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.
Originally posted by Naptown317
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
Pics or it didn't happen!
Originally posted by Harte
And therein lies the rub.
Dunn used a flatness guage about a meter long to show that about one-one hundredth of the stone he was checking was flat.
It takes a real bias to not wonder at all if the rest of the same stone conformed to the same flatness.
As a mechanical engineer, I checked flatness routinely on saw tables. You can't check flatness the way Dunn did in the video.
Not saying he didn't do it right. I'm saying the vid never showed him doing it right.
And no, sorry, the part certainly doesn't represent the whole. That's a real lack of critical thinking you got there.
Harteedit on 6/22/2011 by Harte because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Originally posted by Harte
And therein lies the rub.
Dunn used a flatness guage about a meter long to show that about one-one hundredth of the stone he was checking was flat.
It takes a real bias to not wonder at all if the rest of the same stone conformed to the same flatness.
As a mechanical engineer, I checked flatness routinely on saw tables. You can't check flatness the way Dunn did in the video.
Not saying he didn't do it right. I'm saying the vid never showed him doing it right.
And no, sorry, the part certainly doesn't represent the whole. That's a real lack of critical thinking you got there.
Harteedit on 6/22/2011 by Harte because: (no reason given)
A flatness gauge a meter long? That seems plenty long to me, but I'll get back to that shortly [no pun intended].
It takes another real bias to assume the rest of the stone was not as flat as those areas Dunn checked.
OK, you say you check flatness routinely on saw tables. Explain, please, and also why Dunn can not check flatness the way he did. Looked flat to me! What would he need to do differently to do it "right"?
Yes, the part certainly does represent the whole, and that is the premise on which all statistical and quality control science rests - is that not true? Sampling is the key, and a flatness gauge a meter long seems generous. Should he measure with one as long as the whole stone, and check every square foot, square inch, square millimeter, every square micron? At some point you have to trust your measurements. That's a real lack of critical thinking on your part.
Originally posted by TinfoilTP
That kind of thinking led to people believing the world was flat.
Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Originally posted by TinfoilTP
That kind of thinking led to people believing the world was flat.
His, mine, or both?? Flat? The "world" appears flat on a nearby scale, and again, measurement is the key. Do the right measuring, and you realise the world is undoubtedly round.
Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Originally posted by Harte
And therein lies the rub.
Dunn used a flatness guage about a meter long to show that about one-one hundredth of the stone he was checking was flat.
It takes a real bias to not wonder at all if the rest of the same stone conformed to the same flatness.
As a mechanical engineer, I checked flatness routinely on saw tables. You can't check flatness the way Dunn did in the video.
Not saying he didn't do it right. I'm saying the vid never showed him doing it right.
And no, sorry, the part certainly doesn't represent the whole. That's a real lack of critical thinking you got there.
Harteedit on 6/22/2011 by Harte because: (no reason given)
A flatness gauge a meter long? That seems plenty long to me, but I'll get back to that shortly [no pun intended].
It takes another real bias to assume the rest of the stone was not as flat as those areas Dunn checked.
Not saying he didn't do it right. I'm saying the vid never showed him doing it right.
Originally posted by Lazarus Short
OK, you say you check flatness routinely on saw tables. Explain, please, and also why Dunn can not check flatness the way he did. Looked flat to me! What would he need to do differently to do it "right"?
Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Yes, the part certainly does represent the whole, and that is the premise on which all statistical and quality control science rests - is that not true? Sampling is the key, and a flatness gauge a meter long seems generous. Should he measure with one as long as the whole stone, and check every square foot, square inch, square millimeter, every square micron? At some point you have to trust your measurements. That's a real lack of critical thinking on your part.
Originally posted by wirehead
So they used these machine tools to smooth their surfaces.... and yet never depicted this in a single one of their frescoes or wrote about it in their texts? They have murals depicting their harvest methods, their boat building methods, their rituals, history.... But not a single one depicting machine tools being used? When in fact, they have other murals depicting exactly how they claimed to smooth the stones, in which they completely forgot to include the part about machine tools?