From: Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>

Date: Fri Oct 10 2008 - 19:37:38 EDT

Date: Fri Oct 10 2008 - 19:37:38 EDT

Hi George,

Oh, says he - I always thought the zero was significant because of the potential difference between 30 and 31 (say). Is this not so?

Anyhoo, having goofed off a little...

Measurement of arm from elbow to finger-tip, c =

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(wait for it)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

ONE CUBIT (ROTFL!)

Being much more serious

c = 500 mm

h = 95 mm

my PI = 3 / (1 - (h/5c) )

= 3 / (1 - (95/2500) )

= 3 / 1 - 0.038

= 3 / 0.962

= 3.1185

Do we have some sort of chart we can look up to work out what this means - I have suggested a few entries below;

Your PI;

<0 - your ruler has inches AND centimeters - how nice!

0-1 - Please Google "forearm" to make sure you are using your correct bodily parts

3 - Biblical fundamentalist

3.1185 - You should be so perfect!

3.14 - Liar

3.14159265 - Really BAD liar

3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679

8214808651328230664709384460955058223172535940812848111745028410270193852110555964462294895493038196

4428810975665933446128475648233786783165271201909145648566923460348610454326648213393607260249141273

724587006606315588174881520920962829254091715364367892590360011330530548820466521384146951941511609...(etc)

- Anatomically perfect but at best obsessive compulsive - possibly bordering on the mentally deranged.

I'm guessing, by the way, that there are certain parts of the anatomy which are always in certain proportions - and by tweaking the formula one can get pretty close to PI on a frequent basis?

Blessings,

Murray

George Cooper wrote:

*> Hi Murray,
*

*>
*

*> First, on David's observation: it strikes me as valuable to think in
*

*> terms of significant figures and/or likely precision of measurement and
*

*> applaud your observation on this point BUT we should be applying these
*

*> concepts to the measurements given (diameter=10 cubits; circumference=30
*

*> cubits) rather than the implied value of Pi. Clearly these measurements
*

*> are to two significant figures.
*

*>
*

*> Actually, the numbers 10 and 30 have a significant figure of one sense
*

*> zeros are not considered “significant” by definition.
*

*>
*

*> I like your thinking, though I still like the beauty of the formulation.
*

*>
*

*> If you, or anyone, finds the time to goof-off with this a little, I
*

*> would be curious to learn the following measurements of your arm. [I
*

*> happened to choose my right arm.]
*

*>
*

*> Place your forearm vertically on a table and measure from the table top
*

*> (elbow) to the tip of your middle finger (also vertical). [Cubit value, c.]
*

*>
*

*> Place your hand flat on the table and measure across your hand about an
*

*> inch behind the knuckles, as well as, across the knuckles. [Hand values, h.]
*

*>
*

*> It would be interesting how close we might come to a pi value. [Your pi
*

*> = 3/(1-(h/5c)) ]
*

*>
*

*> “Coope”
*

*>
*

*> I note, furthermore, that the Old Testament only ever gives measurements
*

*> to the nearest half-cubit and only then when the measurements are small
*

*> - the largest measurement with a half-cubit accuracy is two and a
*

*> half-cubits.
*

*>
*

*> SO it strikes me that the precision being used is +/- half a cubit.
*

*>
*

*> We can say, then, that the diameter should be taken as 10 +/- half a
*

*> cubit (i.e. 10.6 cubits would be taken as 11 cubits) and circumference
*

*> as 30 +/- half a cubit.
*

*>
*

*> So, calculating maximum and minimum possible values of Pi;
*

*>
*

*> Maximum value = largest possible circumference / smallest possible diameter
*

*>
*

*> = 30.5 / 9.5
*

*>
*

*> = 3.21
*

*>
*

*> Minimum value = smallest possible circumference / largest possible diameter
*

*>
*

*> = 29.5 / 10.5
*

*>
*

*> = 2.81
*

*>
*

*> So, by and large following David's lead we find that the nearest we can
*

*> calculate PI from the OT data is to state a range of 2.81 to 3.21
*

*>
*

*> Even if one wanted to round these to two significant figures, the actual
*

*> value of PI would still be within range.
*

*>
*

*> Blessings,
*

*>
*

*> Murray
*

*>
*

*> George Cooper wrote:
*

*>
*

*>> David said: Pi is 3-to one significant digit, which is all the text gives.
*

*>
*

*>>
*

*>
*

*>> Yes, a fair point given a general audience with the author giving only
*

*>
*

*>> approximate dimensions for either the diameter or circumference or both.
*

*>
*

*>>
*

*>
*

*>> I would have preferred, however, to read in scripture of an "about 3 to
*

*>
*

*>> 1" statement considering all the other subsequent details of these
*

*>
*

*>> magnificent bowls. On the other hand, the placement of the 600 knops
*

*>
*

*>> would benefit greatly if the craftsmen could take advantage of this
*

*>
*

*>> rather unique measurement circumstance of reducing the diameter of 10
*

*>
*

*>> cubits by the two hand widths, yielding a ~ 3.14 ratio (assuming the
*

*>
*

*>> circumference under the brim were actually 30 cubits). This makes me
*

*>
*

*>> suspect that the 3 to 1 statement had a nifty meaning, especially for
*

*>
*

*>> the craftsmen.
*

*>
*

*>>
*

*>
*

*>> Whether a rough value or a unique circumstance for measurements, either
*

*>
*

*>> gives reason for none to claim the Bible uses an "exact value of 3 for
*

*>
*

*>> pi". I've heard this claim used by those in science who should know or
*

*>
*

*>> suspect better. [I’ll be curious if they publish my brief and friendly
*

*>
*

*>> response in the next/ Astronomy/ issue.]
*

*>
*

*>>
*

*>
*

*>> "Coope"
*

*>
*

*>>
*

*>
*

*>>
*

*>
*

*>> -----Original Message-----
*

*>
*

*>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
*

*>
*

*>> Behalf Of David Campbell
*

*>
*

*>> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 2:58 PM
*

*>
*

*>> To: ASA
*

*>
*

*>> Subject: Re: [asa] Pi in Bible's face
*

*>
*

*>>
*

*>
*

*>> Pi is 3-to one significant digit, which is all the text gives.
*

*>
*

*>>
*

*>
*

*>>
*

*>
*

*>> --
*

*>
*

*>>
*

*>
*

*>> Dr. David Campbell
*

*>
*

*>>
*

*>
*

*>> 425 Scientific Collections
*

*>
*

*>>
*

*>
*

*>> University of Alabama
*

*>
*

*>>
*

*>
*

*>> "I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
*

*>
*

*>>
*

*>
*

*>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
*

*>
*

*>>
*

*>
*

*>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
*

*>
*

*>>
*

*>
*

*> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
*

*>
*

*> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
*

*>
*

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with

"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

Received on Fri Oct 10 19:38:08 2008

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8
: Fri Oct 10 2008 - 19:38:08 EDT
*