NASA scuttling more space missions so it can spend more on global warming

"Martin Brown" wrote in message ...

On 20/04/2014 16:50, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
In sci.astro.amateur message
, Fri, 18 Apr 2014 16:53:24, Chris L Peterson
posted:

On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:33:42 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I didn't mention pi because it's just a defined term.

But I DID mention Pi and used its value as an example of a truth, as
in Pi=3.14159...

Yes, it is. But that has no physical meaning. Your statement is just a
truism.

It is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, and
anyone who -carefully- investigates its value is going to get the SAME
result as anyone else who does so.

Only if everyone agrees on the same definition of circle. That is,
they are working from the same assumed axioms.

I do not know of a uniquely-agreed arithmetic/algebraic definition of
pi; there ought to be one, either by an infinite additive or
multiplicative series, or as pi = ln(-1)/i or similar.

Not sure there needs to be a uniquely agreed one. Although Eulers
equation in its classical form relates the all main constants as:

e^(i.pi) - 1 = 0

===========================================
Ahem... Euler's equation is

e^(i.pi) PLUS 1 = 0

Which is what Stockton wrote as pi = ln(-1)/i,

e^(i.pi) + 1 = 0
e^(i.pi) = -1 and because ln() is the inverse function of exp()

i.pi = ln(-1)

(but -1 is not in the domain of ln() just as -x is not in the domain of
sqrt() ).


-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

On Monday, April 21, 2014 9:38:46 AM UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 20/04/2014 16:50, Dr J R Stockton wrote:

In sci.astro.amateur message

, Fri, 18 Apr 2014 16:53:24, Chris L Peterson

posted:



On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 15:33:42 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



I didn't mention pi because it's just a defined term.



But I DID mention Pi and used its value as an example of a truth, as

in Pi=3.14159...



Yes, it is. But that has no physical meaning. Your statement is just a

truism.



It is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, and

anyone who -carefully- investigates its value is going to get the SAME

result as anyone else who does so.



Only if everyone agrees on the same definition of circle. That is,

they are working from the same assumed axioms.



I do not know of a uniquely-agreed arithmetic/algebraic definition of

pi; there ought to be one, either by an infinite additive or

multiplicative series, or as pi = ln(-1)/i or similar.



Not sure there needs to be a uniquely agreed one. Although Eulers

equation in its classical form relates the all main constants as:



e^(i.pi) - 1 = 0



An equation revered by many mathematicians for it's pure elegance.

But any series that provably converges to pi is as good as any other and

the one you choose depends on the question you want to ask. See:



Mathematicians,despite appearances, can be exceptionally dull people when dealing with geometry and especially the Pi proportion. About a dozen years ago I dismantled John Baez in terms of the absurdity of the 'Planck Length' using Pi through basic logic -

"Draw a circumference around a Planck length, the circumference being of course 3.141 times greater than the length, if you can determine circumference you can also determine a radius which is half the original length and from this discrete length you begin again constructing a circumference around this half Planck length."

Pi as a proportion between one defined geometry entity and another ,in this case the proportion between line and circumference intersecting both ends of that line, is basically an arithmetic version of non periodicity where the ordering of digits is neither random nor organized. This is even more relevant when encountering the Phi proportion as many animate and inanimate forms contain that balance between beauty and function via the Phi proportion. This is true elegance -

http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted...i/fibnat2.html

Strip away all the bluffing and voodoo of modern mathematicians and there were once true mathematicians who exercised restraint and honored geometry in such a way that it could be recognized by the wider population. These type of mathematicians don't exist today unfortunately.

On Saturday, April 19, 2014 3:48:38 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:

The point of having a gun is to protect oneself (and maybe others) from
credible threats, not your imagined ones.

Statistically owning a gun makes you and the people around you more likely
to die.

Statistically, owning a car makes you and the people around you more likely to die. In other news....

Of course, in either case, with guns or cars, being CAREFUL and RESPONSIBLE makes all the difference, and the statistics largely irrelevant.

On Saturday, April 19, 2014 10:56:25 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 16:25:40 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Only by some definitions. The surface of a sphere is a two-dimensional
manifold. A circle on the surface of a sphere typically has its center
defined to lie on the surface, as well.

Then imagine a perfectly spherical planet's equator as a circle on the surface of a sphere. If the circle's center is really "defined to lie on the surface" of the sphere, as you claim, will one find it at the "north pole" or the "south pole?" You're going to have to choose one.

Both locations are the geometric center of the circle. Why do you
believe I need to choose just one?

There can be only ONE center of the circle that I described, and NEITHER pole can be that center. The center of that circle is located at the center of the planet.

Your brain is so locked into its dogma (as we see in every facet of
your beliefs) that you are unable to recognize so much, you can't even
adequately deal with something as well defined as mathematics.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle:

"A circle is a simple shape of Euclidean geometry that is the set of all points in a plane that are at a given distance from a given point, the centre.."

Tell us, Peterson, what part of that do you not understand?

On Saturday, April 19, 2014 10:53:34 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2014 17:00:13 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Let us use definition 1b from the following:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/circle

"a closed plane curve every point of which is equidistant from a fixed point within the curve"

Fine, that is certainly the most common one. Of course, as written it
still doesn't exclude circles on 2D curved manifolds, where the ratio
of the circumference to the diameter is not 3.14159...

As written, is doesn't INCLUDE circles on "2D curved manifolds" because those do not have anything to do with the definition of a circle.

Peterson's nonsense snipped

You need to learn something about math.

You need to learn some geometry and how to read.

wrote:
On Saturday, April 19, 2014 3:48:38 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:

The point of having a gun is to protect oneself (and maybe others) from
credible threats, not your imagined ones.

Statistically owning a gun makes you and the people around you more likely
to die.

Statistically, owning a car makes you and the people around you more
likely to die. In other news....

Of course, in either case, with guns or cars, being CAREFUL and
RESPONSIBLE makes all the difference, and the statistics largely irrelevant.

The credible threats are mostly there because so many Americans own guns.
Ban the guns and the credible threat will be reduced.

A car provides me with transport, necessary because of successive cuts in
rural public transport initiated by conservative governments.
Guns provide you with an illusion of safety while increasing overall
danger.

On Monday, April 21, 2014 4:41:31 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/04/2014 12:49, wsnell01 wrote:

On Friday, April 18, 2014 3:50:21 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

But to take a concrete example in boolean logic 1 + 1 = 1

That's "1 AND 1" not "1 PLUS 1" , idiot.

It is what you get a with a slightly different set of starting axioms.

The starting axioms in mathematics do affect the answer that you get.

Then START with them, rather than changing them AFTERWARDS.

OK then since you really *are* that thick. Before Arabic numerals and
position based numbers were adopted in a very concrete Roman form

1 + 1 = 11
11 + 1 = 111

etc.

There is no symbol "2" among the Roman numbers, so when one writes "1 + 1 = 2" (which is read as "ONE PLUS ONE EQUALS TWO," since you are too dense to understand the symbols) there should be no question as to its truth and meaning.

brown's remaining pedantic sounding sophistry deleted

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 06:03:28 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

There can be only ONE center of the circle that I described, and NEITHER pole can be that center. The center of that circle is located at the center of the planet.

On the surface of the sphere, there is no center... that is outside
the geometry the axioms were selected for. I realize that your math
never advanced beyond simple arithmetic, but as someone interested in
astronomy I'd think you would have run across this concept before.
After all, we exist on a 3D surface of our 4D universe. The center of
the Universe is at t=0, a point inaccessible to us.

When you're working with the math of curved surfaces, there is no
point outside that surface. What are the latitude and longitude of the
center of the Earth?

"A circle is a simple shape of Euclidean geometry that is the set of all points in a plane that are at a given distance from a given point, the centre."

You should investigate what is meant by Euclidean geometry. It is on
of an infinite number of possible geometries, determined by the choice
of axioms. It is no more, or less real than others.

On Monday, April 21, 2014 9:17:30 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:

On Saturday, April 19, 2014 3:48:38 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

wsnell01 wrote:

The point of having a gun is to protect oneself (and maybe others) from
credible threats, not your imagined ones.

Statistically owning a gun makes you and the people around you more likely
to die.

Statistically, owning a car makes you and the people around you more
likely to die. In other news....

Of course, in either case, with guns or cars, being CAREFUL and
RESPONSIBLE makes all the difference, and the statistics largely irrelevant.

The credible threats are mostly there because so many Americans own guns.
Ban the guns and the credible threat will be reduced.

The criminals will ignore such bans and carry on as usual. In fact, even criminals -without- guns would be emboldened once they realized that law-abiding citizens (aka crime victims) have no guns.

A car provides me with transport.

Really?

Guns provide you with an illusion of safety while increasing overall
danger.

Most potentials criminals in the US are afraid to break into homes and businesses or attack strangers simply because they don't want to get shot by gun-toting, law-abiding citizens.

On Friday, April 18, 2014 7:54:42 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Friday, April 18, 2014 4:31:04 PM UTC-6, wrote:

IIRC, Rome fell.

Yes. But by that time, it was not defended by disciplined Roman soldiers, but by hired barbarian mercenaries, the Romans having become fat and lazy..

So the previous poster's point about how the Roman legions were effective while Rome had them remains valid.

He did not specify the type of soldier involved.

In any case his point was moot since a sword would require a great deal of practice and strength before it could be used as a defensive weapon, whereas even an elderly widow with a gun could have done lethal damage to an Nazi SS agent knocking down her door.