0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I understand so much that they do not understand me.If I say math does not know how to handle round lines, it sounds very strange.But that's the truth.The mathematics of lines is based on Pythagorean theorem, and has only straight line segments.The Pythagoras theorem does not work with circular line segments.Therefore, mathematicians always replaced a round line, in many straight line segments.In this change the mathematicians made a terrible mistake.I try to correct this mistake.
maybe this file will help
Line is the basic concept of geometry
The practical results of such an experiment have no value.The valuable experiment is described in the article, and this experiment presents a ratio number measurement.
Even though ( √2 ) does not exist, it is possible to write the equation of squaresBut in circles it is impossible to write a similar equation.
And a new form with a certain pi (between 3.1416 and 3.164)
Quote from: Bored chemist on 10/09/2017 14:48:25Quote from: Thebox on 10/09/2017 14:33:18Quote from: Bored chemist on 10/09/2017 14:30:30Quote from: aetzbar on 10/09/2017 14:22:17From the mechanical industry, every steel cylinder produced in the lathe is almost perfectVery few things are as nearly perfectly round as the sphere of silicon they made for determining the mass of the kilogram.That experiment verified that pi is the same for spheres the size of atoms as it is for the whole sphere they made- about 10cm in diameter to within the limits of their measurement- which was about 20 parts per billion.You already know that the experiment shows that you are wrong.I have also pointed out that the shadow of a circle (cast by a small light source onto a flat surface) is also a circle and simple geometry shows that the ratios of the diameter to the circumference of the circle must be the same for the ring as for the shadow.So pi must be the same for the ring and the shadow.So you know you are wrong.Why keep trying to spread this silly lie?It is not silly, try being a bit calmer and explaining better rather than ''barking'' at the poster. Perhaps this person just needs to discuss things for their own mind. I will discuss it with them . Are you aware that this isn't the first time he has been told the truth and that he just keeps ignoring it?I guessed that, but as a forum that is here to explain things, I think it is up to us as members to explain. He is not ignoring it, he just does not understand which is a difference. Relative to him because of his mindset, he is correct and is ''seeing'' something we are missing. If he discusses this with me I will hopefully change his mindset and help him to see his own error. However until I understand his idea, I withhold judgement. There is a chance he could be correct, but without understanding exactly his notion to his mindset, I could never be sure. Can you explain his notion to me?
Quote from: Thebox on 10/09/2017 14:33:18Quote from: Bored chemist on 10/09/2017 14:30:30Quote from: aetzbar on 10/09/2017 14:22:17From the mechanical industry, every steel cylinder produced in the lathe is almost perfectVery few things are as nearly perfectly round as the sphere of silicon they made for determining the mass of the kilogram.That experiment verified that pi is the same for spheres the size of atoms as it is for the whole sphere they made- about 10cm in diameter to within the limits of their measurement- which was about 20 parts per billion.You already know that the experiment shows that you are wrong.I have also pointed out that the shadow of a circle (cast by a small light source onto a flat surface) is also a circle and simple geometry shows that the ratios of the diameter to the circumference of the circle must be the same for the ring as for the shadow.So pi must be the same for the ring and the shadow.So you know you are wrong.Why keep trying to spread this silly lie?It is not silly, try being a bit calmer and explaining better rather than ''barking'' at the poster. Perhaps this person just needs to discuss things for their own mind. I will discuss it with them . Are you aware that this isn't the first time he has been told the truth and that he just keeps ignoring it?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 10/09/2017 14:30:30Quote from: aetzbar on 10/09/2017 14:22:17From the mechanical industry, every steel cylinder produced in the lathe is almost perfectVery few things are as nearly perfectly round as the sphere of silicon they made for determining the mass of the kilogram.That experiment verified that pi is the same for spheres the size of atoms as it is for the whole sphere they made- about 10cm in diameter to within the limits of their measurement- which was about 20 parts per billion.You already know that the experiment shows that you are wrong.I have also pointed out that the shadow of a circle (cast by a small light source onto a flat surface) is also a circle and simple geometry shows that the ratios of the diameter to the circumference of the circle must be the same for the ring as for the shadow.So pi must be the same for the ring and the shadow.So you know you are wrong.Why keep trying to spread this silly lie?It is not silly, try being a bit calmer and explaining better rather than ''barking'' at the poster. Perhaps this person just needs to discuss things for their own mind. I will discuss it with them .
Quote from: aetzbar on 10/09/2017 14:22:17From the mechanical industry, every steel cylinder produced in the lathe is almost perfectVery few things are as nearly perfectly round as the sphere of silicon they made for determining the mass of the kilogram.That experiment verified that pi is the same for spheres the size of atoms as it is for the whole sphere they made- about 10cm in diameter to within the limits of their measurement- which was about 20 parts per billion.You already know that the experiment shows that you are wrong.I have also pointed out that the shadow of a circle (cast by a small light source onto a flat surface) is also a circle and simple geometry shows that the ratios of the diameter to the circumference of the circle must be the same for the ring as for the shadow.So pi must be the same for the ring and the shadow.So you know you are wrong.Why keep trying to spread this silly lie?
From the mechanical industry, every steel cylinder produced in the lathe is almost perfect
To all distinguished participants.The variable pi theme will go into history.It will also turn out that mathematics is not even capable of handling circuits.Physics will discover a new geometry, which has been hidden for thousands of years.New geometry will produce unknown innovations.thank you for your interest,
(pi*d)+D=c where D is the diameter of the circles line. Is this what you are saying or something else? It depends whether or not you measure the inner or outer edge of the circles line?added- on second thought it would be the diameter that was a variate which is for two different circles, an inner and outer.