[aetzbar (OP)]

S.O.S.  Save the mathematicians

[Bored chemist]

You need to explain what they need saving from.

[aetzbar (OP)]

From mistakes that have lasted thousands of years.
This equation is such a mistake.

   diameters  ratio  =  circumference ratio

Such error produces another error, of a fixed pi number

[evan_au]

diagonal length of a selected square, along the circumference of the square, the length of the diagonal must be multiplied by a fixed number that does not exist

If we use a unit square (side length = 1 unit), the "circumference" = 4 units.
And the diagonal = SQRT(2) units, or roughly 1.414213...
The ratio of diagonal to circumference of a square is roughly 2.8284....

As for this number "not existing", Greek mathematicians around 400BC were familiar with ratios of the form ^X/_Y, where X and Y are whole numbers. Today we would call these "Rational" numbers, because they can be expressed as a ratio of whole numbers.

I vaguely recall it was someone from the school of Pythagoras who showed that SQRT(2) was not a rational number, and this really upset the ancient Greek mathematicians. The guy who released this secret was severely punished.

But today, we call this an "irrrational" number - this doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, it is just in a different category.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root_of_2#Proofs_of_irrationality

If you want to see some even more obscure numbers, look up "Transcendental" numbers. Pi is one of these.

[aetzbar (OP)]

Number does not exist, it just does not exist.
If it existed, we would record it.
But that's not the point.
Even though this number does not exist, it is possible to write the equation of squares

The ratio of the diagonals = the circumference ratio.

But in circles it is impossible to write a similar equation.

The  diameters ratio of circles (larger....  not  =  ) than the circumference ratio.

[guest39538]

S.O.S.  Save the mathematicians

The square is just an imaginable pattern of space, the angle is just a bigger square that is angled relative to another square.  The circle is almost perfection , r remaining the same always, but still an imaginable pattern of space.

[Bored chemist]

From mistakes that have lasted thousands of years.
This equation is such a mistake.

   diameters  ratio  =  circumference ratio

Such error produces another error, of a fixed pi number

You have not provided any evidence that you are right.
You have failed to refute the evidence that you are wrong.

So you are not doing science.
So, why are you here?

[aetzbar (OP)]

There is no mathematical proof of the subject of circles.
The proof is physical - of measurement.
Mathematics does not know how to handle closed round lines.
Mathematics can handle only straight-line segments.
Mathematics did not prove the equation

The ratio of diameters of two circles = their ratio of circumference.

This equation can only be refuted by measuring.
It's strange but true - math does not know how to handle circles

[guest39538]

There is no mathematical proof of the subject of circles.
The proof is physical - of measurement.
Mathematics does not know how to handle closed round lines.
Mathematics can handle only straight-line segments.
Mathematics did not prove the equation

The ratio of diameters of two circles = their ratio of circumference.

This equation can only be refuted by measuring.
It's strange but true - math does not know how to handle circles

What circles? Where are you getting circles from? 

[aetzbar (OP)]

From the mechanical industry, every steel cylinder produced in the lathe is almost perfect

[Bored chemist]

From the mechanical industry, every steel cylinder produced in the lathe is almost perfect

Very 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?

[guest39538]

From the mechanical industry, every steel cylinder produced in the lathe is almost perfect

Good! I am glad you related it to an atomic formation rather than imaginable patterns of space.

So you are saying r*4=circumference instead of :

C = pi * d calculates the circumference (distance around the outside of the circle). D in the formula refers to the diameter which is the width of the circle. The formula for the area of a circle is A = pi * r * r where r is the radius (diameter / 2).

Or am I misunderstanding you somewhere?

[guest39538]

From the mechanical industry, every steel cylinder produced in the lathe is almost perfect

Very 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 .

[Bored chemist]

From the mechanical industry, every steel cylinder produced in the lathe is almost perfect

Very 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?

[aetzbar (OP)]

What should I do ?
I know my idea sounds strange.
But every revolutionary idea sounds strange at first.
What do you suggest ? Shut up?
Or wait for your judgment?
It is best to wait until a scientific institution conducts the experiment.

[guest39538]

From the mechanical industry, every steel cylinder produced in the lathe is almost perfect

Very 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?

[guest39538]

What should I do ?
I know my idea sounds strange.
But every revolutionary idea sounds strange at first.
What do you suggest ? Shut up?
Or wait for your judgment?
It is best to wait until a scientific institution conducts the experiment.

You should start off really slow and explain your idea.  Try to not use science terms, try to explain in simple form . Maybe an indirect approach.

i.e  I have a cake, the top of the cake is a circle shape, I can measure the diameter, the diameter measures 10 cm.

Please continue my sentence and explain your idea this way so everyone understands your idea.

[aetzbar (OP)]

You have to agree that mathematics does not know how to handle round lines.
The fact is, it always replaces a round line, with tiny bits of straight line.
No way ? Why the change?
Imagine that there is a question on a straight line, and replace it with a round line.
It is unacceptable.
Thus, it is forbidden to replace a round line with straight line segments.
But if we do not change ... mathematics can not work.

[guest39538]

You have to agree that mathematics does not know how to handle round lines.
The fact is, it always replaces a round line, with tiny bits of straight line.
No way ? Why the change?
Imagine that there is a question on a straight line, and replace it with a round line.
It is unacceptable.
Thus, it is forbidden to replace a round line with straight line segments.
But if we do not change ... mathematics can not work.

We will never get to the bottom of this unless you put some effort in to explaining your notion.  At the moment you are just speaking in ''gibberish'' without really explaining anything that normal people could understand.

You say:

Thus, it is forbidden to replace a round line with straight line segments.

Forbidden by whom?

The straight line is an equivalent to the ''round line'' and directly proportional in length to the ''round line''.  We tend to say curvature though rather than a ''round line'' . Please use the term curvature to explain your ''round line''.

[aetzbar (OP)]

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.