Eotvos, not Newton

On Sat, 8 Aug 2015 18:41:45 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote this crap:

On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 4:34:06 PM UTC-6, Lord Vath wrote:
On Sat, 8 Aug 2015 12:09:01 -0700 (PDT), palsing
wrote this crap:
On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 3:09:13 AM UTC-7, Lord Vath wrote:

...All numbers are really variables.

Is PI a variable? Hmmm?

Yes it is. I proved it in a paper. But my professor read it and said
that Einstein had proved it years ago. I guess that makes me as smart
as Einstein.

Think about it. Space is curved, especially around black holes. So
pi *must* be a variable.

That is using a definition of "pi" not accepted by most mathematicians.

One has to be able to do mathematics in advance of worrying about the
properties of the physical space in which we live - thus, pi is not the local
circle ratio, it is the circle ratio for Euclidean, or "flat", space.

John Savard

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"?


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Sat, 8 Aug 2015 19:44:39 -0700 (PDT), palsing
wrote this crap:

On Saturday, August 8, 2015 at 3:34:06 PM UTC-7, Lord Vath wrote:

How about 'i', is that a variable?

Easily proven. I wrote a paper that proves i is equal to 1/2.

This only indicates that you are completely full of crap.

Produce that paper, if you dare. Or, just reproduce your
proof here, to show that the square-root of (-1) is equa
l to 1/2. This I gotta see... but I won't...

Put up or shut up.

Goody. Goody. I was hoping some idiot was going to call me on my
bloviating. And you're just the fool to do it.

I actually did this calculation in high school. But I'll bet you
never took differential equation calculus in high school. This type
of mathematics is far beyond you, but you can ask some more
intelligent person to color you some pictures.

Take the integral from minus infinity to positive infinity of, "e"
raised to the square root of minus one times dx and you can calculate
that i is equal to 1/2.

It's quite simple and any mathematician can figger this out. Too bad
you can't do it.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 01:34:43 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
wrote this crap:

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 7:39:41 AM UTC+1, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Sat, 8 Aug 2015 18:41:45 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:
Think about it. Space is curved, especially around black holes.
So
pi *must* be a variable.

That is using a definition of "pi" not accepted by most
mathematicians.

Since this is sci.astro.amateur, not sci.mathematics, one can note
that astronomers commonly use pi as symbol för stellar parallax. That
astronomical pi is indeed a variable.

Like all the other inviolate proportions , empiricists can't help themselves
as Pi is not just a arithmetic , it is inviolate the relationship
between line and circle.

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

This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 1:58:51 PM UTC+1, Lord Vath wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 01:34:43 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
wrote:

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 7:39:41 AM UTC+1, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Sat, 8 Aug 2015 18:41:45 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:
Think about it. Space is curved, especially around black holes.
So
pi *must* be a variable.

That is using a definition of "pi" not accepted by most
mathematicians.

Since this is sci.astro.amateur, not sci.mathematics, one can note
that astronomers commonly use pi as symbol för stellar parallax. That
astronomical pi is indeed a variable.

Like all the other inviolate proportions , empiricists can't help themselves
as Pi is not just a arithmetic , it is inviolate the relationship
between line and circle.

Pi is an inviolate proportion between line and circle and as such, it can never be calculated.


Wrote this crap is now the ultimate
power in the universe

Bad strategy there general, doctor what I write and I get to return the favor but then again,you are just another one in a long line of creatures who tried something or other with no success.


The great human experience of feeling the curve of a globe,sphere or any other round object with loving fact that it is the only curve found in nature.. Of course it needs people with common sense and who value normal experience of geometry in their lives for this is the foundation for astronomical perspectives and the large time scales involved in making judgments of the geometric structure of the solar system and then our place in the galaxy (something which,as yet, hasn't been attempted).

Old age pensioners and a few hopeless cases generally stick with a 100 year old meaningless comedy representing a final capitulation to Newton's clockwork solar system. It would be funny were it not taught as a 'human achievement' -

http://www.bartleby.com/173/31.html

With all the advancements in astronomical imaging and especially views from space, if people want to waste their time on worthless and nonsensical junk then good for them but for everyone else then can found their judgments on such things as the relationship between line and circle.

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. Commonly, when we use the value in a
calculation the result is absolute. And there's nothing about a
transcendental number that prevents it from being "absolute".

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

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

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.

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

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 6:56:15 AM UTC-6, Lord Vath wrote:

Take the integral from minus infinity to positive infinity of, "e"
raised to the square root of minus one times dx and you can calculate
that i is equal to 1/2.

Since neither the sine nor cosine of 57 degrees equals zero, that integral would
be infinite.

John Savard

On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 08:27:43 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote this crap:

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 6:56:15 AM UTC-6, Lord Vath wrote:

Take the integral from minus infinity to positive infinity of, "e"
raised to the square root of minus one times dx and you can calculate
that i is equal to 1/2.

Since neither the sine nor cosine of 57 degrees equals zero,

OK, we can all agree on that. But this is not trig, this is
differential equations.

that integral would
be infinite.

You don't seem to know much about differential equations, or even
simple calculus.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe