Notices
Results 1 to 35 of 35
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By SpeedFreek

Thread: Galileo's pi

  1. #1 Galileo's pi 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    26
    Would love to hear your thoughts on this
    Attached Images


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    I can't make head nor tail of that diagram, so I'm afraid I won't be much help.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    26
    Ill give you a hint, Pi may have more reference to being the 16th letter of the greek alphabet then just a cool name. Basically to disect a circle you have to break it into 16 slices first. (360 has 24 variables. 360/24=16) Theres much more to it though I dont want to over state the obvious. What do you not understand about it or where should we start. Note what I will teach you is not taught in schools.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
    Ill give you a hint, Pi may have more reference to being the 16th letter of the greek alphabet then just a cool name. Basically to disect a circle you have to break it into 16 slices first. (360 has 24 variables. 360/24=16) Theres much more to it though I dont want to over state the obvious. What do you not understand about it or where should we start. Note what I will teach you is not taught in schools.
    I don't understand. What do you mean by "24 variables"? If you mean factors of division, then .

    Your second diagram confuses me. How did you come to the conclusion that Pi is inaccurate? The length of any Euclidean circle's circumference divided by the length of its diameter is and always will be . Also, you can simplify your supposed more accurate ratio "Ci" to ... So I'm guessing your goal was to get rid of Pi's irrationality and replace it with a close but inaccurate ratio of integers?

    Also, Pi isn't just involved in circles. So unless you want to destroy the incredible trigonometric-exponential relationship that set up the beautiful , as well as pretty much everything else in established mathematics, have fun with that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by brody View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
    Ill give you a hint, Pi may have more reference to being the 16th letter of the greek alphabet then just a cool name. Basically to disect a circle you have to break it into 16 slices first. (360 has 24 variables. 360/24=16) Theres much more to it though I dont want to over state the obvious. What do you not understand about it or where should we start. Note what I will teach you is not taught in schools.
    I don't understand. What do you mean by "24 variables"? If you mean factors of division, then .

    Your second diagram confuses me. How did you come to the conclusion that Pi is inaccurate? The length of any Euclidean circle's circumference divided by the length of its diameter is and always will be . Also, you can simplify your supposed more accurate ratio "Ci" to ... So I'm guessing your goal was to get rid of Pi's irrationality and replace it with a close but inaccurate ratio of integers?

    Also, Pi isn't just involved in circles. So unless you want to destroy the incredible trigonometric-exponential relationship that set up the beautiful , as well as pretty much everything else in established mathematics, have fun with that.

    Sorry about the 360 24 thing, glad your paying attention. I feel it is inaccurate not because its been changed 6 times in the last 2000 years or that it takes over 100 setups that would, if typed out would take out many small trees in the processing of the paper, to define the most balanced of shape, though because it is not quiet balanced enough for my standards of infinite reliability. It did not make the cut

    The number of balance points times a million, divided the non arbitrary degrees of a circle. Then minus the rotations needed to begin to define the circle (with balance (yes balance in a circle)), which is directly connected to the number of balance points (3). Then divided in proportion with the simplest real number square that can contain it. 36 is very prevalent if you progress in the balances.

    How come with the current value of pi it is impossible to have a square and a circle with the same exact area? Its not with the new value.

    Its origins are similar to a formula to convert degrees kelvin to nanometers. Nanometers measure the wavelengths of the visible light spectrum with a gap of 360 nanometers to 720 nanometers, start to end.

    The principles are great, I think we should keep much of their energy though the path they travel, I feel, could have a bit less friction. Is it wrong to want to limit wasted energy and resources?
    Last edited by Galileo; February 26th, 2012 at 12:40 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
    The number of balance points times a million, divided the non arbitrary degrees of a circle. Then minus the rotations needed to begin to define the circle (with balance (yes balance in a circle)), which is directly connected to the number of balance points (3). Then divided in proportion with the simplest real number square that can contain it. 36 is very prevalent if you progress in the balances.
    What?

