|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Jul 28, 2009 9:33:01 GMT -4
Well, I can get the whole 30 cubits around and 10 cubits across thing to work, by measuring the diameter along the surface of the earth, rather than in the plane containing the circle. Then the diameter is longer, due to the curvature of the earth. The problem is that I need a cubit to be over 600 km to get it to work, and they're supposed to be a lot smaller, aren't they? From memory I believe there have been a number of different measure called a Cubit over the centuries, but I don't think any of them were much longer than a metre, and most were around half that.
|
|
|
Post by homobibiens on Jul 28, 2009 9:45:31 GMT -4
Well, I can get the whole 30 cubits around and 10 cubits across thing to work, by measuring the diameter along the surface of the earth, rather than in the plane containing the circle. Then the diameter is longer, due to the curvature of the earth. The problem is that I need a cubit to be over 600 km to get it to work, and they're supposed to be a lot smaller, aren't they? From memory I believe there have been a number of different measure called a Cubit over the centuries, but I don't think any of them were much longer than a metre, and most were around half that. I figured it was something like that. I didn't think Solomon had ever built anything that was over 20,000km around
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 28, 2009 14:01:08 GMT -4
I read a suggestion somewhere that one measurement is the inside of the rim and one the outside, and the rim is just really thick. Not unlike anyone taking the Bible literally, really.
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Jul 28, 2009 15:10:58 GMT -4
Well, I can get the whole 30 cubits around and 10 cubits across thing to work, by measuring the diameter along the surface of the earth, rather than in the plane containing the circle. Then the diameter is longer, due to the curvature of the earth. The problem is that I need a cubit to be over 600 km to get it to work, and they're supposed to be a lot smaller, aren't they? From memory I believe there have been a number of different measure called a Cubit over the centuries, but I don't think any of them were much longer than a metre, and most were around half that. I sweem to remember to remember this particluar cubit being the length of a mans forearm from elbow to finger tip. You'd never need to carry a tape measure. ;D Actually I have a friend who was about a dozen of his own arm and hand measurements memorised, (hand span, finger lengths and width and each knuckle, and so on), just in case the need arises.
|
|
|
Post by homobibiens on Jul 28, 2009 19:39:37 GMT -4
I read a suggestion somewhere that one measurement is the inside of the rim and one the outside, and the rim is just really thick. That would do it, and you wouldn't even really need much thickness. 30 cubits of circumference is consistent with a diameter of 9.55 cubits, so you only need a thickness of 0.45 cubits, which occurs on both sides, so really only 0.225 cubits. So if a cubit is half a meter, that's only a bit over 10 cm, not all that thick. There is a lot more creativity to literalism than I thought there would be!
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 29, 2009 8:29:11 GMT -4
And there I thought the writer just rounded the figures of.
|
|
|
Post by homobibiens on Jul 29, 2009 10:56:30 GMT -4
And there I thought the writer just rounded the figures of. Which makes one wonder what the issue is, since pi is equal to three, rounded off to the first decimal place
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Jul 29, 2009 13:38:43 GMT -4
And there I thought the writer just rounded the figures of. Which makes one wonder what the issue is, since pi is equal to three, rounded off to the first decimal place To quote Petey of the esteemed webcomic Schlock Mercenary, “Please don’t make me add ‘rounding Pi down to three’ to your list of crimes."
|
|