Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Tuvar Ane Ingolenen · 10-30-2005, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NZSkep

Well I can find pi by taking any circle. Any true circle whatsoever! and simply dividng the circumference by the diameter. That is to an infinite number of digits too. how amazing!

<theist>
That's God telling you that his mind is best discoverd by studying His Creation, not stories about Him, His Creation or His prophets.
</theist>

Pmarra · 10-30-2005, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SophistiCat

Fine, if you don't trust me - here are some values.

EDIT: Ugh, it looks like I was using an incorrect formula? OK, no problem, just a little correction in the program. The formula now is

(The number of letters x the product of the letters) / (The number of words x the product of the words)

The interesting thing is that I am actually getting more hits this way.

So, back to "Paradise Lost". The numerical translations of letters follow the verse:

(Book2, verse 33) Precedence, none, whose portion is so small
<70><90><5><3><5><4><5><50><3><5> <50><60><50><5> <500><8><60><100><5> <70><60><90><200><9><60><50> <9><100> <100><60> <100><40><1><30><30>
35 letters, 7 words
>> Result ~ 3.14164 * 8 * 10^n

(Book3, verse 327) The living, and forthwith the cited dead
<200><8><5> <30><9><400><9><50><7> <1><50><4> <6><60><90><200><8><500><9><200><8> <200><8><5> <3><9><200><5><4> <4><5><1><4>
33 letters, 7 words
>> Result ~ 3.14154 / 2 * 10^n

(Book4, verse 710) Espoused EVE deckt first her Nuptial Bed,
<5><100><70><60><300><100><5><4> <5><400><5> <4><5><3><20><200> <6><9><90><100><200> <8><5><90> <50><300><70><200><9><1><30> <2><5><4>
34 letters, 7 words
>> Result ~ 3.14165 * 2 * 10^n

(Book6, verse 817) Therefore to mee thir doom he hath assig'n'd;
<200><8><5><90><5><6><60><90><5> <200><60> <40><5><5> <200><8><9><90> <4><60><60><40> <8><5> <8><1><200><8> <1><100><100><9><7><50><4>
35 letters, 8 words
>> Result ~ 3.14155 * 2 * 10^n

(Book7, verse 550) So Ev'n and Morn accomplish'd the Sixt day:
<100><60> <5><400><50> <1><50><4> <40><60><90><50> <1><3><3><60><40><70><30><9><100><8><4> <200><8><5> <100><9><600><200> <4><1><700>
33 letters, 8 words
>> Result ~ 3.14155 / 8 * 10^n

(Book8, verse 766) Irrational till then. For us alone
<9><90><90><1><200><9><60><50><1><30> <200><9><30><30> <200><8><5><50> <6><60><90> <300><100> <1><30><60><50><5>
28 letters, 6 words
>> Result ~ 3.14168 / 7 * 10^n

EDIT2: It looks like our theologist cum mathematician is simply lying. Going to his original post, the original formula was the correct one. Well, no matter, this doesn't change the outcome.

this result of reddish is correct and scientifically acceptable

Originally Posted by reddish

From an English translation of the Iliad by Homer:

"As when some great forest fire is raging upon a mountain top and its light is seen afar, even so as they marched the gleam of their armour flashed up into the firmament of heaven."

Your method yields 3.14154398865 * 10^109 on this sentence.

but these other results of SophistiCat are not acceptable

>> Result ~ 3.14164 * 8 * 10^n

>> Result ~ 3.14154 / 2 * 10^n

>> Result ~ 3.14165 * 2 * 10^n

>> Result ~ 3.14155 * 2 * 10^n

>> Result ~ 3.14155 / 8 * 10^n

>> Result ~ 3.14168 / 7 * 10^n

I don't have to explain so evident things that can also be understood by a child

please I ask you to be more serious and careful above all for the readers of this forum

reddish · 10-30-2005, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pmarra

but these other results of SophistiCat are not acceptable

SophistiCat: under the New and Improved rule (using the number of words and number of letters), only fudge factors which are a power of ten are allowed, you see.

Pmarra: please address the question in post 182. Thank you.

SophistiCat · 10-31-2005, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pmarra

I don't have to explain so evident things that can also be understood by a child

please I ask you to be more serious and careful above all for the readers of this forum

LOL, you are totaly without shame, aren't you? That's the second time you are trying to change the rules.

