Experimental Results
After assembling and examining all the experimental results of this study, some things became clear. The first is that we should not have selected The Sea, הים, as one of the key words. The Hebrew is only three commonly occuring letters long and short skip ELSs for this key word are likely to occur in any table that has three or four hundred letters. The key word בים, In the sea, although also three letters long, is a better choice because the ב occurs less frequently than the ה. Indeed, in just about all the key word combination sets that used the key word The Sea and which had small p-value, there was a key word combination set using the word In The Sea that had smaller p-value.
The key word ים has its first meaning as Sea and its second meaning as Ocean. However there is a modern Hebrew 8 letter word אוקיינוס meaning Ocean that we probably should have tried and did not.
Finally, we selected only one word for the HOW event category: Turbulence, מערבולת, and with the spelling מערבולות. This word has the right meaning as it also carries the meaning for vortex and whirlpool. Perhaps there is another word that we could have used in addition. But I felt that that word Storm, which is the only other word I could think of when I started the experiment, was too weak. Now, a few weeks after the crash, it is clear that Air France flight 447 encountered a violent turbulent high altitude storm that tore it apart in midair. When I started the experiment, it was not clear that the break up of the aircraft occurred in midair. If we were to repeat the experiment, we would use key word phrases such as midair breakup, or key words meaning broke apart, or broke up.
This study is one of a continuing number of studies in which we tried to use all the reasonable key word sets relevant to the event in order to have a reasonable possibility of finding all the key word sets that might be encoded. The purpose of these studies to assemble a sufficient number of data sets so that we can use an automatic optimization process to find the pattern by which encoded key word sets can be distinguished from non-encoded key word sets. This study involved 4320 key word event combination sets in order to explore what key word combination sets might be encoded. Because of the large number of key word sets explored in the study, none of the small p-value key word sets could be said to statistically significant. Technically, if we were to test the NULL hypothesis of No Torah code effect against the alternative hypothesis that one of the 4320 key word event combination sets was encoded, we would not be able to reject the NULL hypothesis. This does not mean that none of them are encoded. In a different context, with a smaller number of key word sets, the outcome of such a test might be different. But to have a different context, we would have to know in advance the pattern of the encoded key word sets themselves. One of our purposes is to discover this pattern.
From a simpler perspective, key word combination sets with high p-values are certainly not encoded. Key word combination sets with small p-values might be encoded. But because we tried such a large number of key word combination sets we cannot directly infer from the individual results of the smaller p-value key word combination sets that there is an encoding of any of them. And at this time we have no a priori way of eliminating certain key word sets in the design of an experiment.
For some time, we have hypothesized that Torah code encoding involves more structure than just p-values of individual key word sets. Technically, this means that when testing the Null hypothesis against an alternative hypothesis our alternative hypothesis must be something more complex than one key word set is encoded among a collection of key word sets. In particular, for this study, we have hypothesized that there is a p-value structure in the event category combination lattice and in the p-values of the lattice of the 4320 key word combination sets. Therefore, the results of this study, as with the previous studies, are going to be used as part of the training set that is required to statistically estimate this structure.
The top layer lattice structure in the event category combination lattice is shown below. Here the smallest p-value from all the key word combination sets that belong to the same event category combination are shown.
