At 3.10 he shows a grey triangle whose 2 sides are in the ratio pi. Cunningly he did not show the third side's measurement. Using Pythagoras Theorem we can calculate the third side, which is the diameter of the circle as 37.73 (he did not show the units).
At 3.44 he shows a blue triangle whose 2 sides are in the ratio e. The third side for this triangle is 37.71. But blue and grey triangle share this side. So the length of the side (diameter of the circle) should be the same if calculated from the blue or grey triangle.
I calculated the values of the diameter from all the other triangles he showed. All yield different values.
Colour
Long Side
Short Side
Diameter (Hypotenuse)
Ratio
Timestamp
Grey
35.95
11.44
37.73
pi
3.10
Blue
35.39
13.02
37.71
e
3.44
Light Blue
32.61
18.98
37.73
e-1
4.53
Green
33.56
17.64
37.91
B2
5.09
So the figure he shows cannot exist and he made it up
Edit 2: It doesn't get better even after 5 minutes. But he gets better at hiding his trickery. He doesn't show triangles completely so I have to do a lot of hopping back and forth across the video to get the sides. I have included timestamps where the measurements are shown in brackets.
Colour
Long Side
Short Side
Diameter (Hypotenuse)
Orange
30.31 (7.38)
22.73 (5.39)
37.89
Purple
35.16 (7.38)
14.09 (5.39)
37.88
Edit 3: This is getting farcical. The math just does not add up.
At 9.27 the line he shows as having the length of 13.12 is the altitude of the purple triangle and is actually 13.04 from calculation.
The green and red angles that he says are exactly 20 degrees at 11.21 cannot be exactly 20 degrees.
the black numbers are the angles just below them and the coloured numbers are the lengths of the same coloured side. The angles are derived from taking the arctan of the side ratios. The difference between the angle between diameter and the red side and the angle between diameter and the solid green side should be exactly forty according to this guy but it is not it is 40.482. These subtle difference matter because the original argument is that these measurements are too precise to be accidental.
Edit 4: Now to the crux of his argument, these must be intentionally placed because the odds of these ratios popping up coincidentally are very low.
Is it really?
There are 10 points in the book cover (6 dots and 4 line ends). This gives us 45 possible edges.
The difference between the largest value of Hypotenuse and the smallest value of hypotenuse is 0.2. So we can assume each point is a circle of diameter 0.1. Assuming their lengths are limited to two decimal places. For each edge there are 20 possible lengths. 900 lengths for 45 edges in total.
So the total number of ratios at our disposal are 809100.
Among this many samples the chance that you run into some number that is close to some number that you consider important is very very high. Especially if what you consider important is as mundane as sqrt(5) and sqrt(6). All you now have to do is to ignore the vast majority ratios that don't lead to important ratios and make a video like OP did.
Edit 5: Formatting and I removed the insults. Sorry about that I am really sleep deprived.
Final Edit: Fixed some errors in the diameter of points."
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
sli0701948 (Old Spike)
This as nothing to do with the video. Do you have the one your comment talk about?
Now with more Kingdom Come.
Hey subroutine came to visit us!
Jesus Christ be praised. I'm looking for more Advanced information. Wouldn't you have this book you're talking about?
Comments
(Old Spike)
... (from reddit /u/mace_guy):"
At 3.10 he shows a grey triangle whose 2 sides are in the ratio pi. Cunningly he did not show the third side's measurement. Using Pythagoras Theorem we can calculate the third side, which is the diameter of the circle as 37.73 (he did not show the units).
At 3.44 he shows a blue triangle whose 2 sides are in the ratio e. The third side for this triangle is 37.71. But blue and grey triangle share this side. So the length of the side (diameter of the circle) should be the same if calculated from the blue or grey triangle.
I calculated the values of the diameter from all the other triangles he showed. All yield different values.
So the figure he shows cannot exist and he made it up
Edit 2: It doesn't get better even after 5 minutes. But he gets better at hiding his trickery. He doesn't show triangles completely so I have to do a lot of hopping back and forth across the video to get the sides. I have included timestamps where the measurements are shown in brackets.
Edit 3: This is getting farcical. The math just does not add up.
At 9.27 the line he shows as having the length of 13.12 is the altitude of the purple triangle and is actually 13.04 from calculation.
The green and red angles that he says are exactly 20 degrees at 11.21 cannot be exactly 20 degrees.
Take a look at this image
the black numbers are the angles just below them and the coloured numbers are the lengths of the same coloured side. The angles are derived from taking the arctan of the side ratios. The difference between the angle between diameter and the red side and the angle between diameter and the solid green side should be exactly forty according to this guy but it is not it is 40.482. These subtle difference matter because the original argument is that these measurements are too precise to be accidental.
Edit 4: Now to the crux of his argument, these must be intentionally placed because the odds of these ratios popping up coincidentally are very low.
Is it really?
There are 10 points in the book cover (6 dots and 4 line ends). This gives us 45 possible edges.
The difference between the largest value of Hypotenuse and the smallest value of hypotenuse is 0.2. So we can assume each point is a circle of diameter 0.1. Assuming their lengths are limited to two decimal places. For each edge there are 20 possible lengths. 900 lengths for 45 edges in total.
So the total number of ratios at our disposal are 809100.
Among this many samples the chance that you run into some number that is close to some number that you consider important is very very high. Especially if what you consider important is as mundane as sqrt(5) and sqrt(6). All you now have to do is to ignore the vast majority ratios that don't lead to important ratios and make a video like OP did.
Edit 5: Formatting and I removed the insults. Sorry about that I am really sleep deprived.
Final Edit: Fixed some errors in the diameter of points."
(Old Spike)
This as nothing to do with the video. Do you have the one your comment talk about?
Now with more Kingdom Come.
Hey subroutine came to visit us!
Jesus Christ be praised. I'm looking for more Advanced information. Wouldn't you have this book you're talking about?
Good health to you.