Pi

[[serious]]

No matter what numbers you use, you have to round off pi at some point. As such, rounding to 3.14 is only slightly less wrong than rounding to 3. Hence, this solves nothing. Luckily, nothing needs to be solved here.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well sure, AV.... just not VERY accurate.

--- Huh?

Not very accurate?

Let me rephrase then, so a lack of accuracy won't be assumed.

If I placed a hula-hoop with a diameter of 4.000... feet inside of a hula hoop with a circumference of 15.000... feet, and connected them with a rim, would not this statement be accurate:

• This object has a 4-foot diameter and is 15 feet around?

 

[AV1611VET]

If you wanted to be more flashy: It was 10 cubits across and a line of 30 cubits compassed it not about.

That would be wrong though.

It had a diameter of 10 cubits --- with a circumference of 30 cubits.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except of course that there is no way to accurately measure the 30 cubits or the 10, so those are still approximate.

I don't follow you here.

Was Noah's Ark 300 cubits x 50 cubits x 30 cubits?

And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

 

[AV1611VET]

If we use 10 as the diameter then the circumference should be 31.42. If we use 30 for the circumference then the diameter should be 9.548.

Do with that what you will.

That's true --- but keep in mind: it has two diameters and two circumferences.

The diameter being mentioned (10 cubits) would be the inner diameter; and the circumference being mentioned (30 cubits) would be the outer circumference.

What the "problem" is here, and where you guys are getting confused, is that the thickness of the wall is not mentioned.

In my hula-hoop example, the "thickness of the wall" is 2.4336 feet (with Pi = 3.1416).

Notice though, I didn't mention the thickness of the wall.

 

[AV1611VET]

No matter what numbers you use, you have to round off pi at some point.

Why?

I contend that this object was indeed 10.0 cubits inner-diameter, and 30.0 cubits outer diameter; with a wall thickness of 1.1416 feet (using 3.1416 for Pi).

 

[Hespera]

AV sez..." Originally Posted by Hespera

Except of course that there is no way to accurately measure the 30 cubits or the 10, so those are still approximate.
​

I don't follow you here.

Was Noah's Ark 300 cubits x 50 cubits x 30 cubits?

Hespera sez

No use asking me for the size of a mythical "ark". Let alone the EXACT sise to the thousandth of an ince that a man with crude tools could saw wood. Would saw wood.

As for "dont follow you there"...I dont know if you are being deliberately obtuse, or what.

It is as plain as the teeth in your jaw that it is impossible to get the exact length of a cubit, no two are the same size. And even if they were, there is no way to make precision measurements with string and hand and forearm.

The size of an individuals cubit willl vary with blood pressure, and from day to day. it will change in length with every beat of the heart. Not much, but some..

So if you want to say that a person could make precision measurements, accurate to infinite decimal places, using cubits, go ahead. You will hear no more from me as i dont want to waste my time talking to someone who is completely unreasonable.

The measurements given would be off by some amount, no matter who measured them or with what. The size of the tank will change with the t emperatuare. Impossible to be Exact.

The size given is approximate. You want to say its not, fine. Its a measure of the reasonableness of t anything else you have to say on any other subject.

handy definition:

• unreasonably - not in a reasonable or intelligent manner;
• unreasonably - to a degree that exceeds the bounds or reason or moderation; "

not reasonable; not showing good judgment

 

[AV1611VET]

It is as plain as the teeth in your jaw that it is impossible to get the exact length of a cubit, no two are the same size.

They wouldn't need to --- all they would have to have is a standard unit of length --- just like we do today.

A rod and a string, the length of a 'standard cubit', would serve as measuring tools.

If I remember science class correctly, there is a place somewhere in England (?) that has standard S.I. measurements in a showcase.

(I think.)

 

[Washington]

]No matter what numbers you use, you have to round off pi at some point. As such, rounding to 3.14 is only slightly less wrong than rounding to 3. Hence, this solves nothing. Luckily, nothing needs to be solved here.

I guess it all depends on what one considers "slight." The difference in the circumference of the two amounts to a whole cubit and a half (1.4). In ancient Babylon that would be about 31 inches.

That's true --- but keep in mind: it has two diameters and two circumferences.
The diameter being mentioned (10 cubits) would be the inner diameter; and the circumference being mentioned (30 cubits) would be the outer circumference.

Well as I've pointed out elsewhere, a circumference of 30 cubits would give a diameter of 9.4 cubits, which is a difference of 0.6 cubits, or about 12 inches (1 Babylonian cubit = 20.787 inches). That's a far cry from the Bible's statement that its thickness was "an hand breadth thick," which is about 3.25 inches (average of the 2 1/2 to 4 inches (6.25 to 10 centimeters) as commonly defined). A discrepancy on the magnitude of 2X!!!

What the "problem" is here, and where you guys are getting confused, is that the thickness of the wall is not mentioned.

And what do you think the words "And it was an hand breadth thick," mean?

 

[AV1611VET]

And what do you think the words "And it was an hand breadth thick," mean?

I'll have to check into that further --- what does that have to do with Pi?

 

[Washington]

I'll have to check into that further --- what does that have to do with Pi?

Nothing. It has to do with your contention that one figure denotes an inside measurement and the other an outside measurement. Going on that premise the thickness could not have been "an hand breadth thick," as stated in the Bible. So either you are right and the Bible got it wrong on this particular point, or the Bible is right and you got it wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

I contend that this object was indeed 10.0 cubits inner-diameter, and 30.0 cubits outer diameter...