    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
    How come with the current value of pi it is impossible to have a square and a circle with the same exact area?
    It isn't - or not more so than it's impossible to have two identical squares. The accuracy of the value of pi used for calculation of the area of the circle will always be irrelevant compared to the accuracy of the measurement of the length of the sides of the square.

    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
    Its origins are similar to a formula to convert degrees kelvin to nanometers. Nanometers measure the wavelengths of the visible light spectrum with a gap of 360 nanometers to 720 nanometers, start to end.
    That seems rather arbitrarily decided. Are you saying we can see from exactly 360nm to exactly 720nm wavelengths? Also, why would you want to convert from temperature to distance, and why is this relevant?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Okay, I'm splitting this off and sending to pseudoscience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    26
    Qoute: That seems rather arbitrarily decided. Are you saying we can see from exactly 360nm to exactly 720nm wavelengths? Also, why would you want to convert from temperature to distance, and why is this relevant?

    We can see farther into the ultraviolet then the infared. The relms have similar physics. Lets say that 80% of the way through the visible light spectrum (wavelengths of our elements) produces vitamin x though it is hard to reproduce in a grow bulb for growing indoor plants. Since the relms share the same physics in different proportions we can produce the wavelength that is similar in physical qualities and produce some thing similar to vitamin x. It is not the best and will most likely lead to long term problems in similar ways to pharmaceutical products though it works in some cost benefit ratios. There is uv A,B and C. We can see B and C. I used to be an indoor grower which is why I was messing around with the Kelvin to nanometer formula in the first place. I was trying to find a balance that I could not explain if you can not follow the formula. I have no problems telling you though we need foundation first.

    Think of a rainbow slinky that is smaller on one end and goes through the six not seven colors, as the three primes do not split that way, every rotation

    to bad we can not do anything with the electromagnetic waves of the solar flares.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
    Qoute: That seems rather arbitrarily decided. Are you saying we can see from exactly 360nm to exactly 720nm wavelengths? Also, why would you want to convert from temperature to distance, and why is this relevant?

    We can see farther into the ultraviolet then the infared. .
    Not true at all. Due to the expansion of the Universe, the further you go back in time (and distance) the more the spectrum of what we can detect gets shifted toward the infrared.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036


    It looks like the proof has something to do with the way you relate squares to circles? But I don't see how the current pi value could be off by a full 0.0074 of the truly correct value. Surely we have tools capable of physically drawing circles to a higher precision than that, and then exactly measuring those circles.

    Remember that, when logic fails to yield a conclusive result, we can always test our ideas by physically building them in the real world to see if we were right.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
    I feel it is inaccurate not because its been changed 6 times in the last 2000 years
    Except it hasn't. Pi has only ever had one vale; it can only have one value. There might have been various approximations used (more than 6, I'm sure) but that is irrelevant.

    or that it takes over 100 setups that would, if typed out would take out many small trees in the processing of the paper, to define the most balanced of shape, though because it is not quiet balanced enough for my standards of infinite reliability. It did not make the cut

    The number of balance points times a million, divided the non arbitrary degrees of a circle. Then minus the rotations needed to begin to define the circle (with balance (yes balance in a circle)), which is directly connected to the number of balance points (3). Then divided in proportion with the simplest real number square that can contain it. 36 is very prevalent if you progress in the balances.
    What is that supposed to mean?

    How come with the current value of pi it is impossible to have a square and a circle with the same exact area?
    Of course its not impossible. Define a circle with a diameter and a square with side 1. Done.

    Maybe you are thinking of the old Greek problem of "squaring the circle"? This is about constructing a circle with the same area as a square using only compass and straightedge - it can be shown that this is impossible (because Pi is irrational).

    Its origins are similar to a formula to convert degrees kelvin to nanometers.
    You can't convert kelvin to nanometres. That is meaningless.

    Nanometers measure the wavelengths of the visible light spectrum with a gap of 360 nanometers to 720 nanometers, start to end.
    More like 390nm to 750nm.

    I get the impression you don't know what you are talking about.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
    Qoute: That seems rather arbitrarily decided. Are you saying we can see from exactly 360nm to exactly 720nm wavelengths? Also, why would you want to convert from temperature to distance, and why is this relevant?

    We can see farther into the ultraviolet then the infared. .
    Not true at all. Due to the expansion of the Universe, the further you go back in time (and distance) the more the spectrum of what we can detect gets shifted toward the infrared.

    Much as black holes put out xrays? I would imagine wavelengths would elongate as they defuse or a wavelength could be made up or alter physics in an adjacent relm which may take longer to defuse away the remnants of do to the environment?. To bad their physics could not be measured to see what they defused from. That has always been a topic of interest for me though I could only speculate off of other physics that perhaps are universal to some arbitrary extent. Like a chem trail.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    26
    Strage - I agree pi is irrational. I can not have a real number area from a real number radius in a circle? Who writes this stuff?

    I do not want to arbitrarily connect irrational to its meaning...
    irrational (adj) - Bing Dictionary

    irˇraˇtionˇal [ i ráshən'l ]

    • lacking in reason: contrary to or lacking in reason or logic
    • lacking logical thought: unable to think logically
    • unable to think clearly: lacking the normal ability to think clearly, especially because of shock or injury to the brain
    Last edited by Galileo; February 27th, 2012 at 08:02 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
    Strage - I agree pi is irrational. I can not have a real number area from a real number radius in a circle? Who writes this stuff?

    I do not want to arbitrarily connect irrational to its meaning...
    irrational (adj) - Bing Dictionary

    irˇraˇtionˇal [ i ráshən'l ]
    • lacking in reason: contrary to or lacking in reason or logic
    • lacking logical thought: unable to think logically
    • unable to think clearly: lacking the normal ability to think clearly, especially because of shock or injury to the brain
    I'm gettiing a little tired of the crackpot invasion. Explain your pi calculation or be banned for a troll. I mean each step in detail.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
    Strage - I agree pi is irrational. I can not have a real number area from a real number radius in a circle? Who writes this stuff?

    I do not want to arbitrarily connect irrational to its meaning...
    irrational (adj) - Bing Dictionary

    irˇraˇtionˇal [ i ráshən'l ]

    • lacking in reason: contrary to or lacking in reason or logic
    • lacking logical thought: unable to think logically
    • unable to think clearly: lacking the normal ability to think clearly, especially because of shock or injury to the brain
    Is that a bad pun or just ignorance?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
    I do not want to arbitrarily connect irrational to its meaning...
    irrational (adj) - Bing Dictionary

    irˇraˇtionˇal [ i ráshən'l ]
    • lacking in reason: contrary to or lacking in reason or logic
    • lacking logical thought: unable to think logically
    • unable to think clearly: lacking the normal ability to think clearly, especially because of shock or injury to the brain
    You should be looking up the mathematical definition of an irrational number. Next you will be saying that only real numbers are "real".
    Strange likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    And all numbers that are not integers greater than zero are unnatural.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    276
    I'm surprised no one went for the "imaginary" pun...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Would that be the square root of minus pun?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    276
    Careful, mathematical puns are the first sine of madness. I know that one cos I heard it from a friend.

    So...... anyway..... Galileo, how did you arrive at ? Note the trigonometric functions in the pun above. At multiples of Pi there are critical points. That's known to be certain from using the right angle approach in radians. You can test it out. Using "Ci", you will find rather arbitrary values.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
    We can see farther into the ultraviolet then the infared.
    We can see exactly none of either. We can see the visible spectrum - which is why it's called the visible spectrum.

    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
    The relms have similar physics. Lets say that 80% of the way through the visible light spectrum (wavelengths of our elements) produces vitamin x though it is hard to reproduce in a grow bulb for growing indoor plants. Since the relms share the same physics in different proportions we can produce the wavelength that is similar in physical qualities and produce some thing similar to vitamin x. It is not the best and will most likely lead to long term problems in similar ways to pharmaceutical products though it works in some cost benefit ratios.
    We could easily produce light at "80% of the way through" the visible spectrum. We could probably build LEDs that have peak emission at that wavelength.



    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
    There is uv A,B and C. We can see B and C.
    No we can't. If we could, it wouldn't be ultraviolet, it would be violet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
    I used to be an indoor grower which is why I was messing around with the Kelvin to nanometer formula in the first place. I was trying to find a balance that I could not explain if you can not follow the formula. I have no problems telling you though we need foundation first.
    That's a little vague. There are many formulae which could relate temperature to distance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
    Think of a rainbow slinky that is smaller on one end and goes through the six not seven colors, as the three primes do not split that way, every rotation
    The number of colours is also arbitrary. For instance within the 'red' portion, we have magenta, mauve, crimson.....
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
    Think of a rainbow slinky that is smaller on one end and goes through the six not seven colors, as the three primes do not split that way, every rotation
    The number of colours is also arbitrary. For instance within the 'red' portion, we have magenta, mauve, crimson.....
    However, we do distinguish 3 wavelengths as primary in Color Theory (be it visual arts or physics). Then their dual mixtures in the secondary taxon. There's our 6 colors. So it's not truly arbitrary. I think this is what he means.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Would that be the square root of minus pun?
    You mean,

    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    26
    Harold Thats what I am trying to do. If you have any questions feel free to ask. I came on to discuss math and balance not argue.

    Strange - Bad pun I suppose. lol

    Brody - ((3000000 / 3600)-720) / 36 I like to flex numbers when I get bored. Yes color theory. Do you see how it lines up with the elements? Ever throw a penny in the fire? It burns green. Notice the wavelengths of copper and zinc on the new periodic table? the table holds true for all the elemental photons. Why is the sky blue? Its 78.08 % nitrogen which produces blue photons. Do you see how the second new periodic table is built on these foundations and balances with the three groups of 40 elements when broken into six colors?

    Drowsy Turtle. Check to see what wavelength ozone is produced at. To save you time it is 185 nanometers. This is UVB light. We see it as a purple glow though just because we can not see all the photons our rods and cones can pick up similar wavelength physics. I used to design grow bulbs so if you would like to get into this topic I would love to.

    Some one mentioned imaginary. All I am asking is that you imagine what was not taught in school. To quote Einstein "Imagination is more important then knowledge."Most_Recent_Periodic_Table_of_Elements.jpg
    Last edited by Galileo; February 27th, 2012 at 07:59 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
    Some one mentioned imaginary.
    I genuinely can't tell if you do or actually don't know about the standard number system. Do you know what we're talking about here: ? There are many common misconceptions for those not familiar to concepts outside the Real Number system. And from your other thread, it seems like you're confused about the terms "rational" or "irrational".

    Also, you talk about "balance" a lot. What exactly do you mean by that? How does the concept come into this proof?

    And above all else... Describe how you came to the conclusion that is in any way, shape, or form... wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    26
    Ok. I am not so familiar with terms just how the concepts feel. Could not afford college.

    Balance. Well symmetries and repeating patterns on constant progressions if that makes sense.

    I got this number that looked a lot like pi so I did some comparison study. Here is a sample of what I saw. I noticed it did some strange things...



