Eotvos, not Newton

On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 08:45:55 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 08:58:56 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

Pi is a transcendental number and as such, it can never be calculated.
Therefore, as such a number, it can not be absolute.

Pi can certainly be calculated.

That's just a nonsense statement, written by a fool.

Commonly, when we use the value in a
calculation the result is absolute

How about a two by four? I'm about to hit you with a two-by-four
across your head. Are those dimension absolute?


. And there's nothing about a
transcendental number that prevents it from being "absolute".

You are bat**** crazy. Even rational numbers are variables. Please
show me what 1/3 is? Is it, 0.33, or perhaps, 0.333, or
0.3333infinity3's. Anyway, you can't calculate it, therefore it is a
variable.

You are very confused. Apparently you think that the fact that we
can't write a number down completely in numeric form makes it somehow
"variable" or "not absolute".

I don't think you realize what you are talking about.

I would suggest you study some math, but I doubt it would do you any
good.

I have a math degree from a very good college. I doubt that you
passed fifth grade arithmetic.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 08:47:27 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 07:15:09 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

You are correct, kind sir. But were we talking about flat space? Pi
is a variable in curved space, or should we say, "natural space"?

Pi isn't defined outside flat space.

You've proved once again that you are a fool and a dumbass. People
will look up, "Dumbass," on Wikipedia and see your picture.

You really don't understand Einstein's Universe.

And the ratio of a circle's
diameter to its circumference is never a variable in any particular
space.

Dumbass, sure it is. Space is curved, warped, bent, and can have any
shape.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 17:11:23 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote this crap:

On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 08:47:27 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Pi isn't defined outside flat space. And the ratio of a circle's
diameter to its circumference is never a variable in any particular
space.

Wrong! On a spherical surface, för instance (remember spherical
astronomy?), the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter
approaches pi för very small circles but becomes exactly 2 for a
great circle, the largest possible circle on a spherical surface.
It's even possible to find a formula which computes the diameter (in
radians or degrees) and area (in steradians or square degrees) of the
circle from the ratio between the circle's circumference and
diameter.

OOOH! I have to check this out. It seems to be simple trig.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 09:25:51 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 17:11:23 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 08:47:27 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Pi isn't defined outside flat space. And the ratio of a circle's
diameter to its circumference is never a variable in any particular
space.

Wrong! On a spherical surface, för instance (remember spherical
astronomy?), the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter
approaches pi för very small circles but becomes exactly 2 for a
great circle, the largest possible circle on a spherical surface.
It's even possible to find a formula which computes the diameter (in
radians or degrees) and area (in steradians or square degrees) of the
circle from the ratio between the circle's circumference and
diameter.

You're right. I forgot about that interesting relationship. Of course,
that's a good reason for not trying to define pi (or a pi analog)
outside of Euclidean space. It's similar to the sum of the angles of a
triangle not being constant in a spherical space.

I thought about that for about 20 seconds and agreed with him.

I wonder if there are any non-flat geometries where a pi analog makes
sense?

Uh, you should rephrase that. In all non flat geometries pi is never
equal to 3.141592654. With all space being a variable pi will never
be a constant.

Not to mention that all measurement is relative.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 11:43:51 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

How about a two by four? I'm about to hit you with a two-by-four
across your head. Are those dimension absolute?

The dimensions of a 2x4 are certainly absolute. The fact that an
actual 2x4 is produced with some error is irrelevant to that point.

You are bat**** crazy. Even rational numbers are variables. Please
show me what 1/3 is? Is it, 0.33, or perhaps, 0.333, or
0.3333infinity3's. Anyway, you can't calculate it, therefore it is a
variable.

One third is one third. An absolute. The fact that you can't write it
out using decimal notation doesn't change that.

I have a math degree from a very good college.

Then I expect they'd like it back.

On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 11:56:31 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

I wonder if there are any non-flat geometries where a pi analog makes
sense?

Uh, you should rephrase that. In all non flat geometries pi is never
equal to 3.141592654. With all space being a variable pi will never
be a constant.

"With all space being a variable" has no meaning. When pi has its
standard definition of the ratio of a circle's circumference to its
diameter in Euclidean space, it is a constant.

Not to mention that all measurement is relative.

A meaningless assertion.

