It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The shame is that the true heritage of the Egyptian people is being ignored; for if the level of technology evident in the stones of Egypt are evaluated, completely understood and explained by appropriate experts, Egypt will give itself and the world, the greatest gift possible. An understanding of a glorious past with innumerable lessons for future generations.
Originally posted by Harte
His method of agitation of the hydrogen is "earth movements."
That is impossible.
Originally posted by DemonSpeedN
As for people like harte they wouldn't except the truth even if it slapped them in the face.
Originally posted by Lazarus Short
... and I think that the chapter on ancient machining of stone are worth the price of the whole book.
Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Originally posted by Lazarus Short
... and I think that the chapter on ancient machining of stone are worth the price of the whole book.
Do they include that fact that finishing tools have been excavated beside partially hewn stones? Mind you, I only heard about it from the fellow who was excavating. Maybe I should buy the book?
Originally posted by Lazarus Short
I hadn't heard about finishing tools - what metal were they made of?
Originally posted by Harte
Originally posted by Lazarus Short
I hadn't heard about finishing tools - what metal were they made of?
Ancient Egyptian finishing tools consist primarily of diorite pounding stones and sandstone (mostly) rubbing stones.
There exist several reliefs showing the use of both in Ancient Egypt.
Harte
Originally posted by Lazarus Short
I don't personally believe it possible to achieve a flat, planar surface in very hard stone by pounding and rubbing.
Originally posted by Harte
Originally posted by Lazarus Short
I don't personally believe it possible to achieve a flat, planar surface in very hard stone by pounding and rubbing.
Argument from incredulity.
You can, obviously, feel any way you want about it.
An argument from incredulity is, however, not a valid argument.
The fact is, Egyptians used diorite pounders and (usually) sandstone rubbing stones to achieve the finishes they wanted on all kinds of stone. It is, as I said, attested to by ancient Egyptian artwork and writings.
Harte
Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Funny, that. I have taken a college-level course in Logic, and have never heard of the "Argument from Incredulity."
Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Anyway, one man's incredulity is another man's airtight proof. BTW, I did not use the word "feel."
Originally posted by Lazarus Short
How do you really propose to prove that pounding and rubbing produced planar surfaces?
Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Dunn demonstrated their close tolerances by laying a machinist's rule on such an ancient surface and showing how light would not shine from under the rule. Either he was being dishonest, or the surface was machined.
Originally posted by Lazarus Short
I don't personally believe it possible to achieve a flat, planar surface in very hard stone by pounding and rubbing. Dunn demonstrates that the Egyptians achieved planar surfaces usually only done today by stone planes (a machine tool), consistent radiusing, also implying machine tool use, and of course, that core drilling. No, the machine tools are not there, but the worked stones left behind imply the machine tools. There is more to this issue than reliefs, which may well date from a post-machine tool period in Egyptian history anyway.
Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Laz: Dunn demonstrated their close tolerances by laying a machinist's rule on such an ancient surface and showing how light would not shine from under the rule. Either he was being dishonest, or the surface was machined.
Harte: Yes, I've seen Dunn doing that. The rule he used was short compared to the stone he was checking. It made me wonder what a longer flatness guage would have shown. Didn't you wonder this as well?
Laz: No, I didn't. The part represents the whole.