Top Opinion
-
Disko Pickle 2012/04/17 09:20:49
+13Of course. There is only one measure of intelligence that matters and it's the answer to this question: Do you believe in God?
SodaHeadlines
Entertainment
Living
Fun & Humor
games
sports
music
fashion
News & Politics
Leaderboard
...the problem with that argument is that you simply can't draw any round shape with a circumference whose length is exactly three times of it's diameter.
The closest thing that you can get to that description is something like this...
...which simply doesn't fit the description of being "round all about". Any hand drawn circle would be far closer to having a circumference of pi than to that of 3.
----
But in your attempt to rationalize the passage as factual, you've not only rendered it useless but completely meaningless as well, since the shape being described not only has no distinct shape to it, but no uniform means to measure it's dimensions. Even the ancient Babylonians knew that the circumference of a circle was larger than 3.
http://numberwarrior.wordpres...
A Circumference of pi????? Okay now you have lost me.
If this was a perfect circle, following Euclidian definition, the circumference would be 31.415 cubits.
That is (10) (3.1415)
We are quibbling about exactly 1.415 cubits. I don't recollect saying anything about the circumference being pi.
----
"We are quibbling about exactly 1.415 cubits. I don't recollect saying anything about the circumference being pi."
...and that would be enough to turn the circle into a hexagon.
Actually we pretty much agree that the Bible was not only pretty lousy with math, it also was pretty bad with measurements as well.
Irrational number
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
In mathematics, an irrational number is any real number that cannot be expressed as a ratio a/b, where a and b are integers, with b non-zero, and is therefore not a rational number.
Informally, this means that an irrational number cannot be represented as a simple fraction. Irrational numbers are those real numbers that cannot be represented as terminating or repeating decimals. As a consequence of Cantor's proof that the real numbers are uncountable (and the rationals countable) it follows that almost all real numbers are irrational.[1]
When the ratio of lengths of two line segments is irrational, the line segments are also described as being incommensurable, meaning they share no measure in common.
Perhaps the best-known irrational numbers are: the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter π, Euler's number e, the golden ratio φ, and the square root of two √2.[2][3][4
More to the point, when dealing with decimals in chemistry, we only use the decimal place in which the analyzer or scales is technically capable of measuring.
If you set pi to 3. instead of 3.145, (which is still accurate,) the circumference of this sea would be calculated to 30 cubits, which is exactly what the Israelites found---- ahaaaaa!
Accurate?
...I don't think so.
Both the ancient Egyptians (3.16) and Babylonians (3.125) had a far more accurate calculation of pi which they had known centuries earlier.
3. is accurate to the first whole number. 3.1415 is precise.
pre·cise
adj \pri-ˈsīs\
Definition of PRECISE
1
: exactly or sharply defined or stated
2
: minutely exact
3
: strictly conforming to a pattern, standard, or convention
4
: distinguished from every other
...sorry, but this isn't accurate.
Accuracy
Precision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
No one is suggesting that the sea was a hexagon except yourself. It simply wasn't perfectly circular.
And any quantitation is only as accurate as the technical limit of the analyzer, in which case "the cubit" is the unit of measure. And the analyzer is the "forearm" Since neither the forearm or the cubit are precise, the use of too many significant figures is deceiving.
No self-respecting laboratory is going to send out a result of 4.032 ng/dl unless their analyzer is technically able to produce that precision.
In the case of "cubits", when multiplying, 1 sig fig is going to be as good as it gets
3.1415 rounded down, is 3.
...what I'm suggesting is that because the passage very clearly describes a circle ("round all about") with a diameter ("one brim to the other") and a circumference, that 3 is a lousy approximation for π.
---------------
"No one is suggesting that the sea was a hexagon except yourself. It simply wasn't perfectly circular."
...the hexagon is as round as you can get when you have a diameter of 10 and a circumference of 30.
---------------
"In the case of "cubits", when multiplying, 1 sig fig is going to be as good as it gets"
Why should that be seen as adequate?
...both the ancient Babylonians and the Egyptians exceeded that degree of accuracy centuries earlier.
It is adequate. That is a very good word for it. it is also accurate as far as the technical limits of their means of measure.
If I get a HDLC result back from one lab that says my blood has 57 mg/dl, and another lab calls it 57.4 mg/dl (because their analyzer is more precise) --Guess what? Both results are considered accurate and you know what?--They are also "adequate" for what I want to do with the information? As a matter of fact, if I sent it to a third lab with less precise technical ranges, I would even consider 60 mg/dl accurate and adequate.
As a matter of fact, no lab result that you are ever going to get back is ever going to be better than +/- 2.0 SD.
...I really don't think so.
------
"...it is also accurate as far as the technical limits of their means of measure."
