Happy Percival Lowell's Pluto Day!

I hope you don't make any mathematical errors on Friday the 13th!

And according to Meghar's Scale of Planetary Mass Classification, yes,
not only is Pluto a Planet, but it's first in its own class of planets!

Plutoids! You will be assimilated!

(Don't forget, tomorrow is pi day for the mathematically challenged.)

On Mar 13, 8:10*pm, kT wrote:
I hope you don't make any mathematical errors on Friday the 13th!

And according to Meghar's Scale of Planetary Mass Classification, yes,
not only is Pluto a Planet, but it's first in its own class of planets!

Plutoids! You will be assimilated!

(Don't forget, tomorrow is pi day for the mathematically challenged.)

This era is cursed above any other that has existed on this planet,not
because they made the original mistakes as they did in the late 17th
century ,but with the power of modern imaging and the original
texts,they still insist is trying to 'define' a planet outside its
original astronomical context of motions and arrangement within the
solar system -

"Yet [these orbital motions] differ in many ways [from the daily
rotation or first motion]. In the first place, they do not swing
around the same poles as the first motion, but run obliquely through
the zodiac. Secondly, these bodies are not seen moving uniformly in
their orbits, since the sun and moon are observed to be sometimes
slow, at other times faster in their course. Moreover, we see the
other five planets also retrograde at times, and stationary at either
end [of the regression]. And whereas the sun always advances along its
own direct path, they wander in various ways, straying sometimes to
the south and sometimes to the north; that is why they are called
"planets" [wanderers]. Copernicus

It looks like people have losts their minds in mass for when presented
with the actual means by which retrogrades and the 'wandering' motions
are resolved through the depth perception of an orbitally moving
Earth,they still insist that Newton's dumb view ,based on a
hypothetical observer on the Sun,is valid and correct.

Here is the correct view even though that website fails to acknowledge
that this is the main argument Copernicus used to show the world that
the Earth has an orbital motion -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html


Here is the silly view which takes everything out of context and
especially the resolution for the apparent 'wandering '-

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,
sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun
they are always seen direct, " Newton

There is no precedence in human history from the most explicit
vandalism visited on the main Western astronomical achievement in full
face of an audience who are determined to maintain the worst possible
view.The Pluto issue is merely a symptom of a human race in full
reverse to a intellectual state never seen on the planet before where
nobody can reason properly and can do nothing but erode the
intellectual ground for future generations.

This is unconscionable.

oriel36 wrote:

On Mar 13, 8:10 pm, kT wrote:
I hope you don't make any mathematical errors on Friday the 13th!

And according to Meghar's Scale of Planetary Mass Classification, yes,
not only is Pluto a Planet, but it's first in its own class of planets!

Plutoids! You will be assimilated!

(Don't forget, tomorrow is pi day for the mathematically challenged.)

This is unconscionable.

I know, it's terrible. Ceres is a planet too, with its own class in the
Meghar Scale of Planetary Mass Classification, head of its class even.

I can't wait until 2015 when all of this will be straightened out, and
then we can begin classifying extra solar planets in earnest again.

I'm beginning even to doubt the exact value of pi.

On Mar 13, 5:18*pm, kT wrote:

I'm beginning even to doubt the exact value of pi.

Ah, yes.

There were those who claimed that pi is

3.14159 26535 89793...

but that rule, according to others, fails to 'work both ways
mathematically', and thus one instead needs to recognize that "the
ratio of the chord and arc of ninety degrees is as seven to eight".

Thus, pi is actually equal to 32 divided by seven times the square
root of two, which would be

3.23248 81425 67074...

except that the commonly accepted value of the square root of two is
wrong too, as "the ratio of the diagonal and one side of a square" "is
as ten to seven".

Which makes pi equal to 3.2, as "the ratio of the diameter and the
circumference is as five-fourths to four".

Of course, if you put four squares next to each other to make a bigger
square, then their diagonals form a square too. And the side of that
square would be ten, while the diagonal would be fourteen; and
fourteen to ten is not quite the same as ten to seven. So, indeed, it
is the rule of Dr. Edwin Goodwin that fails to work both ways.

John Savard

In article ,
kT wrote:

I'm beginning even to doubt the exact value of pi.

The exact value of pi is ..... pi !!!!!

If you think pi might be slightly different from pi, please give
us some very good reasons.... g



--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

In article ,
Quadibloc wrote:
On Mar 13, 5:18=A0pm, kT wrote:

I'm beginning even to doubt the exact value of pi.

Ah, yes.

There were those who claimed that pi is

3.14159 26535 89793...

but that rule, according to others, fails to 'work both ways
mathematically', and thus one instead needs to recognize that "the
ratio of the chord and arc of ninety degrees is as seven to eight".

Thus, pi is actually equal to 32 divided by seven times the square
root of two, which would be

3.23248 81425 67074...

except that the commonly accepted value of the square root of two is
wrong too, as "the ratio of the diagonal and one side of a square" "is
as ten to seven".

Which makes pi equal to 3.2, as "the ratio of the diameter and the
circumference is as five-fourths to four".