From your own site, as well as your earlier posting:

Quote:

Therefore we have:
PROD.LETTERS / PROD.WORDS =
2 x 200 x 300 x 10 x 400 x 2 x 200 x 30 x 5 x 10 x 40 x 400 x 5 x 300 x 40 x 10 x 40 x 6 x 400 x 5 x 200 x 90
/
913 x 203 x 86 x 401 x 395 x 407 x 296

That is

2,3887872 x 10e34 / 3,041535... x 10e17 = 0,785388... x 10e17 = (PI(biblical) x 10e17)/4

So, first you tried to lie about the method of calculation, adding number of letters and words to the expression, which weren't present in your original calculation. When that didn't help, you tried to imply that only fudge factors that are powers of 10 are allowed, even though your own calculation requires multiplying the result by 4 to get the desired number!

reddish · 10-31-2005, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V-Bird

I did start the to lose the will to live by page 2 of this diatribe of tripe, but only managed to keep my self awake 'til page 4 by beating myself about the head with a handy Anglepoise lamp so can anyone enlighten me as to whether our 'numerologist' explained the inaccuracy in 'pi'?

:rolling:

Of course not.

His feeble attempt at an excuse was that since Pi is irrational, it would be impossible to attain a perfect approximation.

This ignores the fact that The Lord could have aimed for something a bit higher than four digits. He could have gone for e.g. a continued fraction approximation which would indeed be quite remarkable.

For example, Pmarra claims that his calculation yields something close to Pi * 10^17. Why doesn't his calculation yield a fractional approximation like

72538969745865218064956897158745007253208534110/
230898712036957924958719407861?

Now if you divide that number by 10^17, you get Pi to 77 digits. But nooooo, we are expected to go all jubilant about a meagre four..... The christian God is apparantly only capable of very very small miracles.

TNorthover · 10-31-2005, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SophistiCat

So, first you tried to lie about the method of calculation, adding number of letters and words to the expression, which weren't present in your original calculation. When that didn't help, you tried to imply that only fudge factors that are powers of 10 are allowed, even though your own calculation requires multiplying the result by 4 to get the desired number!

After he's changed the calculation method, the fudge factors aren't needed anymore -- in this particular case 28/7 = 4, so it regenerates the original.

Unfortunately he's now fudging the actual calculation method used (in an obvious manner, I've no doubt he did it before just to get anything near PI) which in my view is even worse. A simple fudge factor has perhaps 100 choices at most, changing the entire calculation has virtually limitless opportunities for fudge

Ceterum censeo he hasn't answered our question on what would convince him it's coincidence.

Pmarra · 10-31-2005, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reddish

You did issue, and refine, a challenge. But let's leave that aside for now.

You are still not answering the question:

What kind of thing would pursuade you that your result is coincidental and meaningless?

inside Gen1.1 there are a lot of very unlikely things (perhaps endless things)

inside Gen1.1 there is not only the number Pi

I can show to you other very unlikely things inside Gen1.1

Pmarra · 10-31-2005, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SophistiCat

LOL, you are totaly without shame, aren't you? That's the second time you are trying to change the rules.

From your own site, as well as your earlier posting:

So, first you tried to lie about the method of calculation, adding number of letters and words to the expression, which weren't present in your original calculation. When that didn't help, you tried to imply that only fudge factors that are powers of 10 are allowed, even though your own calculation requires multiplying the result by 4 to get the desired number!

I am sorry but I don't agree

in my post#30 and in my website I have evidently used always the same technique

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pmarra

That is

2,3887872 x 10e34 / 3,041535... x 10e17 = 0,785388... x 10e17 = (PI(biblical) x 10e17)/4

The symbol Pi , indicated in the result represents a number (3.1415...), Pi, the ratio of the circumference to its relative diameter.

Thus, if we multiply the result by the number of the letters and we divide them by the number of the words:
[2,3887872 x 10e34 x 28(num.letters)

/
[3,041535... x 10e17 x 7(num.words)] = PI(biblical) x 10e17

We obtain the exact length of a circumference with a diameter of 10e17, that is, 1 followed by 17 zeros, thus a further demonstration of the intentions of the insertion of this fundamental number, Pi, in the verse.

I have never changed my technique of calculation

reddish · 10-31-2005, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pmarra

inside Gen1.1 there are a lot of very unlikely things (perhaps endless things)

That is not, in any way, an answer to my question.

PLEASE answer my question!

What kind of thing would pursuade you that your result is coincidental and meaningless?

reddish · 10-31-2005, 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pmarra

in my post#30 and in my website I have evidently used always the same technique

Your Post 30 uses "4" without showing where it is coming from.

Only much later did you give the story that it is the number of letters divided by the number of words.

Can you see why we think that this is confusing (at least) or downright deceptive (at worst) ?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.