Internet Mormons, Chapel Mormons, Critics, Apologists, and Never-Mo's all welcome!
https://discussmormonism.com/
Fence Sitter wrote:Given the fact that the diameter of the Hor scroll is about the same as the diameter of an empty toilet paper roll, this seems every apropo.
The Book of Abraham and the Great Toilet Paper Test
Conclusions
I undertook this toilet paper test primarily as a fun exercise, and its results are only as good as my competence and accuracy, both of which may be called into question. Nevertheless, based on my exercise I conclude the following:
1. The Hoffmann and Cook/Smith formulas are essentially the same and give very similar results. Why exactly Gee found otherwise will remain unknown until he is more specific about his method. Cook has suggested that Gee mistakenly applied Cook and Smith's derived value of T for the Hor scroll to the Royal Ontario Museum, not understanding that T is unique to each scroll and derived from the winding lengths.
2. Although they may be sound in theory, these formulas can give inaccurate results, which I think can partially be attributed to uneven tightness in winding. Whatever the source of error, I think it is wise to treat the results with caution, as my results in some ways mirror those of Gee's for the Royal Ontario Museum scroll.
3. Linear regression based on as few as 10 windings gave reasonably accurate results in both tests. This may represent a better approach and, at the very least, can serve as a cross-check.
4. In the particular case of the Hor scroll, linear regression based on Cook and Smith's measurements of extant winding lengths agrees well with results obtained from using their formula, even when the regression is done using as few as three windings. I therefore think that their conclusion that the missing inner portion of the scroll was 56 cm is correct to within 10 cm. (Cook has revised the length to 51 cm because of a calculation error. My linear regression using seven windings put the missing portion at 60 cm. However, if we assume that winding lengths could be as small as an unrealistic 0.2 cm, the linear regression puts the missing length at 65 cm.)
In summary, although I believe Gee has legitimate reason to be wary of the application of these formulas, Cook and Smith's estimate of the lost portion of the Hor scroll seems correct. What, if anything, this means for the Book of Abraham depends on other assumptions and considerations.