The only thing you are open is to steal someone else’s method instead to you develop your own.
Poor soul. It's no surprise that people here are wondering whether you're completely crazy or a 15-year-old.
Right, where has been your “open” mind since 2006 for a new mathematical approach on the subject? Suddenly, a method from an obscure user in the Internet which refutes your mathematical jolly play becomes what you were looking for...
Who said I was looking for a "new mathematical approach"? My response to Mattogno's "mathematical jollly play", in which I used the same to refute him, was written in 2009, by the way. And I'm beginning to understand why people question your sanity.
Correct translations of mathematical formulas into Microsoft Excel do not prove the translated formula is wrong.
The point is not that the formula is wrong, as you well know. The point is that you should have changed one number in the formula when making the calculations for the hypothetical group but failed to do so.
You have to write down the correct formula and indicate which variable or parameter is wrong.
The variable or parameter that is wrong in the calculations for the hypothetical group is the size of the box, which ought to be smaller than that of Provan's box because the hypothetical group weights only 209 kg whereas Provan's group weighed 266 kg, as was already explained:
0.44 m³ x 209÷266 = 0.345714 m³
Feel free to write down your formula with the correct box size for the hypothetical group, if that makes you happy.
have already explained in the subsequent reply. You just ignored.
Whatever it is you "explained", it doesn't change the fact that according to your calculations only
14 people with an average weight of
34 kg fit into one cubic meter, whereas the concentration of Provan's test group of 8, with an average weight of
33.25 kg, corresponds to
18 people per cubic meter. It doesn't change the fact that your calculation leads to results whereby one can fit
less people with an average weight of
26.13 kg into Provan's
0.44 m³ test box than one can fit people with an average weight of
33.25 kg into
the same box, when it's obviously
the other way round. It doesn't change the fact that according to your calculations
19 people fit into Provan's test box regardless of whether their average weight is
26.13 kg or
13.06 kg or
52.25 kg or
any multiple of 26.13 kg, which is obviously nonsense. So your calculations are obviously incorrect, and they are incorrect because you failed to take into account that if the weight of the text group is smaller the box must accordingly be made smaller in your calculations to obtain a realistic result, as opposed to the nonsensical result you obtained.
Using your rationale, cubic meters in kg/m^3 isn't a unit of measurement either. After all, we're talking about kg in 1 cubic meter. So if we represent m^3 as y, then y=1. 
