A Second Channel of Communication?

[blue triangle]

...with math errors...

It is impossible in principle, when dealing with transcendental numbers like pi and e, to give a wholly accurate estimation of them by dividing one whole number by another. They are necessarily approximations.

There's a huge difference between a maths error and an approximation, which is understood a priori to be a little different from the correct value. Moreover, the errors in these approximations are dramatically reduced when the estimated values are summed.

So we have:

Pi approximation from Genesis 1.1 = 3.141554509 . . . Error = -0.0012%
e approximation from John 1.1 = 2.718312812 . . . Error = +0.0011%

These errors are 1 in 90000.

When we sum the Biblical values of pi and e the errors reduce by a factor of ten. So the approximation of pi + e is now in error of the true value by 0.00012%, or 1 in 820000. As an approximation this is pretty good: 5.8598673 . . . against 5.8598744 . . ., the error here being a mere 0.00000716 . . . So those approximations of pi and e were encrypted so that they would be equal and opposite and therefore cancel to give a far more accurate approximation of the sum. The reason, I suggest, is to show that the Genesis 1.1 and John 1.1 encodings are meant to be seen as a whole, which is further underlined by the fact that the verse sums, 2701 (triangle) and 3627 (plinth) form a large triangle of 6328 units. Both 6328 and 2701 are what Vernon Jenkins calls 'generator' triangles, able to form a Star of David by self intersection, a property shown by every third such triangle.

You may not be aware of all the other mathematics in there, mostly of a geometric flavour and all 100% accurate. If so I suggest you aquaint yourself with it.

http://www.whatabeginning.com/

 

[Rincewind]

It is impossible in principle, when dealing with transcendental numbers like pi and e, to give a wholly accurate estimation of them by dividing one whole number by another. They are necessarily approximations.

There's a huge difference between a maths error and an approximation, which is understood a priori to be a little different from the correct value. Moreover, the errors in these approximations are dramatically reduced when the estimated values are summed.

So we have:

Pi approximation from Genesis 1.1 = 3.141554509 . . . Error = -0.0012%
e approximation from John 1.1 = 2.718312812 . . . Error = +0.0011%

These errors are 1 in 90000.

When we sum the Biblical values of pi and e the errors reduce by a factor of ten. So the approximation of pi + e is now in error of the true value by 0.00012%, or 1 in 820000. As an approximation this is pretty good: 5.8598673 . . . against 5.8598744 . . ., the error being a mere 0.00000716 . . .
You may not be aware of all the other mathematics in there, mostly of a geometric flavour and all 100% accurate. If so I suggest you aquaint yourself with it.

http://www.whatabeginning.com/

A God making errors?

Perish the thought...

 

[blue triangle]

If your god is running the world you have just described, I question it's sanity.

If man alone is running the world, as you would have it, then he needs to turn control over to God asap.

 

[gypsyjackson]

...Moreover, the errors in these approximations are dramatically reduced when the estimated values are summed.

So we have:

Pi approximation from Genesis 1.1 = 3.141554509 . . . Error = -0.0012%
e approximation from John 1.1 = 2.718312812 . . . Error = +0.0011%

These errors are 1 in 90000.

When we sum the Biblical values of pi and e the errors reduce by a factor of ten. So the approximation of pi + e is now in error of the true value by 0.00012%, or 1 in 820000...

The reason, I suggest, is to show that the Genesis 1.1 and John 1.1 encodings are meant to be seen as a whole...

Please forgive me for paring back your words.

1. Why sum them? If the errors had both been positive (or negative), would you have summed pi and e? (I'm also unsure why you say 1 in 820000 - what would the 820000 represent here?)

2. What does Matthew 1:1 sum to?

Thanks.

 

[blue triangle]

This stuff isn't evidence. Even if the numbers had been right, it wouldn't be evidence. With most of the numbers wrong, it's not even a decent mockery of real evidence.

As I've just said in another post, but which I'll repeat for you, an approximation is not the same as an error. The fact that the errors from the true values are almost precisely equal and opposite, is yet another sign of overall control and an invitation for us to sum those two values to discover how much they cancel out - which turns out to be very largely (about 90%) - and to sum the verse values to discover the larger triangle, 6328, and alpha by concatenation and squaring.

Alpha, incidentally, is defined as the square of the coupling constant and therefore there is a logical precedent for squaring the concatenated values.

Not a great anything, and not a mystery of any scale. Just a single barely-noteworthy coincidence.

Barely noteworthy? Perhaps you fail to appreciate how difficult it would be to find all these 'coincidences' together. Find something similar in the first sentence of a randomly-chosen crime novel and you may have a point to make.

Classic Christian persecutionist fantasy. You have just completely eliminated any possibility that you are not either lying or delusional.

So there is no margin for error now, is there? If only you had been around when Genesis 1.1 was written. . .

 

[Delvo]

It is impossible in principle, when dealing with transcendental numbers like pi and e, to give a wholly accurate estimation of them by dividing one whole number by another. They are necessarily approximations.

It is not impossible to round off. Why didn't the all-knowing author/inspirer of the Bible just round off? Surely some combination of words/numbers could have been found from which adding & dividing & finding cubic roots & concatenating in the right order would have given us a bunch of digits of one of these numbers and then stop there, instead of continuing on with wrong digits thereafter.

There's a huge difference between a maths error and an approximation

There's also a huge difference between what you've actually given us here and an "approximation".

when the estimated values are summed

These aren't "estimated values". Approximations & estimations don't have extra bad digits tacked on at the end after the good ones. And what in the world is the mathematical meaning and validity of adding those two particular numbers?

So the approximation of pi + e... As an approximation this is pretty good... So those approximations... a far more accurate approximation

There are no approximations here. Approximations would have ended at the last good digit.

equal and opposite

No, they were unequal. Equal & opposite things would add up to zero, and these didn't.

...a far more accurate approximation of the sum.

That sum is meaningless, reflecting no part of reality anywhere. You're telling us that, for the numbers that have actual meaning & utility and can be found in nature, the Creator gave them to us in a less accurate form, reserving a more accurate form for their worthless, pointless sum.

The reason, I suggest, is to show that the Genesis 1.1 and John 1.1 encodings are meant to be seen as a whole

But he couldn't be bothered to put the second one at the beginning of its Testament, or pick verses that tell us not just an intro to a story but something useful or meaningful/applicable to the Bible's supposedly intended message about how we should live our lives... like maybe one of the versions of the Ten Commandments and a quote from Jesus about how to treat each other, or a couple of verses about the eternal reward/punishment system, or maybe combine that verse where he said genocidal war is bad with the one where he said slavery is bad...

 

[Pixel42]

Perhaps you fail to appreciate how difficult it would be to find all these 'coincidences' together.

Perhaps you fail to appreciate the law of truly large numbers.

"That a particular specified event or coincidence will occur is very unlikely. That some astonishing unspecified events will occur is certain. That is why remarkable coincidences are noted in hindsight, not predicted with foresight."--David G. Myers

Not that the coincidences you're so impressed by are particularly remarkable, as others have explained.

 

[blue triangle]

Please forgive me for paring back your words.

1. Why sum them? If the errors had both been positive (or negative), would you have summed pi and e? (I'm also unsure why you say 1 in 820000 - what would the 820000 represent here?)

At first I thought it was simply because the errors were so close that Vernon had done it - simply out of curiosity to see how much they cancel. However, that leads on to summing the verse values, 2701 (a triangular number) and 3627 (a trapezoid or plinth number), which happen to give a larger triangular number, 6328. Only one in three numerical triangles will sum to give a Str of Davi and both 2701 and 6328 are such numbers. So it seems that the numbers were meant to be paired and that the intelligence who devised this larger pattern wishes us to explore it. Since e was unknown when John was written, and pi not known to that level of accuracy, this intelligence cannot be the human authors.

I haven't discussed this with Vernon but I suspect that there may be even more to it than that though. When you concatenate the two verse sums to give 27013627, then square it, you get the first 5 digits of alpha, the electromagnetic fine structure constant. Now alpha itself is the square of a number known as the coupling constant, so there is some justification for squaring 27013627. Alpha is a measure of the strength of the interaction, or coupling, between electromagnetic fields and charged particles, or if you like between light and matter. To couple is to link and so there is a metaphor there between the coupling of light and matter and the linking of the two numbers 2701 and 3627.

Since Genesis 1.1 (2701) is associated with pi and John 1.1 (3627) is associated with e, I've been wondering if the metaphor can be extended to the physical systems pi and e help to describe. Pi is essential to equations describing cycles, waves, etc, which represent light. The number e is found in equations describing processes of growth and decay, such as population growth and radioactive decay, spider's webs, suspension bridges, etc. So it is more associated with matter. Therefore I tentatively suggest that pi is meant to represent light and e represents matter. So the coupling and squaring of 2701 and 3627 is a metaphor for the coupling of light and matter, to give the coupling constant, which is then squared to give alpha. Therefore the approximation of alpha implied by 27013627 x 27013627 (and the error is only 1 part in 900000) is no chance find but something that was by design and pointed to very strongly by the circumstances of its encoding. And of course alpha was unknown until exactly 100 years ago, so again the human authors could not have been behind it.

The error I gave of 1 part in 820000 for the sum of pi and e is another way of saying that the implied value of the sum differs from the true value by 1 part in 820000. So 101 differs from 100 by 1 part in 100.

2. What does Matthew 1:1 sum to?

Thanks.

This sums to 5876.

It might seem more logical to sum Genesis 1.1 and Matthew 1.1. but there is also the question of the meaning of the verses. Genesis and John are similar in meaning and begin the same way "In the beginning . . ." They are therefore linked by theme, position (first verse) and by their huge import for Christians.

 

[Slowvehicle]

<snip for focus>

The "issue" is not that your carefully-cherry-picked "Texas Sgarpshooter" pilpul produces "approximations" of the values you claim are indications that your 'god' left us "messages".

The actual issue is that, even pretending that the numbers you manage to twist into the text are there by any rational approach, your results can only be considered "approximations" if you truncate them, that is (just incase you do not understand the big word) if you ignore the parts where your "answers" deviate from even a reasonable "approximation".

You may not be aware of all the other mathematics in there, mostly of a geometric flavour and all 100% accurate. If so I suggest you aquaint yourself with it.

Your rudeness aside, what bothers you is that I am, in fact, aware of the numbers and "messages" you are able to pretend "must be" in the text, because someone has carefully polished the test looking for those numbers or something like them; all the while refusing to explain why sometimes, the factors must be concatenated; sometimes the concatenations must be factored; sometimes the concatenations must be squared at this step, other times at that...

All in service of a Bronze-Age superstition.

Nor have you even begun to hint at an idea as to what your mathematically-incorrect "messages" are to be supposed to mean.

ETA: As is often the case, Delvo beat me to this; saying it better and more completely. I hope you are reading Delvo's posts.

 

[jsfisher]

...
You may not be aware of all the other mathematics in there, mostly of a geometric flavour and all 100% accurate. If so I suggest you aquaint yourself with it.

Would that include the claim 271 is a figurate number of the hexagonal variety?

 

[Delvo]

If man alone is running the world, as you would have it, then he needs to turn control over to God asap.

According to your Holy Book, we tried that first. The results were worse.

Alpha, incidentally, is defined as the square of the coupling constant

No, it isn't. That's just flat-out lying, making up purely fictional claims now that you've run out of things that were at least true although overinterpreted.

The fine structure constant is defined as a ratio that comes up in between things like the elementary charge and the Planck charge, and between the energy quantities of electron mutual repulsion and a certain type of photon, and between the classical electron radius, the Compton wavelength, and Bohr's radius. When it's described/defined in an equation in terms of other known constants, the only square involved is the square of the elementary charge, not anything called a "coupling constant", and even then, that's just a part of the equation; the whole thing is a ratio between that one squared term and several other non-squared constants.

There isn't even a single thing called "the coupling constant" at all. Coupling constants are a category of different numbers used in different contexts. The fine structure constant is actually one of them itself, not one of the others squared. Its square root isn't anything in particular.

...and therefore there is a logical precedent for squaring the concatenated values.

Even if it had been true that the fine structure constant was a square of something else (instead of that being just an excuse for "finding it" that way which you or Jenkins made up hoping nobody would actually look into it at all), that still wouldn't create a precedent for using the square function to get to it, because similarity of digital sequences in squares does not imply any connection at all between their square roots. For example, 6²=36 and 60²=3600, but √360 is around 19. Think about it: if your Biblical square was the fine structure constant (nevermind that it isn't), which is defined as the square of something called "the coupling constant" (nevermind that it isn't and there's no such thing), and that was because the squaring in one case was equivalent to the squaring in the other case (nevermind that squares don't work that way), then why wasn't the original concatenated number already "the coupling constant" itself? And given that it wasn't, what reason was there to square it and then compare the squares?

Worse yet, even if the squares & square roots really were linked like that (which they could have at least appeared to be if the square had had more or fewer digits, like with 36 and 3600), that would still give us no reason why we should arrive at one of them by concatenating those two particular things in that order instead of by some other method or from some other input numbers.

Perhaps you fail to appreciate how difficult it would be to find all these 'coincidences' together.

What "all"? Your п isn't п, your α isn't α, your e isn't e, your whole concept of using modern decimal numbers for these things isn't how the Hebrew and Greek numerations worked, your stuff about counting letters in words and words in phrases isn't how it worked either, your coupling constant which you introduced as a square root of something else isn't a coupling constant and has nothing in common with the square root of that other square number from your Bible Code anyway, the second Bible verse you need just to get to most of the above doesn't add up to what you need it to add up to, that leaves nothing but the geometric stuff about triangles and plinths and hexagons and stars, and all of that stuff came from just a single number. So all we're really talking about is just that one coincidence, not "all these coincidences together", and even that one depends on choosing one among multiple known and unknown versions of the text.

So there is no margin for error now, is there?

With a claim of Christians getting oppressed in a culture that Christanity clearly dominates, yes, there is no possible doubt. Modern Occidental Christians just love the idea of being persecuted and want to be able to claim persecution, but it bears not a speck of resemblance to reality, so their claims of how the big bad mean atheists all around them keep pushing them down are invariably lies or delusions.

 

[blue triangle]

According to your Holy Book, we tried that first. The results were worse.

This is just about the most intellectually dishonest statement I've ever read. I expect this kind of stuff from some religion bashers, but you are too intelligent to believe that the Bible is meant to be read literally. It's a favourite trick of religion bashers and pseudoskeptics, using the literal words of the Bible, which you don't believe anyway, to attack the God it seems to present. It's the ultimate straw manning tactic and very dishonest.

No, it isn't. That's just flat-out lying, making up purely fictional claims now that you've run out of things that were at least true although overinterpreted.

Ah, so now I'm a liar. Actually, I took that from Vernon Jenkins' page on pi e and alpha. I went back to check and he references The fine structure constant, a 20th century mystery, by James Gilson. If it's wrong I'll happily retract. It changes very little anyway.

Even if it had been true that the fine structure constant was a square of something else (instead of that being just an excuse for "finding it" that way which you or Jenkins made up hoping nobody would actually look into it at all),

Another unfounded accusation. You may accuse me of poor scholarship if you like, but DO NOT accuse me of lying or any other kind of subterfuge. Got it? I'm actually more angry at your insinuation that Vernon Jenkins may have been dishonest. Not only has he never shown the slightest inclination towards intellectual dishonesty (unlike someone else I know), he would never put anything on his site without thoroughly checking it. He is human and can make mistakes, no doubt, but that's no excuse for someone with your posting history to rubbish the man. He is very elderly and isn't here to defend himself But I will defend him against this kind of personal attack.

that still wouldn't create a precedent for using the square function to get to it, because similarity of digital sequences in squares does not imply any connection at all between their square roots. For example, 6²=36 and 60²=3600, but √360 is around 19. Think about it: if your Biblical square was the fine structure constant (nevermind that it isn't), which is defined as the square of something called "the coupling constant" (nevermind that it isn't and there's no such thing), and that was because the squaring in one case was equivalent to the squaring in the other case (nevermind that squares don't work that way), then why wasn't the original concatenated number already "the coupling constant" itself?