    3.148148148148148148184 / 3 = 1.0493827160493827160493

    ci = 3.14814
    3ci = 9.444444444444444444444444444444
    6ci = 18.88888888888888888888888888888
    9ci = 28.33333333333333333333333333333
    12ci = 37.77777777777777777777777777777
    15ci = 47.22222222222222222222222222222
    18ci = 56.66666666666666666666666666666
    21ci = 66.1111111111111111111111111111
    24ci = 75.55555555555555555555555555555
    27ci = 84.99999999999999999999999999999
    30ci = 94.44444444444444444444444444444
    33ci = 103.88888888888888888888888888888
    36ci = 113.33333333333333333333333333333
    39ci = 122.77777777777777777777777777777
    42ci = 132.22222222222222222222222222222
    45ci = 141.66666666666666666666666666666



    Ci(r squared / 3 = 18.888
    when r = 3
    ( same as 2(ci)r )

    18.8888888888888 = E
    E x 2 = 37.7777777777777777777777777777
    E x 3 = 56.6666666666666666666666666666
    E x 4 = 75.5555555555555555555555555555
    E x 5 = 94.4444444444444444444444444444
    E x 6 = 113.333333333333333333333333333
    E x 7 = 132.222222222222222222222222222
    E x 8 =151.111111111111111111111111111
    E x 9 = 169.999999999999999999999999999
    E x 10 = 188.888888888888888888888888888
    E x 11 = 207.777777777777777777777
    E x 12 = 226.666666666666666666666
    E x 13 = 245.555555555555555555555
    E x 14 = 264.444444444444444444444
    E x 15 = 283.333333333333333333333
    E x 16 = 302.222222222222222222222
    E x 17 = 321.111111111111111111111
    E x 18 = 339.999999999999999999999
    E x 19 = 358.888888888888888888888
    E x 20 = 377.777777777777777777777
    E x 21 = 396.666666666666666666666
    E x 22 = 415.555555555555555555555
    E x 23 = 434.444444444444444444444
    E x 24 = 453.333333333333333333333 (18 steps away from 113.33333) 24 hours in a day. surface area in Sq units when r = 6

    a bit more........
    3600 / 18.888888888888 = 356.790123456789012345678901234567890
    360 - 356.7901234567890 = 3.2098765432098765432098765432 (never touches 1)


    2(pi)r
    R = 3
    18.8495559215387594307756
    37.6991118430775188615512
    56.5486677646162782923268
    75.3982236861550377231024
    94.247779607693797153878
    113.0973355292325565846536
    131.9468914507713160154292
    150.7964473723100754462048
    169.6460032938488348769804



    then just some bordem...
    360 / 16 = 22.5

    18.888888 / 22.5 = 0.839506172839506172839506172839

    18.8888888 / ci = 6

    6+6+6 = 18
    18.88888 - 18 = .888888
    6 x .888888 = 6.75
    (1080 / 67.5 = 16)
    6 / .8888888 = 5.333333
    (5.33333 x 3 = 16)
    ((ci x 5.3333 = 16.790123456789...

    360 x .888888 = A or 320
    360 - A = B or 40
    360 / 40 = 9
    .88888 / 9 = 0987654320987...





    Are these not recognizable patterns?
    Last edited by Galileo; February 27th, 2012 at 08:24 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
    Harold Thats what I am trying to do. If you have any questions feel free to ask.
    I did ask. I want to see every step. Do it or you're gone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    26
    In good time my anxious friend. First we need to establish a stable foundation.

    There is a difference between growing and conquering, one requires imagination, the other requires a parcel to be where they are not productive

    Worship was never of interest to me nor do I do well with orders on sites designed to stimulate discussion and expansion of knowledge, I do not find balance in this.

    Perhaps you could outline for me how you justify sequestering anything which you do not ascertain under threat of pain to another when no pain or intention of pain has been introduced by the individual being sequestered? Are you a parent?
    Last edited by Galileo; February 27th, 2012 at 09:59 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    It was a simple request.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
    I got this number that looked a lot like pi so I did some comparison study. Here is a sample of what I saw. I noticed it did some strange things...
    Right. So numerology then.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
    Strage - I agree pi is irrational. I can not have a real number area from a real number radius in a circle? Who writes this stuff?