Well as I've pointed out elsewhere, a circumference of 30 cubits would give a diameter of 9.4 cubits, which is a difference of 0.6 cubits, or about 12 inches (1 Babylonian cubit = 20.787 inches). That's a far cry from the Bible's statement that its thickness was "an hand breadth thick," which is about 3.25 inches (average of the 2 1/2 to 4 inches (6.25 to 10 centimeters) as commonly defined). A discrepancy on the magnitude of 2X!!!

I'll have to check into that further --- what does that have to do with Pi?

Okay --- had this backward ---

I contend that this object was indeed 10.0 cubits inner-diameter, and 30.0 cubits outer diameter...

This is wrong --- it's backwards.

It has a 10.0 cubit outer diameter (31.416 cubits), with a 30.0 cubit inner circumference.

In other words, the outer diameter is 10.0 cubits, and the inner diameter is 9.55 cubits.

A difference of .45 cubits.

.45 cubits = .675 feet = 8.1 inches.

And it was an hand breadth thick,

If they used the handbreadth back then as we use the span today, then there's no contradiction, and all dimensions are satisfied.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nothing. It has to do with your contention that one figure denotes an inside measurement and the other an outside measurement. Going on that premise the thickness could not have been "an hand breadth thick," as stated in the Bible.

Seeing as how the handbreadth in the time the Bible was written in 1611 was a mere 3 inches, I'd say another length for handbreadth was used.

 

[Washington]

Okay --- had this backward --- This is wrong --- it's backwards.

It has a 10.0 cubit outer diameter (31.416 cubits), with a 30.0 cubit inner circumference.

In other words, the outer diameter is 10.0 cubits, and the inner diameter is 9.55 cubits.

A difference of .45 cubits.

.45 cubits = .675 feet = 8.1 inches.If they used the handbreadth back then as we use the span today, then there's no contradiction, and all dimensions are satisfied.

And if pigs could fly . . . . . . . . but they don't, and there's no reason to think the ancients used the handbreadth back then as we use the span today. They used both measurments back then, and to confuse the two would be as bad as if someone today used "yard" instead of "foot" in describing a measurment.

Seeing as how the handbreadth in the time the Bible was written in 1611 was a mere 3 inches, I'd say another length for handbreadth was used.

handbreadth conversion chart
Distance and Length, Biblical
One handbreadth is equal to:

inch, 3

source



The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
HANDBREADTH

hand'-bredth (Tephach, Tophach, 1 Kings 7:26; 2 Chronicles 4:5; Psalms 39:5; Exodus 25:25; 37:12; Ezekiel 40:5,43; 43:13):
A Hebrew linear measure containing 4 fingers, or digits, and equal to about 3 inches.
source

 

[[serious]]

Why?

I contend that this object was indeed 10.0 cubits inner-diameter, and 30.0 cubits outer diameter; with a wall thickness of 1.1416 feet (using 3.1416 for Pi).

3.1416 is still just an approximation. It's just a wrong answer that's slightly closer to right. In fact, given that your sig figs don't even work out there, it's arguably more wrong than 30/10 = 3. I mean, at least that is mathematically accurate to the given sig figs. Yours is just wrong.

 

[Hespera]

AV sez...They wouldn't need to --- all they would have to have is a standard unit of length --- just like we do today.

A rod and a string, the length of a 'standard cubit', would serve as measuring tools.

If I remember science class correctly, there is a place somewhere in England (?) that has standard S.I. measurements in a showcase. QUOTE/////////////////


hespera sez

yes there are such things. climate controlled room nobody is allowed to touch it.

EVEN IF they had a std, EVEN IF they had climate control (ha) there STILL is no way to use it to make such perfect measurements. if you cant grasp that its impossible I hardly know what to say .

Were you claiming a high mensa score?

You do know that the "sea' would be constantly changing in size and proportions, so that even if you could measure it perfectly you'd only know what it was at that precise moment.

oh yeah, and the "line" or string whatever it was. Lets see you measure a strong to a trillionth of an inch. No stretching! make that on thousand trillionth of an inch. has to be perfect! a billion trillionths of an inch still isnt perfect enough.

approximate

approximate

approximate

not perfect

get it?

 

[AV1611VET]

And if pigs could fly . . . . . . . . but they don't, and there's no reason to think the ancients used the handbreadth back then as we use the span today.

Why not?

They used the moon to measure their months, then switched to the sun in "modern times"?

 

[AV1611VET]

3.1416 is still just an approximation. It's just a wrong answer that's slightly closer to right. In fact, given that your sig figs don't even work out there, it's arguably more wrong than 30/10 = 3. I mean, at least that is mathematically accurate to the given sig figs. Yours is just wrong.

Would you do me a favor please and highlight in red the part that's wrong?

 

[AV1611VET]

oh yeah, and the "line" or string whatever it was. Lets see you measure a strong to a trillionth of an inch. No stretching! make that on thousand trillionth of an inch. has to be perfect! a billion trillionths of an inch still isnt perfect enough.

I'll say this much --- I'm glad to hear that's your best reasoning for saying Pi is wrong.

At least you've got one.

Were you claiming a high mensa score?

No --- just the opposite --- I didn't even make the lowest score.

 

[[serious]]

Would you do me a favor please and highlight in red the part that's wrong?

Why?

I contend that this object was indeed 10.0 cubits inner-diameter, and 30.0 cubits outer diameter; with a wall thickness of 1.1416 feet (using 3.1416 for Pi).

If you are using 3.1416 as an approximation of pi for the calculation of he wall thickness, you improperly gave the answer with 2 extra significant figures. If you are calculating pi from 30.0, 10.0, and the wall thickness, you've got 2 extra digits on pi. Likewise, with 30 or 10 you've got 1 significant figure so a calculation of the other would be accurate to the proper number of significant figures. You are trying to "fix" correct math by introducing irrelevancies and bad math.