For the reason you just gave above: because 27013627 and -0.08542455 (the value for the coupling constant Vernon Jenkins gives) both square to give a number with the first few digits 72973 . . . You kind of tripped yourself up there, with your own weaselly words methinks. Reminds me of Shakespeare: "Methinks it is like a weasel". (Hamlet, Act 3 Scene 2). Quite, except you got bitten by your own weaseling. Think about it.

And given that it wasn't, what reason was there to square it and then compare the squares?

I didn't do it, but I would guess intellectual curiosity, one of the better uses to which we can put our minds.

I don't think I'll bother with the rest of it.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Yet you apparently think that you do know this. Care to walk us through the process that led you to this conclusion?

Please supply your evidence that this is how it was done.

Blue Triangle, another thought has been vexing me.
You claim that these encoded numbers are a message from your god, and are an attempt by him/her/it to communicate with us.
Again, assuming that these hidden messages are real, and not merely a product of persistence and pareidolia, how are we supposed to respond?
The message so far is "4,000 years ago (or however long it is), I knew the value of Pi, more or less". OK. What do we then do? Are we supposed to find another religious text, say whatever holy book the Pastafarians have, and mess around with it until we can encode "Yeah. We know too, but you made a couple of mistakes", then wait another 4,000 years before discovering a response in another religious book?
Even assuming that what you claim is true (and you've got a long way to go before I'm prepared to accept that, based on the excellent contributions by other posters), this seems like a ridiculously lengthy and convoluted way to communicate. If your god is so interested in talking to us, why doesn't he/she/it just turn up at the UN HQ and get on with it? Why bother leaving a 4,000 year-old Easter egg (pun intended) to which we have no useful response, and which aids us not a bit?

I will add a request for evidence of this to the ever-growing list of questions blue triangle is avoiding.

Blue Triangle:
How do you know that your god wants to communicate in this way?
What evidence do you have that the calculations you allege are contained in the verses were performed simultaneously?
Do all verses of the Bible display this kind of encoding? If not, why not?
Why would your god choose to communicate in this way?
Etc. etc. etc.
Whenever you're ready....

 

[blue triangle]

I will add a request for evidence of this to the ever-growing list of questions blue triangle is avoiding.

My time is limited and I simply cant answer all the posts. Why do you assume I'm avoiding yours?

 

[blue triangle]

I see. Your 'god' is omni-enough to create humans in such a way that it can allow them to create suffering; and picayune enough to blame humans for acting as it created them. Not to mention sloppy at maths.

Some of your "omni's are slippping...

No, your reasoning is slippery - and the only one slipping is you.

 

[sackett]

I always liked Proverbs 11.1. Wonder what's encoded in it?

111! OMG!
Ï

 

[Slowvehicle]

This is just about the most intellectually dishonest statement I've ever read. I expect this kind of stuff from some religion bashers, but you are too intelligent to believe that the Bible is meant to be read literally. It's a favourite trick of religion bashers and pseudoskeptics, using the literal words of the Bible, which you don't believe anyway, to attack the God it seems to present. It's the ultimate straw manning tactic and very dishonest.

I am curious: in your favorite sect's acts, which bits of the version of the "bible" you think is the "real one" are not to be taken literally?

Ah, so now I'm a liar. Actually, I took that from Vernon Jenkins' page on pi e and alpha. I went back to check and he references The fine structure constant, a 20th century mystery, by James Gilson. If it's wrong I'll happily retract. It changes very little anyway.

...other than underlining (as if it were necessary) the ad hoc, one-off, nature of your specially-pled cherry-picked "arguments".

Another unfounded accusation. You may accuse me of poor scholarship if you like, but DO NOT accuse me of lying or any other kind of subterfuge. Got it?