Of course, if you put four squares next to each other to make a bigger
square, then their diagonals form a square too. And the side of that
square would be ten, while the diagonal would be fourteen; and
fourteen to ten is not quite the same as ten to seven. So, indeed, it
is the rule of Dr. Edwin Goodwin that fails to work both ways.

John Savard

Isn't pi exactly equal to 3 according to some old US law from the 1800's ???


--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

On Mar 13, 11:18*pm, kT wrote:
oriel36 wrote:
On Mar 13, 8:10 pm, kT wrote:
I hope you don't make any mathematical errors on Friday the 13th!

And according to Meghar's Scale of Planetary Mass Classification, yes,
not only is Pluto a Planet, but it's first in its own class of planets!

Plutoids! You will be assimilated!

(Don't forget, tomorrow is pi day for the mathematically challenged.)
This is unconscionable.

I know, it's terrible. Ceres is a planet too, with its own class in the
Meghar Scale of Planetary Mass Classification, head of its class even.

I can't wait until 2015 when all of this will be straightened out, and
then we can begin classifying extra solar planets in earnest again.

I'm beginning even to doubt the exact value of pi.

The astrology that is practiced by people in the sci.astro forums is
basically toxic while actual astronomy has been dormant for many
centuries but remains safe due to the necessary intutive intelligence
needed to appreceate and work with it,most of what they call
'astronomy' nowadays is pretty much a magnification exercise wrapped
up in an astrological celestial sphere bubble and the thinking to go
along with it.You can see this through the other responses which
reflect a cult phenomenon that is empiricism and its dominance.Not to
overly use the comment on the sterility of a communal approach where
the horror is that all observations now go into supporting the
'scientific method' rather than as a tool that it originally was
intended to be,albeit erroneously -

"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and
you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make
that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it.
Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of
external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy
of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that
they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be
right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or
that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If
both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if
the mind itself is controllable what then?" Orwell 1984

What happens when people no longer respond to the most basic fact for
daily rotation through 360 degrees in 24 hours and how it was reasoned
out ?, how the orbital motion of the Earth was also reasoned out in a
particular way by Copernicus or indeed many other facts,premises and
conclusions that should normally be just common sense but are lost to
astrological pretension.

No civilisation can properly be called one should it choose to make
light or ignore its own astronomical heritage and this is what
happened and much of it is the fault of denominational
Christianity.Whether it was a Cusa,a Copernicus in astronomy,Mendel in
genetics or Steno in geology among others,the Church allowed its
valuable scientific tradition to be emerge as a separate entity in
order to attain its position as some sort of vacuous 'moral
authority',a particularly Arian stance that once was fought in the
early Church -

"the whole world groaned and marvelled to find itself Arian". St
Jerome

So ,what exists is empircism replacing genuine science and Arianism
replacing matters of faith/intutive intelligence and celebrate among
the weakminded as science vs religion or some other variation on the
theme.From a genuine scientific standpoint,the dominant empirical
position is more or less in line with what Pascal spoke of when
mathematicians run amok -

But the reason that mathematicians are not intuitive is that they do
not see what is before them, and that, accustomed to the exact and
plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they have well
inspected and arranged their principles, they are lost in matters of
intuition where the principles do not allow of such arrangement. They
are scarcely seen; they are felt rather than seen; there is the
greatest difficulty in making them felt by those who do not of
themselves perceive them. These principles are so fine and so numerous
that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to
perceive them, and to judge rightly and justly when they are
perceived, without for the most part being able to demonstrate them in
order as in mathematics, because the principles are not known to us in
the same way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake
it. We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a
process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is
rare that mathematicians are intuitive and that men of intuition are
mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of
intuition mathematically and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to
begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to
proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so,
but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules; for
the expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can feel it."
Pascal

The answer to the hoopla of trying to 'define' a planet is actually in
that excerpt from Pascal but the catch is ,you need intutive
intelligence to recognise it.

On Mar 14, 4:13*am, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:

Isn't pi exactly equal to 3 according to some old US law from the 1800's ???

I was quoting from the law that almost passed which started that
rumor. A circle-squarer decided he would get some publicity by having
the State of Illinois legislate in favor of his discovery, and he
figured the wy to do that was to offer them a way to save money by
doing so - in exchange for acknowledging his contribution to
mathematics, they would not have to pay royalties to include this new
geometrical truth in their school textbooks!

And this "truth" was that pi equalled 3 1/5.

John Savard

Isn't pi exactly equal to 3 according to some old US law from the 1800's ???
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN


Sorry - that never actually happened. Urban Legend.

There WAS a bill in Indiana back in 1897 that passed in the State
House of Representatives but not the State Senate. (I can't tell if
even that one was serious - it's not that unusual for members of the
various legislatures to pass a bill in jest, knowing that it will
quietly die in the other house.)

That could have been what Robert Heinlein had in mind when he put in a
line about Tennessee actually passing such a law in his Science
Fiction book STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND in 1961. I guess some people
thought anything Heinlein threw into a story must be true, even when
writing about a futuristic society.

And then there was a joke article in 1998 about Alabama doing that,
published under the byline "April Holiday" on 4/1/98. People stripped
off the parts that made it clear it was an April Fool's Day joke and
circulated it as fact.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/pi.asp