Who can count the windings?

[Guest]

Once again I just don't understand what these people are thinking!? Do they really think no one will confirm the things they claim?

It really is quite bizarre. The paper is a masterpiece of misdirection and data manipulation.

Are you planning on writing up something to demonstrate how Professor Gee has attempted to deceive everyone ....................... again!?

Yes, stay tuned.

[_Mortal Man]

So we're talking about folds instead of windings for this scroll.

And of the 70-80 segments we're seeing, these actually suggesting 35-40 windings.

Am I right so far?

Yes

And your image link didn't work for me.

You have to register to see their images.

[_Fence Sitter]

. I came to that conclusion months ago from William's reports of some of Gee's numbers and I confirmed it by applying some straighforward math to the "Actual Length" curve in Gee's plot. Counting the windings in the scroll was just the icing on the cake.

Some of us hope that you might ask Gee to submit to a math test before he is allowed to comment further on the scroll lengths determined by math formulas.

[_CaliforniaKid]

There are 36 or 37 windings in the straight section of the scroll laid out across the two "six meter" tables (they may only be ~5 meters). Count half-winding segments along the bottom and you get 73. I do not believe this is a coincidence.

Counting the windings in the podcast is not how I came to the conclusion that Gee has mistaken half windings for full windings. I came to that conclusion months ago from William's reports of some of Gee's numbers and I confirmed it by applying some straighforward math to the "Actual Length" curve in Gee's plot. Counting the windings in the scroll was just the icing on the cake.

Nice work, Andrew. I wasn't convinced when you proposed this in relation to Will's numbers, but this persuades me. It does appear that Gee has simply mis-measured the windings. I'm left wondering: did he only make this error in testing our formula, but not in testing Hoffmann's formula? Why did Hoffmann's formula indicate close to the correct length?

[Guest]

Some of us hope that you might ask Gee to submit to a math test before he is allowed to comment further on the scroll lengths determined by math formulas.

Ok, here's the test:

Consider two formulas for the circumference of a circle:
A "Diameter Formula" C=pi*D
and a "Radius Formula" C=2*pi*R
Plug D=10, 16 and 18 in to the Diameter Formula; what do you get for C?
Plug R=1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 into the Radius Formula, what do you get for C?
Why is the inventor of the Diameter Formula so much smarter than the inventors of the Radius Formula?
Why does the Radius Formula always underpredict the circumference-length by an egregious amount?
Why do the inventors of the Radius Formula refuse to validate their method on circles of known circumference?
Why are the inventors of the Radius Formula biased against large circles?

No wait, I withdraw my test. I'm far too important and busy for any of you.

[Guest]

Nice work, Andrew. I wasn't convinced when you proposed this in relation to Will's numbers, but this persuades me. It does appear that Gee has simply mis-measured the windings. I'm left wondering: did he only make this error in testing our formula, but not in testing Hoffmann's formula? Why did Hoffmann's formula indicate close to the correct length?

The math is such that two wrongs could essentially make a right.

[_Kevin Graham]

Brilliant MM!

I'm looking forward to reading your full response to Gee's latest crapola.

[_dblagent007]

Is Gee's article available in print yet?

It actually makes me feel better to believe that Gee is largely incompetent rather than purposefully deceitful.

[_dblagent007]

No wait, I withdraw my test. I'm far too important and busy for any of you.

ROFLMAO

[_Fence Sitter]

Is Gee's article available in print yet?

It actually makes me feel better to believe that Gee is largely incompetent rather than purposefully deceitful.

Except he is published by MI and one has to assume those around him are also one or the other.