Einstein could explain why his math made sense using math, instead of creating more nonsense, allegory, and analogies to bolster his claims. I'm not the best at math, I know this and don't claim any skills I don't have, but my math skills are ahead of yours by quite a bit from what I've seen.

My science background is much deeper, because I read and listen, and volunteer what I think I know when it is appropriate. If proven wrong I will acknowledge it, and if an apology is due I will make one. We shall see how you handle it.

 

Not really, you truly haven't impressed anyone. Quite the contrary actually. It is just more of the same kind of nonsense you are inflicting.

Just curious, do you have any interest in electronics? Or is this a new forum you just got around to visiting until you get bored and move on?

Yes regarding your question in my interest in electronics. I've actually managed to watch that electronics youtube video and fully read the introduction link you guys gave the other guy. I'm party interested in making the Ybox2 portable as I've posted. But the solution offered was simply too expensive/heavy/un-portable.

And yes, I'm gonna move on if you guys don't want my discussions here. Anyway, just tell me straight and you'll get your censorship wishes.

 

Einstein could explain why his math made sense using math, instead of creating more nonsense, allegory, and analogies to bolster his claims. I'm not the best at math, I know this and don't claim any skills I don't have, but my math skills are ahead of yours by quite a bit from what I've seen.

My science background is much deeper, because I read and listen, and volunteer what I think I know when it is appropriate. If proven wrong I will acknowledge it, and if an apology is due I will make one. We shall see how you handle it.

Before Einstein was able to prove his theory using math (which he didn't fully developed until latter part of his life), he has an idea. And as I've said to you, I'm willing to learn concepts about geodiscs and Einstein's field equations. My Physics theory actually came about with the inversion of one of the variable of Einstein's graphs. And after researching in wolfram-alpha, I've stumbled about Aristotle and his theory that infinity does not actually exist.

Anyway, these theories are legitimate. There are mathematical works regarding finitism (search wikipedia). And made an impact to me that I thought it would be good to have a sensible discussion with open-minded individuals. Guess I think you are saying that was wrong on my last assumption...

 

Censorship, nope, just stop with the BS, your killing us. Seriously, you have come in and started with lots of stuff you are trying to present as science. What you don't realize is we have a fair mix of doctorates, advanced degrees, no degrees, and lots and lots of experience in our respective fields. Me, I'm a grunt tech with 30+ years troubleshooting and occasionally helping engineers fix their designs. I now write articles for the text book on this site, including beginners projects.

We have had lots of other people come in with more or less the same approach, with an obvious agenda, speaking pseudo science in the hope of gaining some legitimacy. A lot of them are scam artists (which I do not group you with). I've only been on this thread for about 2½ years, but the amount of this stuff we get is astounding.

So don't be surprised when you start talking stuff that is distinctly off from center you get a bit of a hard time. Science is a serious topic here, but it is not the real reason for this site. First and foremost we work with electronics from every level, beginner to college. I like science, it is one of my favorite subjects, so I hang around this particular forum a lot.

You will find a lot of speculation in other threads. Speculation is fun, meat and drink. With some of the comments on things like relativity you have shown you aren't that deep into the subject, but seem to be presenting yourself as an expert. I'm not an expert, don't claim to be, but I've been following the subject since I could read.

BTW, Finitism (which I have never heard of) has nothing to do with mathematics of pi, irrational numbers, and transcendental numbers, pi being a prime example of the latter classes. For engineering use of pi, 3.14 is usually all that is needed, though being one of the first users of calculators I go with 3.1415926. I'm not a mathematician, are you?

Open minds are only good if the flys don't get in. You need to filter what is said against what you know.

 

Censorship, nope, just stop with the BS, your killing us. Seriously, you have come in and started with lots of stuff you are trying to present as science. What you don't realize is we have a fair mix of doctorates, advanced degrees, no degrees, and lots and lots of experience in our respective fields. Me, I'm a grunt tech with 30+ years troubleshooting and occasionally helping engineers fix their designs. I now write articles for the text book on this site, including beginners projects.

No where in my post did I argue against that. But all that thing is irrelevant to our discussion and I'm not currently interested on the number of doctorates you have. Just simply discussion on the theory that I presented. Geeeezz, do I have to show all my medals and degrees as well to start a discussion?

We have had lots of other people come in with more or less the same approach, with an obvious agenda, speaking pseudo science in the hope of gaining some legitimacy. A lot of them are scam artists (which I do not group you with). I've only been on this thread for about 2½ years, but the amount of this stuff we get is astounding.

All theories starts out as discussions - so please stop calling it pseudoscience just because you don't understand it. Now, if you tell me what scientific laws my theory of time singularity is breaking, then I'll appreciate it. Unlike those so called perpetual machines and their so called exception to the law of conservation of mass and energy, I don't think my theory is breaking anything. And even if it did, I'd appreciate it if you will so kindly point it out. If you get lots of people wondering if some stuff is possible, then take it as a compliment that they've sought the forum communities' help for clarification. But right now, this long text of yours do not contribute much to the discussion.

