The line travels through the engraved line between edges, and with the edges. On its way upwards towards the center of the big x-shape it actually forms the right edge of the engraved line. Later, it starts hitting against the left edge. It is exactly as I describe it above.
Right next to the letter
b, the line falls completely outside the engraved line. You are either incompetent or lying.
There is practically only one such line for the purposes here.
If your purpose is to follow your own rules, that is not the line.
Nitpicking Saying that it is some sort of a negative that the "line extends beyond the length" is simply inexcusable.
For someone who is fond of telling us how precise everything is, you are very touchy about an observation of the imprecision of one of your lines.
It is only natural to extend the line in order to see it better at the exit points, and to see, where it goes.
Why should it have exit points or go anywhere, if it does either of those it isn't "
confined between edges of an engraved line".
This kind of argument strikes me as very repugnant - a specious argument for the sake of argument.
This type of overreaction strikes me as childishly disproportionate to the genuine analysis of stated intent versus actions.
The derived line 'd' stays entirely in the black for the entire course through the engraved line 'd'.
It stays in the black of two different lines which makes it, and anything stemming from it, invalid.
according to the rules of this game.
I though you were conducting a serious academic study, not playing a game.
In fact, this is a very nice example of successful translation. There is only one such line for the engraved line 'd'. You missed again..
Again, either incompetent or lying.
And what arbitrary junction? Nothing about the line is arbitrary. Its junction with the x-axis is not arbitrary, then.'
You extend an inaccurate line to form junctions with other inaccurate line and then claim them as significant.
Again, the extrapolated 'e' is perfectly forced by the engraved line 'e'. It travels with both edges, and within the black. It does not curve. It stops, where another straight line begins. All is within the rules. Just look again.
The engraved line quite obviously continues and curves directly after your arbitrary endpoint.
BTW, line 'e' is also perfectly perpendicular to line 'b'.
So, two lines which don't even follow your own rules are at right angles, it's amazing that they won't met you into that museum.
The derived line 'g' stays entirely in the black from the top down to where the engraved line splits into a fork. This is easy to verify. Moreover, since in places it runs with both edges, it is the only such line here. It is entirely forced.
Well, I agree that it is entirely forced, however, it quite plainly does not stay "entirely in the black from the top down to where the engraved line splits into a fork", and strays beyond the engraving twice. Incompetence or lying again.
The fact is that the engraved line 'c' is itself an arc, whose two ends rest on the derived line 'c'. Again, there is only one such line, and thus it too belongs to the forced category.
The ends of engraved
c do not rest on the line c; the bottom rests on a point at the edge of the engraving but away from the end by a noticeable distance, while at the top the derived line passes through a point observably inside the end of the engraved line.
By now, I have lost any faith in your observational powers.
Are you sure you're not just disappointed that someone pointed out the obvious flaws in your construction?
7.2 degrees, eh? Something tell me we are not looking at the same second line .
There are only two line which start at
a and these diverge by approximately 7.2 degrees.
This is just low of you. The y-axis is part of the so called Cone & Square formation.
Which is not evident from the example.
It is the Square's diagonal, and it is our y-axis for the entire engraving.
Why would you use a diagonal as a
y axis?
It never changes, it remains constant throughout my study of the engraving.
That doesn't make it necessary or accurate.
You must have known that. If not, you had no business involving yourself in this discussion.
Why should I know that, or even concern myself with it? You presented a section of the engraving as an example, it's not my fault if it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
And what about your "the orientation of the engraving has been manipulated"? What kind of slander is that? You don't like the fact that I prefer working with the engraving in this orientation? It does not matter, how you twist and turn the engraving - the geometry remains the same.
If you want to be taken even a little seriously, accusing me of slander is not going to help your image as a petulant child; there is no reason to work on the image in anything other than the exact orientation of the original, and certainly none to add strangely oriented axes.
I was very disappointed by your critique's low level of contact with reality.
In fact I was offended by it, because it is so partisan, and antagonistiac.
Back on ignore you go, Paul.
If you were ignoring me, presumably for daring to question you in the first place, how did you know what I'd written?
-