    I do not want to arbitrarily connect irrational to its meaning...
    irrational (adj) - Bing Dictionary

    irˇraˇtionˇal [ i ráshən'l ]
    • lacking in reason: contrary to or lacking in reason or logic
    • lacking logical thought: unable to think logically
    • unable to think clearly: lacking the normal ability to think clearly, especially because of shock or injury to the brain
    I'm gettiing a little tired of the crackpot invasion. Explain your pi calculation or be banned for a troll. I mean each step in detail.
    This is a thread in pseudo-science. Isn't that good enough? I don't see how this is a threat to the sanity or enjoyment of other members. Anyone who browses the pseudo-science section not expecting a fair amount of cracked pottery is merely a victim of their own mistaken expectations.


    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
    Nanometers measure the wavelengths of the visible light spectrum with a gap of 360 nanometers to 720 nanometers, start to end.
    More like 390nm to 750nm.

    I get the impression you don't know what you are talking about.
    In all fairness that's a small difference. Also I'm not sure, but I think not every single last human being's eyes are the same. There's probably some wiggle room on that spectrum where some people can see wavelengths longer than 750 nm, and some can see shorter than 360 nm. I'm not sure though. I'd have to ask in the biology section.... which would make for an interesting thread.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    This is a thread in pseudo-science. Isn't that good enough? I don't see how this is a threat to the sanity or enjoyment of other members. Anyone who browses the pseudo-science section not expecting a fair amount of cracked pottery is merely a victim of their own mistaken expectations.
    There are sincere crackpots, then there are trolls. If Galileo sincerely believed he had found an error in pi, he would have been more than eager to show us. And of course he knew full well what an irrational number is. He was just taking us for a ride.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    This is a thread in pseudo-science. Isn't that good enough? I don't see how this is a threat to the sanity or enjoyment of other members. Anyone who browses the pseudo-science section not expecting a fair amount of cracked pottery is merely a victim of their own mistaken expectations.
    There are sincere crackpots, then there are trolls. If Galileo sincerely believed he had found an error in pi, he would have been more than eager to show us. And of course he knew full well what an irrational number is. He was just taking us for a ride.
    Possibly, but doesn't seem so. To me, it's just the usual confused speculator of a science forum... like me :P It would've been much more obvious that this was a troll. Apparently, he is (or as it seems to him) inching on an unexpected unificative idea of the elements, color theory, and geometry.

    kojax, the fact this is in the Pseudo-science section is irrelevant, as most or many of the threads here we're originally posted in the more serious subfora. It really does seem there have been more and more posts recently that haven't been thought through.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
    Ok. I am not so familiar with terms just how the concepts feel. Could not afford college.

    Balance. Well symmetries and repeating patterns on constant progressions if that makes sense.

    I got this number that looked a lot like pi so I did some comparison study. Here is a sample of what I saw. I noticed it did some strange things...

    ...

    Are these not recognizable patterns?
    Yes. But that's not anything special. You can play around with common repetends and get interesting patterns no matter what ratio you're dealing with.

    It seems as though you're searching for some numerical perfection (is that what you mean by "balance"?).

    Let me tell you, if you ever find some perfect pattern in anywhere, you will keep running into imperfection.

    Observe the repetend , which is approximated by (same except it skips the 8).

    The true ratio for the above repetend is in irreducible terms... whose inequivalent square is . Note it skips the 8. And from my experience, in every other way you play around with the numbers you will find chaos out of order. (call it "mathematical entropy")

    And don't shy away irrational constants because they're not "perfect". The most important constants in all of mathematics are all irrational, unless you also want to make a case out of and and and and etc. etc. etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
    I got this number that looked a lot like pi so I did some comparison study. Here is a sample of what I saw. I noticed it did some strange things...
    Right. So numerology then.
    Yup, its pure numerology. "Balance" indeed...
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Galileo's experiment and Equivalence Principle
    By tsolkas-1 in forum Physics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: November 14th, 2007, 12:05 PM
  2. Galileo's trial-positive or negative impact?
    By kingwinner in forum Physics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 11th, 2007, 08:43 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •