Uncharted X released a video and files relating to an Egyptian granite vase. I have made my own report that this vase follows the profile of a rotated parabola and is incredibly precise. You can find that report here.
Since releasing the vase data, Uncharted X has promoted the findings of Mark Qvist. The first thing you’ll notice is that there are tons of equations, diagrams and other information. I think this detracts from the objective of proving advanced technology in the past. For this write-up, we’ll look at the very basis for Mark’s entire work.
$${Do}/{Ri}=π$$R = Radius
D = Diameter
C = Circumference
i = inner
o = outer
At first sight, that might look impressive that a ratio of π was found. But when you think about it, all you need is π on one side and not π on the other. Divide one by the other and you’ll get a multiple of PI assuming the other values are evenly divisible (the original values don’t even have to be integers).
Here is the equation for the circumference of a circle.
$${C}=2πr$$What would happen if you divide both sides by 2r?
$${C}/{2r}=π$$There’s that π ratio. But it’s not impressive. It’s just another way to write the equation for the circumference. So let’s look around and see if there’s anything that is the same length or a multiple of the circumference. Call this value X.
$${X}/{2r}=π$$There’s your π ratio.
Any expression that has π divided by another that does not have π will always yield π multiplied by a constant. This is not groundbreaking.
So let’s rework the original finding and rewrite it so that we see the circumference of one of the circles.
- $${Do}/{Ri}=π$$
- $${Ri}={Do}/π$$
- $${Ci}=2π{Ri}$$
- $${Ci}=2π{{Do}/π}$$
- $${Ci}=2{Do}$$
- $${Ci}=2⋅{2{Ro}}$$
- $${Ci}=4{Ro}$$
Step 1 is the original finding. Step 2 rewrites this in term of Ri (inner radius).
Step 3 is the definition of the inner circumference.
In Step 4, we substitute Ri with the equation in step 2.
The rest is just simplification.
What we’re left with is that the inner circumference is exactly 4 times that of the outer radius.
That is rather interesting. Did the makers of this vase choose this ratio? That still involves π if they calculated it. But there are ways to approximate it or measure it without π. At the precisions involved, that becomes more questionable. Regardless, that’s an interesting discussion to have. But this π ratio is not.
Let’s work our way back to the original equation.
- $${Ci}=4{Ro}$$
- $${Ci}=2π{Ri}$$
- $$2π{Ri}=4{Ro}$$
- $$2π{Ri}=2{Do}$$
- $$π{Ri}={Do}$$
- $$π={Do}/{Ri}$$
Look at step 4. We have 2πRi. That’s the definition of the circumference. It contains π. The other side does not. You can put anything you want on the other side (except for π) and you’ll get a ratio of π because that’s the definition of the circumference of a circle. Nothing more.
What other equation has π? Well, there’s the equation for the area of a circle. Also, the equation for the volume of a sphere.
$${A}=πr^2$$
Quick, find something on the vase that’s divides evenly into πr^2 in length. Divide it in 2, in 4, in 6, in 5, pick any number and if you find something, you’ll get that π ratio. It’s just not impressive because all they did was take an existing measure and multiply it or divide it by an even factor. There’s no π involved at all.
How about the volume of a sphere?
$${V}={4/3}πr^3$$
Find something that’s evenly divisible into πr^3 in length and you again have your π ratio.
Now, it *IS* interesting if the designers originally chose even multiples of certain existing measurements depending on where those values are found. But the π ratio itself is not interesting in the least. It’s a natural consequence of comparing a value that has π with one that doesn’t.
To simplify what I’m saying is that it’s all too easy for someone to take the length of something, take a multiple of it or divide it evenly and then use it elsewhere in the design. That’s not rocket science. It doesn’t require π. Even worse is that you can take any evenly divisible amount. In the vase, the outer radius is 1/4 of the inner circumference. If it was found to be 1/5th or 1/8th or 1/10th or whatever amount, we’d still get a π ratio. Are we to be astounded by each and every one of those values? Of course not. Is it coincidence that it’s exactly 4? Maybe. Maybe not. But one thing with absolute certainty is that the π ratio is a red herring. It has absolutely no research value whatsoever.
What’s even worse is that this ratio between Do and Ri gives detractors an easy argument that the makers of the vase weren’t going for π. They were going for 3 and ended up being inaccurate. The value of 3 makes even more sense for symmetry as it means the width of the disc (distance between the two radii) is half the inner radius. That’s a MUCH more logical approach than the π ratio. It also means the factor of 4 is pure coincidence (note that the 4x ratio is required for the π ratio to hold). It gets even worse. The figure given by Mark for the inner radius is 18.7391mm. I have no idea where he gets that figure. At the very top, the vase is curved. The inside cylinder is not perfectly perpendicular. It tapers in a bit. It’s not much, but it’s there. At the very top, it’s at least 19mm. A bit further down the inside of the vase, it narrows a bit to around 18.7mm. But why this location and not the top? Then we get to the measure for the outside of the vase. The lip is completely rounded. At the furthest point, I measured about 29.5mm. Multiply that by 2 to get the diameter, and I get 59mm. Mark states 58.9322. The ratio according to the actual measurements is 3.1 at best. That’s not any indication of π. Even Mark’s figure is only at two decimal places. He tries to say it’s 0.1046% from π. But 0.1% just means two decimal places and your measurements aren’t accurate to 2 decimal places. Two decimal places is 10 microns. The accuracy ascribed by Mark is beyond the scanner’s capabilities at 26 micron.
To quote Mark:
The creators of this object inscribed π to perfection at the microscopic scale, in one of the hardest and most difficult materials to work with.
Uh, no. They made a circle. That’s why π shows up. And not the π from the Do/Ri ratio. That’s not even measured correctly.
Mark then goes on to assume that the unit of measurement that the makers based their entire design was from the inner radius. He then uses this as 1U for 1 base unit. This has zero mathematical merit.
He then compares this to the speed of light divided by 16Ghz. Why? What is the point of this?
I’m a big supporter of alternative history. I like what Ben is doing at Uncharted X for providing the scans of these vases. It’s very interesting data. But this dive into numerology is not helping.
It’s a bad look. And it makes the rest of us who are interested in the subject look bad as well.