(May 23, 2012 at 10:05 am)FallentoReason Wrote: [*]Divide 4320 by 2 to get the diameter of the moon (2,160 miles);

The diameter is 2159.1 miles.

Quote:[*]multiply 432,000 by 2 to get the diameter of the sun (864,000 miles)

Diameter of the sun is 864327.3 miles.

Quote:[*]square 432 to get the speed of light (186,624 miles per second).

Speed of light is 186282 mps.


Damn, wrong on all three counts. Guess numerology really is a bunch of woo.

(May 23, 2012 at 10:20 am)Phil Wrote:

(May 23, 2012 at 10:05 am)FallentoReason Wrote: [*]Divide 4320 by 2 to get the diameter of the moon (2,160 miles);

The diameter is 2159.1 miles.

Quote:[*]multiply 432,000 by 2 to get the diameter of the sun (864,000 miles)

Diameter of the sun is 864327.3 miles.

Quote:[*]square 432 to get the speed of light (186,624 miles per second).

Speed of light is 186282 mps.


Damn, wrong on all three counts. Guess numerology really is a bunch of woo.

Adding up the errors to a total of 670.2 and dividing through the sum of the 3 numbers gives us a percentage error of .06%.

Not bad for someone living 2000 years ago!

(May 23, 2012 at 10:27 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

(May 23, 2012 at 10:20 am)Phil Wrote: The diameter is 2159.1 miles.Diameter of the sun is 864327.3 miles.Speed of light is 186282 mps.


Damn, wrong on all three counts. Guess numerology really is a bunch of woo.

Adding up the errors to a total of 670.2 and dividing through the sum of the 3 numbers gives us a percentage error of .06%.

Not bad for someone living 2000 years ago!

Tell me, did the ancient Greeks calculate measurements with a modern mile of 5280 feet or is this some modern asshats interpretation of numerological woo?

(May 23, 2012 at 10:30 am)Phil Wrote:

(May 23, 2012 at 10:27 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Adding up the errors to a total of 670.2 and dividing through the sum of the 3 numbers gives us a percentage error of .06%.

Not bad for someone living 2000 years ago!

Tell me, did the ancient Greeks calculate measurements with a modern mile of 5280 feet or is this some modern asshats interpretation of numerological woo?

The entire imperial system came from the Greeks.

Moreover, they collected from the members of the human body the proportionate dimensions which appear necessary in all building operations; the finger or inch, the palm, the foot, the cubit.

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Measurements.htm

So answering your question, no, they used their original system which has been adapted somewhat.

(May 23, 2012 at 10:34 am)FallentoReason Wrote: So answering your question, no, they used their original system which has been adapted somewhat.

So it is a modern spin on someones numerology which is what I said. Thought you were going to be an engineer? You mean critical thinking is optional?

(May 23, 2012 at 10:38 am)Phil Wrote:

(May 23, 2012 at 10:34 am)FallentoReason Wrote: So answering your question, no, they used their original system which has been adapted somewhat.

So it is a modern spin on someones numerology which is what I said. Thought you were going to be an engineer? You mean critical thinking is optional?

I don't understand your point exactly. What I understand less is why you're making a big deal out of a percentage error of .06% i.e. negligible for argument's sake as opposed to possibly reacting in any way when presented the idea that Lux-Axe was written by a Pagan historian. What's more important here?

(May 23, 2012 at 10:46 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

(May 23, 2012 at 10:38 am)Phil Wrote: So it is a modern spin on someones numerology which is what I said. Thought you were going to be an engineer? You mean critical thinking is optional?

I don't understand your point exactly. What I understand less is why you're making a big deal out of a percentage error of .06% i.e. negligible for argument's sake as opposed to possibly reacting in any way when presented the idea that Lux-Axe was written by a Pagan historian. What's more important here?

My point is my incredible disgust that an engineering student that thinks numerological woo is valid. Anyway, the reason I am addressing the numbers is simply because they are wrong (and most of the argument hinges on them being correct) and the methodology used is a well known wooish technique. The error is not .06% and the fact that you as an engineering student thinks that it is a valid calculation is extremely scary to me.

(May 23, 2012 at 10:58 am)Phil Wrote: My point is my incredible disgust that an engineering student that thinks numerological woo is valid.

Not in the least bit. I think it's rather bizarre that the number 4320 from the Gospel comes dangerously close to the 3 facts about the sun, moon and light. I'm not making any assumptions from there onwards in the form of endorsing Pagan theology.

Quote: Anyway, the reason I am addressing the numbers is simply because they are wrong (and most of the argument hinges on them being correct) and the methodology used is a well known wooish technique.

The arguments don't even need those numbers. It may seem like it in this thread because that's partly what I focused on, but can't you see that it's merely Plutarch's personal beliefs that shine through in the form of those numbers? His beliefs don't change the fact that he wrote Lux-Axe, but his beliefs give us the parallels of his works and Lux-Axe.

Quote: The error is not .06% and the fact that you as an engineering student thinks that it is a valid calculation is extremely scary to me.

|2 159.1 - 2 160| = 0.9
864 327.3 - 864 000 = 327.3
|186 282 - 186 624| = 342

Percentage error = (0.9 + 327.2 + 342)/(2 159.1 + 864 327.3 + 186 282)*100 = 0.0637%

EDIT: ah, sorry you're right. I've done the individual errors and got an average for the overall error and I came up with 0.0877%. Was that what you got?

You could do the same sort of thing with pretty much every book, it is not proof that someone specific wrote them. Even if those numbers were put in there deliberately, it would not necessarily mean Plutarch wrote the gospel.