Perhaps, if you do not wish to have it pointed out that you are making incorrect statements as if they were fact, you should be "aquaint yourself[sic]" with your sources better.

I'm actually more angry at your insinuation that Vernon Jenkins may have been dishonest. Not only has he never shown the slightest inclination towards intellectual dishonesty (unlike someone else I know), he would never put anything on his site without thoroughly checking it. He is human and can make mistakes, no doubt, but that's no excuse for someone with your posting history to rubbish the man. He is very elderly and isn't here to defend himself But I will defend him against this kind of personal attack.

And yet, when you quote him, or anyone else, errors, misstatements and all, without understanding, as if the factual content were unassailable, that is certainly intellectual laziness, if not outright mendacity. You, personally, may not be making the dishonest argument, only quoting it; that does not change the fact that the argument is based upon a misstatement (see "alpha", above).

For the reason you just gave above: because 27013627 and -0.08542455 (the value for the coupling constant Vernon Jenkins gives) both square to give a number with the first few digits 72973 . . . You kind of tripped yourself up there, with your own weaselly words methinks. Reminds me of Shakespeare: "Methinks it is like a weasel". (Hamlet, Act 3 Scene 2). Quite, except you got bitten by your own weaseling. Think about it.

Ooooo how erudite. OTH, you have yet to explain why you are comfortable with the cherry-picking process of "sometimes you square, sometimes you sum, sometimes you concatenate, sometimes you fudge; whatever you need to do to get wrong numbers that are 'close enough'...", and yet are uncomfortable when the inherent dishonesty of such legerdemain is pointed out to you.

BTW: You clearly do not "get" what Hamlet was saying with the "weasel" line (speaking of "weaseling")...you ought to work on the one about "...doth protest too much."

I didn't do it, but I would guess intellectual curiosity, one of the better uses to which we can put our minds.

...and, of course, the intentional act of cherry-picking an action that leads to a desired conclusion, for no other reason than that it leads to the desired conclusion.

I don't think I'll bother with the rest of it.

Now, that is humorous. Thank you.

 

[Slowvehicle]

No, your reasoning is slippery - and the only one slipping is you.

I encourage you to point out where you cannot follow my reasoning.

It was, in fact, you who claimed that the 'god' you are pimping is "omniscient", omnipotent", and omnipresent".

 

[blue triangle]

The "issue" is not that your carefully-cherry-picked "Texas Sgarpshooter" pilpul produces "approximations" of the values you claim are indications that your 'god' left us "messages".

The actual issue is that, even pretending that the numbers you manage to twist into the text are there by any rational approach, your results can only be considered "approximations" if you truncate them, that is (just incase you do not understand the big word) if you ignore the parts where your "answers" deviate from even a reasonable "approximation".

Your rudeness aside, what bothers you is that I am, in fact, aware of the numbers and "messages" you are able to pretend "must be" in the text, because someone has carefully polished the test looking for those numbers or something like them; all the while refusing to explain why sometimes, the factors must be concatenated; sometimes the concatenations must be factored; sometimes the concatenations must be squared at this step, other times at that...

All in service of a Bronze-Age superstition.

Nor have you even begun to hint at an idea as to what your mathematically-incorrect "messages" are to be supposed to mean.

ETA: As is often the case, Delvo beat me to this; saying it better and more completely. I hope you are reading Delvo's posts.

I am, because as you imply, his posts are more worth responding to than your efforts. So you might want to read my reply to Delvo, because in general the remarks apply to your posts too.

 

[jsfisher]

...
Nor have you even begun to hint at an idea as to what your mathematically-incorrect "messages" are to be supposed to mean.

Imagine someone trapped within a small crawl space under a collapsed building tapping away on a metal pipe hoping rescuers will hear him. It is not the content of the message, just the message itself that is important.

In God's version, the message is: "Hey, a little help here, folks. I was fooling around with my omni-things and managed to get stuck between a rock and a hard place. Rut, rut, rut."

[I, of course, used the Corn God translation rules to derive that from Genesis 1.1. The final part is the proof of authenticity.]