...well at least we can agree on one thing, their technical skills were as limited as their mathematics.
Look Lurx, this argument means a lot to you! I can see that! I'm not sure why, but it obviously "proves" something to your mind, that most people don't see.
You might think they are lousy mathematicians or builders or engineers or architects, or whatever, whatever. But you are really not demonstrating that the Israelites lied with their description of the sea.
(You a-r-e lying that the only shape possible with their measurements was a hexagon. And you should at least adopt a spirit of integrity in your own character.)
...all I'm suggesting is that the Bible is a pretty lousy textbook for mathematics.
----
"You a-r-e lying that the only shape possible with their measurements was a hexagon."
It meets the requirements of having something close to a uniform distance around a central point ("it was round all about"), and still maintaining a diameter of 10 and a height of 5 with a circumference of 30. As you can see from the diagram, the difference between the circumference of the circle (π x diameter) and that of the hexagon (3 x diameter) is pretty dramatic even though the overall difference in their length is just (.14159 x diameter).
...the more you try to round the figure of a hexagon out, the more you'd reduce it's diameter (or increase it's circumference), and then you get a figure whose ratio is far closer to π than it would be to 3.
It is very unlikely that it did. I don't draw perfect circles and neither do you-(without the help of a compass or some other tool.)
No one is indicating that measurements have to have a fine resolution, done by precision tools, in scriptures, as a criteria establishing or rejecting the text, for historical reliability and validity, except for you.
Stephen L Morgan
Analytical Chemistry
Tutorial on the Use of Significant Figures
-----------------------------...
All measurements are approximations—no measuring device can give perfect measurements without experimental uncertainty.
www.chem.sc.edu/faculty/morga...
-----------------------------...
Are Significant Figures Important? A Fable
A student once needed a cube of metal that had to have a mass of 83 grams. He knew the density of this metal was 8.67 g/mL, which told him the cube's volume. Believing significant figures were invented just to make life difficult for chemistry students and had no practical use in the real world, he calculated the volume of the cube as 9.573 mL. He thus determined that the edge of the cube had to be 2.097 cm. He took his plans to the machine shop where his friend had the same type of work done the previous year. The shop foreman said, "Yes, we can make this according to your specifications - but it will be expensive."
"That's OK," replied the student. "It's important." He knew his friend has paid $35, and he had been given $50 out of the school's research budget to get the job done.
He returned the next day, expecting the job to be done. "Sorry," said the foreman. "We're still working on it. Try next week." Finally the da...
Stephen L Morgan
Analytical Chemistry
Tutorial on the Use of Significant Figures
-----------------------------...
All measurements are approximations—no measuring device can give perfect measurements without experimental uncertainty.
www.chem.sc.edu/faculty/morga...
-----------------------------...
Are Significant Figures Important? A Fable
A student once needed a cube of metal that had to have a mass of 83 grams. He knew the density of this metal was 8.67 g/mL, which told him the cube's volume. Believing significant figures were invented just to make life difficult for chemistry students and had no practical use in the real world, he calculated the volume of the cube as 9.573 mL. He thus determined that the edge of the cube had to be 2.097 cm. He took his plans to the machine shop where his friend had the same type of work done the previous year. The shop foreman said, "Yes, we can make this according to your specifications - but it will be expensive."
"That's OK," replied the student. "It's important." He knew his friend has paid $35, and he had been given $50 out of the school's research budget to get the job done.
He returned the next day, expecting the job to be done. "Sorry," said the foreman. "We're still working on it. Try next week." Finally the day came, and our friend got his cube. It looked y,very smooth and shiny and beautiful in its velvet case. Seeing it, our hero had a premonition of disaster and became a bit nervous. But he summoned up enough courage to ask for the bill. "$500, and cheap at the price. We had a terrific job getting it right -- had to make three before we got one right."
"But--but--my friend paid only $35 for the same thing!"
"No. He wanted a cube 2.1 cm on an edge, and your specifications called for 2.097. We had yours roughed out to 2.1 that very afternoon, but it was the precision grinding and lapping to get it down to 2.097 which took so long and cost the big money. The first one we made was 2.089 on one edge when we got finshed, so we had to scrap it. The second was closer, but still not what you specified. That's why the three tries."
"Oh!"
www.ruf.rice.edu/~kekule/Sign...
Sorry, ("it was round all about"), with 5 being it's height and "ten cubits from the one brim to the other".
...sounds pretty clear that 5 cubits was the radius of the circle.
...still doesn't look like a circle.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Look up round, rounds, or Rounds in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Round
Round or rounds can mean:
The shape of a closed curve with no sharp corners, such as an ellipse, circle, rounded rectangle, or sphere
Sounds pretty clear that it was a circle with a radius of 5 cubits.