So don't be surprised when you start talking stuff that is distinctly off from center you get a bit of a hard time. Science is a serious topic here, but it is not the real reason for this site. First and foremost we work with electronics from every level, beginner to college. I like science, it is one of my favorite subjects, so I hang around this particular forum a lot.

I'm not surprise, but I'd wish that we keep on the topic and stop the BS.

You will find a lot of speculation in other threads. Speculation is fun, meat and drink. With some of the comments on things like relativity you have shown you aren't that deep into the subject, but seem to be presenting yourself as an expert. I'm not an expert, don't claim to be, but I've been following the subject since I could read.

BTW, Finitism (which I have never heard of) has nothing to do with mathematics of pi, irrational numbers, and transcendental numbers, pi being a prime example of the latter classes. For engineering use of pi, 3.14 is usually all that is needed, though being one of the first users of calculators I go with 3.1415926. I'm not a mathematician, are you?

Actually it does. As one of the members states, Pie contains an infinite number of decimals. It was the first reply I got which I have consider discussing. I mean even Einstein stated that there is no such thing as an infinite speed - so he capped it on the speed of light.

So my reply is in green.

 

I love it that an equation involving two irrational / transcendental numbers (O.K. transcendental apparently not proven for Pi) is so exquisitely oblique and yet in form so simple.

\(e ^{j\pi}=-1\)

 

• All your pie are belong to us
• When Boogieman goes to sleep, he looks under his bed for Bill

Sorry, couldn't help it...

 

The point of contact between adjacent circles on the perimeter of a larger circle is not on a diameter. When you put them in a string, it is on a diameter.

John

 

The point of contact between adjacent circles on the perimeter of a larger circle is not on a diameter. When you put them in a string, it is on a diameter.

John

Is string defined similar to a line - two points connected to each other? Since we connect each coin to each other side by side, then I don't see how it violates the definition. Especially given that whatever 'string' we will connect it to, will have the size of the coins for its points - since the coin is assumed to be the smallest -- the 'string' must also be made up of coins.

Our exercise is similar to doing a simple algebraic substitution between a 'point' and a 'circle'. Except that instead of using zero diameter that a point has, we define the diameter as the Planck's length. It would be like a cyclic polygon, except we have reach the point where we can't divide it no more finer.

 

That is an assumption. It might be true, it might not, just don't lean to heavily on it.

The concept of pi is outside it though.

 

Your smaller circles creating a larger circle are just a picture version of a n-vertex polygon. If you start with a triangle, with each vertex 1/2 unit from the center, you will get a straight-line perimeter significantly smaller than pi (3*sqrt(3)/2~2.6). For a similarly constructed square, it will be somewhat closer to pi (2*sqrt(2)~2.8). Each increase in the number of sides will bring the polygon closer to a circle, and the perimeter closer to pi.

Using enough sides can bring your result as close as you want to get to pi, and is one of the ways to approximate pi.

One of the problems with your picture is that the circumference of the larger circle takes a curved path through the smaller circles. When the smaller circles are laid out side by side, you are using the distance of a straight line through the center. The straight line is shorter than the curved line. How much shorter? Exactly the difference between your result and pi.

 

Your smaller circles creating a larger circle are just a picture version of a n-vertex polygon. If you start with a triangle, with each vertex 1/2 unit from the center, you will get a straight-line perimeter significantly smaller than pi (3*sqrt(3)/2~2.6). For a similarly constructed square, it will be somewhat closer to pi (2*sqrt(2)~2.8). Each increase in the number of sides will bring the polygon closer to a circle, and the perimeter closer to pi.

Using enough sides can bring your result as close as you want to get to pi, and is one of the ways to approximate pi.

One of the problems with your picture is that the circumference of the larger circle takes a curved path through the smaller circles. When the smaller circles are laid out side by side, you are using the distance of a straight line through the center. The straight line is shorter than the curved line. How much shorter? Exactly the difference between your result and pi.

I agree partially, and such approaching to the exact value of Pi is shown in the exercise: if we use more and more coins to make bigger and bigger circle, we'll approach pi but never actually equal it - similar to limits function. My rationale for this is because the universe is finite, we'll eventually reach the point when we can no longer make a bigger circle using coins. In fact, there will come a time when we'll run out of coins (or points or position in space). How sad is that?

Suppose we have a line and a separate 'curved' line - both lines is made up of three coins. How can the straight line composed of three coins be shorter than a curve line composed of three coins - when they both are made up with three coins and we measure the distance using the coin? And keep in mind that in our thought experiment, this coin is the smallest, it is the 'position' - there is simply nothing else smaller than it.

So how can re-arranging the position of the coins lengthen the totality?

Off-topic and personal opinion
I believe that during the early days when this ratio was discovered, they believed that the universe is finite. And so we initially have a ratio that is finite as well and grounded on what can be observed. However, as history progress, people thought of using an infinite universe - a universe where you can subdivide a cyclic polygon into eternity and you'll never reach a wall. A universe that I believe only 'exists' in the human mind - similar to intellectual masturbation. Now, of course, the decimal representation of pi when that wall is hit is very very large that it doesn't affect our current application of pi in our daily life - the length will probably be ~2x10\({35}\)... and since we only normally use 2-4 decimal points, nothing has changed and we're actually not affected and the normalcy of our life still remains.

However, in quantum mechanics, I believe this has some mathematical implications. As in the exercise, pi changes value in the smallest scale. Well, this is my opinion, and as such, I'm just sharing. Feel free to share your thoughts as well. But please keep it on topic.

 

Hmmm, I think I'm gonna invent a Cartesian Plane that is made up of circles for its grids instead of squares. This way, any position would be equi-distant from each other. Unlike a square whose next diagonal coordinates actually measures longer (hypotenuse) than its height or length.

 

All well and good, but this does not apply to the mathematical entity that is pi. Why is it so hard to wrap your head around mathematical concepts are independent of what we currently think of as reality, especially a really crude graph system. At 5 trillion digits, we have left any practical considerations long behind. To even close to understanding these concepts you are going to need several classes in calculus. I've had two, most of which I've forgotten.

I recommended the book "Contact" by Carl Sagan, I still do.

 

What if we use a number system to the base pi? The number of digits would be finite.

 

Any math system that can not count apples is impractical. The exact base isn't important, as long as it is in integers.

 

I see, yes, thanks Bill

 

Hello,

Next to the common logarithms (with base 10) you also have the natural logarithms with base e (

).

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NaturalLogarithm.html

This is a link from the EDUCYPEDIA on logarithms:
http://www.educypedia.be/education/mathlogarithms.htm

Bertus

 

All well and good, but this does not apply to the mathematical entity that is pi. Why is it so hard to wrap your head around mathematical concepts are independent of what we currently think of as reality, especially a really crude graph system. At 5 trillion digits, we have left any practical considerations long behind. To even close to understanding these concepts you are going to need several classes in calculus. I've had two, most of which I've forgotten.

I recommended the book "Contact" by Carl Sagan, I still do.

I'm almost done with A Brief History of Time. Thanks for suggesting it. You may want to read this short explanation of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics as well. I find the link to explain the mathematical side of the theory better. On a personal note, I find it funny how Hawkings formulated his thesis in support of the idea of Big Bang - reversing the timeline of a mathematical model of a black hole - instead of going to a singularity, he suggested we came from a singularity. And more funny on how he said he changed his mind.

It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe – as we shall see later, it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account.

If you are reading this Mr. Hawkings, may I suggest that maybe because the singularity exists in 'time' instead of space. This will explain why there is 'energy', 'mass' or any kind of change in space. And time has to have a force that pushes us and all other stuff to change/retain state or position.

Anyway, regarding the mathematical entity of pi... well, I find it hard to work with something which I cannot exactly and precisely point to. Maybe the reason we cannot point to it is because "it" "changes" (change being defined as getting closer to). But since its definition of circumference/diameter is not affected, it still exists even in the smallest scale. But it is a finite number. And there will come a time when the universe will run out of data storage to store the number of its decimals. When that time comes, you'll know that infinity does not exist in our finite universe (maybe its just all in our heads, in fact, I doubt it is there... maybe what is in there is just the idea of a 'never-ending' process of computing it -- however since we will eventually die, the process will eventually stop).

Now, I know it is hard to think about an indivisible object. However, the Planck's constant proves such measurement exist. Thus if you know that the numerator (or the circumference) is finite, and the denominator (or diameter) is finite, then when we divide it, it should be finite as well.

For example, if we are given a pizza, and divide it among 6 children, we're said to give 1/6 away to each children. Now, in reality we don't actually give them 1/6th (0.16666...) but instead probably one guy receives 0.17, and the other guy 0.15. Or if we have a laser pizza portion counter, we could say one guy receives 0.16666667 and the other guy receives 0.16666665. But never actually the perfect 1/6th of the pizza.

Now, supposing that what you guys said is true. That infinity exist. Then, if the children were to eat the 1/6 pizza, one decimal digit at a time, they would die before they even finish the pizza! How sad is that since they can never reach the end of that decimal point. In fact, they will die even before they start eating the pizza - since the computer has to compute for it first! Now, tell me if that is practical or not. I'm not cruel enough to do such thing.

In fact, I believe that infinity is simply a pointer. What it points to does not exist in reality. But we may approach it and observe "it" (which does not exist) from a distance. That goes for the exact "pi" as well and also for "e". Note that our observation of "it" is also limited by our finite universe. So in the end, we end up observing and thinking about finite objects. Since the pointer cannot exactly point to the object that does not exist, in our minds, we try to conjure up the closest to this concept. Thus making infinity - a finite concept.

 

The point of contact between adjacent circles on the perimeter of a larger circle is not on a diameter. When you put them in a string, it is on a diameter.

John

Sorry to resurrect this thread, but John is 100% correct. This is the source of the discrepancy. As you make the little circles smaller and smaller in comparison to the large circle, you will get closer and closer to pi.

If you were to make the big circle 1 meter in diameter and make your little circles, say, actually plank’s length in diameter, I’d bet you would get pi to around 35 places.