Explaining the dead center cube

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Jason.Marshall, Feb 2, 2015.

  1. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Isn't that what I said?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    Yes that is what you said Dywyddyr and that is also what I said you are agreeing with me. So the next step would be to record all the quantities and show witch calculation gives you a better prediction of reality, that is all am saying and you have proven that you understand this concept in your own way.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2015
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Experimentally, this is wrong.
    • \(3 \lt \frac{25}{8} \lt \frac{333}{106} \lt \pi \lt \frac{355}{113} \lt \frac{22}{7} \)
    • \(e^{\pi i} +1 = 0 \neq e^{\frac{25}{8}i} +1 \approx \frac{2 + 241 i}{14528}\)
    • \( 14528 \sin \pi = 0 \neq 14528 \sin \frac{25}{8} \approx 241\)
    • Using geometry, every regular polygon of 18 or more sides can be circumscribed by a circle of perimeter \(2 \pi r\) which is longer than the perimeter of the inscribed polygon. But the polygon has a length longer than \(2 \times \frac{25}{8} r\) .
      For a 20-sided regular polygon, Euclidean methods give an exact result of \( 10 \sqrt{ 8 - 2\sqrt{10 + 2\sqrt{5}}} r \approx 6.2573786 r\) which is just one of many numbers between \(2 \times \frac{25}{8} r\) and \(2 \pi r\).
    • Likewise, using graph paper, there are circles large enough so that more than \(\frac{25}{8} \left( \frac{r}{\textrm{side}} \right)^2\) squares are completely enclosed by the circle, proving \(\pi\) is a larger number than 3.125
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    Rpenner pay attention stop presenting the same evidence over and over you told me the above many times before this is not about "pi" its about "He" of course pi is larger than 3.125 because that is the value of "He" you are comparing and apple to an orange they dont come from the same tree so they have different properties and quantities but they can both intersect in really and that is how you can tell which one has a more accurate predictive power in measuring the real quantity of circumference of a circle.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2015
  8. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    Read this Rpenner to get back on track with the discussion

    My terms are 1# we will be measuring circumference of a very large circle so the error in measurements will be defined significantly. #2 decide units lets say meters #3 make sure all measuring instruments are in perfect equal quantities#4 we will use radius distance of 10 meters exactly#5 we will measure circles perimeter with equation
    "He*Diameter= circumference 1=c1"#6 Then we will measure circles perimeter with equation "Pi*Diameter=circumference 2=c2"#7 a perfect circle "perimeter=p1" will be constructed using a large Styrofoam sheet placed on the soccer field with a laser attached at the end of the mechanical arm that the laser point will cut exactly at a circular 10 meter radius to create a perfect circle with all points equidistance satisfying the accepted definition of a circle.#8 cut out a rectangle piece from thin tin sheet metal with the dimensions 1 meter in height and length =c1=piece t1#9cut out a rectangle piece from thin sheet metal with the dimensions 1 meter in height and length =c2=piece t2#10 place piece t1 in slot cut out by the laser and compare that quantity to the circumference of the perfect circle "p1" made by the laser#11place piece t2 in slot cut out by the laser and compare that quantity to the circumference of the perfect circle "p1" made by the laser.#12 make recordings of the difference in both comparisons of "t1 vs p1" and "t2 vs p1"
    #13 allow the impartial jury to decide what equation provided the more accurate prediction of the quantity "circumference"
     
  9. kilao Registered Member

    Messages:
    23
    So this post from the very beginning of spray people turn into serious discussion of science?
    Quietly waiting for the conclusion.
     
  10. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    There is no conclusion as yet the measurements must be made first. Read the above...
     
  11. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Where are you planning to find a 10m diameter perfect circle? Saying a laser is going to cut it doesn't make it more perfect than the machine on uses to cut it.

    My unit circle in the complex plane is already perfect. My use of sine is perfect. My regular polygons of at least 18 sides are perfect. My graph paper is perfect.
     
  12. kilao Registered Member

    Messages:
    23
    = =OK, I must go back to see what's going on.
     
  13. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    And so is mine this is what I have been trying to explain to you now for over 1 month. I have to put the experiment together and work out all the details or in the meantime I can use a smaller scale experiment which I did one already that serves as proof that any accuracy of pi will measure the real quantity of a circle circumference at a quantity larger than "p1" a measurement in reality is realer than one on a computer the circle you are measuring is the doppelganger in the Euclidean plane. A machine cannot comprehend common sense its simply told what to do so it cannot know that it is making an inconsistent conclusion with reality only a human can know that because we have access to three dimensions, the machine only has access to one but can move in two metaphorically speaking of course this test will prove what am saying because a perfect circle constructed outside a Euclidean universe will have access to at least 3 dimensions in its construction and a real quantity for circumference. The machine will be mounted on a fixed unmovable stationary point just like a protractor and the the arm length to where the laser tip will cut will = radius =10 meters.

    And further...
    The 9 sided polygon "Enneagram" inscribed perfectly inside any circle multiplied by the constant ratio 60/57.6 will = that circles circumference exactly. And further any radius length of any circle "r" multiplied by 1.0416666666..... will give you "circumference/6"
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2015
  14. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Common sense is not the guiding principle of mathematics -- logic is. And computers don't tell me I'm right, logic does. You gave up in the previous thread when I calculated sin(25/8) by hand and proved it was not equal to zero.

    60/57.6 = 25/24 is larger than the ratio between the perimeter of an inscribed regular 9-gon and the circumference of a circle. The ratio is closer to 99/97. The ratio is not rational, so it can only be approximated by rational numbers.
     
  15. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    Ok Rpenner this is going no where you keep arguing the same point in which I do not disagree with you but you are missing "my point" so I will not continue this discussion further with you until I have conducted my experiments and post my results. I understand what you are saying and yes you are correct about what you are saying but you clearly do not understand what I am saying so now you are just wasting my time and your time as well which is sad but I know you belief that I am the one that do not understand so we will let reality be the judge, one last thing do you agree that the definition of a perfect circle is "all points equidistance from its centroid"?
     
  16. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    Close. You defined a sphere if centroid means point. I would say a circle is the locus of of all co-planar points the same distance from a central point.

    If discussion is restricted to a plane, already, then only 1 point (the center) and one length are required to determine a circle completely. Alternatively, an ordered pair of distinct points uniquely determine a circle since there is a length between the points and the ordering of the points lets one establish a convention as to which is the center. An unordered pair of distinct points does not uniquely specify a single circle, but two.

    Since three non-co-linear points define a plane, they also can be used to define 3, 5, or 6 unique circles depending if they form an equilateral, isosceles or scalene triangle.

    Two circles are geometrically congruent if and only if their radii are the same. All circles are similar so a single number describes the ratio between radius and circumference for all circles.
     
  17. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    Correct
     
  18. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    Now let us continue if we construct a circle in reality by using a "central point" all co-planar points of a perfect circle will be equidistance from the central point do you agree with this?
     
  19. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    So you want to show empirically that the ratio of circumference to diameter is really 3.125, not 3.141? But we already know empirically that it's 3.141.
     
  20. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    So sideshowbob you have returned, welcome back...for the record show me evidence of a Euclidean perfect circle being replicated in reality from direct uses of the equation C=Pi*diameter? I want perfect not "any accuracy nessary for what is desired or humanly percievable." And I also want you to show me evidence of the source of the creation of this perfect circle claiming it to be "perfect".
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2015
  21. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    It's a waste of time to repeat back my mathematical definitions and ask me if I agree with myself. My issue has been your lack of care in reasoning.

    Since we are working in reality and not mathematical abstraction we will it impossible to achieve this goal perfectly with lumpy matter made of atoms.
    Likewise the act measuring is fraught with potential for inaccuracies, large and small.

    Managing errors in apparatus construction and measurement (error analysis) is vital to precision experimentation. So details matter.

    If you physical disk and error in measurements are no larger than the mathematical error of substituting a regular 18-gon for the ideal circle, then one would reject the notion that the ratio between circumference and diameter is 3.125. How are you going to ensure you haven't made a larger error when working with a flimsy plastic disc.
     
  22. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    Messages:
    654
    Because science is pragmatic, so you use what works better. So in theory if you cannot construct a perfect circle "p1" that the equation Pi*diameter can measure its real quantity "p1" better than He*diameter, then for pragmatic use "He*diameter" will always provide superior predictions when dealing with reality real quantities of "p1" unless the circle is constructed from only a pure Euclidean foundation which as you admitted cannot be produced in reality. So now we are only left with pragmatic prediction power of... He*D ...and Pi*D
     
  23. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    Then you don't understand science. Perfect accuracy never happens. However, a schoolgirl with a piece of string and a pair of calipers can accumulate a mass of evidence that the ratio of circumference to diameter is pi, not He.

    The claim of perfection is yours, not mine. I'm claiming that if you measure the circumference and diameter of a hundred circles, a thousand circles, a million circles, you'll get a number very close to pi, not He.

    And it's been done.
     

Share This Page