We are not discussing a circle that was created with a precision tool. We are discussing a structure with no sharp corners. That is, it had curves, not angles.
...we are also discussing a figure that still has to conform to the constraints that it has a height of 5, diameter of 10, and a circumference of 30.
---
"We are not discussing a circle that was created with a precision tool."
...are you suggesting that the "molten sea" was done free hand?
Uh....duh!!!! I think I have mentioned this more than one time.
http://www.abarim-publication...
...sorry, your logic just doesn't add up.
Here we go again:
Round
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Look up round, rounds, or Rounds in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Round
Round or rounds can mean:
The shape of a closed curve with no sharp corners, such as an ellipse, circle, rounded rectangle, or sphere
http://www.abarim-publication...
...since the diameter and the circumference are taken over-all, it not only implies that it was round, but a circle as well, which is why this biblical scholar made the distinction of it not being an oval.
http://www.abarim-publication...
...actually this aspect of the Bible is fairly well known.
I'm sorry, but that is the description of a cubit, and this is the way significant figures work in any multiplication problem.
On the other hand you have decided to convince yourself. Congratulations! You have won an argument with yourself. That's not always easy to do. Many times I struggle with myself for days.
...like I said, this aspect of the Bible is fairly well known.
University of South Carolina
Stephen L Morgan
Analytical Chemistry
Tutorial on the Use of Significant Figures
-----------------------------...
All measurements are approximations—no measuring device can give perfect measurements without experimental uncertainty.
www.chem.sc.edu/faculty/morga...
Like I said, congrats, and all of that.
Just keep reminding yourself that regardless of what scientists say, all units of measurement are accurate and exact.
This is well known among scientific circles too. Say it over and over and over, and eventually you may believe it.
Introduction to Measurements & Error Analysis
The Uncertainty of Measurements
Some numerical statements are exact: Mary has 3 brothers, and 2 + 2 = 4. However, all measurements have some degree of uncertainty that may come from a variety of sources. The process of evaluating this uncertainty associated with a measurement result is often called uncertainty analysis or error analysis.
The complete statement of a measured value should include an estimate of the level of confidence associated with the value. Properly reporting an experimental result along with its uncertainty allows other people to make judgements about the quality of the experiment, and it facilitates meaningful comparisons with other similar values or a theoretical prediction. Without an uncertainty estimate, it is impossible to answer the basic scientific question: "Does my result agree with a theoretical prediction or results from other experiments?" This question is fundamental for deciding if a scientific hypothesis is confirmed or refuted.
When we mak...
Just keep reminding yourself that regardless of what scientists say, all units of measurement are accurate and exact.
This is well known among scientific circles too. Say it over and over and over, and eventually you may believe it.
Introduction to Measurements & Error Analysis
The Uncertainty of Measurements
Some numerical statements are exact: Mary has 3 brothers, and 2 + 2 = 4. However, all measurements have some degree of uncertainty that may come from a variety of sources. The process of evaluating this uncertainty associated with a measurement result is often called uncertainty analysis or error analysis.
The complete statement of a measured value should include an estimate of the level of confidence associated with the value. Properly reporting an experimental result along with its uncertainty allows other people to make judgements about the quality of the experiment, and it facilitates meaningful comparisons with other similar values or a theoretical prediction. Without an uncertainty estimate, it is impossible to answer the basic scientific question: "Does my result agree with a theoretical prediction or results from other experiments?" This question is fundamental for deciding if a scientific hypothesis is confirmed or refuted.
When we make a measurement, we generally assume that some exact or true value exists based on how we define what is being measured. While we may never know this true value exactly, we attempt to find this ideal quantity to the best of our ability with the time and resources available. As we make measurements by different methods, or even when making multiple measurements using the same method, we may obtain slightly different results. So how do we report our findings for our best estimate of this elusive true value? The most common way to show the range of values that we believe includes the true value is:
measurement = best estimate ± uncertainty
www.physics.unc.edu/~deardorf...
Well that settles it! It is impossible that he measuring unit was inexact! It is impossible that the round sea was anything shy of an exact Euclidian circle, with every point of the circumference being equidistant from the center. The only explanation possible is that the Israelites made the whole story up. There really was no sea at all, and it and all of the rest of the stories are pure fiction.
Congrats on convincing yourself that measurements are and always have been so exact that there is never any discrepancy between theory and measured results, unless the story is contrived. I can't do it.
What can I say? The next time my QC doesn't work, I'm going to try to tell myself that it had nothing to do with my pipetting, or even the condition of the pipet. It is simply the fact that the laboratory protocols are wrong. Throw out the protocols!
--Well I probably don't have the strength of mind to manage that, as you have.--Congratulations!