Re: Solomon's 'molten sea' revisited

From: Donald Nield <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>
Date: Mon May 03 2004 - 00:35:34 EDT

>
>
> I do tend to agree with what both you and George have to say about Vernon's
> outlook. However, I did spend some time looking at the web page:
>
> http://homepage.virgin.net/tgvernon.jenkins/Blueprint_2.htm
>
> It is indeed quite confusing to me as to how such simple concepts can yield
> these results. At first, I wrote it off to mere coincidence, but now I much less
> certain. This one page avoids almost all of the complexities of Vernon's
> geometrical figures and does leave me wondering.
>
> Any comments from anybody?
>
> Walt
>

Perhaps I can say that I have already had a life, so that now I can afford to waste
my time on trivial matters such as this! :-)
I write it off as coincidence. It depends on 10 being the base for the arithmetic.
It also depends on such arbitrary things as the choice of circumference divided by
diameter, rather than circumference divided by radius, to take as the basic constant
for measuring circles. Given that both e and pi are approximately 3, and given that
any Hebrew or Greek sentence of that approximate length will yield a number
approximately 3, there is no coincidence about the first digit for those two
numbers. This fact makes the results less surprising than they might otherwise be.
Don
Received on Mon May 3 00:14:44 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 03 2004 - 00:14:45 EDT