Now, given that the verses were written by different authors, widely spaced in time, and that they reveal a coordinated pair of numbers, which can be expressed as triangle 2701 mounted upon plinth 3627, giving triangle 6328, 2701 being 37 X 73, 3627 being 39 X 93, and that these same verses also reveal reasonable estimates of pi and e
No, they do not "reveal" reasonable estimates of pi and e. What happened here is that somebody fiddled about with the numbers until they found a way to make numbers that were close to pi and e. That is not the same thing as revealing a meaning in the text.
You could take ANY large block of text, assign numbers to it, and fiddle about with the numbers until you got numbers that you considered significant. your problem seems to be that you then assume that this proves that whoever wrote the text must have written it in such a way as to make that happen.
But that's not the case. What's actually happening is that you are taking a set of data that is near infinite in size, choosing the bits that seem significant to you, and then proclaiming that you have discovered meaning and intent.
It might look clever and meaningful, at first glance, but it simply is not.
wouldn't you say that this is a phenomenon worthy of further study?
I wouldn't say it is a "phenomenon" at all, and I wouldn't say it is possible to "study" it at all.
My lucky number is 132,333,332.5 The first two digits reversed and divided by ten are 3.1 with the next digit that's 3.12. Add the next 3 and you get 3.15. Divide the next two digits and you get 1, subtract that one and you get 3.14. Divide the next two digits and you get 1, put that on the end and you get 3.141. It's a good estimate of Pi!
Have I made a "discovery"? Have I discovered a "phenomenon"? Does this incredible discovery merit "study"?
No, of course not. All I've actually done is take a number and fiddle about with it to make another number. If I'd fiddled about with it in other ways, then I would have gotten other numbers that were significant in different ways, or that were not significant at all.
But in the end, I'm just doing exactly what you've done - selected some data out of a near infinite amount of data and arbitrarily assigned meaning to it.
One last point. If you concatenation the verse values, to give 27013627, then square this number
But why would you do that? That's the thing you're not grasping - the ONLY reason to "concatenation" these values and then square that number is because it's the way of getting to the number that you think is significant.
But it is exactly as valid for me to say that if I take the square root of 27013627, then I get 5197.463515985466. And that has no significance at all, so I have proved that the number does NOT have meaning.
You accept one of those methods and reject the other, but not because the methods themselves have or don't have significance - only because one gives you the answer you want, and the other does not.
