day.
> >> you can get this kind of accuracy.

> >Okay, you can get flat water surface, then quick-freeze it,
> >before the tide sets in, or someone breezes:-)
> >But I was talking about stone, and stone is thicker than
> >water. How do you fit stones to this flat water surface?
 
> You use the trough to set the line. Then you finish the stone to the
> line.

Yes, but we are planing a large stone surface, not
just producing one single line.
Besides, we have six sides of the block to work into
perfectly parallel and perpendicular planes. Having
a trough full of water standing next to our block won't
be of much help in our delicate mission, I'm afraid.
 Yet, if we would have the trough produce a block of
ice, we could subsequently employ its flat face as a
large straightedge for rubbing the nearly finished
stone to utter perfection with fine quartz grit
embedded in the ice.
 
> [snip]
 
> >> prove that they are systematic.  random errors do tend to cancel

> >Random errors do tend to cancell out each other - yes - but
> >not exactly. That's why they are called random errors.
> >They tend.. Tendency is nothing accurate - it can mean anything.
> >We could show this on a graph of continuous average errors.
> >The longer the distance and the greater the number of random
> >errors, the more scatter we get in the average error.
> >It's a statistical certainty. You should know as much.
> >You do know as much. But you act, as if you knew nothing
> >about it. Professor, you have to be more truth loving. You
> >shouldn't be caught in this eagerness to entangle your opponents
> >in verbiage.
 
> In general it is inferred that if the errors do not cancel there is a
> systematic bias. A systematic bias essentially means that there is an
> unknown force cause the deviation.

Great! There will always be a systematic bias in humans.
It will be in the eye of a beholder, i.e., the surveyor.
Likely, such person will tend to err to one side.
For instance, it is well known that when trying to walk
straight, any person will eventually walk in circles,
because no one's limbs are exactly symmetrical. You could
alternate a group of surveyors to lessen the effects of
this bias, but the measure still won't solve the problem.

> Without a systematic bias the
> errors will cancel in the long run. The greater the number of
> measurements, absent a systematic bias, the closer the average is to
> the actual. That is standard statistics.

What you just said is quite misleading, Matt, especially
since your statement is indubitably true. But translated
into the circumstances, it still means that the lines
drawn by the suggested method of unaided eye measurements
will deviate from the desired direction more and more.

I don't know about you, but this subject fascinates me.
Let's imagine an experiment with straight line making.
All the lines will start from the same point and follow
the same direction marked by a line between two sticks
set in the ground.
Of course, the lines are marked in invisible paint, and
each crew works out of sight of the others.
What will happen with let's say fifty lines? Let's be kind
and discard the systematic bias. Let's toss a coin instead,
in order to randomly determine the direction of erring by
about .01 of a degree, at each step. Heads - the error goes
to the left off the axis, Tails - it goes the other way.

Now, tell me - do you think that all the lines will
stay superimposed, or do you suppose that we shall see
individual lines begin to separate from the pack? Would
we not soon see fifty lines emerge?
If you agree, then do you suppose that the fifty separate
lines will ever merge into a single line, again, as they
continue across the face of our planet, or does the idea
sound too absurd to you?
The reason for this absurdity is obvious. Your statistical
law from above works in a slightly different way than you
seem to imply.
True, the greater the number of tosses, the closer the
ratio between heads and tails gets to fifty percent (50%).
But at the same time, the mean difference between the
number of tosses for both heads and tails increases.
It's not a paradox.
Of course, given sufficient time, the heads and tails
tossed for each particular line will reverse trends,
and at some point in the future, the number of tosses for
both the heads, and the tails should become exactly equal,
marking the given line's return to correct direction.
The catch is that in our group of fifty control lines -
almost none of these moments of exact balance between
heads and tails will occur simultaneously!
In a computer simulation projecting the experiment upon
the planetary surface the lines will continue to scatter,
and twist like loose waterhoses under pressure. The longer
the hose - the wider the scatter.
Yet the proportion between all the heads and tails
tossed in this experiment will approach ever closer to
being fifty-fifty.
So, there is an element of uncertainty underlying the
issue. Otherwise, we could win lotteries relying on
a simplistic understanding of your law of averages.
Take the lotto 6/49, in which one tries to predict
 6 numbers drawn from 1 - 49.
Should one choose the six numbers, which were picked
the least of all, so far, and in general, choose combos
of even larger groups of the least drawn numbers?
Would this scheme work? No, we know, it wouldn't.
Simplistic applications of true statistical laws smack
of Numerology!

> >>  Before you know it, you'll be out a whole
> >> > degree, but to know it, you would have to see and measure the
> >> > entire miles long line from high above the Andean foothills..
 
> How long is this line? Can you see one end from the other? can you see
> both ends from the middle?

Since we are moving over the Andean foothills, and some of
the lines are almost twenty miles long, mostly you cannot
see either end, but, only a fraction of the whole course.

> >> nonsense.

> >" Nonsense!" declared the king. Everyone was executed,
> >and they all lived happily in the hereafter.
 
> His comment is less of an assertion than you seem to imply. He
> supported his opinion earlier in the post.

And I upheld mine. He uttered his " Nonsense", and I said
my piece - a version of a happy-end to a fairytale..
 
 
 Top Menu    Namon's Gallery    Next  Previous    Articles