Ancient Engineering Measurements

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a biblical verse describing a bowl with specific measurements that suggest a ratio of circumference to diameter of 3, which contradicts the mathematical constant pi. Participants debate whether these measurements indicate inaccuracies in construction or the values themselves. Some argue that using the outer diameter with the inner circumference is illogical from an engineering perspective. Others express skepticism about the need to reconcile these biblical measurements with modern mathematics, viewing the text as a collection of myths rather than a scientific document. The conversation highlights the tension between religious interpretations and scientific reasoning regarding ancient engineering.
1mmorta1
Messages
159
Reaction score
0
Not sure where this one should go, please move if this is the wrong forum:

There is a verse in the Christian Bible where a bowl is described to have the following dimensions:

10 cubit diameter

30 cubit circumference

1 Handsbreadth thickness

A modern cubit is 18 inches, 1 handsbreadth is 4 inches.

At face value, the ratio between circumference and diameter is 3...which is not equal to pi. This would mean that the measurements are either incorrect, or that the structure was not made very well.

On the other hand, if you take the 10 cubit diameter from outer rim to outer rim, and consider the 30 cubit circumference as the circumference of the inner circle, pi = 3.139.

I am not wanting to start a religious discussion, I am just curious as to whether or not using the diameter from the outer rim and the circumference of the inner rim makes any sense to an engineer...

Is it likely that measurements like this would be taken? Or is it more likely that either construction and/or the actual values are inaccurate?

This question arises due to a discussion I am having with a religious colleague who is distressed to hear that the bible predicts that pi = 3.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
1mmorta1 said:
I am not wanting to start a religious discussion, I am just curious as to whether or not using the diameter from the outer rim and the circumference of the inner rim makes any sense to an engineer...
It doesn't make any sense to me.

I don't see either scientific or religious value in trying to "explain away" passages like the one you quote by sophistry, or pedantry.
 
AlephZero said:
It doesn't make any sense to me.

I don't see either scientific or religious value in trying to "explain away" passages like the one you quote by sophistry, or pedantry.

I can agree with that. The bible is a collection of legends and fairy tales to me, so I'm not much concerned.
 
Hi all, I have a question. So from the derivation of the Isentropic process relationship PV^gamma = constant, there is a step dW = PdV, which can only be said for quasi-equilibrium (or reversible) processes. As such I believe PV^gamma = constant (and the family of equations) should not be applicable to just adiabatic processes? Ie, it should be applicable only for adiabatic + reversible = isentropic processes? However, I've seen couple of online notes/books, and...
I have an engine that uses a dry sump oiling system. The oil collection pan has three AN fittings to use for scavenging. Two of the fittings are approximately on the same level, the third is about 1/2 to 3/4 inch higher than the other two. The system ran for years with no problem using a three stage pump (one pressure and two scavenge stages). The two scavenge stages were connected at times to any two of the three AN fittings on the tank. Recently I tried an upgrade to a four stage pump...
Back
Top