When sci.physics.relativity was populated by actual relativists I withdrew from that forum after reading the founder's hilarious explanation for 'warped space' -

"This view is not in harmony with the theory of Newton. The latter theory rather requires that the universe should have a kind of centre in which the density of the stars is a maximum, and that as we proceed outwards from this centre the group-density of the stars should diminish, until finally, at great distances, it is succeeded by an infinite region of emptiness. The stellar universe ought to be a finite island in the infinite ocean of space. 1 2
This conception is in itself not very satisfactory. It is still less satisfactory because it leads to the result that the light emitted by the stars and also individual stars of the stellar system are perpetually passing out into infinite space, never to return, and without ever again coming into interaction with other objects of nature. Such a finite material universe would be destined to become gradually but systematically impoverished." Relativity

http://www.bartleby.com/173/30.html

Remembering that these assertions were made before stellar islands known as galaxies were observed ,it is funny for that reason alone.

Turning the celestial arena into a theoretical junkyard where anything goes may be fine for academics making a living from meaningless junk but it distracts from such amazing conceptions such as which stars are ahead and behind us, above and below us in terms of our motion around a galactic center where the number of stars do actually diminish in the bounded structure of a galaxy.

Lord Vath wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 08:32:13 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 06:09:16 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

I'll have to read that paper carefully. I think the Dark Matter is
hogwash and I've suspected that additional gravitational mass hasn't
been found yet. I believe the gravitational constant is really a
variable. All numbers are really variables.

Your "belief" is just a kind of non-theistic religion. Science
considers evidence. Rational people base their beliefs (particularly
in regards to the laws of nature) on evidence, and the relative
strengths of different lines of evidence. You seem to be basing yours
on some sort of abstract philosophical view.

No, it's true. Of course you're and idiot and can't understand these
things.

Here's a simple test you can do at home. Take two identical glasses,
(or coffee cups if you prefer.) And fill one of them to the top. Then
see if you can pour 1/2 of the liquid into the other. It turns out
you can't make them equal. Maybe one is greater than the other or
maybe you've spilled some. It never comes out equal. Therefore 1/2
is not equal to 1/2. Even if you pour the entire contents into the
other glass, some is still left in the original glass. Therefore 1
does not equal 1. I hope this is not too hard for your simple mind.

It's a simple scientific experiment. The philosophical question is,
"Is the glass half full, or half empty."


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

All this experiment proves is that (not quite a half) plus (a little bit
more than a half by by the same quantity) equals one.
One of the glasses is just over half full.
The other is just under half empty.

On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 17:14:12 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote this crap:

Lord Vath wrote:
On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 08:32:13 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Sat, 08 Aug 2015 06:09:16 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

I'll have to read that paper carefully. I think the Dark Matter is
hogwash and I've suspected that additional gravitational mass hasn't
been found yet. I believe the gravitational constant is really a
variable. All numbers are really variables.

Your "belief" is just a kind of non-theistic religion. Science
considers evidence. Rational people base their beliefs (particularly
in regards to the laws of nature) on evidence, and the relative
strengths of different lines of evidence. You seem to be basing yours
on some sort of abstract philosophical view.

No, it's true. Of course you're and idiot and can't understand these
things.

Here's a simple test you can do at home. Take two identical glasses,
(or coffee cups if you prefer.) And fill one of them to the top. Then
see if you can pour 1/2 of the liquid into the other. It turns out
you can't make them equal. Maybe one is greater than the other or
maybe you've spilled some. It never comes out equal. Therefore 1/2
is not equal to 1/2. Even if you pour the entire contents into the
other glass, some is still left in the original glass. Therefore 1
does not equal 1. I hope this is not too hard for your simple mind.

It's a simple scientific experiment. The philosophical question is,
"Is the glass half full, or half empty."


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

All this experiment proves is that (not quite a half) plus (a little bit
more than a half by by the same quantity) equals one.
One of the glasses is just over half full.
The other is just under half empty.

That's a pretty narrow minded attitude. That's all I expect from a
simpleton like you.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 10:00:14 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote this crap:

On Sun, 09 Aug 2015 11:43:51 -0400, Lord Vath
wrote:

How about a two by four? I'm about to hit you with a two-by-four
across your head. Are those dimension absolute?

The dimensions of a 2x4 are certainly absolute.

That's a nutsicle statement. Written by a fool.

The fact that an
actual 2x4 is produced with some error is irrelevant to that point.

Oh, then what is the point? The point is that the dimensions of a
two-by-four varies.

You are bat**** crazy. Even rational numbers are variables. Please
show me what 1/3 is? Is it, 0.33, or perhaps, 0.333, or
0.3333infinity3's. Anyway, you can't calculate it, therefore it is a
variable.

One third is one third. An absolute. The fact that you can't write it
out using decimal notation doesn't change that.

A pretty stupid statement if I ever heard one. You can't even
calculate 1/3. And yet, I've proved it to be a variable.


I have a math degree from a very good college.

Then I expect they'd like it back.

Do they want my mansion and yacht back? I've just used simple
arithmetic to make you look like a dumbass.

Sucks to be you.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe