[aetzbar (OP)]

maybe this file will help

[guest39538]

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.

To me , you sound rather confused in your own notion.   I know this because otherwise you would be able to explain it simply.

You keep on about linearity and curvatures but are not really explaining the problem.  Now I think what you are saying is that in science instead of using curvatures to calculate things, ''they'' convert the curvature into a linearity because it is just simpler easier to work with.
Now I assume the linearity is equal to the curvature line length, so what's the problem?

[guest39538]

maybe this file will help

OK, I can observe from your link that you have a proper interest in science and have put some considerable thought into this. I will not just dismiss your notion at a glance .

I asked you where you were getting a circle from earlier in the thread and you stated gearing in mechanics.  However your link seems to be drifting more into the space-time continuum and of space itself. I must firstly correct you on :

Line is the basic concept of geometry

A line is two things:

1)Imaginable dimensions of space relative to the observer.

2)A defining formation of an atomic structure. 

Now only number 2 is absolutely relative, so if you are talking about number 1, you might as well give up on the idea.

[aetzbar (OP)]

The line is really the basic concept of geometry, not the point.
The line has a real length, and a shape.
Each closed round line has a certain length and a certain uniform shape.
The actual length will be expressed with the amount of mm (as 128 mm)
And a new form with a certain pi (between 3.1416 and 3.164)
It's basically the whole idea
There is a clear connection between the actual length of a closed round line and its pi value

[guest39538]

Ok, let me see if you understand what a circle is.  In this diagram there is two circles, can you see them both?


circle.jpg (16.75 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 3276 times)

[guest39538]

Ok I have to go now for a while, let me leave you with a simple experiment you can video and post the results here

Take any circled face object such as a clock.   

Measure using a measuring tape the diameter across the face of the clock

Then use the present calculation pi * D = C

Then I want you to measure a piece of string to the exact length of the result.

Then I want you to place the string around the clock faces circumference and show your results.

[aetzbar (OP)]

There is no circle in the picture
A circle is a closed round line, of a uniform shape, but also unique

For a closed round line with an actual length of 1 mm, it has a uniform but also unique shape.
For a closed round line with an actual length of 1000 mm, it has a uniform but also unique shape.
A closed round line always has a certain uniform shape.
The person who expresses the "particular" is a particular pie.

[aetzbar (OP)]

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.

[guest39538]

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.

Huh......science is the practice of things that are practical and work.  The experiment I gave you shows the maths is correct and you are trying to dispute this very fact. All circles comply to this experiment regardless of diameter showing your idea is flawed. 
I think you might be in a ''place'' where I was a while back.  It is called delusions of grandeur and is a mental illness brought on by stress.  The reality is you are not seeing things straight because you have escaped the world by placing your mind into science.  This is a sense of an escape from reality for you, trust me I have been there.
You can not argue axiom facts are incorrect, the experiment I give you shows axiom correctness, so regardless what you think in your reality you are living at the moment, I assure you they are correct in this matter.

[aetzbar (OP)]

I respect what you say, and you have the right to express an opinion.
I do not ask for confirmation of the idea I presented.
The confirmation will come (in due time) from the physical reality.
I propose a detailed experiment, and expect a scientific institution to conduct it.
This is the experiment of the 21st century, and it will prove that the pi is not a fixed number.
This experiment will prove that mathematics has erred for hundreds of years when it taught that Pi is a fixed number.
The disagreement with the idea is clear and understandable, and I am grateful for the opportunity to present it

[evan_au]

Even though ( √2 ) does not exist, it is possible to write the equation of squares
But in circles it is impossible to write a similar equation.

√2 can be derived by solving this equation: x²-2 = 0
- This is a "second-order polynomial", ie the highest power of x is 2.
- You can never write it out exactly as a decimal
- But you can work it out very accurately using the Newton-Raphson method
- Or you can just write it as √2 ; all mathematicians will know what you mean.

π can be derived by solving this equation: x = 4TAN^-1(1)
- Unfortunately, all the trigonometric functions (SIN, COS, TAN^-1) cannot be expressed as a 2nd-order polynomial
- In fact, if you try to express it as a polynomial, you need a polynomial of infinite degree
- See previous discussion about old-time mathematicians being allergic to infinities
- You can never write π out exactly as a decimal
- But you can work it out very accurately using some series approximations that converge fairly quickly
- Or you can just write it as π; all mathematicians will know what you mean.

As for being allergic to infinite series, they actually can produce well-defined results provided you watch a few conditions:
- There may be some values where the result approaches infinity (TAN does this); this defines a "radius of convergence"; stay well within the radius of convergence
- Some functions are periodic (SIN, TAN and COS do this); rather than calculate the function for a large x, use the periodic property to calculate a smaller value of x that yields the same answer
- There are well-defined criteria for convergence of a geometric series. Ensure that your complicated infinite series converges faster than a converging geometric series (for some power of x).

[David Cooper]

And a new form with a certain pi (between 3.1416 and 3.164)

Where are you getting these inflated numbers from? Why don't you approach this like a mathematician, looking at a square, then a pentagon, then a hexagon, etc., increasing the number of sides and looking at how numbers change as the polygon gets closer and closer to being a circle? If you were to do this, you would produce a series of numbers which tend towards pi with a value of 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884...

I wrote a simple little program to calculate pi, and you can run it here:- http://www.magicschoolbook.com/maths/3.html#pie

[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?

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?

He thinks that the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter varies with the size of the circle.
He is wrong, both because  the experiments show him to be wrong (that's hardly a difficult concept to grasp) and because, if it was true, shadows of circles wouldn't be circles (that's only a slightly more complex concept).
His error has been pointed out.
Instead of seeking clarification, he just starts another thread making the same impossible claims.

You say " If he discusses this with me I will hopefully change his mindset and help him to see his own error. "

OK, this could be good; I will get popcorn + watch.

[CPT ArkAngel]

If I understood correctly, the problem here is a confusion between physics and mathematics.

In mathematics, infinity definitely exists. Infinity is a part of mathematics. Thus, there is no problem with maths. For physics, it is another matter and it is an unanswered question. Is infinities a part of reality? Maybe... or maybe not...

[aetzbar (OP)]

Your distinction is correct ... mathematics and computation, or physics and measurement
Mathematics does not know how to make calculations on round lines.
What are they doing ? , They exchange a round line in many small segments of a straight line.
Therefore, mathematicians will never discover the idea of variable pie. (3.1416 to 3.164)
Physicists know how to measure real circles (cylinders), and the dramatic discovery belongs to them.
The world of science expects an experiment that will determine that pie changes.

[aetzbar (OP)]

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,

[guest39538]

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,

Ok,


pi.jpg (25.84 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 3179 times)

Tell me what is wrong in this diagram?

[guest39538]

After some thought it came to me,  Pi could be a variate but I am not sure if it is for the same reason the poster is saying. 

The maths is simple :

(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.

[Colin2B]

(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.

Excellent logic, yes the diameter is the variable.
Maths is almost right, I can see what you are trying to show. Brackets are in wrong place.

[aetzbar (OP)]

Even in wikipedia ,there is no proof that pi is a fixed number.
How the mathematicians agreed ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi